Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

[deleted] t1_ja5itww wrote

[deleted]

269

Tulol t1_ja67imt wrote

Yeah. How would you find out? Most images get AI upgrade anyway what’s the difference between a lot and a little?

16

rkvance5 t1_ja6t1cl wrote

While I’m not 100% sure what an “AI upgrade” is, there’s actually a huge and undeniable difference between using text to create an AI image and a photographer, who has taken a photo, using software to edit that photo.

61

thedaveness t1_ja7ti2m wrote

Like adding in a smile with teeth vs the picture you took with just their normal smile. Tech is to the point where you can do all kinds of stuff like that instantly.

8

rkvance5 t1_ja7tm8d wrote

I don’t think it’s being pedantic to say that that isn’t AI.

−10

thedaveness t1_ja7u631 wrote

Well… been in photography and graphic design for almost 20 years now and that’s all I can really think of that I could use on a daily basis that would fall under that lose definition.

The definition being that some would consider that a cheat.

2

RobotCatCo t1_ja9e6s3 wrote

At this point if the artist doesn't have good hands I'm just going to assume they're AI.

2

Scriptod t1_jabohrg wrote

Hands are fixed already! It's a brave new world! Don't trust anything you didn't see in person!

2

Johny_Debt t1_ja69fbn wrote

These look obviously fake to me but if you haven't used Midjourny or aren't a photographer I guess they could pass.

104

YoYoMoMa t1_ja8rkyc wrote

That is the thing. Most of us are terrible at spotting "fakes". Hell, an AI image won an art contest IIRC.

7

methodofcontrol t1_ja6bvf6 wrote

That fictional story is terrible, you can tell they are not creative at all.

92

MilesGates t1_ja6f47o wrote

they probably made chat gpt write it up. If they were willing to lie with the photos, why not lie with the story as well, it's not as if this person will suddenly decide to put in effort.

44

rocketlauncher2 t1_ja8dh9x wrote

I seriously doubt this guy became a super duper internet pooperstar because of these portraits. Not out of realism but because they’re random portraits. Else it might really be that easy to grab a bunch of peoples attention on that platform while remaining extremely forgettable.

5

[deleted] t1_ja5k713 wrote

[removed]

68

WarriorZombie t1_ja5sh72 wrote

They are very artistic, not going to lie, but also they look “off”, especially when there are many of them together. You start seeing “fake sameness”

80

OrginalGurgi t1_ja61pq2 wrote

Yeah... kinda like no soul in the eyes.

20

LBraden t1_ja69arp wrote

To be fair, you work perm nights as security for 6 years and ask people if you have a soul afterwards.

20

mudman13 t1_ja9x23k wrote

I worked in car rental for ten years can confirm some people have no soul behind their eyes..especially me after a summer public holiday.

2

[deleted] t1_ja75ixf wrote

> They are very artistic, not going to lie

They are very not artistic, not going to lie. Bland are very generic; as if a AI bot made the - oh wait

1

knigitz t1_ja7g0iq wrote

Art is subjective, bro. You're arguing opinions here.

9

[deleted] t1_ja7k1py wrote

Art is also objective.

Ignoring the act of creation and the artist and their tools, is a mocking of art and its creation.

You're the one being very ignorant and narrow minded. Art is so much more than just "subjective opinion".

Bro

−7

knigitz t1_ja7mk54 wrote

No one is ignoring traditional art or its journey.

But you are ignoring decades of science and technology advancements leading us here, ideas that rang in ears likely before you were even born. You are ignoring countless hours of research and development across numerous organizations, companies, universities, and individuals, the developed workflows of modern web apps, and hundreds of open source libraries working together to reach today's result. You are also ignoring the fact that many artists are actually pro AI workflows. You're stuck in the past.

AI art can be beautiful, especially when you put that tool in a digital artist's hands. You just aren't looking hard enough, or are squinting your eyes shut in disbelief when you witness it.

I'm not attacking traditional art. So only one of us here is being ignorant and a narrow minded bigot (you).

7

[deleted] t1_ja7mur7 wrote

You have no experience of how industrial art really works, do you :)

There's nothing to say, because you have the usual reddit armchair stance on this lol. You have basically no clue what you're talkink about.

−3

RefanRes t1_ja7hg4d wrote

Its not just fake sameness in certain parts. Its that there's inconsistencies which show they dont fit with a photographers usual methods or tools. You can see its not the same camera or lens being used everytime.

1

Weazy-N420 t1_ja7ts3d wrote

The thumbnail pic alone looks like a family. They all resemble one another.

1

MasterpieceBrave420 t1_ja5wndb wrote

Some people like the look of overly processed garbage.

20

SirHoneybear t1_ja6rlba wrote

Did somebody mention EDM? I feel like this has been going on for years..

Insert siren...

−11

GeneralZex t1_ja68a72 wrote

I feel like the portraits with a bit of the subject’s story is what made them special to people, until of course the artist fessed up about using AI to generate them. I suppose there is still some artistic value in them even knowing that.

