Ask Lemmy

I am fine with AI art as long as its properly credited to its creato. Not the person who wrote a prompt to generate the image, not the company that created the program. The AI should be credited in a way that no person could confuse it for something someone made

If thats too hard, banning AI art is also fine. I havent seen any real use for it

Not really, if they actually look good and doesn't have the uncanny valley stuff to it. But there should be rules on Lemmy (and hopefully other platforms too) to required images to be marked as AI.

I don't hate it. I think it's fun as a sort of moment by moment ( I want to see this ) and just generate it and enjoy the wackyness. It does leave a lot to be desired in terms of composition and polish. I also absolutely hate people representing it as their own work. I also really enjoy art produced by people. I think what people produce is still superior in lots of ways. People are often telling a story with their art, and that really comes through. Also I love knowing the amount of thought and effort has gone into a work it makes it that much more impressive. The art people produce is often strongly influenced by art trends, culture, and life experience which we connect to as humans and AI can't produce that because it has no concept of these things. Sure AI can replicate that but it's not the same as the interaction and conversation I have with a piece of art produced by a person that I know must have felt certain ways about their work when producing it.

No, quite the opposite.

Honestly, I find the vast majority of the arguments against it to be be made from a point of ignorance, propagated by a rabid sub-set of artists looking to generate clicks for their sensationalist YouTube videos.

Some pertinent reading/watching:

https://youtu.be/gWmEXCJIIZ4

https://epoch.ai/gradient-updates/how-much-energy-does-chatgpt-use

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x

https://craigboehman.com/blog/in-defense-of-ai-art

https://www.fxhash.xyz/article/in-defense-of-ai-art

https://andymasley.substack.com/p/a-defense-of-ai-art

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/how-did-you-do-on-the-ai-art-turing

https://i.redd.it/ch5wpbz7tkje1.jpeg

I like playing around with it myself but I never upload it I just keep it on my computer cuz it's neat so I don't get why anyone else would upload AI generated stuff online

If it came from stealing actual artists' work then I hate it. If they somehow generated it using all fairly sourced data then I don't care. Still would prefer an actual artists work and I'd certainly never knowingly pay for something generated by AI.

No, just see it as another medium . Extremely overhated

Tbf tho lotsa popular styles that show in AI art am indifferent towards (even dislike outright . Example : this's somehow even greater assault on the eyes than Alegria illustrations) , but that's bcus it's really hard to create (unique|distinctive) styles with current tech (source : tried developing style for >1 yr (find|combin)ing artist tags in furry models → (genn|tweak)ing ~20-30 training imgs Once satisfied → testing outputs of style LoRA trained with PixAI and result on merge models don't lꝏk like the training data at all . PAINFUL) and not criticism of genAI itself

As someone pointed out, do you like ads ? Because AI content feel the same, it's annoying stuff I need to skip to access real content and on top of that it's an ecological disaster.

When I open an image or a page and realise it's AI, I feel the same as when I download a movie and it turns out I got a dot exe.

Hate is such a strong word. Some bad, some good.

Bad:

• Copyright infringement and other unethical practices in acquiring training data
• Unimaginative AI art flooding the graphics market and the Internet
• Taking work from actual artists that might generate something new
• So much energy used on pointless, quickly forgotten "single-use art" in the middle of a climate crisis

Good:

• Okay starting point for logos for eg. small associations or clubs, preferably treated as version 0.1 and later worked on, but still an affordable option, and more personalised than clipart
• Creative visual outlet for people with no interest in developing their graphical skills, but who have an urge to get a small number of specific images out of their system
• Probably a good media for some commentary on the relationship between real a unreal, familiar and alien cognition, and such, but that itself is such a cliche
• Simply a fun toy

No, I enjoy how it democratises image creation and allows me to create a vision in my head without training at art for years.

I like it for fun, memes, silly stuff, and inspiration to create something original.

I hate it for professional use. It all looks the same. And the kind of person using it professionally is 100% insufferably annoying and also so uncreative that whatever literal slop they put on marketplaces for Easy Money just falls flat and only makes pocket change from kids who don't know any better. And the kids deserve better, actual media with nuance and depth, things they can learn from and remember later on in life, not shallow meaningless slop to get them to look at car and phone ads while exposing them to sex, gore, pregnancy, and other things they aren't ready for.