Want to know what this tells me? The image is likely already in the training data.
Yep, that’s all it is. Likely stolen by AI.
It’s as if a master blacksmith who forged a set of threaded bolts used in the construction of a steam locomotive in the 1800s had their thread pitch and form design parameters copied as the basis for what would become codified as ASME B1.1-2024, the Unified Thread Standard; then, when a museum exhibit showcasing these fasteners was being moved, workers mistakenly used them to secure electrical conduit or some other mundane construction purpose.
People copy high quality work.
It’s like a dystopian rendition of that “Is It Cake?” trend from a few years ago.
I lived through the birth and widespread adoption of the Internet and it’s becoming increasingly likely I’ll live through its death, too. You don’t realise you were in the good old days until they’re over.
The good old days died years ago my friend.
Last time, someone on Lemmy posted a chapter by a 1800 poet and author, and it was labelled AI.
An opening paragraph of a chapter from Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, iirc.
Woa, I didn’t know AI was that advanced at the time! /s (I saw the image)
This is likely on purpose. The goal is to normalize AI and make people feel like “everyone uses ai”.
I listen to a podcast backwards because i only dicovered them a few month ago. I’m in 2022 and it’s pretty funny. They are now where midjurney just came out and talk about how amazing it is abd they need to use it more. They talk about the greatness of ai for like 15min a podcast. “I’ll do all my thumbnails with it.”
No one of tgem uses AI
The question is if it matters. If an image can’t be distinguished from what AI produces, isn’t it obviously slop too and not art either? It might be pretty but not art.
It’s only art if you look at it and it tells you something that can’t easily be communicated with a thousand words. Which means it’s subjective.
To some the true dystopian take for me is that anything pretty a human produces is automatically art. Because that means there is no value “actual art”. It’s all just pretty pictures.
If an image can’t be distinguished from what AI produces, isn’t it obviously slop too and not art either?
I can’t distinguish AlteredEgo’s comment from AI, so I think it may just be slop by default. Yeah. Unfortunately, he has nothing interesting to say—I’ve literally heard these exact words from like a hundred other places, so… I guess he’s just not worth talking to. What a boring guy. Really an NPC, if I’ve ever seen one.
Try to be more original, Ego. Originality, yeah. Then I think you might be worth listening to.
Hahahe touche. Just to be clear, originality or being novel would be only one facet of what makes good art or not. AI models could soon produce endless “novel” garbage which remain garbage.
And yeah you do have a point, if you look at the endless garbage comments rolling in on social media it does beg the question. If it’s indistinguishable from AI comments, what does it say about humanity? Or does social media diminish us as a species?
But I’m a proponent of using advanced algorithms and now LLMs to improve discourse on social media. For example the endless reposts of the same garbage, with the same emotional manipulation for karma or propaganda - this an AI model could see and tag. Like “this repost #120 of a video showing X without mentioning the context Y. Funny comments are “Z” and “W”. Emotional manipulation towards “U” politics.”
We as a species are easily emotionally manipulated. And those with money and power or those who find themselves in a righteous mob of same thinking morons have the ability to reshape how people perceive the world. This is how all facets of the pluralistic overton window have become more and more polarized and have shifted towards authoritarianism. Because the social media tools spread certain memes globally now. And you see that Lemmy, despite not being owned and controlled by capitalists and developed by communists has not magically made this problem go away.
If you hate AI slop comments you should also hate human slop comments at least to a degree. It is degrading to know that much of our content can be faked by a LLM machine, but it also opens the possibility to rise above it. Simply by tagging “this is AI quality garbage”. This is one application where the primitive verbal intelligence of AI could be useful as a tool because it can be broadly applied. To raise the bar.
If you hate AI slop comments you should also hate human slop comments at least to a degree.
I’m not buying into the false equivalency. I dislike both, I guess, but I hate AI way more. Which is deserved because AI is waaay worse.
This is one application where the primitive verbal intelligence of AI could be useful as a tool because it can be broadly applied. To raise the bar.
You mean by avoiding it? Great, we’re already doing that. I’m already doing that. You should have no problems with me because we are, hand in hand, “raising the bar.”
And how is an AI system going to identify that or not?
Also I don’t really like that definition for art. Feels kinda pretentious/gatekeeping. But inevitably that does lead us to what even is art.
