Inkbunny

I don't know if you can still edit your comment, so I'm going to reiterate your list but just add commas after each entry so it can be easily copy/pasted into the block keywords textarea so people can just paste and click go.

ai,
ai_art,
ai_assisted,
ai_assisted_background,
ai_background,
ai_generated,
ai_generated_art,
ai_generated_porn,
ai_generation,
ai_porn,
ai_shenanigans,
ai_yiff,

beforethefall

1 week, 6 days ago

link

@ LemmyNiscuit

Thank you! I was at work and actually in a meeting (I live dangerously) while I was posting that so I didn't give it too much thought. You rock. <3

Meowmere

1 week, 6 days ago

link

Thank you for the effort.
The fact that keyword-fu on the user's part is even necessary, is another testament to the fact that the site's policies are off.

MSTR

1 week, 6 days ago

link

Yep. No such thing as ethically acceptable AI slop.

thecooler

1 week, 6 days ago

link

Agreed AI has no place here!

CookieMarine

1 week, 6 days ago

link

@ thecooler

I'm sure the candle makers said the same thing about the light bulb... You'll bend ... Or be broken .

thecooler

1 week, 6 days ago

link

“People worry that computers will get too smart and take over the world, but the real problem is that they're too stupid and have already taken over the world.”
.- Pedro Domingos
Professor at the University of Washington.

"The problem is not if AI will stay or not cause it will, the problem is we have no control on what it can be used, how are they are been used, and what are they taking from others for what they are used for, as a super advanced pattern recognition software is no substitute for the human minds and if you believe so then you hate yourself your kind and do not want to actually even think for yourself either"
.-Brian Christian
US Writer of "The Most Human Human" & "Algorithms to Live By".

thecooler

1 week, 6 days ago

link

Edited 1 week, 6 days ago by Owner

I'm sure the the ancient religions priests said the same thing about the Monotheism You'll Convert ... Or be indoctrínated.

(your argument can be used for any thing so its not a valid argument)

MSTR

1 week, 6 days ago

link

Oh wow you're Sephirothposting already? Normally it takes at least a few pages of growing incoherence before someone gets to that point...

thecooler

1 week, 6 days ago

link

LMFAO IKR?

CookieMarine

1 week, 6 days ago

link

Considering all so called artists do is steal intellectual property all day, I find that statement dubious. Type in loona as see if every single artist got permission first before drawing and sends a check to viv.

XPAuthor

1 week, 6 days ago

link

There is a difference between inspiration, homage, and plagiarism.

thecooler

1 week, 6 days ago

link

*Applause!*

missilver

1 week, 5 days ago

link

But if you ask the artists who made those characters originally you will find out quickly that plenty of them find no difference between theft and plagiarism, homage and inspiration.

I mean hell, just look at the many people Nintendo sued infact just look at Palworld.

Infact think about it. The reason why you cant trigger a copyright infringment for using AI is because its awfully transformative it builds picture from pixel to pixel, if any of the more agressive copyright holders make it into laws that AI is not transformative enough to not be considered theft that will mean that every piece of fanart will be automatically marked as theft.

Meowmere

1 week, 5 days ago

link

What an absolutely deranged take, comparing creators of original characters to the monstrous legal team of a company like Nintendo.

Copyright laws cannot be analogically transferred from conventional laws protecting individuals onto AI models, for the simple reason that a machine alone cannot be held responsible and accountable for an action. The degree of "transformation" is utterly irrelevant. They are machines into which you inject fuel and information, from which it spits out a product.

The owner of the machine cannot say "the machine transformed the product, therefore I have no obligation to pay for the materials".

The exact same logic applies to a man-to-man transaction. If I want to buy a piece of artwork and put it on display in my home, use it in advertizing, or use it as a mascot for my shampoo brand, I pay the artist, an amount directly proportional to the scope of the project.

This is not equivalent to creating fanart. One isn't purchasing a product to display.
Of course, in principle, violating intellectual property in the form of rights to a character's likeness is a real issue. But saying "Loona gets drawn by gooners, so AI should be legal in its current form" is such an astronomical leap in logic, that I can't even begin to attack it. Even if all the people you're debating think plagiarizing Loona is A-okay, it's just a completely different brand of transgression.

missilver

1 week, 5 days ago

link

The degree of transformation is part of the legal definition of when you are commiting copyright infringment.

You cannot copyright style, common symbolism and anything universal, these all exist to protect artists who make fanart from claiming that its intellectual theft.

Now lets take on the argument of:
"The owner of the machine cannot say the machine transformed the product, therefore I have no obligation to pay for the materials"

First problem is that the material arent taken. If i download your entire gallery for my personal use then as the copyright law states that is completely acceptable and you cant have any problem with it.
Because this is a human action here, you cant change it without risking law problems directly effecting you.

Next up is my usage of your art. I can do whatever i want with it as its personal use and thats free for all so this again cannot be changed without creating law problems with people.

If i feed the whole thing into an AI and create a copy of your style then that also cant be treated as theft because you cant own style if you change this it will be a law that explicitly bans copying style which once again will create law problems for people who make fanart.

Every single step here in the end will create an issue with the fanart makers because every single step up till the AI is made is done by humans and the law will need to specify why exactly it is problematic.

After the AI is made you cant do anything because it doesnt create art you made. You cant argue anymore that X picture was stolen from you because you never made that picture, it was generated by AI. You can only complain about the previous steps which are all protected actions that you cant mess up unless you want to see things like afromentioned company suing everyone.

We are already at the point where these monstrous companies use every single wigglespot to hurt artists, we really dont want to give them more room.

Meowmere

1 week, 5 days ago

link

I can't make sense of your argument.

"Next up is my usage of your art. I can do whatever i want with it as its personal use and thats free for all so this again cannot be changed without creating law problems with people."

