I have a feeling this site is gonna become flooded with AI generated spam unless something is done soon.
Pixiv has no moderation and it's impossible to browse any tag without sifting through pages of AI generated content.

[deleted]

Cholesterolicon said:

I have a feeling this site is gonna become flooded with AI generated spam unless something is done soon.
Pixiv has no moderation and it's impossible to browse any tag without sifting through pages of AI generated content.

At the moment ai-generated is against the upload rules.

nonamethanks said:

At the moment ai-generated is against the upload rules.

The problem is that detecting that something is ai-generated is not simple. If someone decides to not disclose a work is ai-generated, then discrimination mostly relies on a small number of tells (low resolution, bad fingers, etc.) all of which can be expected to disappear over time.

Man this AI thing is really all the rage these days. Can’t go anywhere without it being discussed?

Why are people so worked up about this? What is so wrong with using technology to make art? I’ve seen peopel get really hostile, vtubers calling it out, etc.

I don’t get it. Legitimately curious. I haven’t been laying attention to this conversation closely so I’m out of the loop. I just see a bunch of arguments

slave2thedrago said:

Man this AI thing is really all the rage these days. Can’t go anywhere without it being discussed?

Why are people so worked up about this? What is so wrong with using technology to make art? I’ve seen peopel get really hostile, vtubers calling it out, etc.

I don’t get it. Legitimately curious. I haven’t been laying attention to this conversation closely so I’m out of the loop. I just see a bunch of arguments

Basically, people are debating that AI-created 'art' can be categorized as 'real' art or not. For something to be considered 'art' it needs to fulfill three conditions: 'direction/inspiration', 'creation' and 'emotion'. An artist created art to achieve what they imagined (direction) and wanted to bring that image into reality using their tool (creation) so they can fulfill their own vision (emotion) before sharing that with other people and get their reaction. AI 'art' bruteforces the second process (creation) by 'stealing' parts of already-completed pieces to fill in the blanks prompted to them, so people won't accept the finished result as 'art' but rather a Frankenstein of sorts.

And before anyone put 'but modern art-'

No, we don't compare anything here with modern art that's main point of selling is for tax evasion. Point is, many people regards AI-generated art is an art of intellectual theft or plagiarism even if the end product doesn't look like any of the constituent pieces, not to mention the 'user' took pride of 'creating' the art even all if they did was just entering prompts.

slave2thedrago said:

Man this AI thing is really all the rage these days. Can’t go anywhere without it being discussed?

Why are people so worked up about this? What is so wrong with using technology to make art? I’ve seen peopel get really hostile, vtubers calling it out, etc.

I don’t get it. Legitimately curious. I haven’t been laying attention to this conversation closely so I’m out of the loop. I just see a bunch of arguments

So you're saying...

Someone on a keyboard, punching in words into an AI-moderated program, that pulls up pictures from an image aggregator site, which then mashes them together into a semi-coherent shape... is legitimate art?

They're not calling it out because the AI made this. They're calling it out because some unskilled git is using stolen artwork to make a frankenstein monster of an image, and that unskilled git is then claiming they made that art with AI assist. Even worse when said programmer is charging money for this when the original code is OPEN SOURCE. FREE.

You don't claim to be a chef when you order a sandwich at Subway. Especially not if said Subway is using stolen goods to make said sandwich.

And if you're really not in the loop, the reason I'm calling it stolen art is because the NovelAI Diffusion is trained using artwork that's been aggregated here in this very Danbooru. And it is using images from this very site to smash together said frankenstein of an image.

We are already very critical of actual human artists tracing over other people's artwork and claiming as their own. Hiding behind the word "AI generated" isn't going to absolve them of this shame.

AdventZero said:

So you're saying...

I’ll read the rest what you said and others of course, because I asked to get answers.

But just as an aside, I found this hilarious.

Did you seriously just pull a Cathy Newman-Peter Jordanson “so what you’re saying is” to someone who just said he doesn’t know what’s going on here? Lol

You guys are hilarious. I can’t even…ask what’s going on? Or say you shouldn’t put words in my mouth when I haven’t said anything yet? Suuuure. I would say I sincerely hope the “pro AI guys” don’t act like toddlers. But let’s face it. This is twitter drama. Of course they do.

Aaaaaanyway. Those explanations were very helpful.

I just assumed that they were designing these advanced programs that could generate art organically. Didn’t realize they were basically stealing other peoples work and feeding it into the machine…now I have more context for the “real art” conversation.

I’ve seen the shadiness some of them get up to, some controversies around them winning art competitions, charging funny amounts of money for what is essentially a trace etc.

There is a right way to use this tech. I definitely see how a lot of people are abusing it unethically.

slave2thedrago said:
[Stuff]

I won't deny that it's undeniably a great asset for aspiring artists, the same way that Photoshop, Clip Studio, and the likes have been to the artistic world thus far. We're just angry there are people abusing and misusing it all the while acting smug about their newfound powers that were never theirs, all the while denying their blatant act of plagiarism by elevating themselves to people who literally toiled and honed their craft to an artform.

I don't know about the rest of the artistic world, but I find these gits to be... an eyesore. And while I understand that violence isn't the answer (at least not for this kind of thing), I would very much love to disabuse them of their illusions of grandeur.

AdventZero said:

I won't deny that it's undeniably a great asset for aspiring artists, the same way that Photoshop, Clip Studio, and the likes have been to the artistic world thus far. We're just angry there are people abusing and misusing it all the while acting smug about their newfound powers that were never theirs, all the while denying their blatant act of plagiarism by elevating themselves to people who literally toiled and honed their craft to an artform.

I don't know about the rest of the artistic world, but I find these gits to be... an eyesore. And while I understand that violence isn't the answer (at least not for this kind of thing), I would very much love to disabuse them of their illusions of grandeur.

I have definitely seen the cockiness and pride a few times . Some of it is so excessive that I have to assume it’s trolling.