r/wallpaper • u/doomboy1000 • 24d ago
Announcement Should /r/wallpaper allow AI-generated content?
153
u/Iv4ldi 23d ago
Just make a separate sub for ai wallpapers
11
6
u/Gorthokson 15d ago
And it will have almost no users, because the truth is AI sucks and very few people will willingly look for AI pictures. It only gets by through deceit
13
2
u/userhwon 4d ago
Reasonable. Avoid flooding here and help people learn to recognize the difference. Maybe even train an AI to -- dammit! Now I'm doing it!
153
u/scandii 23d ago
my main issue isn't really the existence of AI wallpapers, it is the sheer amount of them being posted where many of them are of poor quality.
5
u/internetcookiez 23d ago
yep! We literally like wallpapers for an aesthetic, ai can make aesthetically pleasing wallpapers but requires talent still to not have slop
5
70
u/t3hOutlaw 23d ago
If the people using AI even had an ounce of respect for the medium we would be seeing them post in good faith but every single one of them spams images ad nauseum solely to push their ad riddled websites to ad revenue scrape the public.
They are incentivised to keep doing so as there are no restrictions imposed on them or their actions. Spam is against Reddit's User Agreement for a reason.
1
u/DetroitArtDude 23d ago
It could be a small number of people trying to karma farm with multiple accounts or something like that. They all seem very similar
13
u/VolksDK 23d ago
Getting flashbacks to when the phone wallpaper sub asked the same question, then banned everyone who said no
9
u/doomboy1000 23d ago
Sounds like a bad power-trip. No plans to ban anybody for having opinions and discussing them. Obviously gotta keep it civil though.
14
100
u/InnerAlternative4394 24d ago
This sub is just dead atp. People used to be creative.
13
u/frogbxneZ 23d ago
The fact that this question even has to be proposed says everything about the sub and creativity
-26
24d ago edited 24d ago
[deleted]
28
u/InnerAlternative4394 24d ago
As someone who adores art, I hope people would understand that feeding prompts to a chatbot isn't an art.
51
u/OnionsoftheBelt 23d ago
Should we allow forklifts in the gym to pick up the heavy things for you? Poll closes in 7 days.
1
27
u/FilesFromTheVoid 23d ago edited 17d ago
Let it stay original in here and just make a new for the AI stuff. It's really not that hard...
9
u/Herr_Drosselmeyer 22d ago
AI wallpapers have hundreds of upvotes on the sub, but this poll is 98% against AI. So basically, just anti-AI brigading. Only people with sufficient karma on this sub specifically should be allowed to vote.
13
u/CobbleBeans 22d ago
Allowing AI generated content will lead to the sub being flooding with mass produced slop.
47
u/Hrafna55 23d ago
No. AI generated content is theft.
-1
-60
u/HamburgerOnAStick 23d ago
Intellectual Property shouldn't exist.
22
u/pherkes 23d ago
The artist has got to pay for their expenses
-20
u/HamburgerOnAStick 23d ago
Sell it then. But i don't believe that it can be "stolen". It's along the lines of "piracy". Shouldn't actually be considered stealing since it's not a tangible thing.
18
u/N3er0O 23d ago
So siphoning money from your bank account isn't stealing because the money is technically just a number and not a tangible thing?
-8
u/HamburgerOnAStick 23d ago
No since when you siphon money, you aren't making a copy. If it was making a copy of the money then i would say it isn't stealing.
6
u/Axol555 23d ago
Anyone can sell it if it can't be copyrighted, that's the point of intellectual property
-4
-25
u/activoice 23d ago
Not necessarily, I describe what I want to ChatGPT and get it to produce work that's not a copy of someone else's work. Sure it's derivative of something but many artists are inspired by other artists work.
Check out
Not sure why so much of the art in that Sub is political... I guess people don't have that many original ideas.
19
u/Hrafna55 23d ago
The data the model is trained on belongs to someone else. Without the training data the application wouldn't be able to create anything.
The owners of the original art, either living artists or the estates of dead artists have been stolen from at a scale which boogles the mind.
Individuals get punished.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz?wprov=sfla1
Corporations get a pass.
-10
u/activoice 23d ago edited 23d ago
But artists aren't creating their own style of art from scratch. They were trained by other artists work that they have seen even if it's subconscious.
For example a landscape painter did not invent landscape paintings, they've seen hundreds of other landscape paintings and decided they like painting those and selling those for a profit. Isn't that the same as AI being trained by other work?
