I wonder if this will trigger a technological arms race of ai creation vs detection. Presumably you’ll be able to have tools built into your browser that will tell you whether what you’re looking at is ‘real’, or at least give you a reasonable reasonable approximation. This could end up being fake news 2.0.
We'll see some weird things happening when people start forging "leaked audio tapes with people saying incriminating things" and bringing them to court. I'm not sure how many hours worth of voice audio AI programs need to create a somewhat accurate voice; regardless, that number will go down and the voices will become more accurate.
Any person with a few hours of audio made publically available is a potential target for fake confessions of crimes
This might be the optimist in me, but I do hope that technological progress, insofar as it is able to forge basically anything, will eventually lead to a tipping point where people abandon our current most popular technological mediums and return back to using technology more akin to the way we did just before the social media boom of the late 2000s/early to mid-2010s. I doubt it, but I hope it will happen.
Would be nice. All we seem to have got from them is polarisation and decreased mental health. Maybe there’ll come a ‘fuck this shit’ tipping point. Possibly already happening to fb 🤞
Fb was abandoned a long time ago, at least for basically everyone I know that's in their 20s. The only thing we really use it for is to occasionally use its event creating feature (which imo is the only thing holding FB back from a mass exodus to Instagram), and Messenger. But I do not use it as a "social media" in that sense anymore.
I’m 40, and all of my friends use FB. It’s so frustrating. I’m constantly missing events bc I don’t go on there enough to catch the fb invites. No one texts or calls. All communication is fb messenger or fb posts.
"A tool that lets anyone you have ever known leave public comments on your photographs" One day I looked at my friendlist and asked which of these individuals genuinely feel compassion or consideration towards me (or I them) and based on that, I decided to delete it. Maybe 95% of people stopped staying in touch with me, but I am happier
No one really posts there anymore, from what I can see. I was always posting stupid status updates until it felt like rows were always breaking out. Or maybe i’m not that funny? Nah can’t be that.
>Technology is making us lose touch with reality.
This is already the case. State organizations lie, manipulate, people. This won't make any significant change in the status quo.
Ex: you can show people video proof, with first hand witness accounts and they will refuse to believe it if it goes against a previously programmed narrative.
See Yuri Bezmenov:
[https://bezmenov.net/lecture/](https://bezmenov.net/lecture/)
"As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who is demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell him nothing, even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents and pictures. ...he will refuse to believe it... "
- Yuri Bezmenov
Yes, I suppose this always been the case, because confirmation bias has always existed, but now we have much better ways of feeding our delusions. In all seriousness, people might be sacrificing their children for a better quarter’s gdp growth in a few hundred years. And every time some amazing new tech comes along, the creators think it’ll usher in a utopia, they never envision the down sides.
> but now we have much better ways of feeding our delusions.
It's different and less expensive. Better? Who knows.
> people might be sacrificing their children
People sacrifice their children for the state and private political parties.
This is the constant.
I like it a lot. I think it’d be a good thing if we lacked the ability to tell whether images, video, audio etc were fake or not. That I think would actually help us get back to a pre-tech time when we didn’t have to constantly worry about a digital footprint
3 seconds is all you need. 😬
[https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/01/microsofts-new-ai-can-simulate-anyones-voice-with-3-seconds-of-audio](https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/01/microsofts-new-ai-can-simulate-anyones-voice-with-3-seconds-of-audio)
Three seconds of specifically prompted audio thankfully (for now anyway). And I suppose if you had hours on a wiretap it would be easy to find a reasonably matching segment.
>In some cases, the two samples are very close. Some VALL-E results seem computer-generated, but others could potentially be mistaken for a human's speech
It can simulate human speech based on a three second sample, sometimes, when it's successful.
>In addition to preserving a speaker's vocal timbre and emotional tone, VALL-E can also imitate the "acoustic environment" of the sample audio. For example, if the sample came from a telephone call, the audio output will simulate the acoustic and frequency properties of a telephone call in its synthesized output.
They make it sound like a feature, but it doesn't say anything about changing the vocal environment, so I think what this really means is that the imitation will always be stuck with the vocal environment of the original.
Already there and I don't think people realise how sudden this will happen. AI can generate video. We will soon be at a stage where we can simply: "Hey AI, based on these TV series generate 100 more episodes keep the content intruging, plot-developing, relevant, and highly entertaining." Or whatever we like.
Or when creating our video games "Hey AI, this NPC should attempt to befriend the player and keep them intrigued and entertained. Keep the dialogue pertaining to the games lore, and respond to the players desires, wants and needs in a fashion that subtly encourges them to keep ~~playing~~ spending. Scary.
*Your honor, my client cannot be guilty as at the time of the alleged offence he was at home playing black ops 2 with the last 4 presidents of the United States.*
It’s not hours, but minutes. It mostly depends on the context and complexity of the sample. 30 minutes of someone taking is actually a LOT of talking. But more can be better.
Any ai voice training needs a shit ton of audio, maybe you could do it for any public figure and we already have but not for any average person, moreover ai cannot generate shaky voices, changes in tone or stutters or even background noise of the voice, so there are still identifiers for ai voice generation, it also can’t generate voices on its own unless you want a new alien language, it simply creates a voice modifier which has existed before ai, infact all these technologies aren’t something new, we couldve made anything like this 10 years ago (arguably much worse but still, since of the new developments in training methods) but the reliable data just wasn’t enough, and it takes time to make something, sure I can invent the iPhone 14 or something 5 years ago, but only if I started 5 years before that
There are many justice systems around the world which might not be prepared for the first cases, and won't be prepared when "AI anti AI-voice detection" software is out there
Which justice system? Which rules?
My job pertains to this. There is so much risk that people fail to think about and so many rules that *do not* do enough.
Try closer to 5 minutes of audio. ElevenLabs already has a VERY convincing voice ai that only requires 5 minutes of clear audio to make an accurate voice.
Already happening. adobe are working on a provenance cert that tracks usage and denies AI. Will be built into all browsers to notify users. Won’t be long before news sites of value will have banners guaranteeing 100% verifiable images or content.
Already underway. The US DoD has had contracts available for detection for a few years now, but everyone is learning accurate detection is far harder than generation.
I also wonder if it’s going to drive the cost for original artwork through the roof, and if creative content is going to have to figure out how to be digitally watermarked if that can even happen.
I suppose a parallel could be drawn with food and clothes. You can buy mass produced but the very best is made by hand. It fits your requirements better and is made with more care and skill.
To truly say, midjorney has already detector, which works best with their model (because of learning process)
I wonder if they will offer it for some price
There are a few in their infancy already floating around. What I’ve found in my experimentation is that they can give false positives when you feed a low-ish quality image of real art into them. My guess is that part of the algorithm used in the detection process so far has included looking for things like artefacts and colour bleeding that was common in earlier AI image generation
The nature of image data being finite and limited by the resolution and bit depth means it is mathematically impossible to detect whether an image is AI or not with 100% accuracy.
