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

341–350 of 356 posts

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#341

Post by egypturnash »

autoexec wrote: post #292
egypturnash wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I am pretty pessimistic about all this to be honest. My main hope is that people will come to see all this as kind of tacky, and/or that there will be some reconsideration of what "fair use" means that renders existing work in this realm illegal.

Artists need to eat too, if our audience stops paying for our work because this shit is good enough for their needs then we are not going to afford to spend all day making art any more. Unless someone can wave a wand and provide basic income to everyone and I sure do not see that happening in the capitalist hell of the US economy any more.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#342

Post by pavel_lishin »

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.

No, I was talking in the context of the discussion thread. Everyone being an artist isn't a problem.

But when communities are flooded with cheap-to-make art - even if the art is pretty good - the community becomes a worse place to be.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#343

Post by mLuby »

sinenomine wrote: post #331
mLuby wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pushing "accelerate" costs a great deal. Investors will want a return on their capital: either in money pressed from unequal access to the resulting paradise or in direct power over this new god.

With billions upon billions spent on Big Science, asking the government to spend just 1 billion on an AI training run with guaranteed spectacular results doesn't sound too outlandish. Why should we pay taxes, if the government won't even train AI for us, given such opportunity?

AGI is an existential threat to human-led governments. Why would they build something to displace them?

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#344

Post by causality0 »

bayindirh wrote: post #201
causality0 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Humans mix a much more broader and deeper experience pool to create things without prompts.

That wide variety of experience changes the decision of what to create, but I think it has less influence on the actual output than one might expect. A person can have enormous life experience but if they have never seen a logo, a photo, a painting, a drawing, or any other kind of rendered image they will be no more sophisticated in their artistic output than a caveman. Modern artists stand atop a mountain that their ancestors had to climb inch by inch.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#345

Post by sinenomine »

mLuby wrote: post #343
sinenomine wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With billions upon billions spent on Big Science, asking the government to spend just 1 billion on an AI training run with guaranteed spectacular results doesn't sound too outlandish. Why should we pay taxes, if the government won't even train AI for us, given such opportunity?

AGI is an existential threat to human-led governments. Why would they build something to displace them?

We all know that analogies from Hollywood classic scifi movies aren't productive or even at all useful in our mundane reality. The general-purpose AI is going to be a very useful, obedient, capable tool, and the great powers are going to seek ownership over it, like they do with various military and space technologies.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#346

Post by throw_m239339 »

Double_a_92 wrote: post #301
throw_m239339 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> It still takes some skill, patience and luck to get a pleasing result.

No it doesn't take any form of skills to get 100 drawings from a simple prompt. This is the whole point of AI "art" generation.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#347

Post by throw_m239339 »

latchkey wrote: post #285
throw_m239339 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I think that is like saying digital cameras will never replace film. Art is art.

Art is in the eye of the beholder.

No need for a community to generate every possible art with a AI. Only some cloud storage.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#348

Post by bayindirh »

causality0 wrote: post #344
bayindirh wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Humans mix a much more broader and deeper experience pool to create things without prompts. That wide variety of experience changes the decision of what to create, but I think it has less influence on the actual output than one might expect. A person can have enormous life experience but if they have never seen a logo, a photo, a painting, a drawing, or any other kind of rendered image they will be no more sophistica…

Actually, I don't agree. I take photographs and design logos for my pet projects sometimes, and I optimize for feeling most of the time.

I want my photos to make the viewer feel a particular way when viewing what I took. This affects colors, style, and everything.

Arguably, as long as the medium carries the message the creator intended, it's equal in my view. It can be a photo, a drawing, a digital painting or a physical painting with oils. They can create the same feeling if the artist aims for it.

This "optimization for feelings" is a result of my own non-photographic experiences. Sometimes a song, sometimes an event I went through, sometimes an art piece I saw on a medium I don't work.

From my understanding and observation, I saw that many artists work that way. They reflect their emotions in one domain (generally personal life) to another domain (the art they create). Also, there was a video which I fail to find over and over which shows how three designers got affected by the things they saw (and deliberately planted into their minds slowly) during a 20 minute car trip.

Yes, we're building upon this great mountain of experience and knowledge, yet our output is affected by what we experience in other parts of life, unrelated to the art we create.

Consider the following experiment: The music you listen changes your mood, your working speed, and what you feel; effectively changing how you operate and what you create. Exclude work from this, which is by definition something you have to do, unless you're literally dying.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#349

Post by drdeca »

sinenomine wrote: post #332
drdeca wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

AI safety discourse is mostly still in 2000s, with outdated intuitions informing loads of rigid concepts specific to this time and community. Large language models trained on cross-entropy loss for next token prediction aren't going to be dangerous per se , even in the limit - simply due to the nature of the objective and the distribution they are set to approximate. We should make sure these powerful tools don't fal…

If large language models trained on cross entropy loss for the next token prediction in the limit aren’t dangerous, then they aren’t enough by themselves for AGI.

An AGI, by virtue of being at least as general as a human, would be able to effectively form a plan for how to act in the world to achieve fairly general goals, in fairly general conditions.

Even if it isn’t agentic, if a program can formulate these plans in a way people can use, then the combined program+user still implements the optimization process.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#350

Post by sinenomine »

drdeca wrote: post #349
sinenomine wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI safety discourse is mostly still in 2000s, with outdated intuitions informing loads of rigid concepts specific to this time and community. Large language models trained on cross-entropy loss for next token prediction aren't going to be dangerous per se , even in the limit - simply due to the nature of the objective and the distribution they are set to approximate. We should make sure these powerful tools don't fal…

If large language models trained on cross entropy loss for the next token prediction in the limit aren’t dangerous, then they aren’t enough by themselves for AGI. An AGI, by virtue of being at least as general as a human, would be able to effectively form a plan for how to act in the world to achieve fairly general goals, in fairly general conditions. Even if it isn’t agentic, if a program can formulate these plans i…

That's why we have to make sure the user (committee) is safe and aligned. The usual silicon valley tech execs, or east coast financial bros aren't going to cut it this time.

The democratic solution here looks better than the expected rule of the (very) few.

Post reply on HN