Jump to content
Existing user? Sign In

Sign In



Sign Up

Add a SEPARATE set of galleries for AI.


Recommended Posts

On 1/29/2024 at 4:56 PM, LifeIsStrange said:

AI generates images by stealing art from databases essentially, that's the difference: https://juliabausenhardt.com/how-ai-is-stealing-your-art/

This is such a diminutive, archaic outlook that I can't take this claim seriously... Of course an uninitialized AI can't create coherent images without references, just like how a baby can't create coherent images without experience or how an expert can't improve without study. Although AI tools lack many common sense and intuition, humans can use their own while working alongside AI tools to create proper, real art.

This outlook completely falls flat for AIs trained on data with permission.

On 1/29/2024 at 5:59 PM, nets said:

There's much more intent and skill involved versus "which keywords can I feed the black box"

Wouldn't it be rude to claim photographers just have to click a button to create a photo? Some people don't put in intent and skill, but others do, so it's simply false to claim nobody puts in any effort. This also doesn't take in consideration that new AI tools have been created with more features which requires more skill and intention to use effectively.

On 1/29/2024 at 7:33 PM, Ashlovesomo said:

AI is created by using already made material, it is not the same as art made from scratch and made with care, skill and by an actual human being. You can't possibly compare them.

AI isn't true. It isn't made from the heart or to create a message. It's just recycled. So your comment is completely off.

I'm comparing a sequence of hand strokes to a sequence of words, which both come from humans. They are comparable acts, both requiring different but relevant skill. You're gonna be very upset to learn that humans use references when drawing, either explicitly or from experience, are occasionally careless when drawing ("Meh, this hand looks good enough"), and start out with no drawing skills, yet they can still create art.

The pencil doesn't create the art, the human does, using the pencil as a medium. The same is true with AI tools, which have no consciousness nor intention to act as an author. Humans still create art from the heart or to create a message using AI.

On 1/29/2024 at 5:02 PM, bustin2pee said:

I know I'm replying to someone else's post, forgive me but I felt I needed to comment:

I don't think you can simply dismiss genuine artistic skills as 'a sequence of hand strokes', it's a lot more than that. An artist uses their learned and practiced skills and abilities to guide those hand strokes, it's eye and hand co-ordination that is driven by the artist's imagination, creativitey and above all intuition. AI imagery is so unrelated to any artistic skills or processes, it's much more aligned to computer programming - typing commands into a piece of software which produces at best, an image which is essentially a faux photograph, and one that is nothing more than a pastiche generated from a data base of existing images, so therefore is totally lacking in originality and creativitey. Just because AI software can produce an image doesn't automatically make that image 'artwork'. Also I really can't agree with the second sentence regarding the artist's intention, drawn art (whether conventional or digital) can be very precise, AI is surely a hit and miss process in which a desired image is described in the hope something comes back which resembles the description. You either accept one of the alternatives or start again, whichever it is there will have to be multiple stages of refinement. (and I refuse to believe that any finished AI image is exactly what the maker had in mind when they started) 

I for one certainly don't work that way, I start with two things, a clear idea of what I want to create and a blank page. When I finish, the image I had in my head is now on that page, nothing imprecise or hit and miss about it. Speaking as an art school graduate, I find it very annoying, to say the least, that people, who since the introduction of AI software, have suddenly elevated themselves to the status of artists and imagine that they have a similar artistic skill level, and, more importantly, the same understanding of art as a genuine artist - that to my mind is simply ridiculous.

Having said that, personally I really couldn't careless if people want to make AI faux photos, so be it, just don't call them artworks and also separate them into their own gallery. If truth be known I think we all understand what is meant by 'artwork' and that AI simply doesn't fit the criteria, it's obviously something different with its own skill set and knowledge base and therefore needs its own category. Regardless of the AI dump/spamming issue, more and more AI imagery is going to be produced as the software becomes easier to operate, that's a certainty, so now is surely the time to create a separate space ahead of that influx.

Btw I'm not making a personal attack, hope I don't come across lile that!

Thank you for your thorough response! I'd like to remind you that there were no masters of paintbrushes or cameras back when they were first created, so current AI tool quality and limited expertise should not be seen as a deliberate feature. Notably, the inability to translate your full intentions in reality doesn't disqualify any work as being art, especially since the human brain cannot conceive every single pixel anyways. Sometimes you undo a stroke you sketched, or rerecord a take on the piano, or retake a photo, or regenerate an image; that's intuition at play, which isn't always visible in the end product, and you gotta find the balance between being picky and completing your art in a reasonable time no matter the medium.

