mju9's midjourney ai art thread

[fink]

Hey F1! For whatever reason I am invested in this thread. Not even sure why. But there it is.

I believe if you read back: no one got banned for AI art. It was for instigating conflict by using another member's avatar as AI art fuel rather than debating the topic in a mature fashion. The community discussed it and agreed that banning was the wrong move.

I like your point about fungai / a supernova eventually arguing about AI art. But I think it was an argument over social behaviours, not the art itself.

 

[RoundAbout]

For the love of god, ________, fuck off and go away then. I've known you for __ years here and haven't respected you for a single minute of that time.

...

You're a ________. And a ________. And you can't ________. And this is MY thread that I made to share my art. So fuck off, and don't ever pop up in here again.

Sound good?

And as for ________, this applies to you as well. Take the hint, both of you. I get that you don't like me. But take your grievances somewhere else. Because if either one of you post in my thread again, it will be the last time you ________________________.

Mad libs format for psychosomaticon?

This isn't art so it doesn't count?

If these threads are that perturbing, why not put it in a members only subforum that doesn't display in the active discussions (like how the politics subforum was, if I remember correctly).

Edit: accidentally duplicated in the other thread, deleted immediately after realizing.

 

[Voidmatrix]

Sigh... this is the fourth or fifth time I've noticed in the last three or four weeks where people are hopping into threads, and commenting half-cocked, without understanding everything that's going on.

Perplexity.Ai - which is pretty jokes in this context :twisted:

"should ai art generated by other artists be displayed in public forums
PERPLEXITY
There is no clear consensus on whether AI art generated by other artists should be displayed in public forums. Some sites prioritize human-made art but do not outright delete AI imagery[1]. There are discussions about the morality of using commissioned art into AI generators without the artist's knowledge[2]. It is possible to use AI-generated art in digital marketing and advertising, but some tools could end up producing copyrighted material[3]. Some artists are afraid of posting new art online due to concerns about A.I. image generators[4]. Getty Images has banned the sale of AI-generated artwork through its service, and similar bans are occurring on smaller art community sites[5]."

Tuck us away in some deep aspect of the nexus but dont outright ban ai :!:

What fink said. I suspended psychosomaticon for acting like a child, not because they're sharing AI art. We're also not banning it.

Mad libs format for psychosomaticon?

This isn't art so it doesn't count?

If these threads are that perturbing, why not put it in a members only subforum that doesn't display in the active discussions (like how the politics subforum was, if I remember correctly).

I know you don't like Bill, but are you that bored?

Also, it's an ongoing discussion presently in the mod team.

One love

 

[psychosomaticon]

hi all i'm back, hope you are all well , void said i could post a few

 

[f1]

Wow Psycho, golden mountains of buddhas is insaneeee :shock:

Hahha cactus breaking through the concrete :lol:

Godly Sonic's opal is next level!

Is that official Dragon Ball Z imagery? :twisted:

Nice one Psycho!!!

 

[Toshido]

Wow Psycho, golden mountains of buddhas is insaneeee :shock:

Hahha cactus breaking through the concrete :lol:

Godly Sonic's opal is next level!

Is that official Dragon Ball Z imagery? :twisted:

Nice one Psycho!!!

You can easily tell the DBZ one is AI generated because Goku is missing one or both eyes. It can't even comprehend basic human biology. Extra fingers also seem to be a theme.

Alas, it's a great example of stolen artwork from Akira Toriyama and the other artists (Naotoshi Shida, Masaki Sato, Keisuke Masunage, Masahiro Shimanuki, Kazuya Haysada) who hand drew these cels, I actually own some rare ones that I acquired at a convention in Washington DC. In this case the image is generated from drawings of 57yr old Masaki Sato. My favorite DBZ animator is Katsuyoshi Nakatsuru who did a lot of work in the later seasons as well as Dragon Ball GT, he's 60 years old and still animating!

Just a little nugget there.

 

[psychosomaticon]

Wow Psycho, golden mountains of buddhas is insaneeee :shock:

Hahha cactus breaking through the concrete :lol:

Godly Sonic's opal is next level!

Is that official Dragon Ball Z imagery? :twisted:

Nice one Psycho!!!

You can easily tell the DBZ one is AI generated because Goku is missing one or both eyes. It can't even comprehend basic human biology. Extra fingers also seem to be a theme.

