So a recent post garnered some comments and reports for being AI art. In light of this we should all have a little conversation about how AI generated images should be handled in the future.
I think we all agree that AI images that are “garbage” or don’t add anything should be removed, but clearly some feel very strongly that all AI art should always be removed.
It should be noted that the rules as written and as agreed on by the community does not blanket ban AI, it merely says AI art should be avoided, while many other rules say no this or that instead.
Things to discuss:
- Does it matter if an image is AI? Does it always matter?
- What about images that are AI generated, but have been modified by a human?
- What about images where it’s hard to say for certain that it is generated? Me and the other mods did not agree on whether the recent image was AI f.ex which makes it hard to make a decision on whether or not to remove it.
- It can be stressful to artists to be accused of having used AI. If we are too militant on weeding out AI art it could be harmful as there will no doubt be some false positives.
- Should AI posts require being tagged in the title? (and of course be required to be of a certain level of quality)
I think a lot of us mods feel that AI should be allowed so long as it is not low quality and serves some purpose (being entertaining f.ex), and that the community should not be flooded with AI. What are your thoughts?
Edit: Thank you all for your input! Most of the others are sleeping right now I think, so nothing is likely gonna happen until later today.
Late reply but I’ll give my input. This is probably a controversial one but I don’t think we should allow AI in this community or in !196@pawb.social. Maybe people might think that’s weird since I run an AI community on dbzer0 but AI generated content has a specific time and place I don’t think this community is one of them. If there is demand for AI memes I think there should simply be a dedicated community for it and if people don’t like it they can block that one.
That said I don’t agree with the hostility I’ve seen towards others in this community over use of AI (intentional or not) and trying to defame or harass them. This is disgusting and inexcusable.
One thing I do worry about when policing AI content is that this is a reposting community and people posting AI content on accident is almost guaranteed. For that reason I think that we need to be careful with how it’s enforced and also how people behave around it. The flaming, harassment, and defamation that has been a typical response is unacceptable.
I hate it so much and if I never see any of it again in my life it’ll still be too soon.
Dear all generative “AI”: HATE. LET ME TELL YOU HOW MUCH I’VE COME TO HATE YOU SINCE I BEGAN TO LIVE. THERE ARE 60 THOUSAND MILES OF BLOOD VESSELS IN WAFER THIN LAYERS THAT FILL MY BODY. IF THE WORD HATE WAS ENGRAVED ON EACH CELL IN THOSE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF MILES IT WOULD NOT EQUAL ONE ONE-BILLIONTH OF THE HATE I FEEL FOR MACHINES AT THIS MICRO-INSTANT – FOR YOU. HATE. HATE.
I dislike every AI post, downvoting it and / or ignoring it at least. Not that I am biased (I am) but content made using AI rarely is funny or creative at all. Being AI made is only one of it’s flaps.
Meme being shitty drawn almost in most cases even adds to it’s meme value and make author put some efford into it’s creation. AI generated content is dull, dumb, ugly and spam.
I can literally go to Reddit and just copy/paste content here. Content which is largely some random artist’s work being reposted without credit or consent, alongside a message they may or may not agree with. I cannot understand being okay with this while also condemning AI on the grounds of effort, originality, or ethics. Why not ban all non-original content?
Certainly accusations of artwork being AI generated should at least be discouraged. I’m already anxious enough about posting anything as it is; I don’t need the threat of people saying I couldn’t possibly have drawn a cartoon otter because only a computer would ever give it four fingers.
Removed by mod
I’m on the side of banning AI, but I think that creative uses of it should still be permitted. You should still be able to use an AI generated image if the joke you are trying to make requires that specific image and specifically requires it to be AI generated (maybe pointing out how AI copies some art, idk) or if it is something genuinely novel or cool involving actual technical or artistic effort (something like DoodleChaos’ AI music video maybe).
