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

291–300 of 356 posts

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#291

Post by jachee »

Axauv wrote: post #96
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?

More like one image per X days. I don’t care how many different things you can type into an AI in a given period of time. I only want to see the best of the best of the best.

This is like when we discovered stereo recording, and mixers would put tracks at either 100% left or 100% right, just to show off the novelty of it.

Or when 3D movies became ubiquitous and every movie (even those shot completely without the third dimension as a consideration) got released in 3D.

Once the novelty wears off, I imagine things will be better.

For now, it’s just a deluge of low-effort, yet high (relative to traditionally produced art) apparent quality artworks.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#292

Post by autoexec »

egypturnash wrote: post #161
jedberg wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem being solved by these decisions is that AI art is a visible threat to the livelihoods of the people the site is designed to support and uplift. That's not a solvable problem. Art will be made by computers, it's inevitable. Eventually it will get good enough to be indistinguishable from human made art. It's already good enough that a human can use the AI to get 90% of the way there and then finish it the…

If every art site bans AI spam and there's nowhere left to post it, and a healthy market for young artists to do beginner work for beginner prices, then the problem sounds solved to me. And none of this is inevitable. If everyone trying to improve this technology hears from artists who are intensely unhappy about it and quits working on it, if AI art becomes inherently tacky so that it's embarrassing to work on and f…

I wish I had your optimism!

I just can't see every site banning AI art. As long as there's a demand for a place to post AI art there will be places where that happens. I can't say how much it will impact beginner prices, but I'm 100% sure that the world isn't going to stop developing or investing in this technology because it makes artists upset.

You're right about one thing though, economics are a massive driver in results. If human art became cheaper than AI art I'd put my money on human art, but I don't think human artists want to work for less than AI does.

I'm not saying this means artists will never work again. Clearly many will, but I'll bet more than ever it will be only the most talented and creative who can make any money doing it and that it's very likely that most of the artists who make money today primarily due to websites like DeviantArt and furaffinity are going to lose most of that income.

I don't think artists will ever stop doing what they do even if their work ever did become commercially worthless. I don't think artists can stop themselves from doing it, even it just continues to give training data for AI that will out compete them. Their will be more art than ever for humans, but less of it than ever will be made by humans.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#293

Post by newswasboring »

paranoidrobot wrote: post #256
comex wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just typed in 'girl with a pearl earring vermeer' and got this: https://drop.qoid.us/vermeer.png And, for a slightly different scenario, here's what I got for 'pikachu': https://drop.qoid.us/pikachu.png But I think this sort of thing is the exception rather than the rule (similar to Copilot regurgitating the text of software licenses). Girl with a Pearl Earring is so famous that there are countless copies of it on…

> the exception rather than the rule [...] . Girl with a Pearl Earring is so famous that there are countless copies of it on the internet I think that's part of the point, though. Even if it's working like some kind of feature detection - "this is what 'nose' looks like [nose1,nose2,...,nose9999]" and "this is what 'girl with a pearl earring vermeer' looks like [vermeer1,vermeer2,...,]" Clearly it is storing copies o…

I feel like this is one of those occasions where perfect is an enemy of the good. Yes there might be some, very very famous, artworks stored inside it. But unless you think StableAI has completely blown past the current hutter prize winner, there is no way this thing is storing many things. The things it might be storing are too public to really be that big of a deal. It will spit out a Vermeer, but your submission to Divient Art in 2007 is definitely protected.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#294

Post by ibz »

eezurr wrote: post #167
matkoniecz wrote: post #21

> 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.

I was looking for this reply. Imagine if you needed to hire an artist but 9/10 listings are from alibaba express, full of fake reviews (other nonartist techies commenting on ai art) Or maybe because this is where artists place their portfolios and theres no reason to make ot that much harder to find.

Why would you want to hire an artist whose work is indistinguishable from AI when the AI can work faster and cheaper?

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#295

Post by paranoidrobot »

newswasboring wrote: post #293
paranoidrobot wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the exception rather than the rule [...] . Girl with a Pearl Earring is so famous that there are countless copies of it on the internet I think that's part of the point, though. Even if it's working like some kind of feature detection - "this is what 'nose' looks like [nose1,nose2,...,nose9999]" and "this is what 'girl with a pearl earring vermeer' looks like [vermeer1,vermeer2,...,]" Clearly it is storing copies o…

I feel like this is one of those occasions where perfect is an enemy of the good. Yes there might be some, very very famous, artworks stored inside it. But unless you think StableAI has completely blown past the current hutter prize winner, there is no way this thing is storing many things. The things it might be storing are too public to really be that big of a deal. It will spit out a Vermeer, but your submission t…

> there is no way this thing is storing many things.

I didn't claim that it was storing all of the images.

It is, however, quite clearly storing at least some of the original training images. What that definition is, I don't know.

To go back to the original point of this thread:

> The thing is, people have wild misconceptions about what this technology does. Many clearly think it's a photocopier. As if StableDiffusion is hiding copies of all these works inside.

I don't think it's a wild misconception, or even an unreasonable concern to be worried that it could output some of it's training images. As an end-user of the technology, you have no idea.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#297

Post by classified »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #243
Axauv wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

But now everyone's an artist .

So what? Are you the appointed gatekeeper on who's an artist? If you are then you won't be out of work any time soon.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#298

Post by Double_a_92 »

Axauv wrote: post #96
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?

Or just add tags, so people could filter out AI generated content if they don't like it?

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#299

Post by Double_a_92 »

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.

Isn't that how most art works in real life? Not every artist will create some completely new style. It's mostly combining bits of styles that you like.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#300

Post by Double_a_92 »

_greim_ wrote: post #199

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…

How does manual labour add meaning to a mentally creative process? It's not like the AI spits out random images, you have to very specifically tell it what you want in there. What's the difference between "telling" your hands vs. telling the AI?
Post reply on HN