4 ms·

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

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 draw it? Did my toddler? Was I on hallucinogens when I drew it? Did I use computer algorithms (filters) on any form of the digital art? If the intent is to preserve the "effort" that goes into art, fine, but that will be a really gray line. I guess it's all fine to have the rules, it's similar to the natural body building competition.

jxy 4y ago
How can they draw the line between AI and non-AI assisted art? What about a gaussian kernel filter? How about adding a saturation enhancer? How about putting a few of those together and let's play with the parameters a bit for fun?
advisedwang 4y ago
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, which is easy to detect.
- nonbirithm 4y ago
  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 https://twitter.com/Dragoneer/status/1566900442650628096

jxy 4y ago

How can they draw the line between AI and non-AI assisted art? What about a gaussian kernel filter? How about adding a saturation enhancer? How about putting a few of those together and let's play with the parameters a bit for fun?

advisedwang 4y ago

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, which is easy to detect.

nonbirithm 4y ago
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 https://twitter.com/Dragoneer/status/1566900442650628096