The only real news here is that Reddit mods are power mad tyrants, which is nothing new at all. AI generated art has just given them newer, funnier ways to be in the wrong.
"Power" moderators, that is people who moderate a large number of subreddits, are untenable. It is not possible to effectively or fairly moderate dozens of communities, even if you were to spend all your waking moments doing so. This is, in part, why it's so common for popular submissions to be locked or deleted because "y'all can't behave".
The people that do so are largely doing it for their own self-gain (e.g., self-promotion) or because it makes them feel important. I had a very low stress job for a few years and ended up as a moderator for over a dozen large subreddits, including a few defaults. Socializing with Reddit's prominent moderators was enlightening.
Reddit is a worse echo chamber than Twitter ever was.
I gave up on it when I got banned from certain subreddits for posting quotes from congressional testimony. If you post anything that deviates in the slightest from the moderator's viewpoint, you get banned.
The end result is an echo chamber that's getting tighter and smaller, excluding any diversity of opinion. It's no way to run a business.
Fun fact: there's a popular car sub that will ban you for mentioning dealer markups in a disparaging way. That's right: if you say that Joe's Toyota tried to upcharge you $15k for a Camry, you'll be banned for life!
Reddit mods are ineffective or harmful a lot of the time, but so is Reddit itself in how it incentivizes thankless moderation and oversized and noisy communities for the purpose of ads and their upcoming IPO. Most non-niche subreddits could be replaced by ChatGPT at this point.
For real. From the headline I thought this was going to be a "ban" from an art department or marketplace or something of actual value, which would actually be news. Being banned from a subreddit for an arbitrary/idiotic reason is just reddit as usual.
It is still surprising - at least for me, I've been using Reddit for years but mostly niche subs, nothing popular - how such a petty power warps people's minds. I dread to think what a real power does then.
But in this case, the mods can't win. If they let AI art take over, HN will be condemning them for putting artists out of business. If they refuse to allow AI art, HN condemns them anyway.
Speaking on the topic of Reddit and mods and it's power structure:
In the UK Reddit has pushed a new subreddit called "HeyUK". It has turned up in the subscription feeds for some (all?) UK users automatically without the user asking for it or adding it. If you remove it from your list of subreddits the posts will still show up in your feed as "sponsored". As far as I can see this new subreddit is seeded with just cross posts from other UK subreddits and is created/pushed by Reddit itself.
The big issue I have is that this is just another subreddit with 15-odd random people who are the mods. These people have the unilateral power to shape discourse and be the arbiter of what is "UK" and what isn't.
Reddit is getting a bit too big, this feels very strange. On the swing-back we then have Reddit not banning the "jailbait" subreddit until it made major US news.
I have no idea what's going on with social media anymore, I'm just left with the overwhelming feeling that the people with the voice and the power are not the best of us.
Reddit has definitely started a massive push in an authoritarian direction.
I actually was permanently banned from reddit last night for saying "I didn't know shooting a guy in the nuts would kill him" for spreading hatred/violence in a video game subreddit. It kind of caught me off guard.
The beauty of reddit is that you can create your own subreddit with your own mods and have the discourse that you want. You're not held to just sticking with the subreddits that are given to you.
I was a moderator for r/robots for awhile. I even spent a few hundred dollars hiring an artist to create a theme.
I begged them to help me pin down what the subreddit was about since the submissions were all over the place, and some people seemed to think it was for a certain type of robot content and others a different type. Most ignored the question.
I tried to share articles and videos of actual leading edge robots that I though t were awesome. Generally these were ignored, along with most such things. Occasionally a video of a real robot would randomly become popular for some reason. The worst most repeated robot sketches would often receive many votes. Anything even remotely erotic went straight to the top.
They seemed to like art quite a bit, but often the voting was the opposite of what it should have been. Like artwork that was clearly derivative or low quality was top billing for the day, and amazing work was ignored.
Then there was someone who really wanted to use it for some channel that was obviously kind of a stealth marketing system. I repeatedly warned everyone about it and tried to discourage it, but the only feedback from anyone was that they liked the content and I was overreacting.
Due to the incredibly poor judgement of the people voting in the sub, I got fed up and left.
The weirder thing is that redditors make it possible to own categories.
