Want to know what this tells me? The image is likely already in the training data.
The question is if it matters. If an image can’t be distinguished from what AI produces, isn’t it obviously slop too and not art either? It might be pretty but not art.
It’s only art if you look at it and it tells you something that can’t easily be communicated with a thousand words. Which means it’s subjective.
To some the true dystopian take for me is that anything pretty a human produces is automatically art. Because that means there is no value “actual art”. It’s all just pretty pictures.
It’s like a dystopian rendition of that “Is It Cake?” trend from a few years ago.
It is likely compressed using some AI tool before saving on their servers.
Jigna Zhang has a strong stance against using AI in her works, going as far as creating Cara, an alternative platform for artists to share their work, no-AI. Cara is moderated to prevent AI portfolios from being uploaded to the site, with the goal that the community remains always human-first. I’ve been following Jigna’s work since the 2000’s when she was already a notorious photographer, with a portfolio that got her to work with big brands, being featured in editorials in relevant magazines, and having her solo expositions.
This is to say that the photo being shown in the post was a work very much finalized by 2013 and she has no business re-editing it now, much less applying AIslop on top of her work.
Also worth to point out what other commenters said, that instagram and other AI detecting tools has been giving false positives for legit human-made work. We can’t take what AI says as the truth lol they’re very prone to error and allucination
I think they were suggesting that the service she hosted the image on used some AI tool for compression which modified it in such a way to be flagged by the scanner. They were not suggesting that she used an AI tool herself.
I lived through the birth and widespread adoption of the Internet and it’s becoming increasingly likely I’ll live through its death, too. You don’t realise you were in the good old days until they’re over.
The good old days died years ago my friend.
Last time, someone on Lemmy posted a chapter by a 1800 poet and author, and it was labelled AI.
Woa, I didn’t know AI was that advanced at the time! /s (I saw the image)
Everyday I pray for the sun to shoot a suger Carrington bukkake onto the earth. We need a clean wipe.
I don’t know what a “suger Carrington bukkake” is but I am here for it.
The Carrington Event was a massive geomagnetic storm in like 1859. If it happened today it would probably wipe out a ton of our electronics.
It would probably leave us without grid power for quite some time, maybe mess with a couple of satellites, but that’s about it. It wouldn’t be the end of the internet or set us back technologically or anything like that.
That’s not to say it wouldn’t be a terrible time. It could take years for some places to get reliable power back.
I’m sure they’ll have the datacenters back up guzzling what’s left of the water in a few days, though…
As someone who plays an instrument (but who was never good at writing songs) I’m scared for actual artist having to share their creative process just to prove they didn’t use ai
Either be it my recording their tracks with video evidence and the waveform in the background, as many cover musicians are already doing, or by maybe sharing their creative process and their notes etc. Not only because it’ll only be more AI training data to fake but also because it gives them more work just to show they are not making slop content, but also because sometime you kind of want to keep those things to yourself as an artist. Either because of personal reasons or because you want to kinda keep the listener in the dark with what might be the meaning behind a certain phrase/verse
Especially if you don’t perform live as an artist life must be shit rn
Why scared? This is a new unique way to connect to fans and be real. For so long made artists have be foisted upon us with their looks, sound, lyrics, etc decided by a suit. This is an opportunity to turn this on it’s head.
Corporations already weren’t paying artists. For every aspiring artist that wins a court case against a corporation there are thousands who don’t. We really need to get away from the commercialization of art anyways. Most art that is made is never meant to be sold.
I am not scared for artists, if anything AI can literally do nothing to dissuade artists and will likely inspire a new generation of artistic innovation. What I do fear is how AI will be used outside of generating entertainment.
Creatives have lost this battle already.
This is likely on purpose. The goal is to normalize AI and make people feel like “everyone uses ai”.
I listen to a podcast backwards because i only dicovered them a few month ago. I’m in 2022 and it’s pretty funny. They are now where midjurney just came out and talk about how amazing it is abd they need to use it more. They talk about the greatness of ai for like 15min a podcast. “I’ll do all my thumbnails with it.”
No one of tgem uses AI
full reality distortion … this tech is coming at a cost none of us can afford.
People are using AI to determine what is or is not AI so that they can avoid AI
This is funny
The stated goal is that we won’t be able to tell the difference.
the funny thing is though that there were apparently studies though that show that younger folks especially have an AI-dar
and “that’s so AI” has become a term for kitsch haha
Yes my son who is 10, uses that term when I lie or take the piss out of him. He’s like “omg mum that sounds ai generated”
I really hope this is true
I find it kinda funny myself. if you go onto fedinsfw, people are calling posts AI because the picture in question used Photoshop. 😂
All computers are AI therefore the Fediverse is AI.
I bet this is because LLMs stole her art for training, so now that the LLM users have pumped out thousands of slop-art aping hers down to the colour palate and brushstrokes, her originals also get identified as also AI.
