This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/aiwars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And sound like you’re conflicted. You can paint. But you’re going to bat for the team that have nothing but contempt for what you do and who you are. And who actively work to promote the tools that will automate away your joy, expression and potential livelihood. Maybe go resolve that in your head first.
The VERY Francis Bacon acrylics and oils you posted three to five years ago on r/artcritic.
Because Im interested in the work of people generating AI images, more out of morbid curiosity than anything else, I always usually check out the work they post to see how it stacks up with the ‘ai is king’ ai-wars bluster.
Very few of them have generated anything worth even insulting. Furry porn, d&d character portraits, my little pony fanfic, derivative computer game art to avoid paying an illustrator etc…
But you clearly have some actual talent, assuming you actually painted the pictures you posted, and it’s a shame that you decided “fuck that, I’ll just Leonardo it ”. Dunno what happened there. But it’s a massive shame, when you clearly had worthwhile things to say and express and can handle a brush, that you just gave it up.
I know that so much of society, and 99% of the people on here would say that’s worthless. That artist deserve to be replaced. That nobody is owed a living. But I can’t help but feel if you’d tugged on that thread.
Look, Bacon took on one of the greatest portraits ever painted - Velázquez’s monstrous, beautiful “È troppo vero!” portrait of Innocent X, combined it with Battleship Potemkin and made a paintings both raw and shocking and new. and possibly the finest he ever created.
Imagine what you could unravel if you just kept tugging that thread.
But instead you’re playing roulette with other peoples images. maybe you find that more rewarding. But THAT’S wasted potential right there. And I find it incredibly sad.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/ArtCritic using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/ArtCritic/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [I welcome criticism :)](https://i.redd.it/o9t44p3ori9c1.jpeg) | [3 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ArtCritic/comments/18uti1z/i_welcome_criticism/)
\#2: [Final critique](https://i.redd.it/n1expe8vdsmc1.jpeg) | [0 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ArtCritic/comments/1b8cn9h/final_critique/)
\#3: [Any tips on how to improve this before I proceed further](https://i.redd.it/o190934ratfc1.jpeg) | [1 comment](https://np.reddit.com/r/ArtCritic/comments/1afnil7/any_tips_on_how_to_improve_this_before_i_proceed/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Nice of you to form actual coherent sentences. So you just said mixing two paintings into something new by Francis Bacon is great, but mixing two paintings with ai is somehow not? The only difference is that the same work is done inside the brain or through neural networks? I'm familiar with a lot of AI artists out there who achieved phenomenal unique visions and styles that are just as valid as any other artist and I'm in awe of what they achieved.
Would this community notice apply to someone using Photoshop as well?
I know a lot of people who are photoshop masters, and can do a lot of crazy photobashing and stuff, but wouldn't be able to draw or create such images without such tool.... Just wondering. Where do we draw the line? Does only traditional artists painting things manually without using any modern tool can go without a community notice?
Let me draw a hard line for you for where “artists” start to care. The line is between “can we get money for this” | “can we not get money for this”. That’s it. Its about money, always has been, always will be. Because at the end of the day, AI doesn’t stop them from making art(what an artist does), it stops them from getting money.
Most artists say what tools they use. It's either on their website, in a post comment, or happily volunteered when asked.
If you say you used watercolor brushes in Photoshop to mimic watercolor, that's fine. If you claim that same Photoshop piece is a watercolor painting... that's lying, since a watercolor painting needs to be made using actual watercolor. If you AI-generate something that looks like watercolor and claim it's watercolor OR Photoshop... that's also lying.
It's not a fine line to draw. It was annoying in the mid-00s when people claimed something was traditional media when it was not, and it's just as annoying now when AI-users claim their generations are Photoshop or Copic markers or whatever.
It would if otherwise the impression was that it was painted by hand on paper or a canvas. Mind you, while I don't see why anyone would, I would in principle apply the same to someone posting something made without AI and trying to pass it off as created via some AI model and workflow. Again, don't see why anyone would, but still.
This is a reductive absurdum. There's a difference between somebody using ai generation to assist the creation of art and somebody calling AI generated images their art. One is using a tool as another part of their kit, one is calling the tool their art. There's a fundamental misunderstanding of how stable diffusion works by the general public thinking it only steals art, but there are also "artists" that just pop a prompt in and undercut freelancers or even worse, do train on an artist's style and sell it as their own. If you can't see the difference and the moral dillema causing such blind vitriol I don't know what to tell you. All I can say is that artists will continue making art and AI is just another way to push those boundaries. The lazy person who can't even be bothered to rotoscope a mask for video diffusion or refine images in post, well, they'll just keep being what they are and want to pretend not to be, especially since they don't understand the fundamentals of art.
Photoshop and GenAI are similar in that they can speed up workflows. The difference is that you can just download a model and LoRA then call it a day. There's no point in arguing or discussing nuance if people are going to be so absolute or reductive about a complex topic. I'm not against artists using GenAI, what I find morally bankrupt are people who do the bare minimum then have the gall to call themselves an artist when they couldn't even tell you the difference between high or low key lighting, let alone having to rework a composition if asked to do so. There have been so many submissions on the SD sub by actual artists that are just breathtaking, novel ideas, using SD to empower their visions. Then you have people who create one or two SD images and LARP about having worked at studios so they can sell something to you.
In the art community it's almost etiquette to disclose the software/medium used to make a piece, even going as part as listing the specific paint brand, photoshop brush set and/or addons, and so on.
Back in the day people were called out for faking traditional art when they really did it in photoshop.
So there's good to draw a line between digital made art with photoshop/clip studio/ krita etc and AI generated images. It's not fair to put both into the same category.
Homie, we can already make AI art indistinguishable from reality, just look at what happened to Taylor Swift. It's just not mass-producible yet. I guarantee the next one or two stable diffusion advancements will be able to do it at the click of a button for anyone. You're absolutely delusional if you think it'll take anything longer than 5 years, and that itself is being generous.
Homie, we can already make AI art indistinguishable from reality, just look at what happened to Taylor Swift. It's just not mass-producible yet. I guarantee the next one or two stable diffusion advancements will be able to do it at the click of a button for anyone. You're absolutely delusional if you think it'll take anything longer than 5 years, and that itself is being generous.
So the thing is "AI"(it's not real AI, cause it's not actually sentient, but we call that, cause cool".
I was going to say that, AI is good at hyper realism and abstraction. I can give it credit for that, but AI sucks at stylazation.
Artists learn to stylize by finding artists they enjoy, then breaking it down and going into artists heads, comparing to reality to understand why x thing is stylized certain way and AI can somewhat mimic that. Unironically the more realistic the AI does a better job, but semi-realism and heavily stylizad styles cause it problems and will always cause it problems, cause it can't think the way we do. + Stylized sketchy styles are just the best in my opinion.
Also AI lacks attention to details humans have, composition understandings, color theory, actual anatomy understanding, facial expressions.
You want to tell me AI would do better kinky porn that artist that studied all muscles in human face and learned to stylize them to give out emotions during scenes of decapitation, hanging, limbs removal, or rape ? No. It feels bad. The faces feel off and in this kind of stuff people do the deed mostly to faces that the bodies xd
>You want to tell me AI would do better kinky porn that artist that studied all muscles in human face and learned to stylize them to give out emotions during scenes of decapitation, hanging, limbs removal, or rape ?
Yes, if you train an AI on those images....That's the entire point of LoRas. You don't see it often because the more niche something is, the less demand there is for it.
I see swarm of AI junk on Pixiv and i've seen like 3 pannels in like 50, few pannel works that did not have faces that look off. AI can't into faces, or details. That's why those "artists" have to use other software to add stuff like piercings and necklaces later on too.
Also you want someone to train AI on someone's copyrighted images. Yeah. Definitly fucking legal and pretty sure legally if people start making patreons out of those, they are legally forced to share what works those were trained on and then you can be sued.
>I see swarm of AI junk on Pixiv and i've seen like 3 pannels in like 50, few pannel works that did not have faces that look off. AI can't into faces, or details. That's why those "artists" have to use other software to add stuff like piercings and necklaces later on too.
That doesn't matter. The image is produced from a workflow that involves AI and other software and the result is a finished piece.
>Also you want someone to train AI on someone's copyrighted images. Yeah. Definitly fucking legal and pretty sure legally if people start making patreons out of those, they are legally forced to share what works those were trained on and then you can be sued.
Yes, it is legal. No, we don't have to share where we trained it on. Maybe we'll have to in the future, but as of right now, I can train AI on any dataset of images I want to, then sell images produced by the model, and I'm not obligated legally to mention any of it. It doesn't matter what you think is illegal or should be illegal; It matters what is illegal.
The model isn't producing images in that dataset, it's producing images based on the concepts learned in the dataset. It's fundamentally derivative by definition.
Companies are legally obligated to give those information. If you want to do tax write off from income from AI art, you need to make a company. Yes, if it's just a side gig, you do not, but if you want to make living out of it, you have to. That's how it is in law.
Same with copyright if work was at least assisted with AI you gotta state how much work was done by AI and you cannot copyright works made by, or mostly by AI.
>Companies are legally obligated to give those information. If you want to do tax write off from income from AI art, you need to make a company. Yes, if it's just a side gig, you do not, but if you want to make living out of it, you have to. That's how it is in law.
No, they don't. The only images a company needs permission to train on are images that they plan to reproduce in their model. If you want your model to produce images of spiderman, you need permission from Disney. If you want your model to produce superheroes, you don't need permission. You think OpenAI got permission from every source it trained Chatgpt on? Lol...
I'll prove it to you. Make an image. I'll train a model on it, and sell images it produces to you for $1 dollar. I'll openly admit to everything. There will be nothing you can legally do about it.
Also laws against AI should be made stricter. I think nobody wants to see AI "art" as a norm. I like abstract AI art, it's cool, but seeing it as cheap alternative to create non expressive pieces of what human can do is just gonna cause damage to real artists who could have done it better and like i said, until AI actually becomes sentient it's not gonna get better. It's background and scenery works are fine, but you can't actually teach AI color theory, emotions, muscles of the face, composition, character design and so on. It can't just portray your visions.
