So a recent post garnered some comments and reports for being AI art. In light of this we should all have a little conversation about how AI generated images should be handled in the future.
I think we all agree that AI images that are “garbage” or don’t add anything should be removed, but clearly some feel very strongly that all AI art should always be removed.
It should be noted that the rules as written and as agreed on by the community does not blanket ban AI, it merely says AI art should be avoided, while many other rules say no this or that instead.
Things to discuss:
- Does it matter if an image is AI? Does it always matter?
- What about images that are AI generated, but have been modified by a human?
- What about images where it’s hard to say for certain that it is generated? Me and the other mods did not agree on whether the recent image was AI f.ex which makes it hard to make a decision on whether or not to remove it.
- It can be stressful to artists to be accused of having used AI. If we are too militant on weeding out AI art it could be harmful as there will no doubt be some false positives.
- Should AI posts require being tagged in the title? (and of course be required to be of a certain level of quality)
I think a lot of us mods feel that AI should be allowed so long as it is not low quality and serves some purpose (being entertaining f.ex), and that the community should not be flooded with AI. What are your thoughts?
Edit: Thank you all for your input! Most of the others are sleeping right now I think, so nothing is likely gonna happen until later today.
I’m only describing it as moral panic because in the vast majority of the argument people have talking about copyright and “Art theft” they are framing their position as a moral high ground. I really don’t think there is one either. People are going to do what they do. They can use freely available creative commons materials, or they can pirate the good stuff. One isn’t better than the others.
Ultimately when it comes to an AI like OpenAI, I couldn’t care less if they source and license the data responsibly, use Free to use material, or engage in piracy. They can fuck themselves any way they do it. Because an AI company like that is going to screw us over in the long run. No matter how nice they play.
Your argument about pirating indie music or games does seem to be a common one, and I would agree if it weren’t for one big part. Most pirates do buy when they can. I certainly do. There are things I pirate I would never buy and there are even things I would never pirate. But games I pirated and liked, especially indie games I’ve bought. Music and Art is a trickier subject because people these days mostly stream and view online, though if we’re going to compare to art commission I would argue that a person who would commission a piece of art would probably still do it, but on the flip side someone who wouldn’t, just wouldn’t. Regardless if AI is available to do it or not.
i think we’re in one of those nd moments where we fundamentally agree on everything but enjoy the topic too much. let me step back a bit because i dont think i communicated my intention was a critique of the tactic not the idea. hell i know me, i definitely didnt communicate it well. if the goal is room for people to use a gen ai tool without being flogged on moral grounds. a goal we appear to agree on. starting with those opensource tools accomplishes that goal. theres room for an interesting discussion around copyright and problems with corporate playforms from a place of agreement.
the copyright thing is an unwinable debate on both sides. there is no right answer to it. it’s very effective at stirring shit if thats the main goal though. lots of chances to quote eachother and do point by point replies. everyone is on the defensive from the start. fun had all around if thats people thing i suppose.