I similarly don't like when AI artists call themselves experts despite their limited skills, much like a musician calling themselves a guitar player despite only knowing Wonderwall. I haven't encountered this often, but I recommend dismissing those people anyways. Those who are passionate enough become artists, even if they are physically incapable of improving.

Your train of thought has good intentions behind them, but consider a forum with an uptake of LGBT content whose users worry will overtake their gallery so they vote to create a new section of the website to get rid of it, effectively shadow-banning an entire community. We should allow everybody to stand as valid and equal artists in the same gallery. There's a large enough demand for diapers and furries to justify their own section, but the spam from literally only 3 users is not indicative of a new trend to prepare for. If anything, it's a sign that only a select few people actually care. A blacklist tagging system would work much better for those who don't want to see this kind of content.

 

I'm noticing a concerning trend of completely dismissing the fact that 3 users alone are bringing the gallery to its knees. We'd have the exact same conversation if 3 users spammed literally anything else, including some strange justification for hating on the content instead of the spam.

Link to comment
  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This really isn't a very complex request/suggestion, I just see no reason for AI gens to be posted in the same gallery sections as art that people had to actually work on. There's already a distinct

Every "high quality" image is still pretty rank don't kid yourself. and the fact every time one of these 'artist' post it's 40 fucking images in one batch and makes the gallery completely unusable for

I agree with this, though I don't spend much time in the gallery section I think it makes sense. its more than medium, AI art is not done by a human artist who put time, effort and talent into it. I t

Posted Images

15 hours ago, TomatoNLettuce said:

but consider a forum with an uptake of LGBT content whose users worry will overtake their gallery so they vote to create a new section of the website to get rid of it, effectively shadow-banning an entire community

Yeah I'm gonna have to step in here to say you cannot compare an actually oppressed and marginalized group to something like AI - those are two totally different groups with two totally different contexts. Discrimination of LBGT does exist and continue today, and we are shadowbanned everywhere. AI "artists" are not an oppressed group.

 

AI "artists" do NOT put the same amount as digital or traditional artists - UNLESS they also create their own images to feed to their own AI, and only then am I even remotely comfortable with it. The problem is people steal art to feed to AI, and that is NOT the same thing as someone using a reference to create their own art. Also, if you do use a reference to draw your own art, you still have to be considerate and ethical so as to not copy others or steal their art - you do have to consider what you use as references. Programming an AI is work, but it is not the same work as creating art.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, PrincelyDesire said:

I would also like to add that AI is actively currently being used to create revenge porn of real people, a little consideration of the ethics of using it for NSFW material in general is warranted!

Luckily, I think this is already banned on here. So like using AI to create an image of a celebrity peeing their pants, for example, isn't allowed.

Link to comment
On 1/31/2024 at 12:36 AM, TomatoNLettuce said:

This is such a diminutive, archaic outlook that I can't take this claim seriously... Of course an uninitialized AI can't create coherent images without references, just like how a baby can't create coherent images without experience or how an expert can't improve without study. Although AI tools lack many common sense and intuition, humans can use their own while working alongside AI tools to create proper, real art.

This outlook completely falls flat for AIs trained on data with permission.

Wouldn't it be rude to claim photographers just have to click a button to create a photo? Some people don't put in intent and skill, but others do, so it's simply false to claim nobody puts in any effort. This also doesn't take in consideration that new AI tools have been created with more features which requires more skill and intention to use effectively.

I'm comparing a sequence of hand strokes to a sequence of words, which both come from humans. They are comparable acts, both requiring different but relevant skill. You're gonna be very upset to learn that humans use references when drawing, either explicitly or from experience, are occasionally careless when drawing ("Meh, this hand looks good enough"), and start out with no drawing skills, yet they can still create art.

The pencil doesn't create the art, the human does, using the pencil as a medium. The same is true with AI tools, which have no consciousness nor intention to act as an author. Humans still create art from the heart or to create a message using AI.

