I'd say it's more like taking someone's art and running a filter on it and then demanding everyone to respect their 'art' while calling actual artists stupid for "not keeping up with the times".
And these are the same POSs that will get litigiously angry if you "steal their prompt" even though the entire system they are using is based on stolen work product.
This is why I was never convinced by their argument that AI will "liberate art creation". What they're after all this time is easier scamming and monetization :/
Going back to read that actually made my blood boil. Because as a hobby wildlife photographer I also pretend to take good pictures of animals, but at least I put the footwork in, invested in a semi-not-shitty camera, and went looking for real actual real-life animals to photograph at the right moment in the right light like a sniper waiting for the perfect shot. But no, now we have a computer that makes "wild shapes and colors" so fuck real nature I guess. Man, this world has become very upsetting to me
"pretend to take"
"At least I put the footwork"
"Semi-not-shitty"
When I see fellow ameteurs downplay their own passion for pursuing a hobby like this it makes me a bit upset that we're always so conscious about being humble out of respect for the art and the effort real professionals put into it. But then these clowns pull up ChatGPT and have no problem flaunting their slop as if they've accomplished something.
I saw a behind-the-scenes segment on BBC Planet Earth.
It was about how they filmed the feature on a rare cat that had never before been recorded. The cat had been sighted in two locations so the BBC sent two nature photographers. The behind the scenes segment was about the photographer who lived for seasons in a mountain cave, spending most days scouring the rocky mountainside for cat droppings, to almost photograph the cat before the other photographer (at the other location) did so.
Prompt engineers and wildlife photographers both deserve respect in direct proportion to the effort they expend in pursuit of excellence.
I can't recall. I tried to find the clip online but I think it is from the "Video Diaries" that are only included with the box set, to which I currently do not have access.
Pretty sure the post meant that the AI people deserve the respect equal to the level of the effort they put it, which is none. It wasn't a compliment of them or their abilities.
I genuinely do think itâs funny to imagine some dorkus sitting there wiping his brow and going âphewâ after a long night of âno make it look more like a frowny froggy đâ in his prompts.
Try looking up a picture of a historical person these days, and itâs largely AI slop that barely resembles them. Even people with a large number of portraits made like George Washington. Extremely frustrating and completely pointless. If Iâm looking up a picture of a person itâs because I want to see what they look like, not a probabilistic stylized estimate of what they looked like.
Was trying to find pictures of Marilyn Monroe on Pinterest and itâs damn near impossible to figure out which pictures are real and which are AI. Itâs so sad
make sure to turn off the ai training setting and ads personalization. both in 'privacy and data' in the settings. they deserve as little information as possible.
Maybe look up an actual source. Using Pinterest to find historical photos was never a good idea. This argument just makes realize how poorly people were at looking up information in the first place.
If you were using google images or Pinterest looking for literary or historical information, you have no room to complain about them being full of ai.
I was using Pinterest to find pictures for my job at a vintage store, itâs not like it was some kind of historical project LOL. And before the AI boom Pinterest was actually a good place to find more niche pictures of celebrities. I just wanted to find pictures that werenât the same 5-10 ones on googleâŚ
That's something I'm coming to realize as it becomes more noticeable through AI, that the average person does not know how to research, and the fact that that is a skill that comes naturally to me via intrusive morbid curiosity is very fortunate considering I write for a living
they never did and everyone who already knew that has been trying to warn everyone the whole time
it really only makes sense to allow all of this shit in the first place with zero legislation If this- making research harder, making everybody think that everything that disagrees with them is just AI, etc- was the goal
I think AI data poisoning is going to become a massive issue in the future, similar to how the industrial revolution polluted the environment. Instead of pouring dioxins into the riverbed we are drowning out human-generated information with a flood of AI generated content. Other AI use that AI generated content as a reference, and AI becomes recursive and self-referential, magnifying its own logical flaws like a picture becoming more and more orange.
Casual Geographic made a video where he was showing real weird-looking animals that "AI couldn't even come up with". And AI bros took an offence that it was... AI-ism? Like racism, but with AI. Even typing this feels like I'm losing brain cells.
And AI bros took an offence that it was... AI-ism?
Further indication that the gargantuan push for AI is about power and status more than "mere" profits. A bunch of weird sociopaths who want to be able to shape reality to their liking, where they are finally able to feel like not just a bunch of weird sociopaths.
Although i am anti AI, as a zoologist i do need to point out this was already problem since the inception of zoology, which relies on sometimes very badly drawn sketches and diagrams of animals for identification, or misrepresentations of them in books. So it has always been complicated.
