7 ms·
I noticed the last few months that in several subreddits that have nothing to do with tech, the sentiment had shifted very negatively regarding AI art. Some sub
by tetrisgm 2y ago
I noticed the last few months that in several subreddits that have nothing to do with tech, the sentiment had shifted very negatively regarding AI art. Some subs straight up ban those images. No reason given.
It seems the mainstream view is grounded in anxiety and dislike for tech. This isn’t shared by my friends who enjoy tech at all.
Have others here been experiencing this?
- taminka 2y ago[flagged]
- mikhailt 2y agoWe can’t prevent the technology from being invented, it was always going to happen (video games and VR was practically going to have this AI generated worlds). It is just a matter of doing it right the first time such as having license/agreements or company building it based on their own images.
- taminka 2y agojust because we can't prevent something from being invented, doesn't mean we can't prevent its spread: we limit technology all the time like chemical weapons were invented, bioweapons were invented, meth manufacturing was invented, but we prohibit people from manufacturing them because they're harmful same logic could apply to generative machine learning (obv not as harmful as above examples, but same idea)
- spunker540 2y agoIt seems pretty surprising to me that you can already tell where generative models are going, and that they should be stopped in their tracks immediately. Is there any documented harm yet?
- taminka 2y agoblackmail, deepfakes, misinformation, impersonation? literally any website containing images is in most cases overwhelmed with an unlimited supply of ai generated garbage ai image generators are barely two years old, and have already caused a lot of damage in basically every sphere they interact with, i'd say you don't need a lot of foresight to be able to make a judgement here
- mikhailt 2y agoThat’s not what the OP said though, what you’re describing is basically regulations. All we can do is regulate to outlaw and punish those who don’t comply with it but that’s still not possible to limit. Chemical weapons are still being developed (Russia used it in their war against Ukraine), bioweapons are still being developed, meth are still being manufactured all over in US if not smuggled in.
- TeMPOraL 2y agoSame argument could be brought against the printing press. In a sense, it was - that's how copyright became a thing in the first place. Same for photocopiers, printers, general-purpose computers. If, at any point, some of that tech had "never have been invented or at the very least not released into the public", we wouldn't have e.g. photolitography and thus no modern microchips. Copyright are a legal equivalent of a dirty hack to preserve some legacy behavior, that became a permanent fixture over time. Like with dirty hacks in code, you're going to get different responses from different people, depending on situation.
- taminka 2y agothe technologies you mentioned helped spread very useful information, not worthless images devoid of meaning, artistic expression and thought also, even in absence of copyright, the unprecedented scale of art theft that these technologies necessitate would be morally questionable
- GaggiX 2y agoThere is no theft; this is simply how any being, human or not, works, or else you would be a caveman.
- taminka 2y agoi'm sorry, but you have to be extremely naive to think that all these companies actually respect people's work enough to verify that all their training data is properly licensed, and deliberately hinder themselves and put themselves behind their competitors by avoiding any copyrighted work
- GaggiX 2y agoThey clearly do not avoid copyrighted work, where in my reply did you infer the opposite?
- 2y ago
- Metameh 2y ago[dead]
- mikhailt 2y agoIt is not solely due to dislike of tech but rather the copyrights being violated and artists losing revenue to it.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mvdtnz 2y ago> It seems the mainstream view is grounded in anxiety and dislike for tech. No, you're barking up the wrong tree here. I love tech, I work in the industry and intend to continue to do so. I hate AI art because it's just bad. It's awful. AI produces images that don't make physical sense, have a weird glossy "digital art" sheen and most of all have zero artistic merit. I only want to see art (and read text) produced by human beings.
- llm_trw 2y ago>I hate AI art because it's just bad. It's awful. AI produces images that don't make physical sense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Persistence_of_Memory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Persistence_of_Memory
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- genericacct 2y agoI take it you dislike Escher as well then
- dmarcos 2y agoAI is just a tool in the box for humans to take advantage of. You can do bad and good stuff with it (most art is bad regardless of the tool). This is my fav video series that heavily uses AI tools (images, video, audio, lip sync): https://x.com/neuralviz/status/1848176393282326595 https://x.com/neuralviz/status/1848176393282326595 I enjoy it and I think has tons of artistic merit
- ben_w 2y ago> AI produces images that don't make physical sense Der Kuss is an oil-on-canvas painting with added gold leaf, silver and platinum. It is widely praised and held in high regard. To me, it looks like the man has a broken neck, and the woman's been decapitated, her head rotated 90° and reattached to her torso by the ear. This isn't to say that AI art is flawless on the first go — just that quite a lot of famous "good" art has exactly that specific flaw too. Even though GenAI is getting better, and even though competent users know how to work around this with the right kinds of effort, normal people don't study the thing they want to get an image of before asking an AI to make it for them, and therefore will generally fail to notice when the image they've just made is still very wrong at at least one entire layer of abstraction about how the things it's depicting function or relate to each other.
