In this case it’s easy: There’s multiple places where the cross-hatching doesn’t make sense stroke-wise. The stippling is weird and overdone, can you imagine a human moving their pen like that? Why spend like 99% of the work on what’s, thematically, negative space? …that’s because the AI has trouble understanding that cross-hatching is lines, and that dithering isn’t stippling, it confuses an art style with scans of photographs printed in newspapers.
A human also wouldn’t have gotten the shape of the arch and even more so pyramid wrong.
GTFO here with “soulless” that’s the AI critique equivalent of “I can tell by the pixels”. Of course this shit doesn’t have soul it’s, thematically, a fucking technical drawing. Sibs be saying “Plato was an AI, here, his drawing of the solids, they lack soul”. You ever seen a dodecahedron with soul?
No, I do not generally agree that AI-generated images are “theft”. GiovanH’s blog post explains it better than I could - please go read it when you find the time. But a tl;dr is that models aren’t simple collage machines - they actually pick up concepts from the images they’re trained on, and demonstrate an ability to combine them to output novel ones - not exactly, but pretty similar to how concepts are combined in manually-made art. It’s also mathematically impossible for image diffusion models to directly contain their training imagery, due to their small size (SDXL models, for instance, are around 6.5 GB while being trained on billions of images). Of course, there is a small chance of overfitting happening, which the post gets into more detail about.
Also, I don’t believe it’s meaningful to distinguish whether something has “soul”, based on its medium. People can’t agree on what a “soul” is, or if it even exists. What can actually be quantified is whether AI art invokes reactions in people - which it most definitely does, whether you find the comics funny, are repulsed by their mediums, or simply shrug at them and move on. Besides, it was a human who prompted to generate the image in the first place.
AI is a new technology, and it’s totally OK to be worried about its impact on society. However, I’d say the best way to go about it is to clearly state each other’s opinions and skip the buzzwords and assumptions. If you’re willing to reply back, feel free, even if you find yourself disagreeing most of the time! As long as we can keep this civil.
This is far side for millennials and i like it lol
Edit: Oh god it’s AI trash. Sad
Report it and hopefully they’ll take it down.
How can you even tell?
It’s bland and the shapes aren’t all equal squares from some direction. Some of them are rectangles from their ‘square’ direction.
In this case it’s easy: There’s multiple places where the cross-hatching doesn’t make sense stroke-wise. The stippling is weird and overdone, can you imagine a human moving their pen like that? Why spend like 99% of the work on what’s, thematically, negative space? …that’s because the AI has trouble understanding that cross-hatching is lines, and that dithering isn’t stippling, it confuses an art style with scans of photographs printed in newspapers.
A human also wouldn’t have gotten the shape of the arch and even more so pyramid wrong.
GTFO here with “soulless” that’s the AI critique equivalent of “I can tell by the pixels”. Of course this shit doesn’t have soul it’s, thematically, a fucking technical drawing. Sibs be saying “Plato was an AI, here, his drawing of the solids, they lack soul”. You ever seen a dodecahedron with soul?
Not so “soulless” if you initially found it funny… 😼
It steals the art of real artists to generate its images.
So yeah it steals and projects their soul too.
It’s gross and its creator should have to pay every artist it stole content from to train their bot.
Piracy isn’t stealing.
Stealing from artists and not corporations is stealing.
Also trying to pass off other people’s art as your own is not piracy.
Alright, I’ll make my point seriously.
No, I do not generally agree that AI-generated images are “theft”. GiovanH’s blog post explains it better than I could - please go read it when you find the time. But a tl;dr is that models aren’t simple collage machines - they actually pick up concepts from the images they’re trained on, and demonstrate an ability to combine them to output novel ones - not exactly, but pretty similar to how concepts are combined in manually-made art. It’s also mathematically impossible for image diffusion models to directly contain their training imagery, due to their small size (SDXL models, for instance, are around 6.5 GB while being trained on billions of images). Of course, there is a small chance of overfitting happening, which the post gets into more detail about.
Also, I don’t believe it’s meaningful to distinguish whether something has “soul”, based on its medium. People can’t agree on what a “soul” is, or if it even exists. What can actually be quantified is whether AI art invokes reactions in people - which it most definitely does, whether you find the comics funny, are repulsed by their mediums, or simply shrug at them and move on. Besides, it was a human who prompted to generate the image in the first place.
AI is a new technology, and it’s totally OK to be worried about its impact on society. However, I’d say the best way to go about it is to clearly state each other’s opinions and skip the buzzwords and assumptions. If you’re willing to reply back, feel free, even if you find yourself disagreeing most of the time! As long as we can keep this civil.