The name of the subreddit shouldn't matter much at all. For each category there are several subreddits but people don't actively move to the subreddits with the best moderators.
For aggregators as a whole, it's the same. Places like https://tildes.net/ don't have many visitors even though Reddit's flaws should incentivize significant amounts of users to try other aggregators.
It's the same with banning ChatGPT from StackOverflow: Who cares and who notices? Art is either evoking some feeling or not and it's different for everybody. An answer on SO is either helpful or not. Who cares how it was written? ChatGPT can easily say something more helpful than me, stable diffusion can easily make something I'd rather have on my wall than Da Vinci's Mona Lisa (or anything more along my preferences). Why do we care so much? What's "real art" anyway?
I always like a colleague's mousepad, it said: "Is this art or can we throw this out?" Always makes me smile.
> It's the same with banning ChatGPT from StackOverflow: Who cares and who notices?
People were posting low-quality rambling bullshit, sometimes completely off-base, without even bothering with the most basic of smell-tests. People occasionally post low-quality rambling bullshit too, or things that are off-base, but with ChatGPT you can post 100 answers in an hour.
It's a matter of scale. The ban wasn't pre-emptive, it was reactive in response to a real observed problem with people lazily Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V spamming poor quality nonsense from ChatGPT.
While technically not allowed, you can still use ChatGPT on Stack Overflow: just make sure it's correct, copy-edit things a bit to remove some of the waffling and repetition that ChatGPT tends to generate, and no one will even notice.
I'm less involved in the art community, but I would imagine that most communities are at least in part about people who create things for the joy of creating things, and then share that in the community for the joy of sharing. I don't have anything against AI art, but if lots of people start lazily spamming that kind of stuff then you've kind of lost your community. It's not so much about what is or isn't art, it's about having a community.
That said, this mod is clearly being an ass about it.
Well, the temporary ban at SO is entirely justified. They already saw the influx of massive amounts of new answers, generated by ChatGPT, that are essentially spam and make everybody worse off. Even if 90% of the answers are perfectly correct, that leaves the 10% that are wrong, sometimes in subtle ways. And because the submitter of those answers is only parroting what ChatGPT wrote, they probably won't be available for further discourse, or to amend the answer they submitted.
The biggest problem with ChatGPT is that when it's wrong, it's confidently wrong and cannot quantify its uncertainty in any way (maybe it's too human-like in that respect...) Furthermore, the whole idea of a reputation economy collapses if reputation becomes "too cheap to meter".
If the goal of a community is to share work, critique each others efforts, and enjoy a hobby together, then someone coming along and pretending that they're doing it while they're not is obviously going to annoy people who are genuine.
I see AI-generated art as being similar to taking performance enhancing drugs in sport or using something that's against the rules in motorsports. Outsiders don't really care because they just see someone performing at the same level of the others by using clever tech, but if you're part of the group then you will care much more.
Well in this case, it's the artists who care. Ie the person at risk being "replaced". Yes, ML is not there yet to actually replace artists, but we all see the writing on the wall.
I'm a software dev attempting to learn art. I recently joined Mastodon related to this purpose and it's quite the hot topic there. Many, many artists pissed about how their work is being used to train corporate profits as well as potentially undermining their living/passion/etc. I've actually seen some cool art in protest of "AI"... usually involving malformed hands which the artist community have gravitated towards being the representation of current AI capabilities.
I think it matters how it is created, personally. Not because the author of an individual piece of art is important to me, but rather because once AI moves into a problem space and can effectively and accurately "solve" that problem space the displacement of humans will be surreal. How it affects people is the important thing to me. I'll be interested to see how we manage to recognize this reality as AI improves.
Seriously? Shouldn’t the SO example be very obvious?
If you submit an answer yourself and it’s wrong, if someone begins the process of critiquing it or editing it, they can engage in a dialogue with you in order to make this happen. You can explain how you came up with your answer, and they can help you debug your thinking. Seeing this process unfold over a couple comments is often one of the most enlightening things on SO.
How is this supposed to happen if you submit a ChatGPT answer which you have just accepted on blind faith and maybe don’t even understand?