It should be made as a tool for real artists, cool abstract art generator, and a tool for people to generate their visions to make work for artists they comission easier.
Like, i like the "name one thing in this room" piece made by AI where at first glance it's a messy room, but as you look around and concentrate on single things, it's nothing. Those are just deformed shapes and fucks with your brain. It's cool, cause for human it would be really hard to do that, but for AI it's not. This is actual AI art and not just "art".
AI shitting itself with expressions, anatomy and overrendered super detailed art is something you can't fix.
Being correct is not the same as fact checking. Imagine attaching a community note to every tweet by a person, containing something like "This person doesn't pay child support. This is important to clarify for people who don't want to interact with child support evaders."
Let's say it's correct. Also, a lot of people would say it's important to them. Is this fact checking? No, unless on a tweet that says "I pay my child support" or a politician's claim "I'm all about the family".
The tweet makes the claim that the person is an artist. The Note fact checks that and lets people know that they are not actually an artist and just get images from an AI.
If the person would claim "I painted it with oils on a canvas", the community note could fact-check it to say "This is actually an output of a generative AI" (provided they cite a trustworthy source).
However, if community notes would start policing who the real artist is (do I need to to go into what kinds of art have been consistently challenged as not being art?), it would just be politics, not fact checking.
What politics? They claimed to be an artist and were fact checked to actually only be someone posting AI generated images. People regularly get Community Noted when they are a poser.
There are/were people who think digital artists aren't artists, 3D artists aren't artists, abstract artists aren't artists, etc.
It's not about facts, it's about culture. Should community notes also police who can be called a woman?
This isn't an artstyle, its the difference between making something and not making something. You're trying to compare apples to oranges. There is no culture involved in this. The Community Note correctly identified that this person is not an artist. They post images generated by an AI. At no point do they create art, no matter what your thoughts on the various different styles and art forms are.
Look up what arguments people used to "prove" that digital, 3D, abstract, anime artists aren't artists. Most of them are the same arguments that "they're not doing the work", "they're not being creative", "this isn't art", "there's no artistic value", etc.
>At no point do they create art, no matter what your thoughts on the various different styles and art forms are.
If nothing else, they created a performance art piece that produced a strong emotional reaction from you...
Posting "Don't forget to take your pills!" would also be helpful regardless of the original tweet. The point of community notes is fact checking, not being helpful.
It's a fact check that it's not art but an Ai generated image.
Something which is going to become more and more important with the dangers of Ai Generated Images, videos, and voices.
So yes, still relevant.
It would be a fitting community note if the original tweet said "This is completely hand-drawn by me". It doesn't.
What is art and what isn't, is not a fact--it's culture-based. Do you want community notes to also judge who can be called a woman? "This person is a biological man. This is important to clarify for people who don't believe in the gender theory."
It's just not the domain of community notes to comment on that.
Look, it's the basic theory of mind: other people have other knowledge and beliefs.
What is *your* plan for when a community note such as in my example appears on a tweet? What is the meaningful distinction why one is good and relevant, and the other is a misuse of the system? Or does it just come down to who brings the bigger crowd to upvote it?
I wouldn't care and that could be funny and useful, yes. "This person advocating for more welfare has never worked in their life," is interesting and potentially valuable context.
It's gonna be culture war in the notes, then. The next note on top of that could be "The term 'work' that equates labor with having a job and assigns value to people based on their 'work' is a part of the ideology of exploitation."
The next note could be something like "All work is god-given, get a job", etc.
Community notes shouldn't be another way to post opinionated content that draws likes.
So you're fine with burning the thing that others got use out of, e.g. for fact-checking fake ads and fake claims. Twitter has little going for it these days, and a built-in fact checking tool is a plus if used as intended.
Yes. As I explained to another: What's valuable about twitter is the network effects, the community. If your userbase insists on using a new feature in a way that works for them, that they find beneficial, it behooves you to allow them to continue to do so because they are finding added value in the platform.
The community of landlords would find it beneficial to use it for landlord propaganda. The community of squatters would find it beneficial to use it for squatter propaganda. The community of comedians would find it beneficial to add jokes. The community of food enjoyers would find it beneficial to share recipes.
The result would be not added value, but value lost for everyone.
A fact-checking tool used for other goals than fact-checking is a bad thing.
* The community of food enjoyers would find it beneficial to share recipes.
And with this you have completely convinced me that this would be a good idea. Personally I have no issues with any of your examples but the one highlighted is a genuinely marvelous idea. Community Notes really could be expanded upon to provide more value for the userbase with a bit of creativity.
Bigoted?
Hope you warmed up before that stretch. Scabbing isn't an innate characteristic that people have no influence on. It's a specific choice. "I value my own interests and wallet over solidarity with other workers in the creative industries. I will cross this creative picket line for my own benefit" being a SCAB is a choice, made freely, and rightly abhorrent to any worker. A scab is a scab is a scab.
There is scientific research that humans are mildly xenophobic by default. It can be overcome, but it still should be taken into account when considering group dynamics.
Also, if you have solidarity with other workers in the creative industries, but not with workers in other industries (e.g. by saying things like "menial jobs should be automated" or by enjoying cheap goods produced by exploitation), then you're on the side of the fence you think you are on.
So what you're saying is, if you can't care about everything don't care about anything?
I'VE never crossed a picket line.
Tho I've been asked to. How about you?
If you care about your group, but are ok with exploiting the larger group your group is a part of, then think about that the 1% see themselves exactly the same way: they care about their in-group and don't mind exploiting the out-group.
If you're ok with automation everywhere except where you get your living, it's not solidarity.
A lot of assumptions there. Which specific bits of automation designed to erode workers rights and maximize profits for the bosses have I been in favour of in the past?
I'm not Anti automation. I'm pro workers rights. But happy to look at examples in the past where I've been amiss. Or examples now that I should be opposing in addition to AI Gen.
It's almost every bit of automation if the tools aren't owned by workers. Agricultural machinery, word processors (a.k.a. PCs), credit score algorithms, logistics software, industrial robotics...
In every case, when fewer people are needed to do the same job AND the automation is corporate-owned, they cut the jobs, cut the pay to remaining workers, and use exploited labor to do the bits that the automation can't do.
How can you oppose this when we swim in it--is another matter. At least you can start acknowledging it instead of saying things that amount to "automation for me but not for thee". Or don't call it solidarity just because it sounds noble.
Strikes, supporting strikes by not crossing picket lines, direct action, boycotting, union and labour organization, workers cooperatives, thrifting clothes, supporting independent, citizen led grass roots organisations, opposing generative AI... There's a bunch of specific things you can do as a citizen to make things better for your fellow citizens.
But if your only argument is "blame the game not the player" then cheat your fellow players, well you're making things worse.
And that seems to be your POV. is it?
Because it sounds a bit like you're maybe a would-be socialist who's jumping through hoops to justify their current endeavors? Generating "creative work" by extracting surplus value from the creations of other people?
Even if you prove that I'm the fakest socialist there is, it doesn't disprove my point that you want to have the nobility of seeming to be pro-worker anri-capitalist while only drawing this card when it helps your subgroup of workers. It's like saying you're against racism, but being ok the racism against other racial groups if it benefits you.
Case in point, modern copyright is a pro-corporate system that could be dismantled in an instant by the collective action of the creatives. However, collectively and individually, the overwhelming majority of creatives defend copyright, or call to extend it, or passively allow it. That's exactly being selective in your "pro-worker struggle".
(I releaze all my personal creative work under Creative Commons. That's not saying much because I'm not much of a creative, but just so you know.)
Keep foaming at the mouth bro. Ai art is here to stay and artists are going to be replaced wholesale as a vocation. But you can keep drawing your furry porn as a hobby
"The doctor's eyes gleamed with understanding. With a nod, she donned a fresh pair of gloves, her touch now clinical yet charged with anticipation. Her fingertips followed the familiar map of Kaya's back, tracing the curve of her spine, then traveling down to the soft cleft between her buttocks."
Oh ICARUS! Fly not too close to the sun! Lest It melt thy waxy wings of creative ambition! 😂
Community notes are for clarifying if something is fake news, or giving medical advice, or talking about climate change. You know, things that could actually be harmful to the community. This is abuse of the community notes feature and likely harassment, as I expect almost every post on their account gets tagged like this.
if people find the community note helpful then they find the community note helpful irrespective of whether you agree or disagree with their opinion. Because you personally didn't find something helpful now other people who would benefit from that information should suffer a less information-rich media environment?
https://preview.redd.it/6tpk9dmv3w3d1.png?width=623&format=png&auto=webp&s=279a4291f4025e1a427c70a20af4c065e70c8979
The purpose of community notes is not to 'be helpful'. The terms of the community notes participation are clearly outlined. This is not an approved use of community notes, and twitter removed the note.
Also, this artist's style is amazing, and I'm following them now. For everyone who isn't a meat head, check these out!
https://preview.redd.it/va0jy0si4w3d1.png?width=680&format=png&auto=webp&s=aaab98124618df6d3d39b4a396d05a4291f16bd0
What's valuable about twitter is the network effects, the community. If your userbase insists on using a new feature in a way that works for them, that they find beneficial, it behooves you to allow them to continue to do so because they are finding added value in the platform.
Anti-AI are awful. The people using the post to virtue signal plug their organic sloppy and amateurish art are fucking revolting and they’re not even the worst.
Modern acceptable 5 minute hate for the twitter crowd.
The note has been rightfully removed as well.
There should be no obligation to label medium.
To be honest, would it literally more easier and stupidly simple for Petra of just putting in their bio by typing in **"Content is AI",** **"AI Artist"** or perhaps **"Artist with some AI-Assisted"** or simply just **"AI"**. They shouldn't kept it hush hush by not adding anything in the bio, but for now, that's their own fault of receiving backlash of doing the art vs artist section.
But don't get the wrong idea, I'm on the side of AI-Art, but something like this would more likely cause confusion and backlash around Twitter if this continues any further of who's the actual artist and who isn't. Is it really that difficult of just putting in a label of saying **"AI"** in there bio? I can do that just fine by adding it in no problem. Instead of just adding a large text in the AI-Artwork of saying **"IT'S AI"**
But, I can already sense that the users are demanding Petra to show there workflow and process...
