Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

waxy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 356 posts

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#41

Post by jxy »

ryeguy_24 wrote: post #10

They should also ban people that have seen more art than others as they may be inadvertently creating derivative artwork from their more thoroughly trained real neural network in their brain. Purposely being facetious, but seriously, we will likely see more and more of these type of rules being applied to competitions or groups. It will be harder and harder to define the rules. At some point, it becomes moot. Did I d…

How can they draw the line between AI and non-AI assisted art? What about a gaussian kernel filter? How about adding a saturation enhancer? How about putting a few of those together and let's play with the parameters a bit for fun?

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#42

Post by TheMaskedCoder »

Kiro wrote: post #28
Jevon23 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the models that are available for public use today, there are still usually signs, particularly when it comes to drawings of humans.

Sounds like a good opportunity for an "AI image detection"-as-a-Service.

Is it possible to automate detection of automation? If you can create an algorithm that detects the difference between AI art and human art, wouldn't that algorithm itself be able to create a new AI art algorithm that it itself could not detect?

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#43

Post by aero-glide2 »

Janicc wrote: post #6

It's going to be interesting to see how this is going to get enforced in the likely future in which AI art becomes in every way indistinguishable from human art.

A lot of AI art is already indistinguishable. Mid Journey is especially artsy.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#44

Post by falcolas »

Individual art communities should be allowed to decide to only accept art created by a particular set of tools. Oil. Acrylic. Mixed Media. Watercolor. Chalk. Pencil. Digital. Photoshop. AI. And so forth.

It's a matter of curation in my mind, not discrimination, and not really outrage worthy.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#45

Post by polygamous_bat »

This will become even more interesting as digital art softwares start including "AI brushes" and such that include subtle tweaks to the established process. AI generated art made in 40 seconds could be banned, but what would happen to the AI assisted works, churned out by an artist in 10 minutes instead of 10 hours?

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#46

Post by [deleted] »

horsawlarway wrote: post #30
Jevon23 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can just focus on obvious cases: people that upload new images at an astounding rate, people who forget to remove the AI watermarks, and people who simply admit to using AI. No need to turn it into a witch hunt where you accuse everyone of using AI.

It will 100% turn into a constant witch hunt - I can absolutely promise it. Want an easy reference? See First Person Shooter games. Turns out that once the computer can mostly do the job, you will see: 1. Constant use of the computer for that job 2. Constant accusations of using the computer in places that restrict it. See basically every online FPS community that exists. And that's with incredibly invasive software…

[deleted]

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#47

Post by onion2k »

coldcode wrote: post #37
Kiro wrote: post #9

Challenge accepted. How will they know?

My normal artwork (digital) is 9000x9000 pixels up to about 14400x14400. Good luck getting any of them to make something bigger than 1024x1024. Sure, you can use Gigapixel to upres things, but in the end it's basically impossible to make a decent artwork using ML at the moment. I only use Dall-E for offbeat ideas for geometric abstractions, so far Stable Diffusion sucks for that purpose. Of course when you upload at…

I believe most of these models only use 1k images so they really can't make anything bigger yet. Maybe someday but not today.

This is the sort of thing that changes incredibly quickly. I'd guess that a big chunk of the source data will be in 8K within a year or two.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#48

Post by zasdffaa »

gdubs wrote: post #29

I have a degree in Studio Arts in addition to being a software developer (and recently I've started making a lot of creative work with AI). Back when I was in school, there was already plenty of debate about 'what is "Art"'? It's always been hotly contested. Most of my teachers felt that 'technique' was not Art. Others were more purists – life painters, etc – and felt that, no, technique is art. Duchamp poked the art…

This is the kind of comment about art that is measured, constructive, non-absolutist, and too rare on HN in posts about art (and urban dictionary has an entry for 'reverse monet' cos I wondered, but I'd skip that one if I were you).

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#49

Post by nottorp »

Kiro wrote: post #24
hericium wrote: post #19

The problem I see here is that ML-generated art may be based on real art. While human painter may repeat style of fragments of work of other artist as homage, computer software does it more as plagiarism. This isn't much different than issues surrounding Microsoft GitHub Copilot.

And neither would constitute as plagiarism by the legal definition of it. Yes, it's a problem that they are trained on material without consent but what they produce is something totally new and not even close to plagiarism.

> what they produce is something totally new

It is? I may be cursed with a good memory but absolutely no "AI art" that my friends passed on to me looked original. In some cases it was painfully obvious what it's based on, in other cases it just felt like i've seen it before.

Legal it may be (although there will be conflicts about machine generated derivative works) but it's also boring.

People are just enthusiastic because it's "do it with a computer". If a young human artist came up with this stuff you'd tell them they're good technically but now they need to develop their own personality.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#50

Post by nottorp »

DefineOutside wrote: post #2

They should also ban creating digital art, as digital art takes less effort than paper.

> as digital art takes less effort than paper.

Hmm I've seen someone draw/paint on both paper and an iPad. It didn't look to me that she was much faster on digital. But then it was original art not copies of something.

Post reply on HN