- renewiltord 2y agoIt's just a young audience. They've always been very impressionable. When the iPad came out Reddit was all about "This is it? More like MaxiPad, amirite?! Lol what a marketing idiot" and "it's just 4 iPhones taped together lol" etc. etc. Online commenters are frequently not very different from an army of LLMs talking to each other. They get stuck on a few points and keep repeating them. You can pay attention to them if you like, but take a quick stop on /r/relationshipadvice or /r/amitheasshole and you'll find out what the audience actually is. And then you can ask yourself: does these people's opinion matter to me? Do I want to be like them?
- qwerpy 2y agoAs a glass half full guy, I appreciate Reddit and CNN/Fox comment sections for compartmentalizing all of these people away from the rest of us.
- hooverd 2y agoGood. Every time I see AI "art" it's just someone with the worst taste spewing their slop everywhere. It drowns out actually good art.
- llm_trw 2y agoThe people who can are leaving the internet and moving to using AI models. The people left are the ones who don't know how, or have a bone to pick with them. As an example I've not had to use google for a knowledge search in months now. Perplexity is much better, both for a summary of what I'm looking for, and for finding non-garbage links.
- ubercow13 2y agoSo you use it to get links back to the internet. I expect the non-garbage links part won't last long, in the AI age.
- llm_trw 2y agoThe part of the internet that was not-garbage was always the part run by volunteers. Screening the number of people who visit those sites preserves them since the volunteers don't need to interact with the self entitled masses. That clickfarms will die is no great loss.
- lancesells 2y ago> Perplexity is much better, both for a summary of what I'm looking for, and for finding non-garbage links. So AI can summarize the news for you. But how does it do it? It steals the news from actual people and organizations. We're all selfish beings who want to save time and/or effort but what do you think happens to Perplexity if it had no access to news organizations? What's the end outcome here?
- vunderba 2y agoOngoing copyright issues notwithstanding, it's because 99% of the mainstream usage of generative art, generative music, generative LLMs is noise. And sure, noise existed before but things like Suno and Midjourney amplify the issue by an exponential factor. It crowds out the people who genuinely devote thought, skill and time into their creations.
- jsheard 2y agoParticularly on platforms like Reddit, to OPs point about the sentiment on there, because they're so prone to being overwhelmed by low quality AI content if it's not kept under control (which usually means the subreddit banning AI posts with no exceptions). Ranking systems like Reddits require user engagement to work, and most users don't want to engage with a never-ending firehose of MidJourney slop to the extent required to separate the signal from the noise.
- notahacker 2y agoThe tendency for people to spam AI images in contexts devoted to sharing images of real stuff is particularly irritating.
- jsheard 2y agoYep, subreddits like /r/cosplay had to add rules strictly banning AI images despite it being blatantly obvious that they're against the whole point of the sub. People spam AI anyway unless the moderators intervene to delete it and ban repeat offenders.
- Workaccount2 2y agoArt has been an extremely saturated field even before transformers showed up.
- TiredOfLife 2y agoSo AI art has reached Jazz stage.
- 2y ago
- Havoc 2y ago>sentiment had shifted very negatively regarding AI art. See the drama around the baby peacock search. The results were not only AI filled but objectively entirely wrong. I'd link you to said drama but I literally can't find it because search is just picking up an echo chamber of AI. Which in a way is pretty meta commentary in itself. I appreciate the ability to generate images of whatever I want. I don't like the way it's messing with perception of reality in a world which we view largely through screens. >dislike for tech. This isn’t shared by my friends who enjoy tech at all. Are they in tech or in the creative space. People I know in creative spaces are anxious while those in the tech space tend to be mixed (doomer vs AI utopia split)
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Workaccount2 2y agoPublications have had a very negative tilt since GPT4 showed up. It's no surprise since LLM's are clearly an existential threat to them. Transformers are also a very real existential threat to artists, as the vast majority can only ever have a decent career "working for the man", which is ultimately run by business people who could care less about AI generated material if it dramatically reduces cost while being effectively identical.