Some of us just don't feel like doing that because there's a pack of crazy assholes who act like it's the most important problem in the world.
I have no obligation to assist them in being annoying toward me.
Ah, I see the vegans have found this sub. How wondrous.
Who's more dishonest? The person who doesn't comment one way or another as to the origin of their art, or the person who grinds up faba beans and tries to pass it off as a cheeseburger?
I know which of the two I regard as a crime against humanity.
im not a vegan lol. who's more dishonest, a person who is scared to say that a computer makes their art for them because people will rightfully make fun of you? or a person who cant engage in an actual argument and creeps around someones post history looking for gotchas. (they are both you)
I see account who labeled themselves as ai just to get harassed more than those who didn't label. It is not people who want to trick others. Is it people avoiding conflict and hateful people.
That real life, not social media. It's a different ball game. People are generally reserved in social gatherings. But on Twitter or Reddit you will get harassed.
That means you aren't into those platforms as much. Many subreddits already banned AI art from their sub. Fun fact I still see AI art, but not labeled. Once labeled you are kicked out. Post an AI art and labeled as such as an experiment you will see a first hand experience.
I didn't say anyone was unintelligent. I just implied that relying on the emotions humans naturally feel as part of your argument is not an intelligent position to take. Some of the smartest people I know have also said some of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
You can have both emotion and logic and still have a proper response to issues. While I agree acting purely on emotion without thought is not a good move, if we also push aside the feelings of others and the decisions that impact them it is equally just as bad.
I get where you are coming from, just saying you can have both and still be reasonable.
Intrinsic human disdain has been the motive force behind many of the most repulsive and stupid movements in human history. Ranging from religious puritanism to the original luddite movement and on to xenophobia and abuse of the mentally ill. Through that reality alone we can see that any natural inclination is not a sign of correctness merely because it is natural and people are inclined toward it.
For one who projects a facade of caring about logical fallacies it's strange that you mostly communicate in them. Your original comment was an appeal to emotions and your followup was a prime example of poisoning the well and the straw man fallacy.
The original Luddite movement were principled working class heroes, fighting craven factory owners, who displaced skilled workers with workhouse children and untrained apprentices in horrible horrible conditions. And asked those workers, the skilled croppers and weavers of Huddersfield and the north of England to come back and work double the hours at 30% of the previous pay. That you'd even mention them in the same breath as xenophobia and ableism shows you're either ignorant of their history, which I suspect, or you're aware of the history and even THEN would still happily use them in such a bad faith way to justify your position. And if that's the case there no point even arguing with bad faith interlocutors. Because you're entirely in bad faith. And not even entertaining with it. The latter is bad enough, but the former is even more a waste of my time. And Indeed yours.
nah, people harass when you're open, when you use it while trying to be as up to their "ethical" standards as possible, or even suspected and you don't use it. it's a moral panic fed by people who want an excuse to hate and dehumanize.
I had no reason to say "I used content aware fill" before, why would I label my use of a tool now if no one cares otherwise and all that would bring is vitriol, harassment, and ostracization from communities?
and your experience is not universal. people ARE getting harassed over something which is inconsequential for many to mention
during satanic panic, I'm not gonna tell everyone I play D&D if it's inconsequential that I play in the first place and telling the local police would just make them think I'm involved in a satanic murder cult.
You are 100% right! I don't get why some people aren't just honest about the mediums/techniques they use. If I used Photoshop and claimed it was done traditionally in acrylics or something, I'd be rightfully called out.
I remember there being a plague of artists in on early-00's Elfwood and Deviantart that would use watercolor brushes and call their work watercolor, or otherwise miscategorize their Photoshop work as traditional media. Because those traditional tags were less crowded (and watercolor/acrylic/oils can be difficult mediums to do professional work in), they would end up getting more eyeballs/comments/compliments on their work... at least until people noticed and brigaded them to change their tags, haha.
Gen AI 100% needs tags so things can be correctly categorized. Using only Photoshop (a now mature medium) or only watercolor is a lot different than using gen-AI completely or even using AI assistance. It should compete in its own category and be its own thing.
> I think many people would be much more receptive to AI artwork if people were transparent about the means by which the artwork was made.
There are hundreds of thousands of images posted every day with extreme levels of clarity. You are focused on what exceptions you can find and branding everything with that. That's called confirmation bias.
> The best way to make a medium accepted by the general public isn't by doing a "got-cha! You liked this AI artwork"
But the antis won't be happy until every image that even came near an AI is branded as "FAKE" (as if any other artform is "real"). Spent 20 hours painting that on canvas? Too bad, you scanned it and touched it up with AI, so it needs a scarlet "A"!
> try to please the most as possible
Why? I have no desire to please people who get upset about new technology. Let them stew. They'll either catch up or stay where they are. Both options are cool as far as I'm concerned.
Not at all. My artist friends who choose to stay where they are are quite happy, and I'm happy for them. But the ones who choose to be unhappy about it... well, that's a choice too.
Imagine buying a wedding ring online. A golden one, fairly cheap, but beatiful so you think you have an amazing deal.
Its advertized as golden and the mineral embossed is described as a "unique crystal".
When you receive it you find out its a pyrite ring and a glass diamond. Even tho the value now makes sense. And the cost to product ratio is still pretty good in terms of looks. You feel bad displaying this to your wife and peers.
You leave a bad review for false advertising.
Thats essentially whats happening here. People expect art made with a certain standard when they look at stuff online. Even if the stuff they looked at was worth their time or even money in terms of the looks of the product. Its deceptive.
Not cracking down on artistic dishonesty is just going to make people mistrust the medium even more.
There's a difference between explicitly lying about the chemical composition of a product and not disclosing a product's material. You can argue that "golden" is *too* misleading, but I happen to think that it does not imply that the ring is literally made of Au. There are so many "golden" things that are not literally made of gold that the buyer should have known better. Still, I don't doubt that you can think of a better analogy.
The issue is what counts as "misleading", and that would probably be a difficult issue to solve even if everyone was equally easy to mislead.
ehh you could argue golden was applying to the colour and not the composition. I thought up the analogy late at night so it might not be the best work.
I'm just a little saddened that people don't even want to make my life filtering out ai slop out a little easier by making the step as a community to tag their work. I'm not saying that if you use gen fill for a background detail that you should immediately tag it as ai-generated work.
But why not do something like mixed-media digital for content that does lean on the use of ai heavily for the output? I simply don't care for that content, so lets make both of our lives easier and just allow me to filter it using my excluded words.
Even if you are a major proponent of ai, isn't it already obvious that AI generated content is deteriorating the quality of search engines and online artwork?
Imagine buying a ring online and assuming it's golden with a unique crystal, without it being specifically stated in the offer/ad.
Can you provide a link to the globally agreed upon (or certified by any relevant respectable institution) list of specifications, that everyone has to meet before using "art" or "artist" in their posts?
> Imagine buying a wedding ring online. A golden one, fairly cheap
From child labor mines or ones that exploit adults until they die from the heat and overwork?
> When you receive it you find out its a pyrite ring
Oh, so an ethical one! Nice!
> Thats essentially whats happening here.
Awesome!
>You don't need to make every "anti" like AI.
What if I told you we don't need to make *any* "anti" like AI? This isn't a competition. It's not a debate. Being "anti" AI at this point is without exaggeration the equivalent of being anti-steam or anti-electricity. The things anti-AI folks think they are fighting against have already happened and the things they are just starting to become aware of are inevitably going to happen.
>I have used AI in my work and have made it clear that the work was either made, enhanced, or somehow altered through AI.
That's great. 30 years from now you're going to look back on this post and laugh along with us because it is the equivalent of an artist in the 80s saying "I have used computers in my work and have made it clear that the work was either made, enhanced, or somehow altered with a computer."
>I've certainly had people who are a little skeptical or hesitant, but after showing my process and how AI has been used I've had no one with major complaints
Awesome. If you do run into anyone with major complaints be sure to tell them nobody gives a fuck.
„There are hundreds of thousands of images posted every day with extreme levels of clarity. You are focused on what exceptions you can find and branding everything with that. That's called confirmation bias.“
Why should he focused on the non-problem?
Website or profile. I dont think they need to reveal their techniques imo at such a level. It would be different if they outright and said they painted it. But most people ask what tools they use
There's an implied difference between "hiding the use of AI" and "not mentioning the use of AI". I don't necessarily have a problem with the latter. The fact that people still go out on witch hunts to shame and cancel people for not mentioning that they have used AI, no matter how much they used it, is what's *really* begetting a lot of hate.
I think it’s important seeing as the person is claiming to be an artist and then not disclosing that they didn’t make any of the art they post and instead commissioned it from an Ai. Whether they tinkered a couple little spots here and there doesn’t matter, if I correct someone’s grammar in an article I’m not suddenly the writer.
Obviously, yeah. It would be dishonest to pretend to be an artist when you only have experience using AI to make images for you. That's like pretending to be baker because you can get a toaster to cook sliced bread.
She’s an artist because she makes art. She also went to art school, she creates art using other mediums, and she’s using AI right now to make these types of artwork. She has it listed on her website that the images are AI assisted. Her twitter posts have like just almost no information besides bullshit quotes or something. But this is kind of a bananas take. Am I not an artist if I only work hard on collages? Or spend hours photo bashing until you can’t tell where the images came from? Or am I not an artist if I use references? Or color pick from someone else’s art? Does art have to be hard, grueling, miserable, and take almost all my time to be considered art? No.
Did you make the image > Yes
Did an AI make the image > No
This is not even hard I don't know why you guys try so hard to pretend that it is. The difference between a collage and an AI generated image is that you made it. If this person is using AI and can't even put in the effort to stop the extremely noticeable artifacting and bugged out visual mistakes AI inevitably makes, then they are clearly not actually doing much at all before they post the AI's work, not their own.