After like 2 years of arguing with AI dipshits, the conclusion I’ve come to (and it’s not really that novel) is that art is as any other language, like English, or body language, and I mean that literally, like body language, and its value is in whether you like listening to the person speaking.
This goes for SpongeBob, Dune, The Lord of the Rings, Reservoir Dogs, “Epic Fart Sounds 10 Hours” on Youtube, and any child’s crayon, stick-figure drawing of their own house.
art is as any other language, like English, … like body language, and its value is in whether you like listening to the person speaking
That has to be the worst definition of art I’ve ever heard. You’re literally describing entertainment or content. Art is subjective, but is often supposed to make you uncomfortable, to be unpleasant to watch or experience. In order to punch a crack into that thick skull of yours. The value of art is that it can help us understand ourselves or the world or where we are going as a society.
What you are saying is DEGRADING to the the human dignity. If enough people collectively “decide”? You are literally saying that what is marketed the best through advertising or brainwashing becomes art. “Because we all here scream the loudest, we are right!” “Our hate will reshape what has value and what doesn’t! Let the vote brigade march forward!”
There is a reason artists are supposed to be poor, because they are not making the tasty morsels of dopamine candy and popular masterpieces that made billions of dollars. They are making the weird shit that makes people go “Uhhh what? Mommy!”
Go watch Eraserhead for 10 hours on repeat! Go and repent!
@HerbGrower@slrpnk.net and no I don’t think a machine can tell us what art is. But it can tell us what is novel and not. My somewhat malicious argument is even worse if you apply it to AI music. Because you can write some good song lyrics yourself and describe what you want the music to sound like, and a relatively simple model that can run on a gaming GPU can produce some absolute bangers. It’s far “worse” than it is for images. Because once we have models that can easily and objectively determine “this song is novel, e.g. different and has not stolen significant elements from any other known song” then… well mainstream music was overproduced generic slop before, so how would you argue that AI slop is worse than that if sounds actually better than the latest sweatshop produce slop they try to market to you?
I mean these are serious questions before gen AI came along, with everyone producing slop and posting it for updoots and self validation. High art is supposed to have societal value. It’s important that we continue to publicly support artists not to feed the capitalist entertainment machine or social media slop, but to continue to develop as a civilization. The solution to gen AI is really simple and the same as the crisis art has faced countless times before: Artists need to create something new with or despite the new tools if they want to stay relevant.
You are aware that you can like something that also makes you uncomfortable, yes?
Always being argued with by people who have no idea what I’m talking about.
Artists need to create something new with or despite the new tools if they want to stay relevant.
Logistically? Maybe. But morally? Like, eat shit, man.
You are aware that you can like something that also makes you uncomfortable, yes?
Sure, I am, but I don’t think most people are. And your definition makes it clear that you’re even applying a moral purity test to the creator. If we don’t “like” the creator the art is bad eww.
Morally? You are aware of what kind of slippery slope that is that various fascists and imperialists went down already?
People don’t like Kevin Spacey very much. I dunno, seems like that’s already been decided.
I am aware that you’ve only ever seen the word “morally” in Mein Kampf, apparently.
Let me ask you directly, do you think morality should be decided by majority opinion or popularity?
What if majority opinion is decided by emotional manipulation by those with the most money and power to own all the channels of speech and can produce the most convincing and manipulative speech? Or my algorithms that reward “polarization”?
Kevin Spacey played questionable characters and villains amazingly well. His art remains without question despite most people feeling disgusted watching him now.
I would be more agreeable to that as a definition of it. But then some people do like AI output. As far as stuff other people make it’s harder to say.
But to make it myself, that means a lot more. Even if it looks clearly worse than what I could buy or generate with AI.
If enough people collectively decide that AI art is art, then it kind of is. That’s the nature of social constructs.
I reject this. Loudly and with purpose. Art is not art without a conscience to speak it, to make it. This is half descriptive, half declarative. I have no desire to cede any ground to these solipsistic, inhuman, vampire people.
The mere idea that your wife could be replaced with a rubber doll if it were made convincing enough is… fucking absurd, and worthy of the most extreme contempt imaginable.
Let’s remove art from the debate then. It’s something that presumably took hard work and now that hard work is put into question.
