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

161–170 of 356 posts

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#161

Post by egypturnash »

jedberg wrote: post #90
egypturnash wrote: post #76

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. Art sites have already had rate limits for years. These communities are explicitly saying "no" to this disruptive technology . If you want to go make a new gallery site for showing off your prompt engineering that's your own lookout, have fun trying to build a com…

> 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 funding dries up, then progress on it stops. We were all gonna be using full color e-paper displays by now but all the funding for that dried up because emissive displays got real cheap and nobody wants to bother with reflective display technology any more.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#162

Post by jorl17 »

I don't oppose AI-generated images in the slightest. I love them and I genuinely think they will be a very important part of our future. Effectively, it will take more effort to make a living as an artist, especially a mediocre one, because AI is now a decent mediocre artist. It's a stupendous artist for some prompts, too.

However, I can understand that if I can just spit out image after image, there must be a way to "limit" my submission of these images. In that sense, I "get" banning AI-generated images, as a way to stop spam.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#163

Post by nonbirithm »

advisedwang wrote: post #57
ryeguy_24 wrote: post #10

They should also ban people that have seen more art than others as they may be inadvertently creating derivative artwork from their more thoroughly trained real neural network in their brain. Purposely being facetious, but seriously, we will likely see more and more of these type of rules being applied to competitions or groups. It will be harder and harder to define the rules. At some point, it becomes moot. Did I d…

Newgrounds: "not have the Art Portal flooded with computer-generated art" DeviantArt: "complaining that their feeds are getting flooded" Artstation: "the front pages are flooded with unmodified AI generated slop" They're really worried about the volume that AI art scales. So they don't really have to chase down every image and decide if it's AI or not. They just need to stop users from throwing huge amounts of them,…

I contrast these reasons with the FurAffinity announcement from a week ago[0]:

> AI art is a damn good learning tool, but it's taking everything it does from artists. It leeches on the time, effort, skill, energy an artist put into their work.

> You can use tools like this to learn and try to come up with concepts to learn from. I have nothing wrong with that, but just adding it to an image gallery. The origin are questionable unlike, say, using a site specifically for royalty free images.

> I stand with artists, not prompts.

[0] https://twitter.com/Dragoneer/status/1566900442650628096

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#164

Post by bgro »

jorl17 wrote: post #162

I don't oppose AI-generated images in the slightest. I love them and I genuinely think they will be a very important part of our future. Effectively, it will take more effort to make a living as an artist, especially a mediocre one, because AI is now a decent mediocre artist. It's a stupendous artist for some prompts, too. However, I can understand that if I can just spit out image after image, there must be a way to…

I'm in some Discord chats for various things, and they often have a channel where people can post their artwork. Often, people spend weeks or months on a piece of fan art that's related to the Discord topic, or they draw a picture of the "leaders" for fun.

Lately it's been just getting drowned out by people posting ridiculous AI art where they try to get absurd results. It was interesting and fun at first, but after seeing probably as low as 20 of these images I can tell they're all a similar sort of thing.

I feel bad for people posting their art getting drowned out by this, and these aren't even remotely art related groups.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#165

Post by helloworld11 »

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…

All of you commenting seem to miss the fundamental point that I made: People who appreciate art for art's human aspects will want HUMAN, emotionally derived art, not a printable piece of AI-generated pixel-vomit that can then be mounted and varnished. I have nothing against anyone doing this and I absolutely don't support banning any technology that lets people explore new frontiers of creativity, but I don't see even AI-connected devices that can physically paint things replacing artists as imaginative human creators of concepts and emotional ideas expressed for other humans. To go on about how an AI could eventually paint or sculpt and so forth from its own algorithms is to miss the point entirely about this specific type of creation and the extremely old human desire to enjoy it.

Perhaps to be expected from a site so frequented by many people who spend their working lives "optimizing" X or Y gimmick for major tech giants and viewing other humans largely as simple parts of a data gathering landscape.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#167

Post by eezurr »

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.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#168

Post by helloworld11 »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #83
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…

I don't know if I agree. One of the big sources of income for online artists is commissions of D&D characters and such; AI-generated art is now getting good enough that people can get a "good-enough" version of what they want for free, instead of paying an artist $50 or $100 for a piece of art. I've commissioned art for my D&D character before, and I'll almost certainly do so again - but if I'm playing a one-shot onl…

>The people or organizations to which AI-churned art appeals to most desire commercial visual churn. They are the same people who would in any case have least cared about art in its more creative, communicative forms.

I specifically addressed this in my original post. You're exactly the kind of person who would possibly like this AI technology, and apparently not someone who would have an appreciation for art in its artistic, emotionally appealing form. Your disagreement is based on a misunderstanding of definitions.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#169

Post by JacobThreeThree »

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…

>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.

Giclée prints on canvas are already very popular with artists. Printing into physical medium is already trivial whether the art is produced by human or AI.

See as an example the Epson SureColor S80600 Printer:

https://epson.ca/For-Work/Printers/Large-Format/Epson-SureCo...

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

Post reply on HN