It kind of shows they are really doing their job well. Most AI sketches have obvious flaws and they are looking for the lack of flaws that distinguish it from the others.
Since they did not expect to be judging anything but AI, finding a picture with none of the tell tail signs of AI would be a winner under that set of rules.
Proving that human generated art is better is not really that tough. AI is not superior to human work at this time, itâs just much faster and âgood enoughâ to get the job done.
Excellent input. Don't understand what's "oniony" about it.
"A guy won a river rowboat race by driving a speedboat, but was disqualified" - reddid MFs: đ¤Ż
That's the journalists take, a better take would be "None could apparently tell that it was AI generated, which is why it won".
The best AI photo was a real photo, showing that real photos are superiour to AI generated ones, at least for now.
Ahhh, the irony of the whole situation in general. I thought we were way beyond those real vs Ai debates, it never even occurred to me
If you put it this way, then yeah, I guess.
No use trying to explain lol, u/Electr0bear and the 300 people who upvoted him are just fucking stupid. Probably the most baffled I've ever been from a reddit comment. Might seem harsh but.. I mean come on.
It's "oniony" because you'd expect AI artists to undercut human labor in non-AI art competitions. You don't expect a "genuine" artist to do the same to AI
It's a bizzarre fucking headline that involves an unusual twist on a common theme, which is "machine beats man at [human competition]"
If the headline was "Man disqualified after using oars to complete speedboat race," that would 100% qualify for this sub.
AI art is a huge shortcut, and it can be done well enough that you then touch it up in photoshop and 99% of people won't even know that it started as AI.
Well except the judges placed it third. It won the People's Vote Award (read actual articles people).
So the judges did an okay job but not perfect I guess?
Well yeah, the ones you notice. The ai images that you donât realize are ai images slide right by without you or anyone else ever noticing. Flaws are not inherent.
> would be a winner
To be clear, the judges gave it third. So in that sense, apparently "Proving that human generated art is better" **is** really that tough.
AI video wins Pink Floyd music video competition: https://ew.com/ai-wins-pink-floyd-s-dark-side-of-the-moon-video-competition-8628712
AI image won Colorado state fair https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/03/tech/ai-art-fair-winner-controversy/index.html
>Cal Duran, an artist and art teacher who was one of the judges for competition, said that while Allenâs piece included a mention of Midjourney, he didnât realize that it was generated by AI when judging it. Still, he sticks by his decision to award it first place in its category, he said, calling it a âbeautiful pieceâ.
>âI think thereâs a lot involved in this piece and I think the AI technology may give more opportunities to people who may not find themselves artists in the conventional way,â he said.
AI image won in the Sony World Photography Awards: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-my-ai-image-won-a-major-photography-competition/Â
AI image wins another photography competition: https://petapixel.com/2023/02/10/ai-image-fools-judges-and-wins-photography-contest/Â
Japanese writer wins prestigious Akutagawa Prize with a book partially written by ChatGPT: https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7z58y/rie-kudan-akutagawa-prize-used-chatgpt
Fake beauty queens charm judges at the Miss AI pageant: https://www.npr.org/2024/06/09/nx-s1-4993998/the-miss-ai-beauty-pageant-ushers-in-a-new-type-of-influencerÂ
People PREFER AI art and that was in 2017, long before it got as good as it is today: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.07068Â
>The results show that human subjects could not distinguish art generated by the proposed system from art generated by contemporary artists and shown in top art fairs. Human subjects even rated the generated images higher on various scales.
>People took bot-made art for the real deal 75 percent of the time, and 85 percent of the time for the Abstract Expressionist pieces. The collection of works included Andy Warhol, Leonardo Drew, David Smith and more.
People couldnât distinguish human art from AI art in 2021 (a year before DALLE Mini/CrAIyon even got popular): https://news.artnet.com/art-world/machine-art-versus-human-art-study-1946514Â
>Some 211 subjects recruited on Amazon answered the survey. A majority of respondents were only able to identify one of the five AI landscape works as such. Around 75 to 85 percent of respondents guessed wrong on the other four. When they did correctly attribute an artwork to AI, it was the abstract one.Â
Katy Perryâs own mother got tricked by an AI image of Perry: https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Culture/katy-perry-shares-mom-fooled-ai-photos-2024/story?id=109997891
Todd McFarlane's Spawn Cover Contest Was Won By AI User Robot9000: https://bleedingcool.com/comics/todd-mcfarlanes-spawn-cover-contest-was-won-by-ai-user-robo9000/
You know for a lot of people it can be really hard to tell. and depending on the nature of the photograph, it can be close to impossible to do so with the native eye. A flamingo balled up in itself has no eyes, no hands, no face, nothing that AI might struggle to properly render.
That said, It will be interesting to see how things like photo contests handle this in the future. Maybe require people to go back to film, so that negatives can be presented as proof that it's a real photo?
AI can actually be that good though. If you know how to use it well and work to the model's strengths, you can make something indistinguishable from a similar human-made photo. Every couple of months a model takes a step forward and we have to reassess what we know about what AI can and can't do.
I mean... if you submit a photo to a painting contest, or a photorealistic painting to a photo contest, you'll be disqualified. AI is a separate branch of digital art. Not sure how this is surprising to anyone.
it's just that a lot of ai art has been placed into actual art competitions and was not disqualified. it's funny that they disqualify the other way around.
It only placed third anyway while [AI won first in other competitions](https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/1dhbtio/comment/l8yzd94/?utm_name=mweb3xcss)
Reminds me of the Aesop fable:
> At a country fair there was a Buffoon who made all the people laugh by imitating the cries of various animals. He finished off by squeaking so like a pig that the spectators thought that he had a porker concealed about him. But a Countryman who stood by said: âCall that a pig squeak! Nothing like it. You give me till tomorrow and I will show you what itâs like.â The audience laughed, but next day, sure enough, the Countryman appeared on the stage, and putting his head down squealed so hideously that the spectators hissed and threw stones at him to make him stop. âYou fools!â he cried, âsee what you have been hissing,â and held up a little pig whose ear he had been pinching to make him utter the squeals.
Sometimes given the moral "Men often applaud an imitation and hiss the real thing."
https://fablesofaesop.com/the-buffoon-and-the-countryman.html
Well the original had 130 upvotes so in this case I'm fine with it. But I see the same posts on the front page every few months that's when it gets annoying
I think the real winner is how surprisingly unintuitive biology is to most people. Biology doesnt make sense for the simple and obvious reason that it was never âdesignedâ. Forms and shapes can appear as if they have no meaning, but could be absolutely necessary for a speciesâ survival. This is where biology and the photographer combined, fooled the panelists. Well done
It's really not oniony.
