!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
I would imagine that it's the easiest for the model to produce. Bold colours, clear and distinct shapes, that sort.
It doesn't help that the companies have scraped the entire internet (which is a can of worms in terms of both legality and ethics) and then some, so it will mimic the advertising strategies employed everywhere (again, bold colours, clear shapes, etc.)
I would assume, they even explicitly tell the model to use this default style, if the user doesn't specify anything else, because it is so easy to generate.
At least, this started early last year and there were fairly distinctive points when each chatbot's outputs started looking all the same.
It doesn't - you only notice the low-effort ones that default to the generic style where as the rest fly under your radar and go undetected. It's called a toupee fallacy: "All toupees look fake, I've never seen one that didn't"
So is it still possible to give a style prompt? I haven't dabbled with it in ages. When it started out, you'd tell it you wanted, say, the style of Rembrandt but with a dash of horror or something. Can you still do that?
Is that like inverse survivor bias?
It's like confirmation bias which I think survivor bias is a type of.
It’s the most statistically average art.
That's what really gets me about everyone who touts AI as the future of creativity. All it does is give you what it determines to be the most likely response to your prompt. It's never going to be clever or subversive.
Even if you wade through all the slop it shits out and only go with the results closest to what you asked for, the absolute best you can hope for is predictable and mediocre. If you're not interested in making something at least halfway decent, why bother at all?
It’s never going to be clever or subversive.
The AI doesn't need to be clever for as long as the person writing the prompt is. It's just a tool. It doesn't do anything on its own. What you get out reflects what you put in.
Is that your idea of clever?
This isn't about me.
It's literally that.
Trained on everything, biased towards middle-of-the-road, AI is going to produce the most generic "art" possible, unless specifically prompted to do something else.
ClipArt
That's actually because people doing AI art aren't artists, they have absolute no artistic vision and most probably lack basic art knowledge, and the very reason they are doing AI art is because they are mediocre. Their prompts are "give me [actor] doing [action] in [location]" and that's it, they don't talk about style influence, color palette, scene composition, etc etc, so it all comes out the same.
This. That's like vibe coding. Vibe arting get you slop as well.
Now, give an AI to a good coder, and you don't get slop code. Same with artists
Do you still get AI stuff? Yes, but a whole better result.
Except good artists and coders enjoy the creation process, so they won't use it like that.
I need to change every instance of this function to another? Sure, let an LLM do it, that's tedious to do and easy to verify. Implement a new system? Hell no, that's interesting to do and hard to verify. I imagine artists have similar feelings on the matter, but I don't know what's a tedious task that's easy to verify for an artist.
if you are just doing a photo composing or a design, I guess "remove fake png background" "remove watermark" hehe
This was for general diffusion model outputs a few years ago, but a lot of the speculation of why the outputs are similar likely hold here
There are also only so many good data sets available for people to use to build image models, Phillip Isola, a professor at the MIT Computer Science & Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, told me, meaning the models might overlap in what they’re trained on. (One popular one, CelebA, features 200,000 labeled photos of celebrities. Another, LAION 5B, is an open-source option featuring 5.8 billion pairs of photos and text.)
[...]
Five years ago, he explained, image generators tended to create really blurry outputs. Researchers realized that it was the result of a mathematical fluke; the models were essentially averaging all the images they were trained on. Averaging, it turns out, “looks like blur.” It’s possible that, today, something similarly technical is happening with this generation of image models that leads them to plop out the same kind of dramatic, highly stylized imagery—but researchers haven’t quite figured it out yet. Additionally, “most models have an ‘aesthetic’ filter on both the input and output that reject images that don't meet a certain aesthetic criteria,” Hany Farid, a professor at the UC Berkeley School of Information, told me over email. “This type of filtering on the input and output is almost certainly a big part of why AI-generated images all have a certain ethereal quality
[...]
The third theory revolves around the humans who use these tools. Some of these sophisticated models [this is not as sophisticated as the author is implying] incorporate human feedback; they learn as they go. This could be by taking in a signal, such as which photos are downloaded. Others, Isola explained, have trainers manually rate which photos they like and which ones they don’t. Perhaps this feedback is making its way into the model
[...]
This could be intentional: If such imagery has a market, maybe companies would begin to converge around it. Or it could be unintentional; companies do lots of manual work in their models to combat bias, for example, and various tweaks favoring one kind of imagery over another could inadvertently result in a particular look
That's interesting. I always thought it was a conscious choice by model trainers.
You are asking: "why are all AI users the same kind of stupid and want it this way - at least all the ones that I am watching"