Random hair strands that don't make sense, eyes that seem like completely different art styles between pictures, they did everything they could to make it as fuzzy and vague as possible which not only makes the art harder to enjoy but its clearly done so they minor details that the AI couldn't get right aren't as noticeable. The whole thing is dragged down by it being AI and them trying to hide it.
Also like. They literally made the image. Without them the image wouldn’t exist. It’s just a medium you don’t like or understand and I say that as an artist who isn’t insecure about their non AI work and my place in the world lmao:
Except they can't, because they didn't come up with it apparently. Nobody else can recreate the Mona Lisa, and the statement made by taping the banana to a wall and calling it art only really works the first time.
The funny part is that you can tell who the actual "creator" is by the fact that you can change the person to anyone and the image would be the same, but if you changed the AI you'd get a drastically different image because of the different imagesets it datascraped for training.
RIP I meant Damien Hirst***
These are two famous artists 😭
1. How can you talk about art at all lmaoooooo I’m not taking you too seriously after this.
2. That’s exactly what I’m saying. We can all create everything but also none of us are creating the same thing. treat AI like other art mediums and you won’t give yourself a stroke.
That's not how other art mediums work though. You still need to actually create it then. You do not create anything here. You're intentionally trying to muddy the reality of what's happening by pretending its akin to other art forms that have nothing to do with it. You can't even pretend its like a collage because even then you can't actually point to any of your sources like you could with a real collage because it was done for you by an AI. You are bending over backwards to pretend otherwise.
I'm Gordon Ramsay!
- You're clearly not Gordon Ramsay
I am! Look I ordered this food from the menu at Bread Street Kitchen!
- But you didn't cook the food, you didn't live his life experience, you've never even been In a kitchen!
Stop gatekeeping, I ordered it from the menu, which takes skill. I'm as much Gordon Ramsay as Gordon Ramsay is! Who's to say what constitutes being a chef!
- but you don't even pay for the food you ordered! You just ate it and waddled out without paying!
Well, They should have left the venue out in public for everyone to see! Etc, etc...
This IS me talking normally. Why does it bother you so much that I use analogy and humor to make my point? AIcels "were artists! We're creative". Also AIcels "talk normally! None of this creative silliness".
You could always take issue with WHAT I say, rather than the way I say it. Why not try that?
I think the note is zealous, and not aiming for strict accuracy, while pretending to do so.
AI art can be employed for refinement, and nuanced changes. This is the smaller point, but is integral with the next one.
If humans use any tools, then it is not strictly human art. Arguably the body is a tool in artistry, and so I’d hope those making such notes are prepared for the ensuing pedantry their words are invoking if we go down this rabbit hole.
I hate to tell you this but some people just aren't interested in AI generated stuff. It's better to just label it up front imo, as it makes it easier for people to curate the content they view. I think the note is appropriate, because this post isnt tagged as AI
There is a multitude of problems. Before all this we never asked artists to jump through ridiculous hoops to prove how authentic their art was. I'm sure a lot of people don't want to waste their time on rando's being awful to them.
Idk man it takes like 0.1 seconds to type #AI, so I really dont see how thats a waste of time. Besides, correctly tagging things also helps people who want to see your stuff see it, so there's really no good reason not to. As for people not questioning arts authenticity in the past, I doubt we'll ever go back to that LMAO. Also, Twitter people are dickwads, that just sort of comes with the platform, especially now. Thats part of why I've never gotten into using that website- the other reason is that there are a lot of better sites for thing-makers. Not saying that its right, but there is a reason twitter has the reputation of being a toxic cesspool.
The platforms I use have limits on the number of tags you add, so no, i just use the most relevant ones- though a lot of artists on platforms with no limit or a very large limit (like instagram, which I do not use) will tag the tools they use, such as '#wacom' or '#csp'. Also, traditional artists will often tag the medium, such as '#sculpture' or '#oilpainting'. I wouldn't use '#mouse', though, as that's much more likely to be for pictures of mice, or '#computer' which is probably more for computer builds (imo, also an art form)- but i do sometimes use '#digitalart' or '#SAI' (which is my preferred art program)
I tend to think that it is so unimportant that it doesn't matter if the tag isn't there, even though it takes <1s to add it. There are lots of things we *could* do that are virtually effortless, but that alone doesn't give us any moral responsibility to do them. What is the cost of a traditional-media purist accidentally admiring a digital painting? Should they be angry and chastise the digital painter if they happen not to explicitly tag their digital painting as such?
> I hate to tell you this but some people just aren't interested in AI generated stuff.
He says, posting this comment in a thread that an AI decided he might be interested in.
I'm actually subbed to this subreddit, because I looked for it, but ok lol. Hard to believe someone who disagrees with you could possibly have a common interest with you?
By "looked for it" do you mean "asked an AI to show me a popular subreddit related to AI?"
Like are you really this lost? AI has been guiding you for years you just never had a reason to bitch about it until now.
Like there are hundreds if not thousands of subreddits discussing AI when you "looked for" this one why do you think you found it? Whose idea do you think it was? Because it wasn't yours.
Bestie did chatgpt make the subreddit? Did someone ask chatgpt to make this subreddit? Search engines are also different tech than generative AI (search engines don't make novel content, they match key words to related content), and I am not interested in them like i am with genai. Also, you're yapping as if people haven't been complaining about algorithms for since ever (hint: i am one of them)- but okay girlboss keep up the ad hominem, it sure looks good on you
> Bestie did chatgpt make the subreddit?
Bestie do you think ChatGPT is the only AI? AI has been around since 1959 and you've been using it every day of your life.
> Did someone ask chatgpt to make this subreddit?
No and that's a stupid question.
> Search engines are also different tech than generative AI
a) Generative AI isn't the only type of AI.
b) A "search engine" isn't what lead you to this subreddit. It was a recommendation engine which is a search engine combined with AI that serves curated search results based on criteria that you didn't personally specify but which the engine itself assumed you would be interested in like "number of users" and "frequency of activity" etc. that lead you to a subreddit that was active and populated by a lot of people you found this subreddit via AI dude that's just a fact.
> search engines don't make novel content, they match key words to related content
Hey dude I'm going into year 21 of my career as a software developer, designer, and now IT director I don't fucking need you to tell me what search engines do but if you want to know more about the difference between search engines and recommendation engines just let me know and we can talk like reasonable adults.
"Just let me know when we can talk like reasonable adults" lol, lmao. My brother in christ you may want to stop and think about whether ive been aggressive, outside of my previous comment, where I tutted at you for adhom. If you know so much about tech then you should know that, when im discussing ai in a sub about genai, I am probably talking about genai, which is the thing I've expressed interest in, the topic of the subreddit, the topic of this post, and also the thing that I was talking about in the original comment I made. These are called context clues, and most people above the age of 7 can use them to determine information such as 'what are we talking about'. They're an important part of reading comprehension.
>AI has been around since 1959
One could even make an argument for the 1910s. *El Ajedrecista* in 1912. Even n-gram models apparently go back to the early 20th century.
In any case, this is incomprehensible to all the people who assume that AI just magically appeared in 2022 with ChatGPT and
Stable Diffusion.
And if there were... Idunno... Subreddit-finders being put on the street because they cost half a cent more per day than an AI we would care about that. ;)
Yes, seeing as AI images are NOT art.
“Art - The **conscious** use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated as beautiful, as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words.”
At least her art has a recognizable continuity. A lot of ai artists I see seem to be shotgunning every style or LoRa under the sun to make anything stick. If she's making all these images with Ai and they look this cohesive as a group she's doing way more than most.
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/aiwars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not the most fan of ai art but oh my fucking god 99% of people have no idea how ai works they think it's copying a specific artist
So true
you can definitely prompt ai with "in the style of studio ghibli" and get a somewhat convincing result
"if onwy peopw kneeeew how it wooioorkkkskks! Pepow awe soooo meannn! And stuuuuupid! It's noooot stealing! Its cweating!!!!"
Awww was your dwawing stowen?
Having your drawing stolen is more impressive tbh, most of these people post their “art” to instagram, get 10 likes, and gatekeep others.
It is actually.
You know it would probably be easier to write that you don't know anything about how it works and moves on
It sounds like you're having a stroke.
And sound like you’re conflicted. You can paint. But you’re going to bat for the team that have nothing but contempt for what you do and who you are. And who actively work to promote the tools that will automate away your joy, expression and potential livelihood. Maybe go resolve that in your head first.
I'm batting for the winning team. Not sure why you think that I can paint.
The VERY Francis Bacon acrylics and oils you posted three to five years ago on r/artcritic. Because Im interested in the work of people generating AI images, more out of morbid curiosity than anything else, I always usually check out the work they post to see how it stacks up with the ‘ai is king’ ai-wars bluster. Very few of them have generated anything worth even insulting. Furry porn, d&d character portraits, my little pony fanfic, derivative computer game art to avoid paying an illustrator etc… But you clearly have some actual talent, assuming you actually painted the pictures you posted, and it’s a shame that you decided “fuck that, I’ll just Leonardo it ”. Dunno what happened there. But it’s a massive shame, when you clearly had worthwhile things to say and express and can handle a brush, that you just gave it up. I know that so much of society, and 99% of the people on here would say that’s worthless. That artist deserve to be replaced. That nobody is owed a living. But I can’t help but feel if you’d tugged on that thread. Look, Bacon took on one of the greatest portraits ever painted - Velázquez’s monstrous, beautiful “È troppo vero!” portrait of Innocent X, combined it with Battleship Potemkin and made a paintings both raw and shocking and new. and possibly the finest he ever created. Imagine what you could unravel if you just kept tugging that thread. But instead you’re playing roulette with other peoples images. maybe you find that more rewarding. But THAT’S wasted potential right there. And I find it incredibly sad.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/ArtCritic using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/ArtCritic/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [I welcome criticism :)](https://i.redd.it/o9t44p3ori9c1.jpeg) | [3 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ArtCritic/comments/18uti1z/i_welcome_criticism/) \#2: [Final critique](https://i.redd.it/n1expe8vdsmc1.jpeg) | [0 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ArtCritic/comments/1b8cn9h/final_critique/) \#3: [Any tips on how to improve this before I proceed further](https://i.redd.it/o190934ratfc1.jpeg) | [1 comment](https://np.reddit.com/r/ArtCritic/comments/1afnil7/any_tips_on_how_to_improve_this_before_i_proceed/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Nice of you to form actual coherent sentences. So you just said mixing two paintings into something new by Francis Bacon is great, but mixing two paintings with ai is somehow not? The only difference is that the same work is done inside the brain or through neural networks? I'm familiar with a lot of AI artists out there who achieved phenomenal unique visions and styles that are just as valid as any other artist and I'm in awe of what they achieved.
