Live data from Hacker News

Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

waxy.org

201–210 of 356 posts

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#201
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that the human effort spent in creating the original images in an AI's data set is an important element to consider when thinking of the "difficulty" here.

Certainly, but those human artists were also trained on a data set their whole lives. Raise a baby with no training data set and they might produce a handprint on a wall or a rectangle of facepaint. There's a reason indigenous tribesmen don't spontaneously invent hyperrealism.

However, there's a major misconception about training of humans and AI.

Image generating AIs are trained with massive amounts of images and text, however image generating humans train with much broader spectrum of experience.

Also, feeding a model tons of images created by humans (directly or by proxy) and claiming that AI is generating something completely new is a bit naive IMHO. Humans mix a much more broader and deeper experience pool to create things without prompts.

An AI model blurts out something derived from a corpus of images and text created by humans, that's all.

The technology is impressive for sure, and it marks a new era in terms of possibilities, but it doesn't take my breath away, sorry.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#202

AI art is striking at first glance, but devoid of meaning once you really try to engage with it. It's the meaning people want, but an image's visual impact has been a reasonably cheap heuristic for finding it. The viability of this heuristic is now dead or rapidly dying, and AI generated art is degenerating into yet another form of spam. Relatedly, feeds full of visually-striking images, once impressive, are taking o…

I'm personally very happy about it. To me, art is just pleasant, it's a matter of degree. Meaning is nice and all, but not necessary. And with this new way of generating art, people can have beautiful art, cheaply and as much as they want. No more cheap Target art everywhere. It's the replicator of art, nice, beautiful art is now post scarcity and I love it.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#203

> generator was uploading one image every 40 seconds before it was banned > not have the Art Portal flooded with computer-generated art That was the real problem.

Then why do they pretend to ban a specific art type? I could have generated variations of a human created digital piece in less time than these AI (currently) since the creation of this platform but they didn't seem to feel threatened by this up until now... so there is clearly an other problem.

> I could have generated variations of a human created digital piece in less time than these AI

Seems dubious that you could achieve over 2000 upload each day, without stopping.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#204

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…

Another discovery that something thought to be uniquely human really isn't that hard.

Who would've thought art would get automated before driving.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#205

I'm not surprised more and more art communities are banning AI images, 99% of them are dull and ugly. Definitely not something I would print out and hang on my wall. I tried playing around with these models, but I was too bored to bother futzing around with prompts to try and make something I liked. But I have seen some cool things made using these models by creators who put more effort in than just writing a prompt…

> I would print out and hang on my wall

Printing things was at one point thought to devalue art and remove artist jobs.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> any new deep truth What is a 'truth' in art. Also, what is a 'deep truth' specifically. > factual understanding of the real world Can you name me a few factual understandings that art has brought.

"Truth" and "understanding" are both things that have changed throughout human history, they are not fixed. Art can be something that changes the way you understand the world, which would change your idea of what the truth is about reality. I just rewatched Goodfellas the other day. No doubt that film brought a deeper understanding for many many people about mafia philosophy, history and events, and inspired more res…

FYI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth> "Truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality"

Your post is just a typical arts-based response. Not rigorous, sloppy, with "No doubt", "might suggest", "my impression is", "interpersonal challenges". It's just a sloppy mess that can't be engaged with, quite deliberately.

Edit, if I sound frustrated I am. I'm trying to get a better handle on 'art' so I can understand what is there and what its genuinely worth to other people. It's rare to get anything other than gloop, from which I'm starting to wonder at the bona fides of people who say supportive things of art. Generative art is frankly amazing - how much input was from artists (any at all?), how much was from scientists/mathematicians? (and how much from the intersection of the two if that's not empty).

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#208
post #91

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 bud…

Jurassic Park was right at the tipping between stop motion and CGI. Corridor Crew with John Berton Jr. ( https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0078237/ ) https://youtu.be/j8JgN_srwCc?t=921 discuss the change and how Phil Tippett ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Tippett ) who was the "master of dinosaur animation" changed the industry... And the first thing that they did was hire him as the animation director and other stop motion artists.

This wasn't a "they were out a job" - it was a they changed how they did what they did.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#209
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 totally agree [1]. Once all the panic dies down, I think you'll see these technologies enabling artists more than hurting them. The displacement problem isn't quite there yet. While it's a good replacement for stock photo aggregators, it's not a great replacement for commissioning an actual artist. E.g. if you want a consistent look and feel for each of your images, you'll struggle. It's only the C-listers, who cre…

Completely agree I've been experimenting with an Img2Img workflow for rendering drawings https://twitter.com/P_Galbraith/status/1564940095777431552?t...

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#210
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…

Others have chimed in already but I was inspired by this idea:

> Like a music synthesizer times a million.

Even now, every once in a while I find people arguing that synths are not "real music". Also DJs, etc. generating songs using pre-made samples. I think it's a very apt comparison, where tools become more and more available and barrier of entry gets lower, I don't believe art will die but rather just change into new forms, and what's now revolutionary will become just a very commonplace tool in the future, just like synths, and "real" artists will keep on existing alongside.

Post reply on HN