So a recent post garnered some comments and reports for being AI art. In light of this we should all have a little conversation about how AI generated images should be handled in the future.
I think we all agree that AI images that are āgarbageā or donāt add anything should be removed, but clearly some feel very strongly that all AI art should always be removed.
It should be noted that the rules as written and as agreed on by the community does not blanket ban AI, it merely says AI art should be avoided, while many other rules say no this or that instead.
Things to discuss:
- Does it matter if an image is AI? Does it always matter?
- What about images that are AI generated, but have been modified by a human?
- What about images where itās hard to say for certain that it is generated? Me and the other mods did not agree on whether the recent image was AI f.ex which makes it hard to make a decision on whether or not to remove it.
- It can be stressful to artists to be accused of having used AI. If we are too militant on weeding out AI art it could be harmful as there will no doubt be some false positives.
- Should AI posts require being tagged in the title? (and of course be required to be of a certain level of quality)
I think a lot of us mods feel that AI should be allowed so long as it is not low quality and serves some purpose (being entertaining f.ex), and that the community should not be flooded with AI. What are your thoughts?
Edit: Thank you all for your input! Most of the others are sleeping right now I think, so nothing is likely gonna happen until later today.
You must log in or # to comment.
Iām personally of the belief that there is so much AI art generated with stolen art data that Iād rather we not post it.
i support a full ban on AI-generated art. however, I think the moderation should be lenient and allow art when itās not certain if itās AI-generated or not. IMO letting some AI art through is better than over-moderating and hurting real artists.
at the very least, making it possible to filter out AI art would be a good thing as well.
I understand all the reasons why AI is bad, but likeā¦ Memes are largely made of remixing popular culture anyway. A Spongebob meme is not an original work, itās literally using pre-made assets (in a Fair Use manner). Why should AI be dismissed for a throwaway meme/shitpost? Nearly all memes already exist as an exact copy of someone elseās artistic work, slightly remixed.
AI in general is terrible, especially when it displaces the paid labor of real artists, but I feel like dumb shitposts should be the one place it should be accepted since memes are already remixing pop culture anyway. Why should a more advanced remix of pop culture be treated differently? Itās just a shitpost? Nobody is making money off of it (at least if it is generated locally and not via a paid service), it is not displacing artists. Why treat it different than memes that crib popular culture already?
fuck ai full stop. imho. itās cooking the planet and stealing art and funding nazis all the same whether you use it to make fun of the nazis or ai bros or make something otherwise entertaining with it. youāre still contributing to the problem using it at all.
Absolutely agreed, fuck AI
First and last ones are only true for big corporate models. The second one is subjective whether you believe in copyright policing. I donāt, but Iām pro-piracy and believe that IP gatekeeping is harmful to our culture at large. Iāve seen both how ruthless IP holders can be, and Iāve also seen how lazy they are at rehashing the same ideas over and over (why movie studios and authors reuse the same plots, stories, or remake the same content over and over and over again). I donāt agree with this.
The first one and last one are big problems, but are easily solved by using Open source software (that things that everyone forgets exists) and self-hosting yourself, I can use my own GPU to run an instance of AIhorde software for nothing more than what it takes to play a video game.
No, AIHorde still uses corporate models. The only open source part is distributing the computation.
@db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com Iām curious how true is this if you donāt mind me asking.
Itās ācorporateā only in the sense that the were developed by corporations yes, but we donāt interact with those corporations anymore than meme posters interact with the original creators of the images they use for memes. The models weāre using are permissively licensed and are run locally on peopleās PCs.
I see, thank you for responding.
Until there are viable options for ethical AI generation (that is, all training data is used with the authorsā and artistsā explicit permission), Iād suggest banning it, but erring on the lenient side when people arenāt sure whether an image is AI-generated.
I donāt agree with this. Copyright and Intellectual property arguments like this are the modern day equivalent of āThink of the childrenā but with IP holders instead of children. Iām an avid believer in piracy and information access and this sounds like pro-copyright dogma to me.
What I think is a better solution is to have open-source and self-hostable models like AIhorde which arenāt corporate in nature and donāt make money. They are open-source projects that anyone can run or contribute to. But screw copyright and screw IP gatekeeping, Iām not going to justify or rationalize this with what are ultimately the same slippery slope arguments used against piracy
What are the large corporations being hurt by AI copying the artists they hired art style that would make that argument similar to āThink of the childrenā argument?
