The current rule allows for AI gen content when correctly flagged as such. It’s the case here, so the report should be dismissed, maybe pointing out the ability to filter out posts.
Comment on [AI] Niwatari Kutaka
vbb@lemmy.world 1 week ago
This was reported as “AI slop”. I’m cold about this AI situation and not sure if I should do something about it. It’s hard to make a decision with report having such reason. Please explain at least briefly why I should take one or another action.
zeograd@lemmy.world 1 week ago
vbb@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Yeah I mean OP didn’t do anything wrong here. But if peoples are largely against AI pics here, even considering that they can filter them out, then maybe we should take some action regarding future AI pics. I don’t want to make decisions based on just “AI slop” report and up/down votes count.
zeograd@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Ok, I understand better your position. At this point, it may be a bit early to alter the rules, but the reaction to this post can be accounted for later, sure.
hypertown@ani.social 1 week ago
Currently you don’t have a rule against this type of content so removing it would be kinda unfair… That being said you should ask yourself whether you’re fine with it. Personally I don’t want to see it, especially those uncanny ones.
Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
The reason they’re tagged is so you can filter them out. You don’t have to see them if you don’t want to.
remon@ani.social 1 week ago
The default lemmy UI doesn’t have any filter options, so people still do have to see them.
Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
Lemmy.world has the Tesseract front end and community post tags are being added soon to the default one.
vbb@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I understand it can look uncanny. The fact that it was generated also changes perception at least a bit. On this one pic wings look strange. Because they are this long I expect them to be wider. Chicks look fuzzy when I zoom in to take a closer look. Though idk if I would have noticed these things if it wasn’t tagged.
It’s interesting to see how gen AI progressed compared to the previous AI pic posted here. IIRC that one was the first one and it was posted by me as a reason to discuss what should our stance on AI generated content be. Rule that we have right now didn’t exist yet.
I honestly don’t know what to think about gen AI. I don’t have negative opinion to completely forbid it in this community. Tag seems like a middle ground between completely accepting and banning AI. But if peoples think otherwise it would be cool if they responded why they think like this.hypertown@ani.social 1 week ago
Forgive for being blunt but this pic is currently an example of one of the worst AI image generations. It’s very easy to spot even without zooming in. Currently there are models that are doing such a good job it’s hard to tell even after examining the fine details.
So I should be fine with the good ones right? After all if you can tell the difference then then it should be treated like a real art? … No! Even though I have to admit that some of them are really stunning visually I’m still very much against it. Why? Because I know how it works and that it’s highly unethical.
Image generation models are trained on art made by humans, this is probably a common knowledge, humans also learn from others but the difference is that human can create it’s own artstyle. AI usually copy some existing artstyle and creates a “drawing” based on that style. It’s very important to mention that this happens without the author’s permission! Not only that, many artists are very against AI training on their art but people do it anyway. This creates a very unpleasant reality where you spent years and years learning to draw, making your own style only to get that style stolen by machine that now can generate anything in a few seconds.
Someone might say: “So what? It’s called progress!”
No it’s not. This machine is nothing without artists and it is actively trying to put them out of their job.
Until AI (Or rather AGI) can create its own unique style not based on anything made before I’m going to hate it. But even if one day AI can create ethically something perfectly made for humans to enjoy I still don’t know if I want to consume things without a soul.Not to say I hate AI in general. I think it’s a very cool technology but it should be used as a tool to help people not to replace them.
So yeah, I don’t want to see it because if it’s bad it’s ugly and soulless and if it’s good it’s just some artist’s work reproduced without permission.
Small note that I used to post AI “art” too but that was before I knew how it works. I used to think it’s ok if people put work to improve and retouch the generated image. But the more I learn the more I’m against it.
If you really want to post AI slop then there are places that focus exclusively on AI. I use 3 different frontends for lemmy and not all of them support filters. If AI would flood this sub I’m just unsubscribing.
Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
Community post tags are being added soon to lemmy so you won’t have to.
Lemmy works because you’re able to tailor your own experience, rather than trying to force your content preferences on everyone else. The way you carry on is unnecessarily divisive and tribalistic, and is going to cause lemmy to eat itself alive.
Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
Using things “without permission” forms the bedrock on which artistic expression and free speech are built upon. They want you to believe that analyzing things without permission somehow goes against copyright, when in reality, fair use is a part of copyright law, and the reason our discourse isn’t wholly controlled by mega-corporations and the rich.
What some people want will cripple essential resources like reviews, research, reverse engineering, and indexing information, and give mega-corps a monopoly of AI by making it prohibitively difficult for anyone else.
I recommend reading this article by Kit Walsh, and this one by Tory Noble staff attorneys at the EFF, this one by Katherine Klosek, the director of information policy and federal relations at the Association of Research Libraries, and these two by Cory Doctorow.
hypertown@ani.social 1 week ago
Copyright, it’s broken anyway. Some people abuse it, some are getting ripped off despite it. Fair use also is a concept that differs around the world. So I don’t know how legal AI training is and frankly I don’t care. All I care about is respecting authors. If they’re saying “No AI training” then you should respect it. This is also nothing like the Nintendo saying “Don’t reverse-engineer our products”.
Let me explain. Aside from the fact that you shouldn’t compare a soulless corporation to a living, breathing individual the most important difference is that for example Nintendo sells you a product in a way that even though you bought it you don’t own it. It’s your console so you should be able to reverse engineer, modify however you want it. But that doesn’t mean you can distribute their assets around the internet. You can’t just take Mario’s character model and put it into your game. For example every emulation project works like that.Using things without permission is fine as long as you won’t blatantly copy it and AI basically does exactly that. No respectable artists would do that, there’s no artistic expression in that. You’re just copying things. AI can’t get inspired by some work, can’t come up with a new personal artstyle. Maybe AGI can but AGI doesn’t exists yet.
I said this before but I’m going to say it again: This machine is nothing without artists and it tries to put them out of their work.
Besides there’s so much amazing art posted every day you won’t be able to keep up with it anyway. AI is not needed.
Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
The rules allow AI generated content, stating
AI generated content have to be marked by [AI] prefix in post label. If it’s all according to the rules of the community, the report would be frivolous and possibly an abuse of the report function.