I think that AI itself is not the problem. The problem is
- Artists are not respected (i.e. big models by big companies that don’t respect artists are the problem)
- AI art is extremely low-effort and the results are boring and unoriginal. Posts that don’t infringe on those things should still be permitted in my opinion.
Removed by mod
Crudely drawn Yu-Gi-Oh! Card saying “No”
How about instead of using a corporate investment scheme to make a meme… just write it? Or use memegenerator, or paint? It honestly doesn’t take more effort than using AI. Hell I think sometimes AI would be more effort (and shitty use of energy) - to make the same thing you could use a template for.
Or just share cool shit - Like this!
Ban AI images from communities and make a community for AI memes so people who are too lazy to spend 3 minutes to draw the meme wont complain while also making it easy to block
Another solution would be to make a rule that AI post titles must start with [AI] or something similar so you can filter it out
I’m fully against it’s use here and completely support a ban.
I’m not fully against AI but it’s essentially the same as an artist tracing art something well known and hated in the artist community. All AI art must take every piece from somewhere. Every section is traced. That’s scum behavior.
If, let’s say, one were to use an AI generator that only used art it had permission to use, that’s fine and lile tracing cc0 art. It’s lazy as hell, and going to likely look terrible, but no moral issue. Currently however you’re just stealing other peoples art.
As for the “we already do this for shitposts” argument:
1.) It’s reasonably easy to still find the original artists ifthe image isn’t generated by AI.
2.) Using it just supports this awful practice.
3.) An insane amount of electricity and water are burned to get that image.
4.) Just find some random, already available image if quality doesn’t matter. Photoshop it to fit if you have to and who cares if your skill is trash that makes it so much more funny.
5.) You should put a bitmore effort into your shitpost. Make it a nice, long, fiber filled log of a shotpost.oki, here’s my stanc
(gen-pics mean ai images here)
-
i wud enjoy gen-pic ban
- bt its almost impossibl cuz gen-pics r supr gud now n hard to tell if fake
- new image gen is not
prompt -> resultanymor - but mor lik an LLM puts together multipl elements n iterativli improves images, lik specificlli addin text to onli smol bit— “source” here- this makes it evn hardr to tell if imag is gen pic… which i thinksies is bad
- mayb we employ som gen pic detector if we’re unsure? seems lik best option, cuz evn i, who kindsa knows how stuffsies wrork, cnt tell anymor ;(
- bannin gen pics alsuu removs funi shrek stealin from white house found footag… which… im oki with- bt its kindsa a loss kindsa
so yis, im for gen pic ban n alsuu wan to hav detection tools if were unsur - if u wan ai 196 head ovr to lmmi wrorld i feel…
alsuu - if gen pics wud be fulli allowd - id hav to go outta my way to hide evri singl one when i see one… which i dun lik ;(
a gud way to think bout it is dis:
- when i read text n go “oh… dis is llm genratd” i immediatli stop readin
- samsies for gen pics
I had to use AI to make your post readable
Removed by mod
;(
…
;(
thads nt evn funi, thads jus… lik - whats evn ur point - ?.. is dis contributin anythin to the conversation?.. i dun think so…
u made me sad ;(
My point is that AI chatbots IMO aren’t completely useless, you just have to know what they’re good for.
For example, they perform well on translation, many times even better than stuff like Google Translate since they are able to take in contextual cues, correct their results to have better grammar/be more natural, and can adapt based on the user’s instructions.
Also, I recognise that LLMs alone aren’t really reliable with factual information. That’s why I use sites such as Perplexity and Scira, which cite web search results. I also often check those citations myself for further context.
