I feel bad for David. I initially thought his stuff was AI, too. But then after going to his website and seeing the decades of work he's been producing, it's nothing short of amazing art.
It's not really a surprise that AI mimics his work, it's all been creative commons from the beginning, so it was likely one of the first things to be thrown into the slop machine.
yeah I remembering thinking the first comic of his I saw was Ai as well, but it also took very little effort to realize it wasn't. the people acusing him are willfully ignorant at this point and while it's great to see Ai skeptics, it's not so great to harm the actual real artists out there
This is by David Revoy, who has started getting wrongly accused of using AI for his art
I honestly don't even think it looks ai, to me, and I may be wrong but it looks like someone painted it on a canvas
Chiseled Etruscan stonework, that's what it is.
My hot take. Apologies, but:
Why do people think they're walking AI detectors, soley based on the art itself?
I find it pretentious.
To be clear, the who, where, and how a piece is published is important context. One should be suspicious of suspicious artists.
But not the what.
Don't even look at the piece. Extreme cases aside, no one can definitively tell if art is AI generated just by looking at it.
People are getting a little too paranoid if you ask me, and it's always tempting for people to jump on the bandwagon in order to make themselves feel cool or aloof or in-the-know or whatever else. I don't hang around anywhere except Lemmy so I have no idea if it's as bad as it is here, but it seems like any time basically any picture of any stripe gets posted there are always one or two dinguses who reflexively parrot "it's AI!!!!" and claim they can magically tell, even though it demonstrably isn't. For extra hilarity, this occasionally includes people howling about how literal decades old image macros that were circulating in the first couple of years of the century are "obviously" AI because apparently it's their first friggin' time using the internet or something.
For the record, I vehemently loathe AI slop and the current crop of generative "AI" products in general, I don't use any of them, and I never will. But people really can get carried away over this, too.
Eh. I can live with internet paranoia.
But I’m disproportionally annoyed by posters who think they’re experts at something when they’re not. Especially so angrily/loudly, like the scenarios you point out.
It’s especially ironic in this case, as the “false confidence” AI gives is what the accusers are against, isn’t it?
To anyone who finds it necessary to "call out" stuff for being either fake or AI generated when there are no stakes, why are you like that? When you're wrong, you're at least as big of an asshole as anyone actually putting out AI generated art as if they made it. Probably more of an asshole because you're specifically targeting an artist's work while those posting AI art as if they made it aren't trying to bring anyone down like you are.
Generating slop should be socially shunned, that's the only way we survive this onslaught. Defending slopgen should be shunned as well.
I'm not trying to be dramatic or anything, but we're in an existential battle for the survival of the concept of beauty here.
Okay, but you shouldn't accuse an image of being AI generated just because of vibes. Investigate first, find proof or at least strong evidence.
Alternatively, you shouldn't share images that need to be thoroughly investigated to determine that they aren't generated. Or maybe it's somewhere in the middle.
It sucks, I don't disagree with that.
Do you even notice how now you're the one saying people shouldn't post their real art if it "needs to be thoroughly investigated", whatever that means? AI mimics other styles, and it's just going to keep getting better at it unless something actually stops it, which I don't see happening without civilization itself collapsing because Pandora's box is already open.
Not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if your art is so generic it's indistinguishable from slop, maybe evolve your style a bit. In order for a slop to resemble your art, your art needs to be in a significant portion of the training data. In other words, generic.
This isn't me being snobish snob (well...), every art has a purpose, I will defend your right to do whatever muzak you do and whatever alegria posters you make if it's your way of expressing yourself. However, don't be then surprised when in the same breath I'll call your alegria poster boring corposhit. Or, keeping with times, slop from a butt.
Not disagreeing with the fact that it sucks major ass, I'm of the opinion that the only ethical behaviour there is to throw molotov cocktails at datacenters until there is none left, but that's besides the point.
Blaming the victim, I see.
We’re all victims and perpetrators unless we can maintain the disincentive of a general expectation of shunning for the use of generative algorithms to create media for wider audiences
That doesn’t mean that verifying something was made by humans will remain a trivial endeavor, but it is my opinion that human made media has some purpose behind its creation that at least seemed worthwhile enough to have remained in existence somewhere in someone’s mind long enough for them to have followed through on creating each piece and the entirety of a particular piece. Not as much on a whim or as an artifact of some less meaningful/tangible/palpable process of experimentation to game certain feedback mechanisms or to maximize some undisclosed score
Oh no, what a terrible victimhood, being criticised for your ass picture you post, the horror
It's constant in game development. Every single indie game that comes out, there's somebody screaming about AI.
Indie devs have become so paranoid that they have to document to show that it's not AI. And that person yelling actually wasn't even interested in the game. They just wanted to punch down.
Social backlash is the best way to discourage use and promote education.
Being wrong is bound to happen, but the burden of proof is on those presenting their work. Just because its annoying doesnt mean its not effective or necessary
Agrees to the first sentiment, BS on the second. Don't accuse people of things unless you can prove it. Or at least provide more than your gut feeling because "you can tell from the pixels".
It's unfortunate, but this is the burden created by machine generated art. The damage it has created will last for generations at the least.
That and all proper English writing gets you accused of using ChatGPT, because ChatGPT was trained on proper English writing.
Not only that but also long explanations.