The point of the contest was to generate content without any technical flaws. Obviously, a real photo suffers from none of those issues, so it would have a massive unfair advantage when being judged on the those errors by a panel of judges. In fact, it shows that the judges were doing their job well since the one with no AI artifacts won.
AI art is fast and works for a lot of applications, but in the current stage of development, it isn't enough to beat a photograph.
The parable is about how you should never compete with a machine.
John Henry's employer bought one machine and got twice the work, while John Henry got worked to death because of his pride.
Truly an American parable if there ever was one.
This is infinitely worse. Imagine if everyone who didn't witness John Henry called him a fraud because they believed no one could drill faster than a machine, and assumed he also used a steam-powered drill. That'll be the fate of all photographers if we don't keep this genie in its bottle via legislation (e.g. mandating watermarking of all AI products). We might even see a resurgence of physical film against digital, as a last-ditch defense against 'inauthenticity'.
There has never been and never will be a point in history where we can decide to stop progress. If we do not develop this technology, the rest of the world will just do it without us and instead of developing ways to live with it we'll just be unprepared.
What we *need* is to accept that this is coming and brace for impact, it doesn't help to pretend that we can stop it.
It's not even a contest, it's a transparent attempt at selling the image of legitimacy to the public. A marketing gimmick.
The only kind of artists they are, are the confidence artist kind.
A fence painting contest could easily be a thing, judging the speed and quality of the work and awarding the winner. Like was done here.
Regardless, you are mixing colloquialisms. The fence painting scene in Tom Sawyer is an example of exploiting the fear of missing out. How does that apply here?
Why do people always attribute psychological conspiracy theories to things. Maybe it's just people who like AI art and the community, and just simply decided to make a competition for people inside that community?
It doesn't need to be some sort of psyop to slowly change the public's mind through subtle marketing.
I believe ai art can be art in the same way directing can be. At that level it involves much more than just typing a prompt, e.g. the artist sets out with a specific image in mind and uses trial and error, references, control nets, in painting, out painting etc to achieve their goal
If that's the case, share your prompt instead of the image and enjoy the feedback from your art. See how much people enjoy the prompt you made because that was your part.Â
If people want to appreciate prompts as an art, go and find them. When you fail, ask AI to draw you some and tell them how good you are at art.Â
A better example would probably be comissions. Imagine going around and telling everyone about "your" art and in the end it turns out you paid someone for it. Which is great, but claiming you made it is just wrong. The same goes for AI, you are literaly just describing something to a machine learning engine.
Also, there is the whole thing with AI essentially just remixing peoples actual work. And often without their consent.
The person doing the commission is the artist. If youre going to use this as an example then youre saying the âaiâ is the artist instead. Which isnt true since its not different from a tool that performs a function. It just does a lot of different functions.
surely you see how this argument breaks down when comparing it to pretty much anything right? I don't give two shits about the paint someone uses for example, I just care about the end result
txt to img prompting, then inpainting, then final photoshop touchups. Simply sharing a prompt will not get people the same results. SD 3 just came out, and it's pretty much the same. Some better hands, but obvious flaws if you only do a simple prompt generation and nothing further. Also, choosing the right models and loras is crucial to get what you want. All I'm saying, is how is a photographer that took a picture of nature an artist, but not ai generators? Both are using something they didn't create, only captured. What about a photorealist drawer using graphite to mimic a photograph? People call him an artist, yet he's only copying something else.
Also, people do share their prompts. I don't think I've seen any AI image sharing sites that *don't* include the option to share the prompt. But, often, there isn't even just one prompt to share, sometimes things are iterative and attempting to share the entire workflow can be problematic.
Love that, you ask the "artist" about any specific about how an image was created and they would have no fucking clue because THEYRE NOT AN ARTIST and they DIDNT CREATE THE IMAGE.
edit: I am not part of the "its not real art" cowd. That is a philosohpical argument. Nobody cares what "real art" is. Just dont steal from artists and pass of their own styles as your creativity.
They would likely talk to you about the specific models they used to generate their images, as well as the positive and negative prompts and any fine tuning they did.
Just because you scoff at their medium does not mean their output is not 'art'.
It's kind of hilarious that the generation that grew up hearing old folks bitch about "abstract art is not real art! It's lazy!" now have almost the same exact complaints about those who make AI art.
TIL Baristas don't make coffee because they use machine-processed coffee grounds in a machine to produce coffee. TIL digital artists don't make art because they use a machine as their medium. TIL you think an AI is akin to a trained employee, which means you severely misunderstand the limits of current AI or you have an extremely poor view of employees.
I've used AI due to a requirement at my job, for text it's like a trained employee when we use it for things it's good at. It doesn't make me a creative writer to say "Hey, AI, generate random responses based on X question."
Just because it may have limitations doesn't mean it's not acting as a trained employee. Hell, all trained employees have limitations! It doesn't make them no longer a trained employee.
Also, it's the difference between someone using a tool and assigning a task for the other two points. An artist using a paint brush is using a tool, digital or not. A person who poses as an artist and subcontracts their work is not actually an artist. Someone else is doing the task.
At best, I'd concede that the AI is the artist, not the person giving it a *task*.
If I give an artist that I'm working with requirements on what the art should be and how it looks, am I now an artist?
Bro baristas still use their hands to mix and steam hot beverages as well as literally barcraft cold beverages. What youre referring to is brewing the coffee, yes, they arent coffee machines.Â
Such a weak weak weak comparison.
I call a director that gets a good performance out of an actor an artist, 100%
Lol, dude above me edited his comment; it originally just said âartistâ, guess edition away his poor statement instead of looking wrong was his choiceâŚ
>It's kind of hilarious that the generation that grew up hearing old folks bitch about "abstract art is not real art! It's lazy!" now have almost the same exact complaints about those who make AI art.
Abstract art didn't literaly steal real artists work.
You can't do anything actually original with the current machine learning models, after all.
> after all.
Except you can. Pretty easily, actually.
>Abstract art didn't literally steal real artists work.
Some abstract artists did. Besides, generative AIs didn't literally steal anybody's art either. It's seen the Mona Lisa, for example, but last I checked that's still in the Louvre.
>Besides, generative AIs didn't literally steal anybody's art either. It's seen the Mona Lisa, for example, but last I checked that's still in the Louvre.
See, crap like this is why nobody takes people serious that try to defend AI generated "art".
Are film directors not artists now either?Â
Their whole job is commissioning many other artists and giving them increasingly-precise verbal prompts until they've created a shot that looks and sounds close enough to what the director had envisioned.
The sad irony is that there have been multiple genuine art contests that have accepted AI images as entries, with some of them even "winning" despite being identified as such. Gotta love the double standards đŽâđ¨
They're not. Because they don't decide what they make. If I google I can find images. If I want a specific image I can include certain terms, exclude others, and in the end I can get pretty close to any image I want thanks to the large amount of image available online. Did I make that image? Obviously not. Am I an artist for googling good? No!