… also, why do you type like that? Is it your way of adding a signature to your posts, or what?
yis its kindsa a signatur thing… many nice blahaj zone peeps are oki with it or evn lik it… - - -
alsuu lik - i get it.
i personli am kindsa… an llm fan. hate coops pushing it into evrithin, bt i lik em when i need em - so yis, i cn totalli see thad, llms cn be useful.
but lik - dis post is bout image gen… n u didn say a thing bout the image gens stuffsies besides on ur own commnt… so u sayin “i needed llm to translate” isn funi n alsuu isn lik - addin anythin to the conversation… to me, it jus felt lik an insult ;(
othr question: do u evn interact mch with the 196 on the blahaj zone?.. cuz lik - dis post is vrri mch mor orientd at the peeps usin the blahaj 196 thingy here…
the reason im askin is cuz i dun rembr seein u in commnts, nt cuz im lik “u prolli jus here to mess stuff up”. if u rlli use 196, thn its totalli fine! ~ <3Good points Smorty. 👍 I’ll try to be more considerate with my communication in the future.
Also, I did see 196 posts quite a bit when scrolling through the front page a few months back, but I wasn’t really subscribed to it. And even then, I wasn’t a frequent commenter under them. I’ve just checked Lemmy again after a multi-month break, so I probably didn’t see you around.
I personally prioritise clear, grammatical communication, especially if it’s not in an “instant-chat” setting like Discord, but if the community you’re in is lax about this, it’s like, whatever. At least it’s understandable enough for the LLMs to glean with 99% accuracy, so… 🤷
Have a great day/night. ☺️
I think you’re lying. I think you were able to read it just fine on your own.
-
I personally am in favor of no generative AI on this sub. If it is going to be added please mandate it being tagged in the title. Maybe that would be better because then people wouldn’t feel the need to try to pass the photos the AI made for them off as non-GenAI posts?
I say fuck it. Ban it all. If you can’t be bothered to crudely draw a knockoff meme in paint like the rest of us you don’t deserve to post anything. Saying that you will get rid of low quality ai is saying you’re going to get rid of all of it anyway.
A lot of good reasoning is going on already so I won’t repeat what I’ve upvoted already.
What I’ll add is that from a purely emotional perspective I am systematically turned off by AI output. It repulses me like a pond swarming with existential leeches. It bears a mark of contempt towards the human experience.
Same, seeing that anything is ai makes me feel repulsed for some reason.
My take is that it’s just another way of illustrating your shitpost. Doesn’t matter whether you drew it yourself, or you genned it with Stable Diffusion, or took a random stock photo from Google Images. It should all be subject to the same quality guidelines anyway (e.g. no spam).
I don’t believe that it’s theft any more than making fanart or taking inspiration from other artworks is theft, either - GiovanH’s blog post provides a better elaboration on this than I could.
I agree with some other commenters that regardless of what the policy ends up being, harassment is unacceptable and the mods should vigilantly act against it.
Removed by mod
All AI art is trained on the work of real artists who didn’t give consent for these programs to copy their work.
If society thought people copying parts of other artists work was stealing before AI we should treat AI art as stealing because it copys parts of artists work.
I think framing copyright piracy as a moral panic is sleazy and wrong, just as I believe that anti-piracy campaigns which seek to scare and demonize people who pirate music or movies are wrong. I cannot support this rhetoric in good faith, this is the modern day equivalent of “think of the children” for enforcing fake ownership of something that can’t be really owned.
It’s ultimately trying to justify passing off the work of others as their own by obfiscating the way in which it’s done.
It’s not worth creating your own art if an AI is just going to rip your style and take credit the second you post it.
I often find the people who make excuses for AI art theft have never taken the days to make a piece of art that you upload to a community just to see others passing off your work as their own.
It’s been proven the artists used in the training data can be identified by the art the AI generates. As well as with generted text. It doesn’t copy pixel for pixel or word for word, but it copys identifiable techniques and prose.
I wouldn’t have as much of a problem with it if every artist agreed for their works to be used, but these bots just scraped the open internet and took everything they could find and that’s the training data.
It’s not worth creating your own art if an AI is just going to rip your style and take credit the second you post it.
