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

141–150 of 356 posts

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#141

Post by Nadya »

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.

So is most real art. In fact - artists have even created a dedicated terms to this kind of plagiarism: "style study" or even "reference". You can look for this term on YouTube and find a nearly endless result of artists basing art off of the style of other artists. [0]

It is 100% legal for me to blatantly copy the artistic style of Ilya Kuvshinov. I could even sell such work as my own - because it would be. I'd be seen as a derivative or knock-off artist but it can be done. As far as I can tell the real issue is that the AI does it far better - and much faster - than people can. Creating heavily derivative works that, if nonfamiliar with Kuvshinov's work, could possibly be mistaken as being theirs.

That the AI has learned that artist signatures/watermarks are a "feature" of some artwork and so sometimes adds its own has only reinforced people's mistaken belief that it is stealing art when that simply isn't how neural networks like this work at all.

Speaking of - how many people doing style studies of Ilya's work reached out for permission first? I'd wager zero. Because that isn't a thing artists tend to reach out and ask for permission to do. So why should an AI be expected to ask permission first?

[0] Quite literally only to illustrate my point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrvZTeLP96E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DadJAu0Ogs

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/gc8DhwMZDKU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U4RSCK-Tn0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPWOy7NxYho

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nc--w5NfCM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0K3F9al2Js

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5l8y1HZ1zc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDRS9im1q4s

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4zBoHcIo4mc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0cXa9WxFVQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDhtkWRY9qk

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#142

Post by andybak »

mistrial9 wrote: post #128
bobthepanda wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it will be interesting, but not result in total annihilation of the existing field. As a general counterexample, TV did not kill radio despite it having more dimensions for creativity. Radio changed, but it did not die, and was quite comfortable for many decades after. Coallescing on prompt languages is probably unlikely, if only because part of the thing that defines a language is that a community has rules,…

sign makers were put out of business en masse at a certain point, and there were quite a few, and it is high-skill, high-commitment work. Some kinds of print arts related to magazines for example, were next. There is a chapter in the Stanford AI Index (2021) that opens with "The rise of AI will inevitable raise questions of how much these technologies will impact business, labor and the economy in general .. " there…

And vintage sign making is now highly valued (whether hand-painted or digitally produced simulcra)

We tend to value scarcity. Things that resemble AI art will become passé and anything that is difficult/impossible for AI to produce will become highly regarded. I'm very curious to see how this shift in popular and/or high-brow taste will play out.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#143

Post by ShamelessC »

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…

Off topic to an extent, but I would be grateful if you could share any processes for reliably producing game assets with stable diffusion.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#144

Post by andybak »

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…

> Have you ever tried doing AI art?

Yes.

> What gets posted on social media are the few successful experiments. Most AI generated stuff is absolute crap. Getting anything useful out of it requires lot's of trial an error and magical incantations.

You are exaggerating. Easily over half the output I generate is on par with the standard being posted on social media.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#145

Post by JacobThreeThree »

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…

>were considered 'not artists' by a lot of people at the time.

You make a good point that the trend of automating art is not a recent one.

At some point I think a line in the sand must be drawn where the human artist is no longer the primary conceptualizer.

Writing a text prompt is a fair place for that line to be drawn in my opinion.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#146

Post by mistrial9 »

andybak wrote: post #142
mistrial9 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sign makers were put out of business en masse at a certain point, and there were quite a few, and it is high-skill, high-commitment work. Some kinds of print arts related to magazines for example, were next. There is a chapter in the Stanford AI Index (2021) that opens with "The rise of AI will inevitable raise questions of how much these technologies will impact business, labor and the economy in general .. " there…

And vintage sign making is now highly valued (whether hand-painted or digitally produced simulcra) We tend to value scarcity. Things that resemble AI art will become passé and anything that is difficult/impossible for AI to produce will become highly regarded. I'm very curious to see how this shift in popular and/or high-brow taste will play out.

thousands of small companies sustain and employ humans, reliably now as sign makers? I live in a metropolitan area, sign makers were reliably found and nearby in my living memory. There are very few now, mainly as corporate franchises with catalog contents. How is the value of scarcity you refer to, being circulated in terms of reliable income and stability for humans living now? How plural are the products in modern markets

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#148

Post by gedy »

dqpb wrote: post #112
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…

Dall-e can create beautiful images of oil paintings that can be printed to canvas, much like original oil paintings are printed to canvas.

Yes, I've been doing just this, then brushing over the canvas print with thick varnish, it's quite convincing.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#149

Post by swayvil »

You can say that AI art is bad. But you can also say that normal people have bad taste. So the two meet in the middle and the normal art-consumer is satisfied with his junk.

It's like fast food and normal people. Everybody knows it's crap but they eat the stuff by the megaton.

The argument againt AI art is an argument against popular markets, basically.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#150

Post by kuroguro »

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 like the more eastern idea that art is mastery of skill and art pieces are more of a byproduct we can observe.

Photoshopping or making an AI make art still takes skill, so it's still art - just in a different category. Putting a robot in a boxing match or an AI in a human car race wouldn't make much sense, but robot vs robot would.

Post reply on HN