It matters to me because, to me, art is a reflection of emotional processes specific to human beings. There is meaning conveyed by the difficulty of technique, refined over hundreds of hours at great opportunity cost. It says to me that the human being has sacrificed a lot to produce this piece, and so I should give it my attention. For human-made work, complexity is something like proof of work which is itself proof of conviction. None of this applies to generated work. While I am impressed at the analogous sacrifices of the human inventors of AI, the work produced by the AI itself has not yet surpassed the level of significance of a party trick, even though I would be impressed if a human had produced the work .
> An answer on SO is either helpful or not. Who cares how it was written?
"Who cares if the diagnosis is done by a medical expert or someone pulling out random drugs they tried before? As long as I feel better immediately after taking them, who cares how they were prescribed?"
The case on SO is clearly different, as ChatGPT might answer incorrectly or answer with something containing subtle bugs. There's also a good chance that you won't be immediately able to spot those bugs, as, if you were sufficiently knowledgeable in the topic yourself, you would have most likely not asked that question.
The case for art is a bit different, as there is no technically correct way to do it, but there is still a value to the way it is created. Would you think the first picture drawn by your child is worth the same as any other bad painting? Would you agree that a perfect copy of the Mona Lisa has equal value to the actual object? If no, it should be pretty easy to see why a painting generated by an AI is different from one created by a human.
This is /r/art by the way and based on the blurb and about section it seems less about art and more about fulfilling the deranged power fantasies of its moderators. What an unfriendly place.
Nice to hear the artist has gotten a more positive response in /r/drawing.
I've been keeping up with Stable Diffusion and all the tools around that for months now and it wasn't until a few weeks ago that I learned that you can just tell it to draw things accurately if you want to avoid weirdness.
For example, if I include "anatomically correct fingers" it significantly decreases the number of images with wildly creative ideas for how human fingers should be drawn.
Negative prompting works too. "deformed fingers" or "inaccurately drawn anatomy" can go a long way.
This person knows what they are talking about.
Although I have been pretty successful in obtaining realistic hands by prompting photographs and including make of a camera, lens and film [1][2]. Somehow this seems to narrow down the model to mostly produce realistic output. Still, some variants will occasionally feature Chernobyl-levels of fingers.
And that's the argument I've been making. Once you can't tell the difference between AI-made art and human-made art, the demand for human-made art will dramatically decrease, especially in the commercial areas.
If it takes a human a month to paint something beautiful, and 1 minute for AI, it's really hard to compete with AI.
The best we have is Midjourney V4, and it's getting quite close.
This is why I believe we’ll soon see a huge increase in the popularity of ‘physical’ art. Theatre, sculpture, dance… in a world overflowing with computer made images and sounds, things which can only be human-made will be all the more special.
The hilarious irony is that the AI is quite possibly copying the authors older work if it was published on an image sharing site like Reddit or deviant art.
Lawsuits need to destroy these models stolen from the public.
While we're at it we should publicly flog anyone who's ever done any art in the style of anyone else before them, because they also stole ideas from the public.
This is a common misconception. AI is not copying anything.
It is studying the images in a similar way that humans do.
Entire size of the stable diffusion model is around 6gb, with pruning it goes down to 3gb. Training set is in terabytes. So it is common sense that no copying is done.
I think artists need to be fair about AI, is there any artist that created their style without ever studying other artists? That is high improbable because humans need to observe to create art. There is even a saying that "Good Artists Copy; Great Artists Steal".
Once again, artists trying to stake a claim of personal ownership of a section of human expression standing in the way of technological and cultural progress.
Lots of people in here making arguments about the fact that the way these image models learn is roughly analogous to how people learn, the fact that these relatively tiny models simply don't have enough bits to grok anything except the most popular (and therefore recurrent in the training data) images, etc.
What about the fact that these models aren't just randomly spitting out and taking credit for random images? This seems the most salient point to me — if I used a paintbrush to create a copyright-violating clone of some notable artwork or IP and tried to pass it off as my own, I'd be breaking the law. We wouldn't try to ban paint and canvas and the human arm because it has the potential to create something that infringes on copyright, we'd enforce the actual act.
If these models make this kind of infringement easy, then they are bad products and their users will run the risk of going to court. The whole thing seems like a non-issue.
It is curious how different the sentiment is in this thread compared to the other thread currently on the front page regarding GitHub Copilot.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34274326
Nothing is being copied. If you understand how AI models work you'd realize that's impossible considering the model is a few GB. How could every piece of artwork be in there? It's not a database lookup.