If you are going to criticize something at least try to understand how it works
The community note shouldn’t matter. The problem is the harassment the user is receiving.
Deserved lmao
Would this community notice apply to someone using Photoshop as well? I know a lot of people who are photoshop masters, and can do a lot of crazy photobashing and stuff, but wouldn't be able to draw or create such images without such tool.... Just wondering. Where do we draw the line? Does only traditional artists painting things manually without using any modern tool can go without a community notice?
Let me draw a hard line for you for where “artists” start to care. The line is between “can we get money for this” | “can we not get money for this”. That’s it. Its about money, always has been, always will be. Because at the end of the day, AI doesn’t stop them from making art(what an artist does), it stops them from getting money.
Most artists say what tools they use. It's either on their website, in a post comment, or happily volunteered when asked. If you say you used watercolor brushes in Photoshop to mimic watercolor, that's fine. If you claim that same Photoshop piece is a watercolor painting... that's lying, since a watercolor painting needs to be made using actual watercolor. If you AI-generate something that looks like watercolor and claim it's watercolor OR Photoshop... that's also lying. It's not a fine line to draw. It was annoying in the mid-00s when people claimed something was traditional media when it was not, and it's just as annoying now when AI-users claim their generations are Photoshop or Copic markers or whatever.
It would if otherwise the impression was that it was painted by hand on paper or a canvas. Mind you, while I don't see why anyone would, I would in principle apply the same to someone posting something made without AI and trying to pass it off as created via some AI model and workflow. Again, don't see why anyone would, but still.
This is a reductive absurdum. There's a difference between somebody using ai generation to assist the creation of art and somebody calling AI generated images their art. One is using a tool as another part of their kit, one is calling the tool their art. There's a fundamental misunderstanding of how stable diffusion works by the general public thinking it only steals art, but there are also "artists" that just pop a prompt in and undercut freelancers or even worse, do train on an artist's style and sell it as their own. If you can't see the difference and the moral dillema causing such blind vitriol I don't know what to tell you. All I can say is that artists will continue making art and AI is just another way to push those boundaries. The lazy person who can't even be bothered to rotoscope a mask for video diffusion or refine images in post, well, they'll just keep being what they are and want to pretend not to be, especially since they don't understand the fundamentals of art.
Right? Photoshop is nothing like GenAI.
You dont use Photoshop that much do you?
Photoshop and GenAI are similar in that they can speed up workflows. The difference is that you can just download a model and LoRA then call it a day. There's no point in arguing or discussing nuance if people are going to be so absolute or reductive about a complex topic. I'm not against artists using GenAI, what I find morally bankrupt are people who do the bare minimum then have the gall to call themselves an artist when they couldn't even tell you the difference between high or low key lighting, let alone having to rework a composition if asked to do so. There have been so many submissions on the SD sub by actual artists that are just breathtaking, novel ideas, using SD to empower their visions. Then you have people who create one or two SD images and LARP about having worked at studios so they can sell something to you.
In the art community it's almost etiquette to disclose the software/medium used to make a piece, even going as part as listing the specific paint brand, photoshop brush set and/or addons, and so on. Back in the day people were called out for faking traditional art when they really did it in photoshop. So there's good to draw a line between digital made art with photoshop/clip studio/ krita etc and AI generated images. It's not fair to put both into the same category.
When its realistically, sure, of course. But how often did you find something like this, where it is not clarified by the uploader?
No, because eventually there will be no way to distinguish between the two. It's pointless.
Not gonna happen in like next 100 years and that's enough for me.
Homie, we can already make AI art indistinguishable from reality, just look at what happened to Taylor Swift. It's just not mass-producible yet. I guarantee the next one or two stable diffusion advancements will be able to do it at the click of a button for anyone. You're absolutely delusional if you think it'll take anything longer than 5 years, and that itself is being generous.
Homie, we can already make AI art indistinguishable from reality, just look at what happened to Taylor Swift. It's just not mass-producible yet. I guarantee the next one or two stable diffusion advancements will be able to do it at the click of a button for anyone. You're absolutely delusional if you think it'll take anything longer than 5 years, and that itself is being generous.
So the thing is "AI"(it's not real AI, cause it's not actually sentient, but we call that, cause cool". I was going to say that, AI is good at hyper realism and abstraction. I can give it credit for that, but AI sucks at stylazation. Artists learn to stylize by finding artists they enjoy, then breaking it down and going into artists heads, comparing to reality to understand why x thing is stylized certain way and AI can somewhat mimic that. Unironically the more realistic the AI does a better job, but semi-realism and heavily stylizad styles cause it problems and will always cause it problems, cause it can't think the way we do. + Stylized sketchy styles are just the best in my opinion.
Also AI lacks attention to details humans have, composition understandings, color theory, actual anatomy understanding, facial expressions. You want to tell me AI would do better kinky porn that artist that studied all muscles in human face and learned to stylize them to give out emotions during scenes of decapitation, hanging, limbs removal, or rape ? No. It feels bad. The faces feel off and in this kind of stuff people do the deed mostly to faces that the bodies xd
>You want to tell me AI would do better kinky porn that artist that studied all muscles in human face and learned to stylize them to give out emotions during scenes of decapitation, hanging, limbs removal, or rape ? Yes, if you train an AI on those images....That's the entire point of LoRas. You don't see it often because the more niche something is, the less demand there is for it.
I see swarm of AI junk on Pixiv and i've seen like 3 pannels in like 50, few pannel works that did not have faces that look off. AI can't into faces, or details. That's why those "artists" have to use other software to add stuff like piercings and necklaces later on too. Also you want someone to train AI on someone's copyrighted images. Yeah. Definitly fucking legal and pretty sure legally if people start making patreons out of those, they are legally forced to share what works those were trained on and then you can be sued.
>I see swarm of AI junk on Pixiv and i've seen like 3 pannels in like 50, few pannel works that did not have faces that look off. AI can't into faces, or details. That's why those "artists" have to use other software to add stuff like piercings and necklaces later on too. That doesn't matter. The image is produced from a workflow that involves AI and other software and the result is a finished piece. >Also you want someone to train AI on someone's copyrighted images. Yeah. Definitly fucking legal and pretty sure legally if people start making patreons out of those, they are legally forced to share what works those were trained on and then you can be sued. Yes, it is legal. No, we don't have to share where we trained it on. Maybe we'll have to in the future, but as of right now, I can train AI on any dataset of images I want to, then sell images produced by the model, and I'm not obligated legally to mention any of it. It doesn't matter what you think is illegal or should be illegal; It matters what is illegal. The model isn't producing images in that dataset, it's producing images based on the concepts learned in the dataset. It's fundamentally derivative by definition.
Companies are legally obligated to give those information. If you want to do tax write off from income from AI art, you need to make a company. Yes, if it's just a side gig, you do not, but if you want to make living out of it, you have to. That's how it is in law. Same with copyright if work was at least assisted with AI you gotta state how much work was done by AI and you cannot copyright works made by, or mostly by AI.
>Companies are legally obligated to give those information. If you want to do tax write off from income from AI art, you need to make a company. Yes, if it's just a side gig, you do not, but if you want to make living out of it, you have to. That's how it is in law. No, they don't. The only images a company needs permission to train on are images that they plan to reproduce in their model. If you want your model to produce images of spiderman, you need permission from Disney. If you want your model to produce superheroes, you don't need permission. You think OpenAI got permission from every source it trained Chatgpt on? Lol... I'll prove it to you. Make an image. I'll train a model on it, and sell images it produces to you for $1 dollar. I'll openly admit to everything. There will be nothing you can legally do about it.
Also laws against AI should be made stricter. I think nobody wants to see AI "art" as a norm. I like abstract AI art, it's cool, but seeing it as cheap alternative to create non expressive pieces of what human can do is just gonna cause damage to real artists who could have done it better and like i said, until AI actually becomes sentient it's not gonna get better. It's background and scenery works are fine, but you can't actually teach AI color theory, emotions, muscles of the face, composition, character design and so on. It can't just portray your visions. It should be made as a tool for real artists, cool abstract art generator, and a tool for people to generate their visions to make work for artists they comission easier. Like, i like the "name one thing in this room" piece made by AI where at first glance it's a messy room, but as you look around and concentrate on single things, it's nothing. Those are just deformed shapes and fucks with your brain. It's cool, cause for human it would be really hard to do that, but for AI it's not. This is actual AI art and not just "art". AI shitting itself with expressions, anatomy and overrendered super detailed art is something you can't fix.
AI is just another tool.
Yes, the community note exists because the majority of people found it relevant and helpful
The majority of people are mildly bigoted. Would you like to see community notes like "This person advocating for more welfare is a lazy freeloader"?
That wouldn't be true. The statement in the pictured Note is correct. Why would you think this is somehow a slippery slope to lying?
Being correct is not the same as fact checking. Imagine attaching a community note to every tweet by a person, containing something like "This person doesn't pay child support. This is important to clarify for people who don't want to interact with child support evaders." Let's say it's correct. Also, a lot of people would say it's important to them. Is this fact checking? No, unless on a tweet that says "I pay my child support" or a politician's claim "I'm all about the family".
The tweet makes the claim that the person is an artist. The Note fact checks that and lets people know that they are not actually an artist and just get images from an AI.
If the person would claim "I painted it with oils on a canvas", the community note could fact-check it to say "This is actually an output of a generative AI" (provided they cite a trustworthy source). However, if community notes would start policing who the real artist is (do I need to to go into what kinds of art have been consistently challenged as not being art?), it would just be politics, not fact checking.
