To anyone who finds it necessary to “call out” stuff for being either fake or AI generated when there are no stakes, why are you like that? When you’re wrong, you’re at least as big of an asshole as anyone actually putting out AI generated art as if they made it. Probably more of an asshole because you’re specifically targeting an artist’s work while those posting AI art as if they made it aren’t trying to bring anyone down like you are.
Generating slop should be socially shunned, that’s the only way we survive this onslaught. Defending slopgen should be shunned as well.
I’m not trying to be dramatic or anything, but we’re in an existential battle for the survival of the concept of beauty here.
Alternatively, you shouldn’t share images that need to be thoroughly investigated to determine that they aren’t generated. Or maybe it’s somewhere in the middle.
It sucks, I don’t disagree with that.
Do you even notice how now you’re the one saying people shouldn’t post their real art if it “needs to be thoroughly investigated”, whatever that means? AI mimics other styles, and it’s just going to keep getting better at it unless something actually stops it, which I don’t see happening without civilization itself collapsing because Pandora’s box is already open.
Not what I’m saying. I’m saying that if your art is so generic it’s indistinguishable from slop, maybe evolve your style a bit. In order for a slop to resemble your art, your art needs to be in a significant portion of the training data. In other words, generic.
This isn’t me being snobish snob (well…), every art has a purpose, I will defend your right to do whatever muzak you do and whatever alegria posters you make if it’s your way of expressing yourself. However, don’t be then surprised when in the same breath I’ll call your alegria poster boring corposhit. Or, keeping with times, slop from a butt.
Not disagreeing with the fact that it sucks major ass, I’m of the opinion that the only ethical behaviour there is to throw molotov cocktails at datacenters until there is none left, but that’s besides the point.
Social backlash is the best way to discourage use and promote education.
Being wrong is bound to happen, but the burden of proof is on those presenting their work. Just because its annoying doesnt mean its not effective or necessary
Agrees to the first sentiment, BS on the second. Don’t accuse people of things unless you can prove it. Or at least provide more than your gut feeling because “you can tell from the pixels”.
The direct burden I’m seeing here is coming from pretentious knuckleheads washing themselves of all responsibility, arbitrarily calling peoples hard work “AI slop”, not the idiots generating “art”.
Any “acceptable” harm that only applies to a small subset of people can inevitably be applied to YOU.
Ai was created from human content, there is by definition someone whos art perfectly looks like AI.
I do agree its incredibly annoying, but as long as ai products are generated, those who disagree with it will point it out for others. Its the can of worms opened by the tech. I often get accused of writing like an AI, but they forget that im just autistic and love em dashes, semicolons, and comparisons.
Which puts even more of a burden on artists. This is the big irony of the whole movement to oppose AI and support artists is that, at least for this strain of it, more burden is placed on the artists to prove that they aren’t just using AI than on the AI ones themselves. They just generate whatever images and post them or use them. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s already generators that can generate wireframes or whatever “intermediate” step can serve as “proof” it wasn’t generated by AI. I can’t think of a single piece of evidence that couldn’t theoretically also be generated. Models today might require generating 1000 images and diacarding 950 of them but the ones who don’t care about how artists are affected probably also don’t care about how much energy it takes. But even if today’s models can’t do that, I believe others will be able to sometime soon.
The people putting out AI art just see “that’s AI” as “need to get better at using AI” not “need to stop using AI”. Maybe some would care, but as someone who generally doesn’t gaf about what people think about my opinions, I know I wouldn’t. But if I was an artist just wanting to share my art, I’d be more likely to just stop sharing it than jump through whatever hoops you want to prove I’m not guilty.
To anyone who finds it necessary to “call out” stuff for being either fake or AI generated when there are no stakes, why are you like that? When you’re wrong, you’re at least as big of an asshole as anyone actually putting out AI generated art as if they made it. Probably more of an asshole because you’re specifically targeting an artist’s work while those posting AI art as if they made it aren’t trying to bring anyone down like you are.
Generating slop should be socially shunned, that’s the only way we survive this onslaught. Defending slopgen should be shunned as well.
I’m not trying to be dramatic or anything, but we’re in an existential battle for the survival of the concept of beauty here.
Okay, but you shouldn’t accuse an image of being AI generated just because of vibes. Investigate first, find proof or at least strong evidence.
Alternatively, you shouldn’t share images that need to be thoroughly investigated to determine that they aren’t generated. Or maybe it’s somewhere in the middle.
It sucks, I don’t disagree with that.
Do you even notice how now you’re the one saying people shouldn’t post their real art if it “needs to be thoroughly investigated”, whatever that means? AI mimics other styles, and it’s just going to keep getting better at it unless something actually stops it, which I don’t see happening without civilization itself collapsing because Pandora’s box is already open.
Not what I’m saying. I’m saying that if your art is so generic it’s indistinguishable from slop, maybe evolve your style a bit. In order for a slop to resemble your art, your art needs to be in a significant portion of the training data. In other words, generic.
This isn’t me being snobish snob (well…), every art has a purpose, I will defend your right to do whatever muzak you do and whatever alegria posters you make if it’s your way of expressing yourself. However, don’t be then surprised when in the same breath I’ll call your alegria poster boring corposhit. Or, keeping with times, slop from a butt.
Not disagreeing with the fact that it sucks major ass, I’m of the opinion that the only ethical behaviour there is to throw molotov cocktails at datacenters until there is none left, but that’s besides the point.
Blaming the victim, I see.
Oh no, what a terrible victimhood, being criticised for your ass picture you post, the horror
Social backlash is the best way to discourage use and promote education.
Being wrong is bound to happen, but the burden of proof is on those presenting their work. Just because its annoying doesnt mean its not effective or necessary
Agrees to the first sentiment, BS on the second. Don’t accuse people of things unless you can prove it. Or at least provide more than your gut feeling because “you can tell from the pixels”.
It’s unfortunate, but this is the burden created by machine generated art. The damage it has created will last for generations at the least.
The direct burden I’m seeing here is coming from pretentious knuckleheads washing themselves of all responsibility, arbitrarily calling peoples hard work “AI slop”, not the idiots generating “art”.
Any “acceptable” harm that only applies to a small subset of people can inevitably be applied to YOU.
Ai was created from human content, there is by definition someone whos art perfectly looks like AI.
I do agree its incredibly annoying, but as long as ai products are generated, those who disagree with it will point it out for others. Its the can of worms opened by the tech. I often get accused of writing like an AI, but they forget that im just autistic and love em dashes, semicolons, and comparisons.
Which puts even more of a burden on artists. This is the big irony of the whole movement to oppose AI and support artists is that, at least for this strain of it, more burden is placed on the artists to prove that they aren’t just using AI than on the AI ones themselves. They just generate whatever images and post them or use them. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s already generators that can generate wireframes or whatever “intermediate” step can serve as “proof” it wasn’t generated by AI. I can’t think of a single piece of evidence that couldn’t theoretically also be generated. Models today might require generating 1000 images and diacarding 950 of them but the ones who don’t care about how artists are affected probably also don’t care about how much energy it takes. But even if today’s models can’t do that, I believe others will be able to sometime soon.
The people putting out AI art just see “that’s AI” as “need to get better at using AI” not “need to stop using AI”. Maybe some would care, but as someone who generally doesn’t gaf about what people think about my opinions, I know I wouldn’t. But if I was an artist just wanting to share my art, I’d be more likely to just stop sharing it than jump through whatever hoops you want to prove I’m not guilty.