cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/48482937
(Ocean3) (2025)
Image description: A girl with red eyes seen through dark sunglasses, blonde hair with bright red nest-like extension, two feathered beige wings, and a gentle smile on her face standing with two small, yellow chicks nestled in her hair. She is wearing a white blouse with puffy sleeves over an orange dress, with a reddish-brown neckerchief tied at her collar. In the background is a light blue sky filled with small white birds in flight, and in the upper left corner are the branches of a tree with pink blossoms.
Full Generation Parameters:
pastel painting, pastel colors, traditional media, faux traditional media, 8K, highres, absurdres, masterpiece, best quality, (dynamic angle:1.2), drastic angle, dramatic angle, sunglasses, deal_with_it_/(meme/), deal with it /(meme/), pixelated sunglasses, masterpiece, best quality,ultra-detailed,8k detail wallpaper,Utopia,Fantastic,, wallpaper,close up face,official art, 1girl, niwatari kutaka, happy, smile, looking at viewer, short hair, blonde hair, two tone hair, (red hair:0.1), (bird:1.5), (chick:1.5), on head, animal on head, bird on head, surrounded by birds, wings, bird wings, feathered wings, shirt, white shirt, short sleeves, blush, smile, parted lips, bird tail, Vintage, 1990s \(style\)
Negative prompt: bad quality, worst quality, lowres, jpeg artifacts, bad anatomy, bad hands, multiple views, signature, watermark, censored, ugly, messy
Steps: 28, CFG scale: 3, Sampler: Euler, Seed: 4084934348, Size: 896x1280, Model: Plant Milk-Almond 1, Version: f2.0.1v1.10.1-previous-640-g21c907ef, Module 1: sdxl_vae_fix, Model hash: 73216fa542, Schedule type: Automatic
This was reported as "AI slop". I'm cold about this AI situation and not sure if I should do something about it. It's hard to make a decision with report having such reason. Please explain at least briefly why I should take one or another action.
Currently you don't have a rule against this type of content so removing it would be kinda unfair... That being said you should ask yourself whether you're fine with it. Personally I don't want to see it, especially those uncanny ones.
I understand it can look uncanny. The fact that it was generated also changes perception at least a bit. On this one pic wings look strange. Because they are this long I expect them to be wider. Chicks look fuzzy when I zoom in to take a closer look. Though idk if I would have noticed these things if it wasn't tagged.
It's interesting to see how gen AI progressed compared to the previous AI pic posted here. IIRC that one was the first one and it was posted by me as a reason to discuss what should our stance on AI generated content be. Rule that we have right now didn't exist yet.
I honestly don't know what to think about gen AI. I don't have negative opinion to think that it should be completely forbidden it in this community. Tag seems like a middle ground between completely accepting and banning AI. But if peoples think otherwise it would be cool if they responded why they think like this. Thank you for yours!
Using things "without permission" forms the bedrock on which artistic expression and free speech are built upon. They want you to believe that analyzing things without permission somehow goes against copyright, when in reality, fair use is a part of copyright law, and the reason our discourse isn’t wholly controlled by mega-corporations and the rich.
What some people want will cripple essential resources like reviews, research, reverse engineering, and indexing information, and give mega-corps a monopoly of AI by making it prohibitively difficult for anyone else.
I recommend reading this article by Kit Walsh, and this one by Tory Noble staff attorneys at the EFF, this one by Katherine Klosek, the director of information policy and federal relations at the Association of Research Libraries, and these two by Cory Doctorow.
Copyright, it's broken anyway. Some people abuse it, some are getting ripped off despite it. Fair use also is a concept that differs around the world. So I don't know how legal AI training is and frankly I don't care. All I care about is respecting authors. If they're saying "No AI training" then you should respect it. This is also nothing like the Nintendo saying "Don't reverse-engineer our products".
Let me explain. Aside from the fact that you shouldn't compare a soulless corporation to a living, breathing individual the most important difference is that for example Nintendo sells you a product in a way that even though you bought it you don't own it. It's your console so you should be able to reverse engineer, modify however you want it. But that doesn't mean you can distribute their assets around the internet. You can't just take Mario's character model and put it into your game. For example every emulation project works like that.