- kredd 2y agoEh, different bubbles of people I think. My tech-loving friends (including me), aren't fan of AI art because how low effort everything is. Some funny memes, but even then you get used to them and move on. It was definitely "cool" when it came out, but if it's simple still images, icons, and etc., they're kinda meh, at least for me. What Adobe did with the rotation tool is pretty cool, and if we start seeing effects of such AI art, that would be a bit different. But again, it has to be used in a specific way to inspire anyone. I'm actually curious what the people around you find cool about AI art. Nothing has "awed" me in the past 16 months, I would say.
- dmarcos 2y ago“Awed” is a big word. I’ve been awed by art only a handful of times in my life. I start to see people using AI in ways I find enjoyable and interesting. Below my fav video series that heavily uses AI (images, video, lip sync, sound). I enjoy it and I think it has artistic merit https://x.com/dmarcos/status/1848835003079397646 https://x.com/dmarcos/status/1848835003079397646 It’s done by a single person. Individuals will be able to make stuff that needed teams and large budgets before. It will allow for much more creative risks.
- mvdtnz 2y agoIt's.... awful. It's mostly just a slideshow of very AI-generated-looking art with some weird-enough looking aliens to not fall into the uncanny valley. The lip sync is not even close.
- dmarcos 2y agoFair if you don't like it. I find it interesting, enjoyable and many other people too. The author would not have been able to create something like that without AI. We're in year two and stuff only gonna get better.
- kredd 2y agoThe counter point is, if it makes it so easy to make it, it’s just… meh. We get used to things extremely fast. Even in traditional art. The Black Square was revolutionary in its specific way, but the copycats aren’t talked about. I think the AI Seinfeld will be remembered for a while, but random spin offs will be forgotten. Just like how Twitch Plays Pokemon was huge, but follow ups got forgotten. AI art will need to find uniqueness angle at each step, because the complexity aspect will never be there.
- ben_w 2y agoYeah, in some places it gets dismissed as "low effort posts". Even if they otherwise accept scribbles on lined paper by people who clearly don't have so much as high-school art.
- 123yawaworht456 2y ago[flagged]
- 93po 2y agothe unfortunate reality is that those people are mainstream views - they share the same views as mainstream media, which is owned by billionaires and supporting political establishment. reddit absolutely hates anything an inch to the left or right of establishment democrats, which is really extremely moderate to conservative in a global context.
- MattRix 2y agoThe vast majority of people I know who dislike AI art (including myself) are people who love tech, but hate how this tech has been trained on the art of human artists without credit or compensation… and then on top of that it’s being used to replace those artists and reduce their job prospects! It’s easy to see why this sucks if you take a step back.
- dmarcos 2y agoAI art is just art. Most is bad (same as without AI). AI is just another tool in the toolbox. Shared link below in a different comment. My fav video series that heavily uses AI (images, video, lip sync, sound). I enjoy it and I think it has artistic merit https://x.com/dmarcos/status/1848835003079397646 https://x.com/dmarcos/status/1848835003079397646 Even with AI, one needs talent and skill to create something noteworthy. Just the standard of what’s compelling will change. I think people capable to adapt to the new tech will do fine creatively and financially.
- Incipient 2y ago>AI art is just art Not necessarily. You need to define "art" and most likely "creativity". As you have said AI is a tool, I assume you're not anthropomorphising the model itself as an artistic being. So it's down to creativity/skill. I would say someone saying "create me an image of a person on a lake" has no creativity/skill at all. It may be an image, or a drawing, but it's not art. In the same way I can draw a stick person - it's a drawing without creativity/skill, so it's just a drawing, not art.
- dmarcos 2y agoTo make the most of AI tools you need to understand how they work. Just prompting to me is just like using clipart or stock images. For interesting stuff people are doing search for ComfyUI tutorials on YouTube. It's a skill as like in any other digital art tool.
- MattRix 2y agoI agree that AI can be used to make real art, but that's not the issue at hand. None of that addresses the argument I made, that it was trained on the work of real human artists without compensation, and will be used to replace many of the jobs of those same artists.
- rsynnott 2y agoI'd assume because it's spam; it has made producing low-quality crap practically free, leading to the whole internet being flooded with it. See the notorious baby peacock, for instance.