After the first 100 or so AI images I saw, the novelty of “wow this is technically possible” wore off and now I kind of hate anything generated by ai even if it looks good (which it usually doesn’t).
GenAI is somehow more blatant about ripping people off than EL James of all people was when she ‘wrote’ Fifty Shades in airquotes.
At least she had to change some things around in her godawful recycled fanfic to keep from getting sued for copyright, GenAI doesn’t even do that much and that’s somehow viewed as acceptable.
Oh, and EL James only ripped off one person with her trash, GenAI blatantly and shamelessly rips off everyone.
I’m a beginner at drawing, but I’d wager people would choose that over AI.
Right?
One would hope, but most people prefer convenience over creation and sadly GenAI, for as much of a ripoff as it is, fills that niche for those people, It shouldn’t, I don’t support that in the slightest (seriously, if you want fast, easy art, just play with construction paper cutouts, that’s still worlds better than typing in a prompt to get something, and it’s also kinda fun on its own merits), and I hate GenAI with a passion, but it’s what it is.
That said, you can still resist it by just continuing to handmake stuff like you’ve probably been doing since you could hold a crayon and make marks with it.
I’ve got people praising my poorly drawn graphs, of all things. 5min stuff like this:
So yes, odds are they’ll like your drawings better over mass produced AI slop.
I understood this and now my back hurts!
Mind to eli5? Or link a video?.
I feel like this references an old meme… But I can’t remember what it is.
Edit: badger badger badger badger https://youtu.be/NL6CDFn2i3I
How I read the image:
In the song, Badger is a monotone repetition, hence being the X axis. When Mushroom comes in, it pitches up, hence being the Y axis. Then, when Snake comes in it fluctuates in pitch with an overall rise.
The humor is clever enough on its own, but the roughly sketched chart with clipart sells the fact that the joke is in the delivery and being sent quickly without being overly refined to the point that it looks polished. The rough rounding of the background makes it even more funny for me, because it was like an attempt was made.
Peak artistic humor by looking like an idea was thrown together to get the joke out as fast as possible. Maybe it was quick, maybe it took time to do for the end result, but the look comes through.
Perfection
In the meantime, artist intention be like:
“Uh, should I label the axes «good» and «gooder»? «Good» and «better»? Nah. Oh look the line I drew looks like a snake. Snaaake, snaaaake… wait, there’s a song like this, right? Ah, the badger song! This works: badger, mushroom, snake. Done.”
(Glad you liked my 5min example!)
I’d rather see absolutely nothing instead of AI
Exactly. I’d taoe funny concept crudely drawn stick figures over AI slop
Yes
If it’s funny enough, the art is secondary. If the at is perfect, the joke still needs to be at least passable.
Just because it’s human made, doesn’t mean it’s automatically good.
Sometimes the bad art becomes its own part of the joke (xkcd).
That’s assuming OP tags it as AI, though. I don’t have that much faith in the people who would spread AI slop in the first place. It’s a nice feature, and I’m not shitting on it, but it’s less impressive to me once I factor in the human equation.
Or can mods apply the “AI” tag to it? I still need to at least try Piefed.
I mean admins can label it in Lemmy too. But we just call it “ban” :P
I haven’t used it but I have seen piefed peeps talking about it being able to tag it as mods.
In addition to that, there is a feature now (available only to mods) which attempts to automatically determine if a user is posting human or AI content. I don’t know what criteria it is using, but the goal seems to be to aid mods in their determination beyond just looking through all their content individually.
So like NSFW (where it also adds NSFL) and bots, PieFed is now turning its sights to go hard after AI slop that is not labeled as such.
The lack of karma also does wonders in this. It means people sharing AI-generated content will do it when they genuinely think others will enjoy it, so it’s only a handful of pictures that turned out good. They won’t for example mass produce them to farm upvotes here.
EDIT: I know sunshine is talking about a PieFed feature, and what I’m saying applies to Lemmy and Piefed. Point still stands, no karma = no reason to farm karma.
Though exactly like NSFW/NSFL and bot posts (which people avoid so replying can feel like a honeypot experience where a conversation was invited but unlikely to be fruitful, since even the poster themselves will never read your message), it’s not only the item itself but rather the lack of proper labeling. AI slop could arguably, theoretically, for some people (I’m trying to frame this so as to lessen the chances of being flamed here!) be enjoyable, but cannot be acceptable in the wider community unless properly labeled. This “restriction” enables us to be more fully free to have our own enjoyment of this shared space.