Using things without permission is fine as long as you won't blatantly copy it and AI basically does exactly that. No respectable artists would do that, there's no artistic expression in that. You're just copying things. AI can't get inspired by some work, can't come up with a new personal artstyle. Maybe AGI can but AGI doesn't exists yet.
I said this before but I'm going to say it again: This machine is nothing without artists and it tries to put them out of their work.
Besides there's so much amazing art posted every day you won't be able to keep up with it anyway. AI is not needed.
Please actually read the things I linked, they'll explain this better than I can. Here are a few quotes:
Pluralistic: AI "art" and uncanniness
How We Think About Copyright and AI Art
The people who train these systems still have rights like you and I, and the public interest transcends individual consent. Rights holders, even when they are living, breathing individuals, would always prefer to restrict our access to materials, but from an ethical standpoint, the benefits we see from of fair use and library lending, outweigh author permissions. We need to uphold a higher ethical standard here for the benefit of society so that we don't end up building a utopia for corporations, bullies, and every wannabe autocrat, destroying open dialogue in the process.
What do you think someone who thinks you're going to write an unfavorable review would say when you ask them permission to analyze their work? They'll say no. One point for the scammers. When you ask someone to scrutinize their interactions online, what will they say? They'll say no, one point for the misinformation spreaders. When you ask someone to analyze their thing for reverse engineering, what will they say? They'll say no, one point for the monopolists. When you ask someone to analyze their data for indexing, what will they say? They'll say no, one point for the obstructors.
And again, I urge you to read this article by Kit Walsh, and this one by Tory Noble, both of them staff attorneys at the EFF, this open letter by Katherine Klosek, the director of information policy and federal relations at the Association of Research Libraries, and these two blog posts by Cory Doctorow.
Well I did quick-read those articles and let me tell you again: I don't care about the legal aspect of this. As I said, copyright is broken and either adding clauses that either favor or disfavor AI models won't change that. I don't doubt that just as those articles say, it's either legal or yet to be determined. Obviously I could argue with even the quotes you provided that nobody stops you from analyzing every pixel on the art but important is this analysis itself and how you use it; or that the fact that human artists imitating others still add their own personal touch to it while AI is not. I'd rather focus on the fact that those articles don't endorse AI from a moral standpoint. The best I could find was a neutral position but no endorsement. Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Those living individuals that made these machines are not the ones that are generating 80 images per day burying the true creator of the source material. And the ones operating the machine should at least think about consequences.
You also say: "public interest transcends individual consent", what is the public interest here? How big is that interest? Is it bigger than backlash against AI? Is it worth degrading the life of mentioned individuals?
You also mention "creating utopia for corporations". We're talking about individuals! It is actually the corporations that want to push this AI down our throats. Because it's way cheaper to generate something than pay artist to do the work and most corporations care only about money.
Let me also remind you that most comments online are very sceptical or outright against use of AI, especially in the creative field but corporations absolutely love AI.
Reviewing someone's work is nothing like generating stuff based on that work.
Decompiling the game for a purpose of running the game on different hardware that was intended to is nothing like decompiling for the purpose of disturbing the game code without permission.
Reverse-engineering for a purpose of enhancing functionality, making things repairable is nothing like reverse-engineering for a purpose of making a highly advertised clone to outsell original on Amazon.
It's all about the outcome.
Just because you're free to do something doesn't mean you should besides absolute freedom to do whatever you want is just anarchy.
I'm not telling you to ponder this from a legal perspective, look at it what those laws protect from an ethical perspective. And I urge you again to actually read the material. It goes in depth and explains how all this works and the ways in it's all related. A quick excerpt:
If you're not willing to do that, there isn't much I can do, since all of your questions are answered there.
Except you kinda do. Why do you put this part here?
I NEVER said that it's copyright infringement.
The rest of the quotes also don't really matter in this context. Sure you can analyse data. But how do you use the results of that analysis... Artists are against AI training only because of how those results are being used.
Nobody would give a shit if you'd train a model to convert drawings into text that can convey artstyle in a way even blind people can enjoy it. If anything people would probably just support it.
You also completely ignored the part where I compare different situations.
Just like that quote before says that it's fine because scrapers do the same. Except we're ignoring in this port how is this information used. Scrapers don't hurt artists as an end result.
Quick-read doesn't mean "didn't read" and yeah, I didn't really find an endorsement from a moral standpoint.
