I think we need to take full advantage of this and get them to take down companies for us. Doesn’t matter if it’s easy to prove wrong.

I hate AI art and think it’s just soulless, derivative pixels

I look at it like the modern equivalent of newspaper political cartoons, or maybe as an evolution to the photoshopped placards on Late Night comedy news monologues.

Iirc, the Satanic Temple has done some things like that, usually in reaction to a specific equivalent act by an evangelical organization. They don’t do it often, I don’t think, because the backlash can end up being more harmful to the cause, but you’re not the first to suggest it.

Oh, don’t for a second think we have really gone too far from burning on crosses!

Probably want to be so many feet off school property and have a lawyer on retainer. Ideally you’d want to use the stunt to point out some problem with a law rather than just to make pearl clutcher clutch.

This just in from social media! People’s heads are exploding due to technology!

😉

Absolutely agree. I recently learned that twitter was important becuase it’s where people get news. Surprised, and scared, the hell out of me.

That’s not very nice.

If photography is art, so is AI image generation. If one can see something in the natural world they had no part in creating, and get an idea, a spark of creativity, and then choose a camera, choose the angle, choose the framing, set the configurable aspects of the camera such as shutter speed, exposure time, what type of film, what lens to put on, and produce a photograph, perhaps several, perhaps even a dozen attempts to get it just right, and the final result can be placed in a gallery alongside paintings and sculptures and Jackson Pollocks without a single modern art snob batting an eye, how then is that any different from someone with the same spark of creativity tuning a prompt for a model they’ve become deeply familiar with, seeking to bring the inspiration in their mind’s eye into the real world where others can see and experience it too?

I’m sure you’ve heard it before, but it bears repeating for those who haven’t - photography was not initially considered a form of art. But photographers didn’t seem to care too much, and neither did the layperson, so here we are again, having the same old argument about another new art form made possible through a technology that invokes Clarke’s law.

People falsely conflating fiddling with prompts with being an artist are clowns I agree but I think AI has a legitimate place as a secondary part of an artistic process. I remember the uproar about autotune in music but in reality it’s often used much as a guitarist might use an effects pedal, there’s nothing wrong with transforming art you created yourself with AI I think as long as you’re upfront about what you’re doing and not trying to pass off skills you don’t have. I think the dodgy parts are people being dishonest about what they’re doing artistically and of course using models built from training sets of questionably licensed IP such as in the case of DeviantArt.

Just to be an irritating pedant (I work in this space, not AI art but on a software team making heavy use of our proprietary AI toolset) the scraping of people’s art only happened once when these models were created to begin with. When they generate images from a prompt they’re not accessing a perfect database of people’s artwork rather it’s more like each artwork that’s part of the training set influences the shape of an enormous mountain by a tiny shovel’s worth of rock and the prompt throws a ball down it in a given direction once the mountain has finished being shaped by billions of tiny digs; the output is the path that ball takes. That’s why the vast majority of AI art kind of looks like arse; it’s like trying to learn music by listening to an entire orchestra at once rather than each instrument individually. The AI knows nothing of the intermediate steps in creating a piece it can only try and imitate the finished original.

I think the solution is to train AI art models only using public domain licensed artwork and perhaps Creative Commons themselves writing a license that specifically excludes scraping for AI models for artists who wish to publish under a CC licence but object to AI art models for whatever reason.

You do not have to dwell on it at all. What you could usefully dwell on was learning how latent diffusion and generative imaging in general work. Then maybe you wouldn’t post such factually incorrect and asinine takes

The amusing part is that we can’t even guess (accurately) what the actual tell will be. Somehow I don’t think the time gap between blinks is going to be it. I’m betting it’s going to be slang-based. There’s a reason kids use slang readily, and it’s often to separate the worlds of adult regulators and the ‘more free’ children/teenagers. Imagine AI trying to keep up with the slang, but just like adults, it will be unable to use it in the same way with all the pseudo-information packed into it.

It’s a little satanish

I certainly wouldn’t expect the typical faceboomer to know that.

That was my immediate reaction as well, thank you. Most of the generated images aren’t even significantly Luciferian in appearance such that they should be mistaken as such. These people are primed to hate anything that looks remotely evil to them. Zomg a figure with horns! 😱

Agreed, I would probably go to my local Hobby Lobby looking for a few of those if they actually carried them.

I wonder if the hoa would allow this in my front yard.

According to DeSantis in court, it means “the belief that there are systemic injustices in America and the need to address them.”