Lit really should reconsider the AI image policy.

[Cubik]

Using AI to generate images is just a major thing now whether we like it or not, this genie is not going back in the bottle and so Lit may as well just embrace it.

I'm not saying that it should be a complete free-for-all, rules could be put in place such as no overly explicit images if the images generated are photorealistic and no images of famous/well known/real people or copyrighted material.

 

[jaF0]

It is not art in that it is not creation of images using one's own hand and talent. It is entering prompts and letting a machine do the work.

 

[nice90sguy]

There might come a time where AI art is used creatively, the way sampling became accepted as a creative musical form. But that time is a LONG way off, if it ever comes.

 

[Cubik]

It is not art in that it is not creation of images using one's own hand and talent. It is entering prompts and letting a machine do the work.

We needn't get too hung up on this concept of "art" and whether or not AI images are art or not. For me it's just a tool for those who are not artistically talented to generate a visual image of an idea in their head. I see no harm in having a space for that here on lit - have a separate place for it away from the visual arts corner to keep the "art" purists happy if need be.

 

[ElectricBlue]

We needn't get too hung up on this concept of "art" and whether or not AI images are art or not. For me it's just a tool for those who are not artistically talented to generate a visual image of an idea in their head. I see no harm in having a space for that here on lit - have a separate place for it away from the visual arts corner to keep the "art" purists happy if need be.

The site's biggest issue currently is with AI being used to generate text content. I think it makes it easier to avoid all of the legal and creativity issues that sit behind the current AI tools (whether they're visual or written), to have a single blanket approach - not allowed. That will probably change as the AI environment changes, but for now, I think the site is taking the right approach. I'll declare my bias: I'm a writer here and draw on paper.

 

[Cubik]

The site's biggest issue currently is with AI being used to generate text content. I think it makes it easier to avoid all of the legal and creativity issues that sit behind the current AI tools (whether they're visual or written), to have a single blanket approach - not allowed. That will probably change as the AI environment changes, but for now, I think the site is taking the right approach I'll declare my bias: I'm a writer here and draw on paper.

The owners of this site could potentially use AI to aid and speed up the process of proof reading stories before they're submitted.

 

[jaF0]

The owners of this site could potentially use AI to aid and speed up the process of proof reading stories before they're submitted.

Go say that on the AH.

 

[ElectricBlue]

The owners of this site could potentially use AI to aid and speed up the process of proof reading stories before they're submitted.

There's been a massive debate about that over in the Authors Hangout. Writers have been getting multiple rejections for content suspected of being AI generated, and it would appear that the site does use AI screening tools as a filter. It's very contentious right now, and will probably remain so, for a while. Hence the blanket site policy at the moment.

 

[blurhead]

Using AI to generate images is just a major thing now whether we like it or not, this genie is not going back in the bottle and so Lit may as well just embrace it.

I'm not saying that it should be a complete free-for-all, rules could be put in place such as no overly explicit images if the images generated are photorealistic and no images of famous/well known/real people or copyrighted material.

The problem is that when AI is allowed to operate unchecked on the platform people who lack an understanding of the effort required to create art by hand start take the liberty of uploading 10's or even 100's of images every day,
overwhelming the opportunity for others to appreciate each piece individually. This shifts the focus from quality to quantity, and indeed crowds out those artists who still choose to use traditional methods.

A clear example of this can be seen on DeviantArt, where the platform has essentially turned into a free-for-all.
Users have been creating accounts filled with 1000's of AI-generated images, and the uniformity of those images makes it seem like all the artwork was produced by a single artist.
I am sure that somewhere Andy Warhol is having a good laugh about all this......

 

[nice90sguy]

I am sure that somewhere Andy Warhol is having a good laugh about all this......

I'm willing to bet he would have used it, because it's very "now". I've always thought his stuff was 90% marketing hype and 10% creative

 

[THROBBS]

I'm willing to bet he would have used it, because it's very "now". I've always thought his stuff was 90% marketing hype and 10% creative

There was far more creativity in Warhol's work than you give him credit for.

His work must be considered contextually within the times that he created it.
Much like Marcel Duchamp or Jackson Pollock... were creative, in that they pushed the boundaries of Art.
And they did it. NOW a splatter/drip painting is simply derivative, as is much of the works of found objects placed on a pedestal à la Duchamp. etc....

 

[THROBBS]

We needn't get too hung up on this concept of "art" and whether or not AI images are art or not. For me it's just a tool for those who are not artistically talented to generate a visual image of an idea in their head. I see no harm in having a space for that here on lit - have a separate place for it away from the visual arts corner to keep the "art" purists happy if need be.

Use the tool for your own amusement, BUT do not try to pass it off as your Artistic endeavor.

The harm (and there IS harm) is AI art (and writing) is generated by STEALING work from actual Artists without the any of the work (labor) that was required to generate that source material. Read @blurhead 's post.

 

[THROBBS]

AWE! You did some wonderful coloring! You chose nice bright colors and between the lines! I'm going to hang this up on the refrigerator!



Does that sound mean? It is. It also not far off. A fairly accurate metaphor. hell, most of the time there is no "coloring", just presenting the page or entire book as one's own! "Look what I picked out, all by myself!

 

[OffNSFW]

I am not interested in looking at algorithmically assembled images. I am interested in human self-expression.

No, coming up with the prompts does not qualify.

 

[OffNSFW]

At least he dreamed.

 

[jaF0]

That's using a machine's programming to manipulate the works of another.

 

[THROBBS]

At least he dreamed.

"Do androids dream of electric sheep?"

 

[OffNSFW]

"Do androids dream of electric sheep?"

I have been hyperaware lately of all the ways that A.I. as defined by science speculation (Dick, Asimov, etc.) bears no resemblance to A.I. as defined by corporations and entrepreneurs with a financial stake in it as a product.

 

[THROBBS]

Here's one I made earlier. Norman Rockwell never dreamed.

Sarcastically

 

[AndersonsBiographer]

I was a big fan of AI images early on, but I'm really getting sick of EVERY DAMN YOUTUBE CHANNEL IN EXISTENCE being filled with the same bland, formulaic, lazily-produced AI art.

Granted, that's less a problem with the AI than it is with the creators. It was no better back when it was bland, formulaic, lazily-produced stock footage. The real problem is that people I might be inclined to like have been playing around with it, whereas stock footage used to be a near-instant indicator that I could put a channel on my ignore list.

 

[MacSlither]

We needn't get too hung up on this concept of "art" and whether or not AI images are art or not. For me it's just a tool for those who are not artistically talented to generate a visual image of an idea in their head. I see no harm in having a space for that here on lit - have a separate place for it away from the visual arts corner to keep the "art" purists happy if need be.

Lol. "It allows non-artists pretend they are artists."

Just go pick up a pencil and practice. Thats how someone becomes "artistically talented."

This argument is so effing boring.

 

[OffNSFW]

People who don't find the artistic process meaningful and who think artists are just being uppity sure are in the wrong fucking place here.

 

[AndersonsBiographer]

I mean, literotica does allow you to link offsite to websites that allow AI art. That's something, right? They don't have to do that much.

If this was a primarily art-based forum, and a bunch of people were trying to tack on AI generated novels to their (organically-generated) art, a lot of people would be annoyed by that too. I'm not that big of an enemy of AI art and I may even create some for my works, but I wouldn't mind if I can't post it here.

 

[blurhead]

 

[MacSlither]

Observation- i view Ai art as the epitome of laziness. Art is supposed to be fun to learn and practice. Might as well train Ai to play fortnite for you too.

People who are griping about this...some spaces aren't meant for certain things, and that's okay.