It is but that is the harsh reality. Gen AI is no doubt an insult to what it means to be human, what we value about ourselves. What it means you either just enjoy the process, or have to work harder to create art that rises above. As long as you can see something with your inner eye and communicate that to others through your medium, art is saved.
But how much hard work is put into stuff that is never even questioned because it isn’t “trending” like OP for some reason? Because there isn’t enough bandwidth? How is that not the same problem we’ve had for the last decade? People created things in obscurity and nobody gave a shit.
I’m not going to say that all things created by people aren’t slop, but it’s also true that our context for understanding art can change over time. What we’re getting now, with certain art styles being associated with slop is a kind of Seinfeld effect.
To give a specific example: When the movie Annihilation came out, it quickly became a favorite of mine. I loved its visual style, and the narrative theme about broken people. A few months ago I re-watched it and realized that its visuals have been so coopted by endless slop recreations that I couldn’t disassociate it from AI output. Even though the themes were still there and no less resonant than when I first watched it, my brain couldn’t enjoy the film because I kept thinking about slop. The movie hadn’t changed and all the artistic intentionality behind its creation was still there, but my ability to enjoy it was destroyed.
Interesting. Because Gen AI is certainly the annihilation of certain facets of human creativity (I’d say the sloppiest aspects). What is creativity without meaning but annihilation? (EDIT: I’ve recently rewatched Annihilation and rewatching the ending now again, I love it more than ever because how relevant it is to the currently ongoing annihilation of our civilization).
It’s also a great example of how hate bandwagoning reduces enjoyment. I’ve seen this with “Rings of Power”. It’s not the best TV show, certainly not the worst. There are like 4 subreddits discussing the show, 3 filled with endless hate and vitriol. 1 with discussions about who or how artistic decisions were made this or that way and how it conflicts with the source material. Finding that community made watching the show more enjoyable again.
So the community you choose absolutely does affect how you can enjoy entertainment or art. Basically you shouldn’t allow yourself to be infected with hate mongering because that has it’s own “economy” of karma and grifting on e.g. youtube.
A more important example would be how judgemental opinions can affect the view on “minority” cultures or the global south. Liberalism wants to commercialize it, conservatism wants to purify it.
I bet this is because LLMs stole her art for training, so now that the LLM users have pumped out thousands of slop-art aping hers down to the colour palate and brushstrokes, her originals also get identified as also AI.
This is exactly it. Also the reason that inputting an excerpt of a classical text (cfr. Dracula, Frankenstein, …) returns “likely AI” results - it’s literally what it was trained on.
For anyone doubting Kyrgizion’s claim:
But the fact that they say their system is “advanced” and “refined”, while they don’t even add some guardrails as, i.e., date checks, that are the minimum one would expect to be added to reduce the likeliness of both false positives and false negatives. It’s just stunning.
And that’s still not really how that works. Those checkers just aren’t very good.
Not really stole, she gave it to Meta willingly.
While I don’t think you’re entirely wrong, I feel like this sentiment will lead people to believing AI content checkers more. The content checkers are wrong even for newer stuff. I always default to believing something is human made because I never want to accuse a real artist for using AI.
I don’t follow, if content checkers are wrong for not being able to tell original art from AI slop because they have been trained on datasets that include the original art, why wouldn’t they also be wrong for the same reason on newer art? They would still likely absorb that newer art into their datasets.
Okay after writing it out I get what you mean, but I am thinking that the turnaround time of absorbing new art, using it to produce AI slop requests a few dozen/hundred/million times, and then calling the original works AI because the AI sloptificator can no longer tell the difference will be a constant, unless there is some way to track OC across multiple AI agents in the panslopticon.
AI content checkers will always be wrong. They’ll always sometimes flag non-AI images as AI and AI images as human made some percentage of the time. I don’t want artists to have to prove that their art is real, I want them to be able to make and share the content they want.
New ai checkers are based on companies signing the response of the llm.
Those are good as that puts the proof on the ai creators, not the artists.
I agree, I am not sure how they can do this… Maybe release original art work with some kind of 2FA QR code to verify authenticity to the original author? That probably wouldn’t work but you get my drift.
