You must log in or # to comment.
I love the artwork in Pepper and Carrot. I’ve got the books downloaded to my comic reader and am looking forward to getting to read them.
Yeah, AI Psychosis is real. It’s kinda funny watching people shout down something as AI when clearly it isn’t.
I sometimes also look like LLM when writing in English since it’s my second language.
Signal boost this so people can learn this artist exists and stop calling their work ai
And it’s not just laymen who miss label art as ai art. I’ve seen artist attacking other artists and claim that other artist uses AI. And they came with “receipts” in the comments. Even when others pointed out the history of the other artist the attacker doubled down.
I feel bad for David. I initially thought his stuff was AI, too. But then after going to his website and seeing the decades of work he’s been producing, it’s nothing short of amazing art.
It’s not really a surprise that AI mimics his work, it’s all been creative commons from the beginning, so it was likely one of the first things to be thrown into the slop machine.
I always felt his style doesn’t quite fit the anime faces.
But almost all anime looks like the Potato Jesus on some level to me, so maybe it’s just me.
yeah I remembering thinking the first comic of his I saw was Ai as well, but it also took very little effort to realize it wasn’t. the people acusing him are willfully ignorant at this point and while it’s great to see Ai skeptics, it’s not so great to harm the actual real artists out there
My hot take. Apologies, but:
Why do people think they’re walking AI detectors, soley based on the art itself?
I find it pretentious.
To be clear, the who, where, and how a piece is published is important context. One should be suspicious of suspicious artists.
But not the what.
Don’t even look at the piece. Extreme cases aside, no one can definitively tell if art is AI generated just by looking at it.
People are getting a little too paranoid if you ask me, and it’s always tempting for people to jump on the bandwagon in order to make themselves feel cool or aloof or in-the-know or whatever else. I don’t hang around anywhere except Lemmy so I have no idea if it’s as bad as it is here, but it seems like any time basically any picture of any stripe gets posted there are always one or two dinguses who reflexively parrot “it’s AI!!!” and claim they can magically tell, even though it demonstrably isn’t. For extra hilarity, this occasionally includes people howling about how literal decades old image macros that were circulating in the first couple of years of the century are “obviously” AI because apparently it’s their first friggin’ time using the internet or something.
For the record, I vehemently loathe AI slop and the current crop of generative “AI” products in general, I don’t use any of them, and I never will. But people really can get carried away over this, too.
Eh. I can live with internet paranoia.
But I’m disproportionally annoyed by posters who think they’re experts at something when they’re not. Especially so angrily/loudly, like the scenarios you point out.
It’s especially ironic in this case, as the “false confidence” AI gives is what the accusers are against, isn’t it?
This is by David Revoy, who has started getting wrongly accused of using AI for his art
I honestly don’t even think it looks ai, to me, and I may be wrong but it looks like someone painted it on a canvas
Chiseled Etruscan stonework, that’s what it is.
Funnily enough, the image “painted” actually reminded me of some older art done by Matt Page… specifically:
https://www.deviantart.com/fallout161/art/R-E-B-I-R-T-H-37772948
A bit old but it immediately reminded me of it.
That and all proper English writing gets you accused of using ChatGPT, because ChatGPT was trained on proper English writing.
i use hyphens and “m-dashes” all the time, now it’s associated with bot speak 😂 my high school English teacher warned us about an illiterate society
I’d never heard about the em dash until it was used to sniff out LLM-slop, but now I have one more thing I aspire to use correctly in my writing.
I’m definitely not sure on how to use it yet.
My favourite example:
The en-dash – used for interjections, among other things – has been a staple of prose for a long time. Equally, it has been used in corporate communications attempting to sound formal and educated – often wrong, to the point that I myself amn’t sure any more whether I’m using it right at any given moment, or how it is different to the em-dash — even longer, yet less popular because MS Office doesn’t automatically replace a - between words with it.