6

mesikepp t1_ja7998r wrote

It is funny how people say they know 100% how these images are odd and they knew right away those are fake.

Dont fool yourself. You would not. Good stuff made with aimgen is pretty much impossible to tell apart when issues have been taken care of

38

DreamArcher t1_ja8zd6m wrote

The first 2 women have the exact same eyes and the old lady looks like a cartoon.

8

eggsssssssss t1_ja9apxh wrote

Look at the old woman and tell me that looks normal.

People might not be able to tell an ai-generated image from a heavily photoshopped photograph, but they can absolutely tell when subtle details combine to make something look uncanny.

8

ninjasaid13 t1_jaaeme1 wrote

>Look at the old woman and tell me that looks normal.

Hindsight bias.

1

lItsAutomaticl t1_ja8m4xl wrote

They 100% look photoshopped at least. The details are too smooth.

7

ThreeWholeFrogs t1_ja7lbfa wrote

It is as it has always been. Look at the eyes.

5

blutfink t1_ja7v12d wrote

Giveaway details will be a solved issue soon.

9

qtx t1_ja8k8z2 wrote

By next month you won't be able to tell.

That's the point of AI, it learns, constantly. Give it a year and you will not be able to tell fake from real.

5

ihrvatska t1_ja7z6cc wrote

What is it about the eyes that indicate the photo is AI generated or manipulated?

2

ThreeWholeFrogs t1_ja82bd3 wrote

They often appear over sharpened around the pupils or have other artifacts.

−2

tom_fuckin_bombadil t1_jaa6q7m wrote

To be fair, isn’t it pretty common practice to sharpen the area around the eyes in portrait photo post production (and to make them brighter). Photographers are always trying to bring attention to the subject’s eyes.

Hell any time there’s a review on a camera lens or body, the reviewer always looks at how well the autofocus is working by looking at the sharpness on the eyes.

1

ThreeWholeFrogs t1_jaa6ytj wrote

Normal sharpness and over sharpening are very different. Idk why I'm getting downvoted when what I said is very easily visible in 2/3 of the examples in the article.

1

50mm-f2 t1_ja85igd wrote

you can absolutely tell. maybe in the beginning when AI stuff was just coming out it was hard to tell because we didn’t know what to look for. but now it’s super obvious if you’ve seen enough images.

1

ggtsu_00 t1_ja6v38z wrote

Are those little story/blurb text descriptions generated by ChatGPT as well?

14

BigBadMur t1_ja6f0mp wrote

AI will destroy art as we knew it.

7

ggtsu_00 t1_ja6vcc5 wrote

It already has. If anything, it has made art a lot less meaningful. You can't really look at an elaborate piece of artwork anymore without thinking: "Eh... could this have been generated by AI?" instead of "Wow the artists here is really talented!".

3

MetricVeil t1_ja7if4b wrote

>... it has made art a lot less meaningful.

I disagree. If anything, it has highlighted the increased meaning in human created art.

What has more, overall, value, an original painting by a human artist, a forged version of the painting by another human artist, a printed copy of the original picture or an AI generated interpretation of the original work?

Art is a direct expression of an artists humanity made using their skills and imagination and emotions. Generative art algorithms generate emotionless, sterile, images with no meaning or purpose.

16

Dragon7619 t1_ja8tyc4 wrote

Absolutely. Original art with sufficient documentation of its creator is goin g to be more valuable in the future. Humans will value Human made things from a human point of view.

I am originally was once a fine artist then turned concept artist in Hollywood and then back to being a fine artist again. I saw the writing in the wall 3 years ago. Even though it was rudimentary in its beginnings, I could see the value of the artwork, hell I actually liked it. That sealed it for me. There would be no future in this. What would take me all day to complete was being done in 10 -20 minutes. Now it’s on your phone.

I value original artworks like I have never before. I also value the stories that accompany them as well and always try to get the artist to fill me in on the meanings or state of mind when creating it.

To make something out of nothing is the most amazing trick that humans can do. We like Prometheus have give fire to the machines and they are capable of the same feat. Even better I might add. It is a tool but the trajectory of machines and man are now on 2 very different paths. It does not however replace the human experience but it’s up to us to preserve it and celebrate it as much as we can.

6

ggtsu_00 t1_ja8i5nu wrote

I would love to believe that was the case, but we already reached the point where human artists are getting banned for creating art that happens to looks like AI generated art.

0

MetricVeil t1_ja8lmr7 wrote

I think this says more about the Moderator of r/Art than the devaluing of art.

The artist deserves an apology from the anonymous Mod and reinstated in the sub.

The fact that generative art is being called out is because it can be produced with nothing more than a few prompts.

If generative art wants to be taken seriously, it needs to be presented transparently, as being produced by an algorithm - not touted as human-created. But people will - and do - take credit for things that they have not made.

The real issue here is the drive to monetise generative art for corporations and individuals who see a cheap and easy way to make a profit.

6

am_i_a_panda t1_ja78lqq wrote

Or you don’t actually understand what art is if you think a robot can create it.