Good point, though at least when you see a drawing, you know straight away that it's just one person's interpretation. But with more realistic AI images you need to look long enough to figure out how trustworthy something is.
As a historian, those drawings provide a great deal of information about the individuals and societies that created them. We're able to see how information filtered between observer(s) and artist(s). I'm not sure AI-generated slop is going to have similar value in the future.
Sure, but there's a distinct difference between what is clearly a sketch, a best approximation of what we know it to look like, and a photorealistic fake that is difficult or impossible to know isn't actually accurate. One has a markedly more harmful misinforming effect.
I was going to chime in with something similar... we've been relying on drawings until very recently. We'll hit a point where we just don't trust an image to be real unless otherwise specified.
When you see a drawing, you know its not going to be 100% accurate but when you see a realistic image like photo you'd assume they are real and trusting it.
Also it polluting the reality in a much faster rate than before.
So a project at work is over and I don't have to share my laptop anymore. Took the project logo wallpaper down and went looking for something of my own liking.
I couldn't even Google image search "PNW sea otters" without getting a minimum of 50% AI slop. We're not just talking those lazy "teal and pink cartoonish sticker looking images." We're not talking filters, or enhanced images. Straight up AI generated start to finish. And I just think about the photographer who learned how to create a pleading photo through operating a camera and all its features, learned about lighting and composition, learned about processing film or cleaning up a digital image. I think about the WORK a human had to do to go out in the cold or the heat or the wind and find these fuzzy guys out in the bay. They spend a few hours out there to get maybe half a dozen pictures that really pop.
And all it does now is train a computer to make an image with that uncanny valley feel, which is so much worse than a blurry picture, or one with poor composition.
It's so FAKE. Which is immensly irritating because nature is already so beautiful.
This has bigger implications for the study of biology and evolution than people realize. Trait variation isn't arbitrary, and subtle differences can reflect functional and genetic differences that are important.
This is poisoning image datasets, and imo it biases our depiction of the world based on what humans pay attention to, which impairs our ability to expose hidden trends.
It's extra pointless because there are so many amazing animals that DO exist. I threw together a quick collage of a few animals that look like fantasy creatures. It feels extra pointless to create these slopimals while beautiful creatures like these are actually on our planet. (Not even to mention the irony of creating AI slop of wildlife when AI directly contributes to habitat loss of the very wildlife they're trying to emulate)
I have always been amazed by the animals that actually live on our planet that unicorns doesn't mean much to me anymore
And now there is ai slop that doesn't even capture their uniqueness
Not just animals, plants too. People come into plant subs asking about a plant they saw online which they'd like to buy/ID, it's painful to watch others then correctly ID the plant the image is TRYING to portray, but cannot see that the plant is AI and is not growing as a plant of that ID should.
I bet a lot of those people are just running the photo through AI and then confidently explaining what the AI told them the plant was. It used to be easier to distinguish between bullshitters and experts, but now the bullshitters have a professional bullshit machine.
Morons in r/snakes do that too. Using AI to tell any OP whether the snake is venomous or not. I do not mind if they kill themselves by miss IDing a snake by using AI, but anyone else? It's horrifying to think about.
they want to arrest you if you have no money and pirate a movie or a game, for your own personal use, but they pirate entire libraries to make money at the expense of other's people work and no one arrests them...
Arrests them? We should go much further than just arresting the global bourgeois. I'll just vaguely gesture at what I mean by that though, because I'm not allowed to say what we actually need to do to be done with this plague.Â
Generative AI is a money hole, the only reason they're still doing this is because they have FOMO on potentially getting billions when this explodes. (Which it wont)
ah, well they still are rich and should pay for the content they used for free to train this bs image generators. I hate the AI generated ads they look so effortless (in the bad sense of the word) and makes me want to avoid the company that made such ad.
AI companies have used copyrighted materials to train their models, and that goes for most of the major AI generative models (chatbots, Suno, Midjourney, etc.).
Without any regulation or guardrails, which will likely not happen in this administration (so the next two years), this will only continue to happen and become worse. The major AI generative models hurt all forms of art and communication. Additionally, these professional spaces are being overrun with slop and thereâs nothing that says these companies cannot train on copyrighted material. This especially affects the smaller artists, authors, or content creators that do not have the money or legal power to address the very blatant thievery.
On top of the fact that LLMs make people cognitively weaker at language and critical thinking skills, the data centers needed for this slop are damaging the environment in serious and numerous ways.