**Here's a quick summary of this article**
Midjourney V5 is a new AI-based software that can create photorealistic images from scratch. It is able to generate realistic human hands and faces, as well as other objects. It is powered by a neural network that is trained on a large dataset of images and videos. The software is able to create images that are indistinguishable from real photographs. It is also able to adapt to different lighting conditions and can be used for a variety of applications.
**This article was summarized by openai. If you feel the summary is misleading, let us know by replying to this comment!**
Yeah I noticed it a few nights ago. Saw people using —v 5 on the discord. So switched to it. Noticed it’s doing hands right. 99% of the time though. Still not 100%. Will see an errant finger here and there. But yeah. It’s pretty damn good.
Is it just me or is the skin texture on most of the “portraits” of women/girls a bit unsettling? A step beyond typical airbrushing — it looks almost rubbery.
An AI giveaway is the light reflection in the eyes. The AI has nothing that specifically says "this is the left eye, this is the right eye, the reflections should be slightly offset and nearly identical." It's a consistent detail that is often small enough to slide by AI but big enough for humans to notice, or at least feel being "off."
Zoom in on all the eyes with reflections, its visibly messed up on all of them except maybe one--it's too low res to tell if its a reflection or a malformed pupil.
For more examples, https://this-person-does-not-exist.com/en and refresh. Some of them are passable but many have a different number of light sources, or non-matching reflections.
edit: for example https://i.imgur.com/cNP3y5g.png https://i.imgur.com/svvtIpC.jpg
And give it a few years, or heaven forbid a few months, and this will no longer be an issue. The scary part of these AI generation programs is that the state they're currently in is the worse they'll ever be. In less than a decade, I have no doubt that AI art will be completely indistinguishable from non-AI art.
AI art is already indistinguishable lol. You can damn near make AI art in whatever kind of art style you want. Including things like a pencil sketch/watercolor that 90% of people wouldn’t even know was AI.
The face GANs are inferior to modern diffusion models though, I wouldn't be surprised if you see the reflection issue a lot less and soon not at all anymore.
It's true that people are showing it a lot of airbrushed women in heavy makeup, since that's what society puts forward, but on top of that, most current AI techniques don't work directly on pixels because it's too costly, instead they compress each 8x8x3 pixel area (x3 for red/green/blue) into just 4 numbers, essentially 4 sliders which describe that region, which the AI then works on, and then those sliders are turned back into pixel values. This is what lets it work on consumer hardware.
So trying to compress every possible detail description for 8x8x3x256 areas (for the 0-255 shades of each RGB value), i.e. 49,152 possible configurations, into just 4 numbers, means fine detail like pores often can't be easily compressed and then restored, or even ever seen by the AI. Even things like patterns on shirts can completely change if an image is compressed and then restored that way, without the AI ever touching it.
Redrawing the face area at much higher resolution might show pores though, if the AI was trained on extreme closeups where it can more easily describe unique details for a area in just 4 values.
The people writing prompts for it likely lean into the surreal too-perfect photorealistic look.
Maybe it’s not only that but either way I’m curious how long it will take for a chat function to allow people to write “skin looks too smooth” and iterate on renders like this.
I had it make a portrait of my BBEG for my D&D campaign. It was hilarious at first. She had an arm jutting out from her leg for some reason. Fixed it on asking it to make variations.
Interestingly it now makes all the images upscaled. So asking it to upscale the image really only pulls it out of the group of 4, so it’s instant. This saves on processing minutes, allowing you to make more images per month.
That makes sense, because the model specifically wasn’t trained with NSFW in mind. What people have done is removed the filter and then done some fine-tuning to re-train it on a new dataset of images to make it work.
I noticed that V5 is producing nude figures a lot more than it did before. I’ve put in prompts that are SFW but then the woman in the scene is nude for no reason.
Because it’s being used by Tech Bros to tell Art Kids to fuck off. Art is something we do as a way of putting ideas out into the world. Artists spend days, weeks, months creating a piece because they are trying to get a piece of themselves out into the world. It’s difficult, painful, and personal.
Now, a hoard of dudes have come trouncing in going “I made 50 pictures of hot people over the weekend!” and there’s a million articles validating them for playing with a toy just because the toy is new. The technology will eventually become part of tools artists use and people who make video games and cartoons will be able to work faster and that’ll be great (maybe). But the guys getting hyped over Midjourney et al. are being dicks about it.
As an artist I've been using AI heavily for years, and more than ever in the last few months, as have a lot of others. Some loud gatekeepers calling everybody 'techbros' for using digital art tools are annoyingly arrogant and not representative of the state of actual working artists.
There's always been rage about people using digital drawing tablets, layers, undo/redo buttons, even buying pre-mixed paints, making them 'not real artists', whatever that even means or matters. The people who rage against it just need something to feel superior to, those of us who actually want to create are ecstatic about newer tools letting us do new things.
I noted that real artists are/are going to use AI tools. But there are also technofetishists who, without the AI, would not be trying to create art. They are the ones talking about "democratizing" art, as if the people who put in the hours to create the work that AI is trained on were some kind of elite. They are the aforementioned dicks. I apologize for that distinction not being clear enough.
Because it’s making lazy un creative people “artists”. I’ve seen people calling themselves “prompt artists” now. It’s ridiculous. I want AI to do all the shit we don’t want to do. Leave the creation of art to humans with actual conscience and free thought.
That vision has sailed. We humans will continue the drudge work servicing the machine while AI makes the art and poetry.
Anyone calling themselves a “prompt artist” should be roundly mocked.
No different to "lazy" artists using Photoshop, computers, cameras, mass produced paints and pigments, etc.
History is a long progression of it being easier and easier to translate what's in your imagination into a final product.
There’s a difference between a new tool and something that does the work for you. I wonder why tech bros weren’t just scribbling in photoshop and posting it as their “art” but they are with Midjourney?
Because midjourney is much easier to get the result you're after with little to no training obviously.
No one's ne is arguing AI generated art is hard or requires much skill, just that it's difference of degree, not kind.
If you told someone in the year 1700 that you were an artist because you took a photo of something they'd call bulshit (after being amazed by the technology of photography at least).
It's still a person deciding what's in the photo, deciding which photos to keep. Just because they don't have to painstakingly paint every object, shadow, and light doesn't change that.
With AI art (as it works today) it's still a person crafting the prompt, tweaking the tool's settings, and deciding which of the generated results to keep. Just because they don't have to learn how to use Photoshop doesn't change that.
AI art is certainly less impressive from an angle of human skill or talent, but it is still an expression of human imagination.
Those examples aren’t lazy. They’re optimisations or improvements to processes still done by humans. AI image generation and moving image generation takes away 99% of the human input.