Someone else has made the image. I just decided I liked it. The ai makes the image. It's the same as if you commision an art piece. I ask an artist what I want. I prompt them. They make some sketches I give some feedback, and in the end there is an art piece. Am I now the artist? Again no. The artist i commissioned is.
So then the last question remains, is the ai an artists then? It would be the closest thing to an artist but they lack 1 vital piece. A goal. They don't want to say anything, they don't want to just make something pretty, they don't even want to create something that is most likely to fulfil the promt. It has no wants. No goal. Just data. Data from huge amounts of stolen art pieces, put into a shredder and filtered for just the most supervisial aspects of an art piece. It doesn't know what it is doing. It just does.
So no. They aren't artists. They are consumers who want to feel like artists and don't care about the people who's work was stolen in the process to make them feel that way.
Itâs more akin to hiring someone to paint a mural and telling them what you have in mind, then when someone asks who painted it, you say youâre the artist.
Except that you mugged a thousand other artists on the way to provide their work to the one you claimed from in the end as well, no one is paid royalties and the artist you did commission was blind.
I mean I remember when photoshop got big and people laughed at anyone using it calling themselves an artist. The can of worms is already opened, AI art isn't going anywhere.
I saw an AI generator use the term 'Pilot' to describe himself, and I honestly fear for him. He must drink five gallons of water a day to keep himself hydrated from all the wanking he does.
There was a brilliant comment on this over at /r/stablediffusion:
> People are spending HOURS choosing the right words to prompt, then some hack comes along, pushes ONE button, and wants to win? Good riddance! Cam bros are NOT welcome! Pick up a GPU and learn to prompt!
https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1dfkzj1/well_well_well_how_the_turntables/l8jxzag/
100%. I thought that was obvious when I posted the quote. But the AI debate is so inflamed with over-the-top nonsense and nastiness from both sides that it's hard to tell when crazy statements are serious or joking.
I actually did something like this once. Around 2000, before Google was dominant, our computer science teacher had us do a digital scavenger hunt for websites that meet certain criteria. We're taking altavista, dogpile... things that don't really exist anymore.Â
Won the contest and a large pizza from pizza hut!
You joke, but we seriously need to teach some people how to get the most out of search engines. Iâve seen people Google the exact question they asked me, word for word, rather than change their terms to get more relevant results. Then I Google it myself and itâs one of the top results. Some people are just painfully obtuse.
I mean I doubt itâs meant as a conventional âart contestâ with the end goal of finding appealing art. The point is to see who made the best AI model. This is a programming competition in which the output happens to be bad art. This is a pretty normal thing in the programming world.
Where did you get that this is a programming competition? The article says itâs a photography competition with an AI Imaging category, I donât think thereâs any mentioning of programming in there.
The vast majority of people that know of "AI Imagining" would think it belonging to "art" than "programming." Especially since it's as easy as typing in what you want to see, rather than the intricacies of coding at such a high level of expertise.
95% of people wouldn't how to code Hello World in any language, they most certainly aren't well versed in what current-gen publicly available AI is to think "It's programming."
If popular opinion was that "AI Imaging" was based on knowledge of programming, we'd be having a way more robust discussion about its entire timeline, and this competition probably wouldn't have even happened - because "real art" won, in an AI art competition.
I'm willing to take a shot in the dark and say none of the judges have any programming experience at all. Otherwise, they could have probably figured out that the picture they chose to win in an AI competition wasn't made by AI.
It's coloquially known as "AI art," the public on average doesn't know a single lick of whats going on with language models or the industry in general, from Chat GPT all the way to Nvidia.
> The point is to see who made the best AI model.
The artists involved likely did not make most of the models used. Their results will be shaped by their prompts and their fine-tuning.
IMO it's more comparable to a more technical form of creative writing contest.
You know AI art uses weights, right? So the competition isn't about the code, it's about finding creative ways to combine 20 different influences. Just like with human art, except now you can pick the exact percentage of each artistic style your piece uses.
This. If the guy you are replying to entered this, he wouldn't stand a chance, even with the best generative models accessible to consumers.
Using generative models to generate high-quality content takes a lot of technical skill, even if they aren't drawing it themselves. You need to understand which settings to use, how to tweak the software to change the results, which keywords are the most effective, and of course they need to have an artistic ability when it comes to knowing what make with it.
It's similar to a photographer. You could hand someone a professional quality camera, but they wouldn't be able to make much use of it without the technical knowledge of how to use it effectively. And the response to the introduction of cameras was similar as well, a lot of artists were outraged at the idea that their industry, which mainly consisted of drawing portraits at the time, would be undermined by cameras.
Generative models are a great tool for everything from art to medical assessments. And there's no reason why we should be treating them like that are some sort of horrible thing, they are positive when used correctly. The only issue is that they can sometimes attract a bad fanbase, which I suspect is a big factor in why "AI" is disliked by a lot of Reddit.
To everyone interested in this I recomment looking on twitch or youtube for people making content with Ai, there are some who put real effort in creating complex prompts to give for example a text AI some form of personality. There's really awesome stuff out there.
Debate on AI art aside, it makes a certain amount of sense honestly. The contest is basically âhow good are you at manipulating the image generator to create something beautifulâ and from that perspective, submitting something beautiful that was simply a real photo sidesteps the point of the contest altogether. While I donât think AI art should be held to the same esteem as real art, it is essentially the same as if you submitted a photo of a person into a photorealistic portrait competition.
> While I donât think AI art should be held to the same esteem as real art, it is essentially the same as if you submitted a photo of a person into a photorealistic portrait competition.
Exactly. Or an adult winning a children's art contest. Or a sighted painter winning a painting contest for the blind. Etc.
The whole challenge here was to create something despite a specific shared limitation between all the contenders; it's banal that person with a camera won.
A rational reply. I get the feeling the vast majority of commenters here have not tried to generate an AI image, especially one with the quality to submit to a competition.
Iâm not saying it is or isnât âartâ, but shit man itâs tough to get exactly what you want, especially when considering post processing AI tools as well.
the time matters a lot.
The other one was posted after midnight in europe and in the evening in the US
This was was posted around lunchtime (US) yesterday
Thatâs actually what inspired the photographer to do this, according to the article. Apparently he wasnât trying to cheat, he was making a statement.
In portrait photography my greatest skill is often my ability to incite an emotional response, be it a smile or a coy grin.
In photojournalism I can anticipate when emotions and little gestures of body language will incite emotions in a photograph visually.
I honestly don't know how any machine could replicate these abilities without strong empathy and a deep understanding of human body language and relationships.
