[schmidtleonard]

So all the highly unique, contextually relevant and aesthetically pleasing AI art that I am seeing pop up in blogs, chats, documentation, presentations, etc where before there would have been nothing or maaaybe some ultra-generic clipart, this explosion of creativity is slowly erasing the human spirit? Nah. Looks like the opposite, if anything.

"It all looks the same" -> there's plenty of room for better prompting and models. Just look at civit.ai -- the "sameness" problem is just low skill with the new tools. The floor used to be "looks like a kid drew it," now the floor is "looks like the default StableDiffusion style." Replace with whatever domain you are interested in, I am using art as an example because it is comparatively further down the maturation curve. In any case, the ceiling is high and it still takes effort to reach, but the bar is raised everywhere.

[MSFT_Edging]

Those AI photos at the start of blogs often make me say "fuck it" and go back.

It screams "I rushed this out, I'm probably regurgitating something I just learned".

I rather a dorky stock photo than some nonsense AI image puking out some combination of "cyber", "tech", "hacker", and "circuit".

It's unserious at best, scammy at its worst.

[doug_durham]

That an interpretation. The other interpretation is "Hey I'm not a talented artist. This tool allows me to express an idea I couldn't otherwise." Yes AI art is used in scams, and AI doesn't give you good taste. By I don't think it indicates laziness.

[jen729w]

If your blog isn’t about art, why does it need the entire above-the-fold taken up with generated ‘art’?

And if it is about art, you should be showing art.

[flembat]

Right, because non creatives can't have nice things, and there was never a thing called conceptual art.

[vouaobrasil]

Exactly. I stop reading any article as soon as I see an AI image.

[IndySun]

I cringe when I see one, but sometimes the articles are good. Apparently, some people have great writing skills but suck at visual taste. Though, arguably, they aught to know that about themselves.

[vouaobrasil]

True, but I believe taking a strong unilateral stand is worth the sacrifice of not reading such articles.

[IndySun]

Is that a little like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face? Good to have principles that propel forwards and not become entrenched by them, wouldn't you agree? That said, you will save, or at least not waste, an awful lot of time - there was already too much and now a lot more tripe out there since so-called a.i..

[vouaobrasil]

> Good to have principles that propel forwards and not become entrenched by them, wouldn't you agree? That said, you will save, or at least not waste, an awful lot of time - there was already too much and now a lot more tripe out there since so-called a.i..

In this case, it's not really entrenchment, because there are viable alternatives.

[barrell]

To each there own — I loved the AI art for about one month but since then it’s become insanely triggering. It’s everywhere now and it all has this same “feel”.

What used to just be an unsplash image that I never gave any thought to is now a serious detractor that can often overshadow the content (for me)

I’ve clicked out of articles and videos many times because of the AI art. I agree with OP that it feels like it’s washing out a lot of individuality at the moment.

[vouaobrasil]

I prefer a stock image as well. At least it was crafted by a human being behind a camera. And as a pro photographer, and someone who takes thousands of photos a month and views thousands more, there is something indescribably human about human works that are lacking in AI.

[doug_durham]

There is no way you could tell the difference between stock photo and AI generated art. Stock photos are created to be generic and soulless. That allows them to have the most broad applicability.

[itishappy]

I'm extremely skeptical of that claim. Got any examples you think would stump us?

[vouaobrasil]

Seriously? Most AI-generated images look much faker than real photos. Real photos often have some flaws and some visual inconsistency about them.

[pimlottc]

Adding an image does not automatically make a post better. I'd rather just not have any image at all than something mindlessly thrown in just for its own sake, regardless of whether it's generic or generated.

[manuelmoreale]

I’d argue the opposite in fact. It’s more often than not making it worse. It adds nothing and it’s a waste of bandwidth

[bugglebeetle]

AI image generation has taught me two things: never had it been more obvious that taste is only cultivated through a careful, studied engagement with human arts and culture and never has this been more irrelevant to the majority of people.

The American slop factory is the predominant cultural idiom and like this country’s factory farming is now an entire automated machinery for mass producing and force feeding everyone poison. I’m hoping some subset of countries will go AI art Galapagos to preserve a trace of our humanity and aspire to something beyond the median of a Google image search.

[jayd16]

> this explosion of creativity

But is it? It's fancier clip art, no?

[vouaobrasil]

It is in my opinion because it has that extremely generic feel, even more than clip art because at least the clip art had some character from the artist.

[vouaobrasil]

> So all the highly unique, contextually relevant and aesthetically pleasing AI art that I am seeing pop up in blogs, chats, documentation, presentations, etc where before there would have been nothing or maaaybe some ultra-generic clipart, this explosion of creativity is slowly erasing the human spirit? Nah. Looks like the opposite, if anything.

None of that art represents the individual experience of a person any more. It's all a psychotic averaging. I've seen that art too and I find it disgusting.

I don't see anything people are producing with AI as representing the human spirit. I see it as humans being plugged into a machine pushed to create and create and for what? What's the next step? It's horrific and should be destroyed.

[doug_durham]

So someone who has lost the use of their voice and uses a text to voice program is disgusting and has no human spirit? I would disagree. In the same way new AI tools allow people who could not express themselves otherwise to express themselves. Does it mean they have good taste? Not necessarily, but it is authentic communication.

[neuralRiot]

I’d argue that the person who lost its voice have no choice, the people choosing to draw by AI to express themselves do it by sheer laziness and to get quick gratification, but that seems what technology is mostly about, putting any effort in any pursuit is so old school.

[vouaobrasil]

> So someone who has lost the use of their voice and uses a text to voice program is disgusting and has no human spirit?

You are twisting my argument. I never said a PERSON using AI doesn't have human spirit. Rather, that in GENERAL, the content generated by AI does not have the subtelty of human expression compared to the human-made stuff. Of course, the person that lost their voice naturally loses some expression by using an artificially-generated one.

That doesn't mean that they can't express themselves in other ways.

Come on, these counterarguments are too easy to refute...