Is it any wonder, then, that machines trained both on prose and corporate slop produce a soup of words interspersed with en-dashes – whether they make sense or not?
So when I use it, because I got used to it before the machines appropriated it, and people take it as indicator that my slop is artificial, I always get a little sad. I’m not concerned about AI taking my job, but I do worry that it may be taking my hobby:
Writing long, rambling comments of questionable quality on social media.
You didn’t use the en-dash in like casual communication i bet, I think that’s what is a giveaway
I do though. Like, I don’t think I really have a separate mode of “casual communication” aside from using abbreviations (idk, imo, tbh) that I wouldn’t use in formal contexts. This is just how I talk, including occasionally rambling. I’m aware that I’m not “normal” in that sense – I’m guessing it’s part of my neuro-fuckery complex – but I don’t think it’s fair to arbitrarily brand weirdnesses as symptoms of AI-slop.
My slop is 100% organic, manually produced by a moderately sized non-model fed with mediocre food instead of mediocre data and frankly quite undertrained.
Not only that but also long explanations.
I am a part of a couple of self hosting subreddits and I like to explain why things are the way they are because I feel that it is valuable to share that knowledge, even if the person doesn’t care about the details initially.
I like to share my knowledge about things that I have used over multiple years, and I also don’t like to simple give you the solution because, most of the time, important information will be lost by just saying “do it like this”.
But over the last year I had a couple of people mention the typical “ignore all previous instructions” and lately it is just downvotes. No explanation.
People can’t detect AI so they see AI in everything.
Not only that but also long explanations.
The infuriating thing is, this complaint isn’t even new. People just have a trendy and new justification to latch onto, but it’s the same as it ever was. Many, possibly even most, of the people going so far as to take time out of their day to screech “TL;DR!” at you are really just admitting that their attention span has been so utterly fried by long term exposure to algorithm-driven corporate social media that they’re no longer capable of picking up whatever it is you’re laying down. That, and also tacitly revealing that because they personally can’t keep from fidgeting long enough to churn out two full paragraphs, that must mean no one else can, either.
I’ve been dropping doorstoppers on people since the days of dial-up. Back then the refrain was slightly different, but the complaint was still the same. By now my body of work, for lack of a better word, is clearly established. Hell, I cranked out so many words on the internet back in the day that Epinions sent me a hat in the mail completely unprompted for being a loquacious enough bastard to reach their list of top 100 contributors. Hands up everyone here who has actually worn out a keyboard? I suspect there are not many of us left.
At this stage in my life I take the opinion that anyone who can’t handle the volume of my writing is free to attempt an airborne indignity on an ambulatory baked confectionery product. I don’t have to show my homework to anyone.
Dunning-kruger in action.
And the blog format.
I sometimes send emails with typos/grammar errors because I was sick of people saying this.
Like you know what? Fuck you. I’m turning my “affects” into “effects” and deleting a vowel.
I understand your logic but I hate it (and am trying not to hate you).
RESIST
Try it. It’s pretty affective.
No.
It does rather make one suspect that a number of people haven’t read a great deal of properly-written English.
It’s also a snowball effect where they compete to escape the accusation of using ChatGPT or being “unc” or “boomer,” self-policing to ensure everyone writes like garbage.
I was once told “I write like someone who thinks they are good at writing.” That was met with rounds of applause by the people who can’t (or won’t) spell, capitalize, or punctuate anything.
To their credit, communication is a two-way street. If I’m writing such that nobody understands what I’m saying but me, it’s not “good writing.” But it does feel like we’re nose-diving towards Idiocracy and I’m not happy about it.
I was once told “I write like someone who thinks they are good at writing.” That was met with rounds of applause by the people who can’t (or won’t) spell, capitalize, or punctuate anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome
Tall poppy syndrome is a term that originated in Australia and New Zealand in the 1980s that refers to people with notable public success or achievements that are ostracised by others as a form of egalitarianism.[1][2] Intense scrutiny and criticism of such a person is termed as “cutting down the tall poppy”.[3]
“That one sounds uppity!”