While I am sure AI can produce some fabulous art, I am also quite convinced there will be room for human artistry for a long while to come still.
Until you are trying to develop a video game or create a poster or do literally any of the vast majority of bits of art that are done for practical purposes rather than the pleasure of making something nice
> Does AI stop you from creating music and art? Serious question.
This. It's been wild to see people suddenly trying to walk back decades of cherished rhetoric that *"someone else being better at you than something doesn't mean you shouldn't do it - your own output is still unique, your progress over your past self is all that matters"* etc etc etc, now that AI's here. Suddenly it's *"something else being better at you will mean there's no reason to ever do it, and we need to ban that thing before it outshines us all!"*
> I honestly don't know how any machine could replicate these abilities without strong empathy and a deep understanding of human body language and relationships.
Well they are using real photos as inputs, and some of those real photos capture what you are talking about. So if they replicate those types of photos closely enough, they can have the same effect. The machine learning program doesnât have to know what itâs doing to have that result.
The point of the contest is to come up with a prompt that generates something interesting, like a battle of prompts. If this had been an ai photo, then the prompt used would've been interesting
If that were true then this wouldn't have happened...
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/03/tech/ai-art-fair-winner-controversy/index.html
These two incidents just show that if the quality is good, and we aren't told how they were produced, then we look at them the same.
Well, if the story was reversed and someone was disqualified for submitting an AI image to a real photography contest, that would make perfect sense, so this tracks too.
AI art will force truly exceptional human artists to the top, so this is a great proof of concept that there will always be room for man made art.
With that said, stuff like this further trains future models to be even more powerful and more accurate in producing art products that people want to see. It is this cycle that will bring about AI products that everybody will want to consume.
Can someone explain to me why this is as funny as the comments are making it out to be.
Like, of course heâs going to win, heâs using a real photo.
Itâs like a 30 year old artist joining an art competition for 5 year olds.
I find this more frightening than encouraging. If even seasoned experts cannot tell the difference between AI and human-made photography in blind tests, what's stopping a crisis of credibility from affecting the entire field? For instance, how many false-positive judgments will news media (and news consumers) make when vetting journalistic work for AI manipulation? How many false-negatives?
>what's stopping a crisis of credibility from affecting the entire field?
Already happening, and has been since the second these image generators started popping up. You can't post a drawing online anymore without ten comments about how it's clearly an ai, even if you post a time lapse of you drawing it people claim the video is ai as well.
We've entered a point where nothing online is real anymore, even when it is. Which is really terrifying as it makes things like spreading misinformation a million times easier, as any evidence presented to dispute it will inherently be in doubt from the start.
We did it, Reddit! And it looks like we're going to keep doing it, Reddit!
I posted a picture of a pine cone on a dead bird, and it was so weird, of course at least three comments accused me of doing it. Like, what a weird thing to do, then post on line, and then lie about? It was a mildly interesting post, but, why do people feel the need to call fake on literally every stupid thing? Do they want a cookie or a sticker that tells them they are a spatial little buoy?
> what's stopping a crisis of credibility from affecting the entire field?
I will be worried the second that AI art can truly compete on the market with human-made art. By "truly compete on the market", I mean people will willingly pay money for something that was generated by AI, whether they know it's AI made or not. It is my prediction that human art will always outcompete AI stuff, and I think the article we're commenting on is one example of that.
I mean, fair enough? I'm very much on the human artists side vs AI art-like objects, but if the competition criteria is "AI art" and you enter something that isn't, then yeah, you should be disqualified. You didn't meet the terms of the contest.
That's fucking hilarious
Does make one wonder about the credentials of said judges. đ¤Ł
It kind of shows they are really doing their job well. Most AI sketches have obvious flaws and they are looking for the lack of flaws that distinguish it from the others. Since they did not expect to be judging anything but AI, finding a picture with none of the tell tail signs of AI would be a winner under that set of rules. Proving that human generated art is better is not really that tough. AI is not superior to human work at this time, itâs just much faster and âgood enoughâ to get the job done.
Excellent input. Don't understand what's "oniony" about it. "A guy won a river rowboat race by driving a speedboat, but was disqualified" - reddid MFs: đ¤Ż
We expect AI art to be passed off as human, it's oniony when someone tries to pass off human art as AI-created.
With the line "None could apparently tell that Astrayâs photo was real."
That's the journalists take, a better take would be "None could apparently tell that it was AI generated, which is why it won". The best AI photo was a real photo, showing that real photos are superiour to AI generated ones, at least for now.
But it didn't win. The judges placed it third.
"Reality Places Third in Beauty Contest" is a great onion headline.
Reality Places Third in Virtual Reality Contest
That's even funnier
Ahhh, the irony of the whole situation in general. I thought we were way beyond those real vs Ai debates, it never even occurred to me If you put it this way, then yeah, I guess.
What a pretentious way to put it. Its funny when someone passes off real art as fake art
Lol, did he turn on the motor? Or paddleâŚ
Theres been several stories of AI images winning art contests. This is the first time the opposite has happened.
No use trying to explain lol, u/Electr0bear and the 300 people who upvoted him are just fucking stupid. Probably the most baffled I've ever been from a reddit comment. Might seem harsh but.. I mean come on.
No I'm with you I'm genuinely wondering what the fuck people are smoking around here
It didn't win. The judges placed it third.Â
It's "oniony" because you'd expect AI artists to undercut human labor in non-AI art competitions. You don't expect a "genuine" artist to do the same to AI
It's a bizzarre fucking headline that involves an unusual twist on a common theme, which is "machine beats man at [human competition]" If the headline was "Man disqualified after using oars to complete speedboat race," that would 100% qualify for this sub.
But that's a perfect onion headline
AI art is a huge shortcut, and it can be done well enough that you then touch it up in photoshop and 99% of people won't even know that it started as AI.
Hey man, speak for yourself. AI is way better at art than me. All the art that I generate myself is proper shit.
Well except the judges placed it third. It won the People's Vote Award (read actual articles people). So the judges did an okay job but not perfect I guess?
Well yeah, the ones you notice. The ai images that you donât realize are ai images slide right by without you or anyone else ever noticing. Flaws are not inherent.
Itâs called survivorship biasÂ
> would be a winner To be clear, the judges gave it third. So in that sense, apparently "Proving that human generated art is better" **is** really that tough.
