this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2026
24 points (87.5% liked)

Asklemmy

54653 readers
545 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!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. 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.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

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

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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?

top 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] exist@sopuli.xyz 1 points 37 minutes ago

Honestly my main issue is that this gives more power to the corporations who can steal any content and then sell it as a subscription.

Even local generative AI is ethically sus, but as an occasional pirate I don't have any moral high ground. I don't really mind as long as its user in a way that doesn't harm the jobs of the artists (which it often does).

Quality wise, realistic images are often sloppy but I too am starting to fail to notice sometimes, which doesn't feel good if it's something that can misinform me. Recently I played for some hours with an anime based model, and I have no chance telling what is real there. But it still really drew home the fact that it lacks some of the artistic expression. No matter how much you write in the prompt you can't control all the details with intent like the artist does, and you're at the mercy of the model on anything that you leave to interpretation. And if the model doesn't have enough data on what you want it will just break down. So it only works as long as you have a relatively vague idea and don't care about the specifics. Which is why I also think it can't replace anyone as long as the audience cares about intent being there and being consistent (which again often they don't care).

Anyway, I consider these models to basically be creating interpolations of existing art now.

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 hour ago

When the model isn't built on stolen licensed works and built/run in a way that isn't in conflict with the community where the data center resides seems like some basic requirements to meet.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

so, my opinion is, when i want to showcase something, i do the following:

  • first, think about what i actually want to show
  • second, do some sketches on paper to get a feeling for the thing (often helps with thinking about the thing)
  • third, to a cheap crappy drawing digitally, mostly libreoffice impress or krita
  • then, ask the AI to basically make it more alive by adding details etc.
[–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 1 points 5 minutes ago

Wat. Details are what AI is worst at.

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 hours ago

Hypothetically, any time you'd not be able to have a person do it.

Thing is, all the current models out there are built on stolen talent. So you have to decide if that matters to you.

Me? I don't hate generative software per se. I think it does fine for the exact cases you mention.

[–] blackbrook@mander.xyz 6 points 4 hours ago

The worst problem, to me, is that it pollutes our "environment" that is, our cultural environment, our pool of input about the world, with potential corruption, inaccuracies, at worst the intensification of falsities, stereotypes, and mediocre conceptions. Even if you don't detect them in an AI image, they may be there. A real world image contains details that humans have not already preconceived, and diluting that with the bullshit of what humanity thinks is reality but which may or may not be, will have a greater long run cost than we can imagine.

[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 23 points 7 hours ago

I'd rather see MS paint illustrations than GenAI images.

[–] DeLorean12@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago

AI images have this uncanny valley effect to them. They are unsettingly off, because they are not human. I think they are fine for idea generation, but you will lose credibility if you use them elsewhere.

[–] tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Like others will say there is no ethical use of it, except maybe locally on your own hardware for personal curiousity. It's an environmental catastrophy, if it's used more it will increase the value for companies like OpenAI whos owners want to be the feudal chiefs of a new techno-fascist society, and the more encouraged and developed it becomes, the more useful it is for surveillance companies and totalitarian states.

I'm sure there are uses I don't notice, but it does look very bad, and if I notice a company using it it makes me feel a sort of repulsion towards that company.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 7 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

It doesn't necessarily look bad, but it has a certain look. Once you start to recognize AI's tells you can't unsee it.

I don't think individual use matters that much. It's slop, but if it doesn't matter then slop is fine. It's when institutions and companies and governments are using generated images instead of hiring an artist that it becomes a problem; an artist didn't get paid for what is essentially stolen work and now that slop will be crammed down our throats.

[–] kuiskaaja@lemmy.ml 15 points 9 hours ago (1 children)
[–] IratePirate@feddit.org 2 points 9 hours ago (4 children)

Let's not just exchange blunt claims, but reason a little.

Copyright critics have long made the somewhat compelling argument that copying isn't stealing because the original digital item does not become scarcer in the process. So how can AI taking artists' work be considered theft if it, too, just uses copies of the original work and maybe transforms them into a new work (which would, under U.S. law, fall under the "fair use")?

We might argue that, well, fair use does not apply because most AI companies try to monetise the models derived from other people's work.

Which leads me to the question: would you find visual genAI more acceptable if it weren't commercial?

[–] Little_mouse@lemmy.ca 15 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

As bad as copyright laws are, they are made even worse when they are applied to everyday people via life-altering fines, and often ignored completely when applied to giant corporations.

[–] IratePirate@feddit.org 1 points 2 hours ago

I get and share the criticism of double standards in the application of the law and the other ugly sides of corporate AI. The question I'm asking here is: if unshackled from its corporate contexts (i.e. proprietary models run for-profit in centralised data centres): is genAI still objectionable? Is the tech unethical as a wholez or is it only problematic because for now, it is mostly a tool of the oligarchs?

[–] TribblesBestFriend@startrek.website 7 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Because AI companies are making a huge profit (and wrecking the environment) on stolen art.

There’s a huge difference between someone that torrent 1T of books over his/her life and a company that torrent every books in history to make a machine that will try to destroy art as we know it for the profit of the 1% few.

[–] IratePirate@feddit.org 3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Alright, I get that. It's pretty much what I wrote up there in the second half of my posting.

I'd still be curious as to your answer to my question there:

Which leads me to the question: would you find visual genAI more acceptable if it weren't commercial?

