ultrafilter posted:

The Saddest Rhino posted:

https://twitter.com/RonnieKL13/status/1762988431200686384?t=Pu3mPnkTIEV_vMTHtyZ6Dw&s=19

credburn posted:

I know I'm a dick, but how about of instead of saying "I found this video" you actually just credit the video source? These things aren't just floating around in nothing. This isn't found footage. Why share the Twitter account of someone sharing the video instead of just sharing the video??

edit: I don't mean you, TSR, I just mean Twitter/Facebook/Reddit culture in general.

Songbearer posted:

God the Shadiversity stuff is delicious. It's the kind of Deviantart golden era stuff you only got with Tim Buckley, David "Davey-Kins Foxfire" Gonterman et al delusion. I want more!!

Splicer posted:

The cat man, showing disdain for the practice of up-attending, had a far more stripped-down mecha, bowing to demand only by having a control module shaped like a cat's head. While his initial surge in influence had been off the back of a pet British Shorthair, his true power came from his decision to breed several thousand of the creatures and lock them in a vast complex filled with pastel colors and assorted common household items. Cuteness, too, can be brute-forced.

Songbearer posted:

God the Shadiversity stuff is delicious. It's the kind of Deviantart golden era stuff you only got with Tim Buckley, David "Davey-Kins Foxfire" Gonterman et al delusion. I want more!!

Heath posted:

Man that name rattled an ancient early internet memory in my brain. Gonterman must be like, in his mid 50s now?

Snowglobe of Doom posted:

Someone in the comments posted a photo of the lone Oompa Loompa they had at the show

Bottom Liner posted:

some good idiot boomers arguing about a lovely photo being ai and other idiots defending it with the worst explanations (AI is too perfect)

Bottom Liner posted:

some good idiot boomers arguing about a lovely photo being ai and other idiots defending it with the worst explanations (AI is too perfect)

Roblo posted:

It's especially great because he is a turd of monumental proportions. I'm so glad the HEMA community (at least in the UK) has shunned the poo poo out of him.

Fister Roboto posted:

Whatever they paid her, it wasn't enough.

Songbearer posted:

It's a shame because dude knew how to make fun content without seeming stuffy and could have made a real good history teacher but man he really is a piece of work. I've been watching people do deep dives into his AI stuff and it's just so sad (yet crazy funny) how delusional he is. Learning that his brother is a professional artist too makes it all the more sadder because he's clearly feeling an inferiority complex and watching him desperately try to get his brother to say his work is good is almost torturous to see

Scratch Monkey posted:

When AI starts generating our pig balls photos the world is truly doomed

Devils Affricate posted:

I gave the image to DALL-E and here's what it gave back

Songbearer posted:

I'm not even technically against the idea of AI generated art but the amounts of caveats I'd attach when employing it it would probably ruin it for anyone who's a fan of its current iteration. If the datasets were trained entirely on the users' work or with verifiable submissions from other artists included and the generated component being used more as a reference tool than a "here's what I made" sort of deal, with some way of having viewable results of how much a particular artist contributed to the final result, it would be super cool. I'm not above using AI art myself because I am infamously awful at logo design so having it throw some ideas out to get me started was a big help during my animation project.

But the moment I see "Check out this amazing work I did with my ~*prompting experience*~, this tech makes beautiful professional art available to everyone!" the red starts to creep into my vision. The company I work for recently put up some internal posters which I clocked immediately as AI art and if it wasn't so prominent with the branding I'd put them here to see, but they're amazingly awful to anyone who has even the slightest ability to recognise AI art's telltale signs.

Splicer posted:

Even if it was perfectly ethical you still have the issue that these approaches can't actually result in an AI that can draw human legs, just one that can extrapolate from images of human legs that it has seen before. It doesn't have any internal rules about musculature, how far joints can flex, how many knees people usually have etc that dictate what shapes legs will look like in different angles. They're a very big, very complex collection of weighted if/then/else statements but the if/then/elses are all about what pixels are usually near other pixels in appropriate contexts. A program that created 3d models of people and then rendered the art from the appropriate angles also wouldn't "know" what a leg was - that's not the kind of argument I'm making here - but it would reliably only include two of them. AI art is complicated tracing and artists have been mocking that for decades.

See also light sources.

ultrafilter posted:

That last one is definitely a person trying to imitate AI. Everything except the extra limb and finger is too perfect.

Songbearer posted:

I'm not even technically against the idea of AI generated art but the amounts of caveats I'd attach when employing it it would probably ruin it for anyone who's a fan of its current iteration. If the datasets were trained entirely on the users' work or with verifiable submissions from other artists included and the generated component being used more as a reference tool than a "here's what I made" sort of deal, with some way of having viewable results of how much a particular artist contributed to the final result, it would be super cool. I'm not above using AI art myself because I am infamously awful at logo design so having it throw some ideas out to get me started was a big help during my animation project.

But the moment I see "Check out this amazing work I did with my ~*prompting experience*~, this tech makes beautiful professional art available to everyone!" the red starts to creep into my vision. The company I work for recently put up some internal posters which I clocked immediately as AI art and if it wasn't so prominent with the branding I'd put them here to see, but they're amazingly awful to anyone who has even the slightest ability to recognise AI art's telltale signs.

the holy poopacy posted:

My wife was asking me the other night what I was laughing at so I showed her the Wonka ads from this thread and she showed me an Amazon listing for a book of crochet patterns that she had been looking at the other day. The cover had some cute, very normal looking crocheted bags laid out nicely, the description sounded pretty normal, but the only couple of reviews were all intensely negative. So she read the reviews and sure enough, the contents are 100% AI generated: none of the bags featured on the cover have patterns inside, the patterns that are included are at best bare bones but are often nonsensical, it doesn't have the charts or photos claimed, and most of the book is AI generated gobblydegook often about completely different topics.

Then she showed me the related products links. The same author has dozens of other crochet and knitting books listed on different themes, all new within a couple months. The one she saw first had a couple 1-star reviews to warn people off but most of them hadn't been reviewed yet and someone might be tempted to roll the dice on them. Eventually someone will buy it and review it, but in the time that it takes someone to try one and review it the author can effortlessly pump out a dozen others that start with clean slates. Sure, consumers will learn to get wiser and more cautious... but what does that do to someone who is actually trying to publish a book of real crochet patterns? AI isn't going to make art accessible for everyone, it's going to make art less accessible for everybody because everything will be buried beneath a deluge of terrible, pointless noise.

Snowglobe of Doom posted:

Oh yeah there's already tons of lovely AI-generated books on Amazon. Here's a blog post from a librarian who ordered a pile of kids books for their shelves and discovered one was AI nonsense:

the holy poopacy posted:

AI isn't going to make art accessible for everyone, it's going to make art less accessible for everybody because everything will be buried beneath a deluge of terrible, pointless noise.

Snowglobe of Doom posted: