So it is about pedantic language nitpicking? Do you really think the situation necessitates rather than saying “I made”, I must, in pursuit of accuracy, say “I pressed buttons that initiated a remote computer to generate a few dozen images based on my descriptions and stopped when one of those 60 to 80 images came close enough to my original vision to satisfy me”? Do you require that level of accurate detail in all aspects of life? Do you honestly think people were confused by the phrasing?
I’ve been using computer image-generating software since the early 1990s. I could have fired up my copy of Alias/Wavefront Maya and spent several hours modeling, texturing, and positioning cameras and lights to make an image of Domo-kun on a cross. It is very much within my skillset. If I insisted on keeping the grassy hill I would have had to dust off one of my ancient fractal landscape generators and composited an image with the Maya output. And in the end…it would almost certainly have looked worse than what I was able to get in about 5 minutes with Bing. Since my purpose was goal-oriented, not process-oriented, I went with the solution that produced probably better results in 1/100th the time.
(I’m aware that you reused a very common flippant comment about AI imagery instead of coming up with something of your own, but that one falls especially flat given the high popularity of food photography on the internet. People don’t go around saying “I ordered a pizza, I’m a great chef” but they very much do say “I ordered a pizza, look at the nice pizza I got.”.)
I think you’re retreating to the motte of “everyone knows the process of generating AI images and has a shared view on how little creativity is involved” from the bailey of “I spent some time trying to illustrate it dot dot dot”.
A test: are you replying to the people who commented positively to remind them that it doesn’t reflect on your abilities at all?
And a repeated question: why did you share it?
It’s not a better result. The first option would have been you sharing something you’d made with your own hard earned skills, and would have been genuinely impressive. The second is as you say 1/100th of the effort to reproduce what is essentially other people’s work. If you don’t care, why should I?
Interesting - I hadn’t (consciously) been aware of the pizza comment being common, but I don’t make any great claims to originality, it’s an obvious analogy. Had I introduced it to the thread with a “I was unimpressed by @Darren_Garrison 's AI image so I spent some time trying to craft an amusing response…” then I’d be embarrassed to find I was taking credit for others’ original work, right enough. But the bigger point is that when people photo their pizzas, it’s about the pizza and more or less explicitly a celebration of the people who made it.
Huh? It was obviously an AI image, and i thought it was fun and appropriate for the conversation. And it does take some thought to come up with suitable prompts to get an ai image that matches what you were imagining. For that matter, it takes having imagined something to begin with.
Sheesh, i like takeout pizza, too. And when someone offers me pizza, i don’t berate them for having obviously ordered takeout instead of cooking.
This isn’t always obvious, and it is becoming less obvious with every passing improvement to these generators. I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with using AI art generation, but it’s definitely unethical to not state, explicitly, how it was made. No different than copy/pasting AI-generated text.
I do wish to hell that AI stuff was limited to threads specifically made for it.
Do you feel the same about restricting all images to threads specifically for images, keeping all other threads text-only? Or is the restriction only for what you perceive to be low-quality images, and there is a threshold where they become acceptable? Or are all images generated using AI off-limits on principal based on their very nature?
As an example, if I had taken several hours to produce an image in Maya of Domo-kun on a cross, would that have been acceptable to post?
It’s mainly recognition that it would be hypocritical of me to be virulently opposed to copy/pasting AI text generation here (which I am) without also wanting limits on posting AI-generated images. More broadly, I doubt I’ll ever get over a general feeling that AI generation is, at best, a proxy for actual engagement.
Sorry, but I’m not getting into this nitpicky shit with you. I get that you’re super super duper super duper into AI image generation and there are no rules that say you can’t post them wherever and whenever you like.
I do think you should be explicit about crediting each and every AI image you post.
Because I thought the idea was funny. Someone mentioned the OP of the thread on a cross, and given that the OP has long used as their icon an image of Japanese television mascot and God-appointed killer of kittens Domo-kun, I imagined Domo-kun on a cross. The humorous image was the point.
Your rehashed anti AI Luddite BS is no more creative or worthwhile an endeavour than entering a prompt and pressing “generate images”. Hell, @Darren_Garrison’s prompt contains about a dozen times more creativity than your bog standard anti AI bitching and moaning. ChatGPT could do a better job complaining about AI than you, you tiresome Luddite.
If you don’t care enough to come up with your own original talking points, instead regurgitating standard anti AI luddite slip at us, why should we care?
Thanks. I don’t claim “ownership” of the image any more than I would had I did a Google image search (you will note that when someone posts an image found via Google image search, nobody accues you of deception when you don’t post a copyright notice for the original photographer).
Yeah, i honestly didn’t think @Darren_Garrison was trying to impress us with his artistic talent. I thought he was trying to offer a humorous illustration of what folks were talking about in the thread. And… I think he succeeded.
And here’s his claim about sweating over a hot keyboard to create it:
I think AI art is generally nonsense garbage, but all of this is way too much of a kerfuffle, out of scale of what this specific example deserves. It was a silly, tossed-off joke, so it doesn’t deserve any more than a tossed-off tool. It took five minutes to make it and it takes five seconds to scroll past it. Get a grip, everyone. Christ.
I love domo-kun on the cross and I don’t care that it was AI generated. Sometimes, AI-generated schlock has its uses. Representing Cad’s self-adopted martyrdom (which I guess is a philosophical question: must all martyrs necessarily be willing? Personally, I think not, but others may disagree) is such a time.