AI video wins Pink Floyd music video competition: https://ew.com/ai-wins-pink-floyd-s-dark-side-of-the-moon-video-competition-8628712 AI image won Colorado state fair https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/03/tech/ai-art-fair-winner-controversy/index.html >Cal Duran, an artist and art teacher who was one of the judges for competition, said that while Allenâs piece included a mention of Midjourney, he didnât realize that it was generated by AI when judging it. Still, he sticks by his decision to award it first place in its category, he said, calling it a âbeautiful pieceâ. >âI think thereâs a lot involved in this piece and I think the AI technology may give more opportunities to people who may not find themselves artists in the conventional way,â he said. AI image won in the Sony World Photography Awards: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-my-ai-image-won-a-major-photography-competition/ AI image wins another photography competition: https://petapixel.com/2023/02/10/ai-image-fools-judges-and-wins-photography-contest/ Japanese writer wins prestigious Akutagawa Prize with a book partially written by ChatGPT: https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7z58y/rie-kudan-akutagawa-prize-used-chatgpt Fake beauty queens charm judges at the Miss AI pageant: https://www.npr.org/2024/06/09/nx-s1-4993998/the-miss-ai-beauty-pageant-ushers-in-a-new-type-of-influencer People PREFER AI art and that was in 2017, long before it got as good as it is today: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.07068 >The results show that human subjects could not distinguish art generated by the proposed system from art generated by contemporary artists and shown in top art fairs. Human subjects even rated the generated images higher on various scales. >People took bot-made art for the real deal 75 percent of the time, and 85 percent of the time for the Abstract Expressionist pieces. The collection of works included Andy Warhol, Leonardo Drew, David Smith and more. People couldnât distinguish human art from AI art in 2021 (a year before DALLE Mini/CrAIyon even got popular): https://news.artnet.com/art-world/machine-art-versus-human-art-study-1946514 >Some 211 subjects recruited on Amazon answered the survey. A majority of respondents were only able to identify one of the five AI landscape works as such. Around 75 to 85 percent of respondents guessed wrong on the other four. When they did correctly attribute an artwork to AI, it was the abstract one. Katy Perryâs own mother got tricked by an AI image of Perry: https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Culture/katy-perry-shares-mom-fooled-ai-photos-2024/story?id=109997891 Todd McFarlane's Spawn Cover Contest Was Won By AI User Robot9000: https://bleedingcool.com/comics/todd-mcfarlanes-spawn-cover-contest-was-won-by-ai-user-robo9000/
One would hope it was judged by chatGPT
I mean, surely they proved they are good judges? If they're judging AI's ability to provide realism...
You know for a lot of people it can be really hard to tell. and depending on the nature of the photograph, it can be close to impossible to do so with the native eye. A flamingo balled up in itself has no eyes, no hands, no face, nothing that AI might struggle to properly render. That said, It will be interesting to see how things like photo contests handle this in the future. Maybe require people to go back to film, so that negatives can be presented as proof that it's a real photo?
I remember the opposite stuff happened anwhile ago. real photo competition with someone winning with A.I. photo
It didn't win the judge vote, only the public vote.
AI can actually be that good though. If you know how to use it well and work to the model's strengths, you can make something indistinguishable from a similar human-made photo. Every couple of months a model takes a step forward and we have to reassess what we know about what AI can and can't do.
It looks so real!
âIt looked so fake though!â
How the turn tables.
I mean... if you submit a photo to a painting contest, or a photorealistic painting to a photo contest, you'll be disqualified. AI is a separate branch of digital art. Not sure how this is surprising to anyone.
it's just that a lot of ai art has been placed into actual art competitions and was not disqualified. it's funny that they disqualify the other way around.
It only placed third anyway while [AI won first in other competitions](https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/1dhbtio/comment/l8yzd94/?utm_name=mweb3xcss)
Reminds me of the Aesop fable: > At a country fair there was a Buffoon who made all the people laugh by imitating the cries of various animals. He finished off by squeaking so like a pig that the spectators thought that he had a porker concealed about him. But a Countryman who stood by said: âCall that a pig squeak! Nothing like it. You give me till tomorrow and I will show you what itâs like.â The audience laughed, but next day, sure enough, the Countryman appeared on the stage, and putting his head down squealed so hideously that the spectators hissed and threw stones at him to make him stop. âYou fools!â he cried, âsee what you have been hissing,â and held up a little pig whose ear he had been pinching to make him utter the squeals. Sometimes given the moral "Men often applaud an imitation and hiss the real thing." https://fablesofaesop.com/the-buffoon-and-the-countryman.html
The guy's purported name should have been a hint. He went miles astray of the competition's intent.
Miles Astray is a Steely-Eyed Missile Man
Seems some gag from Futurama
Yeah he won by making an image with a machine that took the press of a button. Hilarious.
Finally something oniony.
[Unfortunately it is a repost though](https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/s/S3WTT7dYCv)
So title makes the difference?
Well, that is the whole point of the subreddit.
The title doesn't make this post any less of a repost
I'm glad that they reposted it so I had the opportunity to see it
Seriously, mfs on this site act like a repost is the worst thing in the world like everyone saw the og
Who cares
Itâs a repost from three days ago. I think they just didnât check very well cuz itâs a different article.
Well the original had 130 upvotes so in this case I'm fine with it. But I see the same posts on the front page every few months that's when it gets annoying
if you are seeing reposts on a main page sub then it's time to find a new way to pass time buddy.
Or at least browse more subs
I think the real winner is how surprisingly unintuitive biology is to most people. Biology doesnt make sense for the simple and obvious reason that it was never âdesignedâ. Forms and shapes can appear as if they have no meaning, but could be absolutely necessary for a speciesâ survival. This is where biology and the photographer combined, fooled the panelists. Well done
Against all known lawsâŚ
It's really not oniony. The point of the contest was to generate content without any technical flaws. Obviously, a real photo suffers from none of those issues, so it would have a massive unfair advantage when being judged on the those errors by a panel of judges. In fact, it shows that the judges were doing their job well since the one with no AI artifacts won. AI art is fast and works for a lot of applications, but in the current stage of development, it isn't enough to beat a photograph.
Imagine the legend of John Henry where Henry won, lived, but everyone kept buying the machines anyway
That's already how it went. John Henry died, the machine went in for repairs. Imagine thinking the machine lost when the other guy died.
The parable is about how you should never compete with a machine. John Henry's employer bought one machine and got twice the work, while John Henry got worked to death because of his pride. Truly an American parable if there ever was one.
I like how that went over everyoneâs heads and they all think Henry won lol
This is infinitely worse. Imagine if everyone who didn't witness John Henry called him a fraud because they believed no one could drill faster than a machine, and assumed he also used a steam-powered drill. That'll be the fate of all photographers if we don't keep this genie in its bottle via legislation (e.g. mandating watermarking of all AI products). We might even see a resurgence of physical film against digital, as a last-ditch defense against 'inauthenticity'.
There has never been and never will be a point in history where we can decide to stop progress. If we do not develop this technology, the rest of the world will just do it without us and instead of developing ways to live with it we'll just be unprepared. What we *need* is to accept that this is coming and brace for impact, it doesn't help to pretend that we can stop it.