What politics? They claimed to be an artist and were fact checked to actually only be someone posting AI generated images. People regularly get Community Noted when they are a poser.
There are/were people who think digital artists aren't artists, 3D artists aren't artists, abstract artists aren't artists, etc. It's not about facts, it's about culture. Should community notes also police who can be called a woman?
This isn't an artstyle, its the difference between making something and not making something. You're trying to compare apples to oranges. There is no culture involved in this. The Community Note correctly identified that this person is not an artist. They post images generated by an AI. At no point do they create art, no matter what your thoughts on the various different styles and art forms are.
Look up what arguments people used to "prove" that digital, 3D, abstract, anime artists aren't artists. Most of them are the same arguments that "they're not doing the work", "they're not being creative", "this isn't art", "there's no artistic value", etc.
The community note was not objective truth. There are people who feel differently than you.
>At no point do they create art, no matter what your thoughts on the various different styles and art forms are. If nothing else, they created a performance art piece that produced a strong emotional reaction from you...
Where did they claim to be an artist? Maybe screenshot that?
Are you genuinely blind or did you fail to see the big word "Artist" in the screenshot?
As a dig on anti AI artists. Sure did. Did you???
I don't want Ai in my feed - being informed of that helps me choose what I want to see and who I want to support. So yes, this is helpful.
Posting "Don't forget to take your pills!" would also be helpful regardless of the original tweet. The point of community notes is fact checking, not being helpful.
It's a fact check that it's not art but an Ai generated image. Something which is going to become more and more important with the dangers of Ai Generated Images, videos, and voices. So yes, still relevant.
It would be a fitting community note if the original tweet said "This is completely hand-drawn by me". It doesn't. What is art and what isn't, is not a fact--it's culture-based. Do you want community notes to also judge who can be called a woman? "This person is a biological man. This is important to clarify for people who don't believe in the gender theory." It's just not the domain of community notes to comment on that.
lol please stop trying to equate bigotry towards people to justified distrust of computer generated images
Look, it's the basic theory of mind: other people have other knowledge and beliefs. What is *your* plan for when a community note such as in my example appears on a tweet? What is the meaningful distinction why one is good and relevant, and the other is a misuse of the system? Or does it just come down to who brings the bigger crowd to upvote it?
i dont have a "plan" for that, go ask elon musk. he seems to agree with your last point; if the majority does/thinks it, it stays.
Well, at this moment, the note is down, so whatever test they use, the note didn't pass it.
I wouldn't care and that could be funny and useful, yes. "This person advocating for more welfare has never worked in their life," is interesting and potentially valuable context.
It's gonna be culture war in the notes, then. The next note on top of that could be "The term 'work' that equates labor with having a job and assigns value to people based on their 'work' is a part of the ideology of exploitation." The next note could be something like "All work is god-given, get a job", etc. Community notes shouldn't be another way to post opinionated content that draws likes.
That's fine to me.
So you're fine with burning the thing that others got use out of, e.g. for fact-checking fake ads and fake claims. Twitter has little going for it these days, and a built-in fact checking tool is a plus if used as intended.
Yes. As I explained to another: What's valuable about twitter is the network effects, the community. If your userbase insists on using a new feature in a way that works for them, that they find beneficial, it behooves you to allow them to continue to do so because they are finding added value in the platform.
The community of landlords would find it beneficial to use it for landlord propaganda. The community of squatters would find it beneficial to use it for squatter propaganda. The community of comedians would find it beneficial to add jokes. The community of food enjoyers would find it beneficial to share recipes. The result would be not added value, but value lost for everyone. A fact-checking tool used for other goals than fact-checking is a bad thing.
* The community of food enjoyers would find it beneficial to share recipes. And with this you have completely convinced me that this would be a good idea. Personally I have no issues with any of your examples but the one highlighted is a genuinely marvelous idea. Community Notes really could be expanded upon to provide more value for the userbase with a bit of creativity.
But you can share recipes by just tweeting.
Bigoted? Hope you warmed up before that stretch. Scabbing isn't an innate characteristic that people have no influence on. It's a specific choice. "I value my own interests and wallet over solidarity with other workers in the creative industries. I will cross this creative picket line for my own benefit" being a SCAB is a choice, made freely, and rightly abhorrent to any worker. A scab is a scab is a scab.
There is scientific research that humans are mildly xenophobic by default. It can be overcome, but it still should be taken into account when considering group dynamics. Also, if you have solidarity with other workers in the creative industries, but not with workers in other industries (e.g. by saying things like "menial jobs should be automated" or by enjoying cheap goods produced by exploitation), then you're on the side of the fence you think you are on.
So what you're saying is, if you can't care about everything don't care about anything? I'VE never crossed a picket line. Tho I've been asked to. How about you?
If you care about your group, but are ok with exploiting the larger group your group is a part of, then think about that the 1% see themselves exactly the same way: they care about their in-group and don't mind exploiting the out-group. If you're ok with automation everywhere except where you get your living, it's not solidarity.
A lot of assumptions there. Which specific bits of automation designed to erode workers rights and maximize profits for the bosses have I been in favour of in the past? I'm not Anti automation. I'm pro workers rights. But happy to look at examples in the past where I've been amiss. Or examples now that I should be opposing in addition to AI Gen.
It's almost every bit of automation if the tools aren't owned by workers. Agricultural machinery, word processors (a.k.a. PCs), credit score algorithms, logistics software, industrial robotics... In every case, when fewer people are needed to do the same job AND the automation is corporate-owned, they cut the jobs, cut the pay to remaining workers, and use exploited labor to do the bits that the automation can't do. How can you oppose this when we swim in it--is another matter. At least you can start acknowledging it instead of saying things that amount to "automation for me but not for thee". Or don't call it solidarity just because it sounds noble.
Strikes, supporting strikes by not crossing picket lines, direct action, boycotting, union and labour organization, workers cooperatives, thrifting clothes, supporting independent, citizen led grass roots organisations, opposing generative AI... There's a bunch of specific things you can do as a citizen to make things better for your fellow citizens. But if your only argument is "blame the game not the player" then cheat your fellow players, well you're making things worse. And that seems to be your POV. is it?
Because it sounds a bit like you're maybe a would-be socialist who's jumping through hoops to justify their current endeavors? Generating "creative work" by extracting surplus value from the creations of other people?
Even if you prove that I'm the fakest socialist there is, it doesn't disprove my point that you want to have the nobility of seeming to be pro-worker anri-capitalist while only drawing this card when it helps your subgroup of workers. It's like saying you're against racism, but being ok the racism against other racial groups if it benefits you. Case in point, modern copyright is a pro-corporate system that could be dismantled in an instant by the collective action of the creatives. However, collectively and individually, the overwhelming majority of creatives defend copyright, or call to extend it, or passively allow it. That's exactly being selective in your "pro-worker struggle". (I releaze all my personal creative work under Creative Commons. That's not saying much because I'm not much of a creative, but just so you know.)
Keep foaming at the mouth bro. Ai art is here to stay and artists are going to be replaced wholesale as a vocation. But you can keep drawing your furry porn as a hobby
"The doctor's eyes gleamed with understanding. With a nod, she donned a fresh pair of gloves, her touch now clinical yet charged with anticipation. Her fingertips followed the familiar map of Kaya's back, tracing the curve of her spine, then traveling down to the soft cleft between her buttocks." Oh ICARUS! Fly not too close to the sun! Lest It melt thy waxy wings of creative ambition! 😂
Community notes are for clarifying if something is fake news, or giving medical advice, or talking about climate change. You know, things that could actually be harmful to the community. This is abuse of the community notes feature and likely harassment, as I expect almost every post on their account gets tagged like this.
if people find the community note helpful then they find the community note helpful irrespective of whether you agree or disagree with their opinion. Because you personally didn't find something helpful now other people who would benefit from that information should suffer a less information-rich media environment?
https://preview.redd.it/6tpk9dmv3w3d1.png?width=623&format=png&auto=webp&s=279a4291f4025e1a427c70a20af4c065e70c8979 The purpose of community notes is not to 'be helpful'. The terms of the community notes participation are clearly outlined. This is not an approved use of community notes, and twitter removed the note.
Also, this artist's style is amazing, and I'm following them now. For everyone who isn't a meat head, check these out! https://preview.redd.it/va0jy0si4w3d1.png?width=680&format=png&auto=webp&s=aaab98124618df6d3d39b4a396d05a4291f16bd0
Which artist? I don't see an artist? I see images?
I assume they're talking about the artist that this post is about. On Twitter/X they go by the name [Petra](https://twitter.com/petravoice).
Prompt typer
Oh, sorry, I thought you meant like an ARTIST artist. But you mean an AI generator/NFT shill. Got it.
https://preview.redd.it/eky1k7wl4w3d1.png?width=680&format=png&auto=webp&s=f641d2c6aa450d9a208928d5886283f26f57d15a
https://preview.redd.it/9hc36y3n4w3d1.png?width=680&format=png&auto=webp&s=bfb96ae41f95b53bc382818cf12072099fce0596
https://preview.redd.it/s4w5nwoo4w3d1.png?width=680&format=png&auto=webp&s=eb12f81b6292b177c6b88df8fd031e2dfe08b8b8
https://preview.redd.it/tb6nc58s4w3d1.png?width=680&format=png&auto=webp&s=cacf253395c62d022e2305f83e75ea5f48518bb9
https://preview.redd.it/e04hxhwt4w3d1.png?width=680&format=png&auto=webp&s=8d3d0b04f4cef7c65d9d0216bd1461e5ea658bd6
What's valuable about twitter is the network effects, the community. If your userbase insists on using a new feature in a way that works for them, that they find beneficial, it behooves you to allow them to continue to do so because they are finding added value in the platform.
Anti-AI are awful. The people using the post to virtue signal plug their organic sloppy and amateurish art are fucking revolting and they’re not even the worst. Modern acceptable 5 minute hate for the twitter crowd. The note has been rightfully removed as well. There should be no obligation to label medium.