I’m with you we need to chill
The irony of people immediately and without hesitation to believe AI to fact check AI, and simultaneously increasingly anything that anyone does is accused of using AI, nearly every single time with zero evidence other than their own gut feeling. The wider internet is an increasingly miserable place to be, which is impressive that it somehow seems gets worse every year.
If that’s the case, everything on Instagram, heck, the internet, would be labeled as AI …
LLMs don’t steal art for training, image generation models are fed datasets by humans, which are then invoked by LLMs when prompted
Arguing semantics is a classic strategy of people who don’t have a valid argument to make.
Literally the “guns don’t kill people” argument.
but they don’t! it’s bullets!
/s
No, words have meanings, I hate AI as much as the average lemming but “LLMs stole art” is just a horrible way to describe what actually happened. It makes it sound like LLMs are going rogue and collecting art themselves. Humans decided to train an image generation model specifically on art like the one in the OP, and just glued an LLM on top of the final model. LLMs are not the ones that do this. I wasn’t even trying to defend anything or anyone here, but I guess this place is too toxic to even use correct phrasing.
But you could have said something along the lines of “LLM companies steal data, don’t accidentally give credence to the marketing idea that these things are sentient”
The irony of him complaining about inaccuracy and lack of clarity in someones post, but being so inaccurate and unclear with his complaint is just… amazing.
I guess this place is too toxic to even use correct phrasing.
I feel you on a daily basis here, however I do think you could consider what the tone of your first response was like. There are a lot of AI supporters out there and I genuinely think you sounded like one there.
Yeah I considered editing it after the first response but had better things to. Karma doesn’t exist on Lemmy anyways.
I fully agree with you that humans are the culprit here. And you’re right, words do have meaning. So I’m going to point out you took an active action “stealing” to the passive voices “fed” and “invoked” and “trained.” Yet you never said humans “stole.” Because they did. They are thieves who are stealing and profiting on other people’s intellectual property. Even if other commenters can’t name why they are upset, that’s why. It’s the same thing that pisses people off when news articles do the same thing depending on which groups they are talking about. Without meaning to your language softens when you talked about the human actions for the exact same acts. It’s a bias. One I’m sure you’re not aware you’re doing. I’ve honestly noticed a lot of people doing it. We all need to work on recognizing when we are unnecessarily softening our language for any group in power. We need to call them out for the thieving shitheads that they are with bold language. “Billionaires are stealing art.” Because they fucking are.
“LLMs stole art” is shorthand for “the people who made the LLMs stole the art and put it into their datasets to generate shitty images”. we don’t want to type that every time.
Correct. The people who make and train LLMs with stolen art and writing are the actual thieves and should be in prison. Not disputed.
Exactly what does any of that change?
It’s tracing.
I’ll trace a chalk line around your dead fucking body, you fuck!
Why do you think people are upset about ai “stealing” art styles then?
People are using AI to determine what is or is not AI so that they can avoid AI
This is funny
The stated goal is that we won’t be able to tell the difference.
the funny thing is though that there were apparently studies that show that younger folks especially have an AI-dar
and “that’s so AI” has become a term for kitsch haha
Yes my son who is 10, uses that term when I lie or take the piss out of him. He’s like “omg mum that sounds ai generated”
I really hope this is true
There’s something about getting older one gets more gullible.
Majority of the outraged people on Facebook are boomers, scammers love to target seniors, it seems like 40+ is the filter they use for targeting.
Like it or not, as we are getting older we are getting less sharp.
Me too :(
full reality distortion … this tech is coming at a cost none of us can afford.
As someone who plays an instrument (but who was never good at writing songs) I’m scared for actual artist having to share their creative process just to prove they didn’t use ai
Either be it my recording their tracks with video evidence and the waveform in the background, as many cover musicians are already doing, or by maybe sharing their creative process and their notes etc. Not only because it’ll only be more AI training data to fake but also because it gives them more work just to show they are not making slop content, but also because sometime you kind of want to keep those things to yourself as an artist. Either because of personal reasons or because you want to kinda keep the listener in the dark with what might be the meaning behind a certain phrase/verse
Especially if you don’t perform live as an artist life must be shit rn
Why scared? This is a new unique way to connect to fans and be real. For so long made artists have be foisted upon us with their looks, sound, lyrics, etc decided by a suit. This is an opportunity to turn this on it’s head.