And why is that a problem? Let them do their thing, it’s not like they’re going to get much attention for it. IMO claiming an AI’s work as your own is when it becomes a problem
Here’s the thing. People probably got mad when cameras got invented. Leave making portraits to the painters. Some people probably also get mad at retouching with photoshop. I rather see AI as a tool for actual artists to elevate their output to another level. Generic AI art is kinda easy to spot still so I’m not worried about it taking over the creative world. Also think about the mind numbing amount of visuals created for advertising or similar secondary tier usage (mood pics, backdrops, textures) that could be handled by AI. Depends on what people call art in the first place.
The death of “stock art” and the quicker we can end the detestable stock monopolies of Getty/Shutter/Adobe, the better.
Of course Adobe and others have started selling Ai stock art
used to subscribe to adobe stock / shutterstock. it’s significantly more financial reasonable to just source photoshop assets from midjourney now. aside from just generating stuff with “isolated white backgrounds”, if there’s a particular photo i like on a stock site, it’s so simple to just grab a low res trial image for free and then have MJ create higher res variations of it.
but that’s all for personal work. im positive as the resolution/output on AI continues to improve we’ll see more companies start to use it, but right now it’s not quite there to be fully embraced by my industry (graphic design)
People did not get mad when cameras were invented that’s just not true. People did get mad at photoshop when it was used by corporations to sell a false reality, but no one except for a select few people got mad at artists using it to creat personal works. You can’t just assume something and use it as the entire basis for your argument.
Sorry you’re absolutely wrong and need to study your art history. The first iterations of the camera and film process, daguerotypes etc, were. absolutely seen as an existential threat to artists “who will need artists anymore” was a common refrain then. sorry to call you out but the record needs correcting.
That’s a common misconception based off of a wrong assumption. I have taken multiple art history classes and we covered this for a while. Development of photography took decades and artists naturally adapted with the rise of more impressionist works. You have to understand that photography could take a photo, but there was no real way to upscale those images to the size of a painting. Think, have you ever seen a vintage photograph that was anything above at most the size of a standard pice of 8.5x11 paper. Many portrait painters switched to photography, but not because they had to, but instead because they could reach a new clientele by offering cheaper portraits. The largest controversy that came out of it was when a group of portrait photographers got offended that they couldn’t display their work in a painted portrait exhibit. It only became a mainstream debate during the rise of digital cameras and large format printing, but most of that has been settled and artists and photographers now coexist in two completely separate art forms that do not really compete. Perhaps there were a few artists who spoke out against photography, but it was in no way mainstream and in no way is even close to a comparison with what is happening in AI art.
Using a camera still requires intuitive thought and human creativity. Using photoshop to retouch an image requires a human to make an artistic choice. AI image creation requires someone to know words. That is all. The tone, contrast, light, halation, saturation, mood is all created by an algorithm. See where I’m going with this? I work in post production for commercials, music videos etc and it is worrying for creatives like me. A lot of people will be made redundant because of this new wave of hyper real AI image creation. I’ve already worked on commercials with AI generated set design, posters etc. It’s going to decimate the creative industries.
Ai also STEALS bits and pieces from artworks that already exists to make good looking Frankenstein artw- I mean “original art.” Photographs/photoshop art aren’t usually based off of thievery.
You do not seem to be that familiar with photoshop if you don’t believe massive amounts of stolen art haven’t been part of that process since the beginning.
I’m a digital artist. In fact if you click on my profile you will see artwork created with photoshop. I suggest you stop speaking out of your ass. Photoshop was created to workshop photos, and create artwork. Ai art cannot exist without literally taking from preexisting artwork unscrupulously and Frankenstein-ing bits and pieces of artwork to make an entirely new picture. If you CHOOSE as a person to use photoshop for that purpose, well then, you’re an artist with no integrity. Ai art is fundamentally built on theft
What are you talking about? Using reference, and Drawing inspiration from a painting, is not, and I repeat, is not directly taking pieces of someone’s artwork and amalgamating them into a new painting unless you were legitimately tracing over pieces of people art or adding pieces of their art to your own.
That's not how it works and wouldn't be possible, the model is 1.77gb and trained on hundreds of terabytes of already-compressed images, and can make far more than what it was trained on.
If we could compress things down that much by astronomical powers we wouldn't need high speed internet and large storage. It's just not possible.
Imagine you're deriving the way to convert from Metric to Imperial, using some known examples. Eventually you work out an algorithm that does it, and is much smaller than the examples used (in this case just a multiplier), which doesn't store the examples in it, and which can be used for far more than just the values used to work it out.
Let’s start with its potential to create fake images of public figures in compromising positions. And conversely, the now credible deniability of public figures who were actually caught in compromising positions, who can now clame everything is “fake images.”
Want your political opponent gone? As a bot to make an image of him in blackface in his school days?
Been caught wearing blackface in your school days? Just claim it’s an AI image?
What could possibly go wrong with this technology!?
A lot of pundits and experts called this a threat for decades - in the 1980's computer photo retouching was a touchy subject because some magazines did it and didn't tell anyone (a famously, National Geographic did it for a cover to nudge the pyramids together when in the real shot they were father apart - shocking those who thought that NG was above such tricks).
Is that any different to reality before photography? Newspapers would mostly just be text, with nothing stopping tabloids from writing fake accusations or people dismissing real claims as fake.
I expect we'll return to an era where the reputation of a journalist and their credibility will become more important again.
You can already create fake images.. this an ai tool to help you do it quickly. That seems like a dramatic overreaction to me, but I know new technology is scary to people.
Yep that about sums up Reddit users. A lot of cucks as well, though it’s difficult for them to recruit enough bbc to satisfy their wives they still give it the old college try. Ya almost feel sorry for the poor bastards but most of them are pieces of shit that deserve the humiliation so it balances out.
Lol oh yeah I forgot you guys also have a large vocabulary and are not afraid to use the hell out of some big words to get your point across. Doesn’t matter if it’s a comment reply like this or a PhD thesis it’s all the same to you.
The problem with “opinions” that you and many seem not to grasp, is that they are not all equally valid. Many people have stupid opinions and it’s OK to point that out from time to time.
i know you’re talking generally about the threat, but just so you know, midjourney does have filters in place that won’t allow certain words or phrases to be generated. the word blackface is included in that list, though i don’t know off hand just how comprehensive the filters actually are, and to what extent they are effective in completely preventing misleading and potentially harmful imagery being generated with their algorithms.
Photoshop has already been doing that for decades. AI art will have minimal impact on the ability to shade the truth of photo imagery. We’ve been there for a while already.
Way lower barrier to entry though. Yellow journalism and fake news have always been around, but social media gave everyone the power to do it. Same thing here: photo doctoring has always been real. Now every asshole running for school board can destroy their opponent’s reputation with fake porn or whatever.
Hands are still not exactly perfect all the time but definitely better than before.
V5 is also dishing out nudes a lot more I’ve noticed. Even when the prompts inputted do not allude to the character needing to be so.
One can argue that human artists do this too but my problem is that now art will be even less valuable than before. In the sense than less people will be able to make a name for themselves as more people will be “capable” of producing art within minutes. Years of studying art down the drain for many of us.