1

Crack_uv_N0on t1_ja6tfnt wrote

That means none of the images are protected by copyright.

6

A-Delonix-Regia t1_ja6z7lr wrote

And the people profiting from such content can't sue anyone who pirates the content. Good for traditional artists.

1

madogvelkor t1_ja8cw3n wrote

But for some applications that doesn't matter. Say I want a stock photo of some interns working in a generic office for an email or website about internships my work is offering. I don't really care if anyone can use them if it cost me nothing but a few minutes of time to generate the image. But now I don't have to pay to use stock photography, and can also have it somewhat customized to my needs.

There's a lot of focus on art and academics for AI images and text, but the real application is going to be boring office shit.

4

A-Delonix-Regia t1_ja8nsdy wrote

True that, it will be good for stock photos which don't need copyright. I was thinking of those few "AI commission artists" I saw on Deviantart, who were competing with traditional commission artists. But IMO the lack of copyright and the current state of AI art should help slow down those people from being commonplace and preserve traditional art.

1

tom_fuckin_bombadil t1_jaa727t wrote

I wonder how this is going to affect the stock image industry. Instead of a designer or editor have to look up and source stock photos, they’ll just get AI to generate what they need

1

honey_rainbow t1_ja5hi6o wrote

At what point do we say AI has gone too far?

5

locri t1_ja5owrc wrote

I doubt it can, the issue is AI and the technology created by engineers has greatly outstripped an untrained person's ability to understand the tools that have been created. But there are just tools and like any tool absolutely requires an operator... If anything it's the operators going too far but not quite.

AI art seems to be an issue for people who want to idolise artists, not for artists themselves who by this stage should understand ideas beyond post modernism such as the expression or intent behind the art being more valuable than the outcome itself. IE, splatter paintings (postmodernism) have no value and neither does the hyper realistic neo romanticism that AI art seemingly excels at.

12

MilesGates t1_ja6exu9 wrote

A gun can be a tool, It's not as good of an excuse as you think.

AIs can be used for good or for evil, this person purposely misrepresented themselves. the simple fact is they used a tool to deceive others.

4

Foktu t1_ja5r8u9 wrote

If people are using it, winning with it, but lying about it, and therefore profiting...probably right now.

4

ElysiumSprouts t1_ja5mk92 wrote

When it takes more than pulling the battery and/or unplugging to turn it off.

−1

ElementNumber6 t1_ja5psak wrote

Oh we're well past that point.

Post-downvote edit: Most just don't seem to see it yet.

−4

Amazing_Elk_9392 t1_ja9s9og wrote

An honest question… a lot of artists say they are mad because AI scrapes the internet for photos and then uses the ‘knowledge’ to creat its own imagery with consent or credit. But isn’t that literally what all Artists do? Or many? Go to art school, study the greats, learn by copying their styles, then one day you become good enough to sit down and think of a ‘prompt’ in your head and make art.

I agree that AI art should be labeled as such, but I don’t think it’s any less of an art (especially when you’re working with photoshop to post process it etc) but why are artist mad about its existence and feel like there is ‘credit’ due?

Not trying to be contrarian, looking for a conversation and input from artists.

5

SPKmnd90 t1_jabplqe wrote

I think it's about the world of difference between someone dedicating a sizable portion of their life to perfecting their craft and someone else spending a few minutes typing in a prompt with the inclusion of "in the style of ____"

It's worth making a distinction between a human interpretation vs. that of a computer because of the sheer sacrifice that goes into the work.

I'm not an artist, but I sympathize with what dedicated artists are dealing with right now.

0

JohnnyTeardrop t1_ja80uxa wrote

A photo is supposed to be worth a thousand words, not the other way around. Probably should have been the first hint this person was overcompensating.

2

50mm-f2 t1_ja86ak0 wrote

“imagine: realistic photograph, portrait, 85mm, black and white, smiling, shallow depth of field, striking eyes” is not art

2

TapesNStuff t1_ja89xt7 wrote

This makes me so sick. I tried for a long time to get my work noticed. I'm not Eugene Smith or anything, but it's interesting at least.

This is fucking bullshit.

2

SeaCraft6664 t1_ja7one2 wrote

Thanks for being honest random photographer

1

Rocketsloth t1_ja93ys7 wrote

The older grandma picture is obviously AI you can see the softening of the skin in the wrinkles it's unnatural looking how long did it take them to figure this out? The eyeball reflections are unnatural looking too. When you look at the faces there's overall too much softening of the hair and skin its unreal looking.

1

slobbowitz t1_ja97f3b wrote

The fraud is only just beginning..

1

Vistalgia t1_jac56ul wrote

I feel bad for actual artists who can draw these types of portraits.

1

trent58 t1_ja6wzud wrote

Obviously he achieved “instagram fame”, because it’s hella easy to notice how fake and similar are this photos. Stupid AI can’t even bother to give them different smiles.

0

mvw2 t1_ja5pwjn wrote

I glance at those pics for half a second and instantly recognize those aren't real. It doesn't look photographic. It doesn't look drawn. It just looks...off.

−4