This doesn't look like an endorsement to me. And yes the author does say it's not copyright infringement at the beginning but still, the article ends on a rather negative note:
And those are just your own sources. \ Look up for artists profiles, their standpoint on this. Many are devastated that people are generating and uploading 10x of the art in their style.
I asked you to think about what copy write protects. It gives artists protection over specific expressions, not broad concepts like styles, and this fosters ethical self-expression and discourse. If we allow that type of overreach, we would be giving anyone a blank check to threaten the general populace with legal trouble off of just from the way you draw the eyes on a character. This is bad, and I shouldn't have to explain or spell it out to you.
What these people want unfairly restricts self-expression and speech. Art isn't a product, it is speech, and people are allowed to participate in conversations even when there are parties that rather they didn't. Wanting to bar others from iterating on your ideas or expressing the same ideas differently is both is selfish and harmful. That's why the restrictions on art are so flexible and allow for so much to pulled from to make art.
It is spelled out in the links I've replied with how these short sided power grabs will consolidate power at the top and damage life for us all. While Cory Doctorow doesn't endorse AI art, he agrees that it should exist. He goes on to say that you can't fix a labor problem with copyright, the way some artists are trying to do. That just changes how and how much you end up paying the people at the top.
And I want to reiterate, I'm not talking about the law here, I'm talking about the effects the laws have. I feel for the artists here, but honoring a special monopoly on abstract ideas and general forms of expression is a recipe for disaster that will only make our situation ×10 worse.
Please explain how honoring artist's will can make the situation 10x worse?
I'm sorry but I don't believe you.
Let me be clear, we're not talking about whether AI "art" should be prohibited by law. We're talking about this specific community on lemmy. I'm not a lawyer and I'm most definitely not the right person to decide what should be banned and what should be allowed in the country. I know that copyright is broken and it was like that long before AI was a thing. I don't have a solution for that. Believe me I don't. I also know law is different depending on where you are. So if the matter is international the discourse is certain. However this lemmy community is not a country so it has no law. It has rules to keep this community healthy. Banning AI wouldn't really change your freedom to generate whatever you want, you only wouldn't be able to share it here. I think it's only fair to honor artists' will and it would keep this community healthy. But again I'm just starting my stance on this topic. If the community wants AI I'm just unsubscribing.
That's what I was talking about when I said:
And when I said:
And when I said:
You have spent so many hours dishonestly dodging the actual points I've made, it's not surprising you're lost this far in.
And we're discussing your assertion that AI art is unethical because of how it's trained. I've given examples and explanations on how your views on honoring artists' wills are not only unfair, but shortsighted, and harmful to all of us too. I do this not only in hopes of changing your mind, but also the minds of anyone who might be reading this thread.
Forgive for being blunt but this pic is currently an example of one of the worst AI image generations. It's very easy to spot even without zooming in. Currently there are models that are doing such a good job it's hard to tell even after examining the fine details.
So I should be fine with the good ones right? After all if you can tell the difference then then it should be treated like a real art? ... No! Even though I have to admit that some of them are really stunning visually I'm still very much against it. Why? Because I know how it works and that it's highly unethical.
Image generation models are trained on art made by humans, this is probably a common knowledge, humans also learn from others but the difference is that human can create it's own artstyle. AI usually copy some existing artstyle and creates a "drawing" based on that style. It's very important to mention that this happens without the author's permission! Not only that, many artists are very against AI training on their art but people do it anyway. This creates a very unpleasant reality where you spent years and years learning to draw, making your own style only to get that style stolen by machine that now can generate anything in a few seconds.
Someone might say: "So what? It's called progress!"
No it's not. This machine is nothing without artists and it is actively trying to put them out of their job.
Until AI (Or rather AGI) can create its own unique style not based on anything made before I'm going to hate it. But even if one day AI can create ethically something perfectly made for humans to enjoy I still don't know if I want to consume things without a soul.
Not to say I hate AI in general. I think it's a very cool technology but it should be used as a tool to help people not to replace them.
So yeah, I don't want to see it because if it's bad it's ugly and soulless and if it's good it's just some artist's work reproduced without permission.
Small note that I used to post AI "art" too but that was before I knew how it works. I used to think it's ok if people put work to improve and retouch the generated image. But the more I learn the more I'm against it.