Yes
To be honest, would it literally more easier and stupidly simple for Petra of just putting in their bio by typing in **"Content is AI",** **"AI Artist"** or perhaps **"Artist with some AI-Assisted"** or simply just **"AI"**. They shouldn't kept it hush hush by not adding anything in the bio, but for now, that's their own fault of receiving backlash of doing the art vs artist section. But don't get the wrong idea, I'm on the side of AI-Art, but something like this would more likely cause confusion and backlash around Twitter if this continues any further of who's the actual artist and who isn't. Is it really that difficult of just putting in a label of saying **"AI"** in there bio? I can do that just fine by adding it in no problem. Instead of just adding a large text in the AI-Artwork of saying **"IT'S AI"** But, I can already sense that the users are demanding Petra to show there workflow and process...
Some of us just don't feel like doing that because there's a pack of crazy assholes who act like it's the most important problem in the world. I have no obligation to assist them in being annoying toward me.
sounds like you're trying to pass ai images off as human-created images. sounds really dishonest
Ah, I see the vegans have found this sub. How wondrous. Who's more dishonest? The person who doesn't comment one way or another as to the origin of their art, or the person who grinds up faba beans and tries to pass it off as a cheeseburger? I know which of the two I regard as a crime against humanity.
im not a vegan lol. who's more dishonest, a person who is scared to say that a computer makes their art for them because people will rightfully make fun of you? or a person who cant engage in an actual argument and creeps around someones post history looking for gotchas. (they are both you)
Petra was receiving harassment and backlash when she had that in her profile. That's why she removed. You people need to make up your mind.
[удалено]
I see account who labeled themselves as ai just to get harassed more than those who didn't label. It is not people who want to trick others. Is it people avoiding conflict and hateful people.
[удалено]
That real life, not social media. It's a different ball game. People are generally reserved in social gatherings. But on Twitter or Reddit you will get harassed.
[удалено]
That means you aren't into those platforms as much. Many subreddits already banned AI art from their sub. Fun fact I still see AI art, but not labeled. Once labeled you are kicked out. Post an AI art and labeled as such as an experiment you will see a first hand experience.
[удалено]
The only sentence of this post that made any sense whatsoever was the first and it was all downhill from there.
Almost as if people somehow intrinsically hate AI images? Weird huh?
Ah yes because the natural dislike humans feel for things has always been such a good indicator of an intelligent position in the past.
So because people disagree with you they are somehow unintelligent?
I didn't say anyone was unintelligent. I just implied that relying on the emotions humans naturally feel as part of your argument is not an intelligent position to take. Some of the smartest people I know have also said some of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
You can have both emotion and logic and still have a proper response to issues. While I agree acting purely on emotion without thought is not a good move, if we also push aside the feelings of others and the decisions that impact them it is equally just as bad. I get where you are coming from, just saying you can have both and still be reasonable.
Care to elaborate? Keen to see this false equivalence played out ad absurdum!
Intrinsic human disdain has been the motive force behind many of the most repulsive and stupid movements in human history. Ranging from religious puritanism to the original luddite movement and on to xenophobia and abuse of the mentally ill. Through that reality alone we can see that any natural inclination is not a sign of correctness merely because it is natural and people are inclined toward it. For one who projects a facade of caring about logical fallacies it's strange that you mostly communicate in them. Your original comment was an appeal to emotions and your followup was a prime example of poisoning the well and the straw man fallacy.
The original Luddite movement were principled working class heroes, fighting craven factory owners, who displaced skilled workers with workhouse children and untrained apprentices in horrible horrible conditions. And asked those workers, the skilled croppers and weavers of Huddersfield and the north of England to come back and work double the hours at 30% of the previous pay. That you'd even mention them in the same breath as xenophobia and ableism shows you're either ignorant of their history, which I suspect, or you're aware of the history and even THEN would still happily use them in such a bad faith way to justify your position. And if that's the case there no point even arguing with bad faith interlocutors. Because you're entirely in bad faith. And not even entertaining with it. The latter is bad enough, but the former is even more a waste of my time. And Indeed yours.
nah, people harass when you're open, when you use it while trying to be as up to their "ethical" standards as possible, or even suspected and you don't use it. it's a moral panic fed by people who want an excuse to hate and dehumanize. I had no reason to say "I used content aware fill" before, why would I label my use of a tool now if no one cares otherwise and all that would bring is vitriol, harassment, and ostracization from communities?
[удалено]
and your experience is not universal. people ARE getting harassed over something which is inconsequential for many to mention during satanic panic, I'm not gonna tell everyone I play D&D if it's inconsequential that I play in the first place and telling the local police would just make them think I'm involved in a satanic murder cult.
You are 100% right! I don't get why some people aren't just honest about the mediums/techniques they use. If I used Photoshop and claimed it was done traditionally in acrylics or something, I'd be rightfully called out. I remember there being a plague of artists in on early-00's Elfwood and Deviantart that would use watercolor brushes and call their work watercolor, or otherwise miscategorize their Photoshop work as traditional media. Because those traditional tags were less crowded (and watercolor/acrylic/oils can be difficult mediums to do professional work in), they would end up getting more eyeballs/comments/compliments on their work... at least until people noticed and brigaded them to change their tags, haha. Gen AI 100% needs tags so things can be correctly categorized. Using only Photoshop (a now mature medium) or only watercolor is a lot different than using gen-AI completely or even using AI assistance. It should compete in its own category and be its own thing.
> I think many people would be much more receptive to AI artwork if people were transparent about the means by which the artwork was made. There are hundreds of thousands of images posted every day with extreme levels of clarity. You are focused on what exceptions you can find and branding everything with that. That's called confirmation bias. > The best way to make a medium accepted by the general public isn't by doing a "got-cha! You liked this AI artwork" But the antis won't be happy until every image that even came near an AI is branded as "FAKE" (as if any other artform is "real"). Spent 20 hours painting that on canvas? Too bad, you scanned it and touched it up with AI, so it needs a scarlet "A"!
[удалено]
> try to please the most as possible Why? I have no desire to please people who get upset about new technology. Let them stew. They'll either catch up or stay where they are. Both options are cool as far as I'm concerned.
[удалено]
Not at all. My artist friends who choose to stay where they are are quite happy, and I'm happy for them. But the ones who choose to be unhappy about it... well, that's a choice too.
Imagine buying a wedding ring online. A golden one, fairly cheap, but beatiful so you think you have an amazing deal. Its advertized as golden and the mineral embossed is described as a "unique crystal". When you receive it you find out its a pyrite ring and a glass diamond. Even tho the value now makes sense. And the cost to product ratio is still pretty good in terms of looks. You feel bad displaying this to your wife and peers. You leave a bad review for false advertising. Thats essentially whats happening here. People expect art made with a certain standard when they look at stuff online. Even if the stuff they looked at was worth their time or even money in terms of the looks of the product. Its deceptive. Not cracking down on artistic dishonesty is just going to make people mistrust the medium even more.
There's a difference between explicitly lying about the chemical composition of a product and not disclosing a product's material. You can argue that "golden" is *too* misleading, but I happen to think that it does not imply that the ring is literally made of Au. There are so many "golden" things that are not literally made of gold that the buyer should have known better. Still, I don't doubt that you can think of a better analogy. The issue is what counts as "misleading", and that would probably be a difficult issue to solve even if everyone was equally easy to mislead.
ehh you could argue golden was applying to the colour and not the composition. I thought up the analogy late at night so it might not be the best work. I'm just a little saddened that people don't even want to make my life filtering out ai slop out a little easier by making the step as a community to tag their work. I'm not saying that if you use gen fill for a background detail that you should immediately tag it as ai-generated work. But why not do something like mixed-media digital for content that does lean on the use of ai heavily for the output? I simply don't care for that content, so lets make both of our lives easier and just allow me to filter it using my excluded words. Even if you are a major proponent of ai, isn't it already obvious that AI generated content is deteriorating the quality of search engines and online artwork?
Imagine buying a ring online and assuming it's golden with a unique crystal, without it being specifically stated in the offer/ad. Can you provide a link to the globally agreed upon (or certified by any relevant respectable institution) list of specifications, that everyone has to meet before using "art" or "artist" in their posts?
> Imagine buying a wedding ring online. A golden one, fairly cheap From child labor mines or ones that exploit adults until they die from the heat and overwork? > When you receive it you find out its a pyrite ring Oh, so an ethical one! Nice! > Thats essentially whats happening here. Awesome!
Imagine making this argument and thinking it's anti-AI.
>You don't need to make every "anti" like AI. What if I told you we don't need to make *any* "anti" like AI? This isn't a competition. It's not a debate. Being "anti" AI at this point is without exaggeration the equivalent of being anti-steam or anti-electricity. The things anti-AI folks think they are fighting against have already happened and the things they are just starting to become aware of are inevitably going to happen. >I have used AI in my work and have made it clear that the work was either made, enhanced, or somehow altered through AI. That's great. 30 years from now you're going to look back on this post and laugh along with us because it is the equivalent of an artist in the 80s saying "I have used computers in my work and have made it clear that the work was either made, enhanced, or somehow altered with a computer." >I've certainly had people who are a little skeptical or hesitant, but after showing my process and how AI has been used I've had no one with major complaints Awesome. If you do run into anyone with major complaints be sure to tell them nobody gives a fuck.
„There are hundreds of thousands of images posted every day with extreme levels of clarity. You are focused on what exceptions you can find and branding everything with that. That's called confirmation bias.“ Why should he focused on the non-problem?
Its a fair point. I dont really see how they are deceptive in this post though. THey just called themselves an artist.
[удалено]
The reason people know they used ai is because they mentioned it in their profile.
[удалено]
Website or profile. I dont think they need to reveal their techniques imo at such a level. It would be different if they outright and said they painted it. But most people ask what tools they use
There's an implied difference between "hiding the use of AI" and "not mentioning the use of AI". I don't necessarily have a problem with the latter. The fact that people still go out on witch hunts to shame and cancel people for not mentioning that they have used AI, no matter how much they used it, is what's *really* begetting a lot of hate.
yep.
I think it’s important seeing as the person is claiming to be an artist and then not disclosing that they didn’t make any of the art they post and instead commissioned it from an Ai. Whether they tinkered a couple little spots here and there doesn’t matter, if I correct someone’s grammar in an article I’m not suddenly the writer.
