Banning AI art on PP
HorrifyMeUK said, 1663160943
-sp●●n- said
Give it a year or two and will be impossible to even detect which is AI and which is not.
Yes you’re probably right. Isn’t that just soul crushingly depressing?
Edited by HorrifyMeUK
Gareth Oakey Photography said, 1663161280
Gothic Image said
I applaud the ban but the grey areas creep ever further. Is it OK to use a clone tool to change a portion of an image? Yes, OK, what about a smart healing tool that uses context awareness? Yes, OK - so computer generated portions are fine. What about replacement of a sky with an AI editor like Luminar? Upscaling and adding detail with Topaz AI? AI relighting of a model with Portrait Pro? Still OK ...?? etc.
I think the wording in the blog makes this clear?
I know these are all OK, but the point was to illustrate the trend. Even with the tooling listed above, I could take a snapshot of a model, change the pose with liquify, then use the AI to completely fix my poor lighting, correct my focus, replace the entire background and add foreground. I could deepfake the face so the model now looks like a celebrity, run an AI 'fixer' to complete the contrast, colour and add a vignette, and the finished image looks nothing like the original snapshot. My 'photo' looks amazing but very little actual photographic skill was used. The trends are towards these tools becoming ever more powerful and easy to use - so yes it's clear now. That is until the next update of PS that introduces a new tool we've not yet considered.
Unfocussed Mike said, 1663161514
HorrifyMeUK said
-sp●●n- said
Give it a year or two and will be impossible to even detect which is AI and which is not.
Yes you’re probably right. Isn’t that just soul crushingly depressing?Edited by HorrifyMeUK
It's going to do a lot of damage to some kinds of art. But AI art probably won't be able to make a behind the scenes video, or a one-off textured art print, or run workshops to teach skills, or sell early sketches, seconds, etc.
I think art itself will survive; I suspect it will become more physical? You have a head start, and maybe there's a vocation for you in helping others get that too?
_This_ site runs on a flow of finished single images; the damage AI art generation could do here in a very short time is already playing out on sites like ArtStation. So like you I think this is the only decision that makes any sense at all when it is coming at us all so fast.
https://waxy.org/2022/09/online-art-communities-begin-banning-ai-generated-images/
-sp●●n- said, 1663161604
HorrifyMeUK said
-sp●●n- said
Give it a year or two and will be impossible to even detect which is AI and which is not.
Yes you’re probably right. Isn’t that just soul crushingly depressing?Edited by HorrifyMeUK
Put it this way, all the creative industries are in for a shock. Listen to pop music?, do you really know who writes the tracks? that is a job for AI in the future, scans all current popular music and creates derivatives. A bland future? perhaps, perhaps not, AI has the chance of being very good at specific tasks, and the output of AI is based on what it is fed.
Unfocussed Mike said, 1663161895
-sp●●n- said
HorrifyMeUK said
-sp●●n- said
Give it a year or two and will be impossible to even detect which is AI and which is not.
Yes you’re probably right. Isn’t that just soul crushingly depressing?Edited by HorrifyMeUK
Put it this way, all the creative industries are in for a shock. Listen to pop music?, do you really know who writes the tracks?
Yeah. Seven people in Sweden :-)
Jerome Razoir said, 1663162000
The key here is artificial intellience.
I believe that in some crucial regards AI might be the best thing to happen to art.
The confusion surrounding the issues of CRAFT versus ART is considerable.
For me, the essential core of a work of art is the content, the semiotic, the message or narrative conveyed.
AI facilitating some one to make a better* message does not worry me.
The reduction in intellectual effort to manage the craft input may well concentrate the mind better to input the effort into the semiotic.
Craft skill has been eroded from the first time an artist used a tool to create.
A bunch of chewed grass to apply ochre to a cave wall put a tool between the artist and the work.
In the long run, we will learn how to differetiate between a good semiotic an a poor one.
*By better I here mean more accurately conveying the artist's intent.
Unfocussed Mike said, 1663162000
Flickr added a category for AI generated art recently:
https://www.diyphotography.net/virtual-photography-is-now-officially-a-thing-at-least-on-flickr/
Everyone's figuring out which approach works for them.