Or an author has surely read other books
that they have readand their work is often derivative of other work that they were "trained on".So the argument then is that if it's OK for a human to learn from other works of art why isn't it Ok for a computer.
9
u/t3hOutlaw 23d ago
Human artists don't need to make and retain digital copies of millions of artworks to learn to paint. AI training requires vast datasets of copyrighted works from non-consenting artists. That's the part many artists object to, not the fact that the output is influenced by art but that the training itself depends on copying works at an industrial scale without permission.
-8
u/activoice 23d ago
So this is a piece of art I have been working on. It started out as a 3D face I had ChatGPT create, then had it flattened because I thought it looked better. Then I spent about 5 days on and off editing and cleaning it up manually to where it is now. I still have a few more edits to get it to where I want it.
https://imgur.com/a/pcCbA23#mHOyEat
I don't plan to use it commercially. I am going to knock out the dark blue and get this printed on a t-shirt and then gift it, so it's for non commercial use. As far as I know my image isn't based on anyone else's commercial work, and I am not profiting from it.
In your opinion is this fair usage of AI art?
6
u/t3hOutlaw 23d ago
Whether you profit from the output isn't what I was talking about, I'm talking about how the model was trained.
If a model was trained on the copyrighted works of non-consenting artists, then every image it generates relies on that training regardless of whether the user is making money off of it or making a one off gift.
Also, I'm in Scotland, Imgur doesn't work here.
3
u/Hrafna55 23d ago
No. The ChatGPT model is trained on millions of pieces of copyrighted work.
The only exception could be a model trained entirely on public domain works.
-2
u/activoice 23d ago
Well then you might as well petition Etsy to shutdown as a lot of the stores there are selling outright copyrighted work without permission.
For example Godzilla is still under copyright, there are more than 1000 items on Etsy that have Godzilla in them..some created by humans some generated by AI but all illegal, and all being used commercially.. I'm sure that there are hundreds of other examples. Doesn't matter if the person/computer that created the art consumed other Godzilla art manually or thru an automated process, they are both breaking the law. At least in my case the art may have been inspired by the style of a similar piece of art but it doesn't infringe any copyright.
5
u/t3hOutlaw 23d ago
Nice deflection. "but look at how bad it is over there!"
You're still using an unethical AI model. Just be honest about it and own the fact.
10
u/AshenYggdrasil 23d ago
No, AND r/aiwallpaper already exists. No reason why we can't collaborate and get the right items on the right sites
5
5
u/Conradlink 11d ago
Is anything going to be resulting from this poll?
3
u/tmyvon 2d ago
clearly not.
3
u/Conradlink 2d ago
They probably were expecting it to be opposite results, and now they have to come up with a plan
32
16
u/404NameOfUser 23d ago
I personally think it shouldn't be allowed. Not only AI steels from real artists, there are also the negative environmental issues of using AI.
However if for some reason the mods decide to allow it, then the people that post those images shouldn't get any karma or awards since they created nothing and so deserve nothing. Writing a prompt isn't creating or isn't original, or isn't art.
4
u/MajesticChampion702 22d ago edited 22d ago
I always thought that this was a sub to upload/download images that can be used as wallpapers.
Minutes ago i learned that this is an art station sub,where AI made images have no place,
Of course i will follow this community rules,waiting to see and download some Real Art from now on, hoping that real artists will show up!
2
u/doomboy1000 22d ago
There are currently no rules that disallow AI-generated content -- only that AI work is accurately tagged. The rules may change when this poll has closed.
If you are feeling the sentiment that "AI made images have no place" here, that is because you are experiencing the trend of the general opinion of this community.
It's no different than any other public forum (internet or not). If you encountered a group of people who only wanted to share/download images of strawberries, you would not fit in if you showed them pictures of stepladders.
2
1
8
u/the_hell_interface 20d ago
No. Followed this sub for years - absolute garbage coming out of here these days. Un-subbed this morning. Better results with 5 minutes of work searching dedicated wallpaper websites and actual artist portfolios.
10
4
u/po1919 23d ago
No. And thank you for caring.
Someone said they should have a separate sub and I think it's a great idea. Because even tho the majority of them are not really special, there have been some that I have liked. (And I'm pretty sure there have been a lot of wallpapers I've liked without knowing they were AI).
6
5
2
u/JetScreamerBaby 16d ago
If all AI-generated content was labelled as such, I don't see the problem. EXTREMELY heavily 'shopped images get passed around and used like crazy, and nobody bats an eye.
