aliens

Author Topic: Ai generated images.  (Read 577 times)

Offline LuckyClover

  • Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
  • Too Lucky to die :)
    • View Profile
    • Email
Ai generated images.
« on: January 28, 2023, 11:42:17 am »
What do You think about ai generated art?
Is it more opportunity or threat?
This technology will make life easier for many people, but artists are often really affraid of it.
Another question is how would You call person that create those images-artist?
Do You have other idea for name?
In Polish language I use word "operator"-Im not sure if people would like it :)

Here is also elf (or maybe he looks more like halfling?) picture generated few days ago. I kinda like it so Ieven use it as avatar :)

Offline Meridian

  • Global Moderator
  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 7928
    • View Profile
Re: Ai generated images.
« Reply #1 on: January 28, 2023, 12:02:39 pm »
it will just create a (bigger) copyright hell

with a tiny chance that the hell may freeze over

Offline Solarius Scorch

  • Global Moderator
  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 10944
  • WE MUST DISSENT
    • View Profile
    • Nocturmal Productions modding studio website
    • Email
Re: Ai generated images.
« Reply #2 on: January 28, 2023, 12:26:46 pm »
The copyright "law" can't do a thing against progress. The bloodsuckers will squirm and bite, and certainly inconvenience a lot of people, but they can't win against the technological reality. Personally, I don't think it's worth thinking about, when there are endless possibilities of using this amazing new technology for an actual benefit of humanity.

As for the word for a person operating it, I think "prompter" would fit, since it's all about writing prompts. :)

Also, definitely a halfling. ;)

Offline Dioxine

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 5345
  • punk not dead
    • View Profile
    • Nocturnal Productions
    • Email
Re: Ai generated images.
« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2023, 02:58:41 pm »
How do you call them? What does it matter? Would you call anyone who uses a hammer (regardless of their job) "a hammerer"? (funnily enough the process of work with this AI does remind me of mining + hammering).

I know many people who are afraid of it, none of them is an actual artist. Those who lose jobs are paintbots in human form, it's not a moment to soon this job (which really became a market only little over a decade ago) is gone.  Meanwhile actual artists I know grabbed this AI thing like it was a box of candies...

A book can be written on how much that does change, regarding impact on society, on art, on jobs, on our views of such things as originality and immortality, but let's just say it's a very momentous advancement.

Attached is example of my use of it in xcom modding.

Offline Yankes

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 2927
    • View Profile
Re: Ai generated images.
« Reply #4 on: January 28, 2023, 03:52:53 pm »
First thing is that current version of AI art is not creative, it effective collage of millions of pictures that was used to train this AI.
You can have have "creative" mix like `X look like Y` but it can't create some unique Z, this mean true artists could always be one step ahead
because they could change style or make pictures that are very hard to AI to recreate.

For not-artists AI is blessing as it allow create custom arts that is not accessible because of skill level.
Like Dioxine show, modders could easy use AI to create content that match description and have specific style.

Another thing I see that could be great is to write books even if your language skills are low, I could image some plot, characters and AI would
fill all text and dialog that normally could be bizmo if written by me. And I could even add images that match plot and characters.

Offline TBeholder

  • Sergeant
  • **
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: Ai generated images.
« Reply #5 on: January 28, 2023, 03:58:11 pm »
Those are not “AI generated”, they are AI remixed.
It looks like some bright bulbs already have started “hire an artist to make a basic set of samples, fire the artist, start auto-remixing” routine, but they are likely to be crushed quickly and thoroughly, probably with support of other publishers.
Technically, there are few differences between AI-controlled and manually controlled image editor, and they are not necessarily provable. And then, AI can be set up to do only negligible adjustments… you see the picture (sorry).
The following assumes the status quo in the powers over Internet. Things would be very different in conditions of e.g. Swiss (with approval of Russia and China) emerging as the keeper of most Internet infrastructure that matters, while holding in absolute contempt Disney, Hasbro, Salon com and Californian courts, while EU is confused by all this — but there’s no point trying to predict details of turns this sharp.  :D