No? You absolutely can't "do whatever you want with my art". There is no world in which feeding it into an AI model (which is a product you have rented or bought) isn't a brutal overstepping of the limits of "personal use". If this model created images for you and only you, sure. That is not what you are doing. Protection of "personal use" expired the moment you intended to share the products of this AI model.

I could believe there are legal loopholes here, testament to the fact that the law should do its all to keep up. But it's outrageous to argue that an artist shouldn't have complete say in whether their art is used as training data.
You can absolutely do this and still allow people to do fanart.
Again - because fan artists are responsible for their art. With AI imagery the providers of the training data are responsible for the art.

missilver

1 week, 5 days ago

link

How would it be not acceptable?

Not fair, that i can agree with but its not even a legal loophole but how it works.
Lets forget about AI, instead of that i took your entire gallery and turned them all into deep fried memes, cropped, pixelated, inverted colors and soo on.

If i did it hard enough, i could go and legally post it everywhere all without trouble under the protection of fair use.

In AI its worse because AI copied your style and you cant claim ownership over style. It no longer has any of your pictures in the end process. Someone took 6gb of data from you, created style pointers and then made a 600mb model that you can dissect as much as possible but theres literally nothing in it thats yours.

I can understand the frustration it causes but we cant realistically change this without messing up our already fragile freedom.

You are literally having the same headache the big companies had when artists started making fanart that got more popular than their original source.

Meowmere

1 week, 5 days ago

link

I would argue that "deep-frying" is an act of human input, adding an artistic layer (if in poor taste).
Feeding an AI model and generating art is not you doing the transformation. It's asking a machine to do a transformation.
Yes, a "deep frying" filter is a rudimentary form of AI. One happens in the room with you. The other happens in a room you can't see.

I realize making this distinction clear in iron-clad writing is difficult. I still think it needs to happen.

I also should note that my own stance isn't so one-dimensional as "All AI art bad". I can hold that opinion simultaneously with the opinion that "the hollowing out of what it means to put in effort is a serious issue which should be considered in both law and collective cultural opinion".

I am steadily reaching the conclusion that we ultimately agree, at least partially, and arguing is pointless.
Which is my cue to go to bed.

missilver

1 week, 5 days ago

link

But its not me who did the transformation is it? Im literally just asking the machine to run the steps that gets me the deep fried effect and i get the picture, i dont even need to figure out which filters it uses because there are pre-made deep fryer sites. One of the sites literally calls itself low quality meme.

If i go to a website that skips everything and gives me the result do you still consider that "utilization" and not theft?

My main worry here is what exactly will you write in that still lets me do the example meme or go further and actually make a fanart of one of your chars without someone arguing that this does count as feeding into the machine.

Meowmere

1 week, 5 days ago

link

Edited 1 week, 5 days ago by Owner

I don't necessarily agree that the deep-frying should technically be allowed in the final draft of that law. I would form a sophisticated opinion on that, except there are no people who systematically try to claim artistic merit and a place in the spotlight for being "masterful deepfryers".
There are no accounts on here who mean to shift your attention to their vast pastures of deep-fried images.

The practical problem at hand - the reason this discussion even started - is the flooding of AI content on IB, conflating two completely different categories of imagery. The same way photos of clay pottery don't go on this site; it's not why IB was conceived, or at least not what the core populace of IB wishes to foster and elevate.

This is orders of magnitudes worse than "regular bad drawing slop". Why? A bad artist produces a singular bad drawing and likely admits to it being terrible. An AI "artist" will bask in the glory and keep going, churning out a thousand iterations.
This wouldn't be such a big problem if it wasn't juxtaposed with art that takes, inarguably, manifold the effort and time, and in which there is, inarguably, more creative input in the process.

The law needs to catch up. That law must disallow the use of taking my drawing and using it as training data without my permission. I feel as if this law should target the AI models specifically for their inability to be ascribed agency, coupled with the size and unknowable nature of the computing process. These things set it apart from a photo-filter (which honestly probably shouldn't be enough of a transformation to warrant the protection of being "parody", but sure, let's put the line there for argument).
The actual heart of that law would be that "parody" requires "artistic merit" to be valid; i.e. the "transformation" should add something worthwhile, have something important to say etc. As someone who has studied Comparative Literature, no, we can't pin down "artistic merit" in a law, which I suppose is why we're even having a debate.

Of course, such a law still leaves a world with AI art. I wholly accept this. I might even believe you can have "something to say" with AI art, providing "artistic merit". The rate of "artistic merit" to "ease of production" with AI is just so staggeringly skewed.
I believe it should have niche to itself, and not be conflated with hand-made art, competing for the same space; just like books and CD's have different sections at the shopping mall.

Now bed.

XPAuthor

1 week, 5 days ago

link

As a creator, I think someone wanting to draw my characters sounds awesome. Someone wanting to base a story in my setting would be cool. But I'd still expect them to ask me permission first, especially if they're going to post it for others to see and/or read. And I would want credit as the original creator of said character and/or setting. I can then give critique, as well.

What I DON'T want is someone feeding my stories into ChatGPT or whatever other program for it to then regurgitate my work back in a lesser form without my knowing a single thing about it. I cannot give critique to a computer program. Especially if it is now using this source for people I will never meet to use, which I am also not okay with. Especially since the source would likely not be known to the end users, and thus no credit for the original creator can even be hinted at.

At least with people that draw fanart, they can still give credit to the person or company that owns that character or concept. You don't see people posting pictures of Renamon and claiming they created that character.

missilver

1 week, 5 days ago

link

Thats like 90% of all fanart. People putting the a short mention of who originally made the art doesnt exactly help you when its already been stolen from you and they are profiting from it.
Almost no major fanart got permission from the authors to use their work, sell it as their own and soo on. The best they get is a minor mention of who owns the original chars but even that just salting the wound.

