Religious people are gullible? Wow, you don’t say.
I think we need to take full advantage of this and get them to take down companies for us. Doesn’t matter if it’s easy to prove wrong.
The stupid are going to be hit the worst by AI. There is a clear lack of critical thinking in some groups, and things like this are going to have growing impact.
I hate AI art and think it’s just soulless, derivative pixels, but damn, I do approve of this use of it.
I hate AI art and think it’s just soulless, derivative pixels
I look at it like the modern equivalent of newspaper political cartoons, or maybe as an evolution to the photoshopped placards on Late Night comedy news monologues.
I mean, yeah, but a person who feels things, struggles, and understands the world still creates those cartoons/placards. Not so with generative AI.
Well, you can just feed AI a prompt and take the image that comes out, but that’s not how people do things anymore. AI art generation is now a complex set of image generation, in-/outpainting, tweaking, etc. I spent a couple of hours last night updating myself on how it is done, and I was shocked at all the changes that have taken place in the last six months. Now people are even passing their art through AI model subsets that they have trained themselves in order to get specific results, like specific backgrounds, vehicles, buildings… it’s incredible.
I don’t think we’re going to agree on this, but that’s okay :)
On one hand, I will agree, properly utilized, that it’s more like to a tool to be wielded than a “do it for me bot”; part of a larger process with the artist behind the wheel. On the other hand, though, I consider it the autotune of the visual medium (I’m not a fan of autotune in music, so at least I’m consistent?).
I’m definitely not saying “AI art isn’t art”, but I am saying that I am not a personal fan of it. It just ruins the magic for me.
Actually, “autotune of art” is about the best description of AI Art I’ve heard in a long time.
Call me old school, but I want to see where the artist made a happy little accident.
Always blows my mind that apparently what some people said on twitter is news now.
This just in from social media! People’s heads are exploding due to technology!
😉
Absolutely agree. I recently learned that twitter was important becuase it’s where people get news. Surprised, and scared, the hell out of me.
The creator didn’t even hide that they were use generated. The screenshots in the article show that the people in an uproar commenting on a shared post clearly labeled from “AI Art Universe.” The complete lack of scrutiny with which some people approach things online is startling.
I saw a post the other day saying our boomer like trait will be not being able to recognise AI generated content.
Our kids are going to think we’re idiots.
“The blinks are too regular dad, geez!”
The amusing part is that we can’t even guess (accurately) what the actual tell will be. Somehow I don’t think the time gap between blinks is going to be it. I’m betting it’s going to be slang-based. There’s a reason kids use slang readily, and it’s often to separate the worlds of adult regulators and the ‘more free’ children/teenagers. Imagine AI trying to keep up with the slang, but just like adults, it will be unable to use it in the same way with all the pseudo-information packed into it.
There’s a part of me that always wonders what would happen if some folks dressed in black cult-like robes would hold a public prayer in front of a school/kindergarten in order for the children to be welcomed into Satan’s warm embrace.
Technically it’d be legal, right? Freedom of speech + freed of religion, ez pz.
But I think a lot of people would flip their shit and I gotta say, from an outsider’s perspective, that would be pretty fucking funny to watch.Iirc, the Satanic Temple has done some things like that, usually in reaction to a specific equivalent act by an evangelical organization. They don’t do it often, I don’t think, because the backlash can end up being more harmful to the cause, but you’re not the first to suggest it.
Yeah, if it weren’t for the damage that I know such a thing would cause, I would’ve loved to see it - just to enjoy the resulting circus.
But I know that those kind of people would get others hurt or worse.
Oh, don’t for a second think we have really gone too far from burning on crosses!
Probably want to be so many feet off school property and have a lawyer on retainer. Ideally you’d want to use the stunt to point out some problem with a law rather than just to make pearl clutcher clutch.
That fucking thing is not even Baphomet
That was my immediate reaction as well, thank you. Most of the generated images aren’t even significantly Luciferian in appearance such that they should be mistaken as such. These people are primed to hate anything that looks remotely evil to them. Zomg a figure with horns! 😱
I certainly wouldn’t expect the typical faceboomer to know that.
