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

131–140 of 356 posts

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#131

Post by lifthrasiir »

minimaxir wrote: post #125
lifthrasiir wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many clearly think it's a photocopier. As if StableDiffusion is hiding copies of all these works inside. In my latest series of tweets [1] I tried to argue that this is not the case in a less technical way, not sure if I was successful though. For anyone not fluent in Korean, my argument was as follows: Stable Diffusion was trained with a data set composed of about 2.32 billion text-image pairs. The model itself by…

Textual inversion also takes an entire concept (including context, style, and 3D attributes) and fits it into 768 float32s / 4KB.

That's a different topic, as you need the entire model to "decompress" that 4 KB data. I'm talking about the model itself.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#132

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#133

Post by anigbrowl »

GravitasFailure wrote: post #55
ortusdux wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone needs to make an AI art detector and name it Voight-Kampff. Ironically, it would be a great application for machine learning.

Wholly appropriate since Blade Runner 2049 had Replicants hunting other Replicants.

You need to go back and watch the first one again.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#134

Post by ilaksh »

oulipo wrote: post #52

It's interesting to think about it, what differentiate art from a human or a machine. It can't be the content itself, because now machine output is close to a human output (modulo the small details). So what make those communities attracted to art made by humans, rather than art made by machines? It must be the "act of community" itself, which cannot be made by a machine (it is useless to be "in community" with a con…

Has nothing to do with that. It's two things. Artists are threatened, and also right now a lot that is being submitted is low quality.

So if you are an artist you don't like seeing a bunch of AI junk on your home page just because a lot is junk but also, because one can assume that it will continue to improve so that that most of it really is competing with artists.

So that could put a lot of people out of work since it would make art-related business models much more competitive.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#135

Post by parrellel »

How do you deal with the chatbot problem in visual media. It's still Eliza, but without the obviousness of text, how can you tell its just Eliza?

I wonder if their will be a similar evolution in art circles as in chat. What questions and answers about the composition will out the AI generated pieces as mechanical in nature, or if our ability to parse images is different enough from our ability to comprehend speech and text, that it will legitimately be impossible to suss out.

The big problem right now is just sheer volume. Just piles of auto-generated crap burying months of work. That definitely needs to stop, rate limiting or banning seems an appropriate way to deal with the misbehavior.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#136

Post by calibas »

stolenmerch wrote: post #88
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…

Same here. Software dev with an MFA in Studio Art. Generative Art was a topic 20 years ago in school and my feeling it was politely tolerated as conceptual, but not aesthetic. The difference now is that the models and algorithms and amount of data actually produce decent results. GPT-3 writing as opposed to the markov chain experimental writing decades ago is profound. Image creation even more so. I see exactly this…

Generative art produced "decent results" 20 years ago, it just took a skilled artist instead of typing the right prompt into Midjourney.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#137

Post by biftek »

filoleg wrote: post #74
biftek wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typing a prompt into DALLE does not take effort and it does not make you an artist. Don't kid yourself that the people generating art and submitting it to these sites are the same ones writing and training the AI.

"Pressing a shutter button on your camera and tweaking a few parameters in settings does not take effort and it does not make one an artist." I think we have established by now that photography is art, so your argument doesn't feel like it would stand the test of time much. Just like the photography one didn't.

I think you're just proving my point actually, being able to take photos doesn't make everyone an artist or every photo art. To take truly great photos you still need to understand basics like composition and lighting (just like illustration and painting) which do take effort, and your still not guaranteed to get good photos.

A camera, like AI, is simply a tool and it's no doubt already helping artists, but to think typing a prompt into a website somehow makes you an artist on its own is foolish.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#138

Post by mc32 »

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 think art communities should have the ability to set parameters for what they accept. Whether it be something like "only African artists" or "only Holga cameras." If for this one, only generated by people, so be it. If someone wants to set up a community that only accepts AI-generated images, then that's okay too.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#139

Post by dmje »

I'm fascinated by this.

So "AI" art isn't ok. But presumably Photoshop as a tool to create artworks is ok? What about some of the filters and plugins available?

What about if you use AI as a tool to prepare art that you then make yourself? I was looking at SD and thinking this - I make linocuts and have been experimenting with using it to create layer ideas that I then cut by hand. Is this ok?

What about using AI purely as a prompt? I tried just "linocut in 3 colours of a seascape" and got a whole nice bunch of starting ideas. Is this ok?

Seems to be that there's a huge amount of nuance here that's pretty fascinating to watch / talk about.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#140

Post by cerol »

cardanome wrote: post #89
zackmorris wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As a hobbyist game developer, 2022 is the year my creativity can finally fully unleashed. Prototyping games is getting so much better, this will really help indies game studies quite a bit. Will those AI generated assets replace hand crafted ones? Heck no! Have you ever tried doing AI art? What gets posted on social media are the few successful experiments. Most AI generated stuff is absolute crap. Getting anything u…

> Now yes, you can quickly make generic background #20233 with it or simply something weird that would fit into some bad dream. If you need something specific and coherent though? Yeah, this will be very hard.

The demos look amazing because there is no acceptance criteria. Anything gets hailed as "groundbreaking" because is process is novel. Which is a completely different scenario from what you expect from someone actually being paid for making art.

Post reply on HN