XPAuthor

1 week, 5 days ago

link

Exactly my point. They at least still credit the creator. And if you're suggesting that every small time, just starting, or independent artist try and contact a megacorporation like Warner Brothers or Disney to draw fanart, then you have some serious delusions about the world.

That credit of source is something fundamentally impossible for AI art to give. It cannot credit its source, as its source is innumerable pieces of art fed into its algorithm to be used as 'reference' for the prompts. So many that it likely cannot even state what those sources are. And sources that have a statistically high likelihood to have been used without permission from the small, just starting, or independent artists you are throwing under the bus in your sweeping judgement.

missilver

1 week, 5 days ago

link

Crediting is not permission. As i said the thing that keeps these artists safe is that style cant be put under copyright change that and you have legal trouble over fanart.

Meowmere

1 week, 5 days ago

link

Edited 1 week, 5 days ago by Owner

Brilliant input.
Now how do you get from
"Artists should get permission to replicate popular characters"
to
"Machines are allowed to freely use any and all training data their handlers deem necessary"
I am genuinely curious about the mental gymnastics involved here.

In fanart, the artist drawing the art is the creator. They should give credit to the owner of a design.
In AI generated art, the artists of the training data are the creators of the art. They should be compensated for producing the final product.
These are two categorically different issues.

missilver

1 week, 5 days ago

link

Its the same point. You cant have one and demand the other without fundamentally changing how the law works that will for sure fuck up the current state.

You either declare that all fanart is theft for missing permissions or you accept that humans are allowed to use your pictures freely to feed into the machine and make it create slop.

Since the machine copies style which you cant copyright, you really dont have much chance to do anything about it without trying to make style copyrightable to gain ownership of it therefore declare that fanart of your style is theft.

Meowmere

1 week, 5 days ago

link

Edited 1 week, 5 days ago by Owner

You can't just say "it's the same", when I've listed reasons to you why that isn't the case.
One steals a concrete piece of produced art.
Another utilizes a character deemed intellectual property.
One is a product, the other is a design.
One is a drawing conceived by a fan, another is a product conceived by a machine (which can't be held accountable, so accountability falls back to the providers of the training data).

Sure, you need to "fundamentally change the law". Everybody agrees that the law needs to account for AI's brutal overstepping of artistic boundaries.
Making a law that prohibits plopping my drawing into a machine can coexist with allowing a fan to conceive a drawing from a human mind, inspired by an intellectual property.
The practical difficulties of *phrasing* these laws is a shoddy, terrible argument for saying it shouldn't happen.

Meowmere

1 week, 6 days ago

link

Ask Loona's creator if she'd rather see one million artists "steal" Loona, or a single AI generated image of her.

Meowmere

1 week, 6 days ago

link

I do want to play the devil's advocate a bit, because there is some truth to the argument that it's there and crying won't make it go away, so we have to see the qualities where applicable. I do see the artistic merit of using AI generation as reference or "mood boards", for instance. At the moment, however, before society learns to dance responsibly with the technology, I think we need to consider real art before all else.

fillbody

1 week, 6 days ago

link

Its true that soon AI could undermine people who live of making art.
But the thing ai cant do is physical media, if i was an artist i would focus on that.
Cant generate oil paint on a canvas for example.

worldf0x

1 week, 6 days ago

link

@ fillbody

While it is an alternative, it isn't particularly viable.

Some artist simply lack the knack.  Different people work different ways.  Some take well to physical media and can't do digital.  Some can work wonders with digital media but can't do physical.  Some might be able to learn, sure, but that number is probably a lot smaller than you'd think.

Furthermore, physical media requires physical objects, which in turn requires money.  It can be quite expensive to take paint to a canvas, especially if you're just starting.  And while getting enough materials and gear to do one piece might be affordable, in order to turn out the numbers one might be able to with digital art, it adds up pretty quick. Further furthermore, these physical objects require physical space, to create and to store.  Space requires money.

And finally, it's harder to reach as wide an audience with physical art than with digital.  Certainly you can take a picture of thing you created, but that often doesn't do the full piece justice.  And in order to sell a physical piece, you need to ship it, and shipping costs are prohibitive.

I'm not trying to jump down your neck or anything.  You're correct in that physical is an option more people could take advantage of.   But it's not so simple.

And also: they shouldn't be forced to change how they do their art just because some fail-son wants to be a billionaire.

Meowmere

1 week, 6 days ago

link

@ fillbody

I don't actually see that as the more immediate worry. AI isn't the reason artists aren't getting commissions. Artists aren't getting commissions, because people don't have "stripper money" in this economy. I do think white collar jobs are in danger, because corporatists have no soul. But the people who have always paid artists for art will keep doing so, because deep down they know that the artists themselves are the "art", not the product.

MviluUatusun

1 week, 6 days ago

link

There's someone on another site I frequent, I can't remember his/her name there, but for some reason, I decided to follow said person. I later realized that this person was an "AI artist" and decided to remove all the "art" this person uploaded. One day, I counted all the "art" uploaded that day and just that day. I counted 61 posts. There's no way one person could draw that many drawings in a 24-hour period, at least not and have the so-called art look even remotely decent. When I counted those 61 uploads, I came to the decision that all this person was doing was cluttering my inbox and removed my watch.

worldf0x

1 week, 6 days ago

link

AI generated art literally and figuratively devalues art. First in that unwitting people might settle for slop instead of paying for an artist. Second in that it floods the sites, and people's interest is lost in the wash.

What value is there in a picture if it's 1/100 of the same thing just with minor changes.

