Stable Diffusion, NovelAI, Machine Learning Art - AI art generation discussion and image dump

[cerulean hydra]

I think a valid counterargument to this is the risk posed by disincentivizing the less 'talented'/skilled to hone their craft so that they don't have to be as reliant on AI to produce their own art. In the short term we won't see this on a large scale, but I suspect it will have a knock-on effect in the long term. Sure, current highly talented and established artists are secure in their jobs but as people in this thread have stated before, this will make getting one's foot in the door for up-and-comers all the more difficult. What happens when the current crop of highly talented artists start to retire or die out? I'm not making a prediction one way or the other, but I think these are legitimate concerns worth taking into consideration.

Many artists, including professional artists, already use similar tools. The AI just saves a lot of time.

For landscape or background art, people photobash things together to create concept art and paint over it. This is pretty similar to what the AI is doing, taking a prompt and just throwing what it has together.

For character art and design, people create reference boards filled with images they've taken from the internet. This also isn't that different to writing a prompt in the AI in order to obtain reference material, using what the AI has been taught to convey a theme.

I don't personally think it's a threat to any artist, it's a genuinely useful tool that can be used to generate what people would just be combing through google for in order to smash them together.

Maybe in 10 years things will be different, maybe even in just a few years the AI will be able to create perfect works, but I just don't see it happening all that soon. Right now it does struggle with characters, but it's great at conveying a visual. The landscapes and backgrounds can make for great placeholder art, but always tend to miss out on interesting details (admittedly some of the paintings people have made with it have been great, but it wasn't as simple as just typing in a prompt). The AI puts out something that's good, but it takes a human to make it great.

edit: tl;dr anybody who sees this and goes "well now I don't need to bother learning how to paint" is an idiot.

 

[NevskyProspekt]

I mean, it goes back to the "What drives someone to make art" Is it for the upvotes and asspats, or because you enjoy making art. If its the latter, why does the former matter? The shitty cover band in the dive bar doesn't care that they're shit, they are having fun playing music with an audience that enjoys it.

If the Upvotes and asspats are what matters, well, that sucks. I'm sorry you can't get positive affirmation for doing your hobby. Try taking up woodworking.

I think you're reducing it to simply an either/or thing. Most often, art is a combination of both. A love of the craft of art and the joy of sharing that craft and creation with others. Human beings are social creatures and typically we aren't built for or motivated to do things in isolation all the time. Creating art for no audience whatsoever and just tossing it into the void where nobody but oneself can see it is lame and demotivating, not to mention the lack of external constructive criticism necessary for improving one's skills. Even hobbyists like to connect with other hobbyists to get feedback and build friendships/hold discussions over shared interests. Isn't that part of the reason this site exists? Laughing at lolcows in isolation can get boring and lonely.

 

[Goyslop Muncher]

Why would they pirate CP (illegal) when they can get something that looks exactly like the real thing but is AI generated (legal)?

Would it actually be legal though? I'm not gonna pretend to be a lawyer but isn't there something called obscenity law? Why would a generated image of an exploited child be any more legal than a real photograph? I know drawn images are a can of worms that has its own containment thread and I don't even want to touch those arguments.

 

[Bloitzhole]

Why would they pirate CP (illegal) when they can get something that looks exactly like the real thing but is AI generated (legal)? A lot more pedophiles will make use of this and the more indistinguishable it becomes from the real thing the harder it will become to persecute real CP. How do you think that's going to end?

Probably with less children being abused to make real child porn, which doesn't sound like a bad outcome to me.

That's literally happening in the US right now.

I think that's because of aggressive marketing, a lack of healthy, culturally-engrained body image (see fat-acceptance movements), jobs becoming increasingly inactive (+jobs not incentivizing fitness) and people being too retarded to not exceed their caloric needs due to a lack of education in the school system. Switzerland has plenty of fast food but they manage to not all be obese somehow. Same with large parts of Asia.

For the same reason knives aren't inherently evil because they can stab people, fast food isn't inherently evil because it can cause death-by-obesity-related-issues and art AI isn't evil because it can be used to generate fictional child pornography (Edit to clarify: By evil I mean "worthy of banning"). If a multipurpose tool can be used for a 1000 things, one being nefarious does not invalidate the 999 others - otherwise photography and videography ought to be banned because it can be used to capture child porn.

