3 ms·

What it implies is, it's not really about ethics per se, just like it's not really about 6th digits per se. People hate AI images, cut and dry. Law is agreeabl

What it implies is, it's not really about ethics per se, just like it's not really about 6th digits per se. People hate AI images, cut and dry. Law is agreeable hate, in a way. Things that gets enough hate will get regulated out, sooner or later.

TeMPOraL 2y ago
> People hate AI images, cut and dry. People hate bad AI images, because they hate bad images, period. They don't hate good AI images, and when they see great AI images, they don't even realize they are made by AI. It's true, there's a deluge of bad art now, and it's almost entirely AI art. But it's not because AI models exist or how they're trained - it's because marketers[0] don't give a fuck about how people feel. AI art is cheap and takes little effort to get - it's so cheap and low-effort, that on the lower end of quality scale, there is no human competition. It makes no economic sense to commission human labor to make art this bad. But with AI, you can get it for free - and marketing loves this, because, again, they don't care about people or the commons[1], they just see an ability to get ahead by trading away quality for greater volume at lower costs. In short: don't blame bad AI art on AI, blame it on people who spam us with it. -- [0] - I don't mean here just marketing agencies and people with marketing-related job titles, but also generally people engaging in excessive promotion of their services, content, or themselves. [1] - Such as population-level aesthetic sensibilities, or sanity.
- numpad0 2y ago
  I haven't seen a single AI image that were good let alone great. To be completely honest, I can't always tell, but when I come across images that give me inexplicable gastric discomfort that I can't explain why, and then it was revealed that it had been AI generated, that explains it all(doesn't remove the discomfort, just explains it). I don't have reasons to believe that I have above-average eyes on art among HNers, but it'll be funny and painful if so. I mean, I'm no Hayao "I sense insult to life itself" Miyazaki...
  - gs17 2y ago
    > I'm no Hayao "I sense insult to life itself" Miyazaki He was saying that in response to a computer-animated zombie that dragged itself along in a grotesque manner. It wasn't that it was animated by a computer, it was that he found it offensive in that it felt like it was making light of the struggles of people with disabilities. You definitely would also find it disgusting.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      I do find the way things like this* get parroted to be mildly amusing, given the "stochastic parot" phrase existed. * not only this contextually misleading quote, and I've also parotted things
- gs17 2y ago
  > They don't hate good AI images, and when they see great AI images, they don't even realize they are made by AI. There's a decent size group of people who have a knee-jerk negative response toward AI regardless of quality. They'd see that image, like it, and then when told it's AI, turn on it and decide it was obviously flawed from the beginning. Is there a version of "sour grapes" where the fox did eat the grapes, they were delicious, but he declared they were sour after the fact to claim moral superiority?
  - jcotton42 2y ago
    The issue with AI isn't quality, or at least isn't just quality. It's ethical (use of works for training without credit or compensation, potential to displace a large portion of the artistic market, etc.)
    - ben_w 2y ago
      Both are issues, for different people. Art as nice things, vs. art as a peacock's tail where the effort is the point. Fast fashion vs. Ned Ludd. Queen Elizabeth I saying to William Lee, "Thou aimest high, Master Lee. Consider thou what the invention could do to my poor subjects. It would assuredly bring to them ruin by depriving them of employment, thus making them beggars."
  - numpad0 2y ago
    > and then when told it's AI, turn on it and decide it was obviously flawed from the beginning. Have you seen any experimental results from researches in which participants were _falsely_ told something was AI-made, to prove and gauge that "moral superiority" effect? I'm not aware of any. There has to be many, because it has to be easy. No?
    - gs17 2y ago
      https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-45202-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-45202-3 is pretty similar to that, they randomized AI/human-made labels and participants considered the exact same piece less valuable and less creative when labeled as AI-made. It's not measuring "moral superiority", but it shows a "negative response toward AI regardless of quality". It's definitely an irrational response.
adzm 2y ago
> People hate AI images, cut and dry. I don't know for sure about the common usage, but personally my use of AI in Photoshop are things like replacing a telephone pole with a tree, or extending a photo outside of frame, which is much different than just generating entire images. It is unfortunate that this usage of generative AI is lumped in with everything else.
becquerel 2y ago
If everyone hated AI images, nobody would be creating them.
- numpad0 2y ago
  There are few who don't realize it, they go lunatic.