MviluUatusun

1 week, 6 days ago

link

@ worldf0x

I tell everyone who'll listen that AI art isn't real art because there's no soul in it. Soul is when an artist works on the art and it takes days if not weeks to complete. I won't commission an AI artist because of this. I know that the 3D effect can be achieved by true art methods because my icon was drawn by an artist before AI art became known and, if you go to my gallery, you'll see how she managed to give the effect to the original art.

ezalias

1 week, 6 days ago

link

How much work can a person put in, and still not count? I don't understand how every stick figure is capital-a Art but a thousand words aren't worth one picture. Not even if that's rewritten a hundred times because the render didn't satisfy what's in their head. Not even if they sketch the shape of everything in the image. Not even if they keep editing the image with mundane brush tools and feeding it back through.

The absolutes here feel incomprehensible. The vitriol is just frightening. We're talking about a program that emits JPEGs.

People convey meaning through text over Spongebob screenshots. I do not get how a computer that draws whatever you describe could be less than that.

MviluUatusun

1 week, 6 days ago

link

@ ezalias

If you'll read one of my earlier comments about the artist who "drew" and posted 61 drawings in less than 24 hours, you'll understand what I'm talking about. There's no way, NO WAY, an artist can draw and finish 61 drawings in less than 24 hours. However, I will say this: if you draw something and you enhance it with AI, I can accept it. My complaint is with someone who uses AI to "draw" something from first line to final shading. I like to say that all I can draw is stick figures and I don't do them very well; but, with AI, even I could be a world-class "artist".

missilver

1 week, 5 days ago

link

This is the same argument photo artists said when digital photography happened. Infact, i can still find the old articles talking about how digital photography is soulless mockery of art.

Furthermore do you know what i find if i search for "X is not art" excluding AI? An ocean of artist complaining about how animation, comics, audio books arent real art, they are weak attempts by clumsy fools who cant take the time to actually commit to art.
What happens if i exclude that also, what i get?
A literal flood of artists saying that people Meowmere or you arent artist because smut is not art, its barebones imitation of "skills" that only get recognition from the tasteless pervers.
If i exclude that we get those who dont find value in music or paint styles, it just keeps continuing because as artists are the oldest gatekeepers of the world.

Theres only 2 arguments i see no logic in regarding AI, the idea of "soul" in art when artists themselves keep declaring others soulless already and the theft argument when the system simply doesnt work that way directly because artists didnt want to be accused of theft for fanart.

Meowmere

1 week, 5 days ago

link

Edited 1 week, 5 days ago by Owner

Sure, AI art is art.
It's just not art that you created.
The discussion of "AI art isn't art" isn't to say that there isn't meaning or depth to derive from the picture, if you look hard enough.
It's that this meaning or depth cannot be attributed to *you* as an "AI director" because you shouted "let there be image", and then there was one.
Art is art in part because of the struggle you go through in order to learn to create it. You grew in the process, and the recipient values the thought of the human behind it, because of that growth. The vitriol arises because "AI directors" take on a cavalier attitude in saying that images without this aspect deserve an equal amount of respect, but without the effort. It is asking for payout without investment.

Again, "anime isn't art" etc. is just a topic of discussion so far removed from the topic at hand ("bad art isn't real art").
AI directors are criticized on another discussion entirely: Who is responsible for your art?
A machine cannot be held accountable. You want to be held accountable for inventing a prompt? You don't think someone else is ultimately more accountable than that?

missilver

1 week, 5 days ago

link

That is my point. Digital arts have also got the flak for not being art that you created ontop of it got flak for other similarly stupid reasons.

Take digital photography for example:

"Art is art in part because of the struggle you go through in order to learn to create it."
Back in the day they argued that you are giving up on learning proper photography because you are removing the struggles needed in order to create it.

"You grew in the process, and the recipient values the thought of the human behind it, because of that growth." They argued that theres no learning, growth and experience as its the work of the machine and people know it.

"The vitriol arises because "AI directors" take on a cavalier attitude in saying that images without this aspect deserve an equal amount of respect, but without the effort. It is asking for payout without investment."
In this i can literally just replace "AI directors" with digital photography and get the same argument used against the artless and soulless form caricaturing itself as real photography.

I already heard this take at the rise of photoshop, its the same thing.

Meowmere

1 week, 5 days ago

link

Edited 1 week, 5 days ago by Owner

I personally believe that the "soul of photography" is in the art of composition, lighting, angle, and discovery of a piece of scenery etc. the constellation of which is arguably fundamentally different from painting, making the two hard to put in the same box.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that I believe photography is completely analogous to a hand-made painting in terms of "what is true art".

I bid you to ask who is responsible for composing a photography.
Then ask yourself who is responsible for AI imagery.

There is no world in which the answer to the first question isn't "the photographer", and the answer to the second isn't "the artists providing training data".

There is no one in the world arguing that taking a photograph of a painting on a wall makes the photographer the "artist" behind that picture. The photographer needs to go to extreme lengths to take an interesting picture to ever be worthy of recognition in terms of "artistic merit". I do not take a picture of my dog and demand to be called an artist.
I must instead put in effort.

"I put in effort when designing my prompts".
However much effort that is, it is dwarfed by the collective effort of the artists providing the training material. You can get the recognition of learning to push a button. But they are forever responsible for the product.

missilver

1 week, 5 days ago

link

Technically i would say its the man who compiled and and handled the data.
If you remove all filter systems from an AI and then proceed to write in your prompt and click generate, it wont ever create anything even remotely similar to what you asked it to do.

It simply cant because the training data in itself does nothing its not even in the model. 1000 pictures of the chrome logo would just turn into static tv screen like picture.

The assuption that it copies the work isnt correct. It makes statitics out of it and after giving it enough filters it will start creating actual pictures but none of those pictures are from the artists. The training data that is discarded at the end of the process.

Would you have asked this question when AI got introduced i would have said its the artists but after looking throught the process, i cant realistically say that even if it feels like the right answer.