That's just Reddit.. I don't think we should take any Reddit community. Seriously because it is run by Reddit mods who have proven countless times to be absolutely terrible at their job.
The problem with Reddit, SO, and pretty much any system with moderators is that a heavy-handed moderator can claim that he's "doing something", while a lenient moderator who only deletes genuinely egregious content looks like he's "not doing anything".
The same is true of other institutions, such as congresses and parliaments. Note that politicians run on the basis of what new laws they've gotten passed far more often than what laws they've blocked.
There's something to be said for the idea of a branch of government whose function is limited to repealing laws.
Even if true, AI is just another tool and combined work of artists and AI can produce greater art than the artist alone. For example, natural world has a lot of repeated elements and hand painting each one detracts from time that could be spent on more expressive aspects of the work. Airplanes let us fly further and faster than birds, should that be avoided / considered not to be real flight just because we are getting technological assistance?
> AI can produce greater art than the artist alone..
Citation needed.
> natural world has a lot of repeated elements and hand painting each one detracts from time that could be spent on more expressive aspects of the work.
Can't agree. Using these repeated elements artist can add additional level of impression for a viewer. While AI probably will use random distribution in this situation.
On the topic of AI vs "real" art, I visited /r/artcommissions. I was surprised at how little people are asking, many in the range of $5-$50 for original work.
Notice how this is an unmanaged misuse of power. The artist has no legal tools to defend against the actions of this moderator.
An internet court is needed for these cases, like courts in the real world, and supported by them. And an internet police, which makes sure the court rulings are obeyed. Also supported by real world police, if necessary.
All digital artists need to do to prove that their art is not AI-generated is to record their screen and show a start to finish recording of themselves painting the digital image from scratch as proof.
This is not new and it is similar to speed painting, and all these prompters using Stable Diffusion cannot do such a thing.
The artist in question offered to show the raw Photoshop files and the progression of work done on the piece to prove it was not AI generated, but the mod did not take him up on that offer, and simply banned him.
I’m glad. If your “art” can be mistaken for AI art, it’s likely just content, not art. The example picture is meaningless, just technical work. Makes no sense upon scrutiny.
True art is something that can’t be replicated by AI. You will have no doubt once you see it. It still exists even with the proliferation of AI art.
It’s like the difference between a random picture and a meme. The meme looks like a picture, but it captures an emotion or essential human truth that you connect with upon looking at it, where as a picture is just a random picture that could look like a meme but has no real meaning to it. You will know what I’m talking about.
I think this may be overreach by the moderator but I basically agree with their points. This looks just like a midjourney output. It is a hodge podge of different cultural influences -- asian character, with green eyes, with grecoroman garb, and eye of sauron orbs floating around her. It would have once been technically impressive, and now is just a kind of culture diarrhea.
So what. I guess the artist in question hasn't even been playing with AI art or even seen that much, so they don't have that context. And why do we need to look at AI art to know what is right for ourselves to paint?
I have a passing familiarity with the webfiction "Beneath dragon eye moons", that this artwork was designed for. All of the things you are complaining about makes sense in the context of that writing.
You've got a point, but I feel like I've seen more egregious examples of what you're describing. The Sauron eyes are unnecessary, but without that, it could be an interesting "Muse in the Warzone" piece. The character doesn't really look Asian to me though, or drawn in an anime style, but the expression could stand to be more subtle. We're all critics.
I agree with the moderator, AI will push artists to their limits and force them to become creative which is the most important skill of an artist. Technicality isn't enough nowadays, doesn't matter if you can paint like Raphael, you need to be creative like Picasso or Dali.
When was it ever like that for artists? Most complex music to perform doesn't mean it's the "best", neither is it like that for art.
As an example from visual art, abstract art is sometimes very simple, yet have a profound impact on people, and it was never about being "technical", "complex" or "hard to reproduce".