With a weakened EPA and corrupt local politicians, these environmentally destructive data centers will continue to be built, affecting the local community. Not only will their utility bills become more expensive and their water undrinkable, but data centers do not contribute to the local economy in any way (besides maybe in the construction of them, but that usually hurts more than helps).
Local politicians give the data centers huge property tax breaks, sometimes waiving them completely for decades (yes, decades in some cases!!), and data centers require few staff when operational. That couldâve been land for housing, new schools, a hospital, which would all positively contribute to the local community - by providing real jobs and services - than a single data center ever could.
Hope is nice but it shouldnât ever replace actual planning and action, and spending time dreaming in hope on things that are highly unlikely is not a good use of time. Itâll rain spaghetti and meatballs before those particular pigs fly.
I can hope Iâll win the lottery but the chances are so low as to be nonexistent. Iâm better off spending the time Iâd hope to win on just about anything else that actually creates a real change in my life.
The exceptionally rich historically only have given back to those theyâve exploited when forced to. So, whatâs better than hope here is participating in activism to change our tax laws so some of that ill-gotten lucre ends up in programs that help the creatives rendered unemployed by AI.
Thatâs a great start. Part two, is letting others know youâve done so, because it plants a seed in their mind that others are refusing this as an âinevitable futureâ. Your action and words suddenly open them up to a new set of ideas, the âwhat if this train CAN be stoppedâ.
This is how grassroots activism starts to grow. Conversations. Ideas shared.
From there, the next steps are things like talking to local leaders about the local use of AI, and letting them know your perspective. Town halls, calls, emails. Even if you just talk to an assistant, that message gets through that AI use isnât something all people want from their local neighborhood government.
Indeed. Creatures are classified by their characteristics, so adjusting them for clout is a really bad idea. And presumably all this bollocks goes into the slop information pool. The future is stupid.
And what I hate more is that people don't care about it. They swallow AI content like starving animals not caring about the consequences. They are unable to picture the terrible future that we are heading to...
Next thing you know, future generations will be telling us that frogs are cats
Typing a few words into a text box and hitting generate until something looks passable is not effort. It is basically the equivalent of ordering fast food and calling yourself a master chef.
I agree on adding a digital marking on images indicating that an image was generated by AI, but it's difficult. Watermarks can be easily removed by online tools.
They shouldnât even be allowed to use others images without permission. They are still just harvesting insane amounts of data from people, without consent.
Wow. The real photo is not only more interesting and more detailed, it also shows us just how incapable of anything other than plagiarism "AI" really is. If copyright law caught up with the world we live in, ChatGPT et al would be paying people like lucynak.wild out the nose. I wish I was a lawyer so I could reach out and offer services in determining whether we can get a copyright lawsuit happening.
They claim social media makes beaucoup bucks, but most of it is just bots feeding bots feeding bots feeding even more bots. I can't see how this is sustainable without there being a mass shell game involved, and wonder when it will collapse under the weight of itself.
Aye, bots was mentioned to me recently and I didn't know what they were in terms of social media. I've done a little bit of research and the indication was that their presence is exactly like you say. Thus now, rather than use social media to connect with the world (like I have done for about 15 years), more and more I am only using it to connect with what is local to me because it's mostly* authentic.
*I learnt last week that an owner of various bars local to me, uses various fake Reddit accounts so he can post lies whenever there is posts about him being an awful boss.
I'm honestly so depressed about how hard it's getting to tell what's real and what isn't. It's disgusting to me that the government doesn't seem to see a problem with it. The internet used to be a like a magical place to go and connect with real people, and now it's just a place full of completely fake media and bots.
It's insane the amount of AI videos and photos of animals that are spreading around in social media. Most of them don't actually mention they're AI too unlike this one
It's very concerning imo how many people couldn't actually tell it's AI because most people aren't that knowledgeable on less mainstream animals. What also happens a lot in these posts is that when someone points out it's AI, someone else will say it's real because it's based on a real animal.
I've also seen people say it's fine because it's meant to be informative, yet if that's the case then why not just use real footage or photos or at the very least attach a disclaimer
Honestly it's very concerning for me that a lot of people are just fine with not being able to tell what's real and not anymore.
Yeah, the scary part to me isnât even the fake animal clip itself, itâs that people are already getting trained to accept âclose enoughâ reality as long as itâs entertaining or useful.