Alas, it's a great example of stolen artwork from Akira Toriyama and the other artists (Naotoshi Shida, Masaki Sato, Keisuke Masunage, Masahiro Shimanuki, Kazuya Haysada) who hand drew these cels, I actually own some rare ones that I acquired at a convention in Washington DC. In this case the image is generated from drawings of 57yr old Masaki Sato. My favorite DBZ animator is Katsuyoshi Nakatsuru who did a lot of work in the later seasons as well as Dragon Ball GT, he's 60 years old and still animating!

Just a little nugget there.

It spits out some pretty good ones sometimes, hands and eyes are continuously improving and should be fully fixed within a few months Here's a better anatomy goku I also got

 

[downwardsfromzero]

Thanks - the technical discussion about eyes and fingers is fingers is definitely warranted. It's one of the things that makes me cringe the most about these kinds of (re)generated images.

Here's an article from last week, worth a read:

The stupidity of AI

The long read: Artificial intelligence in its current form is based on the wholesale appropriation of existing culture, and the notion that it is actually intelligent could be actively dangerous

www.theguardian.com

In September 2022, a San Francisco–based digital artist named Lapine was using a tool called Have I Been Trained, which allows artists to see if their work is being used to train AI image generation models. Have I Been Trained was created by the artists Mat Dryhurst and Holly Herndon, whose own work led them to explore the ways in which artists’ labour is coopted by AI. When Lapine used it to scan the LAION database, she found an image of her own face. She was able to trace this image back to photographs taken by a doctor when she was undergoing treatment for a rare genetic condition. The photographs were taken as part of her clinical documentation, and she signed documents that restricted their use to her medical file alone. The doctor involved died in 2018. Somehow, these private medical images ended up online, then in Common Crawl’s archive and LAION’s dataset, and were finally ingested into the neural networks as they learned about the meaning of images, and how to make new ones. For all we know, the mottled pink texture of our Saint-Exupéry-style piggy could have been blended, however subtly, from the raw flesh of a cancer patient.

“It’s the digital equivalent of receiving stolen property. Someone stole the image from my deceased doctor’s files and it ended up somewhere online, and then it was scraped into this dataset,” Lapine told the website Ars Technica. “It’s bad enough to have a photo leaked, but now it’s part of a product. And this goes for anyone’s photos, medical record or not. And the future abuse potential is really high.” (According to her Twitter account, Lapine continues to use tools like Dall-E to make her own art.)

 

[Bill Cipher]

Ya know, I so want to stay out of these threads and leave you all to your little open sewer, but how can I? You dumb shits are just on a race to the bottom, and you're using my beloved DMT-Nexus as the vehicle to get there.

Not only are you utterly indifferent to the fact that you're complicit in data theft, but we give you shit bags a single inch and now you're making/sharing naked & hypersexualized anime girls that are derived not only from stolen art, but from actual human girls' photos as well (and again, some of whom are underaged...), AND you're actually feeding living artists' work into the machine for the express purpose of making forgeries (fucked up hands aside).

Were you all raised by wolves or something? Do you have no decency whatsoever? You're directly stealing your input from working artists you apparently admire... to produce plagiaristic output that contains the actual reconstituted DNA of their stolen work.

People are losing their livelihoods. It's happening every day. You think this is all so much victimless fun, but that's because you are stupid and selfish, and morally vacuous to the core.

So here's a prompt: "FUCK YOU".

Who do you people think you are???

 

[Mitakuye Oyasin]

 

[f1]

Ya know, I so want to stay out of these threads and leave you all to your little open sewer, but how can I? You dumb shits are just on a race to the bottom, and you're using my beloved DMT-Nexus as the vehicle to get there.

Not only are you utterly indifferent to the fact that you're complicit in data theft, but we give you shit bags a single inch and now you're making/sharing naked & hypersexualized anime girls that are derived not only from stolen art, but from actual human girls' photos as well (and again, some of whom are underaged...), AND you're actually feeding living artists' work into the machine for the express purpose of making forgeries (fucked up hands aside).

Were you all raised by wolves or something? Do you have no decency whatsoever? You're directly stealing your input from working artists you apparently admire... to produce plagiaristic output that contains the actual reconstituted DNA of their stolen work.