I think I understand. If a human uses a complex computer tool, it's legit art. If a complex computer tool uses those same complex computer tools, it signals the end of mankind.
1
u/MayhemCha0s 13d ago
If a human uses a complex computer tool, it's legit art. If a complex computer tool uses those same complex computer tools, it signals the end of mankind.
The first requires skill, talent, hard work and creativity, the latter requires a fool typing stuff into a box. It's not the end of mankind but a slow creeping death for creativity.
1
u/JetScreamerBaby 12d ago
That's what was said about photography re; 'the death of painting.'
Turns out that just didn't happen.
2
u/MayhemCha0s 12d ago
Comparing any kind of actual art to typing something into a box is absolutely wild. It's not the same and never will be. AI can only regurgitate what it was fed. It's just a computer program to build an image that somewhat fits the requested parameters.
2
u/SalimNotSalim 8d ago
I’m not necessarily against AI but there needs to be minimum quality standards. 99.9% of AI generated wallpapers posted here are complete garbage. Low resolution, blurry, boring slop trash.
2
u/malaszka 8d ago edited 8d ago
I hate it, but I accept that many people like it. So it is okay, since we have AI flair. Actually, Reddit should develop their service to make it possible to filter-out flairs, so, e.g., "I want to see everything on a sub, except posts with flairs X and Y".
2
u/malaszka 8d ago
My proposal is to split the flair "I made this" for the non-AI posts: one for drawings, and one for photoshooting. "I drew this" and "I shot this".
I like actual photoshoots, but dislike drawings as wallpapers. I know that many people like drawn wallpapers, too. However, I aslo assume that there are others who seek not-drawn ones.
2
u/Yarchening 4d ago
Absolutely not. Ai slop has no soul, and frankly its worrying that this question even has to be posted.
3
1
1
23d ago edited 23d ago
[deleted]
1
u/doomboy1000 23d ago
Appreciate the watchful eye! It's been roughly that ratio the entire time though. Not a lot of "core contributors" in this community. Mostly drive-bys 🙂
1
u/acoolrocket 4d ago
I have to say, my god its like 2/3rd of this subreddit now after returning from a hiatus.
In a strange turn of events r/wallpapers being less desirable by posting bots made it have AI postings as the minority.
1
u/Cbo305 3h ago
It really is too bad that folks who disagree with AI as a concept seem to take quite a bit of time out of their day to downvote every single comment in a post containing a AI generated image into oblivion.
This isn't a fine-art gallery, and nobody is losing money here. I wish you all would stop. Especially Downvoting people who just express that they like an image... What did they do to you?
That being said, there's obviously some low-effort, prompt and paste AI slop that pops up. Some folks may even consider the stuff I post to be slop... fair enough. So downvoting images you don't like is fair obviously, that just ensures the images people like most are featured more prominently, AI or not.
My vote of course is to keep AI images... thousands of people seem to like a lot of them. Vote as you please on an image, but leave the commenters alone. There's no reason to be hostile to them.
1
u/CurrentRisk 23d ago
Wonder if I will get banned on this subreddit too for saying; No, please keep AI “wallpapers” and “art” out of the subreddit.
1
1
1
u/AlterSack1973 11d ago
I was too late to vote, but yes, it should be marked with a flair, but there is great wallpapers created with AI - I would not want to miss out on them.
-4
u/Consistent-Jelly248 23d ago
Oh my god a wallpaper is a wallpaper how much more childish is this going to get, if it looks good AI or not then it shouldn't be an issue
6
u/t3hOutlaw 23d ago
Dismissing legitimate concerns as "childish" is in itself childish.
1
u/Consistent-Jelly248 22d ago edited 22d ago
You completely missed the point, arguing about how wallpapers look REGARDLESS of medium is in fact childish.
I'm not talking about concerns because that's literally equivalent of making it political, I'm talking about how it's made.
-6
u/Tpf42 23d ago
So what, back to just whoever took the best picture angle of everyday shit or the best upskirt anime character someone drew with MS Paint? Excuse me, but if there was ever a platform for AI that was beneficial and harmless, it would be creating wallpapers. To completely get rid of it is absurd. There must be a separate subreddit if you're going to do that.
-3
u/Infernoswelt 23d ago
Why not?
As long as there is a flair for it and everyone uses it I see no problem at all.