TeMPOraL 2y ago

> People hate AI images, cut and dry. People hate bad AI images, because they hate bad images, period. They don't hate good AI images, and when they see great AI images, they don't even realize they are made by AI. It's true, there's a deluge of bad art now, and it's almost entirely AI art. But it's not because AI models exist or how they're trained - it's because marketers[0] don't give a fuck about how people feel. AI art is cheap and takes little effort to get - it's so cheap and low-effort, that on the lower end of quality scale, there is no human competition. It makes no economic sense to commission human labor to make art this bad. But with AI, you can get it for free - and marketing loves this, because, again, they don't care about people or the commons[1], they just see an ability to get ahead by trading away quality for greater volume at lower costs. In short: don't blame bad AI art on AI, blame it on people who spam us with it. -- [0] - I don't mean here just marketing agencies and people with marketing-related job titles, but also generally people engaging in excessive promotion of their services, content, or themselves. [1] - Such as population-level aesthetic sensibilities, or sanity.

numpad0 2y ago
I haven't seen a single AI image that were good let alone great. To be completely honest, I can't always tell, but when I come across images that give me inexplicable gastric discomfort that I can't explain why, and then it was revealed that it had been AI generated, that explains it all(doesn't remove the discomfort, just explains it). I don't have reasons to believe that I have above-average eyes on art among HNers, but it'll be funny and painful if so. I mean, I'm no Hayao "I sense insult to life itself" Miyazaki...
- gs17 2y ago
  > I'm no Hayao "I sense insult to life itself" Miyazaki He was saying that in response to a computer-animated zombie that dragged itself along in a grotesque manner. It wasn't that it was animated by a computer, it was that he found it offensive in that it felt like it was making light of the struggles of people with disabilities. You definitely would also find it disgusting.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    I do find the way things like this* get parroted to be mildly amusing, given the "stochastic parot" phrase existed. * not only this contextually misleading quote, and I've also parotted things
gs17 2y ago
> They don't hate good AI images, and when they see great AI images, they don't even realize they are made by AI. There's a decent size group of people who have a knee-jerk negative response toward AI regardless of quality. They'd see that image, like it, and then when told it's AI, turn on it and decide it was obviously flawed from the beginning. Is there a version of "sour grapes" where the fox did eat the grapes, they were delicious, but he declared they were sour after the fact to claim moral superiority?
- jcotton42 2y ago
  The issue with AI isn't quality, or at least isn't just quality. It's ethical (use of works for training without credit or compensation, potential to displace a large portion of the artistic market, etc.)
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Both are issues, for different people. Art as nice things, vs. art as a peacock's tail where the effort is the point. Fast fashion vs. Ned Ludd. Queen Elizabeth I saying to William Lee, "Thou aimest high, Master Lee. Consider thou what the invention could do to my poor subjects. It would assuredly bring to them ruin by depriving them of employment, thus making them beggars."
- numpad0 2y ago
  > and then when told it's AI, turn on it and decide it was obviously flawed from the beginning. Have you seen any experimental results from researches in which participants were _falsely_ told something was AI-made, to prove and gauge that "moral superiority" effect? I'm not aware of any. There has to be many, because it has to be easy. No?
  - gs17 2y ago
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-45202-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-45202-3 is pretty similar to that, they randomized AI/human-made labels and participants considered the exact same piece less valuable and less creative when labeled as AI-made. It's not measuring "moral superiority", but it shows a "negative response toward AI regardless of quality". It's definitely an irrational response.

adzm 2y ago

> People hate AI images, cut and dry. I don't know for sure about the common usage, but personally my use of AI in Photoshop are things like replacing a telephone pole with a tree, or extending a photo outside of frame, which is much different than just generating entire images. It is unfortunate that this usage of generative AI is lumped in with everything else.

becquerel 2y ago

If everyone hated AI images, nobody would be creating them.

numpad0 2y ago
There are few who don't realize it, they go lunatic.