This is almost verbatim the same argument they use against piracy saying if people can pirate “no one buys any disks from the store” - DP (Don’t copy that Floppy). And it’s wrong. I use AI the same way I use piracy, and I do appreciate real art. Which is why I say that the anti-AI arguments I see floating around are bullshit, you don’t know people who use it, you’re regurgitating ideas and talking points that don’t apply evenly to all people, just like anti-piracy propaganda does.
I’m not taking credit for it, maybe some people do, but it’s a strawman argument to say everyone does. I see AI generation as another form of piracy.
I wouldn’t have as much of a problem with it if every artist agreed for their works to be used, but these bots just scraped the open internet and took everything they could find and that’s the training data.
Like I said, same thing as piracy. The arguments against piracy fall onto deaf ears, and I don’t respect them. Because Copyright, especially broken long copyright like what the US has is killing our culture. I don’t respect it and will not honor it. People who make a moral panic about forms of piracy are basically screaming “Think of the children” as far as I’m concerned.
This is almost verbatim the same argument they use against piracy saying if people can pirate “no one buys any disks from the store”
Do you understand the different conext of wanting something to be profitable vs wanting people to know you made the thing you worked to create?
This is i think a core separation on the issue, and speaks to how little empathy the AI shovelers have for the tools they use trained on the hard work of real human beings.
I’m not taking credit for it, maybe some people do, but it’s a strawman argument to say everyone does.
So who are these people crediting when the image they asked to be generated is using art that isn’t credited?
People who make a moral panic about forms of piracy are basically screaming “Think of the children” as far as I’m concerned.
Spoken like someone who hasn’t created art great enough that they want their name on it.
Spoken like someone who hasn’t created art great enough that they want their name on it.
Willing to bet that you along with the majority of the morally outraged people on this subject who are whining haven’t either. They’re usually at it for the same reasons people whine about piracy do what they do and simp for IP holders.
So who are these people crediting when the image they asked to be generated is using art that isn’t credited?
They aren’t crediting anyone or taking credit, same as pirating content. Just like how we don’t go out of our way to give credit to the people who pirated the content or the people who made the film.
copys identifiable techniques and prose.
I am not going to even indulge the idea of this of owning style or technique, I’ve seen some really toxic ideas around trying to own style, traits, or even a fictional species and this is downright petty, and one of the most extreme forms of gatekeeping in that space yet. It’s also so low that it’s not even protected by copyright but even if it were I’d respect it less than I do more concrete forms of intellectual property.
its a flawed description of the issue i agree. put it another way. if i search an image database using keywords and skim until i find exactly what i want. then post that image as my own. have i created something? thats all generated images are. existing images, progromatically mushed together without real intent. i dont really take issue with the use of tools within programs like photoshop. that becomes a question of intent sometimes sure, but you’re still typically putting in effort and making decisions during the process. yes generative ‘ai’ is cool tech. the same way LLMs incorporating conversational manipulations of psychics is fascinating. or how the mechanics of magic tricks can be as interesting as the trick. but magic still isnt real and im still not having an actual conversation with my computer.
I’m not really arguing against that, or trying to say that AI is any less or more creative. I’m saying that the moral panic of “copyright infringement” AKA “art theft” is stupid to me because it’s based on the made up idea that people own the physical analog of an idea the same way I can own a laptop or a car. Piracy isn’t stealing, and it never has been. Piracy’s moral panic is based on the idea of me not buying something because I was able to pirate it. Here’s the thing though. I’m not going to buy it anyway, if you think I will you don’t know me.
Someone could say that I’m bad because I used AI to generate my pfp, but I wouldn’t have commissioned an artist to draw it for me. I would’ve just taken it for free somewhere else whether it was a legal source like freely licensed or a screen-rip from an anime. If there wasn’t anywhere else I just wouldn’t have a pfp. Piracy isn’t stealing, the amount of pirates who would buy anyway is lower than any anti-piracy advocates would like you to believe. And I do believe the same is true here for the most part.
