I find genAI imagery extremely uncanny and creepy, and I can’t condone the usage of a system whose creators yearn for a day where companies won’t have to pay human creators anymore and can simply funnel their funds directly into the pockets of giant corporations instead.
Additionally, commercial-scale generative AI is already destroying the environment in communities across the world due to its power use.
It’s not something I can accept nor condone, and I will continue to shame people for facilitating the transfer of wealth and destruction of our environment.
To be clear, I’m perfectly ok with ethically trained (open-source weights and data set) generative AI being used locally on a small scale, I think generative AI is a double-edged technology like anything else.
It should never be the end product, but simply a tool.
In this picture here, you can see the skeleton is weird and other images and text is a bit wonky, these elements should have been touched up by a human. This is what I consider slop, raw AI output has this look and feel to it that makes it immediately identifiable, it is up to the artist to touch it up and adjust colours. Again, it should never be the final product. Something as simple as text should probably have been created normally.
I’m against Meta, Google, OpenAI, Anthropic, MidJourney, etc.'s use of generative AI for the reasons stated above, but small scale genAI on your local device? Go for it.
I challenge you or anyone else who thinks this is AI to try to duplicate the image using any standard gen AI tooling. Please post what you get, I fucking dare you.
This is 100% crappy vector art thrown together into a crappy infographic by hand, and that thing on the bottom of the skeleton is called a pelvis.
Ah that’s fair, I can see where you’re coming from on that. Those icons could 100% be generated with AI given the right prompting.
In my book, they look way more like stock assets to me due to how generic the symbols are, and the consistent styling. The “army guard” icon is kinda sus because of the stick “gun”, but that can be read as deliberate ambiguity to appease potential corporate customers who don’t want gun depictions in their vector stock images, and same deal with the generic “six point star”.
You’d also think they’d have chosen some sort of more detailed depiction of “isolation & surveillance” than a megaphone, or a lightning head for “fear & control”. If any of the accompanying text was included in the prompt to generate these images, the output would’ve been completely different.
This image has characteristics of generative AI, but I’ll allow it considering the importance of the subject (and because I didn’t catch it before)
yhea, this is definitely a skeleton:
As much as I dislike AI, it’s getting accepted into the norm. the genie is out of the bottle. We’re stuck with it now.
I find genAI imagery extremely uncanny and creepy, and I can’t condone the usage of a system whose creators yearn for a day where companies won’t have to pay human creators anymore and can simply funnel their funds directly into the pockets of giant corporations instead.
Additionally, commercial-scale generative AI is already destroying the environment in communities across the world due to its power use.
It’s not something I can accept nor condone, and I will continue to shame people for facilitating the transfer of wealth and destruction of our environment.
Speaking as a professional “creative”, art and commerce are antithetical. I’ll be happy to see the relationship end.
yhea, you’re not wrong.
the funny thing about AI,
I’ve seen artists use AI to make amazing art, but it takes them hours, and AI is more of a really fancy brush.
however a non artist can arbitrarily create slop.
the key is still love and hard work.
that’s what separates soulless slop and someone who just used some AI to fill a background a bit.
Uncreative slop is the problem, and AI makes it trivial to create it.
To be clear, I’m perfectly ok with ethically trained (open-source weights and data set) generative AI being used locally on a small scale, I think generative AI is a double-edged technology like anything else.
It should never be the end product, but simply a tool.
In this picture here, you can see the skeleton is weird and other images and text is a bit wonky, these elements should have been touched up by a human. This is what I consider slop, raw AI output has this look and feel to it that makes it immediately identifiable, it is up to the artist to touch it up and adjust colours. Again, it should never be the final product. Something as simple as text should probably have been created normally.
I’m against Meta, Google, OpenAI, Anthropic, MidJourney, etc.'s use of generative AI for the reasons stated above, but small scale genAI on your local device? Go for it.
I challenge you or anyone else who thinks this is AI to try to duplicate the image using any standard gen AI tooling. Please post what you get, I fucking dare you.
This is 100% crappy vector art thrown together into a crappy infographic by hand, and that thing on the bottom of the skeleton is called a pelvis.
those icons are definitely AI made
the text and composition, that’s by a human. but those icons, AI
Ah that’s fair, I can see where you’re coming from on that. Those icons could 100% be generated with AI given the right prompting.
In my book, they look way more like stock assets to me due to how generic the symbols are, and the consistent styling. The “army guard” icon is kinda sus because of the stick “gun”, but that can be read as deliberate ambiguity to appease potential corporate customers who don’t want gun depictions in their vector stock images, and same deal with the generic “six point star”.
You’d also think they’d have chosen some sort of more detailed depiction of “isolation & surveillance” than a megaphone, or a lightning head for “fear & control”. If any of the accompanying text was included in the prompt to generate these images, the output would’ve been completely different.