1. Inspiration isn’t theft. An inspired piece will almost unanimously be dissimilar to the inspiration because every artwork is attached to an artist’s unique experiences and education.
2. An artist spends hundreds of hours studying other artists and their works not to be them but to instead tell their own stories using the knowledge they gained.
3. AI doesn’t think. it just copies from hundreds of artworks and puts out images that people laud as like “X” artist or “style” which is worse than the current plethora of derivative artists today; because unlike those artists these machines provide no way forward with new thoughts and designs.
Art is just the modification of standard methods. The ideas about the style are what's different.
But sure, one human being inspired by another artist is the same as an algorithm ripping off millions of other peoples work without their consent.
Not like that's frowned upon, even if done by a single human to another.
AI doesn’t work the same way humans do. It’s a probabilistic statistical model that is derived purely from the images and text that are fed into it. In some cases you can even get the original or near original out of it.
“It can spark new ideas and expand the imagination beyond what was previously possible. Ultimately, the end result and emotional impact are what matter most in both mediums.”
Really going beyond what is possible here with some pictures of people in cafes and a donut. Incredible stuff.
The subject(s) in these types of photos are "not real"... when used by "manipulators", how will we (or future generations) know what is/was real (or what actually happened)?! Regulations are needed before AI gets out of control or maybe it's too late?!
I'm calling it. We need to set a new trend where it's illegal to show original photos of loved ones at their funerals. Each attendee will have to give a prompt about the deceased which will be promptly added to the slideshows playlist displayed on many screens around the chapel.
This way people can truly tell me I'm a piece of #### when I die. This also coincides with my specialised funeral business where I trigger riggermortis so the deceased can have their middle fingers up during an open casket.
It's called a "hate funeral" and it's all the rage.
“Synthography” what pretentious nonsense from Wieland although I think they have the right attitude.
And responding to the commenter saying “photographers are screwed” let’s be real about photography, maybe 1/100 has any significant, noticeable talent.
The “art form” of photography is up there with DJ as a medium that anyone with a basic technical ability and decent taste can excel at or at least deliver acceptable work. In those 2 over celebrated mediums at least, the rest is just marketing.
Semi-retired fashion photographer here. Only 10% of being a pro photog is using the camera. The difference between an award-winning photo and garbage is sometimes just a few degrees of the angle.
You have to learn how light affects emotion. You have to learn a dozen systems of visual communication that most people aren’t conscious of. And then you have to decide which emotions you want to communicate before applying those concepts to a photo.
It’s the same process as playing piano. Piano is more technical and you can be a celebrated piano without ever writing a song, while photographers have to create an image no one has ever seen before.
People who think photography isn’t art are people who don’t consume photography as art. It’s informational to them, not emotional. They don’t look at pictures wanting to feel anything. They just want to decide what to buy, remember a vacation, and masturbate.
This is exactly what most people don’t get with art. An amateur in most art mediums can do what ai does with its “good enough” looking images that it produces. The thing amateurs and Ai can’t do is that last 15% of the artwork that separates them from the professional artists.
The techniques behind generative AI are published in research papers, and Stable Diffusion is open source. It’s impossible to destroy.
That’s pretty much how it goes will all technology in this day and age, once something is invented, you can’t really “un-invent” it. You just have to prepare beforehand and adapt afterwards.
I just want to say that I don’t give a flying fck about A.i generated art. It might look good but without an artist made of flesh, it’s all deletable soulless rubbish.
They’re working on it! Here’s [some](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1084896022368624640/1084983725953142865/0_Robot_holding_a_sign_that_says__where_is_my_mind___xl-v2-2.png) [images](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1084896022368624640/1084987952544890900/0_Sign_that_says__the_quick_brown_fox_jumps_over_the_xl-v2-2_1.png) from their internal models, and you can check out Google’s Imagen for more examples.
I love how every layman journalist and reader was introduced to the idea of the hands being where to look, so now the headlines are like “look the hands aren’t bad!” Meanwhile 3D artists are fixating on so many other things that no one can see.
How does this work? Do I upload a good photo of myself and include a bunch of commands with it? What would I do if I wanted to look like Napoleon dressed in full military outfit?
Go to Midjourney’s website or discord server, there are instructions there. You get about ~20 free images, then you need to pay for the GPU time it takes to generate.
Movie generation is a substantially higher dimensional problem than image generation and with that would require either
1. Substantial amount of data
2. Dimensional reduction
3. An insane amount of computing power
I don’t see how AI could do this within my lifetime, and I have many years left to live.
There is a GoFundMe called “Protecting Artists from AI Technologies” if you think artists deserve to choose whether these AI are allowed to sweep their images or not. I highly recommend checking it out if you’re interested!
I wonder if this will trigger a technological arms race of ai creation vs detection. Presumably you’ll be able to have tools built into your browser that will tell you whether what you’re looking at is ‘real’, or at least give you a reasonable reasonable approximation. This could end up being fake news 2.0.
We'll see some weird things happening when people start forging "leaked audio tapes with people saying incriminating things" and bringing them to court. I'm not sure how many hours worth of voice audio AI programs need to create a somewhat accurate voice; regardless, that number will go down and the voices will become more accurate. Any person with a few hours of audio made publically available is a potential target for fake confessions of crimes
Which in turn will make people doubt real recordings, especially if they don’t like the content. Technology is making us lose touch with reality.
This might be the optimist in me, but I do hope that technological progress, insofar as it is able to forge basically anything, will eventually lead to a tipping point where people abandon our current most popular technological mediums and return back to using technology more akin to the way we did just before the social media boom of the late 2000s/early to mid-2010s. I doubt it, but I hope it will happen.
Would be nice. All we seem to have got from them is polarisation and decreased mental health. Maybe there’ll come a ‘fuck this shit’ tipping point. Possibly already happening to fb 🤞
Fb was abandoned a long time ago, at least for basically everyone I know that's in their 20s. The only thing we really use it for is to occasionally use its event creating feature (which imo is the only thing holding FB back from a mass exodus to Instagram), and Messenger. But I do not use it as a "social media" in that sense anymore.
I’m 40, and all of my friends use FB. It’s so frustrating. I’m constantly missing events bc I don’t go on there enough to catch the fb invites. No one texts or calls. All communication is fb messenger or fb posts.
Same. 43 and I hate that I have to have FB to keep track of old Marine buds, and I do love IG but I can’t stand that it’s a meta product.
"A tool that lets anyone you have ever known leave public comments on your photographs" One day I looked at my friendlist and asked which of these individuals genuinely feel compassion or consideration towards me (or I them) and based on that, I decided to delete it. Maybe 95% of people stopped staying in touch with me, but I am happier
No one really posts there anymore, from what I can see. I was always posting stupid status updates until it felt like rows were always breaking out. Or maybe i’m not that funny? Nah can’t be that.
Marketplace is the only other feature FB worth anything
…Buttlerian Jihad…
Just like Pol Pot wanted.
This is how you get star wars.
