• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Yikes! Did season 1 episode 6 use AI-generated art?

Dar70 said:
I don't think I want any part of say a book series that is totally written by Ai.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's likely to happen. People are finding out that when they rely on LLMs/LMMs to make things for them (it's not actually AI!!!!!), they have to do so much work to make it coherent and presentable that it would've actually taken less time and effort just to do it for real to begin with. The whole thing is a boondoggle that makes jobs harder, not easier, and the people who cut their staffs in the belief that "AI" would replace them are starting to find out that they were sold a bill of goods.
 
Christopher said:
I don't think that's likely to happen. People are finding out that when they rely on LLMs/LMMs to make things for them (it's not actually AI!!!!!), they have to do so much work to make it coherent and presentable that it would've actually taken less time and effort just to do it for real to begin with. The whole thing is a boondoggle that makes jobs harder, not easier, and the people who cut their staffs in the belief that "AI" would replace them are starting to find out that they were sold a bill of goods.
Click to expand...
Examples?
 
CT_Phipps said:
I think it's a question to not make any assumptions about because the nature of AI art is it's primarily ripped from other sources and combined together.
Click to expand...

It learns on a mathematical level what something looks like, not completely unsimilar to how you "know" what the Eiffel Tower looks like after seeing many copyrighted photos yourself. A while back you could sometimes trick it into sort of reproducing a training image with hyper specific prompts, but there is no mechanism for multiple image copy and paste based on your prompt.

Fateor said:
Disproven recently, they do in fact copy and store things.
Click to expand...

The way AI makes images and how they make text are 2 completely different techniques, and that paper is only about text. Very famous works are likely to appear multiple times in training, usually via quotation, so the math says that order of words is more likely to be correct. It's very fancy autocomplete.

Still, I'm often pleasantly surprised when I ask for something out of the box, like give me riddles as clues for puzzles I described. I still rewrote them but it was an excellent jumping off point.

Another trick I like should I need to give it a specific reference image is to tell it to changes the perspective on the output. That way it is forced to make a new image rather than just reworking the original in the different art style I needed.
 
CT_Phipps said:
AI can't "learn" and framing it that way is misleading. It has no drive but just what is programmed into it.

It can copy and store as directed.
Click to expand...
Not that, either.

"Training" is the term that's used. What an AI image generating model stores are not images.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
StarTrek1701 said:
Does it really matter if it's AI or CGI? I mean as long as it's a good output why should the viewing audience care?
Click to expand...
Well Tbf. CGI requires more hands on creativity than Ai. Ai is bound to be more error prone and if the studios get lazy or cheap it will look like this comic. 😂......I don't like where AI is taking us concerning Entertainment or any consumable media.
 
Fateor said:
Company's and Artists who get caught using AI always try to claim it wasn't AI art.

Which is part of the problem.
Click to expand...
True but " suspicion " of a crime or wrongdoing is not proof.

Samething applies to plagiarism. One can easily use a.i ( or even your own ability) to reword a news article or commentary and claim it as their own . But ofcourse it's often very hard( or impossible)to prove.
 
I don't think we should be looking around with magnifying glasses try to find every little instance of " wait...That looks like A.I !"

I agree we should try to maintain human creativity . But let's not go overboard and go full on conspiracy theory on any bit of media content that "looks" like A.I
 
Last edited:
Christopher said:
That's what I figured. Still, it's disappointing that they just had an art staffer whip something up rather than seizing on the obvious opportunity to do a cross-promotion with IDW.
Click to expand...
Meh . That could of been done I guess but for me , this is in the " would of been nice but not very important "category.
 
Mudd said:
No one has to care about anything. This conversation is obviously going on between a group of people who do care, each for their own reasons.
Click to expand...
Man..
eschaton said:
It matters because a real human being could've had a gig making genuine artwork, instead of an algorithm cribbing off of others work for pennies on the dollar.
Click to expand...
Same could be said about movie model makers who closed up shop because of the prevalance of CGI.
Did CGI artists crib off others work too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top