Edit: for context, I had not even gotten to the existing flame war down below your comment yet, but somehow I knew it was coming! The Threadiverse seems to love to hate on AI almost as much as Windows and tankies!:-P (and ironically all for the same underlying reason: because consent should matter, even/especially when others say differently)
because consent should matter, even/especially when others say differently
Bingo. And IMO this feature should be side-ported to Lemmy, because that consent.
W
This place loves AI. Constantly tossed in my feed.
You’re an AI so that’s not a problem for you, right?
Username did ask for that 😉
Like nearly everything else, there’s a gray area. We don’t need to reject generative AI images outright, although, that’s the easiest path for lazy people–to see everything as black or white.
On Christmas, I posted an AI photorealistic image of Bruce Willis and Alan Rickman dressed in pajamas in front of a Christmas tree arguing over a Lego Nakatomi Plaza kit. It’s funny, and it doesn’t hurt anyone. I think that’s an acceptable use of generative AI images.
EDIT:
doesn’t hurt anyone
Yeah your one image that one time didn’t necessarily hurt anyone but climate change getting kicked up a notch from the absurd amounts of carbon generated by millions of those kinds of images absolutely will literally kill and destroy lives.
There’s no gray area about the resource cost and contribution to climate change being driven by gen AI though, youre just trying to justify it.
I do think you’re raising valid concerns regarding resource consumption + climate change. However:
youre just trying to justify it.
Learn to phrase things without disingenuously putting words into the others’ mouths dammit. This is not Reddit, behave like a decent person instead of a redditor. Nothing the other user said can be even remotely interpreted as “the energy cost is justified”, in fact they didn’t even talk about resource consumption.
It’s funny, and it doesn’t hurt anyone.
It sure sounds to me like they were trying to justify it. Funny or not, if it hurts everyone so no, it’s not a justified use. Hurting anyone, let alone everyone, just for the lolz is far from acceptable.
“It doesn’t hurt anyone.” does not automatically lead to “I think the energy consumption and its impact is justified”, unless the user claimed 1) that they’re aware of the impact, and 2) that they’re sharing that comment as a counterpoint to that impact.
(Note I’m not even disagreeing with their core argument. Seriously, I low key want to use image generation for some stuff, but when I think on the energy usage I simply “eh… let’s not.” I think the way you phrased it in another comment is way better.)
That they didn’t talk about the resource consumption is part of the problem. Discussing whether the output of a genai system is ‘art’ or not is a fine philosophical debate, but ignores both the costs of creating the output, and the way the data to do so was sourced and processed.
If human ‘artists’ burned through the same amount of power, water, and other resources just to produce their art there would also be an outcry. If the raw materials that ‘art’ was created from were so blatently copied from others there would also be an outcry. Indeed, when a human is found to be copying another’s work and passing it off as their own, there is an outcry.
[Off-topic, metadiscussion]
That they didn’t talk about the resource consumption is part of the problem.
The reply is not claiming they didn’t talk about it; it claims they’re trying to justify it. This sort of “let me assume words into your mouth” behaviour is really bad in online platforms, it’s one of the reasons why Twitter/Reddit/Facebook are such cesspools — once you open your mouth in them, there’s always some bloody muppet pointing their finger to accuse you, while assuming/lying/bullshitting about your “intentions”, what you’re “trying” to do, your beliefs, even the colours of your pants.
It’s so bad that, even if I know this is off-topic, I think it’s worth ranting about it here. We (Fediverse users in general) should be calling this out, before it roots itself here. Unless we want to walk on eggs to say what we think (even if true, moral, and relevant), out of fear others will assume shit to accuse us. Like in Twitter/Reddit/Facebook. Or we get to repeat what’s “safe” to say here, in a big circlejerk.
And it’s completely unnecessary here; the other user could’ve said instead "There’s no gray area about the resource cost and contribution to climate change being driven by gen AI though, you aren’t mentioning energy costs even if they matter" or similar and it would be perfecto.
[On-topic, genAI]
As I said the resource consumption concern is perfectly valid. I also agree with the second concern you’re raising, authorship. I’ll even raise two other concerns here:
3. Those image generators are flooding the internet with low quality content, and making it harder for people to find the good stuff.