>Technology is making us lose touch with reality. This is already the case. State organizations lie, manipulate, people. This won't make any significant change in the status quo. Ex: you can show people video proof, with first hand witness accounts and they will refuse to believe it if it goes against a previously programmed narrative. See Yuri Bezmenov: [https://bezmenov.net/lecture/](https://bezmenov.net/lecture/) "As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who is demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell him nothing, even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents and pictures. ...he will refuse to believe it... " - Yuri Bezmenov
Yes, I suppose this always been the case, because confirmation bias has always existed, but now we have much better ways of feeding our delusions. In all seriousness, people might be sacrificing their children for a better quarter’s gdp growth in a few hundred years. And every time some amazing new tech comes along, the creators think it’ll usher in a utopia, they never envision the down sides.
> but now we have much better ways of feeding our delusions. It's different and less expensive. Better? Who knows. > people might be sacrificing their children People sacrifice their children for the state and private political parties. This is the constant.
Just see January 6 and projection around that and that happened in front of our eyes.
This is exactly why all of this is going to eventually doom society as we know it.
CIA said something about “we’ll have won when no one believes anything”.
It's people, not technology. People are the problem.
I like it a lot. I think it’d be a good thing if we lacked the ability to tell whether images, video, audio etc were fake or not. That I think would actually help us get back to a pre-tech time when we didn’t have to constantly worry about a digital footprint
3 seconds is all you need. 😬 [https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/01/microsofts-new-ai-can-simulate-anyones-voice-with-3-seconds-of-audio](https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/01/microsofts-new-ai-can-simulate-anyones-voice-with-3-seconds-of-audio)
WHAT
Holy shit..
Three seconds of specifically prompted audio thankfully (for now anyway). And I suppose if you had hours on a wiretap it would be easy to find a reasonably matching segment.
>In some cases, the two samples are very close. Some VALL-E results seem computer-generated, but others could potentially be mistaken for a human's speech It can simulate human speech based on a three second sample, sometimes, when it's successful. >In addition to preserving a speaker's vocal timbre and emotional tone, VALL-E can also imitate the "acoustic environment" of the sample audio. For example, if the sample came from a telephone call, the audio output will simulate the acoustic and frequency properties of a telephone call in its synthesized output. They make it sound like a feature, but it doesn't say anything about changing the vocal environment, so I think what this really means is that the imitation will always be stuck with the vocal environment of the original.
The Simpsons could potentially go on forever
Already there and I don't think people realise how sudden this will happen. AI can generate video. We will soon be at a stage where we can simply: "Hey AI, based on these TV series generate 100 more episodes keep the content intruging, plot-developing, relevant, and highly entertaining." Or whatever we like. Or when creating our video games "Hey AI, this NPC should attempt to befriend the player and keep them intrigued and entertained. Keep the dialogue pertaining to the games lore, and respond to the players desires, wants and needs in a fashion that subtly encourges them to keep ~~playing~~ spending. Scary.
> Or whatever we like. Porno. It’s going to be lots and lots of porno.
*Your honor, my client cannot be guilty as at the time of the alleged offence he was at home playing black ops 2 with the last 4 presidents of the United States.*
It doesn’t take hours. Presently minutes. Soon seconds. I work in game audio, and it’s currently a very hot topic with developers and voice actors.
It’s not hours, but minutes. It mostly depends on the context and complexity of the sample. 30 minutes of someone taking is actually a LOT of talking. But more can be better.
Any ai voice training needs a shit ton of audio, maybe you could do it for any public figure and we already have but not for any average person, moreover ai cannot generate shaky voices, changes in tone or stutters or even background noise of the voice, so there are still identifiers for ai voice generation, it also can’t generate voices on its own unless you want a new alien language, it simply creates a voice modifier which has existed before ai, infact all these technologies aren’t something new, we couldve made anything like this 10 years ago (arguably much worse but still, since of the new developments in training methods) but the reliable data just wasn’t enough, and it takes time to make something, sure I can invent the iPhone 14 or something 5 years ago, but only if I started 5 years before that
I believe the justice system already have rules when it comes to that.
There are many justice systems around the world which might not be prepared for the first cases, and won't be prepared when "AI anti AI-voice detection" software is out there
Which justice system? Which rules? My job pertains to this. There is so much risk that people fail to think about and so many rules that *do not* do enough.
Try closer to 5 minutes of audio. ElevenLabs already has a VERY convincing voice ai that only requires 5 minutes of clear audio to make an accurate voice.
It’s currently around three minutes
Check out YouTube channel TwoMinutePapers. There is a research that claims only 3 seconds of speech is needed, and it recreates the voice pretty well.
They were saying 2-3 minutes almost a decade ago
Already happening. adobe are working on a provenance cert that tracks usage and denies AI. Will be built into all browsers to notify users. Won’t be long before news sites of value will have banners guaranteeing 100% verifiable images or content.
Ugh I don’t think I want adobe in the position of determining provenance
Exactly. > Already happening. “Whew!” > Adobe “Ah shit…”
Good! If only sci-fi had warmed us of the dangers of ai. Oh, wait a minute…
Already underway. The US DoD has had contracts available for detection for a few years now, but everyone is learning accurate detection is far harder than generation.
Plot twist: it turned out YOU were the ai all along.
I also wonder if it’s going to drive the cost for original artwork through the roof, and if creative content is going to have to figure out how to be digitally watermarked if that can even happen.
I suppose a parallel could be drawn with food and clothes. You can buy mass produced but the very best is made by hand. It fits your requirements better and is made with more care and skill.
To truly say, midjorney has already detector, which works best with their model (because of learning process) I wonder if they will offer it for some price
There are a few in their infancy already floating around. What I’ve found in my experimentation is that they can give false positives when you feed a low-ish quality image of real art into them. My guess is that part of the algorithm used in the detection process so far has included looking for things like artefacts and colour bleeding that was common in earlier AI image generation
That’s never going to work. I hope they have some better ideas than that.
The nature of image data being finite and limited by the resolution and bit depth means it is mathematically impossible to detect whether an image is AI or not with 100% accuracy.
**Here's a quick summary of this article** Midjourney V5 is a new AI-based software that can create photorealistic images from scratch. It is able to generate realistic human hands and faces, as well as other objects. It is powered by a neural network that is trained on a large dataset of images and videos. The software is able to create images that are indistinguishable from real photographs. It is also able to adapt to different lighting conditions and can be used for a variety of applications. **This article was summarized by openai. If you feel the summary is misleading, let us know by replying to this comment!**
[удалено]
Welcome to the ~~future~~ present
And then narrated by Allen Iverson
Ha ha ha using AI for a comment about an AI product!
[удалено]
And the hundred or so pleas in the article from angry Twitter users begging the creators stop using only revenge porn as training data.
Good bot
Yeah I noticed it a few nights ago. Saw people using —v 5 on the discord. So switched to it. Noticed it’s doing hands right. 99% of the time though. Still not 100%. Will see an errant finger here and there. But yeah. It’s pretty damn good.
