AI crap in compo entries?
category: general [glöplog]
Okkie, I am not getting what is the problem with using AI, really. A capable graphist can search for an image of a certain motif (and you may replace 'motif' with every element some image may carry, ok?) and do whatever manipulation she/he might fancy over it, bring to a state that she/he feels it has become her/his 'own' and use it in a demo or submit it in a compo. It is a real thing, you know, it's happening. So, I am GUESSING it's ok, because if it wasn't it wouldn't be happening. Can you distinguish that kind of image from one made from scratch?
Then, at the same time ppl go ape with the thought that the same capable graphist may, INSTEAD of search for an image that suits, GENERATES it using AI and then go with the exact same practice to make it her/his 'own'.
The question that might be brought up, is, for example, "would this make Steffest change his practice ?". Well, I believe not, because Steffest doesnt seem to bother with the method described above anyway.
Then, at the same time ppl go ape with the thought that the same capable graphist may, INSTEAD of search for an image that suits, GENERATES it using AI and then go with the exact same practice to make it her/his 'own'.
The question that might be brought up, is, for example, "would this make Steffest change his practice ?". Well, I believe not, because Steffest doesnt seem to bother with the method described above anyway.
Quote:
All right, let's be realistic about AI in the demoscene. It's here to stay
If this plays out, I personally know some creative humans that won't stay. Rejoice! Let's throw creative people out, so that we can feel like artists! Yay!
Quote:
Okkie, I am not getting what is the problem with using AI, really.
I do get it. I personally think "AI art" is the exact opposite to demoscene spirit.
Quote:
did an AI write thisAll right, let's be realistic about AI in the demoscene. It's here to stay and ignoring it is not an option. Just as PC demos brought capabilities that C64 demos couldn't match, AI introduces a new set of tools and possibilities. But that doesn't mean we should lump everything together in a competition. It's like comparing apples and oranges if we start mixing traditional digital art with AI-generated pieces in the same compo.
It makes sense to create a separate space for AI art. Using AI isn't just about hitting a generate button; it's about exploring new creative frontiers, pushing the boundaries of what's possible, and producing work that's truly impressive. The demoscene has always been about using the latest technology in innovative ways. Why stop now with AI? By creatively integrating AI and giving it its rightful place, we can continue to lead the way in technology and art, exploring uncharted territory without losing what makes the scene special.
Quote:
I do get it. I personally think "AI art" is the exact opposite to demoscene spirit.
And I think AI "art" (actually craft) is the perfect realization of demoscene spirit, and that's why we embrace it.
Good for you
@bifat
Fair enough. Not like I asked for your opinion, but here it is and it's OK.
You said what you think of "demoscene art" in your last post.
Fair enough. Not like I asked for your opinion, but here it is and it's OK.
You said what you think of "demoscene art" in your last post.
Yea well okkie and 4gentE, if you want each other to fondle your balls, you can do so
Quote:
I may be conflating different opinions here, but...
How can AI imagery be unoriginal/derivative/flat etc. and at the same time threaten to put artists producing fresh original pieces out of work?
If there is a demand for new original material, only human creativity can provide that, still.
a couple of things come to mind:
1) People don't necessarily create original artworks.. there is plenty of unoriginal, derivative drivel out there. But that's not all bad, because..
2) Originality is overrated. I mean - I do love originality and new ideas - but it usually isn't the point.. *the process of creating something* is the point. At least for me. I don't want to push the button and have a finished demo or compo pic delivered. What possible sense of achievement or personal growth could that give?
3) I don't think the demand necessarily IS for new and original material. For many companies and people, generic bulk standard stuff is perfectly acceptable. Especially in a commercial context.
4) I think AI will actually increase the value of people who know how to produce something by themselves - my assumption here being that less people will spend the time to actually learn about art if they don't need to. Or learn about coding, or whatever. This assumption goes for anything, really. As the number of those people drops, their value should increase, right? I mean, what are you going to do when the AI doesn't deliver what you need? Just give up? Or are you going to turn to people again?
5) Agree with smash, let's remember to differentiate between the different kinds of AI. I have nothing but love for e.g. the image recognition AI that can help doctors diagnose skin cancer or look through xray images.
also:
"Ignoring AI isn't an option" -> what does that mean? Does it mean we should unconditionally accept everything AI? Does it mean we should stop discussing it and putting forth criticisms (but also praise!)? You might as well say "Ignoring diesel engines isn't an option". Yes, AI exists now, just like diesel engines. But it doesn't logically follow that AI must now be used for everything.