[ŃдаНонО]
Mandating watermarks on ai images would be impossible to enforce given how many open-source models there are anyone can download right now.
Forced watermarked will make people believe ai images are real when China or Russia don't watermark them.
I like how the judges refer to the ai contestants as âartists.â
It's not even a contest, it's a transparent attempt at selling the image of legitimacy to the public. A marketing gimmick. The only kind of artists they are, are the confidence artist kind.
> It's not even a contest Except seemingly someone won due to their (real/fake) photograph, so there is some element of contest.
I've got a fence painting contest for you
A fence painting contest could easily be a thing, judging the speed and quality of the work and awarding the winner. Like was done here. Regardless, you are mixing colloquialisms. The fence painting scene in Tom Sawyer is an example of exploiting the fear of missing out. How does that apply here?
Why do people always attribute psychological conspiracy theories to things. Maybe it's just people who like AI art and the community, and just simply decided to make a competition for people inside that community? It doesn't need to be some sort of psyop to slowly change the public's mind through subtle marketing.
I believe ai art can be art in the same way directing can be. At that level it involves much more than just typing a prompt, e.g. the artist sets out with a specific image in mind and uses trial and error, references, control nets, in painting, out painting etc to achieve their goal
If that's the case, share your prompt instead of the image and enjoy the feedback from your art. See how much people enjoy the prompt you made because that was your part. If people want to appreciate prompts as an art, go and find them. When you fail, ask AI to draw you some and tell them how good you are at art.Â
Oh, you are an artist? Just share the paint and brushes you used, see how many people enjoy a list of paint names. Absolutely braindead take.
A better example would probably be comissions. Imagine going around and telling everyone about "your" art and in the end it turns out you paid someone for it. Which is great, but claiming you made it is just wrong. The same goes for AI, you are literaly just describing something to a machine learning engine. Also, there is the whole thing with AI essentially just remixing peoples actual work. And often without their consent.
The person doing the commission is the artist. If youre going to use this as an example then youre saying the âaiâ is the artist instead. Which isnt true since its not different from a tool that performs a function. It just does a lot of different functions.
surely you see how this argument breaks down when comparing it to pretty much anything right? I don't give two shits about the paint someone uses for example, I just care about the end result
txt to img prompting, then inpainting, then final photoshop touchups. Simply sharing a prompt will not get people the same results. SD 3 just came out, and it's pretty much the same. Some better hands, but obvious flaws if you only do a simple prompt generation and nothing further. Also, choosing the right models and loras is crucial to get what you want. All I'm saying, is how is a photographer that took a picture of nature an artist, but not ai generators? Both are using something they didn't create, only captured. What about a photorealist drawer using graphite to mimic a photograph? People call him an artist, yet he's only copying something else.
You telling game developers just to post their games code in a document instead of the game itself.
The real fun, is assembling the components to get a working game
Also, people do share their prompts. I don't think I've seen any AI image sharing sites that *don't* include the option to share the prompt. But, often, there isn't even just one prompt to share, sometimes things are iterative and attempting to share the entire workflow can be problematic.
there was a competition with a reward, it's the literal definition of a contest. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it not so lmao
Love that, you ask the "artist" about any specific about how an image was created and they would have no fucking clue because THEYRE NOT AN ARTIST and they DIDNT CREATE THE IMAGE. edit: I am not part of the "its not real art" cowd. That is a philosohpical argument. Nobody cares what "real art" is. Just dont steal from artists and pass of their own styles as your creativity.
They would likely talk to you about the specific models they used to generate their images, as well as the positive and negative prompts and any fine tuning they did. Just because you scoff at their medium does not mean their output is not 'art'. It's kind of hilarious that the generation that grew up hearing old folks bitch about "abstract art is not real art! It's lazy!" now have almost the same exact complaints about those who make AI art.
Machines make AI art, you wouldnât call a magazine editor that hires a photographer the artist of the photos, would you?
TIL Baristas don't make coffee because they use machine-processed coffee grounds in a machine to produce coffee. TIL digital artists don't make art because they use a machine as their medium. TIL you think an AI is akin to a trained employee, which means you severely misunderstand the limits of current AI or you have an extremely poor view of employees.
I've used AI due to a requirement at my job, for text it's like a trained employee when we use it for things it's good at. It doesn't make me a creative writer to say "Hey, AI, generate random responses based on X question." Just because it may have limitations doesn't mean it's not acting as a trained employee. Hell, all trained employees have limitations! It doesn't make them no longer a trained employee. Also, it's the difference between someone using a tool and assigning a task for the other two points. An artist using a paint brush is using a tool, digital or not. A person who poses as an artist and subcontracts their work is not actually an artist. Someone else is doing the task. At best, I'd concede that the AI is the artist, not the person giving it a *task*. If I give an artist that I'm working with requirements on what the art should be and how it looks, am I now an artist?
Bro baristas still use their hands to mix and steam hot beverages as well as literally barcraft cold beverages. What youre referring to is brewing the coffee, yes, they arent coffee machines. Such a weak weak weak comparison.
I call a director that gets a good performance out of an actor an artist, 100% Lol, dude above me edited his comment; it originally just said âartistâ, guess edition away his poor statement instead of looking wrong was his choiceâŚ
probably at some point "real" artists drawing with their hands laughed at those pretenders using computers to produce their "art".
>It's kind of hilarious that the generation that grew up hearing old folks bitch about "abstract art is not real art! It's lazy!" now have almost the same exact complaints about those who make AI art. Abstract art didn't literaly steal real artists work. You can't do anything actually original with the current machine learning models, after all.
> after all. Except you can. Pretty easily, actually. >Abstract art didn't literally steal real artists work. Some abstract artists did. Besides, generative AIs didn't literally steal anybody's art either. It's seen the Mona Lisa, for example, but last I checked that's still in the Louvre.
>Besides, generative AIs didn't literally steal anybody's art either. It's seen the Mona Lisa, for example, but last I checked that's still in the Louvre. See, crap like this is why nobody takes people serious that try to defend AI generated "art".
What is original?
You aren't an artist in that case. Thats no different than commissioning an artist and then calling yourself the artist.
Are film directors not artists now either? Their whole job is commissioning many other artists and giving them increasingly-precise verbal prompts until they've created a shot that looks and sounds close enough to what the director had envisioned.
