6 ms·
AI Art Is the New Stock Image
- minimaxir 3y agoMost of the "bad" AI image examples in this article are from the /r/weirddalle subreddit, which intentionally highlight bizarre and nonsensical images: https://www.reddit.com/r/weirddalle/ https://www.reddit.com/r/weirddalle/ Some examples: Pepsi Buffalo Wings flavor: https://www.reddit.com/r/weirddalle/comments/198g30z/which_one_would_you_drink/ https://www.reddit.com/r/weirddalle/comments/198g30z/which_o... Razer gaming product concepts: https://www.reddit.com/r/weirddalle/comments/197qgi1/with_the_success_of_the_razer_face_mask_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/weirddalle/comments/197qgi1/with_th... Indiana Jones stealing subs: https://www.reddit.com/r/weirddalle/comments/1987cj4/running_away_from_a_firehouse_subs_holding_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/weirddalle/comments/1987cj4/running...
- protocolture 3y agoRight so the author has taken the most extreme level of weirdness and tried to use it as an example of normal image generator output. Thats quite dishonest.
- zetsurin 3y agoTotally anecdotal, just tonight i saw a video my child was watching with generated images. At first i thought, I've seen that face in generated images, i think, then we looked a little closer, and noticed obvious mistakes (extra or weird fingers, weird body positions, cross eyes where you wouldn't expect them). Of course it's the first time I've spotted it in the wild where it wasn't explicitly marked as generated content, so maybe i've missed a bunch.
- lee101k 3y ago[dead]
- protocolture 3y agoThat totally happens, and its not like the blog post is definitely wrong. Its just dishonest, which undermines its own argument.
- gfodor 3y agoThis reminds me of when people claim they don’t understand why people get plastic surgery because it makes people look so bad.
- huytersd 3y agoI don’t know what your angle is but if plastic surgery is done right (ie most cases) you never explicitly notice it.
- penjelly 3y agoif you had before and after photos it would certainly be noticable. Otherwise what would be the point? You cant tell me botox, lip injections or a nose job are "not explicitly noticable" when they drastically change your facial profile, especially over multiple years
- huytersd 3y agoYes, but I’m talking about in the wild which is what is relevant to this analogy.
- gfodor 3y agoSometimes when I post, I’m like Morpheus. I can only show you the door,
- huytersd 3y agoDid you forget to bring the red and blue pills?
- pigeons 3y agoI literally don't understand why people get plastic surgery because it makes people look so bad! So can you explain?
- gfodor 3y ago
- dbspin 3y agoThe article lack substance, it doesn't offer a substantive critique and the cherry picked examples are both confusing and arbitrary. I say this as someone deeply critical of the way deep learning models are being trained and deployed, and deeply fearful of how they'll distort our culture in the future. But we need substantive engagement with the aesthetic and economic issues. Such a shallow critique has no place on hackernews.
- jawns 3y agoYes, it's the new stock image, but one thing I think is a game changer is the incorporation of custom text. I am a member of a homeschool group, and they use impressive AI-generated stock images that always have the group name or other relevant text embedded in creative ways, like on a chalkboard or whiteboard.
- overvale 3y agoI don’t get the negativity in these comments. Sure, this is not a groundbreaking article, just a simple blog post with a simple plea, stated very clearly in the conclusion: > AI or not, images should be given the same attention as text. Choose each visual carefully and place it in the right context. Don’t let AI do your job, use it as a tool. I too have seen a proliferation of AI art accompanying articles around the web and many of them, as this article points out, are poorly selected and bad replacements of the already bad practice of every single article being accompanied by a photo. Likely for SEO or something.
- jacquesm 3y agoIt it's produced by AI it's not art by definition.
- Spivak 3y agoThe legal world already has an answer to machine generated art as it pertains to copyright and it somewhat agrees with you. The act of a machine generating images isn't copyrightable but the act of selecting one or more of those images becomes copyrightable art.
- simonw 3y agoI've still not seen a convincing answer from the legal world as to how MUCH human involvement makes an AI-assisted image copyrightable. Can I claim copyright on my picture of a pelican in a fancy hat or not? https://fedi.simonwillison.net/@simon/111489351875265358 https://fedi.simonwillison.net/@simon/111489351875265358
- simonw 3y agoWhich definition? I thought art was notoriously difficult to clearly define!
- andsoitis 3y agoThe Oxford dictionary defines art: ” the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.”
- smusamashah 3y agoHaving spent some passionate time with StableDiffusion I can outline a few signs in the details of images this article has missed. - tiny details never make sense. In real art or photos, no line or edge is useless or senseless. But since generated images are only hallucinations, the tiny lines often blend into something else, convert to something else, or simply fade out. - scaling is wrong. Most of the times scaling won't make sense. Take a tiny part of the image, just looking at that part, can you guess how big or small other things in that image should be? A box lying on the floor looks way too small or big for example. - perspective is off. That sponge + cheese image for example the angle of eyes or head or the appearant thickness on that angle isn't right. Models are getting really good though. Previously you could look at texture of clothes and tell, that is almost gone these and you have to find some other pattern which is usually some other non-symmetry. Tiny details, textures is the most visible and almost always recognisable sign of a generated (unaltered) image.
- userbinator 3y agoTiny details, textures is the most visible and almost always recognisable sign of a generated (unaltered) image. In some ways, I think AI art resembles what you'd see in a dream. The "big picture" is there and logical, but otherwise it's full of little inconsistencies that don't make sense.
- golergka 3y ago> In real art or photos, no line or edge is useless or senseless. In real art, artists screw up little details all the time. I've recently seen an X thread (unfortunately no longer have the link) where the author quite convisiningly highlighted all the kinds of typical AI artefacts found in the works of Rembrandt.
- smusamashah 3y agoI am not an artist but can draw a little and if by screwing up little details you mean filling the image with random strokes which make the bigure picture look correct than those are not what I am talking about. In generated image when you follow a tiny detail it will just disappear into something else. In painting you can usually see the strokes up close but in a gen image, those strokes will be a weird blend if they are visible. Tiny details like paint smidges etc won't be there. Shadows of tiny details won't make sense. I really like to see that X thread.
- protocolture 3y agoI only tested the pulp example, but it was trivial for me to create images that look much closer to pulp covers than the provided image. The author of this blog clearly has zero experience with image generators.
- BeetleB 3y agoEven before Stable Diffusion et al, I had grown to detest the majority of stock image use (for articles/blogs). They almost never add to the article, and often mislead. It's not a coincidence that the one place they are heavily used is marketing/ads. When people add a stock image to an article/blog post, they really are playing the ad game, even if they're not selling for money. Not a big loss if they're all replaced with AI.
- simonw 3y agoI wish articles like this would provide some indication of who wrote them. This is an opinion piece, so I'd like to know who it is the opinion of!
- felipeerias 3y agoPersonally, I find that the most satisfying AI images are not the ones that try to imitate photographs or do a hyperrealistic style, but the ones inspired by artistic schools which were intentionally coarse and textured. A few examples here, from back when I was a Midjourney user: https://x.com/felipeerias/status/1749270656041234656 https://x.com/felipeerias/status/1749270656041234656
- lee101k 3y ago[dead]
- nailz1911 3y ago"One of the lamest ways to use AI is to generate images in the style of painting artists." The lamest way? It is my favourite! I guess im a lamer then. :(
- patchinko 3y ago[flagged]