• AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I think it’s important to remember that any grotesque thing AI makes us is still drawing exclusively from human made examples. There’s no aspect of what AI image generators generate that isn’t derived from humans.

    These images are monuments to humanity’s vanity.

      • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No, but taking most of the collected creative works humanity has ever digitized and distributed electronically and literally making an engine to compile it and puke out ai generated derivative human works on demand certainly is.

        Trying to commoditize and mass produce the intrinsically elusive spark of human creativity is the height of vanity, and the often horrific results of it aren’t at all surprising.

        • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Shall we at least admit that it’s ability to make utilitarian images for use by people making creative commons content like Indy games, YouTube videos, instruction courses, online education tools and similar which we all benefit from is a great thing and worth celebrating.

    • XEAL@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I disagree.

      Using tools such as Stable Diffusion is like asking a malicious compliante genie a wish.

      You have to account for all the “bad” things and use negative prompts for the things that you don’t want, eg: “ulgy, deformed, extra limbs”

      The aberrations don’t really need to come from the training data itself, but are produced when content is generated with it.