Just like how AI is forcing coders to make better design decision and focus on the bigger picture since eventually it will be able to write any program. The implementation will be up to us.
benjaminbachman|3 years ago
richbell|3 years ago
The people that do so are largely doing it for their own self-gain (e.g., self-promotion) or because it makes them feel important. I had a very low stress job for a few years and ended up as a moderator for over a dozen large subreddits, including a few defaults. Socializing with Reddit's prominent moderators was enlightening.
jasonkolb|3 years ago
I gave up on it when I got banned from certain subreddits for posting quotes from congressional testimony. If you post anything that deviates in the slightest from the moderator's viewpoint, you get banned.
The end result is an echo chamber that's getting tighter and smaller, excluding any diversity of opinion. It's no way to run a business.
seattle_spring|3 years ago
spacemadness|3 years ago
crazygringo|3 years ago
Sebb767|3 years ago
robotnikman|3 years ago
See previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18881827
hbn|3 years ago
smsm42|3 years ago
jtbayly|3 years ago
generalizations|3 years ago
ilyt|3 years ago
jdc0589|3 years ago
tibanne|3 years ago
shoulderfake|3 years ago
[deleted]
flumpcakes|3 years ago
In the UK Reddit has pushed a new subreddit called "HeyUK". It has turned up in the subscription feeds for some (all?) UK users automatically without the user asking for it or adding it. If you remove it from your list of subreddits the posts will still show up in your feed as "sponsored". As far as I can see this new subreddit is seeded with just cross posts from other UK subreddits and is created/pushed by Reddit itself.
The big issue I have is that this is just another subreddit with 15-odd random people who are the mods. These people have the unilateral power to shape discourse and be the arbiter of what is "UK" and what isn't.
Reddit is getting a bit too big, this feels very strange. On the swing-back we then have Reddit not banning the "jailbait" subreddit until it made major US news.
I have no idea what's going on with social media anymore, I'm just left with the overwhelming feeling that the people with the voice and the power are not the best of us.
xeromal|3 years ago
I actually was permanently banned from reddit last night for saying "I didn't know shooting a guy in the nuts would kill him" for spreading hatred/violence in a video game subreddit. It kind of caught me off guard.
purpleblue|3 years ago
vips7L|3 years ago
tazjin|3 years ago
ilaksh|3 years ago
I begged them to help me pin down what the subreddit was about since the submissions were all over the place, and some people seemed to think it was for a certain type of robot content and others a different type. Most ignored the question.
I tried to share articles and videos of actual leading edge robots that I though t were awesome. Generally these were ignored, along with most such things. Occasionally a video of a real robot would randomly become popular for some reason. The worst most repeated robot sketches would often receive many votes. Anything even remotely erotic went straight to the top.
They seemed to like art quite a bit, but often the voting was the opposite of what it should have been. Like artwork that was clearly derivative or low quality was top billing for the day, and amazing work was ignored.
Then there was someone who really wanted to use it for some channel that was obviously kind of a stealth marketing system. I repeatedly warned everyone about it and tried to discourage it, but the only feedback from anyone was that they liked the content and I was overreacting.
Due to the incredibly poor judgement of the people voting in the sub, I got fed up and left.
andsoitis|3 years ago
It doesn't seem all that different to me than whoever is first to claim a company name, a domain name, or when we go back further in time, land.
root_axis|3 years ago
im3w1l|3 years ago
sva_|3 years ago
s3000|3 years ago
The name of the subreddit shouldn't matter much at all. For each category there are several subreddits but people don't actively move to the subreddits with the best moderators.
For aggregators as a whole, it's the same. Places like https://tildes.net/ don't have many visitors even though Reddit's flaws should incentivize significant amounts of users to try other aggregators.
teekert|3 years ago
It's the same with banning ChatGPT from StackOverflow: Who cares and who notices? Art is either evoking some feeling or not and it's different for everybody. An answer on SO is either helpful or not. Who cares how it was written? ChatGPT can easily say something more helpful than me, stable diffusion can easily make something I'd rather have on my wall than Da Vinci's Mona Lisa (or anything more along my preferences). Why do we care so much? What's "real art" anyway?
I always like a colleague's mousepad, it said: "Is this art or can we throw this out?" Always makes me smile.
Beltalowda|3 years ago
People were posting low-quality rambling bullshit, sometimes completely off-base, without even bothering with the most basic of smell-tests. People occasionally post low-quality rambling bullshit too, or things that are off-base, but with ChatGPT you can post 100 answers in an hour.
