6 ms·

This is such a poorly constructed hit piece, it almost doesn't warrant an investigation. ... almost... But! we're here, so let's dive in. | Oftentimes, Avery

This is such a poorly constructed hit piece, it almost doesn't warrant an investigation. ... almost... But! we're here, so let's dive in. | Oftentimes, Avery provided the subject’s name and a cutesy anecdote about their life, such as Lucy, “a strong woman from the Bronx,” sure, also a bio that is obviously made up, even if he hadn't added this: | (Fictional story. Let us know in the comments if you like a tale in the caption.) which the post includes, right after making that statement ... then there's this blatant gem: | among the myriad hashtags that accompanied each image, not one mentioned A.I. art or generative art. .. so okay, there's no hashtag, but a number of his posts have | Photo? AI-generated? Both? So, to believe he's trying to hoodwink you into thinking it's just photography, when the completely obvious point is to create a discussion, you'd have to be lazy, not paying attention, or trying to sell me on a piece of ragebait. Or all of the above. This just in: fake generated rage posted under the guise of journalism.

thom 4y ago
Didn’t he explicitly deny they were AI generated at one point?
- pksebben 4y ago
  according to the article, which provides no references to such an incident, but does highlight the word "dishonesty" with a link, when taking about him. Too bad that the link leads to an article that doesn't mention Joe Avery at all [1] You know, like when you present a link as if it means something knowing practically nobody is going to click on it. like a lie. 1 https://news.artnet.com/art-world/fake-artists-collectors-instagram-2059155 https://news.artnet.com/art-world/fake-artists-collectors-in...
jxf 4y ago
> So, to believe he's trying to hoodwink you into thinking it's just photography [...] you'd have to be lazy, not paying attention, or trying to sell me on a piece of ragebait. Or all of the above. I think you missed this part: > A further issue stemmed from Avery having previously denied that the images were A.I.-generated and were, in fact, taken on a Nikon D810. People might have been "hoodwinked", to use your words, that it was photography if in fact he told them "I made this with a camera". Those people might then also be reasonably upset to learn they were lied to.
- pksebben 4y ago
  Where. Where did he do this. What was the context. I don't see a mention of a Nikon on his posts, and the article helpfully fails to present any source on this claim.
  - epups 4y ago
    I don't understand why you are so skeptical. In an interview with him, he said he "wanted to come clean", and admits the vast majority of his followers had no idea he was using AI. The quote above is also present in this interview piece [1]: "Up until very recently, when asked, Avery was either vague about how he created the images or told people his works were actual photographs, even going so far as to describe which kind of camera he used to create them ("a Nikon D810 with 24-70mm lens"). " https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/02/viral-instagram-photographer-has-a-confession-his-photos-are-ai-generated/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/02/viral...
    - stavros 4y ago
      > I don't understand why you are so skeptical. Really? This is the internet, skepticism should be the default!
      - jxf 4y ago
        Skepticism should evaporate when presented with evidence contrary to the skeptic's point. Unilateral skepticism as a personality trait is boring and exhausting.
        andybak 4y ago
        Except something does feel off about this story.
        ImHereToVote 4y ago
        Facts don't care about your feelings.
mirrort 4y ago
> This is such a poorly constructed hit piece So is your comment. Maybe do not react so emotionally, and instead look at the facts?
devb 4y ago
For those confused by the strong reaction above, OP appears to be an AI "artist" along the same lines as the person this article is about.
- ImHereToVote 4y ago
  Please, we prefer the term aiteur.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  "PKSEBBEN, proprietor welcomes you to another 18+ Milk Tank Factory of big titty waifus! They're quivering and eager to be pumped full to the brim!" Compelling stuff.
  - pksebben 4y ago
    Ha! I got real pissed at you making up stuff about me, before I googled the quote and saw that deviantart account. I'm sorry to report, that's apparently just someone else who likes Harvey Birdman and porn (both of which I will admit to, but I never turned my interest into a productive hobby, I'm afraid). Note the age of the account - it's a touch older than stable diffusion. That is indeed, a helluva quote.
    - devb 4y ago
      Suuuuure
- pksebben 4y ago
  I can explain the strength of my reaction for myself, thanks. I'm not an "Ai 'artist'", scare quotes or no. I have an interest in the tech, and I've used it, but I wouldn't call myself an artist. Not that I think using the tool makes you not an artist, it's just not me. My reaction is strong because of the dishonesty in the piece itself. I really hate being lied to. The article presents links that appear to be relevant to the story, but are completely unrelated. They talk about things from the Ars Technica interview without mentioning the Ars Techinca interview (from which it seems apparent that while he does use terms like come clean and most of my viewers don't know, he came to Ars of his own accord, and states his intent to start a conversation). What I can see in this Insta account, is an attempt to start a conversation. I like conversation. I think it's important to discuss the finer points of stuff and really look at what we value and why critically. What this news piece seems to say is: "Hey! Look at this dishonest asshole using AI as if he were A real artist! Screw him! What a no-good lying sack of shit!". It feels like it's designed to drum up sentiment, not talk about anything, but just to sell the reader on some narrative that "the evil AI army is coming for your art lunch, go get a torch and / or pitchfork". So, perhaps a little immature of me, but I decided to respond in kind. But like better, by using references and context to elaborate rather than pretend those things don't exist. I may need to grow up a little, but that's what it is.
TazeTSchnitzel 4y ago
Online posts can be edited after-the-fact. The images with the “fictional” disclaimers all have a note from Instagram indicating that the description has been edited. Unfortunately, the Wayback Machine doesn't seem to work for Instagram, so I can't find out whether the edit was to add the disclaimers, or for something else.
lancesells 4y ago
> This just in: fake generated rage posted under the guise of journalism. Where's the rage in the article? More importantly, I wonder if I would have been fooled. The thumbnails in the article look like AI (especially the AI airbrushed hair and skin), but I saw the headline before I saw the prompt images.
happytoexplain 4y ago
I don't see any fake generated rage, or, in fact, any of the other sins you're accusing the article of. He said they weren't AI, now he's admitting they are. The points you're bringing up don't seem to refute this at all, and I am a little baffled by the intense negativity of your take on this.