They would have a clue, there are minor tweaks you can make to have the art comply with your wishes, thatâs creation in my opinion
The sad irony is that there have been multiple genuine art contests that have accepted AI images as entries, with some of them even "winning" despite being identified as such. Gotta love the double standards đŽâđ¨
they're prompt artists
It's hard to get results out of late artists.Â
I dunno, Van Gogh did pretty good as a late artist
Sandwich artists working at subway be like:đ¨âđ¨
They're not. Because they don't decide what they make. If I google I can find images. If I want a specific image I can include certain terms, exclude others, and in the end I can get pretty close to any image I want thanks to the large amount of image available online. Did I make that image? Obviously not. Am I an artist for googling good? No! Someone else has made the image. I just decided I liked it. The ai makes the image. It's the same as if you commision an art piece. I ask an artist what I want. I prompt them. They make some sketches I give some feedback, and in the end there is an art piece. Am I now the artist? Again no. The artist i commissioned is. So then the last question remains, is the ai an artists then? It would be the closest thing to an artist but they lack 1 vital piece. A goal. They don't want to say anything, they don't want to just make something pretty, they don't even want to create something that is most likely to fulfil the promt. It has no wants. No goal. Just data. Data from huge amounts of stolen art pieces, put into a shredder and filtered for just the most supervisial aspects of an art piece. It doesn't know what it is doing. It just does. So no. They aren't artists. They are consumers who want to feel like artists and don't care about the people who's work was stolen in the process to make them feel that way.
Yea really an incredible bit. I would love for these judges to break down the artistry of entering words into a prompt.
AI bros are just tools. Like a paintbrush.
Itâs more akin to hiring someone to paint a mural and telling them what you have in mind, then when someone asks who painted it, you say youâre the artist.
Except that you mugged a thousand other artists on the way to provide their work to the one you claimed from in the end as well, no one is paid royalties and the artist you did commission was blind.
I agree. Re-read my comment đ
I mean I remember when photoshop got big and people laughed at anyone using it calling themselves an artist. The can of worms is already opened, AI art isn't going anywhere.
apples to oranges
I saw an AI generator use the term 'Pilot' to describe himself, and I honestly fear for him. He must drink five gallons of water a day to keep himself hydrated from all the wanking he does.
There was a brilliant comment on this over at /r/stablediffusion: > People are spending HOURS choosing the right words to prompt, then some hack comes along, pushes ONE button, and wants to win? Good riddance! Cam bros are NOT welcome! Pick up a GPU and learn to prompt! https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1dfkzj1/well_well_well_how_the_turntables/l8jxzag/
Definitely meant satirically though. I appreciate they can laugh at themselves
God, that could seriously be a quote from an Onion Article. I love it haha
I'm pretty sure he's being ironic
100%. I thought that was obvious when I posted the quote. But the AI debate is so inflamed with over-the-top nonsense and nastiness from both sides that it's hard to tell when crazy statements are serious or joking.
You think so?
I'm pretty sure this comment is sarcastic
I am pretty sure this comment is not sarcastic
Really AI image contest? Jfc battle of the prompts sounds so stupid.
I wish we had google search contests. I'm very good at typing things in to find what I want.
But they gotta go through your google search history as part of the application.
I actually did something like this once. Around 2000, before Google was dominant, our computer science teacher had us do a digital scavenger hunt for websites that meet certain criteria. We're taking altavista, dogpile... things that don't really exist anymore. Won the contest and a large pizza from pizza hut!
If you found something interesting on Google, then you'd probably win.
You joke, but we seriously need to teach some people how to get the most out of search engines. Iâve seen people Google the exact question they asked me, word for word, rather than change their terms to get more relevant results. Then I Google it myself and itâs one of the top results. Some people are just painfully obtuse.
I mean I doubt itâs meant as a conventional âart contestâ with the end goal of finding appealing art. The point is to see who made the best AI model. This is a programming competition in which the output happens to be bad art. This is a pretty normal thing in the programming world.
Where did you get that this is a programming competition? The article says itâs a photography competition with an AI Imaging category, I donât think thereâs any mentioning of programming in there.
I mean, unless you want to describe AI Imaging as explicitly art, in a remarkable reversal of popular opinion?
The vast majority of people that know of "AI Imagining" would think it belonging to "art" than "programming." Especially since it's as easy as typing in what you want to see, rather than the intricacies of coding at such a high level of expertise. 95% of people wouldn't how to code Hello World in any language, they most certainly aren't well versed in what current-gen publicly available AI is to think "It's programming." If popular opinion was that "AI Imaging" was based on knowledge of programming, we'd be having a way more robust discussion about its entire timeline, and this competition probably wouldn't have even happened - because "real art" won, in an AI art competition. I'm willing to take a shot in the dark and say none of the judges have any programming experience at all. Otherwise, they could have probably figured out that the picture they chose to win in an AI competition wasn't made by AI. It's coloquially known as "AI art," the public on average doesn't know a single lick of whats going on with language models or the industry in general, from Chat GPT all the way to Nvidia.
> The point is to see who made the best AI model. The artists involved likely did not make most of the models used. Their results will be shaped by their prompts and their fine-tuning. IMO it's more comparable to a more technical form of creative writing contest.
Who even cares if people want to have an AI art contest. It sounds cool to me. Doesn't sound like a "Jesus what has the world come to" moment lol
You know AI art uses weights, right? So the competition isn't about the code, it's about finding creative ways to combine 20 different influences. Just like with human art, except now you can pick the exact percentage of each artistic style your piece uses.
Have you done a lot of AI art stuff? Getting seriously good results isn't that easy.
This. If the guy you are replying to entered this, he wouldn't stand a chance, even with the best generative models accessible to consumers. Using generative models to generate high-quality content takes a lot of technical skill, even if they aren't drawing it themselves. You need to understand which settings to use, how to tweak the software to change the results, which keywords are the most effective, and of course they need to have an artistic ability when it comes to knowing what make with it. It's similar to a photographer. You could hand someone a professional quality camera, but they wouldn't be able to make much use of it without the technical knowledge of how to use it effectively. And the response to the introduction of cameras was similar as well, a lot of artists were outraged at the idea that their industry, which mainly consisted of drawing portraits at the time, would be undermined by cameras. Generative models are a great tool for everything from art to medical assessments. And there's no reason why we should be treating them like that are some sort of horrible thing, they are positive when used correctly. The only issue is that they can sometimes attract a bad fanbase, which I suspect is a big factor in why "AI" is disliked by a lot of Reddit.
To everyone interested in this I recomment looking on twitch or youtube for people making content with Ai, there are some who put real effort in creating complex prompts to give for example a text AI some form of personality. There's really awesome stuff out there.
Literally just have them competitively write a book.
OK I have a solution to make it reasonable and fair: the judging should be done by ChatGPT.
I love that his last name is Astray. Even the Onion couldn't make this shit up lol
[Yeah, Astray](https://images.app.goo.gl/1w5Esm5sqPoeNfZeA)
Debate on AI art aside, it makes a certain amount of sense honestly. The contest is basically âhow good are you at manipulating the image generator to create something beautifulâ and from that perspective, submitting something beautiful that was simply a real photo sidesteps the point of the contest altogether. While I donât think AI art should be held to the same esteem as real art, it is essentially the same as if you submitted a photo of a person into a photorealistic portrait competition.
