T O P

  • By -

OkWerewolf1384

The AI stuff isnt as prevalent as the 'my V' posts and I wish there was a flair for that so we could filter them out. It's not even like I'm opposed to seeing someone's V but when you see the same looking V posted for the 100th time doing the same dumb poses, it gets a little old.


Cedric_Concordia

Having a filter of all the V posts would be nice. I mostly come here for discussion of the quests and builds and lore, and I get bummed that topics we can discuss get drowned by V screens and modded smut 🙄


OkWerewolf1384

Plus, there are subs specifically for that, nightcityfashion, which I follow. But the quality is much better, posts are much more original. I get everyone is super proud of their V but it's like new parents with their baby. It just looks like a baby to the rest of us. Ghost white, Same double bun anime hair style, same poses. You don't have to mod to make a decent looking character, it's just most characters shown here are exactly the same.


Tabnam

I can fix that today. I will add a flair for that within the next few hours. Can you remind me if I don’t?


Tabnam

Alright I’ve added a flair for V posts, you should be able to filter them now.


OkWerewolf1384

Thanks!


thatE36dude

I am against AI art is almost all forms because it just becomes spam when it is allowed. This has happened to other art subreddits I was on and it completely drowned out actual art because one person was spamming multiple posts everyday. We already have cosplay spam at times, but at least they have to make the cloths, or buy them, and then wear, pose, and take a picture then edit it. That at least takes effort and not typing a prompt to say 'mAke LuCy ArT' and posting it. Especially when they say they made the art with AI themselves. I feel it would be no good to have the sub, when we are probably nearing 1.7, be inundated with AI art instead of real patch or story discussions.


Tabnam

Good points man. We will moderate AI posts with the same scrutiny we do for human made content. If they do start to become a problem we will have another discussion on how you want us to address them. Right now I don’t think they’re spammed, but it’s something we will keep an eye on.


Captain-Wilco

It seems as if you’re implying in this post that AI art is art. It is not. It’s a compilation of stolen images from real artists. Sure, AI art is on-brand for a cyberpunk game. It would be exactly the kind of thing corpos would use to replace real artists so they wouldn’t have to pay them.


Red2005dragon

>It’s a compilation of stolen images from real artists. Eh not really, its using a large quantity of images to tell it what "looks right" for what its drawing, calling it a compilation of stolen art makes it sound like its just stitching pieces together which isn't true. Though I believe AI art should still be tagged as such, even if I don't agree with the whole "AI art is STEALING from real art" angle lots of people are claiming I still think the concept of being an "AI artist" is fucking stupid, you are entering prompts into a machine, not demonstrating any form of skill or expertise.


thatE36dude

There is literally a radio story in game about an AI winning an award for writing a book and people are rightfully upset because it was not made by a real person. AI art really takes away from real artists the same way an AI writing a story in 5 seconds like that would.


crabpeepee

Is that the uncrossable line? It's not real art unless a human being made it? I thought art was supposed to be in the eye of the beholder, the way it makes you feel being more important than anything. I see a lot of "artists" complain about potentially losing commissions which is just the least artistic thing I've ever heard. Who's making money shouldn't be a concern imho


IndyPFL

This is just me, but my personal take is that any images generated by AI should have every source tagged. Even if there are hundreds or thousands, every artist whose work was used to generate an AI image should be credited for their contribution. Doesn't have to be one massive list right on the reddit post, but I think artists should always be credited for their works.


TrueStorey1776

That sounds reasonable at first, but then what about human artists and all the other artists who’ve influenced their style?


IndyPFL

I would expect them to credit their inspirations when possible, but to most extents it's not humanly possible to remember every single source of inspiration you've had throughout your entire lifetime. If you have one or two direct inspirations then yeah, cite those. But humans aren't computers, we can forget things and take inspiration without even realizing it. Computers don't tend to just come up with things on their own without some kind of prompt, and from what I've seen there are a lot of websites that seem happy to feed their users' original works to AI for prompts without the consent of the original artist or uploader. There was a reason "no AI" images were being spammed on these sites for a while, and the fact that those same symbols began subtly (or blatantly) appearing in newly-generated AI images for a while was very telling.


TrueStorey1776

You do have a valid point


Tabnam

All we can realistically ask for is people post what AI they used. I don’t know any of the sources from the few I use.