It's a matter of scale. The ban wasn't pre-emptive, it was reactive in response to a real observed problem with people lazily Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V spamming poor quality nonsense from ChatGPT.
While technically not allowed, you can still use ChatGPT on Stack Overflow: just make sure it's correct, copy-edit things a bit to remove some of the waffling and repetition that ChatGPT tends to generate, and no one will even notice.
I'm less involved in the art community, but I would imagine that most communities are at least in part about people who create things for the joy of creating things, and then share that in the community for the joy of sharing. I don't have anything against AI art, but if lots of people start lazily spamming that kind of stuff then you've kind of lost your community. It's not so much about what is or isn't art, it's about having a community.
That said, this mod is clearly being an ass about it.
Sharlin|3 years ago
The biggest problem with ChatGPT is that when it's wrong, it's confidently wrong and cannot quantify its uncertainty in any way (maybe it's too human-like in that respect...) Furthermore, the whole idea of a reputation economy collapses if reputation becomes "too cheap to meter".
onion2k|3 years ago
I see AI-generated art as being similar to taking performance enhancing drugs in sport or using something that's against the rules in motorsports. Outsiders don't really care because they just see someone performing at the same level of the others by using clever tech, but if you're part of the group then you will care much more.
unshavedyak|3 years ago
I'm a software dev attempting to learn art. I recently joined Mastodon related to this purpose and it's quite the hot topic there. Many, many artists pissed about how their work is being used to train corporate profits as well as potentially undermining their living/passion/etc. I've actually seen some cool art in protest of "AI"... usually involving malformed hands which the artist community have gravitated towards being the representation of current AI capabilities.
I think it matters how it is created, personally. Not because the author of an individual piece of art is important to me, but rather because once AI moves into a problem space and can effectively and accurately "solve" that problem space the displacement of humans will be surreal. How it affects people is the important thing to me. I'll be interested to see how we manage to recognize this reality as AI improves.
sfpotter|3 years ago
If you submit an answer yourself and it’s wrong, if someone begins the process of critiquing it or editing it, they can engage in a dialogue with you in order to make this happen. You can explain how you came up with your answer, and they can help you debug your thinking. Seeing this process unfold over a couple comments is often one of the most enlightening things on SO.
How is this supposed to happen if you submit a ChatGPT answer which you have just accepted on blind faith and maybe don’t even understand?
polio|3 years ago
Sebb767|3 years ago
"Who cares if the diagnosis is done by a medical expert or someone pulling out random drugs they tried before? As long as I feel better immediately after taking them, who cares how they were prescribed?"
The case on SO is clearly different, as ChatGPT might answer incorrectly or answer with something containing subtle bugs. There's also a good chance that you won't be immediately able to spot those bugs, as, if you were sufficiently knowledgeable in the topic yourself, you would have most likely not asked that question.
The case for art is a bit different, as there is no technically correct way to do it, but there is still a value to the way it is created. Would you think the first picture drawn by your child is worth the same as any other bad painting? Would you agree that a perfect copy of the Mona Lisa has equal value to the actual object? If no, it should be pretty easy to see why a painting generated by an AI is different from one created by a human.
jaywalk|3 years ago
I don't think the average person cares at all.
unethical_ban|3 years ago
tjpnz|3 years ago
Nice to hear the artist has gotten a more positive response in /r/drawing.
kitsunesoba|3 years ago
oigursh|3 years ago
lifefeed|3 years ago
So either 1) It's not AI-generated art, or 2) It is AI-generated art and the artist is a master at prompting.
Either way they should be celebrated.
buffington|3 years ago
For example, if I include "anatomically correct fingers" it significantly decreases the number of images with wildly creative ideas for how human fingers should be drawn.
Negative prompting works too. "deformed fingers" or "inaccurately drawn anatomy" can go a long way.
lgreiv|3 years ago
[1] https://cdn.midjourney.com/6f52a6e9-b3f2-4830-81b1-84c8f8ca4...
[2] https://cdn.midjourney.com/361e143f-5121-4bff-ada9-069c2e400...
bufferoverflow|3 years ago
If it takes a human a month to paint something beautiful, and 1 minute for AI, it's really hard to compete with AI.
The best we have is Midjourney V4, and it's getting quite close.
splatzone|3 years ago
kazinator|3 years ago
Human artists who are just highly skilled executors of bad taste are going to be decimated by AI.
