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

91–100 of 356 posts

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#91

Post by Axauv »

When digital effects and CGI began to replace stop-motion monster effects in movies, the stop motion artists screamed that art made on a computer was not art, and that their industry would be lost.

Nowadays we know better, not only is digital art accepted everywhere on earth, it's almost expected, and as for the stop-motion folks, they're still in business! Movies still come out every year, some of them with huge budgets (like Coraline) that use stop-motion because it has a certain look and feel that is all its own. AI art will only get better, but so will the ways we use it, and the people who are actually ARTISTS will be the furthest ahead, and leading the way.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#93

Post by PuppyTailWags »

zackmorris wrote: post #66
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…

I'll always remember 2022 as the year that creativity died. That sounds a bit negative I guess, but techniques like stable diffusion will be applied to other problem domains, so all other art forms like music and creative writing will be automated within the next 5-10 years. And if computers can do that, they can do anything. Because that's how our brains work. Our neurons are microscopic filters magnifying patterns…

I think things will categorically change about how we define art in the next little while. We may see an increase of parasocial-style livestream art drawing, so the illustrator isn't just an illustrator but specifically a personality attached (an exaggeration of the current artist-art relationship commonly known today). We may also determine AI-generated art is simply in another category, like photography, CGI, digital, and traditional portraits are all considered different categories. I can imagine human-generated novels and AI-generated novels are neatly separated, with associated scandals if a human attempts to pass an AI-generated novel as their own creation (scandals already currently exists for humans who eg. a romance writer recently got in trouble for lifting paragraphs from fanfic they didn't write into their original fiction).

There's nothing to say that creativity will die. We invented typewriters, but calligraphy is still an art whose pens and inks are beloved interests. We invented the digital screen and the paper machines, but handmade paper and hand-stitched book binding is still an artist's pursuit.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#94

Post by Natsu »

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…

Have you seen the 'in-painting' technique yet? You can write prompts for each element of an image you want, erase the parts you don't like, position them on the canvas, and make SD fill in the blanks.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#95

Post by Natsu »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #16
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #5

> Left unchecked, it’s not hard to imagine AI art crowding out illustrations that took days or weeks for someone to make. This reminds me of what someone from the 1800's would say: "If left unchecked, it is not hard to imagine photography crowding out paintings that took days or weeks for someone to make." Or several thousand years ago when the pottery wheel was invented. Or when humans learned to cast metals instead…

This reminds me of what someone from the 8 years from now will say if this is left unchecked I also will be out of a job like those useless artists all were.

I don't think artists will be out of demand any more than fast food has made people stop eating out.

I do think it will cannibalize the lower end of art such that it becomes like working at a fast food joint, though.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#96

Post by Axauv »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #82

Aside from the debates about "artistic merit" and the ethics of using AI trained on existing artists' work, one of the key things is that this new technology allows anyone to flood a place with images. There are some scifi-themed subreddits that I visit that allow posting art, and at this point it feels like 50% of all submissions are Midjourney/Dall-E generated art. Fine, it looks ok, but there's such a low barrier…

This could be solved on basically all arti communities by simply putting in a post limit per day. Say an artist can only upload 5 images per day or something, why would someone need to upload more than that?

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#97

Post by ShamelessC »

nottorp wrote: post #49
Kiro wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

It is more than capable of producing stuff that isn’t even in its dataset as the original DALLE paper shows.

Inference takes 4 seconds on an A100, I’d say that makes it useful for a wide range of applications that weren’t even possible before.

I do agree that the outputs will lack a sense of communication with the viewer that art has.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#99

Post by bheadmaster »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #83
helloworld11 wrote: post #61

For artists who continue to paint, or use other physical means of expression through base materials and sell them as physical works, this entire AI art surge remains largely irrelevant in a practical sense. A buyer or patron who wants real, physical art will still need and want real, physical art, and I don't see an AI imitating much of that easily any time soon. The people or organizations to which AI-churned art ap…

I don't know if I agree. One of the big sources of income for online artists is commissions of D&D characters and such; AI-generated art is now getting good enough that people can get a "good-enough" version of what they want for free, instead of paying an artist $50 or $100 for a piece of art. I've commissioned art for my D&D character before, and I'll almost certainly do so again - but if I'm playing a one-shot onl…

People have been losing their jobs because of technology ever since the industrial revolution, each one of them enraged about it, and rightfully so. Society doesn't care about people who've put their whole lives into a skill that suddenly became worthless (or much less valuable then it was).

The solution is not to ban technology (you can't really ban technology, as it's not under total government control) - the solution is to enable anyone to pursue new skills without fear of homelessness and starvation. I.e. Universal Basic Income.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#100

Post by bigcheesegs »

mherdeg wrote: post #70
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…

As a non-artist whose compensation is, so far, unaffected by ML-generated images, I'm more interested in the effects the technology has on people. Over the past 150 years it became possible to compute cube roots in milliseconds, instead of minutes. Slide rules became obsolete, and the things we learn to do do arithmetic changed. Over the past 20 years, the way we look up arbitrary facts changed. We learned to constru…

I think the much more likely outcome is further research on making the prompts smarter and more human like.
Post reply on HN