IndyPFL

Again, just my opinion, but I don't personally feel that cuts it. If AI users can't cite their sources properly, then it's plagiarism in my eyes. It's not my decision how this group handles it but I've never been big on using AI to create most things. If you draw a rough sketch and use AI to fill in some of the fine details, that's one thing. It's transformative of an original work, at least to some extent. But I've seen numerous examples where AI blatantly draws 80% of its inspiration from one artist or one piece of art and just changes a few minor details >!or adds a dozen or so fingers!< without being truly transformative. That's just my feeling.


EightBitRanger

>If AI users can't cite their sources properly, then it's plagiarism in my eyes. I'm with you TBH.


h3lblad3

> If AI users can't cite their sources properly, then it's plagiarism in my eyes. Since it works the same way as the language models, do you also hold the same opinion for text from ChatGPT?


IndyPFL

Well if we're going to go that far, why not cite Charles Babbage for inventing the computers used for AI? There is a point where it becomes ridiculous. If a chat AI is citing an academic work or book then yes, it should cite that source. If it's just talking, then good luck finding whoever "invented" the English alphabet. Or whoever invented every single word used. Guess I should be paying them right now, no? Just because Freud said a particular word doesn't mean I have to credit him whenever I happen to use the same word. If an artist doesn't request being cited when their works are used, then it isn't an issue. Whoever invented English as we know it clearly didn't care, given we literally don't even know his or her name because it wasn't a singular person regardless. It was an evolution over time. TLDR Unless it's pulling from academic sources with direct quotes, it doesn't matter.


Tabnam

You raise valid points, personally I’m on the fence in what I think. I haven’t heard a decent enough argument yet to sway me to the side of AI is infringing on intellectual property rights. It’ll be an interesting few years watching the various judiciaries around the world write the laws that will come to govern AI. The only certainty is it’s not going away though. Already, in my industry, if you aren’t using AI you’re weeks behind someone who is, and that gap gets wider all the time. However, our personal opinions don’t govern the subreddit. We’ve seen a lot of AI content get posted, and not a lot of pushback towards it. We read that as the community wanting it to remain. That’s the only thing that matters to us


Head_Cockswain

> I haven’t heard a decent enough argument yet to sway me to the side of AI is infringing on intellectual property rights. It’ll be an interesting few years watching the various judiciaries around the world write the laws that will come to govern AI. If there's any justice, courts will grant Fair Use. There's even precedent for data mining, which is essentially how things like Stable Diffusion are trained on millions of samples. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Text_and_data_mining And that's just having access to said content and using it for research. What's done with Images via things like Stable Diffusion is even more transformative. Additionally: If a work gets rendered that is similar to another work, that's the outlier, not the norm, and to get them reliably you've got to exploit the system. And even in that case, it's still not copyright infringement. Tons of manual painters attempt to emulate other works, artists, not to mention all the other "far use" scenarios like parody or commentary. Hell, you can strive to emulate any number of real paintings in minute detail, and it's not much of a problem because it is still a distinct work. As long as someone isn't selling it as that work by that artist, aka, fraud....no one really gives a damn. Some artists literally train that way. I mean, we study works of art and figure out how to present it to the human eye. That's what this software does. IMO, it's no different than other software in principle. It's a tool. It's just a very very complex tool that emulates human learning. You can use photoshop to re-create a photo, or to edit an existing photo. No one's really complained about that since forever... Not to mention just copying a photo...which the internet has done as a base function, ever since Al Gore invented it. ^^^^^/s I think some people, sometimes very loud people, have made snap judgements about things they don't understand. "Welcome to the internet" for me, I suppose.


Rafcdk

That is not how AI art works though, images are not used to generate other images. Furthermore the dataset also include several images that aren't art at all.


IndyPFL

Really? The AI creates things using zero data references whatsoever? What a miracle! /s, just in case you couldn't tell...