Thank you for your thorough response! I'd like to remind you that there were no masters of paintbrushes or cameras back when they were first created, so current AI tool quality and limited expertise should not be seen as a deliberate feature. Notably, the inability to translate your full intentions in reality doesn't disqualify any work as being art, especially since the human brain cannot conceive every single pixel anyways. Sometimes you undo a stroke you sketched, or rerecord a take on the piano, or retake a photo, or regenerate an image; that's intuition at play, which isn't always visible in the end product, and you gotta find the balance between being picky and completing your art in a reasonable time no matter the medium.

I similarly don't like when AI artists call themselves experts despite their limited skills, much like a musician calling themselves a guitar player despite only knowing Wonderwall. I haven't encountered this often, but I recommend dismissing those people anyways. Those who are passionate enough become artists, even if they are physically incapable of improving.

Your train of thought has good intentions behind them, but consider a forum with an uptake of LGBT content whose users worry will overtake their gallery so they vote to create a new section of the website to get rid of it, effectively shadow-banning an entire community. We should allow everybody to stand as valid and equal artists in the same gallery. There's a large enough demand for diapers and furries to justify their own section, but the spam from literally only 3 users is not indicative of a new trend to prepare for. If anything, it's a sign that only a select few people actually care. A blacklist tagging system would work much better for those who don't want to see this kind of content.

 

I'm noticing a concerning trend of completely dismissing the fact that 3 users alone are bringing the gallery to its knees. We'd have the exact same conversation if 3 users spammed literally anything else, including some strange justification for hating on the content instead of the spam.

AI has already stolen from a lot of artists without their permission so nope it's not a diminutive and archaic outlook, it's just reality.

Edited by LifeIsStrange
linked the wrong article by mistake, removing link (see edit history)
Link to comment
On 1/31/2024 at 4:52 PM, PrincelyDesire said:

AI "artists" do NOT put the same amount as digital or traditional artists - UNLESS they also create their own images to feed to their own AI, and only then am I even remotely comfortable with it. The problem is people steal art to feed to AI, and that is NOT the same thing as someone using a reference to create their own art. Also, if you do use a reference to draw your own art, you still have to be considerate and ethical so as to not copy others or steal their art - you do have to consider what you use as references. Programming an AI is work, but it is not the same work as creating art.

This is precisely how discrimination starts... You make an appeal to tradition, be it "this is not a real art" or "this is not a real gender", alongside blanket statements such as "they are all lazy" or "they all seek attention" in order to hinder any sort of innovation and exploration of new artistic expressions or identities. Do you not remember the controversy behind photography and digital imaging? What about graffiti, surrealism, or dadaism? I hesitate to be swayed by broad generalizations driven by emotion rather than specific improvements focusing on the issue at hand. I am comfortable with your opinion, but not your disparaging remarks.

I should apologize for my poor comparison. AI artists aren't an oppressed group and I didn't mean to imply that. However, the situation I presented is still a good example of unintentional censorship without malice in mind.

23 hours ago, LifeIsStrange said:

AI has already stolen from a lot of artists without their permission so nope it's not a diminutive and archaic outlook, it's just reality: https://medium.com/@rwblackwelsh/a-i-art-is-theft-c5aabc198f31

This article is the best article I've ever read on the subject. Here's an important quote for those who didn't read past the title, though I must warn you it's the punchline and you may want to read the whole article instead:

Quote

Copying text word for word or taking an illustration from an artist and selling it on your products is theft. Claiming someone else’s art as your own is theft. Finally, claiming A.I.-generated art is hand-crafted is dishonest. However, artists who take the claim of originality are thieves as well. Lies don’t become true just because they are undetectable.

The actual theft is the idea that you can take from the world, make it your own and call it original. In its honest form, originality comes from building on existing ideas or ideas born out of collaboration. We will all be a little poorer if our pride deludes us into believing that we alone created something of great worth.

Never mind your inability to quote from the article to prove your point, you didn't even read the article...

Link to comment
4 hours ago, TomatoNLettuce said:

This is precisely how discrimination starts... You make an appeal to tradition, be it "this is not a real art" or "this is not a real gender", alongside blanket statements such as "they are all lazy" or "they all seek attention" in order to hinder any sort of innovation and exploration of new artistic expressions or identities. Do you not remember the controversy behind photography and digital imaging? What about graffiti, surrealism, or dadaism? I hesitate to be swayed by broad generalizations driven by emotion rather than specific improvements focusing on the issue at hand. I am comfortable with your opinion, but not your disparaging remarks.

I should apologize for my poor comparison. AI artists aren't an oppressed group and I didn't mean to imply that. However, the situation I presented is still a good example of unintentional censorship without malice in mind.

