So a recent post garnered some comments and reports for being AI art. In light of this we should all have a little conversation about how AI generated images should be handled in the future.

I think we all agree that AI images that are ā€œgarbageā€ or donā€™t add anything should be removed, but clearly some feel very strongly that all AI art should always be removed.

It should be noted that the rules as written and as agreed on by the community does not blanket ban AI, it merely says AI art should be avoided, while many other rules say no this or that instead.

Things to discuss:

  • Does it matter if an image is AI? Does it always matter?
  • What about images that are AI generated, but have been modified by a human?
  • What about images where itā€™s hard to say for certain that it is generated? Me and the other mods did not agree on whether the recent image was AI f.ex which makes it hard to make a decision on whether or not to remove it.
  • It can be stressful to artists to be accused of having used AI. If we are too militant on weeding out AI art it could be harmful as there will no doubt be some false positives.
  • Should AI posts require being tagged in the title? (and of course be required to be of a certain level of quality)

I think a lot of us mods feel that AI should be allowed so long as it is not low quality and serves some purpose (being entertaining f.ex), and that the community should not be flooded with AI. What are your thoughts?

Edit: Thank you all for your input! Most of the others are sleeping right now I think, so nothing is likely gonna happen until later today.

  • Mystic Mushroom [Ze/Zir]@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    126Ā·
    26 days ago

    Itā€™s not worth creating your own art if an AI is just going to rip your style and take credit the second you post it.

    This is almost verbatim the same argument they use against piracy saying if people can pirate ā€œno one buys any disks from the storeā€ - DP (Donā€™t copy that Floppy). And itā€™s wrong. I use AI the same way I use piracy, and I do appreciate real art. Which is why I say that the anti-AI arguments I see floating around are bullshit, you donā€™t know people who use it, youā€™re regurgitating ideas and talking points that donā€™t apply evenly to all people, just like anti-piracy propaganda does.

    Iā€™m not taking credit for it, maybe some people do, but itā€™s a strawman argument to say everyone does. I see AI generation as another form of piracy.

    I wouldnā€™t have as much of a problem with it if every artist agreed for their works to be used, but these bots just scraped the open internet and took everything they could find and thatā€™s the training data.

    Like I said, same thing as piracy. The arguments against piracy fall onto deaf ears, and I donā€™t respect them. Because Copyright, especially broken long copyright like what the US has is killing our culture. I donā€™t respect it and will not honor it. People who make a moral panic about forms of piracy are basically screaming ā€œThink of the childrenā€ as far as Iā€™m concerned.

    • VasovagalSyncope@lemmy.worldEnglish
      77Ā·
      26 days ago

      This is almost verbatim the same argument they use against piracy saying if people can pirate ā€œno one buys any disks from the storeā€

      Do you understand the different conext of wanting something to be profitable vs wanting people to know you made the thing you worked to create?

      This is i think a core separation on the issue, and speaks to how little empathy the AI shovelers have for the tools they use trained on the hard work of real human beings.

      Iā€™m not taking credit for it, maybe some people do, but itā€™s a strawman argument to say everyone does.

      So who are these people crediting when the image they asked to be generated is using art that isnā€™t credited?

      People who make a moral panic about forms of piracy are basically screaming ā€œThink of the childrenā€ as far as Iā€™m concerned.

      Spoken like someone who hasnā€™t created art great enough that they want their name on it.

      • Mystic Mushroom [Ze/Zir]@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        96Ā·
        25 days ago

        Spoken like someone who hasnā€™t created art great enough that they want their name on it.

        Willing to bet that you along with the majority of the morally outraged people on this subject who are whining havenā€™t either. Theyā€™re usually at it for the same reasons people who whine about piracy do what they do and simp for IP holders, because theyā€™ve seen others do it.

        So who are these people crediting when the image they asked to be generated is using art that isnā€™t credited?

        They arenā€™t crediting anyone or taking credit, same as pirating content. Just like how we donā€™t go out of our way to give credit to the people who pirated the content or the people who made the film.

        copys identifiable techniques and prose.

        I am not going to even indulge the idea of this of owning style or technique, Iā€™ve seen some really toxic ideas around trying to own style, traits, or even a fictional species and this is downright petty, and one of the most extreme forms of gatekeeping in that space yet. Itā€™s also so low that itā€™s not even protected by copyright but even if it were Iā€™d respect it less than I do more concrete forms of intellectual property (which I donā€™t respect either).