Asklemmy

49239 readers

683 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

Should a drawing that was made using AI references be marked as "AI Generated Content"? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This is not about any specific case. It's just a theoretical scenario that popped into my mind.

For context, in many places is required to label AI generated content as such, in other places is not required but it is considered good etiquette.

But imagine the following, an artist is going to make an image. Normal first step is search for references online, and then do the drawing taking reference from those. But this artists cannot found proper references online or maybe the artist want to experiment, and the artist decide to use a diffusion model to generate a bunch of AI images for reference. Then the artist procedes to draw the image taking the AI images as references.

The picture is 100% handmade, each line was manually drawn. But AI was used in the process of making this image. Should it have some kind of "AI warning label"?

What do you think?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Koolio@hexbear.net 7 points 2 days ago

To me, pardon the term, but hysteria about AI generated content as some sort of cooties that taints whatever it touches is silly.

AI content generally not art because there is not the same intentionality behind it in an ontological sense, in the same way pretty patterns that naturally occur are not art. You can be inspired by whatever, I'd just call you a shit artist if you trace some AI content and call it your art.

You could argue that it is possible to be art in the same way that guided natural processes can be art, using tools does not immediately make something not art, but looking like art also does not necessarily make something art -- it is an interplay between an artisan and their tools to shape the world with intentionality. I think its just a higher bar to clear with tools that could possibly make some of the "creative decisions".