7 ms·

Looks like it comes from the original RIKEN article [1], where they call it an "artistic rendering" instead of an "artist's impression." More accurate, I suppos

Looks like it comes from the original RIKEN article [1], where they call it an "artistic rendering" instead of an "artist's impression." More accurate, I suppose, but I wish people would just actually say if an image is AI generated or not, at least for the sake of clarity. [1] https://www.riken.jp/en/news_pubs/research_news/rr/20250327_1/index.html https://www.riken.jp/en/news_pubs/research_news/rr/20250327_...

alphan0n 2y ago
The original [0](PDF, Japanese) was published in November 2024 and features a similar but not identical rendering. I don’t think the original is AI generated at all. [0]https://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/content/400252514.pdf https://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/content/400252514.pdf
- jacobgkau 2y ago
  It looks to me like the original image from that PDF was possibly fed into an AI program to generate a similar version, probably to get rid of the text (and possibly also to change the aspect ratio and/or just make it more picturesque for a news article).
  - alphan0n 2y ago
    That makes sense.
dylan604 2y ago
i'm fine if the call it artist impression without calling it AI generated. i don't care if the artist's impression was created in watercolors, oil, charcoal, or AI. as long as it is identified as not an actual image is the main concern
- jacobgkau 2y ago
  The problem is that it's an AI program's impression, not an artist's impression. Edit: If you can't get past the fact that AI image generators are not equivalent as an artistic medium to different types of paint, think of it this way: if I describe something to an artist and have them paint it, is the resulting image my impression because I prompted the artist, or is it the artist's impression of what I described? Clearly it's the artist's impression. So just because an "AI artist" prompts an AI app, that wouldn't make it the prompter's impression; it's still the AI app's impression. And an AI app's not an "artist" itself by virtue of being a computer program and not a human (as you yourself admit by attempting to liken it to a tool such as paint).
  - dylan604 2y ago
    > The problem is that it's an AI program's impression, not an artist's impression. I just made a similar reply, but I disagree with this. The artist iterates with their prompts to the AI tool to get what they wanted. So when they stopped tweaking the prompt, they were satisfied with the result to be their impression
    - aithrowawaycomm 2y ago
      "AI art generators enable the creation of ignorant and lazy illustrations by outsourcing understanding to an idiot robot." "Yes, but is it not the intent of the artist to be ignorant and lazy?" It is possible to repeatedly iterate AI art gen and get what you want, but that's not what happened here. And even so, it's not at all the same thing as drawing a picture: "iterating on what you want" is equivalent to curating art, not creating it. In the US you can copyright curation and that extends to curation of AI art - the US Copyright Office correctly said that tweaking prompts is the same thing as tweaking a Google Images search string for online image curation. But you can't copyright the actual AI-gen pictures, they are automatically public domain (unless they infringe someone else's copyright).
      - dragonwriter 2y ago
        > But you can't copyright the actual AI-gen pictures, The US Copyright Office has, in fact, granted at least one copyright registration for an image created with the use of AI generation. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/invoke-snags-first-ai-image-copyright-2608219 https://news.artnet.com/art-world/invoke-snags-first-ai-imag...
        aithrowawaycomm 2y ago
        I am specifically talking about DALL-E or Stable Diffusion, your link describes something very different. The point was the "Google Images" analogy, which applies to 99.999% of AI art but this is an exception.
- trompetenaccoun 2y ago
  You're fine with being mislead a little? I'm not a materials scientist so I can't comment on this specific topic but based on my experience with pop science reporting errors and misinformation often come in multiples. The author has a "Bachelor of Arts in Professional Writing". RIKEN's press release is already written for a general audience and in English, so there isn't a good reason not to read the original source instead.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    yes, because it's not really a misleading title as it is still the artist's impression. If the artist didn't like it, they would just keep modifying the prompt until they were satisfied. So it is the artist's impression. where are we disagreeing?
    - trompetenaccoun 2y ago
      Users of popular apps are not in control, the people tweaking the models are. GenAI is not an artist.
- soerxpso 2y ago
  The issue is the artist in this particular case didn't really provide their impression. When I hear that something is an "artist's impression" I expect it to mean that a reasonable thinking person read about the thing in at least more detail than I have (since all I've done is skim an article) and then created an image that conveys the information visually. If all the artist did is tell an AI to render "a piece of plastic dissolving in the ocean" it's not conveying any information that's not in the headline, and it's not very pretty either. If the point was purely aesthetics, maybe they could at least use Midjourney or that new Ghibli style transfer thing instead of what looks about as good as old Dall-E? It's ugly. If the point was to convey information, they could have done that better with a 30-second pencil sketch, which would have also taken less effort than the AI-generated thing.