 

[3322]

Probably with less children being abused to make real child porn, which doesn't sound like a bad outcome to me.


I think that's because of aggressive marketing, a lack of healthy, culturally-engrained body image (see fat-acceptance movements), jobs becoming increasingly inactive (+jobs not incentivizing fitness) and people being too retarded to not exceed their caloric needs due to a lack of education in the school system. Switzerland has plenty of fast food but they manage to not all be obese somehow. Same with large parts of Asia.

For the same reason knives aren't inherently evil because they can stab people, fast food isn't inherently evil because it can cause death-by-obesity-related-issues and art AI isn't evil because it can be used to generate fictional child pornography (Edit to clarify: By evil I mean "worthy of banning"). If a multipurpose tool can be used for a 1000 things, one being nefarious does not invalidate the 999 others - otherwise photography and videography ought to be banned because it can be used to capture child porn.

If knifes were used to stab people 99% of the time and used for making food only 1% of the time I'm sure more people would argue for banning them.

 

[Smashed & Slamed]

I've described the problems I have with it and the impact it will have on real people several times now, I'm not going to repeat myself. Why would they pirate CP (illegal) when they can get something that looks exactly like the real thing but is AI generated (legal)? A lot more pedophiles will make use of this and the more indistinguishable it becomes from the real thing the harder it will become to persecute real CP. How do you think that's going to end? Maybe with them being forced to legalize CP because nobody can tell if it's real or not anymore? That's where I see this going. I know coombrains don't like to hear anyone criticize their porn-bot, but would you be fine with your neice or nephews being spammed with pornographic images of themselves on social media because some pedo decided to generate them based on what their parents posted on facebook?

Jesus H Christ that's a lot of shit to unpack but here:
You keep talking about real people and society and other such things. The life you are living is dependent on about 5-10% of the population of the developed world doing their job. Even if I take your worst predictions at face value until farmer Jim, trucker Bob and powerplant worker Joe are too coomed out to work the world will keep going.
As for your other fears. Most pedos want to hurt kids, a lot of them won't want AI CP because no kid was hurt in the making of the material. The FBI and other similar agencies across the world already use edited and even ai generated CP to catch them. On the legalizing CP thing the ball has been rolling in the minds of dumb commies for long before this. And if anything this doesn't change that, The argument of CP where no kids are harmed got started by lolicon weeb degeneracy.
For the someone depicting people I care about in a degenerate way using this. How would this be different from people harassing my family by other means? The result will be the same, cops do nothing and the courts at best give me a restraining order. And I got to ask what kind of bad parenting do you support if you are okay with if photos of your under age family members are easily found.
What I will try now to explain is not that your fears are unfounded, because that's pointless. But that you are powerless and maybe you will stop worrying.
You can't ban technology. Yes you may try and for a while you will succeed but if someone managed to make something once someone else can make this again. Banning this or lobotomizing it (good luck it's already out there and people will just revert back to a non fucked state) will achieve nothing more than making subsequent progress hidden from plain view, meaning people will have less time to come to grips with this and adapt to it.

 

[Borax Bozo]

This thing hasn't been around for 2 months and people already found a way to use it to make child porn with it so my opinions of it is low. Letting people download the ai with none of the content restrictions was a terrible mistake

Uh, obvious question here - are you speaking loosely of loli pixiv/danbooru style stuff, or are you implying there is some IRL photo horrors in the training dataset?

 

[3322]