You sound like a troll, for the record I didnāt distinguish between large companies, I said that pro-copyright sentiment and anti-piracy arguments of any kind are modern āthink of the childrenā arguments. All pro-copyright sentiment, no discrimination here. The fact that youāre trying to put words in my mouth proves you arenāt and never were arguing in good faith.
I think AI art should be allowed. It doesnāt matter if a shitpost is AI or not, and witch hunting should always be punished. There are too many people out there harassing and hurting people online. Their behavior should be discouraged.
Edit: It should be allowed just for the reason that people donāt need the excuse to act out. I canāt state an opinion without them feeling like they need to downvote to punish me.
Edit: It should be allowed just for the reason that people donāt need the excuse to act out. I canāt state an opinion without them feeling like they need to downvote to punish me.
People should be banned or punished for acting out regardless of if itās banned or not, them being allowed to just act out makes the space tribalist and hostile. It makes people (especially neurodivergent people) feel unwelcome. Which as an inclusive community which has many vulnerable people is the opposite of what we want. @will_steal_your_username@lemmy.blahaj.zone Please take note of this because I think the safety aspect here is something that is seriously overlooked. No one wants to come into a community and be yelled at because someone thought their art was AI, people who do that should be banned on the spot whether we allow or ban AI itself.
Iām fully against itās use here and completely support a ban.
Iām not fully against AI but itās essentially the same as an artist tracing art something well known and hated in the artist community. All AI art must take every piece from somewhere. Every section is traced. Thatās scum behavior.
If, letās say, one were to use an AI generator that only used art it had permission to use, thatās fine and lile tracing cc0 art. Itās lazy as hell, and going to likely look terrible, but no moral issue. Currently however youāre just stealing other peoples art.
As for the āwe already do this for shitpostsā argument:
1.) Itās reasonably easy to still find the original artists ifthe image isnāt generated by AI.
2.) Using it just supports this awful practice.
3.) An insane amount of electricity and water are burned to get that image.
4.) Just find some random, already available image if quality doesnāt matter. Photoshop it to fit if you have to and who cares if your skill is trash that makes it so much more funny.
5.) You should put a bitmore effort into your shitpost. Make it a nice, long, fiber filled log of a shotpost.3.) An insane amount of electricity and water are burned to get that image.
Just to address this piece this is only true for large corporate models, smaller self-hosted open-source models can run on a single GPU. I hear people arguing this like itās something universal across the board for any AI system, but it isnāt really
I say fuck it. Ban it all. If you canāt be bothered to crudely draw a knockoff meme in paint like the rest of us you donāt deserve to post anything. Saying that you will get rid of low quality ai is saying youāre going to get rid of all of it anyway.
I think whatever your stance on the ethics, trying to ban AI as a method of production is futile. Images created using AI are nearing the point of being indistinguishable from images created using other methods. Jokes from last year about how AI canāt get the number of fingers on a hand right already seem outdated. It will soon become impossible to tell the difference between AI and non-AI imagery with any certainty, and weāve already crossed that threshold for some images. That means a ban is ultimately not going to work. Thereās obviously lots of bad quality AI content out there, but thereās also lots of bad quality content out there in general. I think focusing on the quality is more relevant than the method of production.
I agree, I fear that weāre going to see a lot of gaslighting and accusations of AI generated content if we try this route. Iāve already seen this happening with people accusing others of AI generated text and itās shitty. I can recognize the risk of people being shitty and evil and I think thatās something that needs to be fought against directly, not enabled by just yelling āAI bADā and leaning into Ad-hominem and personal attacks.
All AI art is trained on the work of real artists who didnāt give consent for these programs to copy their work.
If society thought people copying parts of other artists work was stealing before AI we should treat AI art as stealing because it copys parts of artists work.
I think framing copyright piracy as a moral panic is sleazy and wrong, just as I believe that anti-piracy campaigns which seek to scare and demonize people who pirate music or movies are wrong. I cannot support this rhetoric in good faith, this is the modern day equivalent of āthink of the childrenā for enforcing fake ownership of something that canāt be really owned.
its a flawed description of the issue i agree. put it another way. if i search an image database using keywords and skim until i find exactly what i want. then post that image as my own. have i created something? thats all generated images are. existing images, progromatically mushed together without real intent. i dont really take issue with the use of tools within programs like photoshop. that becomes a question of intent sometimes sure, but youāre still typically putting in effort and making decisions during the process. yes generative āaiā is cool tech. the same way LLMs incorporating conversational manipulations of psychics is fascinating. or how the mechanics of magic tricks can be as interesting as the trick. but magic still isnt real and im still not having an actual conversation with my computer.