Adraghast|3 years ago
Stuff like this never had any artistic value in the first place, so it makes perfect sense to me that a bot would create it rather than a person.
geraldwhen|3 years ago
Lawsuits need to destroy these models stolen from the public.
CuriouslyC|3 years ago
DethNinja|3 years ago
I think artists need to be fair about AI, is there any artist that created their style without ever studying other artists? That is high improbable because humans need to observe to create art. There is even a saying that "Good Artists Copy; Great Artists Steal".
cyborgx7|3 years ago
humanizersequel|3 years ago
What about the fact that these models aren't just randomly spitting out and taking credit for random images? This seems the most salient point to me — if I used a paintbrush to create a copyright-violating clone of some notable artwork or IP and tried to pass it off as my own, I'd be breaking the law. We wouldn't try to ban paint and canvas and the human arm because it has the potential to create something that infringes on copyright, we'd enforce the actual act.
If these models make this kind of infringement easy, then they are bad products and their users will run the risk of going to court. The whole thing seems like a non-issue.
erk__|3 years ago
jcq3|3 years ago
MrNeon|3 years ago
alar44|3 years ago
Overtonwindow|3 years ago
Turing_Machine|3 years ago
The same is true of other institutions, such as congresses and parliaments. Note that politicians run on the basis of what new laws they've gotten passed far more often than what laws they've blocked.
There's something to be said for the idea of a branch of government whose function is limited to repealing laws.
possiblydrunk|3 years ago
tedunangst|3 years ago
happyopossum|3 years ago
Pretty sure that happens to about 10% of Reddit users every year.
MrPatan|3 years ago
pessimizer|3 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_metal_typesetting#/media/F...
cat_plus_plus|3 years ago
deely3|3 years ago
Citation needed.
> natural world has a lot of repeated elements and hand painting each one detracts from time that could be spent on more expressive aspects of the work.
Can't agree. Using these repeated elements artist can add additional level of impression for a viewer. While AI probably will use random distribution in this situation.
Adraghast|3 years ago
pcrh|3 years ago
layer8|3 years ago
nilslindemann|3 years ago
An internet court is needed for these cases, like courts in the real world, and supported by them. And an internet police, which makes sure the court rulings are obeyed. Also supported by real world police, if necessary.
afavour|3 years ago
bragr|3 years ago
rvz|3 years ago
This is not new and it is similar to speed painting, and all these prompters using Stable Diffusion cannot do such a thing.
Problem solved and job done.
ryandrake|3 years ago
yegle|3 years ago
zoklet-enjoyer|3 years ago
https://www.seattleweekly.com/news/seattles-reddit-community...
danuker|3 years ago
cobertos|3 years ago
We have no metric or insight into this. The percentage will keep increasing as it's cheap and very economically beneficial for companies to use.
jack_the_dev|3 years ago
tester457|3 years ago
xwdv|3 years ago
True art is something that can’t be replicated by AI. You will have no doubt once you see it. It still exists even with the proliferation of AI art.
It’s like the difference between a random picture and a meme. The meme looks like a picture, but it captures an emotion or essential human truth that you connect with upon looking at it, where as a picture is just a random picture that could look like a meme but has no real meaning to it. You will know what I’m talking about.
MrNeon|3 years ago
What now. Is my inner experience of art not valid? How do we reconcile this?
buffington|3 years ago
Ignoring your assertion about what art is, I have to ask: what happens when you can't tell the difference?
c3534l|3 years ago
layer8|3 years ago
lofaszvanitt|3 years ago
deely3|3 years ago
RutgerHauer|3 years ago
zzz345345|3 years ago
[deleted]
darepublic|3 years ago
kzrdude|3 years ago
vitno|3 years ago
jollyllama|3 years ago
jcq3|3 years ago
capableweb|3 years ago
When was it ever like that for artists? Most complex music to perform doesn't mean it's the "best", neither is it like that for art.
As an example from visual art, abstract art is sometimes very simple, yet have a profound impact on people, and it was never about being "technical", "complex" or "hard to reproduce".
kzrdude|3 years ago
I don't think it's possible to judge these questions you present at a glance anyway.
tester457|3 years ago