Personally probably still see it as slop, because I think that genAI are just a by product of the inherent spyware they are

[–] TootSweet@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

I'm probably the most anti-AI person I know, but I agree discourse around how "AI is theft" is a bit shallow.

Copyright is often erroneously conflated with plagiarism. While the two do sometimes coincide, they're very different concerns.

I, myself, believe copyright is so broken we'd be better off throwing it away. (The only thing I believe I'd miss about copyright if I woke up tomorrow and it didn't exist would be copyleft.) But I do deeply believe in a right to attribution. I don't think AI is theft. I think it's plagiarism.

And I believe that listing the names of all those whose works were included in training data for a model would still be a great disservice to the artists buried tens of millions of names deep right after some dumbass "NFT artist". Meanwhile, asking an LLM or image generating model which training data was involved in generating one particular piece of output it produced is futile the same way as asking a stage strongman which rep at the gym allowed them to lift that car.

And if someone objected that giving what I would consider "sufficient credit" to artists/authors/whoever would make AI models completely infeasible, then my response would be "that's exactly my point." If it can't exist without taking advantage of huge numbers of people without their consent, then it shouldn't exist at all.

Finally, one more point I want to make is that if AI didn't make billionaires a huge amount of money, the legal system would have put a stop to the mass scraping of training data and made a very visible example of whoever undertook to do mass scraping in the first long ago. (Never forget what they did to Aaron Swartz for scraping on a vastly smaller scale than OpenAI or Twitter or whoever did to make their LLM models.) As terrible as it is having to deal with the shitty IP laws we have, the greater injustice is that the laws (IP and otherwise) only apply when billionaires want them to.

[–] monovergent@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Which leads me to the question: would you find visual genAI more acceptable if it weren’t commercial?

For sure. I couldn't tell you where inspired, but new, work ends and theft begins, or how model training would be funded without commercial incentive. But I would be more comfortable knowing that companies have not ripped potential profits straight from every artist the model had been trained on.

And I like this kind of discussion. What's bothered me before have been the jabs at the mere presence of AI without deeper discussion as to what qualifies as theft. I haven't found myself buying art even before such AI models. I wouldn't buy or sell images that I know are AI generated. And I pay the electric bill for locally-generated ones as if I were doing any other novelty activity like gaming on my PC. I'm curious, what would you think of local models that can be acquired for free?

[–] Contramuffin@lemmy.world 6 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Morally: never. It's built off stolen property and destroys the world with its ecological consequences.

Practically: as a placeholder. A real human will always outperform an AI, but if the intent is not quality but to just get the gist across, then it works in a pinch.

To be clear, it's not just the quality of the final product that matters. An AI-generated product is unmaintainable and uneditable. You can't make variations of a generated product. It's technical debt at its most fundamental

[–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 1 points 7 minutes ago

as a placeholder

And even then, don't use that placeholder as the basis for further work. It kills creativity and makes your work worse.

[–] bloogoose@lemmy.zip 12 points 9 hours ago
[–] schmorpel@slrpnk.net 9 points 9 hours ago

Never. AI is unethical. It is environmentally, socially and artistically unsound. Guzzles water, owned by billionaires, steals artist's work.

Is killing puppies okay if I want to make a really cool fur coat? What if the coat is made out of fake leather and just the collar is made of puppy fur? That's not really a lot of puppies for a really cool coat, wouldn't you agree?

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

It depends on the product. I don't want to be served slop, designed to generate mindless clicks but if AI is secondary to something being produced by a human, for humans, I'm a little less upset about it.

Examples: SNL used an AI photo as an illustration for a weekend upstate story joke. The star of the show was the news story and the punchline to follow. The illustration helps the delivery, but isn't the product.

I could also understand (for example) AI-generated background music when creating a video on YouTube, so long as the purpose of the video is worth a damn.

[–] kindnesskills@literature.cafe 5 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

I don't know, I struggle to find a single use.

Maybe to make a quick funny thing with seven fingers to send to your friends...? But even then the downside is that these images get sort of normalised and I personally wouldn't do it. At least not now that the novelty is way over and there are fewer funny obvious errors.

As a person who can't draw a circle to save my life, for RPG-characters I thought I'd find use for it, but I actually prefer doing a horrible childish two-colour-crayon-sketch at the table rather than bring in a portfolio of images made artificially. My horrible sketches will become part of the lore we kaugh about.

I know that at work when we had out summer greetings sent out from the CEO, anything anyone talked about was how it was so clearly written with AI and it for sure didn't inspire confidence or pride in the work place as it was meant to do. The same with some project image very clearly AI generated, which led to the whole project being less reputable in the organisation at a ground level and having fewer qualified people conscript to it willingly.

And any project where the creator or images are generated, I'll trust far less than ones lacking images altogether.

I'm sorry if I couldn't answer your question properly.

Edit: I may have to go back to gboard - at least it could spell for me...

[–] replicat@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

There at no other android keyboards that work well enough. I always end up back on gboard too.

[–] Fandangalo@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

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:

  • Use for temp art
  • Hire a real human
  • Offset as best you can.

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.

[–] Drewfro66@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 5 hours ago

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.

[–] Exec@pawb.social 2 points 8 hours ago
[–] notsosure@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 hours ago

If you are very ugly, yet you need a new passport.

[–] hoch@lemmy.world -3 points 9 hours ago

Whenever you want. Don't listen to these other wankers