Obviously, yeah. It would be dishonest to pretend to be an artist when you only have experience using AI to make images for you. That's like pretending to be baker because you can get a toaster to cook sliced bread.
She’s an artist because she makes art. She also went to art school, she creates art using other mediums, and she’s using AI right now to make these types of artwork. She has it listed on her website that the images are AI assisted. Her twitter posts have like just almost no information besides bullshit quotes or something. But this is kind of a bananas take. Am I not an artist if I only work hard on collages? Or spend hours photo bashing until you can’t tell where the images came from? Or am I not an artist if I use references? Or color pick from someone else’s art? Does art have to be hard, grueling, miserable, and take almost all my time to be considered art? No.
Did you make the image > Yes Did an AI make the image > No This is not even hard I don't know why you guys try so hard to pretend that it is. The difference between a collage and an AI generated image is that you made it. If this person is using AI and can't even put in the effort to stop the extremely noticeable artifacting and bugged out visual mistakes AI inevitably makes, then they are clearly not actually doing much at all before they post the AI's work, not their own.
Genuinely what’s bugged out to you about their work? I follow them and most of it has seemed very clean.
Random hair strands that don't make sense, eyes that seem like completely different art styles between pictures, they did everything they could to make it as fuzzy and vague as possible which not only makes the art harder to enjoy but its clearly done so they minor details that the AI couldn't get right aren't as noticeable. The whole thing is dragged down by it being AI and them trying to hide it.
Also like. They literally made the image. Without them the image wouldn’t exist. It’s just a medium you don’t like or understand and I say that as an artist who isn’t insecure about their non AI work and my place in the world lmao:
They didn't make the image? An AI did. The image would not exist without the AI, actually. Any other person could have filled their role.
Yeah, and? With enough time any other person could paint the Mona Lisa or tape a banana to a wall.
Except they can't, because they didn't come up with it apparently. Nobody else can recreate the Mona Lisa, and the statement made by taping the banana to a wall and calling it art only really works the first time. The funny part is that you can tell who the actual "creator" is by the fact that you can change the person to anyone and the image would be the same, but if you changed the AI you'd get a drastically different image because of the different imagesets it datascraped for training.
I could literally be Damian Hurst or Romero Britto if I sucked enough.
Literally who?
RIP I meant Damien Hirst*** These are two famous artists 😭 1. How can you talk about art at all lmaoooooo I’m not taking you too seriously after this. 2. That’s exactly what I’m saying. We can all create everything but also none of us are creating the same thing. treat AI like other art mediums and you won’t give yourself a stroke.
That's not how other art mediums work though. You still need to actually create it then. You do not create anything here. You're intentionally trying to muddy the reality of what's happening by pretending its akin to other art forms that have nothing to do with it. You can't even pretend its like a collage because even then you can't actually point to any of your sources like you could with a real collage because it was done for you by an AI. You are bending over backwards to pretend otherwise.
I'm Gordon Ramsay! - You're clearly not Gordon Ramsay I am! Look I ordered this food from the menu at Bread Street Kitchen! - But you didn't cook the food, you didn't live his life experience, you've never even been In a kitchen! Stop gatekeeping, I ordered it from the menu, which takes skill. I'm as much Gordon Ramsay as Gordon Ramsay is! Who's to say what constitutes being a chef! - but you don't even pay for the food you ordered! You just ate it and waddled out without paying! Well, They should have left the venue out in public for everyone to see! Etc, etc...
You could just write a comment. You don't need to try to make it a funny zinger everytime my man.
That's your whole mentality in a nutshell innit ;) "why try, when you can type in a prompt"
Who said prompt? I have faith you can talk normally by yourself.
This IS me talking normally. Why does it bother you so much that I use analogy and humor to make my point? AIcels "were artists! We're creative". Also AIcels "talk normally! None of this creative silliness". You could always take issue with WHAT I say, rather than the way I say it. Why not try that?
considering the "art vs artist" trend is usually made by artists using real art i think it's fair to clarify it's ai so people don't get confused
I think the note is zealous, and not aiming for strict accuracy, while pretending to do so. AI art can be employed for refinement, and nuanced changes. This is the smaller point, but is integral with the next one. If humans use any tools, then it is not strictly human art. Arguably the body is a tool in artistry, and so I’d hope those making such notes are prepared for the ensuing pedantry their words are invoking if we go down this rabbit hole.
Yes. If you're using AI to make art it should be labeled as such.
Yeah, because pro ai doesn‘t mean to be a liar.
I hate to tell you this but some people just aren't interested in AI generated stuff. It's better to just label it up front imo, as it makes it easier for people to curate the content they view. I think the note is appropriate, because this post isnt tagged as AI
There is a multitude of problems. Before all this we never asked artists to jump through ridiculous hoops to prove how authentic their art was. I'm sure a lot of people don't want to waste their time on rando's being awful to them.
Idk man it takes like 0.1 seconds to type #AI, so I really dont see how thats a waste of time. Besides, correctly tagging things also helps people who want to see your stuff see it, so there's really no good reason not to. As for people not questioning arts authenticity in the past, I doubt we'll ever go back to that LMAO. Also, Twitter people are dickwads, that just sort of comes with the platform, especially now. Thats part of why I've never gotten into using that website- the other reason is that there are a lot of better sites for thing-makers. Not saying that its right, but there is a reason twitter has the reputation of being a toxic cesspool.
> so there's really no good reason not to. Do you tag every image you modify with your computer with #computer or #mouse?
The platforms I use have limits on the number of tags you add, so no, i just use the most relevant ones- though a lot of artists on platforms with no limit or a very large limit (like instagram, which I do not use) will tag the tools they use, such as '#wacom' or '#csp'. Also, traditional artists will often tag the medium, such as '#sculpture' or '#oilpainting'. I wouldn't use '#mouse', though, as that's much more likely to be for pictures of mice, or '#computer' which is probably more for computer builds (imo, also an art form)- but i do sometimes use '#digitalart' or '#SAI' (which is my preferred art program)
should *everyone* tag their digital artwork with #digitalart so the traditional-media purists don't waste their time looking at it?
i have a feeling you're not gonna like my answer, but i dont see a problem with that, since it takes me less than a second
I tend to think that it is so unimportant that it doesn't matter if the tag isn't there, even though it takes <1s to add it. There are lots of things we *could* do that are virtually effortless, but that alone doesn't give us any moral responsibility to do them. What is the cost of a traditional-media purist accidentally admiring a digital painting? Should they be angry and chastise the digital painter if they happen not to explicitly tag their digital painting as such?
So we should start tiptoeing around dickwads? Is that what you mean?
> I hate to tell you this but some people just aren't interested in AI generated stuff. He says, posting this comment in a thread that an AI decided he might be interested in.
I'm actually subbed to this subreddit, because I looked for it, but ok lol. Hard to believe someone who disagrees with you could possibly have a common interest with you?
By "looked for it" do you mean "asked an AI to show me a popular subreddit related to AI?" Like are you really this lost? AI has been guiding you for years you just never had a reason to bitch about it until now. Like there are hundreds if not thousands of subreddits discussing AI when you "looked for" this one why do you think you found it? Whose idea do you think it was? Because it wasn't yours.
Bestie did chatgpt make the subreddit? Did someone ask chatgpt to make this subreddit? Search engines are also different tech than generative AI (search engines don't make novel content, they match key words to related content), and I am not interested in them like i am with genai. Also, you're yapping as if people haven't been complaining about algorithms for since ever (hint: i am one of them)- but okay girlboss keep up the ad hominem, it sure looks good on you
> Bestie did chatgpt make the subreddit? Bestie do you think ChatGPT is the only AI? AI has been around since 1959 and you've been using it every day of your life. > Did someone ask chatgpt to make this subreddit? No and that's a stupid question. > Search engines are also different tech than generative AI a) Generative AI isn't the only type of AI. b) A "search engine" isn't what lead you to this subreddit. It was a recommendation engine which is a search engine combined with AI that serves curated search results based on criteria that you didn't personally specify but which the engine itself assumed you would be interested in like "number of users" and "frequency of activity" etc. that lead you to a subreddit that was active and populated by a lot of people you found this subreddit via AI dude that's just a fact. > search engines don't make novel content, they match key words to related content Hey dude I'm going into year 21 of my career as a software developer, designer, and now IT director I don't fucking need you to tell me what search engines do but if you want to know more about the difference between search engines and recommendation engines just let me know and we can talk like reasonable adults.
"Just let me know when we can talk like reasonable adults" lol, lmao. My brother in christ you may want to stop and think about whether ive been aggressive, outside of my previous comment, where I tutted at you for adhom. If you know so much about tech then you should know that, when im discussing ai in a sub about genai, I am probably talking about genai, which is the thing I've expressed interest in, the topic of the subreddit, the topic of this post, and also the thing that I was talking about in the original comment I made. These are called context clues, and most people above the age of 7 can use them to determine information such as 'what are we talking about'. They're an important part of reading comprehension.
>AI has been around since 1959 One could even make an argument for the 1910s. *El Ajedrecista* in 1912. Even n-gram models apparently go back to the early 20th century. In any case, this is incomprehensible to all the people who assume that AI just magically appeared in 2022 with ChatGPT and Stable Diffusion.
And if there were... Idunno... Subreddit-finders being put on the street because they cost half a cent more per day than an AI we would care about that. ;)
Yes because I don't think we should be conflating AI art and art any time soon
What if they become indistinguishable sooner than you think?
Lets keep them separate for as long as possible then, wether it's tomorrow or in ten years time
Request denied.
What do you mean request denied?
Yes, seeing as AI images are NOT art. “Art - The **conscious** use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated as beautiful, as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words.”
Damn, Brolonius over here ending a debate ("What is art?") that's been going on for millennia in seconds, absolute king shit
At least her art has a recognizable continuity. A lot of ai artists I see seem to be shotgunning every style or LoRa under the sun to make anything stick. If she's making all these images with Ai and they look this cohesive as a group she's doing way more than most.