Every time someone vouches for ai to make “art” all i hear is “AI sets you free.” Not good, indeed very odd stuff.
That’s not the only meme it’s referencing, OP.
DRRR DRRR
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm9YZRTvWfPsSo0tQZgYfsQ
Alison Burke.
“square hole”
That’s right!
Are we really turning to AI to create a few 3D shapes and a rock wall with a hole in it?
I get the joke - it’s funny even. But seriously I would rather see a crude stick drawing from someone with no artistic talent than this soulless slop.
Someone made a better version back in 2021 as well.
This is a million times better than that Ai slop
It’s so fucking common these days. I keep seeing it on things I want to like, but I refuse to encourage the behavior.
Then why are you on Lemmy’s leading AI friendly instance created by the guy who makes the AIhorde? Seems kind of like a conflict of interest…
I don’t filter by instance. I get everything. Also, it doesn’t change my point.
I mean you kind of should care since the tagline of the instance is “Be Weird, Download a Car, Generate Art, Screw Copyrights” it’s kind of hypocritical to stay on an instance if you don’t believe in or are aggressively against its principles. Like it wouldn’t make sense for someone to be a member of the piracy instance if they believe that piracy is wrong and intellectual property should be respected, similar thing goes for the AI instance. That might sound like a wrong comparison but the vast majority of anti-AI arguments I hear people barf up are along the lines of “we need to respect copyright” and “stealing intellectual property is wrong” “won’t someone think of the
childrenartists”.You should write more.
Great argument.
how did you recognise it? I only managed to after zooming in to see the wobble in the text
This is the new comic style being spammed everywhere. I think the most telling thing is that literally everything has this paper texture in a digital drawing, except the speech bubble, also this font is very specific to them.
It is getting harder spotting AI, but very doable yet.
Sizes are off, especially the circle wouldn’t fit.
Personally? Vibes. Specifically, it feels very… uniform. Like, a human artist good enough to draw like that would be better at composition, I think?
More practically, even the newer ones struggle with specific shapes; look at the arch, no human would draw that weird hybrid of an arch and a… semi-donut?
Older models struggle with lining stuff up and keeping things straight over long distances. The latest ones struggle with constant curvatures.
Yeah it’s funny how something on a “vibes” level just made me feel like me something was off and made me look into it closer. I worry that one day I won’t have that weird feeling anymore.
The obvious one to me was the two pyramid triangle things.
The block box thing only comes with one.
Agreed, but it’s all downhill from here. When AI generated content is completely indistinguishable from human, things will
I don’t know how to make this. I would have asked AI.
Something being made by ai doesn’t automatically make it bad.
Im not sure how you know it’s ai
I don’t know how to make this. I would have asked AI. Something being made by ai doesn’t automatically make it bad.
That’s my point. It doesn’t have to look like this. It could look way shittier and make the same joke - the joke would land the same way. So why add a middleman? I’d rather see the shitty drawing by a human brain.
I don’t think AI is bad - I think using AI to create art is bad. AI used in technical applications makes sense, cracking our genome, predicting weather events, creating new medicines. I want the experiences that make us uniquely human to remain made by humans.
Im not sure how you know it’s ai
This generic style has been popping up a lot recently. Also observe the odd varying width in the letters, that’s a common indication. It also lacks much sense on a logical level, something a human can typically discern when creating art. Why are there four speech bubble indicators but six objects? Why two pyramids? None of these things further improve or modify the joke - so why were they included? Not saying a human couldn’t make these artistic choices, but they add up and set off my AI alarm bells.
Why are there four speech bubble indicators but six objects?
That’s a common design choice in commics for groups of people is it not?
Looked like an intentional design choice to me before I noticed it’s ai.the experiences that make us uniquely human
What do you mean by that?
I’m not an anti-AI absolutist, but for environmental reasons we should significantly cut down on the use of AI, especially for unnecessary things such as memes.
My GPU generates stuff in seconds that would take hours to make, once the model is trained it’s pretty much no energy to use it.
Okay fair enough.
I mean if people use a self-hosted model on their own GPU that’s really their prerogative how they choose to use their GPU and the energy it uses.
Totally disagree in free unnecessary short loves things is the most justified if anything. Would you be more hour editing a meme that may or may have not any traction that what it will probably live on the internet? Doesn’t make much sense.
Bro, try editing this comment into something coherent.
How and why are you spending more than an hour editing a meme?
doesn’t make much sense
Neither does this comment. Did you have it generated by AI?