If AI is indeed just a tool (as AI proponents like to say, and I happen to agree) then let's use it as a tool, i.e. where appropriate to reach our goals and desires, and where it is morally responsible to do so.
Quote:
Because you (or someone) can't spot the difference between human and AI, that's why it's threatening. Not because it's good, but because it's bad and yet people fail to see it.
And yet, once others point out what's obvious to them, an informed decision is made and the downthumb cast.
The demand for high-quality content, however you define it, stays.
If anything AI visuals, no matter how much human direction and manual compositing/collaging and paintover work goes on top to correct the errors and limited scope of those very dumb painting machines immediately disqualifies the entire product in some people's opinion, then so be it, and there will still be downvotes aplenty.
@4gentE, no man, there's many images I have seen in demos that would casually dominate the space of some Art expo. :)
However my understanding is that a big part of the demoscene is about the crafting, not the 'art-ing' when it comes to graphics. So, if one is allowed to apply his 'amazing dithering' abilities to an image imagined and realized by some other creator, then in my book there's no problem with one to be allowed to apply his 'amazing dithering' to an image generated by a machine. Unless, in the first case, he is a super person and is absolutely transparent that he is using other peoples' work (from 'inspiration' to whatever level) in which case this becomes a part of the artwork (which is common thing in the Art world, with 'A').
So, for me, plagiarism will be plagiarism, regardless the process. If you or anyone else feels there is a difference, I respect that but I disagree.
However my understanding is that a big part of the demoscene is about the crafting, not the 'art-ing' when it comes to graphics. So, if one is allowed to apply his 'amazing dithering' abilities to an image imagined and realized by some other creator, then in my book there's no problem with one to be allowed to apply his 'amazing dithering' to an image generated by a machine. Unless, in the first case, he is a super person and is absolutely transparent that he is using other peoples' work (from 'inspiration' to whatever level) in which case this becomes a part of the artwork (which is common thing in the Art world, with 'A').
So, for me, plagiarism will be plagiarism, regardless the process. If you or anyone else feels there is a difference, I respect that but I disagree.
Quote:
Yea well okkie and 4gentE, if you want each other to fondle your balls, you can do so
Hey man, I'm sorry a lot of people thought the production you nearly had a burnout over was a piece of shit!
And if an artist generates some AI images to get some inspo from and then fully pixels a good image out of it, great, people did that with magazine ads back in the day. Inspo comes from everything.
Im mostly talking about somehwat verbatim used AI art like in that amiga comic, the protagonist never looked the same in any frame he was in. thats just lazy.
I asked an AI for a painting in a series of in progress steps, and it actually came up with something that, if refined for a bit, would possibly be used to circumvent that way of disqualifying AI in art contests..
Yeah, gargaj mentioned that several times now.
Also, love this thread and I do love you all! Even Bifat, that snarky lil queen <3
The only problem here is the religious fervor. Simply let people do what they want to do, and let the thumbs or whatever sort out the rest. That's wonderful, that's the spirit. But not separate "spaces", and restricting AI in compos, that's utter nonsense. You could never draw any reasonable line. And besides AI is in many gfxers toolchains already anyway, and they are only getting better and better in intermingling its use with their other tools. You wouldn't forbid a certain kind of brush or color or canvas or tool in a paint program. We are just ahead of the pack conceptually and so confident with our process that we don't see a reason to try to disguise anything.
Hey man, i agree and you'll get the feedback people feel it deserves, but then don't go beg for thumbs, that's just lame!
I don't get why some people hide using AI. Why do they lie? Some even fake workstages. Why?
Quote:
this is clearly, there is a demand for all kinds of images, as evidenced by your demo? you obviously didn't mind that your protagonist's body type changed from panel to panel, or that the glasses and t-shirts were a different color from one image to the next. it was good enough for you, no artist necessary. you had a demand for images, but the AI generated ones sufficed for you. i've explained earlier in the thread how this ultimately hurts the whole field. I may be conflating different opinions here, but...
How can AI imagery be unoriginal/derivative/flat etc. and at the same time threaten to put artists producing fresh original pieces out of work?