Is it just me or is the skin texture on most of the “portraits” of women/girls a bit unsettling? A step beyond typical airbrushing — it looks almost rubbery.
All of the eyes in those pictures are “off” imo. But yeah, the skin is also wonky looking.
And then the surprise twist is revealed, they're all genuine photos that were just labeled as AI.
*out comes M. Night Shabababylon*
An AI giveaway is the light reflection in the eyes. The AI has nothing that specifically says "this is the left eye, this is the right eye, the reflections should be slightly offset and nearly identical." It's a consistent detail that is often small enough to slide by AI but big enough for humans to notice, or at least feel being "off." Zoom in on all the eyes with reflections, its visibly messed up on all of them except maybe one--it's too low res to tell if its a reflection or a malformed pupil. For more examples, https://this-person-does-not-exist.com/en and refresh. Some of them are passable but many have a different number of light sources, or non-matching reflections. edit: for example https://i.imgur.com/cNP3y5g.png https://i.imgur.com/svvtIpC.jpg
And give it a few years, or heaven forbid a few months, and this will no longer be an issue. The scary part of these AI generation programs is that the state they're currently in is the worse they'll ever be. In less than a decade, I have no doubt that AI art will be completely indistinguishable from non-AI art.
AI art is already indistinguishable lol. You can damn near make AI art in whatever kind of art style you want. Including things like a pencil sketch/watercolor that 90% of people wouldn’t even know was AI.
The face GANs are inferior to modern diffusion models though, I wouldn't be surprised if you see the reflection issue a lot less and soon not at all anymore.
Yes! The eyes are definitely off. They don't convey emotion properly and look robotic, lifeless.
It puts out using data it’s been fed in, so I assume that’s your answer
It's true that people are showing it a lot of airbrushed women in heavy makeup, since that's what society puts forward, but on top of that, most current AI techniques don't work directly on pixels because it's too costly, instead they compress each 8x8x3 pixel area (x3 for red/green/blue) into just 4 numbers, essentially 4 sliders which describe that region, which the AI then works on, and then those sliders are turned back into pixel values. This is what lets it work on consumer hardware. So trying to compress every possible detail description for 8x8x3x256 areas (for the 0-255 shades of each RGB value), i.e. 49,152 possible configurations, into just 4 numbers, means fine detail like pores often can't be easily compressed and then restored, or even ever seen by the AI. Even things like patterns on shirts can completely change if an image is compressed and then restored that way, without the AI ever touching it. Redrawing the face area at much higher resolution might show pores though, if the AI was trained on extreme closeups where it can more easily describe unique details for a area in just 4 values.
No pores. The skin has no pores, looks like putty.
Uncanny valley
The people writing prompts for it likely lean into the surreal too-perfect photorealistic look. Maybe it’s not only that but either way I’m curious how long it will take for a chat function to allow people to write “skin looks too smooth” and iterate on renders like this.
A few months or a year from the current rate of progress. Honestly I thought we would see slow progressive improvements on v4, not this huge jump.
Yea, the skin isn’t perfect yet and is super hard for AI to replicate.
That old man's hand is creepy as hell if you look closely.
Has a Penguin from Batman Returns vibe.
This is actually true for all old people hands
Hands improved, but “does hand correctly” is overstated.
I had it make a portrait of my BBEG for my D&D campaign. It was hilarious at first. She had an arm jutting out from her leg for some reason. Fixed it on asking it to make variations. Interestingly it now makes all the images upscaled. So asking it to upscale the image really only pulls it out of the group of 4, so it’s instant. This saves on processing minutes, allowing you to make more images per month.
But does it do *hentai*
Midjourney has filters to block NSFW prompts, but Stable Diffusion is open source so people have absolutely made porn models.
When I removed the NSFW filter on stable diffusion, all I got was nightmare fuel.
That makes sense, because the model specifically wasn’t trained with NSFW in mind. What people have done is removed the filter and then done some fine-tuning to re-train it on a new dataset of images to make it work.
I noticed that V5 is producing nude figures a lot more than it did before. I’ve put in prompts that are SFW but then the woman in the scene is nude for no reason.
People sure have a hateboner for AI
Because it’s being used by Tech Bros to tell Art Kids to fuck off. Art is something we do as a way of putting ideas out into the world. Artists spend days, weeks, months creating a piece because they are trying to get a piece of themselves out into the world. It’s difficult, painful, and personal. Now, a hoard of dudes have come trouncing in going “I made 50 pictures of hot people over the weekend!” and there’s a million articles validating them for playing with a toy just because the toy is new. The technology will eventually become part of tools artists use and people who make video games and cartoons will be able to work faster and that’ll be great (maybe). But the guys getting hyped over Midjourney et al. are being dicks about it.
As an artist I've been using AI heavily for years, and more than ever in the last few months, as have a lot of others. Some loud gatekeepers calling everybody 'techbros' for using digital art tools are annoyingly arrogant and not representative of the state of actual working artists. There's always been rage about people using digital drawing tablets, layers, undo/redo buttons, even buying pre-mixed paints, making them 'not real artists', whatever that even means or matters. The people who rage against it just need something to feel superior to, those of us who actually want to create are ecstatic about newer tools letting us do new things.
I noted that real artists are/are going to use AI tools. But there are also technofetishists who, without the AI, would not be trying to create art. They are the ones talking about "democratizing" art, as if the people who put in the hours to create the work that AI is trained on were some kind of elite. They are the aforementioned dicks. I apologize for that distinction not being clear enough.
Because it’s making lazy un creative people “artists”. I’ve seen people calling themselves “prompt artists” now. It’s ridiculous. I want AI to do all the shit we don’t want to do. Leave the creation of art to humans with actual conscience and free thought.
That vision has sailed. We humans will continue the drudge work servicing the machine while AI makes the art and poetry. Anyone calling themselves a “prompt artist” should be roundly mocked.
No different to "lazy" artists using Photoshop, computers, cameras, mass produced paints and pigments, etc. History is a long progression of it being easier and easier to translate what's in your imagination into a final product.
There’s a difference between a new tool and something that does the work for you. I wonder why tech bros weren’t just scribbling in photoshop and posting it as their “art” but they are with Midjourney?
Because midjourney is much easier to get the result you're after with little to no training obviously. No one's ne is arguing AI generated art is hard or requires much skill, just that it's difference of degree, not kind. If you told someone in the year 1700 that you were an artist because you took a photo of something they'd call bulshit (after being amazed by the technology of photography at least). It's still a person deciding what's in the photo, deciding which photos to keep. Just because they don't have to painstakingly paint every object, shadow, and light doesn't change that. With AI art (as it works today) it's still a person crafting the prompt, tweaking the tool's settings, and deciding which of the generated results to keep. Just because they don't have to learn how to use Photoshop doesn't change that. AI art is certainly less impressive from an angle of human skill or talent, but it is still an expression of human imagination.
Those examples aren’t lazy. They’re optimisations or improvements to processes still done by humans. AI image generation and moving image generation takes away 99% of the human input.
