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”.
Ai was created from human content, there is by definition someone whos art perfectly looks like AI.
I do agree its incredibly annoying, but as long as ai products are generated, those who disagree with it will point it out for others. Its the can of worms opened by the tech. I often get accused of writing like an AI, but they forget that im just autistic and love em dashes, semicolons, and comparisons.
Which puts even more of a burden on artists. This is the big irony of the whole movement to oppose AI and support artists is that, at least for this strain of it, more burden is placed on the artists to prove that they aren’t just using AI than on the AI ones themselves. They just generate whatever images and post them or use them. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s already generators that can generate wireframes or whatever “intermediate” step can serve as “proof” it wasn’t generated by AI. I can’t think of a single piece of evidence that couldn’t theoretically also be generated. Models today might require generating 1000 images and diacarding 950 of them but the ones who don’t care about how artists are affected probably also don’t care about how much energy it takes. But even if today’s models can’t do that, I believe others will be able to sometime soon.
The people putting out AI art just see “that’s AI” as “need to get better at using AI” not “need to stop using AI”. Maybe some would care, but as someone who generally doesn’t gaf about what people think about my opinions, I know I wouldn’t. But if I was an artist just wanting to share my art, I’d be more likely to just stop sharing it than jump through whatever hoops you want to prove I’m not guilty.
Nah just autism. Feel free to check my other posts 🤷
…which is now maybe making me realize the flaw in my previous statement. Still think pointing out potential AI usage is useful, sometimes, probably, though.
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.
Ai was created from human content, there is by definition someone whos art perfectly looks like AI.
I do agree its incredibly annoying, but as long as ai products are generated, those who disagree with it will point it out for others. Its the can of worms opened by the tech. I often get accused of writing like an AI, but they forget that im just autistic and love em dashes, semicolons, and comparisons.
Which puts even more of a burden on artists. This is the big irony of the whole movement to oppose AI and support artists is that, at least for this strain of it, more burden is placed on the artists to prove that they aren’t just using AI than on the AI ones themselves. They just generate whatever images and post them or use them. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s already generators that can generate wireframes or whatever “intermediate” step can serve as “proof” it wasn’t generated by AI. I can’t think of a single piece of evidence that couldn’t theoretically also be generated. Models today might require generating 1000 images and diacarding 950 of them but the ones who don’t care about how artists are affected probably also don’t care about how much energy it takes. But even if today’s models can’t do that, I believe others will be able to sometime soon.
The people putting out AI art just see “that’s AI” as “need to get better at using AI” not “need to stop using AI”. Maybe some would care, but as someone who generally doesn’t gaf about what people think about my opinions, I know I wouldn’t. But if I was an artist just wanting to share my art, I’d be more likely to just stop sharing it than jump through whatever hoops you want to prove I’m not guilty.
This looks like AI.
Nah just autism. Feel free to check my other posts 🤷
…which is now maybe making me realize the flaw in my previous statement. Still think pointing out potential AI usage is useful, sometimes, probably, though.
Upvote for this and Im glad you recognize the issue!
Calling anything AI makes the accused required to defend themselves and that itself is kinda bullshit, you know?