If you really want to post AI slop then there are places that focus exclusively on AI. I use 3 different frontends for lemmy and not all of them support filters. If AI would flood this sub I'm just unsubscribing.
Community post tags are being added soon to lemmy so you won't have to.
Lemmy works because you're able to tailor your own experience, rather than trying to force your content preferences on everyone else. The way you carry on is unnecessarily divisive and tribalistic, and is going to cause lemmy to eat itself alive.
Tags are cool but they are not here yet and more importantly Lemmy is also not a place where anything goes. It's up to admins and community to decide what's allowed and what's not. If the majority of the community doesn't want something you can't expect them to create tags just to exclude that something.
As a member of this community I'm just voting against AI mostly because it's unethical, among other reasons.
The tags exist here because we already agreed that was the way we were handling content. In the meantime, you can just block me until tags arrive. That would be the simplest way to filter this content from your view.
Tags exist to categorize content but if the majority of the community doesn't want some type of content then perhaps it should be restricted.
For example I wouldn't have a problem with explicit NSFW content on this sub, especially because Lemmy provides excellent support for filtering out NSFW posts and yet I don't insist on changing the rules to allow it just for the sake of freedom. The community and admins decided they don't want it and that's fine by me.
Also make no mistake I'm not speaking for everyone. If people want AI here then I'm in no position to intervene.
Just because the majority thinks one way doesn't mean they aren't wrong or ignorant. History is full of examples where the crowd went the wrong way on issues. Hell, you don't even need history, just look at the US today. A community without dissent is dooming itself to ignorance and leaving itself vulnerable to the machinations of bad actors. The reality is that justice and truth aren't the same as popularity, and we have to push against the crowd sometimes to get to it. Lemmy arms us with the tools to do just that, and it's up to us to use them whenever possible.
I mean you can't just tell people they are wrong because they don't want to see AI stuff.
Leaving politics aside it's hard to compare a country to a lemmy. If you don't agree with the majority it's very easy to create a community with your own rules on lemmy but you definitely can't create a country, the most you can do is leave it which is also not easy.
I'm not telling anyone they are wrong because stuff they don't want to see, I only want them to use the tools available to them before making knee-jerk decisions that can have adverse effects on the community. As easy as it is to create communities, it's even easier to use the blocking tools for yourself. This conversation has taken hundreds of times longer than it would have for someone to block and move on.
Yet here you are writing another essay on why this content should be allowed and here I am doing the same against it. People care. That's why they're doing it. You want to post here even though there are other communities that are made for that and I push back against it even though we have the option to block someone.
The content is allowed here, you're the one saying it shouldn't be, when there are other communities like you describe. You're not pushing back, you're pushing into an already established community rather than curating your own feed.
We can continue this conversation if you're willing to proceed in good faith, but putting words in my mouth and trying to misrepresent the situation isn't cool. If you can't own up to your side of the argument and have to try to turn it on me, you've already lost the plot. This kind of manipulation leads to miscommunication, kills the actual dialogue, and makes you look even weaker than your argument.
I'm only pushing back against it because the moderator asked for feedback.
I'm not even asking for an out right ban of AI, I'm just asking for reconsideration of this rule either by the moderator or the community.
Honestly idk what part of this conversation you find in bad faith but honestly I don't care. In the end all I want is to give my point of view and some facts on the matter.
Loot at it this way. You want to bar me from posting this stuff here, even though you aren't bereft of other communities that function the way you want. I push back against it because you have the option to customize your feed and countless other communities to choose from. Why are you trying to take away my few choices?
Simple. Because I think that AI is harmful to artists and shouldn't be mixed with real art. BUT look I'm not going around communities asking mods to ban AI, here it looks like at least some part of the community also doesn't want AI in their feed. The moderator asked for feedback and I'm giving one.
Your actions don't match your words friend. It seems to me that if you were here doing as you say, there wouldn't be any doubt that tags are the best solution in this situation. People that want to can view the content, and those that don't can avoid it, as has always been done.
If tags are such a great solution why isn't explicit NSFW allowed here or on idk photography sub? Support for filtering out NSFW is excellent and I know no client that doesn't perfectly support it.
Tagging and filtering works for communities that need it. Those that have NSFW content enforce rules that allow users to customize their feeds, just like is done here with the [AI] tag.