People are losing their livelihoods. It's happening every day. You think this is all so much victimless fun, but that's because you are stupid and selfish, and morally vacuous to the core.

So here's a prompt: "FUCK YOU".

Who do you people think you are???

Well that was just me. And I'm sorry about that Bill and everyone.. I've already apologized many times in chat, PM and now here. I thought sharing a few images in a side chat was okay, with loose permission from a mod, she was intended to look 35+, curvy, european and Sophia goddess from Gnostics; besides the point.

I hear what you are saying. We should stay focused on whats important, harm reduction, awareness expansion and enjoying the ride along the way.

Again I'm sorry to have gone over the edge, make some uncomfortable and angry.. I will make sure any art I share is PG and barking up the Mimosa tree, kikker where are my Sakura Gelly roll pens and black paper? :twisted:

 

[psychosomaticon]

I've returned everyone, heres a pic I made with dalle3 recently, it has higher coherence!

p.s. and text!

 

[The Traveler]

Now I wonder, what parts of this image are "stolen" from other artist(s) in this AI image?

I think that as long as we give recognition to the inspiration for the art, AI or not, it gives the artists more exposure, and thereby more oppertunities to be discovered by others.


Just simply stating that AI art is stealing is not giving an honest picture and is an example of framing that I might frown upon. All over history have people taken inspiration from others and natural events and build their new art on top of that.

AI simply democritized this process for many more people, and like how this always worked in the past, the real jewels will always shine on top in the end. Like, there are more then a few well respected artist out there that use the styles from past artists and add their own to it, are these people now also stealing as well?

AI just sped up this process, and I think we will see many more amazing art coming out of it, it's the facto the new world we live in.


Kind regards,

The Traveler

 

[acacian]

That is a good point.. And I think already we see hints that the human made art has an edge that AI art seems to lack. There seems to be very little specificity in AI images.. zoom in and its a wierd conglomeration of things. There is often very few specific things to look at with the AI art.. its always a fractal of smaller images. A human with specific intention can always have an edge over that I think. As a whole though, the images can be very interesting.

I also understand Art's point of view as an artist though.. maybe when AI produces an image, if it is using artist's work in the algorithm it could give some kind of credit to the artist - at least that way those who are plugging their ideas into these apps understand a little more about how the images were produced.. and how the works of artists make it possible for their imagination to become realized in these images.. a receipt of the works referenced seems fair to me. Most probably won't look.. but its still important, like the credits of a movie where all the subtle work is appreciated. Either that or the apps should contact the artists and get their approval before using them in the first place..

As a musician I'd be upset if my work became part of an algorithm without any consultation.. hell.. I'd probably let it use it.. but at least ask or give some kind of credit if your making money off of it.

 

[Nydex]

While I do get where Bill is coming from, and I do agree with almost everything he's saying, I also feel it is very important to remind ourselves that some things are inevitable. Much like in the early days of the internet various kinds of deprived pornography started being freely distributed, which made a lot of people concerned and even angry, we are currently going through a transformational process that will inevitably lead to the decisive injection of this so-called "AI" (even though it's not AI, it's just a bunch of algorithms with predefined behavior whose variance can be reasonably predicted) within our society on all levels - education, healthcare, engineering, and most importantly - art.

I'm not saying Bill's reaction is unjustified, but what I am saying is that a certain level of acceptance would be a healthier approach. Yes, I know how important the old complicity-centered "rage, rage against the dying of the light" concept is when we're talking about things like justice, but in this case, much like in the internet's earlier pornography case, I think it is utterly unavoidable. Sure, you could win a few lawsuits here and there, prevent a few companies or individuals from earning money from this type of art, but you can't prevent the internet being flooded with it. It is, and it will continue to get flooded with it.

Do I like it? No. Do I think it can be stopped? Absolutely not. So instead of ripping my hair away in despair and asking all the gods why oh why has such an artistic tragedy struck humanity, I choose to instead look at generative machine learning algorithms as a tool to make everyday life and work easier.

And every time I feel the surge of emotions that Bill and others have expressed in those threads, I ask myself - will I adapt, or will I perish away? And I choose to adapt.