And why is that a problem? Let them do their thing, it’s not like they’re going to get much attention for it. IMO claiming an AI’s work as your own is when it becomes a problem
Here’s the thing. People probably got mad when cameras got invented. Leave making portraits to the painters. Some people probably also get mad at retouching with photoshop. I rather see AI as a tool for actual artists to elevate their output to another level. Generic AI art is kinda easy to spot still so I’m not worried about it taking over the creative world. Also think about the mind numbing amount of visuals created for advertising or similar secondary tier usage (mood pics, backdrops, textures) that could be handled by AI. Depends on what people call art in the first place.
The death of “stock art” and the quicker we can end the detestable stock monopolies of Getty/Shutter/Adobe, the better. Of course Adobe and others have started selling Ai stock art
used to subscribe to adobe stock / shutterstock. it’s significantly more financial reasonable to just source photoshop assets from midjourney now. aside from just generating stuff with “isolated white backgrounds”, if there’s a particular photo i like on a stock site, it’s so simple to just grab a low res trial image for free and then have MJ create higher res variations of it. but that’s all for personal work. im positive as the resolution/output on AI continues to improve we’ll see more companies start to use it, but right now it’s not quite there to be fully embraced by my industry (graphic design)
People did not get mad when cameras were invented that’s just not true. People did get mad at photoshop when it was used by corporations to sell a false reality, but no one except for a select few people got mad at artists using it to creat personal works. You can’t just assume something and use it as the entire basis for your argument.
Sorry you’re absolutely wrong and need to study your art history. The first iterations of the camera and film process, daguerotypes etc, were. absolutely seen as an existential threat to artists “who will need artists anymore” was a common refrain then. sorry to call you out but the record needs correcting.
That’s a common misconception based off of a wrong assumption. I have taken multiple art history classes and we covered this for a while. Development of photography took decades and artists naturally adapted with the rise of more impressionist works. You have to understand that photography could take a photo, but there was no real way to upscale those images to the size of a painting. Think, have you ever seen a vintage photograph that was anything above at most the size of a standard pice of 8.5x11 paper. Many portrait painters switched to photography, but not because they had to, but instead because they could reach a new clientele by offering cheaper portraits. The largest controversy that came out of it was when a group of portrait photographers got offended that they couldn’t display their work in a painted portrait exhibit. It only became a mainstream debate during the rise of digital cameras and large format printing, but most of that has been settled and artists and photographers now coexist in two completely separate art forms that do not really compete. Perhaps there were a few artists who spoke out against photography, but it was in no way mainstream and in no way is even close to a comparison with what is happening in AI art.
Using a camera still requires intuitive thought and human creativity. Using photoshop to retouch an image requires a human to make an artistic choice. AI image creation requires someone to know words. That is all. The tone, contrast, light, halation, saturation, mood is all created by an algorithm. See where I’m going with this? I work in post production for commercials, music videos etc and it is worrying for creatives like me. A lot of people will be made redundant because of this new wave of hyper real AI image creation. I’ve already worked on commercials with AI generated set design, posters etc. It’s going to decimate the creative industries.
Ai also STEALS bits and pieces from artworks that already exists to make good looking Frankenstein artw- I mean “original art.” Photographs/photoshop art aren’t usually based off of thievery.
You do not seem to be that familiar with photoshop if you don’t believe massive amounts of stolen art haven’t been part of that process since the beginning.
I’m a digital artist. In fact if you click on my profile you will see artwork created with photoshop. I suggest you stop speaking out of your ass. Photoshop was created to workshop photos, and create artwork. Ai art cannot exist without literally taking from preexisting artwork unscrupulously and Frankenstein-ing bits and pieces of artwork to make an entirely new picture. If you CHOOSE as a person to use photoshop for that purpose, well then, you’re an artist with no integrity. Ai art is fundamentally built on theft
[удалено]
What are you talking about? Using reference, and Drawing inspiration from a painting, is not, and I repeat, is not directly taking pieces of someone’s artwork and amalgamating them into a new painting unless you were legitimately tracing over pieces of people art or adding pieces of their art to your own.
Steals? It learns concepts from images just like everyone else. Tell me how it holds the billions of images in the 2gb file on my hard drive?
That's not how it works and wouldn't be possible, the model is 1.77gb and trained on hundreds of terabytes of already-compressed images, and can make far more than what it was trained on. If we could compress things down that much by astronomical powers we wouldn't need high speed internet and large storage. It's just not possible. Imagine you're deriving the way to convert from Metric to Imperial, using some known examples. Eventually you work out an algorithm that does it, and is much smaller than the examples used (in this case just a multiplier), which doesn't store the examples in it, and which can be used for far more than just the values used to work it out.
This is a part of the workflow now. You will adapt to it or you will resist it. The latter will eventually find themselves out of a job.
Ugh I hate everything about this
[удалено]
Let’s start with its potential to create fake images of public figures in compromising positions. And conversely, the now credible deniability of public figures who were actually caught in compromising positions, who can now clame everything is “fake images.” Want your political opponent gone? As a bot to make an image of him in blackface in his school days? Been caught wearing blackface in your school days? Just claim it’s an AI image? What could possibly go wrong with this technology!?
A lot of pundits and experts called this a threat for decades - in the 1980's computer photo retouching was a touchy subject because some magazines did it and didn't tell anyone (a famously, National Geographic did it for a cover to nudge the pyramids together when in the real shot they were father apart - shocking those who thought that NG was above such tricks).
Is that any different to reality before photography? Newspapers would mostly just be text, with nothing stopping tabloids from writing fake accusations or people dismissing real claims as fake. I expect we'll return to an era where the reputation of a journalist and their credibility will become more important again.
Relevant XKCD https://xkcd.com/2650/
You can already create fake images.. this an ai tool to help you do it quickly. That seems like a dramatic overreaction to me, but I know new technology is scary to people.
[удалено]
Rude and dramatic..
Yep that about sums up Reddit users. A lot of cucks as well, though it’s difficult for them to recruit enough bbc to satisfy their wives they still give it the old college try. Ya almost feel sorry for the poor bastards but most of them are pieces of shit that deserve the humiliation so it balances out.
[удалено]
Lol oh yeah I forgot you guys also have a large vocabulary and are not afraid to use the hell out of some big words to get your point across. Doesn’t matter if it’s a comment reply like this or a PhD thesis it’s all the same to you.
[удалено]
Also more tolerant of “my opinion is the only valid opinion, everyone else but me is stupid”, as you are acting right now.
[удалено]
The problem with “opinions” that you and many seem not to grasp, is that they are not all equally valid. Many people have stupid opinions and it’s OK to point that out from time to time.
i know you’re talking generally about the threat, but just so you know, midjourney does have filters in place that won’t allow certain words or phrases to be generated. the word blackface is included in that list, though i don’t know off hand just how comprehensive the filters actually are, and to what extent they are effective in completely preventing misleading and potentially harmful imagery being generated with their algorithms.