This article is the best article I've ever read on the subject. Here's an important quote for those who didn't read past the title, though I must warn you it's the punchline and you may want to read the whole article instead:

Never mind your inability to quote from the article to prove your point, you didn't even read the article...

if I were you i'd worry way more about your own inability to differentiate between ACTUAL discrimination faced by marginalized people and discrimination that's all in your head that has zero actual basis in reality. if you truly think people with actual valid points against AI voicing their criticisms is in ANY way remotely comparable to what LGBTQ individuals have to deal with then you're not worth engaging with period and I won't waste my time on you any further as you're clearly an AI evangelist who won't listen to one ounce of criticism of it.

Anyways that's not the gotcha moment you think it is, I merely linked the wrong article by mistake so don't get too overexcited LOL

This is the real article I meant to link, bet you won't feel so smug after reading this: https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-lensa-ai-and-image-generators-steal-from-artists

Link to comment
4 hours ago, TomatoNLettuce said:

This is precisely how discrimination starts... You make an appeal to tradition, be it "this is not a real art" or "this is not a real gender", alongside blanket statements such as "they are all lazy" or "they all seek attention" in order to hinder any sort of innovation and exploration of new artistic expressions or identities. Do you not remember the controversy behind photography and digital imaging? What about graffiti, surrealism, or dadaism? I hesitate to be swayed by broad generalizations driven by emotion rather than specific improvements focusing on the issue at hand. I am comfortable with your opinion, but not your disparaging remarks.

Nah, photography and digital art still require more artistic skill and creation than any AI programmer creating imagery that way - it is still not the same thing. Using tools versus having something literally do it for you are two different things. Art movements are also not the same thing as AI generation, those represent historical and cultural impacts directly involving individual humans creating work themselves. 

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, LifeIsStrange said:

if I were you i'd worry way more about your own inability to differentiate between ACTUAL discrimination faced by marginalized people and discrimination that's all in your head that has zero actual basis in reality. if you truly think people with actual valid points against AI voicing their criticisms is in ANY way remotely comparable to what LGBTQ individuals have to deal with then you're not worth engaging with period and I won't waste my time on you any further as you're clearly an AI evangelist who won't listen to one ounce of criticism of it.

Anyways that's not the gotcha moment you think it is, I merely linked the wrong article by mistake so don't get too overexcited LOL

This is the real article I meant to link, bet you won't feel so smug after reading this: https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-lensa-ai-and-image-generators-steal-from-artists

 I agree with you absolutely, the total over-reaction shown by some to the simple straight forward suggestion that AI should have a separate gallery is mind boggling! Anyone would think we were advocating having all AI users shot at dawn FFS! Lol! But in any case an endless discussion on the merits of a separate gallery seems pointless as my understanding is that this is already planned, as Kyuu said in reply to my post last October.

On another note I read that wrongly linked article (I guessed it was in error). He's sounds another total waffling d*ckhead who wouldn't know art from his ars*hole and just to prove the point posts the most banal AI 'abstracts' imaginable, the type of ghastly wall  decoration images you find in bargain home decor stores.

Like I've said previously 'I find it very annoying, to say the least, that people, who since the introduction of AI software, have suddenly elevated themselves to the status of artists and imagine that they have a similar artistic skill level, and, more importantly, the same understanding of art as a genuine artist'

 I fear many do seem to believe using AI software automatically gives them the equivalent of several years at an art college, a masters degree and an all encompassing knowledge of art and illustration, not to mention talent!

Link to comment

Well, as expected, like the comments section on every news site on the internet, this thread has degenerated into ridiculous squabbling and general bullshit. 

Can we just ban the spammers and dump the AI generated crap into a different thread and be done with it? Surely there's room for a subthread in the animated section? 

This really shouldn't be so hard, or as painfully stupid as it has become. 

Link to comment
20 hours ago, PrincelyDesire said:

Nah, photography and digital art still require more artistic skill and creation than any AI programmer creating imagery that way - it is still not the same thing.

Thanks for not addressing my post... What about the part where I mentioned there was controversy calling photography and digital imagery "art", as in people genuinely didn't like to call it art back when the techniques first spread? Who decides what counts as an appropriate amount of "artistic skill" for something to count as art anyways? This quote from this article describes this better than I can, so I'll share it here:

Quote

Hardship strengthens the delusion that you did something all by yourself. After all, if it hurt, it must’ve meant it was worth something. So this becomes a source of pride and a way to differentiate oneself from others who haven’t suffered the same hardships for the craft’s sake.