To anyone who finds it necessary to “call out” stuff for being either fake or AI generated when there are no stakes, why are you like that? When you’re wrong, you’re at least as big of an asshole as anyone actually putting out AI generated art as if they made it. Probably more of an asshole because you’re specifically targeting an artist’s work while those posting AI art as if they made it aren’t trying to bring anyone down like you are.
Generating slop should be socially shunned, that’s the only way we survive this onslaught. Defending slopgen should be shunned as well.
I’m not trying to be dramatic or anything, but we’re in an existential battle for the survival of the concept of beauty here.Okay, but you shouldn’t accuse an image of being AI generated just because of vibes. Investigate first, find proof or at least strong evidence.
Alternatively, you shouldn’t share images that need to be thoroughly investigated to determine that they aren’t generated. Or maybe it’s somewhere in the middle.
It sucks, I don’t disagree with that.Blaming the victim, I see.
We’re all victims and perpetrators unless we can maintain the disincentive of a general expectation of shunning for the use of generative algorithms to create media for wider audiences
That doesn’t mean that verifying something was made by humans will remain a trivial endeavor, but it is my opinion that human made media has some purpose behind its creation that at least seemed worthwhile enough to have remained in existence somewhere in someone’s mind long enough for them to have followed through on creating each piece and the entirety of a particular piece. Not as much on a whim or as an artifact of some less meaningful/tangible/palpable process of experimentation to game certain feedback mechanisms or to maximize some undisclosed score
Oh no, what a terrible victimhood, being criticised for your ass picture you post, the horror
Do you even notice how now you’re the one saying people shouldn’t post their real art if it “needs to be thoroughly investigated”, whatever that means? AI mimics other styles, and it’s just going to keep getting better at it unless something actually stops it, which I don’t see happening without civilization itself collapsing because Pandora’s box is already open.
Not what I’m saying. I’m saying that if your art is so generic it’s indistinguishable from slop, maybe evolve your style a bit. In order for a slop to resemble your art, your art needs to be in a significant portion of the training data. In other words, generic.
This isn’t me being snobish snob (well…), every art has a purpose, I will defend your right to do whatever muzak you do and whatever alegria posters you make if it’s your way of expressing yourself. However, don’t be then surprised when in the same breath I’ll call your alegria poster boring corposhit. Or, keeping with times, slop from a butt.
Not disagreeing with the fact that it sucks major ass, I’m of the opinion that the only ethical behaviour there is to throw molotov cocktails at datacenters until there is none left, but that’s besides the point.
It’s constant in game development. Every single indie game that comes out, there’s somebody screaming about AI.
Indie devs have become so paranoid that they have to document to show that it’s not AI. And that person yelling actually wasn’t even interested in the game. They just wanted to punch down.
Indie devs have become so paranoid that they have to document to show that it’s not AI
That’s, like, the whole point of it, isn’t it? It’s sucks that this is now necessary, but overall it’s not that hard, comparatively.
There is an indie game that I like, the developer made a trailer for the second one, and it was very off, the voices were shit, some of the images were weird. There was a big backlash on his subreddit, people have found his posts where he excitedly praised slopgen imagegenerators. People were angry, so he redid the trailer, removed shitty parts, and publicly commited to not use slop in the game. The game is now better for it.
That’s how public accountability works, and that’s how it’s supposed to work.but overall it’s not that hard, comparatively.
Oh really? So how do you prove no AI has been used? In the case you describe, there was at least some evidence that AI was used in form of the author’s posts, but I regularly see people accusing things as AI generated based on vibes (see e.g. the comic author from the OOP. Publishing Krita time lapses and source files seems not to be enough evidence for some people)
Social backlash is the best way to discourage use and promote education.
Being wrong is bound to happen, but the burden of proof is on those presenting their work. Just because its annoying doesnt mean its not effective or necessary
This looks like AI.