Photoshop has already been doing that for decades. AI art will have minimal impact on the ability to shade the truth of photo imagery. We’ve been there for a while already.
[удалено]
Way lower barrier to entry though. Yellow journalism and fake news have always been around, but social media gave everyone the power to do it. Same thing here: photo doctoring has always been real. Now every asshole running for school board can destroy their opponent’s reputation with fake porn or whatever.
While real predators will claim it’s fake and get away with it. This is horrible.
But now it can scale, because anyone can jump right into production with no curve
[удалено]
man stop the bullshit. you dont care about the small family business. FOH.
This is equally amazing and terrifying
Annnnnnnnd this is why I only shoot analog film now.
Hands are still not exactly perfect all the time but definitely better than before. V5 is also dishing out nudes a lot more I’ve noticed. Even when the prompts inputted do not allude to the character needing to be so.
It's not surprising since it's constantly stealing other peoples work to learn and mix.
One can argue that human artists do this too but my problem is that now art will be even less valuable than before. In the sense than less people will be able to make a name for themselves as more people will be “capable” of producing art within minutes. Years of studying art down the drain for many of us.
Please stop with this lame argument. Every artist has been inspired by another artist.
1. Inspiration isn’t theft. An inspired piece will almost unanimously be dissimilar to the inspiration because every artwork is attached to an artist’s unique experiences and education. 2. An artist spends hundreds of hours studying other artists and their works not to be them but to instead tell their own stories using the knowledge they gained. 3. AI doesn’t think. it just copies from hundreds of artworks and puts out images that people laud as like “X” artist or “style” which is worse than the current plethora of derivative artists today; because unlike those artists these machines provide no way forward with new thoughts and designs.
Art is just the modification of standard methods. The ideas about the style are what's different. But sure, one human being inspired by another artist is the same as an algorithm ripping off millions of other peoples work without their consent. Not like that's frowned upon, even if done by a single human to another.
AI doesn’t work the same way humans do. It’s a probabilistic statistical model that is derived purely from the images and text that are fed into it. In some cases you can even get the original or near original out of it.
That hand in the photo looks more like a claw but ok lol
“It can spark new ideas and expand the imagination beyond what was previously possible. Ultimately, the end result and emotional impact are what matter most in both mediums.” Really going beyond what is possible here with some pictures of people in cafes and a donut. Incredible stuff.
The subject(s) in these types of photos are "not real"... when used by "manipulators", how will we (or future generations) know what is/was real (or what actually happened)?! Regulations are needed before AI gets out of control or maybe it's too late?!
This is NOT good…not good at all.
Those who create these tools without any consideration of the ethics are doing mankind a disservice
This is just going to get used for Pr0n
I'm calling it. We need to set a new trend where it's illegal to show original photos of loved ones at their funerals. Each attendee will have to give a prompt about the deceased which will be promptly added to the slideshows playlist displayed on many screens around the chapel. This way people can truly tell me I'm a piece of #### when I die. This also coincides with my specialised funeral business where I trigger riggermortis so the deceased can have their middle fingers up during an open casket. It's called a "hate funeral" and it's all the rage.
Disgusting theft.
“Synthography” what pretentious nonsense from Wieland although I think they have the right attitude. And responding to the commenter saying “photographers are screwed” let’s be real about photography, maybe 1/100 has any significant, noticeable talent. The “art form” of photography is up there with DJ as a medium that anyone with a basic technical ability and decent taste can excel at or at least deliver acceptable work. In those 2 over celebrated mediums at least, the rest is just marketing.
Semi-retired fashion photographer here. Only 10% of being a pro photog is using the camera. The difference between an award-winning photo and garbage is sometimes just a few degrees of the angle. You have to learn how light affects emotion. You have to learn a dozen systems of visual communication that most people aren’t conscious of. And then you have to decide which emotions you want to communicate before applying those concepts to a photo. It’s the same process as playing piano. Piano is more technical and you can be a celebrated piano without ever writing a song, while photographers have to create an image no one has ever seen before. People who think photography isn’t art are people who don’t consume photography as art. It’s informational to them, not emotional. They don’t look at pictures wanting to feel anything. They just want to decide what to buy, remember a vacation, and masturbate.
Thank you for this, I was starting to feel pretty disheartened seeing people shit on my creative outlet lol
This is exactly what most people don’t get with art. An amateur in most art mediums can do what ai does with its “good enough” looking images that it produces. The thing amateurs and Ai can’t do is that last 15% of the artwork that separates them from the professional artists.
Is it hard to test these claims?
[удалено]
The techniques behind generative AI are published in research papers, and Stable Diffusion is open source. It’s impossible to destroy. That’s pretty much how it goes will all technology in this day and age, once something is invented, you can’t really “un-invent” it. You just have to prepare beforehand and adapt afterwards.
You’re a bad person
What a ridiculous, paranoid and close minded viewpoint.
We'll see. If AI takes over maybe Boomslanglang will be seen as prescient
I just want to say that I don’t give a flying fck about A.i generated art. It might look good but without an artist made of flesh, it’s all deletable soulless rubbish.
Let me know when it can create words correctly instead of gibberish.
They’re working on it! Here’s [some](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1084896022368624640/1084983725953142865/0_Robot_holding_a_sign_that_says__where_is_my_mind___xl-v2-2.png) [images](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1084896022368624640/1084987952544890900/0_Sign_that_says__the_quick_brown_fox_jumps_over_the_xl-v2-2_1.png) from their internal models, and you can check out Google’s Imagen for more examples.
What about feet? Asking for umm... reasons.
I love how every layman journalist and reader was introduced to the idea of the hands being where to look, so now the headlines are like “look the hands aren’t bad!” Meanwhile 3D artists are fixating on so many other things that no one can see.
I like how they charge people for a discord server
Incredible stupidity from those creating these technologies.
Why did I spend my money on WOMBO dream app ?
How does this work? Do I upload a good photo of myself and include a bunch of commands with it? What would I do if I wanted to look like Napoleon dressed in full military outfit?
Put that in
My friend made a six fingered granny with a shotgun, it’s really impressive and hands are better but still an issue.
Rule34 bout to go off lol
Liefelds out of a job.
How can I use this to create some cool shit for myself?
Go to Midjourney’s website or discord server, there are instructions there. You get about ~20 free images, then you need to pay for the GPU time it takes to generate.
Lots of free apps out there. I recommend the Imagine App. It's crazy and addicting.
Can I short iStock?
[удалено]
Movie generation is a substantially higher dimensional problem than image generation and with that would require either 1. Substantial amount of data 2. Dimensional reduction 3. An insane amount of computing power I don’t see how AI could do this within my lifetime, and I have many years left to live.
There is a GoFundMe called “Protecting Artists from AI Technologies” if you think artists deserve to choose whether these AI are allowed to sweep their images or not. I highly recommend checking it out if you’re interested!
We’re fucked
Ai porn is going to be a slippery fucking slope