Besides, there are countless awfully low effort artists out there. Slop isnt a new AI exclusive thing, i spent enough time on the internet to know that there were tons of people posting the lowest effort things as art, things that dont even need as much effort as someone writing in a prompt.
Even nowadays i still see more actual cases of art theft like the infamous kid's shirt from aliexpress, impersonations or mirror accounts than any AI art i can point at and say "this picture was stolen from Y, how shameless!"

MviluUatusun

1 week, 5 days ago

link

Well, I never saw nor heard anyone say that digital photography wasn't art but that isn't what I meant. When an AI "artist" posts a drawing done by AI, he isn't an artist. As Meowmere said, he's a director. So, I ask. Should a movie director be nominated for a best "actor" award? After all, he directed the actors to perform their assigned tasks properly just as an AI artist directs the program to perform its tasks properly. I'm not fond of digital art but at least the artist creates the art and draws the art him/herself. He doesn't depend on a computer program to draw the art for him. I know I, nor anyone else, will convince you of what I'm trying to say but believe me, the feeling I get from looking at art drawn by a human and the feeling I get from looking at art drawn by a computer aren't even close to the same.

Meowmere

1 week, 6 days ago

link

We were all fascinated at the gimmick at first, before it started looking like a literal pandemic.

MviluUatusun

1 week, 6 days ago

link

True. But, convincing AI "artists" and those of us who are pro AI "art" is difficult. If you read ezalias's response to one of my comments, you can see what I'm talking about. No one will ever convince him/her of what we're talking about. Well, I, for one, won't ever change my mind about what constitutes real art and what constitutes fake art.

karikamiya

1 week, 6 days ago

link

AI Slop posters get the rope

Meowmere

1 week, 6 days ago

link

@ karikamiya

I do want to make it clear that I think lynch mobs aren't healthy. Well, maybe business executives will eventually turn out to be unswayable by anything else...

Emouri

1 week, 6 days ago

link

I've had ai tags in my blacklist for so long, I've forgotten this site allows it. And activity on "recent uploads" section is super slow, now this journal makes me wonder how fast non ai artist get kicked off the front page in place of the slop

worldf0x

1 week, 6 days ago

link

@ Emouri

You can see if you hit the "see more" button. In that section, if an image has a tag you've blacklisted, the space for the thumbnails shows up, just greyed out with an x.

Right now, out of a possible 240 slots, 46 of them are AI (or possibly some other tag I have blacklisted, but the ones I have blacklisted are pretty rare, so... 44 or 45 with a margin of error).

Meowmere

1 week, 6 days ago

link

@ Emouri

That is very much a concern. I don't dare guess at the number, but any one disheartened artist giving up because they couldn't keep up with the algorithm, is an artist too many.

Kagesan

1 week, 6 days ago

link

Heard, seen, and related to. Thank you for saying this.

Give us the sloppers!
Give us the rope!

Give us their hands!
Give us their feet!

Give us the sloppers!
Give us the rope!

Give us a grave!
Give us a shovel!
Give us a marker!

Give us the sloppers!
Give us the rope!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLCj6TmFCmo :3

Arkanos

1 week, 6 days ago

link

@ Kagesan

Wasn't expecting hope to ride alone on here, of all places, but there it is.

Bad choice of song though, since he's innocent and the song is about the mob wanting to unjustly punish him.

Kagesan

1 week, 6 days ago

link

@ Arkanos

Fair. >.>

Out of curiosity though, which song do you think fits this whole shebang?

Meowmere

1 week, 6 days ago

link

@ Kagesan

I do feel like I should note (in light of Balmung's comment), that I don't think a lynch mob mentality is a constructive way to reach a solution.

Kagesan

1 week, 6 days ago

link

...........Yeah, you're right.

That stuff's been clogging up the front page everywhere, and I'm just really sick of it.
At this rate, KammyKay's website can't come online fast enough. Been watching that whole thing like a hawk.

I really wanna get away from that stuff and just not have to see a shitton of it on the front page every time I hop on here, yanno?
There's a reason I have the bookmark set for my user page here and not the home page nowadays.

Neill

1 week, 6 days ago

link

Edited 1 week, 6 days ago by Owner

A.I. is a total misnomer and a marketing term. It's not intelligent, it's merely an aggregator algorithm that generates an output using available information on the Internet like a glorified search engine.

Wanna hear something pathetic? I heard this week on a radio show a breakdown of where A.I. gets its sources from. About 40% Reddit, 20% Wikipedia, 10% TripAdvisor, etc. There is even a percentage from Google. So Google's A.I. uses Google to generate answers and create images. That's some self referencial bullshit right there. So A.I. is using Reddit and Wikipedia, user-edited sites. Those aren't legit sources, anyone can get on there and edit that stuff. It's funny how in college they went out of their way to warn us never to use Wikipedia as a source, and now those same college professors are using A.I. which uses Wiki and other user-edited sites. It's ridiculous.

I think this is a bubble. A.I. is pretty worthless and it will get hyped up to the moon and back until people stop investing in it and realize how stupid it was.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MUEXGaxFDA

A friend recommended this video, on the subject.

CookieMarine

1 week, 6 days ago

link

Floating kitty bean!

beforethefall

1 week, 6 days ago

link

I tend to tell people that generative (text) AI from even the biggest models is just a 'gist simulator'. It doesn't actively seek for truth, it just tells you the idea of what the general public has to say about something within the bounds of whatever box its creators have tried to wall it into so it doesn't spout all the toxic, insane shit that's out there on the internet these days.

thecooler

1 week, 6 days ago

link

that's a good way to see it

thecooler

1 week, 6 days ago

link

Neill

1 week, 6 days ago

link

@ thecooler

Hahaha, good one.