No
Ehhh I don’t like AI but high quality shitposts are like the best use of AI imo. I guess it depends on the effort
Like for example this unironically goes hard: https://youtu.be/B05KyAyAa4k
I mean it’s nice to have high quality shit posts but AI is still the electronic equivalent of coal rolling.
I mean I agree with you if we’re talking about openAI, but not so much if we’re talking about lower end models meant to be self-hosted. In that case it’s not really much different from putting people down for gaming or other GPU heavy operations, and at that point we’re just fully leaning into the carbon footprint propaganda.
I hope you aren’t going to argue how other people should be allowed to use their own GPUs, that would be very ironic considering your name, @NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
It’s already been discussed on environmental impact in another comment, but even beyond that, AI does not mean slop. Sure, the majority is low quality slop, but legitimate use of AI is possible. It’s a tool at the end of the day, and imo fully usable within reason. People just really like shitting on AI because they think all of it is slop.
Take for example the parody music video I sent. For a normal person, getting the budget to create that with real voice actors would probably be around the thousands/tens of thousands. The other alternatives would be voice stitching, which ends up being a distinct style (think tf2 voice chops) or hiring cheap voice actors who will 99% not be able to replicate a character’s voice like that. In short, a creation simply only possible by AI.
Another one would be the scooby doo ai voice incident. The creator was a normal student, and instead of using text2speech or subtitles, used AI to at least make his animation sound similar to the characters. He still put in effort, it was a good animation, but he was bullied by the original voice actor for the horrible practice of … being too broke to afford an actual voice actor.
AI does not have to be so black and white. I get the sentiment around hating AI, hell I vehemently hate corporations trying to stuff ai in everything, but not all usage must be considered bad.
high quality
Shit post
I believe that is an oxymoron.
How? I don’t get it. I’m not gonna go learn how to draw well just so I can shitpost. I’m not taking an artists job by using GenAI to make a picture of a Cat driving a moped. Using GenAI is not power intensive only training GenAI is and people using or not using it for trash memes isnt going to change if they chose to train another AI model.
I’m not gonna go learn how to draw well just so I can shitpost.
Who said you need to draw well to shitpost??
^ still better than AI
FUCK YEAH BROTHER AROOOOO
It’s Way worse. I don’t mean just in drawing quality, but is so poorly made that I don’t. Think I’d get it. The square. Does not look like a hole,
I just got the hardcopy of this novel about a week ago and it’s amazing.
I’m oblivious. What novel is this?
Other commenter got the title. The artist is Junji Ito, and he has a lot of works as equally creepy as this one. Uzumaki might be the most popular one
Thank you, both! Already deeply engrossed in it.
If you’re curious they made uzumaki into an anime.
I’ll be honest, I’m immediately apprehensive that they messed it up. Is it good? Quick Google search says Ito was involved so that’s a relief
It was heavily criticized due to the severe drop in animation quality after the first episode. It’s like they spent 95% of the budget in episode 1, which got everybody hyped (and it is legitimately good), and then left the rest of the budget to pay a couple of overworked interns to haphazardly put together the rest of the animation.
The events of the story are all there, and the art style is the closest you can probably get to the original, but it does fail to capture a lot of the magic of the manga due to shoddy animation. I wouldn’t recommend it, personally.
I found it really creepy! I hadn’t read uzumaki beforehand, I did afterwards and enjoyed both. It might be a bit of an off-putting style, but it’s staying true to the art style of ito.
The Enigma of Amigara Fault
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?
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?
It’s bland and the shapes aren’t all equal squares from some direction. Some of them are rectangles from their ‘square’ direction.
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.
EDIT: Never mind. Upon reviewing your post history and modlog, I’ve noticed a lot of “pick up a pencil”-esque statements that at best, don’t really contribute to the conversation and at worst, are inflammatory. While I initially posted assuming good faith, I’ve concluded that the conversation is unlikely to remain productive, and thus I’ve blocked you. Take care.
Original comment
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.
If we take away the illegal stolen training data I don’t have an issue with ML programs.
You don’t get to pass other people’s work off as your own. No matter how many layers of obfiscation you pump it though.
Your edgy reply meant to arrogantly dismiss the real work of talented people deserves to get ratiod. No amount of whining at me will change you being in the wrong either. Theft is theft.
I’m sorry you’ve spent so much time contorting your mind to accept theft from artists.
I hope you can grow up and be a better person one day.