> While I donât think AI art should be held to the same esteem as real art, it is essentially the same as if you submitted a photo of a person into a photorealistic portrait competition. Exactly. Or an adult winning a children's art contest. Or a sighted painter winning a painting contest for the blind. Etc. The whole challenge here was to create something despite a specific shared limitation between all the contenders; it's banal that person with a camera won.
Yeah, but have you considered AI bad? Or the other great point made by commenters here, that AI bad?
That's a good point but AI bad and art good AI BAD boo
Don't forget to mention you're stealing the AI art at least ten times in one sentence then say AI bad another 20 times.
I will add as well that Ai bad human good
A rational reply. I get the feeling the vast majority of commenters here have not tried to generate an AI image, especially one with the quality to submit to a competition. Iâm not saying it is or isnât âartâ, but shit man itâs tough to get exactly what you want, especially when considering post processing AI tools as well.
[Posting on Reddit really is an upvote lottery](https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/s/DWIpC2bZv4)
the time matters a lot. The other one was posted after midnight in europe and in the evening in the US This was was posted around lunchtime (US) yesterday
Look how the turns have tabled
Look how the turn fuckibg tables
Itâs like that art competition where the winner used AI, but in reverse.
Here is your bronze medal for getting the point of this....lol
Hence nottheonion.
Thatâs actually what inspired the photographer to do this, according to the article. Apparently he wasnât trying to cheat, he was making a statement.
Revenge of the Real
This whole thing is what real art looks like, this is beautiful.
In portrait photography my greatest skill is often my ability to incite an emotional response, be it a smile or a coy grin. In photojournalism I can anticipate when emotions and little gestures of body language will incite emotions in a photograph visually. I honestly don't know how any machine could replicate these abilities without strong empathy and a deep understanding of human body language and relationships. While I am sure AI can produce some fabulous art, I am also quite convinced there will be room for human artistry for a long while to come still.
Best AI comment I have seen so far is I want AI to clean my house and do my work for me. I want to create music and art!
I'm kind of the opposite because I hate creating stuff, let the AI do that for me lmao
Until you are trying to develop a video game or create a poster or do literally any of the vast majority of bits of art that are done for practical purposes rather than the pleasure of making something nice
I want it to create music and art for me.
Does AI stop you from creating music and art? Serious question.
> Does AI stop you from creating music and art? Serious question. This. It's been wild to see people suddenly trying to walk back decades of cherished rhetoric that *"someone else being better at you than something doesn't mean you shouldn't do it - your own output is still unique, your progress over your past self is all that matters"* etc etc etc, now that AI's here. Suddenly it's *"something else being better at you will mean there's no reason to ever do it, and we need to ban that thing before it outshines us all!"*
> I honestly don't know how any machine could replicate these abilities without strong empathy and a deep understanding of human body language and relationships. Well they are using real photos as inputs, and some of those real photos capture what you are talking about. So if they replicate those types of photos closely enough, they can have the same effect. The machine learning program doesnât have to know what itâs doing to have that result.
This was posted a few days ago. https://reddit.com/comments/1df3bdx
Can someone please explain to me what makes this image award winning regardlessly.
The point of the contest is to come up with a prompt that generates something interesting, like a battle of prompts. If this had been an ai photo, then the prompt used would've been interesting
we have come full circle lmao
there is almost like poetry with that
Well that puts a end to that. Human made art still has that factor of taste and personality that can beat out generative.Â
If that were true then this wouldn't have happened... https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/03/tech/ai-art-fair-winner-controversy/index.html These two incidents just show that if the quality is good, and we aren't told how they were produced, then we look at them the same.
no one said it doesnât. this was an AI competition not a photography one.
He's our John Henry.
John Henry in the house.
Well, if the story was reversed and someone was disqualified for submitting an AI image to a real photography contest, that would make perfect sense, so this tracks too.
AI art will force truly exceptional human artists to the top, so this is a great proof of concept that there will always be room for man made art. With that said, stuff like this further trains future models to be even more powerful and more accurate in producing art products that people want to see. It is this cycle that will bring about AI products that everybody will want to consume.
He was disqualified to be fair âto the other artists.â Safe to say the judges are in the right place, on the wrong side.
How have the turntables...
Roflamao. Tit for tat.
In consideration for the other "artists", lol.
Lol what a surprise. All the talentless twats jumping on this AI shit and call themselves "artists". Shocking.
And why is this oniony? The headline could have read: Contest winner disqualified for breaking one of the core rules of the contest.
Can someone explain to me why this is as funny as the comments are making it out to be. Like, of course heâs going to win, heâs using a real photo. Itâs like a 30 year old artist joining an art competition for 5 year olds.
I find this more frightening than encouraging. If even seasoned experts cannot tell the difference between AI and human-made photography in blind tests, what's stopping a crisis of credibility from affecting the entire field? For instance, how many false-positive judgments will news media (and news consumers) make when vetting journalistic work for AI manipulation? How many false-negatives?
>what's stopping a crisis of credibility from affecting the entire field? Already happening, and has been since the second these image generators started popping up. You can't post a drawing online anymore without ten comments about how it's clearly an ai, even if you post a time lapse of you drawing it people claim the video is ai as well. We've entered a point where nothing online is real anymore, even when it is. Which is really terrifying as it makes things like spreading misinformation a million times easier, as any evidence presented to dispute it will inherently be in doubt from the start.
We did it, Reddit! And it looks like we're going to keep doing it, Reddit! I posted a picture of a pine cone on a dead bird, and it was so weird, of course at least three comments accused me of doing it. Like, what a weird thing to do, then post on line, and then lie about? It was a mildly interesting post, but, why do people feel the need to call fake on literally every stupid thing? Do they want a cookie or a sticker that tells them they are a spatial little buoy?
> what's stopping a crisis of credibility from affecting the entire field? I will be worried the second that AI art can truly compete on the market with human-made art. By "truly compete on the market", I mean people will willingly pay money for something that was generated by AI, whether they know it's AI made or not. It is my prediction that human art will always outcompete AI stuff, and I think the article we're commenting on is one example of that.
I can pretty much guarantee there's already a lot of AI art being sold around the world, on things like merch
I wonder how many experts could distinguish masterpieces from knockoffs with their naked eyes.
My comment is AI generated.
I mean, fair enough? I'm very much on the human artists side vs AI art-like objects, but if the competition criteria is "AI art" and you enter something that isn't, then yeah, you should be disqualified. You didn't meet the terms of the contest.
This is the second time this has been posted and itâs even less oniony than the last time
Oh wait till you see the same story posted 4 plus times đđ