Currently our rules do not specify for or against AI postings, simply if something “makes you go awww!” then it is welcome. Given that more than a few users have expressed that AI pictures should be limited to AI communities, do we as a community want to restrict AI posts?
Based on the general consensus users are leaning towards ensuring that AI posts are marked as such and to limit the amount of them. Adjustments to the sidebar rules will be made stating that AI posts must be labeled in the title as Lemmy does not currently offer a way to provide flair. If we see a significant amount of AI posts then we will reassess banning them from this community.
I’m not a fan of Ai generated images as straight content, I’m a little more fine with the ChatGPT at work but even then that appears to be a bit of a gray area when it comes to the training data that any AI uses.
I’m gonna have to pass on AI content for the simple worry of the wrong type of content saturation.
I feel like AI posts in this context are no more harmful than Photoshop. It’s not really a community about artistry or appreciating the authenticity of the post.
I would say let them. If people feel deceived by this, but not when someone claims a drawing or picture is theirs when it’s not, that’s a them problem.
Maybe comoderate something like c/AiWWW to have a clear 0eperation but if people want they can get over the info a community that is specifically for it
The problem with that is we're already such a small community, something so niche as cute ai generated images only would be so microscopic that it may as well not exist. Back on Reddit they had the userbase to support such niche interests, but the fediverse isn't there yet.
I don’t want to gatekeep what is and isn’t aww, but I definitely don’t appreciate the realization that something fake was slipped in right under my nose without warning. AI may be harder to get good results from than I imagine, but if it’s not being presented as exactly what it is upfront, it’s naturally going to fool a lot of people into thinking they’re seeing an extraordinary image.
Come to think of it, this doesn’t just extend to AI. If someone was trying to pass a photo realistic render or heavily Photoshopped pic off as real (and I mean on the level of replacing, grafting and moving parts of multiple images to make something that gets attention for how surprising or special it seems) then I would feel the same way about that. It’s about honesty. I want to see all kinds of mediums on here allowed to shine, but not if it’s done through obfuscation of the medium used.
And also, AI stuff just skeeves me out. I want to be able to filter it out, or just know that there’s a rule against it and another community for that content. There’s something deeply human and heartwarming about an “aww” to me, and if it’s not real, or at least presents itself honestly in a way I can appreciate the love that went into the craft, it’s no longer aww.
I understand and struggle with the idea of possible dishonesty. TBH I only saw this post in my local feed and commented about why it doesn’t make sense to ban this. The negative culture against this new tech is more dangerous than even the tech itself. This is why I posted and have kept watching this thread. The images generated are based on real images. It is challenging for a beginner to learn how to prompt for both the composition and photorealism. Composition is mostly done with positive prompting; saying what you want to see with the right collection of words and phrases. Photorealism requires both positive prompts about lighting, focus, and image characteristics, but also a negative prompt that removes large portions of the dataset, like CGI, cartoons, anime, etc.
I don’t know of a single reason I would ever waste time on SD trying to generate images to post here. The reason I am trying to say it matters is because everyone needs to be aware of what is and is not possible in this space and stay up to date on it. The tech is moving extremely fast. The there are a lot of very subtle issues that creep into Stable Diffusion outputs. The more detailed and specific the prompt gets, the harder it is to prevent these small errors. After I played with the technology for a few days, I quickly learned to spot many of the errors. Learning this skill right now, to be able to spot the subtle AI errors in images may be really important in the near future. After learning this, I can spot a lot more images that are text2img generated and I would not have known otherwise.
This technology is not a fad. It is not going away. It is a very powerful tool. Calling it “AI” is rather dumb. It is not AGI (general) in any remote sense. This is probably the most disruptive tech since the internet of the mid 90’s or capacitive touch tech enabling effective smart phone interfaces, or crypto currency making billionaires.
It doesn’t matter where you get familiar with text2img nuances, you need to see the almost good, good, virtually indistinguishable, and truly indistinguishable potential to know what is really possible here. You really need to see the level of complexity that is currently possible in a prompt. There is a limit here. If you know these types if limits, you will have a much better sense of truth in this space. Everything visual should be met with skepticism now. Relegation of this tech to the engineers gives them extreme power over you now and even more in the near future. Please take the time to learn about this and be familiar with it.
You can either go full bonzai and aggressively trim any little branch that pokes out of place to try to keep a meticulously maintained tree at all times, or you can just let the tree grows as it will, and if a branch becomes an obvious issue, then just cut the entire branch and graft it somewhere else.
If I was a mod here, I would do the latter, maybe even setup an /c/AIAww or whatever in anticipation for what might come.
That’s probably my laziness speaking.
Add comment