I hate this trend of saying "SLAMMED", or "HOUNDED", or "ATTACKED" etc in news articles where the stories are just "a couple of people with a dozen followers between them posted slightly negative tweets about topic xyz".

My parents were bitching about how Adele was "HAMMERED" online because she said "I am proud to be a woman" or something. Turns out it was just two complete nobodies tweeting about how that's trans exclusionary or something with 1 heart each.

[–] wolfshadowheart@slrpnk.net 5 points 8 months ago

Buzzibee absolutely DISMANTLING article headlines! More above!

[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

It's just so they can still write an article even though nothing really happened

[–] Guntrigger@feddit.ch 1 points 8 months ago

AFAIK it comes from tabloid headlines needing less words to fit on newsprint and remember it 30 years ago (it was just a stupid sounding then). I have no idea why it's made the translation to online news in recent years

[–] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 1 points 8 months ago

I'm looking forward to the day when someone legitimately goes ham on someone else, profanity, yelling, the whole 9 yards, and the articles are all like, "so-and-so somewhat disagrees on such-and-such".

[–] alienanimals@lemmy.world 24 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Gosh, I pray they're not using Photoshop as well! Won't someone think of the children??

[–] kaboom36@ani.social 4 points 8 months ago

Photoshop still requires human creative input and isn't built on a foundation of theft

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 20 points 8 months ago (2 children)

This is why we need a rule that if you incorporate your logo into AI art, your logo becomes public domain.

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

This is technically already legal precedence in USA, copyright requires human expression and without sufficient human creative control in ML generated works they're effectively public domain

Edit: why downvotes?

https://www.96layers.ai/p/why-ai-generated-content-cant-be

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yes, for the imagery itself, but their logo is still under trademark. What I’m saying is if you put your logo on AI generated imagery and release it to the public, you no longer own a trademark for your logo.

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's not how courts are going to treat it. Public domain (lack of) licensing is not "infectious". Instead you can just cut out the trademark and reuse ML images because under current legal precedence they're in public domain but the trademark isn't

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I understand that. I’m saying I want to change that.

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 3 points 8 months ago

Good luck with that

[–] danielbln@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Because... why?

[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world 19 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

They have their own Bing Image Creator. Obviously they'd prefer to use their own tool instead of hiring artists. Everyone with two working brain cells saw this coming. (I'm not defending it, it was just obvious the day Bing Image Creator was launched.)

[+] I_Has_A_Hat@startrek.website 15 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Xanthrax@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

The art and images that image AI's are based off of, are stolen. They diffuse them as a legal loop hole. That's the main issue. I want to see AI pushed forward, but not when they're scraping data and not crediting artists. The amount of data required for an image AI is crazy; we have to figure out a way of legally and respectfully requiring that data.

Text AI's are marginally better, because a lot of the data acquired was opt in. It was just people talking. There is the issue with them ripping books, though.

[+] I_Has_A_Hat@startrek.website -9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] vonbaronhans@midwest.social 6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

It does make it different by virtue of sheer scale and efficiency.

A single human artist, no matter how good and fast they are, could ever singlehandedly damage the livelihoods of millions of other human artists. But a machine can. That's a meaningful distinction.

Granted, your point is valid in its purest sense. If we lived in a world where everyone could benefit from AI art without the real-world downsides, I'd agree with you, full stop. But we do, and those ramifications matter.

[–] ferralcat@monyet.cc 5 points 8 months ago

I think basically every industry has been dealing with automation for 100 years now. Art is only unique (imo) in that they've been avoiding it for awhile. That's why I only ride in vehicles where every part is hand made and assembled.

[–] ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 8 months ago

We're far past the era of cottage industries. We live in a world that exists because of automation. Be angry at the game (capitalism), not the players.

[–] Snowcano@startrek.website 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It’s tone deaf as fuck. From the article: “If you can’t hire an artist to do advertising, I highly doubt you’ll do it with independent developers.”

[–] sirfancy@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This is the only point that matters. Even if AI is here to stay, that's fine, you just don't use it when specifically highlighting the demographic most threatened by its usage. The post was just a bad business decision; they should have known how it could come across. It's their job to know that kinda stuff before hitting Post.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

If an independent developer is threatened by AI, then they're using it wrong.

From a development standpoint, it is so nice if you are someone who is good at coding but bad at art to be able to use AI to help with the visual design of the game. It's easy to say "just hire an artist" when so many indie devs are literally one-person operations who can barely afford rent, let alone wages for an artist.

[–] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 0 points 8 months ago

A billion dollar company.....

They also saw a problem since they deleted it

[–] CorrodedCranium@leminal.space 8 points 8 months ago

I really don't care one way or the other. I think AI being used is an inevitability. I think it would only really be relevant if Microsoft had a policy against AI being used in games for things like asset generation for example.

[–] rab@lemmy.ca 4 points 8 months ago

"Energy intensive art" lol

[–] aluminium@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

Just as much love as Microsoft shows the rest of Xbox

[+] echo64@lemmy.world -15 points 8 months ago (3 children)

AI art is always so immediately obvious. I understand the temptation. Oh wow, I can jazz up this throw-away post that no one really cares about.

But everyone that sees that post immediately notes oh its ai art again. Because our brains are picking up on all the details. So it kind of defeats and distracts from the point.

There might be ways of encorporating ai generated images into things, but it's not gonna be by just generating an image with a prompt and running with that as your main graphic.

[–] Daxtron2@startrek.website 12 points 8 months ago

I guarantee you've seen AI generated images that you didn't know were AI. It's survivorship bias, you're only seeing the ones that are bad as immediately AI.

[–] Lekip@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Never say never. I wouldn't be too sure whether or not it remains obvious when AI is being used, and for how long. Right now though it's definitely nothing that should be used as a final result. Really good way to get inspiration for moods and motives though

[–] MysticKetchup@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I don't think it's even good as inspiration, since it pretty much always just ends up looking fairly generic. Better to spend some time crawling the internet for more interesting and unique inspo

[–] Lekip@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No offense, but I strongly disagree. For an initial inspiration sure, arch daily is still my go-to as well. But once you have some idea of what you want to propose to a client it's honestly been a gamechanger to me. Much easier to get specific using prompts instead of searching some tags hoping someone already made, photographed, uploaded and tagged what you are looking for. In terms of how generic it is; so is most of the stuff on say Pinterest. I think it's how you combine and implement what you find/generate. No matter the process. At the agency I work at AI image generation has been a great tool for the past half year. The release of Midjourney 4 made it viable for us, although I prefer StableDiffusion. Either way, I would not want to miss it.

[–] Cybersteel@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago

It's gonna be an eventuality as the technology gets better. AI made games coded by AI, art assets drawn by AI and stories written by AI. The only thing that might protect developers would be new laws against this. Unfortunately, if legislators didn't help protect horse drawn carriage drivers back then, they sure as shit won't help protect us artist now. I can forsee that the only ones being able to afford buying AI made games, other AIs. With humans being delegated to doing hard labour earning pennies on the dime. AI is inevitable.

[–] bunnyfc@kbin.social 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

it's ironic, since AI generated always looks polished - but the identification is mostly context-based i.e. we know nobody would pay anyone for making that illustration from scratch: because it's a throw-away

illustrations will be ubiquitous but mostly shit, only the shit will be more polished

so if an illustration is highly polished but otherwise garbage, it's AI with high probability - because the craftsmanship of the generator exceeds the artistic taste and development of the user