Not really stole, she gave it to Meta willingly.
This is exactly it. Also the reason that inputting an excerpt of a classical text (cfr. Dracula, Frankenstein, …) returns “likely AI” results - it’s literally what it was trained on.
For anyone doubting Kyrgizion’s claim:
But the fact that they say their system is “advanced” and “refined”, while they don’t even add some guardrails as, i.e., date checks, that are the minimum one would expect to be added to reduce the likeliness of both false positives and false negatives. It’s just stunning.
And that’s still not really how that works. Those checkers just aren’t very good.
While I don’t think you’re entirely wrong, I feel like this sentiment will lead people to believing AI content checkers more. The content checkers are wrong even for newer stuff. I always default to believing something is human made because I never want to accuse a real artist for using AI.
I’m with you we need to chill
The irony of people immediately and without hesitation to believe AI to fact check AI, and simultaneously increasingly anything that anyone does is accused of using AI, nearly every single time with zero evidence other than their own gut feeling. The wider internet is an increasingly miserable place to be, which is impressive that it somehow seems gets worse every year.
I don’t follow, if content checkers are wrong for not being able to tell original art from AI slop because they have been trained on datasets that include the original art, why wouldn’t they also be wrong for the same reason on newer art? They would still likely absorb that newer art into their datasets.
Okay after writing it out I get what you mean, but I am thinking that the turnaround time of absorbing new art, using it to produce AI slop requests a few dozen/hundred/million times, and then calling the original works AI because the AI sloptificator can no longer tell the difference will be a constant, unless there is some way to track OC across multiple AI agents in the panslopticon.
AI content checkers will always be wrong. They’ll always sometimes flag non-AI images as AI and AI images as human made some percentage of the time. I don’t want artists to have to prove that their art is real, I want them to be able to make and share the content they want.
New ai checkers are based on companies signing the response of the llm.
Those are good as that puts the proof on the ai creators, not the artists.
I agree, I am not sure how they can do this… Maybe release original art work with some kind of 2FA QR code to verify authenticity to the original author? That probably wouldn’t work but you get my drift.
If that’s the case, everything on Instagram, heck, the internet, would be labeled as AI …
LLMs don’t steal art for training, image generation models are fed datasets by humans, which are then invoked by LLMs when prompted
Correct. The people who make and train LLMs with stolen art and writing are the actual thieves and should be in prison. Not disputed.
Arguing semantics is a classic strategy of people who don’t have a valid argument to make.
Literally the “guns don’t kill people” argument.
but they don’t! it’s bullets!
/s
No, words have meanings, I hate AI as much as the average lemming but “LLMs stole art” is just a horrible way to describe what actually happened. It makes it sound like LLMs are going rogue and collecting art themselves. Humans decided to train an image generation model specifically on art like the one in the OP, and just glued an LLM on top of the final model. LLMs are not the ones that do this. I wasn’t even trying to defend anything or anyone here, but I guess this place is too toxic to even use correct phrasing.
But you could have said something along the lines of “LLM companies steal data, don’t accidentally give credence to the marketing idea that these things are sentient”
The irony of him complaining about inaccuracy and lack of clarity in someones post, but being so inaccurate and unclear with his complaint is just… amazing.
I guess this place is too toxic to even use correct phrasing.
I feel you on a daily basis here, however I do think you could consider what the tone of your first response was like. There are a lot of AI supporters out there and I genuinely think you sounded like one there.
Yeah I considered editing it after the first response but had better things to. Karma doesn’t exist on Lemmy anyways.
“LLMs stole art” is shorthand for “the people who made the LLMs stole the art and put it into their datasets to generate shitty images”. we don’t want to type that every time.
I fully agree with you that humans are the culprit here. And you’re right, words do have meaning. So I’m going to point out you took an active action “stealing” to the passive voices “fed” and “invoked” and “trained.” Yet you never said humans “stole.” Because they did. They are thieves who are stealing and profiting on other people’s intellectual property. Even if other commenters can’t name why they are upset, that’s why. It’s the same thing that pisses people off when news articles do the same thing depending on which groups they are talking about. Without meaning to your language softens when you talked about the human actions for the exact same acts. It’s a bias. One I’m sure you’re not aware you’re doing. I’ve honestly noticed a lot of people doing it. We all need to work on recognizing when we are unnecessarily softening our language for any group in power. We need to call them out for the thieving shitheads that they are with bold language. “Billionaires are stealing art.” Because they fucking are.
Exactly what does any of that change?
It’s tracing.
I’ll trace a chalk line around your dead fucking body, you fuck!
Why do you think people are upset about ai “stealing” art styles then?
My friend has been posting stories of the meals he cooks. They all get labeled as made with AI…
Sorry you have to find out this way but your friend is AI and so are you
But the meals? Believe it or not, AI