Jesus H Christ that's a lot of shit to unpack but here:
You keep talking about real people and society and other such things. The life you are living is dependent on about 5-10% of the population of the developed world doing their job. Even if I take your worst predictions at face value until farmer Jim, trucker Bob and powerplant worker Joe are too coomed out to work the world will keep going.
As for your other fears. Most pedos want to hurt kids, a lot of them won't want AI CP because no kid was hurt in the making of the material. The FBI and other similar agencies across the world already use edited and even ai generated CP to catch them. On the legalizing CP thing the ball has been rolling in the minds of dumb commies for long before this. And if anything this doesn't change that, The argument of CP where no kids are harmed got started by lolicon weeb degeneracy.
For the someone depicting people I care about in a degenerate way using this. How would this be different from people harassing my family by other means? The result will be the same, cops do nothing and the courts at best give me a restraining order. And I got to ask what kind of bad parenting do you support if you are okay with if photos of your under age family members are easily found.
What I will try now to explain is not that your fears are unfounded, because that's pointless. But that you are powerless and maybe you will stop worrying.
You can't ban technology. Yes you may try and for a while you will succeed but if someone managed to make something once someone else can make this again. Banning this or lobotomizing it (good luck it's already out there and people will just revert back to a non fucked state) will achieve nothing more than making subsequent progress hidden from plain view, meaning people will have less time to come to grips with this and adapt to it.

I know I can't personally do anything to prevent this future we are heading to, but at least I can be one of few people who spoke out against it instead of just rolling over and participating in making the world a bit more shit.

 

[Smashed & Slamed]

I know I can't personally do anything to prevent this future we are heading to, but at least I can be one of few people who spoke out against it instead of just rolling over and participating in making the world a bit more shit.

How is this making your world more shit?
Would you like a time machine and go back to take a stand against Photography as well?

 

[CircuSphere]

A thought comes to mind...
Would a similar tool one day be used to generate AI music? Like not just generating random sounds to a tempo, but done in a way that you would really struggle to tell the difference? Maybe even to the point where it generates its own samples and uses them in a similar fashion as a musician would to generate music that follows certain musical rules?

This is 100% being done already for instrumental music. IIRC some lawyer was trying to use an algorithm to copy claim every melody conceivable as a PR stunt to end copyright sharks. Some guy on youtube has trained a machine to generate Djent songs and didn't even need a neural map. Music is all patterns with pretty clear cut rules and it's all highly iterative/branching which is the stuff the AI is actually good at. If anyone knows of any open source stuff for doing this I would be interested in checking it out. Or even just good sound libraries/software, I've been thinking of getting into programmatic jam track creation so I can work on composition more and then get baked and solo overtop.

 

[Swingletonthesimpleton]

Uh, obvious question here - are you speaking loosely of loli pixiv/danbooru style stuff, or are you implying there is some IRL photo horrors in the training dataset?

Im saying that the first time i put the stabledifussion tag in pixiv, it came up with a bunch of realistic looking naked kids. Not loli, not cartoonish in the slightest, and the photocount was 100 on each of them, at least thats what the number in the corner said. I didn't exactly check to make sure if all 100 was there. Hopefully its been taken down by now.

And no, it didn't look like 3d models either.

Maybe somebody made their own dataset using cp. I don't know and really i don't want to know

 

[tuka]

I specifically put down penis comparison and it didnt do it. I can try increasing the weight for penis

Language models have very poor understanding of vague metaphors. The AI is at its best when the non-sequitur is something concrete, but hallucinates retardedly wrong interpretation, like a genie granting a wish, just not in a way you'd want it.

Most of the time, you have to translate abstract shit to the specific, like for a retard "stalin holding his penis, stalin slapping trotsky's face with his penis..." and so on, and even then one would have to inpaint a lot. Another approach could be a gay porn frame shot for img2img where two guys literally slap each others dicks or something which provides a lot of context what you mean, and the model does just a body swap for stalin/trotsky.

The model isn't smart enough to elucidate something like a "penis battle" on its own, and to be honest, neither are most hack artists who are unable to expand vague scene label into something sensible. They either copy existing shit like img2img above would, or just shrug their shoulders.

 

[Str8Bustah]

surely a potential solution would be for the devs to implement a backdoor that scans for usage of specific prompts or image data which clearly involves children and then auto-flags them for some sort of watchlist?

It will probably do fuck all in the grand scheme of things but if this watchlist is easily accessible then it gives the potential for making fun of pedos which is always a good laugh.

 

[BoomerSperg1922]

Would it actually be legal though? I'm not gonna pretend to be a lawyer but isn't there something called obscenity law? Why would a generated image of an exploited child be any more legal than a real photograph? I know drawn images are a can of worms that has its own containment thread and I don't even want to touch those arguments.

Depends on where you live.

