I’d rather see a basic drawing that gets the point across than an ai image
Anyone with a functioning brain would. The only people that would disagree are the psychopaths that are incapable of appreciating value in anything.
(sorry for the low quality image, despite seeing it a lot on Reddit this was the best one I could find online)Found you a better quality one.
:0
Where did you find this?
I reverse searched your image and found one with the highest quality. I think this one came from Instagram. :)
I tried to search for it by describing it so that’s probably why the Insta post didn’t show up.
Tysm!
Is “Needs more JPEG” going to become sign that it’s not AI?
I wish society judged people who don’t tag AI art the same way we judge those who fail to tag NSFW or spoiler content.
If they knowingly posted AI generated shit, I feel it’s more akin to posting an image someone else made, removing the watermark, and claiming you drew the image than simply not labeling porn as NSFW.
You could also just not know it is AI and thus not know to tag it as AI, unlike if you posted porn not tagged nfsw.
Lemmy and Piefed should add an AI tag and an option not to see it
I think piefed already has.
Waow
Whoa I wonder if the blorp client supports it
Blorp dev here. Could you do me a favor and link some example AI posts and I’ll see if I can add a filter for them. I also want to add a toggle to filter out bot posts. I’ll do those at the same time.
This is truly the worst timeline.
It’s self-inflicted.
Did you make computer generated art easily accessible? If not, how did you self-inflict it on yourself? 🤔
I don’t self-inflict it on myself, because when I see a piece of art that looks really neat I go “ooh, that looks really neat” rather than “wait, I need to dig around to find out whether I’m supposed to like this or not.”
People have to actively choose to make themselves miserable in the way this comic depicts. That’s what I mean when I say it’s self-inflicted.
Usually the AI art looks neat just on first impression. Makes sense that someone that appreciate any kind of art take his time to check the details and what it makes it good (or not). Also there are good reasons both to learn to recognize AI production and to crictize it.
If the art doesn’t look good by whatever standards you have, then it doesn’t look good. Whether it’s not-good AI-generated or not-good human-generated doesn’t matter.
Just look at the picture, and if you like it then like it. This moral panic about Abominable Intelligence’s supposedly soulless touch is pointless.
The really noxious thing about AI is how it will latch onto anything that is popular and turn it into shitty 9gag memes at lightning speed.
NEQ | XCancel
If you like it, who cares?
They’ll enjoy the assembly line thoughtless content put out by Disney and Warner Bros for profit and not for any meaningful discussion or art, but the moment someone does the same with a calculator they’ll lose their minds and say art is dead.
Maybe we can just go back to enjoying things and stop pretending to protect artists while constantly accusing artists of using AI.
Remember when Wacom and Photoshop wasn’t see as a form of art and only traditional art was valid? Or when artists mocked photography?
Or when people about 3 years ago were anti-copyright and have completely done a 180 on it. Still don’t get how they can be anti copyright but then instantly say “but this is my exception, this is for me, not for the public. I’ll gladly take the public however.”
I don’t like supporting the thing that steals artists work and then makes a worse version of it. The thing they said “wow this is actually really great” already existed and was stolen to generate the worse one, and now the person who actually created the value gets no credit.
The biggest issue with this (imo) is it pushes artists out for more ai image generation, but ai image generation will only get worse as it’s trained on a greater percent of ai images, so we essentially lose the source of good images for short term ai images.
“steals artists work and makes a worse version of it”
You’re literally describing virtually every human artist.
If it gets worse we won’t use it, will we? Self solving problem, if true.
Lemmy has a profound ability to retroactively decide something they once liked sucks. Not in the same way as learning something negative about the context, the artist, or the process and regretting that something they liked could come from a negative source. No, I mean they retroactively decide that the thing they liked is actually awful and they never liked it; because Lemmy is full of emotional children who collapse into hysterics the moment they see the letters A and I together, with most not even able to fully articulate why they feel the way they do, other than “AI bad!”
It’s like if you gave a meat lover a vegan hot dog without telling them; and at first they like it and say how good it is. But then when you tell them it’s not meat they immediately spit it out and start gagging and crying and saying how disgusting it is, as if moments ago they weren’t just saying how much they liked it.
Yes I can enjoy eating a hotdog but if I find out you stole that hot dog from a 13 year old, now I’m too upset that you stole from someone to enjoy it anymore. It’s not that they “don’t like it” anymore, they just hate that it’s ai generated more than they like the image.
Yes, as I said, you can regret the circumstances that led to it. You can even dislike continuing to consume it. What we are talking about is you going “Mmm… Delicious!” Then spitting it out and going “Blegh, disgusting! Who could ever enjoy something that tastes like THAT!”
If you think people who hate AI haven’t articulated many reasons why, you must not be listening.
The quality of the art isn’t in question here. what is, is what got it there. So yeah, if I see an picture and like it, but then find out it’s made by a talentless little hack that typed a sentence into a text prompt-
… It instantly sucks ass.
You see, it’s this reason that drives us to put our children’s shitty pictures on the fridge. It’s not because it’s art show adjacent work. It’s becase of the effort and time spent learning to make it what it is. Effort is something we call an “added value”. As is experience and training. These things are all subconsciously included in how we appreciate a thing- how we attribute a value it.
-and all of these things are ONLY acquired by a human being.
So no, it’s not “lemmy retroactively deciding something liked once sucked”
It’s learning that something they once liked, took zero effort to make, and wasn’t even created by a human being, but instead- a sweaty little wannabe “artist” behind a keyboard.
There is NO defense for AI making slop art.
I like the metaphor where you deny someone’s dietary/moral choices, essentially made them party to a grave sin in their eyes, rob them of their ability to consent, and then laugh at them when they’re upset about it. It’s really fucking telling.
I think you inverted the scenario. Otherwise you’re suggesting there’s some way that eating a veggie dog is a grave sin
I… swore it was the other way round. Either way, their metaphor isn’t the same as the actual situation because most who don’t like AI hate it on a moral ground (wasteful, egregious) rather than on a pure aesthetic one.
See? Just like I said: emotional children.
They literally glossed over your point and the other dude, and then claim humans are perfect art making creatures.
Spoken just like someone who would actually argue that a computer can crate the human equivalent of art.
Need an AI program to tell me what content is AI…
Let’s use the thing that is wrong 70% of the time to let us know if the things we see are made by the thing that’s wrong 70% of the time. It’s guaranteed to have a 100% success rate! /s