Love & Light

 

[Voidmatrix]

It's not so much about stopping it but more about being fair to artists, of which these programs copy (not inspired or influenced by; they copy, because they have the ability to, but not to be inspired). That is to say I think how AI uses other data and art is fundamentally different from how a human would (purposeful plagiarists aside).

Also, not being able to say exactly who or what was copied almost doesn't matter since we're aware of how the technology works; someone's (several people's) work was copied by one of these programs.

I also don't think it's always the real jewels that shine in the end, but sometimes the most dominant unfortunately... I don't feel this milieu will be any exception.

Just to reiterate, I don't necessarily want it to go anywhere, but until they can program it to develop art on it's own without data sets from which it copies, or provides royalties to those artists in which it copies into amalgams, I'll find it ethically and morally problematic.

One love

 

[Exitwound]

Welp, guys I just wish we all would stop fighting over the obvious. This is not addressed to anyone, so please only take offense in my exceptional stupidity.

The generative AIs we have currently, are made and utilized {I'd even say weaponized, because money is power and the best most legal weapon in the modern word} by shameless people who only care about fame and money. They did what would be the easiest: rip off the unprotected, the poor, the most undefended en masse and make something delicious out of that. {Like it has been done since the dawn of times. The feudal system, what comes next, it's all about strong screwing up weak for bigger gains, if it passes time after time then it becomes law }

Now the masses are asking for credits or to stop eating their crumbs.

Are AIs evil? Dunno, was splitting atom evil? It was and wasn't, like everything.

Stop fighting my children, especially in situation when you are worms under microscope for the ones that you so furiously defend.

I also don't see any danger for artists. Will some mundane design jobs become automated? Yes.
Will AI be able to create genius works of art? I very much doubt it can without human aid.
Human-AI hybrid projects are fine I guess. As long as they use ethically sourced data.

 

[Jungleheart]

Would vote that AI art isnt art, isn't creative, is super low value, is stealing, and doesn't belong here. I feel like if we would enable giphy it would provide just as much if not more entertainment. Might be a fun alternative?

 

[Bill Cipher]

Well, that is disappointing.

I've said all I have to say on the matter. I posted proof positive just yesterday, Traveler, that the very model you used to produce that image operates 100% on stolen material. If that doesn't faze you, I guess nothing will.

For the record, in just the past 24 hours I've seen a number of major brands that are running AI made ad campaigns. These are all jobs that would have gone to artists, who are now being driven from the workplace in very large numbers, replaced by their own stolen data. If you think this is all just victimless fun, you're absolutely wrong.

But none of this is inevitable. Lawsuits this year will prevail, and your point of view/comments above are going to age very badly. Despite your efforts and those of everyone who bends over backward to justify this, these companies are going to lose this fight. Whatever comes after that, we'll see.

In any case, as I've always said (for 15 years now), acting as a moderator here, this is your site, Traveler. It's not a democracy, and you are free to run it however you see fit. But your comments here are offensive to me in a way that I have a hard time even articulating. This is an existential issue for me (as I've made very clear for well over a year now), and as you've just given free reign to folks to dig in and pollute the site with this garbage, I am going to take my leave. You can turn the place into whatever kind of unethical bastion of screaming mediocrity that you find suits you best.

It's yours. Have at it.

It's been fun. So long.

 

[The Traveler]

Let's take a few steps back for a reality check:

* AI-generated art is becoming increasingly prevalent.
* The technology behind AI art is being replicated extensively.
* Like Pandora's box, once opened, the phenomenon of AI art cannot be reversed or contained.

Given these premises, I argue that any attempt to wage a 'War on AI Art' is likely to be as ineffective as the 'War on Drugs'. Both are widespread phenomena that, once established, are nearly impossible to suppress through prohibition alone.

Employing lawsuits, especially within the USA, to address this issue seems futile when you consider the global nature of AI art. Many countries outside the USA may not adhere to the same intellectual property laws, making such legal actions less effective.

This also leads to a philosophical dilemma about the nature of art and its 'ownership': Can we truly claim complete originality in any artwork? To what extent does every artist draw upon the ideas of others? This is especially pertinent in AI-generated art, where the lines between inspiration and infringement are getting blurred to extremes.


Now for solutions:

As a short term compromise we might create a subforum for AI art only, this way we separate the classic art from the AI art. This solution might enable people to choose whether to checkout each subforum or not.


Kind regards,

The Traveler