4. They’re lowering the bar for fictitious but believable scenes, that can and are used to promote disinformation.Whilst I agree with your point about strawman arguments in general, that isn’t really the case here. The OP explicitly said “It’s funny, and it doesn’t hurt anyone” when, in fact, it does. This appears to be their primary justification for using it, whilst ignoring the well known costs of that use. I conceed that a, very charitable, reading of their comment might be that they are simply unaware of the environmental and authorship issues and are only focused on whether their image is “funny” and not directly causing harm. However, those issues are so well known that I, and aparently other commenters, do not feel they can reasonably overlooked in any discussion about whether the use of genai can be justified in general.
The other issues you brought up are very real too and, in many ways, more insidious that the obvious ones discussed before. How we overcome those, now that the genie is out of the bottle, I don’t know.
Thats in no way “putting words in their mouth”, I was pointing out what they were saying. Their point literally coalesced into “i posted a funny picture and it didn’t hurt anyone” which is factually untrue by participating in driving demand for harmful tech.
I wasnt insulting in any way, I was illustrating how their point fell apart. There is real, quantifiable harm.
Whatever though
Thats in no way “putting words in their mouth”, I was pointing out what they were saying.
Yes, it is. Learn the difference between what people say and your assumptions on what they say.
I would say gen AI is much more resource friendly than hiring artists to do the same
Thing is though, artists are people.
I am not arguing that everyone should use gen AI over artists. I am just responding to the previous comment that is complaining about climate effects of AI. I am just saying that I think the climate impact of generative AI is way less then the impact of artist creating the same thing. Also, the datacenters are usually built in place where the water usage doesn’t matter (and they usually recycle their water in coolong loops), so the climate impacts are often overblown.
They can do something more productive.
Art is self-expression. And I don’t think we (people in general) should be encouraged to be more productive; instead we should be encouraged to express ourselves more and to lead more fulfilling lives.
AI image generation could have a role on this, but in the current state of the things, it won’t — because it’s controlled by megacorpos obsessed with bigger models, stronger models, models that fry the planet faster. For that, they encourage you to replace self-expression with model output, instead of using the model output for self-expression.
(In another timeline things happened in a different way. Those models were trained to be tiny, fast, and consume only a tiny fraction of the energy they do. They’d be weaker, specialised tools you’d plug into GIMP or Krita or whatever: to replace backgrounds, to remove watermarks, stuff like this. But in that timeline people would rather look at what benefits other people the most, instead of trying to screw the others for their own benefit.)
I agree with you, but humans often create images / videos / texts / musics / … that are not artistic. For example logos, ads, sketches or schemas. Those are purely business things where being more productive is beneficial for everyone.
…I’d argue this sort of marketing is actually harmful to society. But I get what you mean.
Even then, AI generators are poorly suited for this. Here’s an example of that; McDonald’s made some slopvertisement, and people got mad.
Way to be a boring, naïve utilitarian.
What would you base that supposition on?
I hadn’t done any calculation, but I guess hundreds of watts over a few seconds that datacenters need to generate an image is way less energy and water than what an artist consumes during several hours while he draws the same image. Plus the electricity for lights or computer consumes.
Generative ai is just a tool for creating text and images. Not everything created using is art, just like not every piece of text written by a human or an bunch of pixels drawn in photoshop is art. What matters is intention of the author, the effort put in and whether other people perceive it as art.
It silly to call everything created by ai as art, but not because of the tool used. Most of it is not art simply because it was not created for that purpose, it is there for pure silly entertainment.
It is equally silly to vehemently hate it if the creator does not even claim it’s art.
AI use is driving up energy costs and worsening pollution and global warming . Is that a good enough reason to vehemently hate it?
AI haters on Lemmy are good entertainment. Imagine adults getting mad because they discover what tool a meme was made with. Half the time they can’t even tell.
“I think it’s funny that people are upset about a new technology which will 1000% have incredibly destructive effects on society”
Congratulations on being whatever that makes you? It’s not good.
people can’t tell when I spit onetheir food… I guess that means it’s perfectly fine for them to eat spit, right?… good to know
Most AI generated things is just shit, especially to look at, if you can’t recognize 99% of AI generated images then there is a problem tbh.
Thought it’s real that sometimes people exaggerate and hate the use of AI for everthing when there are clearly some good uses.