If computers try to take over the world, humanity has the secret weapon: just unplug it. X3

Meowmere

1 week, 6 days ago

link

I believe that three things are borderline confirmed to be true about AI by now:
- It was not "Infinitely scalable", like greedy business men all immediately believed. It will likely stagnate in growth, unless entirely new framework is invented.
- It eats where it shits, making the Internet a vast contentless trash yard, underlining the eternal need for human input
- The common belief that "human input" would be obsolete, has made people demotivated in investing in themselves, which will eventually put people who have invested in themselves in extreme demand

Neill

1 week, 6 days ago

link

There was a Ninja Turtles episode of this, decades ago, where a supercomputer that could control all electronics in the world was wreaking havoc, and at the end, April O'Neill hides behind it while the Turtles are battling its drones, and just unplugs it, thus defeating it.

I think the novel Dune put it best: "Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them." It's not the computers that will take over, it's other men with computers tailoring their functions to enslave people. And we see it with smart phones, TikTok, Instagram and all those worthless low-IQ apps that shorten people's attention span and turn them into mindless clout slaves.

Computers are tools, non-sentient machines. They are our slaves. They do what we tell them to do, just like a shovel or an abacus.

Juno

1 week, 6 days ago

link

Edited 1 week, 6 days ago by Owner

"	Every AI post you see on the front page is a spot stolen from a small artist who wants to share a drawing with you that they made with blood, sweat, and tears. The drawing might utterly suck. Who cares.

I agree with this, and I think it's the biggest crime of allowing AI on Inkbunny. The front page used to be good at helping people find new artists, it used to be something I browsed. There's no point in it anymore, though, it's an AI junkfield. And saying 'just blacklist it' isn't a real solution, in all honesty, because if someone truly cares about this site, they don't want to just look away and ignore the problem. Caring means they want the issue to be addressed, not just covered up. Who would truly take the blue pill? You're right, blacklisting can help in the short term so people can see more human-made art, but man, it's a shit situation.

Last thing I wanna say while I'm in the mood to vent: AI Generations isn't art. If you ask most people to define what Art is, they'll tell you something about human creativity and expression. Boom, there you are, AI Generations isn't art. It's just an image. So when Inkbunny calls itself an 'Art Gallery,' it shouldn't allow AI generations, unless it wants to rebrand as an 'image gallery' and wants to also allow memes, photography, screenshots, and all the other things we're hardasses about. Those are all things that don't belong on an Art Gallery, but AI doesn't belong on an Art Gallery, either.

worldf0x

1 week, 6 days ago

link

I have to imagine that the slop also creates strain on the site in other ways, as well. These dinguses are able to barf out hundreds of images at a time, and that all requires bandwidth and server space. I know a single image isn't much on a harddrive, but when one person can upload so many... It has to cause a noticeable uptick in costs, yeah?

LemmyNiscuit

1 week, 6 days ago

link

I have always also been concerned about the cost. IB is a user-supported site. How much of the database costs are going to AI? How much of the bandwidth costs are going to AI? Questions like that concern me about the ability to upkeep and sustain the infrastructure.

AI is so easy to produce and consume, it's "empty calories." Sure, IB could probably still lean on "there are more original non-AI posts than AI posts" for now, but with the lower barrier to entry it's just a throughput and motivation problem before that takes over.

beforethefall

1 week, 6 days ago

link

Hilariously, some of the pro-AI weirdos out there will claim that their "artistry" is in the prompting, as if they aren't just scribbling an idiotic checklist of goon keywords into a prompt field

Juno

1 week, 6 days ago

link

There's as much artistry in prompting as there is in my commissioning an artist. When I describe a pose, or dialogue, or expressions, or say "Oh, actually, Juno's ear is floppy on the left side!", I'm not an artist. I'm someone who has a vision, but I'm not an artist. I haven't created anything, infact, I'm telling someone else how to create something.

And that's exactly what AI Directors are doing. They are telling their computer what to generate, but they aren't creating anything themselves.

beforethefall

1 week, 6 days ago

link

Even when simply commissioning an artist, there's a level of interaction and vision available to you that isn't possible with AI, simply because you're interacting with an actual human that understands metaphor and simile and can actually grasp that when you're comparing something to a locomotive you don't want random locomotives showing up in the background.

thecooler

1 week, 6 days ago

link

Totally Agree too!

Meowmere

1 week, 6 days ago

link

Yes, juxtaposing these two clearly different upload genres on an art page conceived on a clear ideology of being for artists is just the strangest stance to take. I hesitate to call it "lazy", because given the ban on human art to ease the moderation burden, there's a clear upon that outright bans are easier to maintain. I am forced to conclude that someone actively chose to include AI art, perhaps even wishing to promote the usage. This is of course a ludicrous thought, which couldn't possibly be true.

Balmung

1 week, 6 days ago

link

Sorry, I greatly don't appreciate the aggressive tone. I commissioned works from many people and don't like threats of violence towards anyone.

You just lost any future commissions from me.

Arkanos

1 week, 6 days ago

link

The world's smallest loss, there.

Meowmere

1 week, 6 days ago

link

If you looked at my post about the cultural importance of allowing small artists to have exposure on an art page, with a whimsical bit about attention seekers, business executives, and nut sacks, and all you saw was a "threat of violence", I'm not sure what to tell you. It was obviously a joke. It sounds to me like you were already looking for the moral license to take your business elsewhere. That's your call, I just hope that doesn't involve giving money to robots. I do appreciate the support throughout my own struggles, so thank you, and best of luck to you <3

Balmung

1 week, 6 days ago

link

"	Meowmere wrote:
	If you looked at my post about the cultural importance of allowing small artists to have exposure on an art page, with a whimsical bit about attention seekers, business executives, and nut sacks, and all you saw was a "threat of violence", I'm not sure what to tell you.

I saw the rest, but I just didn't have much of an issue with it. I don't expect to be in agreement with you over everything, least of all something that threatens your income. Disagreement is perfectly fine. Talk of stringing people up is where I draw the line.

"	Meowmere wrote:
	It was obviously a joke.