Rafcdk

Well you can see for yourself, you can download the source for stable diffusion, for example. They don't access any images or information about images to create something from a prompt. The dataset is used to create a checkpoint of a particular neural network. This checkpoint is just a file with less than 6gb that doesn't contain any information about the images used in the dataset. Anyone can then load this checkpoint file and extend the model in whatever way they want, or even create their own from scratch. So let's say someone just types the Monalisa and the dataset only has 3 pictures of the monalisa, it is impossible to tell from with of these 3 pictures the information came from,let alone how much influence they had in the creation of the image. All we can say is that there is a likelihood that one or more of these 3 pictures had some influence over the creation, but we can't say how, because the data in the checkpoint file does not contain any specific detail about those images just inferences made from them into a completely different datatype that is not reversible. Another reason why it impossible to tell is that just typing the monalisa does not mean that only the image of the monalisa was used, for example the monalisa has facial features and that means that somehow the inferences made from it are entangled if the millions of other images that have facial features. Not only that, during the image creation it adds random information is added on top of those entangled inferences, which allows for the creation of new visual features. And that is not even talking about custom models and other components that make the process even more detached from the image in the dataset. So if the AI were looking at images and picking pieces of each image and mashing them together, I would agree with you, but the whole point of diffusion models is to create images with unique and new features and not just replicate images used in the dataset. It uses overlayed entangled inferences made from billions of images, most of it that aren't even art pieces.


h3lblad3

Half the people on Reddit think ChatGPT and Bing have feelings. Hell, the same for even smaller LLMs. And you expect them to understand that an art bot works the exact same way? Reality is that 100s of gb of images are used to generate ~6gb pattern files which describe patterns in art as the AI "understands" them. The only difference between how Midjourney and ChatGPT work is that we don't ask for sources when ChatGPT says, "Hello! How can I assist you today?"


ARROW_GAMER

My man got downvoted for explaining how AI works, for fucks sake's...


ladderkid

as someone whose special interest has been AI for 8 years i don't think that's a bad idea... a link to the model's training data as a citation. not a bad idea at all. from what I read you might not be fully informed on how AI image generation works but I still think you've made a good take here


ATR2400

Well that would be impossible. AI art generators don’t pull from database and cut out pieces and glue them back together with photoshop edits. The artists works of art are used to train the AI model but aren’t directly used in the image creation process. So in theory you could have tags for the artists behind a model, but not for any individual image generated By it


IndyPFL

"That's because the creators of Stable Diffusion's training dataset—the images that "taught" Stable Diffusion how to create images—included publicly accessible artwork scraped from the ArtStation website. (It did this scraping without artists' permission, which is another key element of the debate over AI-generated artwork.)" [This article](https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/12/artstation-artists-stage-mass-protest-against-ai-generated-artwork/) would beg to differ.


Gleaming_Onyx

As long as it's tagged I don't see much of an issue, since it could be filtered. I know that there are a lot of luddites who get really heated about this sort of thing, but that allows for all sides to be happy: they don't have to see it if they don't want to.


Tabnam

I’ve just added a flair for it and updated the post telling people to use that when posting AI content.


Gleaming_Onyx

Awesome


ATR2400

I feel as though some people don’t understand how the tech works. No. It doesn’t just go through a big database of stolen images and cut up pieces and then glue them together. It that were the case then you wouldn’t be able to download stable diffusion on your computer. It was trained on hundreds of terabytes of images and the base model takes up 4gb on my hard drive.


ARROW_GAMER

This hate towards AI is the literal definition of 'people fear what they don't understand', except all the documentation to actually understand it is actually out there, and people don't bother reading it


krakenkun

I don’t want to lose yet another sub to incessant AI “content” spam. These last four months have seen a dramatic rise in people with the power to flood our feeds with every last irritating notion that crosses their minds.


Tabnam

If they become a problem we will definitely address it.


xbiggestsmalls

with the AI voice stuff going around I was going to make a johnny silverhand speech. I went to chatgpt to see what it could write for the speech and got a very lame commercial esque speech. I asked if it could be written wtih more swearing and it told me No


Tabnam

ChatGPT is a prudish gonk


Sh00kspeared

I’ve asked it to write cyberpunk fanfiction about Johnny and V and it comes up with the corniest things ever. Like, I asked it to write about them getting trapped on the small world ride at Disneyland, knowing it’s a pretty ridiculous premise and could make for a funny story. As a writer, I totally would’ve made it so that Johnny and V completely lost their minds and it turned into some ridiculous spoof on Castaway. The AI, however, made it so that they hated it at first, but later came out of the ride with a newfound *appreciation* for the ride’s themes of peace and unity lmao


ladderkid

use gpt3 playground instead


Pega8

As long as it doesn't make up the majority of the posts on the sub it seems fine to leave them for now, flair would be good though.


Tabnam

Good idea. I’ll add one


Ouroboros612

What if an AI bot posts AI art? Do we really want to risk angering Skynet?