thom 4y ago

Didn’t he explicitly deny they were AI generated at one point?

pksebben 4y ago
according to the article, which provides no references to such an incident, but does highlight the word "dishonesty" with a link, when taking about him. Too bad that the link leads to an article that doesn't mention Joe Avery at all [1] You know, like when you present a link as if it means something knowing practically nobody is going to click on it. like a lie. 1 https://news.artnet.com/art-world/fake-artists-collectors-instagram-2059155 https://news.artnet.com/art-world/fake-artists-collectors-in...

jxf 4y ago

> So, to believe he's trying to hoodwink you into thinking it's just photography [...] you'd have to be lazy, not paying attention, or trying to sell me on a piece of ragebait. Or all of the above. I think you missed this part: > A further issue stemmed from Avery having previously denied that the images were A.I.-generated and were, in fact, taken on a Nikon D810. People might have been "hoodwinked", to use your words, that it was photography if in fact he told them "I made this with a camera". Those people might then also be reasonably upset to learn they were lied to.

pksebben 4y ago
Where. Where did he do this. What was the context. I don't see a mention of a Nikon on his posts, and the article helpfully fails to present any source on this claim.
- epups 4y ago
  I don't understand why you are so skeptical. In an interview with him, he said he "wanted to come clean", and admits the vast majority of his followers had no idea he was using AI. The quote above is also present in this interview piece [1]: "Up until very recently, when asked, Avery was either vague about how he created the images or told people his works were actual photographs, even going so far as to describe which kind of camera he used to create them ("a Nikon D810 with 24-70mm lens"). " https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/02/viral-instagram-photographer-has-a-confession-his-photos-are-ai-generated/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/02/viral...
  - stavros 4y ago
    > I don't understand why you are so skeptical. Really? This is the internet, skepticism should be the default!
    - jxf 4y ago
      Skepticism should evaporate when presented with evidence contrary to the skeptic's point. Unilateral skepticism as a personality trait is boring and exhausting.
      - andybak 4y ago
        Except something does feel off about this story.
        ImHereToVote 4y ago
        Facts don't care about your feelings.

mirrort 4y ago

> This is such a poorly constructed hit piece So is your comment. Maybe do not react so emotionally, and instead look at the facts?

devb 4y ago

For those confused by the strong reaction above, OP appears to be an AI "artist" along the same lines as the person this article is about.

ImHereToVote 4y ago
Please, we prefer the term aiteur.
mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
"PKSEBBEN, proprietor welcomes you to another 18+ Milk Tank Factory of big titty waifus! They're quivering and eager to be pumped full to the brim!" Compelling stuff.
- pksebben 4y ago
  Ha! I got real pissed at you making up stuff about me, before I googled the quote and saw that deviantart account. I'm sorry to report, that's apparently just someone else who likes Harvey Birdman and porn (both of which I will admit to, but I never turned my interest into a productive hobby, I'm afraid). Note the age of the account - it's a touch older than stable diffusion. That is indeed, a helluva quote.
  - devb 4y ago
    Suuuuure
pksebben 4y ago
I can explain the strength of my reaction for myself, thanks. I'm not an "Ai 'artist'", scare quotes or no. I have an interest in the tech, and I've used it, but I wouldn't call myself an artist. Not that I think using the tool makes you not an artist, it's just not me. My reaction is strong because of the dishonesty in the piece itself. I really hate being lied to. The article presents links that appear to be relevant to the story, but are completely unrelated. They talk about things from the Ars Technica interview without mentioning the Ars Techinca interview (from which it seems apparent that while he does use terms like come clean and most of my viewers don't know, he came to Ars of his own accord, and states his intent to start a conversation). What I can see in this Insta account, is an attempt to start a conversation. I like conversation. I think it's important to discuss the finer points of stuff and really look at what we value and why critically. What this news piece seems to say is: "Hey! Look at this dishonest asshole using AI as if he were A real artist! Screw him! What a no-good lying sack of shit!". It feels like it's designed to drum up sentiment, not talk about anything, but just to sell the reader on some narrative that "the evil AI army is coming for your art lunch, go get a torch and / or pitchfork". So, perhaps a little immature of me, but I decided to respond in kind. But like better, by using references and context to elaborate rather than pretend those things don't exist. I may need to grow up a little, but that's what it is.

TazeTSchnitzel 4y ago

Online posts can be edited after-the-fact. The images with the “fictional” disclaimers all have a note from Instagram indicating that the description has been edited. Unfortunately, the Wayback Machine doesn't seem to work for Instagram, so I can't find out whether the edit was to add the disclaimers, or for something else.

lancesells 4y ago

> This just in: fake generated rage posted under the guise of journalism. Where's the rage in the article? More importantly, I wonder if I would have been fooled. The thumbnails in the article look like AI (especially the AI airbrushed hair and skin), but I saw the headline before I saw the prompt images.

happytoexplain 4y ago

I don't see any fake generated rage, or, in fact, any of the other sins you're accusing the article of. He said they weren't AI, now he's admitting they are. The points you're bringing up don't seem to refute this at all, and I am a little baffled by the intense negativity of your take on this.