Aardvark🎯VonEssfolk said, 1663162079
Gothic Image said
I applaud the ban but the grey areas creep ever further. Is it OK to use a clone tool to change a portion of an image? Yes, OK, what about a smart healing tool that uses context awareness? Yes, OK - so computer generated portions are fine. What about replacement of a sky with an AI editor like Luminar? Upscaling and adding detail with Topaz AI? AI relighting of a model with Portrait Pro? Still OK ...?? etc.
I think the wording in the blog makes this clear?I know these are all OK, but the point was to illustrate the trend. Even with the tooling listed above, I could take a snapshot of a model, change the pose with liquify, then use the AI to completely fix my poor lighting, correct my focus, replace the entire background and add foreground. I could deepfake the face so the model now looks like a celebrity, run an AI 'fixer' to complete the contrast, colour and add a vignette, and the finished image looks nothing like the original snapshot. My 'photo' looks amazing but very little actual photographic skill was used. The trends are towards these tools becoming ever more powerful and easy to use - so yes it's clear now. That is until the next update of PS that introduces a new tool we've not yet considered.
In most / lots of cases NO !
Anyway ... it's all increasingly a load of nonsense!
I mean I could see how much nonsense there was 15 years ago (and hated how the 'progression' had turned from only 5 years prior to then). Now every 5 years chuck of time or (less), the potential union between pleasing the 'easily impressed' and those that think the latter would be even more impressed via their fast-tracked digital techniques or even AI trickery, gets easier to achieve*
* I say let them get on with it (leaving both models and photographers that appreciate a different stance, able to mutually invlove themselves in the pre-capture stage enjoyment).
Danny. said, 1663162603
For those that haven't yet checked out the image upload guidelines
https://purpleport.com/articles/1/image-upload-guidelines/
Machine generated images
Uploading images generated using services (such as Midjourney/DALL-E/Craiyon/Stable Diffusion/etc.), where you type a phrase or description of the desired image and a machine algorithm (often called A.I) creates an image for you, is banned from PurplePort.
You can use such images for backgrounds in the same way that commercial background images or textures might be used.
Attempting to deceive the community using such images will result in a permanent ban from our service.
Russ Freeman (staff) said, 1663162682
-sp●●n- said
HorrifyMeUK said
-sp●●n- said
Give it a year or two and will be impossible to even detect which is AI and which is not.
Yes you’re probably right. Isn’t that just soul crushingly depressing?Edited by HorrifyMeUK
Put it this way, all the creative industries are in for a shock. Listen to pop music?, do you really know who writes the tracks? that is a job for AI in the future, scans all current popular music and creates derivatives. A bland future? perhaps, perhaps not, AI has the chance of being very good at specific tasks, and the output of AI is based on what it is fed.
Pop music has been formulaic and algorithmic for decades, but no one pays to go to a concert to watch someone click play on Winamp.
Art is the same.
Yes, disruption is coming, but disruption has always been coming and always will be coming.
Adaptation is our greatest strength, I'm excited to see how it plays out, and I think everyone should be too.
waist.it said, 1663162947
CalmNudes said
waist.it said
In other news: King bans rising tide. :-)
Is that what people mean when they say I'm a Canute ?
Only those with dyslexia. lol. Mind you, I'm frequently described as "something as a newt"... ;-)
As chance would have it, we're just down the road from the small but beautiful coastal village of Bosham, where the incident is said to have occurred. One of his daughters was buried in the churchyard. It is also said that contrary to popular legend, he was a wise ruler and competent administrator, and was showing his sycophantic courtiers he wasn't all powerful and could not command the tides.
THX1138 said, 1663162952
HorrifyMeUK said
-sp●●n- said
Give it a year or two and will be impossible to even detect which is AI and which is not.
Yes you’re probably right. Isn’t that just soul crushingly depressing?Edited by HorrifyMeUK
Maybe it will make those who create art without AI intervention more appreciated?
Lenswonder said, 1663165706
This is odd considering some have got FPI's but I get it.
I have no issue though not being an AI user.
The word 'deceive' is questionable, considering AI models at least the ones I've seen are easy to spot.
What happens if an artist creates an artwork using computer tools that's non AI but someone thinks it's AI, do you get banned for being accused? It's a slippery slope.
By computer tools I mean tablets or other well know computer artmaking software which can be used with traditional skill.
Edited by Wondrous