Iām not really arguing against that, or trying to say that AI is any less or more creative. Iām saying that the moral panic of ācopyright infringementā AKA āart theftā is stupid to me because itās based on the made up idea that people own the physical analog of an idea the same way I can own a laptop or a car. Piracy isnāt stealing, and it never has been. Piracyās moral panic is based on the idea of me not buying something because I was able to pirate it. Hereās the thing though. Iām not going to buy it anyway, if you think I will you donāt know me.
Someone could say that Iām bad because I used AI to generate my pfp, but I wouldnāt have commissioned an artist to draw it for me. I wouldāve just taken it for free somewhere else whether it was a legal source like freely licensed or a screen-rip from an anime. If there wasnāt anywhere else I just wouldnāt have a pfp. Piracy isnāt stealing, the amount of pirates who would buy anyway is lower than any anti-piracy advocates would like you to believe. And I do believe the same is true here for the most part.
Thereās muddyness when it comes to commercial AI and I donāt like big tech commercial AI since they are sleazy and scamming people, but also because they will happily cut us all off and make us pay. I do not think OpenAI or Ahthropic are good companies or doing good things for our world. I just donāt believe the standard Anti-AI rhetoric that itās bad because of copyright infringement. Iāve pirated movies in the past, even when it was shitty and low quality. This isnāt much different to me, yeah itās not as good as the real thing, I donāt deny that. Same with AI, AI images are like those pirated movies, lower quality, maybe shaky, real art is something else.
thats where you lose me. when weāre talking about the blanket statement that all generative ai is theft when opensource solution exist, i agree with you. there is nuance here, generative ai in an opensource context is fine. whatever i think of itās value doesnt matter.
but ignoring all nuance around copyright or calling this a moral panic while claiming some kind of moral high ground on privacy loses the plot. itās an uncalled for detour in an otherwise good argument. not all internet piracy is bad, not all internet piracy is advocating freedom of inforormation. just like you cant steal food, you cant steal from the rich. sure a debate could be had about pirating a marvel movie or taylor swifts next album takes money somewhere along the whole supply chain and evtually hurts a person somehow. but now weāre talking about an entire system here and also fuckāem. but thats not the free flow of information. if i put something from behind a paywall onto sci-hub. yeah some company could use some ip in there to make money. they were going to act morally bankrupt anyway. piracy and free flow of information right?
now as most scientists will just give you their work, then give you extra stuff because theyāre excited youāre interested. if they say āplease dont let this one section out, i thought youād like it but its what i pay my bills fromā. and i still post that section. iāve stolen their labor like a good capitalist. if a diy band kickstarters their ablum saying itāll be free after they make enough to eat. and i post that on a torrent site day one. just a pirate and an asshole who stole their labor. generative ai overwhelmingly uses content from small copyright holders who cant afford it, while providing a profit vehicle for copyright holders who can afford not to care. in this context the copyright is the only tool available to those small artists to protect their labor and ability to eat.make your pfp with gen ai using freely offered data, cool glad you found an activity that gives you joy. do it using pirated data, cool glad you found an activity that gives you joy but theres no moral high ground there.
Iām only describing it as moral panic because in the vast majority of the argument people have talking about copyright and āArt theftā they are framing their position as a moral high ground. I really donāt think there is one either. People are going to do what they do. They can use freely available creative commons materials, or they can pirate the good stuff. One isnāt better than the others.
Ultimately when it comes to an AI like OpenAI, I couldnāt care less if they source and license the data responsibly, use Free to use material, or engage in piracy. They can fuck themselves any way they do it. Because an AI company like that is going to screw us over in the long run. No matter how nice they play.
Your argument about pirating indie music or games does seem to be a common one, and I would agree if it werenāt for one big part. Most pirates do buy when they can. I certainly do. There are things I pirate I would never buy and there are even things I would never pirate. But games I pirated and liked, especially indie games Iāve bought. Music and Art is a trickier subject because people these days mostly stream and view online, though if weāre going to compare to art commission I would argue that a person who would commission a piece of art would probably still do it, but on the flip side someone who wouldnāt, just wouldnāt. Regardless if AI is available to do it or not.
Itās ultimately trying to justify passing off the work of others as their own by obfiscating the way in which itās done.
Itās not worth creating your own art if an AI is just going to rip your style and take credit the second you post it.