You're a writer, of all people you should know well you don't need to make every message literal. And jokes communicate a lot about the speaker's viewpoint and beliefs.

If it's a joke, why is it funny? What's the punchline? Should I also find the "give us the rope!" guy that joined in hilarious?

"	Meowmere wrote:
	It sounds to me like you were already looking for the moral license to take your business elsewhere.

I actually commission people who I know have a distaste for AI just fine. It's genuinely all the stringing up talk that goes too far.

You're welcome to message me and have a conversation.

Meowmere

1 week, 6 days ago

link

As a writer, I am capable of recognizing hyperbole as a harmless literary device. Jokes are jokes, even if you don't think they are funny, and even if you find yourself in the crossfire.
I don't much feel the need to debate semantics. As stated elsewhere, I'm against lynch mobs and mindless trench wars. But I also believe that timid diction does little in the way of changing the world, which called for an elated stretch of language. A "threat to a nut sack" did not strike me as something any reasonable person would take literally, but of course, I forget that reason is a fleeting concept.
Not much else to say on my part. <3

Balmung

1 week, 6 days ago

link

"	Meowmere wrote:
	A "threat to a nut sack" did not strike me as something any reasonable person would take literally, but of course, I forget that reason is a fleeting concept. Not much else to say on my part. <3

Alright, then I'd like to know how I should interpret it metaphorically.

You know I dabbled in AI a bit. So what message should I take away from a metaphorical threat to my nutsack?

Meowmere

1 week, 6 days ago

link

Well, let me analyse the sentence for you
>people producing AI content for popularity
I don't believe this is you. If you feel personally attacked, I apologise.

>strung up by nut sack
An imagined vengeful act that no one has ever seen or heard of carried out in real life. It means "these people make me angry", and over stating that emotion is funny to some, in bad taste to others.

Literature is subjective. The intention was not to threaten violence, and I will admit that it could be construed that way. But I won't censor myself to suit other's sensibilities.

Balmung

1 week, 6 days ago

link

Edited 1 week, 6 days ago by Owner

"	Meowmere wrote:
	>people producing AI content for popularity I don't believe this is you. If you feel personally attacked, I apologise.

Right now I don't have any plans to be a regular AI poster. But I've posted a few AI pictures before which did gather some faves and watches. I don't exclude the possibility of posting an AI picture once in a while if the mood strikes me, and the way the world is going, a full transition to AI might well be in the cards if things get bad enough that I can't pay people to draw NSFW things. I like working with artists, but I'm a pragmatist at heart.

"	Meowmere wrote:
	An imagined vengeful act that no one has ever seen or heard of carried out in real life. It means "these people make me angry", and over stating that emotion is funny to some, in bad taste to others.

I don't like paying people who have imaginary revenge fantasies towards me, or towards people whose work I enjoy. I'm here for fun, so why would I want to contribute towards making the whole thing less pleasant?

"	Meowmere wrote:
	Literature is subjective. The intention was not to threaten violence, and I will admit that it could be construed that way. But I won't censor myself to suit other's sensibilities.

I'm a firm believer in that actions are more important than intent. Actions are what make the world what it is.

And there's already two comments about "the rope", so I view that as evidence that your message may be getting interpreted a bit more literally than you intended.

Meowmere

1 week, 6 days ago

link

If you can't see the issue with posting AI imagery for clout and engagement on a platform for artists, and you mean to excuse that with, "that's just the way things are going", it gets increasingly difficult for me to leap to your defence. I find it hard to believe that commenters on this post are wishing literal death on anyone, but I can certainly admit that the tone is an unhealthy contribution to the debate. I'll make another post when I'm near a computer.

But your "pragmatic" position is no better than that of a corporate CEO firing honest workers for "AI optimisation" so he can afford another yacht. If you cannot understand why standing by that opinion earns you vitriol, I am at my wits' end. Again: best of luck.

Balmung

1 week, 6 days ago

link

"	Meowmere wrote:
	If you can't see the issue with posting AI imagery for clout and engagement on a platform for artists, and you mean to excuse that with, "that's just the way things are going", it gets increasingly difficult for me to leap to your defence.

I think you might have misunderstood what I meant. What I was referring to is the recent legal changes. Paying for porn may be getting much harder. Owning a porn site may be getting impossible. This whole thing we have here may be on the way to extinction even without AI.

I prefer to pay people to draw, but if there comes a time where I can't send you a payment anymore, yeah, I will be going with AI as an alternative.

"	Meowmere wrote:
	I find it hard to believe that commenters on this post are wishing literal death on anyone, but I can certainly admit that the tone is an unhealthy contribution to the debate. I'll make another post when I'm near a computer.

Great, I'm looking forward to it.

RetroJet

1 week, 6 days ago

link

And nothing of value was lost. Fuck AI, and I fully agree with everything said in the post.

CookieMarine

1 week, 6 days ago

link

Ok here we go flying right into the sam site wild weasel style.. Recognition isn't important only money. I make a profit and that's all I care about because profit buys me everything I do care about. 2- you artists are literally all thieves. All you do is steal other people's work all day. Look at how much loona porn is out there! You have no standing to be taken seriously about anything moral and that's why no one cares what you have to say they will keep producing porn regardless. As to hanging I have a contractors background so ... Hahahahahahaha. No. I can out pizza the hut on that one so I worry not. Also. You draw pictures... That's not a real job. If you want to make money then work. This is the $900 candle makers of the past crying like bitch's over the light bulb. But the light bulb is STAYING. YOU are going .. Which is fine. The light bulb is everywhere but candles still exist. They are just outclassed. Same here. You need to do what ai cannot. Sex and kinks! And lot of it! Who is at risk is all the lazy worthless so called famous webtoons artist who never draw porn. Their work is all but worthless now. As it should be. You people charge 300 to 700 bucks for one picture. Times up. Evolve or it's the scrap pile for you. And I will take your OCs if you're not making use of them. Seriously think of allll the OCS people wanna see some action for but the lazy artists won't draw it! The artists will call you entitled for even asking. Well now I'm empowered. I will make what you won't and make a buck off it too. Cry now about how the people you mistreated are mistreating you. but you're not stopping equality. And you're sure as hell not stopping profit! You're like the greedy RIAA getting man about MP3 files while charging 80 bucks for a cd. Cry harder!

ezalias

1 week, 6 days ago

link

Pictured: the other side of why it's impossible to have a sensible conversation about this tech.