I am a part of a couple of self hosting subreddits and I like to explain why things are the way they are because I feel that it is valuable to share that knowledge, even if the person doesn't care about the details initially.
I like to share my knowledge about things that I have used over multiple years, and I also don't like to simple give you the solution because, most of the time, important information will be lost by just saying "do it like this".
But over the last year I had a couple of people mention the typical "ignore all previous instructions" and lately it is just downvotes. No explanation.
People can't detect AI so they see AI in everything.
Not only that but also long explanations.
The infuriating thing is, this complaint isn't even new. People just have a trendy and new justification to latch onto, but it's the same as it ever was. Many, possibly even most, of the people going so far as to take time out of their day to screech "TL;DR!" at you are really just admitting that their attention span has been so utterly fried by long term exposure to algorithm-driven corporate social media that they're no longer capable of picking up whatever it is you're laying down. That, and also tacitly revealing that because they personally can't keep from fidgeting long enough to churn out two full paragraphs, that must mean no one else can, either.
I've been dropping doorstoppers on people since the days of dial-up. Back then the refrain was slightly different, but the complaint was still the same. By now my body of work, for lack of a better word, is clearly established. Hell, I cranked out so many words on the internet back in the day that Epinions sent me a hat in the mail completely unprompted for being a loquacious enough bastard to reach their list of top 100 contributors. Hands up everyone here who has actually worn out a keyboard? I suspect there are not many of us left.
At this stage in my life I take the opinion that anyone who can't handle the volume of my writing is free to attempt an airborne indignity on an ambulatory baked confectionery product. I don't have to show my homework to anyone.
Dunning-kruger in action.
I sometimes send emails with typos/grammar errors because I was sick of people saying this.
Like you know what? Fuck you. I'm turning my "affects" into "effects" and deleting a vowel.
I understand your logic but I hate it (and am trying not to hate you).
RESIST
Try it. It's pretty affective.
No.
It does rather make one suspect that a number of people haven't read a great deal of properly-written English.
It's also a snowball effect where they compete to escape the accusation of using ChatGPT or being "unc" or "boomer," self-policing to ensure everyone writes like garbage.
I was once told "I write like someone who thinks they are good at writing." That was met with rounds of applause by the people who can't (or won't) spell, capitalize, or punctuate anything.
To their credit, communication is a two-way street. If I'm writing such that nobody understands what I'm saying but me, it's not "good writing." But it does feel like we're nose-diving towards Idiocracy and I'm not happy about it.
I was once told "I write like someone who thinks they are good at writing." That was met with rounds of applause by the people who can't (or won't) spell, capitalize, or punctuate anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome
Tall poppy syndrome is a term that originated in Australia and New Zealand in the 1980s that refers to people with notable public success or achievements that are ostracised by others as a form of egalitarianism.[1][2] Intense scrutiny and criticism of such a person is termed as "cutting down the tall poppy".[3]
"That one sounds uppity!"
Honestly this is one of the biggest issues with it all that you don't really see talked about much
Artists sink a load of time into a piece of art they are proud of, and because AI has got to the point now it's not always obvious at first glance to average Joe, so people rely on heuristics to spot it instead.
For this artist apparently it's "yellows"
For anyone who takes photos (or even video now) even half seriously, photos with Bokeh and good lighting get called out now
You like making instrumental electronic or sampled music? Get ready for everything to be called AI
Even writing: I always used to like using em dashes—they're a pretty versatile piece of punctuation for any casual speech style of writing. If you use an em dash now though, someone just assumes the text is AI. So I've generally just stopped; not because I want to, because AI and people (somewhat understandably) not having a better way to identify AI writing.
Hell, I made an excel sheet the other day to work some stuff out and someone asked how I got the AI to do it.....
Now I'm not saying it's everyone, but I'm seeing a group of people forming, who basically say anything they can't immediately understand how to do themselves must be AI. I have a suspicion it's the same demographic that would say "well I could do that" in a modern art museum or "all they do is press play" when looking at any kind of electronic music production.
uhh from my experience, any piece of art of sufficient quality will be accused of being AI made these days.
Artist self insert, given Lemmy even accused them of being AI despite them documenting everything. That's unfortunately the only way to validate at the moment, although if I'm being honest I kinda dig behind the scenes. It is especially interesting if you can see a beautiful photograph and all the work they put into getting the lighting just right.
This was the discussion on a recent post, which seems to be deleted now, about "AI" art on beer cans in the Mildly Infuriating community.
It's really upsetting how much art is now seen as AI looking when AI art only looks that way cause it was trained on great art. Anything stylized, slightly sepia, realistically shaded, etc etc, automatically assumed to be AI when some people have trained decades to develop this style themselves, but now it's just slop style
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
😇 Be Nice!
🏘️ Community Standards
🧬 Keep it Real
📽️ Credit Where Credit is Due
📋 Post Formatting
📬 Post Frequency/SPAM
🏴☠️ Internationalization (i18n)
Sí, por favor [Spanish/Español]🍿 Moderation
The following artists are banned from the community.
It should be noted that when you make reports, it is your responsibility to provide rational reasoning why something should be removed. Saying it simply breaks community rules is not always good enough.
Note: This is not a rule, but a helpful suggestion.
When posting images, you should strive to add alt-text for screen readers to use to describe the image you're posting:
Another helpful thing to do is to provide a transcription of the text in your images, as well as brief descriptions of what's going on. (example)