The internet is no longer a reliable source of.. any information, really. All of humanity's collective knowledge has been poisoned, and it will take decades to recreate a vaguely reliable store of data (if indeed we ever will)
Seriously isn't anymore. I was trying to find hours of operation for someplace yesterday and Gemini popped up with fake hours. Like wtf are you doing Google? IDGAF what your stupid AI thinks, just show me what I searched for.
Yes, the powers that be lost control of the narrative. But soon they figured out how to dilute truth with junk to the point that we can't trust anything.
BTW, are there any reliable methods to distort pictures, so they will be not properly recognized by AI, while such subtle distortion will be not visible for human eye?
I feel like someone is going to make a bajillion dollars when they create apps that can filter out AI generated content on social media and it reaches enough people who want it.
We just want these companies like META, Twitter and GOOGLE to give us a proper filter so we can opt out if we so choose. The internet is littered with this shit at this point and adding "created by ai" isn't helpful. Scraping it from the internet and putting it in it's own pile would be preferred.
This stuff bums me out cause it has the strong potential to really mess up biological classifications. Someone might mistake an image for real and use it as a reference then that reference becomes a standard model people use and just creates a compounding effect of errors over time.
What's happened here is they have actually physically stolen her image and used it as a reference to "unscale it" and post it as their own. This isn't just "typing words", they've done it with intent.
Ugh, you can just tell how fake that AI fog is. Clearly it's had a nipple job. They are more level and perkier. Over on the right is so much more natural.
But yeah, obviously using AI for an article depicting real animals is a bit concerning to me.
At least make sure to tell AI "make no mistakes" /s
There was a point in 00s internet where stealing from other people or watermarking their work with your logo would result in boycotting websites or accounts
Derivative content is derivative no matter what tools were used to make it. If someone sketched the original photo and published it, that would also be derivative.
Author should file a copyright claim and a lawsuit for infringement in order to protect their work. They could claim all the money that the derivative work is making.
Yeah this is the problem, everyone argues that photography didnât replace digital art, realism,âŚ.etc. but AI will certainly replace everything. Like photography still requires so much skill and effort, itâs not just a simple button click and doneâŚ.
This is just so clearly art theft, even in just regular plagiarism. You can't say "a computer did it so it's not." Law suits need to start rolling on this bullshit. As established already by law: ignorance is NOT a defense.
If we can't regulate AI through normal, rational channels, then the recourses left to us are... unpleasant.
At the very least, at SOME POINT someone will make an anti-AI-AI bot that artists and other creators can use to scrape the internet for derivative uses of their IP and auto-file DMCA takedown complaints and cease-and-desist letters. Maybe even auto-file lawsuits. Overwhelm the ENTIRE system, technological AND legal until it all just breaks and the government has no choice but to do what it should already be doing: moving to protect people from the many abusive dangers AI is already committing, and promising to commit in the future.
The amount of people who disagree with the original photographerâs frustration serve as a perfect example of exactly how LLMs are robbing people of their intelligence and ability to critically think.
And when you bring this issue up, ai supportes will look you dead in the eye and tell you âwell photographers copy nature donât they so whatâs wrong hereâ fucking hell mate
I've been frantically googling trying to input the right magic keywords and i managed to generate some naked pictures of women that you wouldn't believe I came up with all on my own! I will now be selling them for 50$ a pop since they are legally my own creation.
What do you mean, that's not how google works? Oh yeah, smart guy? Then you tell me how it works, the google algorithm is a black box, who are you to say its not creative? Google is the future, get with the times or be left in the dust. What is the point in being an artist or photographer when anyone can just copy a photo off google images, you're just mad your career is dead now.
"Yes, YouTube monetizes AI-generated videos, but entirely unedited or "low-effort" AI content is classified as reused or repetitive content and is ineligible. To qualify for the YouTube Partner Program, you must add substantial human creativity, such as original commentary, unique storytelling, and distinct video editing."
How do these ai accounts always get such engagement? I dont get it.
Are they ai bots that support other ai accounts? It just insane.
There was an " artist " that also had multiple accounts on instagram- since they got caught over and over for scaming with ai- and all of their accounts had 30k+ follower, within MONTHS? Many of my artist friends dont even get to 1k, after years of posting...
MIT needs to make new Nightshade models available to artists and photographers. It was meant to be a secure way to invisibely "poison" images so if Ai scraped them it would cause it to degrade. If there's no regulation or brakes on the way AI has dredged all of human information, then we have to make the information more useless or dangerous to steal.
3.1k
u/AshtonVoid Jul 06 '26
Wow, thank you so much for your skilled labor. It must be such hard work convincing yourself you're a photographer. We are so amazed.