You could be jeering about your artisanal hand-painted models and I'd still think the admins should put you in time-out.

thecooler

1 week, 6 days ago

link

@ ezalias

I don't think you should spend your precious time answering to this guy really just with what he said and I quote

"Recognition isn't important only money. I make a profit and that's all I care about because profit buys me everything I do care about. 2- you artists are literally all thieves. All you do is steal other people's work all day. Look at how much loona porn is out there! You have no standing to be taken seriously about anything moral and that's why no one cares what you have to say they will keep producing porn regardless." he also did call us artist lazy just cause he can't get his porn right away for free! what a total Asshole!

You can tell he is a total Idiot and some one that does not care for himself why would you ask him to care for others? that has never really actually work a day in it life and thinks money is the only thing that will Give him valor so he is ok on stealing from others calling out other thiefs to make himself think he is equal to an actual artist and its so sad and pathetic to find people who actually think that way, that makes you feel there is no redeeming qualities on youth today. He must have the attention spam of a brick that is not even baked yet to not even know what the difference between fan art, parody, Rule 34 and plagiarism is, to even dare to write that!

"Never argue with an idiot. They'll only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." Mark Twain

Meowmere

1 week, 6 days ago

link

Weak bait, 2/10.

Makroth

1 week, 6 days ago

link

You showed us why people hate AI bros. And you did it so eloquenntly. At least the ACTUAL artists can draw things like a map of the U.S. without it devolving into gibberish.

The AI bubble is already bursting and anti-human feces like you will join the ones who cheered on NFTs. Remember those? That was a laugh.

beforethefall

1 week, 6 days ago

link

@ Makroth

Make sure to Scarlett letter them now before they can just go back to silently walking amongst actual humans. :o)

Calamity2000

1 week, 6 days ago

link

Fuck generative AI. I'm fine with AI as a pattern recognition thing for figuring out complex multimodal medicine interactions or for reading off rock compositions using a touch sensor but art should be the exclusive domain of humans.

thecooler

1 week, 6 days ago

link

@ Calamity2000

FULLY AGREE! I think even AI agrees with that!

Meowmere

1 week, 6 days ago

link

@ Calamity2000

Conflating those two genres of AI in the first place is a psyop by big AI, who hopes that idiots in the internet will argue on their behalf, securing them moral footing.

thecooler

1 week, 6 days ago

link

Edited 1 week, 6 days ago by Owner

I must say I agree, but here is a useful little list for you all to have some fun and laugh at
I just have notice that people that defend AI are usually one or many of the the list below here:
(sorry not sorry for the following,)

1) I want quick porn fast and free! it looks cute so its ok for me who cares if it has 5 fingers fused to the dick its holding! oh wait that its leg too.. but DICK (or pussy what ever) SO HOT YEEAAA!!

2) Real art cost money and time? cause it takes work and skills?!! outrageous!!

3) Avery one steals from every one else! its the same thing cause stealing is the same as inspiration, or fan art! (acording to them to feel good from stealing art from others as if that makes you equal to people who actually did some thing) you should be ashamed of yourself for stealing others characters to make porn! (unless its them using it to do the porn)

4) Artist are SO LAZY how dare they take time to learn a skill to charge for it and do exactly what I demanded but not instantly! I have never work a day in my life in art so I am gonna be even more lazy than them and use this software that steals their art I won't even care about right away!

5) Artists are so greedy! as if they are human that deserve to be payed for their work have to ear pay rent or exist! and request payment for what ever they feel their work is worth, they want us to pay $600 for just 1 image how dare they! as if all artist are also charging that same amount for a sketch! ALL OF THEM ARE!! If I can't afford a mansion and a sports car I am gonna go steal one then too!

6) Its not hurting any one! if you don't like it don't look just ignore it still keep taking away your spot light, stealing your thunder and work to make me things that look like crap but are what I want for the moment been, so who cares for recognition right or credits right? art is not just about making money! (and then they go with #7)

7) It is making money so that is all that maters I am such a ass that does not care for other things in life at all that I am just a -0.1 to thinking skills, as long as I have money or make money with it I am gonna do it cause art is not some thing you can get some thing else from!

8) Credits? what is that? who cares?, royalties? what is that? who cares?, wait I posted that on my gallery why don't you recognize what I prompted? wait NO you can't post it on your gallery as yours!! WAAA I wanna bee seeen!! why no one notice meee?!

9) I just use it as "a tool" to sketch or see things on how it might look or makes me generate things to use as inspirations as if there where not ANY references to what I needed before AI existed! its not like I could have just google stuff I dunno maybe reading a book or watching others arts a movie read a comic, have actual life experiences! or going outside!! existed before AI!

10) I am not stealing from others the AI is, I am just using it and promoting it to do the same!

There are plenty others but this are the most pathetic excuses I ever encounter. and if any of those offend you? then good now you know how you sound.

Meowmere

1 week, 6 days ago

link

Edited 1 week, 6 days ago by Owner

@ thecooler

I choose to believe that the vast majority of the ones participating in the spread are simply unfortunate casualties that don't have the reasonable disposition to know any better.
Which is why "speaking out" is important, after all.
Some will rationalise to award themselves moral license, some are genuine believers. Such is life, dealing with internet people.

thecooler

1 week, 5 days ago

link