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

311–320 of 356 posts

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#311

Post by richardw »

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…

The photos of the painting on the internet aren’t original works either. This system is learning from everyone taking pictures. If you paid a very good artist to paint that painting, they’d work from a picture. No artist emerges fully formed without impact of what they’ve seen.

There’s a difference between an artist and a machine (for now), but it’s not unreasonable to assume that some internalisation of others’ work is fair.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#312

Post by ClumsyPilot »

halr9000 wrote: post #264
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But we adapt. The incentives to do so are, sometimes, life or death... > But I assert that it will always be a tiny percentage of the whole US/Uk life expectancy is falling, and more people are in precarious work than ever before. You can't just wish away these problens and pretend they don't exist

You are aware that disruption has been the human condition for 1000's of years, yes? Why do you posit that life expectancy will continue to fall? Not sure it's rational to expect an extended reversal of the trends which have been on the increase prior to the past 2 years. Look at the charts and the analyses. Precarious work? You may need to explain that one.

> You are aware that disruption has been the human condition for 1000's of years, yes?

So what? Slavery and The Plague and Cancer was part of the human condition too.

And its wrong - technological disruption only appreared recently. For ten thousand years my ancestors lived nomadic lives on the eurasian plains, their lives were disrupted when a gun and a steam engine were invented few hundred years ago.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#313

Post by dragonsky »

JacobThreeThree wrote: post #234
JohnFen wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In all honesty, that's how a lot of photographers work. They take a gazillion photos and pick the best ones.

But the human is at least taking the photos in this scenario.

Well it’s a human pointing the camera and pushing the button. It totally depends upon the camera how much influence it has on the actual picture produced. Depending on your settings, hardware control and image processing can be applied to automate the production of a more acceptable image. Is the camera or the person holding it producing the image? Or is the photogenic environment the camera is being pointed at responsible for the resulting image?

Once I’ve selected one from the 20 or so images, had it printed, framed and placed it on my wall then weeks later notice it again when the light coming through the window catches it just right, I think that is a really great picture that transports me to another place.

Is it art? Because I was holding the camera does that make me an artist?

All I know is that my life is enhanced by having that image on my wall however it came to be there.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#314

Post by int_19h »

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…

I think this will subside significantly once the novelty wears off, and examples of truly outstanding generated art become more prominent (establishing a consensus baseline for quality).

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#315

Post by danielbln »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #312
halr9000 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are aware that disruption has been the human condition for 1000's of years, yes? Why do you posit that life expectancy will continue to fall? Not sure it's rational to expect an extended reversal of the trends which have been on the increase prior to the past 2 years. Look at the charts and the analyses. Precarious work? You may need to explain that one.

> You are aware that disruption has been the human condition for 1000's of years, yes? So what? Slavery and The Plague and Cancer was part of the human condition too. And its wrong - technological disruption only appreared recently. For ten thousand years my ancestors lived nomadic lives on the eurasian plains, their lives were disrupted when a gun and a steam engine were invented few hundred years ago.

And now we don't die anymore because of simple infection or other preventable diseases. Many if not all of the things that keep us fed, warm and healthy today are only because we endured technological disruption.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#316

Post by int_19h »

coldcode wrote: post #226
onion2k wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe most of these models only use 1k images so they really can't make anything bigger yet. Maybe someday but not today. This is the sort of thing that changes incredibly quickly. I'd guess that a big chunk of the source data will be in 8K within a year or two.

Problem is the computing power necessary to implement those bigger models increases by some large value as well. An 81MP images is 81 times bigger than a 1MP image. Not sure exactly how the generation is implemented, but I am sure it probably becomes unaffordable if its linear.

It's mostly a VRAM limitation at this point though, since even a 81x slowdown with something like Stable Diffusion would be perfectly acceptable to produce the final high-quality render.

Which is to say, it sounds like the solution is dedicated GPUs that focus on VRAM over speed.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#317

Post by beezlewax »

lifthrasiir wrote: post #77
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…

> 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…

I've used the words "stock photography" in an image and saw the shutterstock logo across the image in the output. Not sure how that happens but try it out.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#318

Post by matkoniecz »

batperson wrote: post #242
matkoniecz wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I generated over 30k, maybe 40k images since stable diffusion 1.4 model went public 2 weeks ago. Most of it is just endless exploring and generating a lot of nonsense but I got some prompts that generate consistently good results. 2000 decent quality images per day would be quite easy, even with my humble rtx 2070s GPU.

I was responding to claim that bot uploads of autogenerated work is not a problem, as humans can generate work at the same rate.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#319

Post by Bakary »

mattkevan wrote: post #310
Bakary wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Photography is a distinct medium with its own expectations. People looking for 2d non-photography art generally aren't looking for a perfect representation of reality, so photography does not supersede what they want to see. In fact photo-realistic drawings are viewed as a bit of a meme, especially if it's a picture of some pop-culture character like the Joker.

It's worth asking at this point what exactly the adaptation will look like. I definitely agree that there will be more interest in non-2d, non virtual art. But for 2d/virtual artists? We need more than just an "underpants gnome" sequence where adaptation is considered a given.

The work of those artists won't be invalidated in a philosophical sense, but the competitiveness of the space will skyrocket. The capacity to live as an artist will be much more restricted and it's already a struggle to begin with.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#320

Post by mistrial9 »

halr9000 wrote: post #269
mistrial9 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I had to think twice about this reply Good :) > The Economist Magazine, where factual snippets I have nothing special for or against the mag, but I will point out that economists are famously known for disagreeing on huge things once you get beyond the law of supply and demand. Not every discipline of study has whole alternative schools of thought the way they do. Economists are closer to philosophists than most ph…

you link to a Cato Institute website

"founded in 1977 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Koch Industries."

some of these people have funded climate denial on behalf of the Oil and Gas Industry Lobby.. they have the largest wealth in history to defend, at the cost of Climate Change.

Post reply on HN