Nah just autism. Feel free to check my other posts 🤷
…which is now maybe making me realize the flaw in my previous statement. Still think pointing out potential AI usage is useful, sometimes, probably, though.
Upvote for this and Im glad you recognize the issue!
Calling anything AI makes the accused required to defend themselves and that itself is kinda bullshit, you know?
Agrees to the first sentiment, BS on the second. Don’t accuse people of things unless you can prove it. Or at least provide more than your gut feeling because “you can tell from the pixels”.
Ai was created from human content, there is by definition someone whos art perfectly looks like AI.
I do agree its incredibly annoying, but as long as ai products are generated, those who disagree with it will point it out for others. Its the can of worms opened by the tech. I often get accused of writing like an AI, but they forget that im just autistic and love em dashes, semicolons, and comparisons.
Which puts even more of a burden on artists. This is the big irony of the whole movement to oppose AI and support artists is that, at least for this strain of it, more burden is placed on the artists to prove that they aren’t just using AI than on the AI ones themselves. They just generate whatever images and post them or use them. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s already generators that can generate wireframes or whatever “intermediate” step can serve as “proof” it wasn’t generated by AI. I can’t think of a single piece of evidence that couldn’t theoretically also be generated. Models today might require generating 1000 images and diacarding 950 of them but the ones who don’t care about how artists are affected probably also don’t care about how much energy it takes. But even if today’s models can’t do that, I believe others will be able to sometime soon.
The people putting out AI art just see “that’s AI” as “need to get better at using AI” not “need to stop using AI”. Maybe some would care, but as someone who generally doesn’t gaf about what people think about my opinions, I know I wouldn’t. But if I was an artist just wanting to share my art, I’d be more likely to just stop sharing it than jump through whatever hoops you want to prove I’m not guilty.
It’s unfortunate, but this is the burden created by machine generated art. The damage it has created will last for generations at the least.
Some dude flippantly cake me ai on here a few months ago(because of typos ironically enough) and convinced someone else to block me. People suck.
cake…because of typos
Aha! AI!
🤦 I promise that was unintentional.
A lot of the time when any justification is added for the accusation, it’s based on the weakest evidence or logic, like typos when LLMs are generally pretty good at following grammar and spelling rules, as much as they suck at pretty much everything else (or even where they can do well, they still suck because they are unreliable).
“People” isn’t the route of the problem here.
When i saw the character face i unironnically thought it was AI 😭
Luckly I just continue to look at the drawing for other clues and I am sure it’s legit
It’s how they train the AI unfortunately.
I saw a comic that was in the style of a web comic I followed in the early 2000s and it was AI generated. Its really frustrating.
Will anyone learn to be less vociferous with their AI accusations, or only be more vociferous with their dislike for AI and so to make more dubious accusations?
I saw a recent David Revoy comic that everyone here on Lemmy was accusing of being AI. Which is really tragic for someone who goes to such effort, is such a supporter of free software, and in my opinion has a style which is quite far from typical AI output.
AI is like that unwanted child, trying to belong.
Artist self insert, given Lemmy even accused them of being AI despite them documenting everything. That’s unfortunately the only way to validate at the moment, although if I’m being honest I kinda dig behind the scenes. It is especially interesting if you can see a beautiful photograph and all the work they put into getting the lighting just right.
Wait, is it inherently bad for an artist to self-insert? Isn’t that one of the key ways they share their perspective? If there’s some bizarre strawman-ing or self-aggrandizing going on it can problematic but the general idea of an artist self-inserting themselves or their ideas into their work seems fine to me.
I don’t know if the person you replied to implied it was a bad thing, but it’s been a thing for centuries, Caravaggio self inserted himself and people from the street in his paintings, van Eyck hid himself in his paintings, Louis David painted himself among the Coronation of Napoleon, etc
Yes, I didn’t mean to imply it’s a bad thing. Just that it simply is. Plenty of comic artists do that, and I wanted to give context.