alphan0n 2y ago

The original [0](PDF, Japanese) was published in November 2024 and features a similar but not identical rendering. I don’t think the original is AI generated at all. [0]https://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/content/400252514.pdf https://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/content/400252514.pdf

jacobgkau 2y ago
It looks to me like the original image from that PDF was possibly fed into an AI program to generate a similar version, probably to get rid of the text (and possibly also to change the aspect ratio and/or just make it more picturesque for a news article).
- alphan0n 2y ago
  That makes sense.

dylan604 2y ago

i'm fine if the call it artist impression without calling it AI generated. i don't care if the artist's impression was created in watercolors, oil, charcoal, or AI. as long as it is identified as not an actual image is the main concern

jacobgkau 2y ago
The problem is that it's an AI program's impression, not an artist's impression. Edit: If you can't get past the fact that AI image generators are not equivalent as an artistic medium to different types of paint, think of it this way: if I describe something to an artist and have them paint it, is the resulting image my impression because I prompted the artist, or is it the artist's impression of what I described? Clearly it's the artist's impression. So just because an "AI artist" prompts an AI app, that wouldn't make it the prompter's impression; it's still the AI app's impression. And an AI app's not an "artist" itself by virtue of being a computer program and not a human (as you yourself admit by attempting to liken it to a tool such as paint).
- dylan604 2y ago
  > The problem is that it's an AI program's impression, not an artist's impression. I just made a similar reply, but I disagree with this. The artist iterates with their prompts to the AI tool to get what they wanted. So when they stopped tweaking the prompt, they were satisfied with the result to be their impression
  - aithrowawaycomm 2y ago
    "AI art generators enable the creation of ignorant and lazy illustrations by outsourcing understanding to an idiot robot." "Yes, but is it not the intent of the artist to be ignorant and lazy?" It is possible to repeatedly iterate AI art gen and get what you want, but that's not what happened here. And even so, it's not at all the same thing as drawing a picture: "iterating on what you want" is equivalent to curating art, not creating it. In the US you can copyright curation and that extends to curation of AI art - the US Copyright Office correctly said that tweaking prompts is the same thing as tweaking a Google Images search string for online image curation. But you can't copyright the actual AI-gen pictures, they are automatically public domain (unless they infringe someone else's copyright).
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > But you can't copyright the actual AI-gen pictures, The US Copyright Office has, in fact, granted at least one copyright registration for an image created with the use of AI generation. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/invoke-snags-first-ai-image-copyright-2608219 https://news.artnet.com/art-world/invoke-snags-first-ai-imag...
      - aithrowawaycomm 2y ago
        I am specifically talking about DALL-E or Stable Diffusion, your link describes something very different. The point was the "Google Images" analogy, which applies to 99.999% of AI art but this is an exception.
trompetenaccoun 2y ago
You're fine with being mislead a little? I'm not a materials scientist so I can't comment on this specific topic but based on my experience with pop science reporting errors and misinformation often come in multiples. The author has a "Bachelor of Arts in Professional Writing". RIKEN's press release is already written for a general audience and in English, so there isn't a good reason not to read the original source instead.
- dylan604 2y ago
  yes, because it's not really a misleading title as it is still the artist's impression. If the artist didn't like it, they would just keep modifying the prompt until they were satisfied. So it is the artist's impression. where are we disagreeing?
  - trompetenaccoun 2y ago
    Users of popular apps are not in control, the people tweaking the models are. GenAI is not an artist.
soerxpso 2y ago
The issue is the artist in this particular case didn't really provide their impression. When I hear that something is an "artist's impression" I expect it to mean that a reasonable thinking person read about the thing in at least more detail than I have (since all I've done is skim an article) and then created an image that conveys the information visually. If all the artist did is tell an AI to render "a piece of plastic dissolving in the ocean" it's not conveying any information that's not in the headline, and it's not very pretty either. If the point was purely aesthetics, maybe they could at least use Midjourney or that new Ghibli style transfer thing instead of what looks about as good as old Dall-E? It's ugly. If the point was to convey information, they could have done that better with a 30-second pencil sketch, which would have also taken less effort than the AI-generated thing.