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

301–310 of 356 posts

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#301

Post by Double_a_92 »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #238
latchkey wrote: post #8

Perfect. A huge niche opportunity to focus on an art community dedicated to AI generated images.

> A huge niche opportunity kind of an oxymoron. Why bother having an "art community" when one can just generate all the art at random themselves? That's the whole point of DALL-E and co, an endless stream of generated images... no need for a community for that.

It still takes some skill, patience and luck to get a pleasing result. If you try out DALL-E literally 99% of the images you get from naïvely trying some promts will be complete shite.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#302

Post by Jataman606 »

fizx wrote: post #81
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…

People were saying this stuff when Deep Blue beat Kasparov. Chess is perhaps thriving more than ever.

Yes, and just like in communities described in this article, AI is banned from human competition. You can use it to practice, but you can't go to the tournament with your own chess engine and say that you deserve that win, because you programmed this chess engine.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#303

Post by newswasboring »

paranoidrobot wrote: post #295
newswasboring wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 StableDiffusio…

I feel like you completely missed the point I was making with the perfect vs good argument

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#304

Post by fao_ »

mistrial9 wrote: post #248
halr9000 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the 1930s America there was mass unemployment Sure, but these are temporary disruptions. Now it's true that the pace of change feels immensely faster than ever before, and I believe that's an observable fact. But we adapt. The incentives to do so are, sometimes, life or death. When faced with that kind of situation, some small % will sink into depression, perhaps never to climb out. I'm sure that some online mag…

I had to think twice about this reply .. I believe that from a psychological, character development point of view, what you say is reasonable.. adjust to change and apply new skills in new ways. However, there are different "lenses" through which one might examine large topics, and one lense might be that of personal challenge, adjustment and endeavor; but another lense is closer to The Economist Magazine, where fact…

> It is said that nobody has a right to a job.

Arguably, that's basically directly saying that nobody has a right to life.

You either ensure the basic resources necessary to live are free, or you want everyone to get a job. The alternative is saying - "some people die from lack of work, get over it".

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#305

Post by saurik »

classified wrote: post #297
pavel_lishin wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean, practically it means that you haven't solved the problem of "now the website is flooded with content". Arguably, the core problem is just that the premise of the website fundamentally doesn't scale to having too much of a maybe-good thing.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#306

Post by drdeca »

sinenomine wrote: post #257
Animats wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Can't help but think about the obvious: maybe we should just skip all the drudgery of the natural convulsive progress and ruthless competition, push "accelerate" and get to the mature AGI civilization regime as soon as possible? And there we should just ask our new creative oracle machines the obvious: "devise an understandable minimally invasive method of uplifting our own cognition and extending our biological life…

Current safety techniques are far from sufficient for accelerating AGI progress to be a good thing.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#307

Post by [deleted] »

vintermann wrote: post #155
kuroguro wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is a word for that in the west as well, we just call it craftsmanship. The artist is the one we allow to decide what the purpose of the work is, even if they outsource all the work to apprentices, assistants, or for that matter computers.

[deleted]

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#308

Post by nottorp »

Ukv wrote: post #101
nottorp wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> In some cases it was painfully obvious what it's based on Do you have an example of this? Ideally with a link (for DALL-E 2/Midjourney) or prompt and seed (for Stable Diffusion) to show that it was generated from an incidental prompt - as opposed to uploading the existing image and just using the AI for inpainting/fine-tuning.

I don't keep the image spam from the group chats I'm on, sorry. Man or machine generated. There lies madness.

But I definitely remember being shown something that was the submarine from the beatles album cover with different colours and ... something else that i forgot what it was ... pasted in. The text prompt included submarine but not beatles.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#309

Post by TomSwirly »

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…

Typing prompts into a program until you get an image you like does not make you an artist.

Duchamp was already one of the great painters in the world when he showed the readymades - and there's a lot of evidence that he made them, what a great joke if so.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#310

Post by mattkevan »

Bakary wrote: post #281
mattkevan wrote: post #214

These tools are only weeks or months old. At the moment they’re a novelty. ‘A picture of a dog riding a skateboard by James Gurney | Trending on Artstation’ is clever and astonishing, yes, but we’ve nowhere near scraped the surface of what they can do or how they can be used as part of the creative process. It’s going to take time and a good few rounds of development and pushback, but eventually we’ll wonder how anyo…

Using any Photoshop tool still requires some work. AI is an order of magnitude more multifaceted and autonomous. What happens when we realize that AI art generators consistently and instantly bring forth better contributions than what we can make ourselves over a much larger period of time? The artist will look at their paintbrush and wonder what the point of holding it is when the drunk genie is doing much better on…

My phone camera can take much better pictures of things than I can draw. Doesn’t mean that my drawings have been invalidated.

Human art is going to adapt, similarly to how it adapted to photography. If a camera can make perfect reproductions of reality, AI is a camera of the imagination.

I wonder if there’s going to be a trend towards craft -tangible, clearly handmade things that an AI can’t do.

Post reply on HN