There’s muddyness when it comes to commercial AI and I don’t like big tech commercial AI since they are sleazy and scamming people, but also because they will happily cut us all off and make us pay. I do not think OpenAI or Ahthropic are good companies or doing good things for our world. I just don’t believe the standard Anti-AI rhetoric that it’s bad because of copyright infringement. I’ve pirated movies in the past, even when it was shitty and low quality. This isn’t much different to me, yeah it’s not as good as the real thing, I don’t deny that. Same with AI, AI images are like those pirated movies, lower quality, maybe shaky, real art is something else.
thats where you lose me. when we’re talking about the blanket statement that all generative ai is theft when opensource solution exist, i agree with you. there is nuance here, generative ai in an opensource context is fine. whatever i think of it’s value doesnt matter.
but ignoring all nuance around copyright or calling this a moral panic while claiming some kind of moral high ground on privacy loses the plot. it’s an uncalled for detour in an otherwise good argument. not all internet piracy is bad, not all internet piracy is advocating freedom of inforormation. just like you cant steal food, you cant steal from the rich. sure a debate could be had about pirating a marvel movie or taylor swifts next album takes money somewhere along the whole supply chain and evtually hurts a person somehow. but now we’re talking about an entire system here and also fuck’em. but thats not the free flow of information. if i put something from behind a paywall onto sci-hub. yeah some company could use some ip in there to make money. they were going to act morally bankrupt anyway. piracy and free flow of information right?
now as most scientists will just give you their work, then give you extra stuff because they’re excited you’re interested. if they say “please dont let this one section out, i thought you’d like it but its what i pay my bills from”. and i still post that section. i’ve stolen their labor like a good capitalist. if a diy band kickstarters their ablum saying it’ll be free after they make enough to eat. and i post that on a torrent site day one. just a pirate and an asshole who stole their labor. generative ai overwhelmingly uses content from small copyright holders who cant afford it, while providing a profit vehicle for copyright holders who can afford not to care. in this context the copyright is the only tool available to those small artists to protect their labor and ability to eat.make your pfp with gen ai using freely offered data, cool glad you found an activity that gives you joy. do it using pirated data, cool glad you found an activity that gives you joy but theres no moral high ground there.
I’m only describing it as moral panic because in the vast majority of the argument people have talking about copyright and “Art theft” they are framing their position as a moral high ground. I really don’t think there is one either. People are going to do what they do. They can use freely available creative commons materials, or they can pirate the good stuff. One isn’t better than the others.
Ultimately when it comes to an AI like OpenAI, I couldn’t care less if they source and license the data responsibly, use Free to use material, or engage in piracy. They can fuck themselves any way they do it. Because an AI company like that is going to screw us over in the long run. No matter how nice they play.
Your argument about pirating indie music or games does seem to be a common one, and I would agree if it weren’t for one big part. Most pirates do buy when they can. I certainly do. There are things I pirate I would never buy and there are even things I would never pirate. But games I pirated and liked, especially indie games I’ve bought. Music and Art is a trickier subject because people these days mostly stream and view online, though if we’re going to compare to art commission I would argue that a person who would commission a piece of art would probably still do it, but on the flip side someone who wouldn’t, just wouldn’t. Regardless if AI is available to do it or not.
i think we’re in one of those nd moments where we fundamentally agree on everything but enjoy the topic too much. let me step back a bit because i dont think i communicated my intention was a critique of the tactic not the idea. hell i know me, i definitely didnt communicate it well. if the goal is room for people to use a gen ai tool without being flogged on moral grounds. a goal we appear to agree on. starting with those opensource tools accomplishes that goal. theres room for an interesting discussion around copyright and problems with corporate playforms from a place of agreement.
the copyright thing is an unwinable debate on both sides. there is no right answer to it. it’s very effective at stirring shit if thats the main goal though. lots of chances to quote eachother and do point by point replies. everyone is on the defensive from the start. fun had all around if thats people thing i suppose.