Corporations already weren’t paying artists. For every aspiring artist that wins a court case against a corporation there are thousands who don’t. We really need to get away from the commercialization of art anyways. Most art that is made is never meant to be sold.
I am not scared for artists, if anything AI can literally do nothing to dissuade artists and will likely inspire a new generation of artistic innovation. What I do fear is how AI will be used outside of generating entertainment.
Creatives have lost this battle already.
My friend has been posting stories of the meals he cooks. They all get labeled as made with AI…
Does your friend have one of those SEO recipe sites that has paragraphs of text you have to scroll past just to get to the damn recipe?
Sorry you have to find out this way but your friend is AI and so are you
But the meals? Believe it or not, AI
Really sucks this ruined everything. I have no motivation for art or music because anything made in this era is suspect now and no one has any integrity. Why even release music when people probably won’t even listen to something that new. Should have stopped in 2012 boys.
Artist here. I don’t draw because I’m good at it. Or because other people are better at it than me.
I do it because I like it. A lot.
It makes me happy to be able to take something from my own brain and make it real enough that others can see it. I don’t want to make a career out of it or anything. But being able to draw things for my friends for Christmas or birthdays is something that makes them happy. Drawing my own assets for games I’m programming, or sketching dumb stickers for friend group in-jokes on Discord is satisfying.
Please keep drawing. Please keep making music. You don’t have to make anybody happy other than yourself. It’s as normal an expression of humanity as dancing or singing.
Thats cool, I have never been able to draw worth a crap! Its really cool seeing people do it though its impressive how hard drawing is to me.
I do enjoy it but as with anything its a lot of work, money and time and I’m not happy if I’m just plucking along, I need to be improving ans creating full albums etc but in the end it doesn’t seem worth it. People dont care, which is fine, and I’ll maybe go back and listen to it in a few years for fun. Ive tried full on quitting but I keep getting recruited into other bands and most of my friends are musicians.
It sounds like you’ve found a lifelong happy place. That’s a good thing. Keep it close, and keep doing it. And hey, if you post a 30 second snip of your music here, I’d listen to it.
Honest question, but is your only goal for for example music to put it online? I play music, an obvious goal of it is to play it for other people, and what does AI matter? They see me play the instrument and that’s the problem solved.
Yep. One of my finest moments as a musician was last year. Guy comes up to me after a show and says something like “gosh, I feel bad for you musicians, AI is taking your job.” I was just like “do you think I do this for money? I have a day job. I play music to meet and impress women, and you’ll never be able to do that with AI.”
Eh, kind of. I have hundreds of songs ive never finished but I probably won’t. No one needs new music. Theres over a billion songs already made. The music i enjoy most are full productions either with my band or me playing all instruments, but now no one cares at all when you can just use midi guitars and some ai bot to throw real sounding drums and vocals. It sounds 99% real to almost everyone, so theres really no point in music online other than live performances, which I cant really do with just me. That would work if I was just an acoustic singer songwriter, but theres already way too many of those. It also takes so much of my time for zero benefit…tens of thousands spent on recording gear, thousands of hours learning recording and mixing, and in the end you have nothing. Much better off woodworking or learning to build/fix houses.
Its a sad state of the world , music/all art has never been undervalued more than now.
If you like playing multiple instruments live, there are people who do that using loop stations? But i get it, if that’s your kind of music, and your focus is on composing rather than performing, then it can be discouraging.
Yeah, I found out I was really good at arranging and writing and producing etc but thats pretty worthless.
You do have a point. I could do some sort of solo performing stuff too. I just prefer full bands
Don’t let the tech bros take your creative outlet :(
Everyday I pray for the sun to shoot a suger Carrington bukkake onto the earth. We need a clean wipe.
I don’t know what a “suger Carrington bukkake” is but I am here for it.
The Carrington Event was a massive geomagnetic storm in like 1859. If it happened today it would probably wipe out a ton of our electronics.
Aww man I just got a new monitor :(
It would probably leave us without grid power for quite some time, maybe mess with a couple of satellites, but that’s about it. It wouldn’t be the end of the internet or set us back technologically or anything like that.
That’s not to say it wouldn’t be a terrible time. It could take years for some places to get reliable power back.
I’m sure they’ll have the datacenters back up guzzling what’s left of the water in a few days, though…