If AI is too easy to use to the point that it doesn't count, then prove it by generating a masterpiece.

 

21 hours ago, LifeIsStrange said:

if I were you i'd worry way more about your own inability to differentiate between ACTUAL discrimination faced by marginalized people and discrimination that's all in your head that has zero actual basis in reality. if you truly think people with actual valid points against AI voicing their criticisms is in ANY way remotely comparable to what LGBTQ individuals have to deal with then you're not worth engaging with period and I won't waste my time on you any further as you're clearly an AI evangelist who won't listen to one ounce of criticism of it.
 

Apparently 3 users are spamming the gallery with AI art and people are calling to restrict all of AI art for all users, which is not a form of discrimination. Voicing my concern for this type of behavior makes me an AI evangelist, not responding well to criticisms such as "AI artists are lazy because I said so" and "AI artists are incapable of originality because trust me" and "AI is theft because this article explains it somewhere". If you must absolutely need me to say it outright, I'll say it: AI artists are not a marginalized group. I'll also admit that many AI artists are lazy and use AI for false endorsement and unsolicited porn.

Note that the original post was all about dealing with spammers and I personally don't believe creating an entire section for them to continue spamming is a wise idea, but we kinda swayed from that. I created another thread specifically for AI discussion to stop cluttering the Feedback forum but that's not really working, so maybe I need to try harder...

It's alright if you are no longer interested in engaging with me. Did you want me to comment about the article you posted? I read it and it's interesting, but there's no point writing about it if you don't wanna hear it.

Link to comment

Hi,

Please keep the topic as to what its for, this isn't a thread for debating/tailoring thesis' on your particular unmovable view on whatever your stance is, its for discussing the pros and cons of another gallery section for a.i generated images. There is a lot of very badly veiled immaturity in this thread that needs to stop.

I completely understand the spam concerns, and on the discord we already require that A.I images be posted into a specific A.I thread (and delete any posted outside of it on sight). I do not know whether we'd do something like this or just ban the images all together on the site. Maybe a way to keep them from showing up in the new images galleries to combat the spam, so that you need to go deliberately looking for them? Idk, I'm not the site-builder here. I'll call that nerd.

@Kyuu nudge nudge

Link to comment
5 hours ago, KozmoFox said:

I completely understand the spam concerns, and on the discord we already require that A.I images be posted into a specific A.I thread (and delete any posted outside of it on sight). I do not know whether we'd do something like this or just ban the images all together on the site. Maybe a way to keep them from showing up in the new images galleries to combat the spam, so that you need to go deliberately looking for them? Idk, I'm not the site-builder here. I'll call that nerd.

Are the moderators aware that a very small number of users are spamming the galleries with dumps of AI-generated content? If there's a genuine demand for AI dumps then it makes sense to create a separate gallery to stop them from clogging the main gallery, otherwise it's simple enough to restrict or remove those users' uploads. Either way I believe it's important to deal with them for causing so much headaches in such a way that doesn't kill AI-assisted content completely.

It's an open secret that one specific user is posting way more AI-generated content than others but I'm surprised we haven't done anything about it yet.

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...
13 hours ago, CushieDragons said:

It’s not art, the technology is actually called “image generation”. Without previous art made by humans existing, the technology wouldn't have any information to create the images.

It takes a human with a tool to create art, no matter the tool... Even splashing a canvas randomly with paint is art, if only because a human was involved. The argument is that a separate gallery for art created with a specific tool is unnecessary since it can be tagged appropriately, which also applies for any medium like 3D renders or hand-drawn sketches. The problem with the spamming appears to be solved, so this suggestion thread is complete.

I already made a thread for discussions a while back if you have anything more to add.

 

Link to comment
On 2/10/2024 at 9:10 PM, KozmoFox said:

Please keep the topic as to what its for, this isn't a thread for debating/tailoring thesis' on your particular unmovable view on whatever your stance is, its for discussing the pros and cons of another gallery section for a.i generated images. There is a lot of very badly veiled immaturity in this thread that needs to stop.

Reminder.

I'll be locking this thread, given I feel its run its course. This debate doesn't have a place here, nor are we looking into making any sort of a.i galleries at this time.

Link to comment
  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...