If there is a demand for new original material, only human creativity can provide that, still.
the underhanded implication that only artists producing non-fresh or non-original art are threatened by AI generators is cruel in two ways: first, it shifts the responsibility for people losing out on opportunities onto them, as if they'd gotten the job if only they were better at it. we know that this is wrong. if people can get "good enough" at 1/100th the price of "just right", that's attractive to a lot of them. all artists suffer from the devaluation of the category. whoever you judge fresh and original enough to let them have a career will still have fewer opportunities and more difficult compensation discussions. the looming AI generator is a lever for employers, the same way unregulated cheap labor anywhere else is. second, and this is something i've seen a lot of people do (not just here), it frames what's happening in purely economic terms and assumes a sort of unexaminable inevitability without considering that it is actual human beings deciding how to wield the tech, and that we *could* actually change how we deal with these things. we as a community, and we as a society, are able to decide whether might makes right, or whether we want regulations that protect the vulnerable. we could decide to make the tech adapt. it's not a hurricane.
@rexbeng
I get what you're saying now. You're saying that if a quality crafting process is applied to something that initially came from AI, there's no difference between that and if this crafting process was applied to an existing piece of human made art. I can agree with that to a point.
I was thinking more of these "raw" AI images we're seeing, where the "quality crafting" process is nowhere to be seen.
I get what you're saying now. You're saying that if a quality crafting process is applied to something that initially came from AI, there's no difference between that and if this crafting process was applied to an existing piece of human made art. I can agree with that to a point.
I was thinking more of these "raw" AI images we're seeing, where the "quality crafting" process is nowhere to be seen.
That's what the toxic modulo demo looks like to me at best. As a sketch - storyboard.
Quote:
you obviously didn't mind that your protagonist's body type changed from panel to panel
In his first appearance he's superman. With the hairlock and all. I guess that's what happens when you enter "superhero" in a prompt.
Quote:
what a load of bullshit, it's like you're talking about "woke" or vaccines again. fuck off with that pretense of victimization. sometimes people don't flame you because their opinion differs from yours, sometimes they have a different opinion because yours sucks so much that you get flamed for it.The only problem here is the religious fervor. Simply let people do what they want to do, and let the thumbs or whatever sort out the rest. That's wonderful, that's the spirit. But not separate "spaces", and restricting AI in compos, that's utter nonsense. You could never draw any reasonable line. And besides AI is in many gfxers toolchains already anyway, and they are only getting better and better in intermingling its use with their other tools. You wouldn't forbid a certain kind of brush or color or canvas or tool in a paint program. We are just ahead of the pack conceptually and so confident with our process that we don't see a reason to try to disguise anything.
Actually it was nice and interesting to see the timelapse of the Revision oldschool graphics winner. It took the artist really many hours of work. And it felt good to see it winning.
The result does not only matter because for me it’s the process I show my respect to. It’s comparable to the craftmanship of making stonewalls with clinkers you often see in the north of germany. Someone who is really good at this, can create some amazing results.
Using AI tools to replace the process of creating an artwork is like calling the manufacturers of prefabricated houses where they just bring trucks with premade walls and finish the shell of the house in 2 days. For 100.000 EUR.
In real craftsmanship there are other examples and I give my thumb and admiration to those who work like that. Of course they also help themselves by using mixing machines for the mortars and cranes, but the craft of constructing the wall itself is done by people.
That’s why for me personally AI art where tools „auto-craft“ the artworks need to be separated from human art.
The result does not only matter because for me it’s the process I show my respect to. It’s comparable to the craftmanship of making stonewalls with clinkers you often see in the north of germany. Someone who is really good at this, can create some amazing results.
Using AI tools to replace the process of creating an artwork is like calling the manufacturers of prefabricated houses where they just bring trucks with premade walls and finish the shell of the house in 2 days. For 100.000 EUR.
In real craftsmanship there are other examples and I give my thumb and admiration to those who work like that. Of course they also help themselves by using mixing machines for the mortars and cranes, but the craft of constructing the wall itself is done by people.
That’s why for me personally AI art where tools „auto-craft“ the artworks need to be separated from human art.
Quote:
We are just ahead of the pack conceptually and so confident with our process that we don't see a reason to try to disguise anything.
GOLD! As in Trump Tower gold.