I often find the people who make excuses for AI art theft have never taken the days to make a piece of art that you upload to a community just to see others passing off your work as their own.
Itās been proven the artists used in the training data can be identified by the art the AI generates. As well as with generted text. It doesnāt copy pixel for pixel or word for word, but it copys identifiable techniques and prose.
I wouldnāt have as much of a problem with it if every artist agreed for their works to be used, but these bots just scraped the open internet and took everything they could find and thatās the training data.
Itās not worth creating your own art if an AI is just going to rip your style and take credit the second you post it.
This is almost verbatim the same argument they use against piracy saying if people can pirate āno one buys any disks from the storeā - DP (Donāt copy that Floppy). And itās wrong. I use AI the same way I use piracy, and I do appreciate real art. Which is why I say that the anti-AI arguments I see floating around are bullshit, you donāt know people who use it, youāre regurgitating ideas and talking points that donāt apply evenly to all people, just like anti-piracy propaganda does.
Iām not taking credit for it, maybe some people do, but itās a strawman argument to say everyone does. I see AI generation as another form of piracy.
I wouldnāt have as much of a problem with it if every artist agreed for their works to be used, but these bots just scraped the open internet and took everything they could find and thatās the training data.
Like I said, same thing as piracy. The arguments against piracy fall onto deaf ears, and I donāt respect them. Because Copyright, especially broken long copyright like what the US has is killing our culture. I donāt respect it and will not honor it. People who make a moral panic about forms of piracy are basically screaming āThink of the childrenā as far as Iām concerned.
This is almost verbatim the same argument they use against piracy saying if people can pirate āno one buys any disks from the storeā
Do you understand the different conext of wanting something to be profitable vs wanting people to know you made the thing you worked to create?
This is i think a core separation on the issue, and speaks to how little empathy the AI shovelers have for the tools they use trained on the hard work of real human beings.
Iām not taking credit for it, maybe some people do, but itās a strawman argument to say everyone does.
So who are these people crediting when the image they asked to be generated is using art that isnāt credited?
People who make a moral panic about forms of piracy are basically screaming āThink of the childrenā as far as Iām concerned.
Spoken like someone who hasnāt created art great enough that they want their name on it.
Spoken like someone who hasnāt created art great enough that they want their name on it.
Willing to bet that you along with the majority of the morally outraged people on this subject who are whining havenāt either. Theyāre usually at it for the same reasons people who whine about piracy do what they do and simp for IP holders, because theyāve seen others do it.
So who are these people crediting when the image they asked to be generated is using art that isnāt credited?
They arenāt crediting anyone or taking credit, same as pirating content. Just like how we donāt go out of our way to give credit to the people who pirated the content or the people who made the film.
copys identifiable techniques and prose.
I am not going to even indulge the idea of this of owning style or technique, Iāve seen some really toxic ideas around trying to own style, traits, or even a fictional species and this is downright petty, and one of the most extreme forms of gatekeeping in that space yet. Itās also so low that itās not even protected by copyright but even if it were Iād respect it less than I do more concrete forms of intellectual property (which I donāt respect either).
Personally I feel like AI should be allowed if the memes and content are high quality and that they arenāt being spammed rapidly.
What I do think should be done regardless of the outcome to ban AI or not is heavy policing on anti-AI harassment, trolling, witch-hunting, and bad faith arguments. I was just harassed by an idiot and still havenāt fully recovered but this shit is unacceptable. So if we ban AI or not we need to ban the idiots trolling and trying to hunt down people they suspect of using AI. These people are toxic to the community and will hurt the community more than even low-effort AI spam will. Iām not going to provide names of people because they will accuse me of harassing them and probably harass me in return (just like the idiot earlier).
Late reply but Iāll give my input. This is probably a controversial one but I donāt think we should allow AI in this community or in !196@pawb.social. Maybe people might think thatās weird since I run an AI community on dbzer0 but AI generated content has a specific time and place I donāt think this community is one of them. If there is demand for AI memes I think there should simply be a dedicated community for it and if people donāt like it they can block that one.
That said I donāt agree with the hostility Iāve seen towards others in this community over use of AI (intentional or not) and trying to defame or harass them. This is disgusting and inexcusable.
One thing I do worry about when policing AI content is that this is a reposting community and people posting AI content on accident is almost guaranteed. For that reason I think that we need to be careful with how itās enforced and also how people behave around it. The flaming, harassment, and defamation that has been a typical response is unacceptable.