I was more disappointed the article author didn’t think to call out that fact.
AI’s interpretation of Baphomet are pretty bizarre, not particularly satanic. That just makes this even funnier lol
It’s a little satanish
deleted by creator
That’s not very nice.
If photography is art, so is AI image generation. If one can see something in the natural world they had no part in creating, and get an idea, a spark of creativity, and then choose a camera, choose the angle, choose the framing, set the configurable aspects of the camera such as shutter speed, exposure time, what type of film, what lens to put on, and produce a photograph, perhaps several, perhaps even a dozen attempts to get it just right, and the final result can be placed in a gallery alongside paintings and sculptures and Jackson Pollocks without a single modern art snob batting an eye, how then is that any different from someone with the same spark of creativity tuning a prompt for a model they’ve become deeply familiar with, seeking to bring the inspiration in their mind’s eye into the real world where others can see and experience it too?
I’m sure you’ve heard it before, but it bears repeating for those who haven’t - photography was not initially considered a form of art. But photographers didn’t seem to care too much, and neither did the layperson, so here we are again, having the same old argument about another new art form made possible through a technology that invokes Clarke’s law.
Yeah the reason I joined this instance was because I thought there was supposed to be less hot air bullshit like this. I think people got this hateful take already when it was shoved down everyone’s throats everywhere for a couple of years now when it’s not even relevant to the discussion. That horse has been flogged all the back to Hades and back a hundred-fold already.
edit: typo
People falsely conflating fiddling with prompts with being an artist are clowns I agree but I think AI has a legitimate place as a secondary part of an artistic process. I remember the uproar about autotune in music but in reality it’s often used much as a guitarist might use an effects pedal, there’s nothing wrong with transforming art you created yourself with AI I think as long as you’re upfront about what you’re doing and not trying to pass off skills you don’t have. I think the dodgy parts are people being dishonest about what they’re doing artistically and of course using models built from training sets of questionably licensed IP such as in the case of DeviantArt.
Just to be an irritating pedant (I work in this space, not AI art but on a software team making heavy use of our proprietary AI toolset) the scraping of people’s art only happened once when these models were created to begin with. When they generate images from a prompt they’re not accessing a perfect database of people’s artwork rather it’s more like each artwork that’s part of the training set influences the shape of an enormous mountain by a tiny shovel’s worth of rock and the prompt throws a ball down it in a given direction once the mountain has finished being shaped by billions of tiny digs; the output is the path that ball takes. That’s why the vast majority of AI art kind of looks like arse; it’s like trying to learn music by listening to an entire orchestra at once rather than each instrument individually. The AI knows nothing of the intermediate steps in creating a piece so it can only try and imitate the finished original.
I think the solution is to train AI art models only using public domain licensed artwork and perhaps Creative Commons themselves writing a license that specifically excludes scraping for AI models for artists who wish to publish under a CC licence but object to AI art models for whatever reason.
You do not have to dwell on it at all. What you could usefully dwell on was learning how latent diffusion and generative imaging in general work. Then maybe you wouldn’t post such factually incorrect and asinine takes
I really wish I could buy some of the things they think are real in those AI generated images.
Agreed, I would probably go to my local Hobby Lobby looking for a few of those if they actually carried them.
I wonder if the hoa would allow this in my front yard.
Thumbs through regulations. So long as you paint the Baphomet statue a semi-gloss Powder White, it should be fine.
bahahahhahaahaha what a fun use of ai art
if only the potential ramifications we’re only just beginning to grasp weren’t so terrifying…
but this is funny!
Wow!! Now this is Crazy…did The Christian Owners Sale? Or are they just in Compromise …and crossed the line and gone woke?!!
What does the word “woke” even mean anymore
According to DeSantis in court, it means “the belief that there are systemic injustices in America and the need to address them.”
Finally, a good utilization of AI art. (Really hate spammers)
AI “”““artist””“”