If AI remixes were somehow exempt — however shaped, this de facto would effectively kill both copyright (protection of authors, mainly from publishers) and IP (protection of publishers, mainly from consumers) laws. The latter obviously is not going to die anytime soon — if Disney and other dinosaurs could not man the ramparts, they would be gone already.
Thus, most likely AI exemptions are not going to happen either. If anything, it looks like a great excuse for another wave of “publishers own everything, including Pythagoras table” style crackdowns (which in turn are a tried setup for “unofficially official” censorship infrastructure, of course).
Much less likely (but not impossible, seeing how some animals are a lot more equal than the rest already): lawyers embrace the opportunity to metastasize some more, but are cut short by the scandal-averse bureaucrats on all sides. The publisher oligopoly strengthens its grip enough that they don’t really care what you do, because things they don’t want to go around cannot survive even on your blog anyhow. So the “creative collaborative community” and “unofficially official” press are allowed to go all out in celebration of this shocking new freedom (as long as they don’t deviate too much from the Party Line), but since they still compete with each other even when not allowed to disagree, this results in near-cyberpunk grade “I grabbed it first” jungle.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2023, 04:02:14 pm by TBeholder »

Offline The Reaver of Darkness

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1498
    • View Profile
Re: Ai generated images.
« Reply #6 on: January 31, 2023, 03:40:23 pm »
People are very commonly perceiving these AI image-producers as being far better at these jobs than they really are. Virtually every time that an image is presented as an example of how good AI art is, they offer one which had loads of human intervention in its design process. The ones that the AI spits out and which receive zero correction are generally very messy and full of errors.

Here is an example of an AI-generated image which had a large contribution of work from a human:
https://www.deviantart.com/shad-brooks/art/PALADIN-Stable-Diffusion-AI-conversion-936296172
The human who worked to generate this image has detailed his design process in a YouTube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PszF9Upan8

To demonstrate the quality of AI art without heavy influence from a human, just look at AI art and notice how frequently it is filled with flaws. But I gave stable diffusion a prompt: "a prince fighting a dragon, and the dragon is breathing fire" and of the results given, this was the only one that was even a match to the prompt:
https://imgur.com/a/tRRwuy3
I did not edit the image any further. This was the second prompt offered, as the first one was deemed possibly too difficult for the AI to parse (as none of the offered images were a match). I did not perform any more tweaks to the prompt, or ask for it to generate more attempts. This is what "AI art" actually looks like.

To give an excellent example of why human-made art really stands apart from AI-generated art, I would like to offer an excellent example of high-detail art generated by a human:
https://www.reddit.com/r/drawing/comments/ztbtw9/a_muse_in_the_warzone/
Note the combination of themes in the image and how they make sense together. Note the fine details and how none of them are weirdly proportioned, warped, or shifting into structured unrelated to their position in the image. The hallmarks of AI-generated images are not present here. The evidence of human intervention is all over it. It doesn't look like AI-generated imagery at a glance, and it only looks more human the deeper you peer. And this is just one of many examples I could give.

It's not just that AI fail the Turing test at every turn, but even humans pretending to be AI will usually fail the reverse Turing test as well. The gap is far greater than many grifters pretend.

AI art is not going to make human art obsolete; far to the contrary, AI image generation will expand art production and allow our society to tap into the creativity of artists lacking painting or other "artistic" talents, artists whose art otherwise would have never seen the light of day.

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk. I would like to end my 94% serious rant with a relevant bit of Star Trek: The Next Generation. I tried but failed to find a concise clip, but in the episode titled 'When the Bough Breaks', a child is offered a tool which enables him to carve wood into any shape he can imagine. In fact within that episode are many bits of wisdom about human brain development and how we can be mentally healthier. Good episode, loosely related to the topic.

Offline Yankes

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 2927
    • View Profile
Re: Ai generated images.
« Reply #7 on: January 31, 2023, 11:43:33 pm »
To demonstrate the quality of AI art without heavy influence from a human, just look at AI art and notice how frequently it is filled with flaws. But I gave stable diffusion a prompt: "a prince fighting a dragon, and the dragon is breathing fire" and of the results given, this was the only one that was even a match to the prompt:
I think you did use weaker AI generator that other used. I do not thing any your interaction could archive looks like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdwCE8ScPk4

But still most what you said is correct, even example I give where most images look like "real" you can spot flaws that no resolvable human would put in.