It was already getting really good in 2024, but now it has "poorly aged" where the signs of AI generation are more obvious now than when it was first new.

But in 2026 it's evolved even further beyond. It's getting way too fucking good. Whenever I see art and think "oh I should upload this to gelbooru" now I literally have to hover over to see something like "this account makes AI slop" in their bio in order to avoid posting it.

You can still definitely tell, but in order to be certain, you absolutely have to zoom in and scan for the details that the artist was too lazy to manually edit out. You cannot do so at an improper glance.

Sadly, I have to agree. What I do when I'm suspicious is check the artists' history. If the artist was posting pictures before fall 2022, their work was human at least before that point, and should still be human today, barring a dramatic change in art style. I also check the frequency of uploads; drawing real art takes time, but AI images take no real effort and an account that spams pictures every day is likely a slop mill.

Anytime I see an AI generated image that looks really good with surprising attention to detail, I'm honestly impressed by the technology. Yet at the same time, it just makes me want to find the artists who had their work used as reference material. I would much rather look at the original art.

And yeah, the imitation quality is crazy now. It's so obvious when searching for images on pixiv with AI posts enabled. I'll start my search with AI generated images enabled, and the results pages look normal with alot of professional looking art. But then I disable AI images, and suddenly most of the results look kinda amateurish like I'm on Newgrounds or DeviantArt.

So now I'm instantly paranoid if an image looks really good, like a person couldn't draw that well.
"This looks too good, it has to be AI assisted or something."
Meanwhile the only reason the machine can make images that good is because artists were doing it first.

I'm pretty much reliant on people tagging their posts as AI in order to avoid accidentally uploading it.
It's easier to spot an AI uploader by looking through their library instead of inspecting individual images.

I've always held the position that AI was going to get scary good, and only improve to where we will no longer be able to tell. It'll ruin the perceived value of human created works at first, but may also create a very high demand for new ideas, which are created by artists in their craft and their respective fields. Unique ideas, which only humans can create, and honestly, a very small amount of humans are even capable of that, at the most basic level.

AI can not create new ideas. Yet. Once AI makes a new idea, and can do it consistently, then everything is moot.

AI can never create ideas by itself since it requires already accessed information, which is why the whole debate relating to AI art even started in the first place. So it always have artificial errors regardless "if it gets better". If it does, then by that it can think, feel and learn on it's own. What you did was creating a sentient being by accident. Which will never happen, not this time. These type of programs are not going to revolutionize the industry, create robots, whatever you think of. They don't have any sapience inside their code nor will be used to create machines ala Gundam.
They're just tools to generate images. That's it.

And it's getting tiresome, not just the increase usage of said AI, but also the glazing around it. You know what am I talking about.
You didn't made this thread not once. And it's always the same exact thing.

Imagine all the things we could actually do with all the resources it hogs up instead of what it's actually doing

I couldn't care less about all the "good" it could do when you're asking me to at the same time ignore all the damage it's done and continues to do to this day. It's just a shining example of needing to monetize fucking everything in life and take the joy out of everything humans actually like to do whilst we spend more time doing things we fucking hate.

This isn't gonna make people want new ideas for art, t's just gonna kill art; homogenize everything in it and make people not wanna bother even trying

Well hot news, AI also replaces wage jobs too. So we're left with nothing.

as a child, we thought AI would replace the labor so we could focus on the arts.

now, it's replacing the arts to force us into labor.

ain't that a bitch?

besides, the entire AI industry is based on them stealing an entire fucking internets worth of copyrighted data and regurgitating slop. objectively, they're good artistically. but i prefer art when its by a person.

AI is only going to keep evolving. Rather than trying to regulate it, people should keep adapting to it. It’s really frustrating that the first thing it did was use artists’ work, but if we stop it, it might actually be worse for the future.

The only thing I have to say is that I feel bad about not being able to afford good components for my PC.

Hard disagree on this one. If you view it in the post-modernist "author is dead", "only thing that matters is that I enjoy it" consumer mindset that is the most common view today, and the most common mindset pro-AI people have, these so-called "ideas" are nothing more than short form text that is sufficiently different from things that are commonly circulating so that it feels "fresh" and "exciting", but sufficiently close that it feels "relevant" and "touching". A properly prompted AI fed with the proper data and feedback loop (so it can iterate) could generate "ideas" like that no problem, and most people would eat it up.

If you hook it all up to social media:
- crawl to see what topics and styles are popular
- imitate it
- use the feedback to cull the unsuccessful instances and to guide the successful ones
This is what the entertainment industry does anyway, just with human "creative agents". The measurement side has been automated and industrialized for decades by now. Now, generators are good enough that you can slot them into this flow (like, a "Shousetsuka ni Narou" kinda selector and feedback platform, just for all AI), and push humans out of the loop completely.

The only barrier is consistency over long-form content. I'd say that for short text (poetry, etc.), single pictures and music they are now "good" enough, so you can automate your average single-picture fan artist, your average rock band, or your average poet. Given feedback and a proper selection algorithm, you could iterate enough to produce something that in a vacuum, is perceived as "great art".

If you do not postulate from the axioms up that humans are necessary for art, the "muh idea and artistic vision" people are trying, but I don't see any way to save this argument. Humans are fallible. If something operates at a resolution that is below our senses, that will trick us. Like the analog vs digital transition: at some point, it got good enough that you physically cannot hear or see the difference. Even purely random patterns with no rhyme or reason can trick us into seeing meaning into it, that's how our brain is wired.
We now face the situation that we have built machines that can reproduce statistical patterns of all kinds so well, that we cannot tell the difference; they operate at a resolution that can trick us. "Ideas" are no different, as they are just text with specific semantic meaning from the viewpoint of the reader.