"Loli" porn from japan can and has gotten people arrested and jailed in Canada and Australia.

US laws are convoluted and schizophrenic on the matter, as befitting our amazing 1st amendment.

On one hand, the supreme court explicitly ruled that the government can't ban simulated child pornography on 1st amendment grounds. On the other hand obscenity is illegal and is basically defined as 'I'll know it when I see it.' (Thank you former Justice Stewart, very cool.) Which has lead to things like that guy in Iowa copping a 6 month sentence because he was too afraid to not plead guilty despite (if I'm remembering correctly) 1 or 2 big name groups wanting to defend him free of charge.

 

[Raven of the Burning God]

Where are these great meaningful art that these computer programs have made?

Whether are is "great" and/or "meaningful" is and has always been the prerogative of each member of the audience. Including the artist.

An artist could tell you why their art is meaningful to them or what they intended for it to mean to viewers, but you might appreciate it for your own very different personal reasons. Point is, all that's needed to appreciate "great meaningful art" is the viewer's sense of aesthetics.

And you still have that viewer's sense of aesthetics. The AI can produce "great art", in a technical competence sense, by the truckload, and the operator who looks at this firehose of output picks the great art that they think is meaningful.

And the AI operators who have that peculiar sense of aesthetics that results in the art they choose to share with the world also evoking a sense of meanings in other viewers... those are people who would be able to produce "great meaningful art" if they had any artistic technical ability. But now they don't need to spend ten thousand hours learning the skills necessary to draw or paint or whatever, the AI takes care of that part of the process.

So you're no longer stuck in the situation where you only get "great meaningful art" when you have both great technical skill and meaningful aesthetic sense in the same person.

The end result will be much more "great meaningful art" in the world.

And much more big tiddie furry porn, but at least that can be "great", too.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

It doesn't make you an artist in the traditional sense, it doesn't embue you with blending or shading skills or the ability to draw a curve but it is creative.

No it's not.

 

[raspberry mocha]

Idea guys chads, we won.

So in the 2020s humans programmed AI to draw anything your heart desires and the people just wanted to make anime furry porn. I'm glad this will light a fire under the asses of those artists who somehow can only draw sameface disney/anime girls, though.

 

[DamnWolves!]

There's also some very impressive synth voice AI around, AI that can generate good subtiles for speech in realtime (not the garbage google has on youtube) and AI video and 3D modeling. Interesting times ahead.

I like the TikTok one because it says everything in the same, vaguely positive tone, but people who use TikTok are as insane as they come, so you get this happy sounding voice saying the darkest shit.

AI generated images can't be considered intelectual property of nobody and for this, no reputable art business can use them and call it their own.

What gives you that impression? Copyright only requires that humans be involved in some creative way and the test is not hard to pass. If you think a bunch of SoHo based lunatics won't have an art show based off of this, it's 2001 and I have an idea for an MP3 player you probably won't buy.

If you're getting at "taking existing porn and doing face swaps with AI" you can do that I suppose but you still need to pay people to fuck before doing the face swap, or you need to 3d animate something and then have the AI do a face-swap.

Or you can, you know, have sex and film it. Or you can use one of the billions of clips of people doing just that as a reference.

take your four Nvidia A6000s and use ai to generate a white Ariel version of The Little Mermaid. Woke culture is now optional. The future is here, boyos.

I hope someone does this with the whole movie. Might be a little jarring when the white mermaid does a drive by on Flotsam and Jetson before stomping Ursula out to steal her voice back and screaming "BIX NOODZ MUTHAFUCKA, DINDU NUFFIN", though...

 

[Glowie]

Joshua Moon Ooperating
text to image


No reference.
This shit is deep

 

[Belvedere]

Would it actually be legal though? I'm not gonna pretend to be a lawyer but isn't there something called obscenity law? Why would a generated image of an exploited child be any more legal than a real photograph? I know drawn images are a can of worms that has its own containment thread and I don't even want to touch those arguments.

The TL;DR of it according to US law is that if an image is obviously a drawing then it is legal so long it isn't meant to be a representation of a real life minor, then that makes it illegal.

Also even if entirely generated by artificial means, if the image itself is indistinguishable from the real deal, then that makes it illegal as well.