I first dabbled with AI image generation back in 2022 and sprinkled a few such images throughout my worldbuilding project. It was easy to look past all of the flaws with the idea that it was nothing more than a novelty. And I never cared nearly enough about my worldbuilding to pay anyone for artwork of it.
Now that I look back at it, those images are obvious slop, which I've grown to dislike as much as the next person. But recent comments I've seen here and on other sites have made me wonder if my brain has rotted in the same manner that makes some boomers fall for AI slop. There will be videos where the use of AI is not very noticeable to me, but not with deceptive intent. Maybe an illustration to get the point across or a subtle two-second animation. Commenters will very passionately point it out. To be honest, I don't see the creator either paying for the equivalent human work or drawing anything better themselves.
Does it really just look that bad? Is it an issue with what AI and the companies that sponsor it stand for? Theft of real artists' work? Does it change at all if the images were generated locally with the creator's own hardware and resources? What about upscaling images, like I do with old wallpapers so that they look better on new monitors?
I assume what I've just said will attract downvotes, but that was my thought process and I do want to understand where other people draw the line and for what reasons. Should we limit it to quick-and-dirty illustrations, pure novelty, upscaling existing images, a model that only incorporates work if the artist consents, or something else?
I think it makes sense as temp assets in my field (video games), but ideally, you get a real artist rather than use AI. Temp can help visualize the intent, but a real artist will always out perform a machine on creativity, style, etc. I’ve used it for image quality upscaling—I don’t know how to do this on my own, but I guess I could learn.
There’s likely other cases that are “visual” gen AI but maybe medical (pattern recognition?) or gap filling for something like architecture (like first pass treatments). I’m completely guessing there.
The cost to generate an AI image is something like 60 ml of water (shot glass?) or 1kWh (like watching 2 HD movies via stream).
Sure, yes, at scale, this stuff is bad. I would say the worst element is corporate profit of public goods: these machines were made with mass theft, and therefore, In my opinion, should be nationalized or universalized. In this reality, that is basically a joke.
At an individual level, and a personal level, I know driving my car is bad, especially if it runs on gas. Running ACs in the summer is also bad. Leaving the water running while shaving is bad. So is a myriad of many things I do. AI use is completely optional, but it’s not an automatic marker of anyone’s moral standing, at least not more than the other cases I mentioned. You can also offset these costs as a way to be more morally just.
For me:
One of my favorite shows is the Good Place because it highlights how impossible it is to live a perfectly good, moral life in the modern world. I think ascetics who aren’t using the internet or posting on social media are probably closest. I’m sure as hell not.
I think this is the correct take.
The two uses in my personal life I've seen AI used for is easy flyers, and rpg character art.
The problem with AI for personal use isn't usually the easy one (water/electricity use, intellectual property, etc.) for a single, noncommercial user. Artists aren't being harmed if you weren't going to drop the price of a car on character art for all your DnD NPCs, or if the alternative to using AI to make a flyer was spending an hour in canva to do the same thing.
There are other issues. AI-generated character art can have a certain "soulless" quality that I personally hate, which is why I never use it. AI-generated flyers look unprofessional, or sometimes can include visual design elements that give an unintended conclusion or vibe.