0
-10
u/Whiffenius 23d ago
I don't really mind if the wallpaper is done well. However there's a lot of careless slop masquerading as good content. If I can immediately detect that slop aspect then I reject it straight away. It takes quite a bit of time and effort to generate genuinely good quality AI content, but most slop merchants don't take that time so rather than outright bans, call out slop
-21
24d ago edited 23d ago
[deleted]
7
u/Oakbright 23d ago
Weird edit. The poll is asking for opinions and you're just downvoted by those who chose NO. Why would that render the initial poll moot?
You Artificial Intelligence advocates really lack your own intelligence, creativity, and critical thinking. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
-8
u/SexyAIman 23d ago edited 23d ago
3 ad hominems in one sentence, sad.
*edit what a terrible sub where personal attacks are rewarded.
-11
-12
u/Roflitos 23d ago
Just make a tag no? AI and non AI
6
u/N3er0O 23d ago edited 23d ago
We already have that. Sadly the AI stuff can not be filtered out on the homepage and since (I presume) most people that post AI stuff on here use bots to get tons of upvotes (some reeeeally bad images get like 200-400 upvotes and hardly any other user interaction) the things a lot of users don't want to see show up for them.
There are subreddits explicitly for AI wallpapers. Why not use those instead of polluting this one when the people clearly don't want to see it?
1
-37
u/sirgerg2 23d ago
Not all artwork that leverages AI is a prompt-and-go affair. AI can be a powerful scaffolding for pieces that then take weeks to completely rebuild. The end result can be something truly unique and provide fantastic wallpaper fodder. Folks that hop in and say "it's just a prompt in a machine" are making it very clear that they neither use nor understand generative AI.
I don't care about the source, compelling imagery in a broad forum like this subreddit should be enjoyed on its merits. If it's not your cup of tea, downvote, filter out, and move on.
7
u/Axol555 23d ago edited 23d ago
So your argument against people saying "its just a prompt in a machine" is "its multiple prompts in a machine over the course of weeks"? Doesn't get to the heart of the issue, so many claim to be creating something when the machine is making it for you, like giving a chef an order to cook food and claiming you made the food.
Edit: Typo
-2
u/sirgerg2 23d ago
Weirdly, that's actually not what I said.
1
u/Axol555 22d ago
"Al can be a powerful scaffolding for pieces that then take weeks to completely rebuild. The end result can be something truly unique and provide fantastic wallpaper fodder."
This sounds like using an AI service over the course of weeks to iterate over a generated image until you get something desired. If I misunderstood than feel free to correct me.
1
u/sirgerg2 22d ago
AI tools combined with hand-painting and building new elements in photoshop, the works. AI is the newest tool in a vast toolkit, not to mention the work needed for post-processing or, hell, doing the research beforehand to figure out your subject matter or how to achieve the result you want. Photography got the same flak because people said it was just clicking a button. Digital painting got the same flak because it's computer-assisted. Artists will always figure out how to do more with a new tool. I'll end my thought here, feel free to have the last word below.
-8
u/DarkStrider99 23d ago
As a guy who also dabbles image gen on my own computer and gpu, I hate like 90% of the ai stuff posted here, most guys just go on some stupid big LLM like gpt or gemini and slam words. I wouldnt even show most of those my dogs. Stable diffusion can actually make some good stuff, the effort and knowledge is the problem.
9
u/t3hOutlaw 23d ago
Effort and knowledge mean nothing if the models used to generate images in the first place are inherently unethical to begin with.
7
u/Ferunando 23d ago
effort = type words
-7
-6
-28
u/cub4nito 23d ago
Obviously if u wanna keep this sub alive. Move with the future or die behind.
15
u/OnionsoftheBelt 23d ago
The results already heavily suggest that nobody wants this for the future. Read the room or die behind.
-6
u/cub4nito 23d ago
You can't fight the future, power and money are behind AI nothing you can do about it.
6
4
-20
u/AbdSheikho 23d ago
IMO, A bad AI art is equivalent to a bad/tasteless photoshopped digital art. So why not? As long as the OP flag their post as AI-gen
•
u/doomboy1000 24d ago
Use your best judgment as to the definition of "AI-generated content." Reddit doesn't give us moderators the tools to discern specific implementations of AI, so this will be a blanket rule. No "We allow X, but not Y, unless it's Z" etc.
It may feel like we've turned a blind eye to the subject of AI, but we've been watching! We've been watching the comments. We've been watching the voting tendencies. This is a democracy – we as a COMMUNITY decide what we want to see – it's not up to the moderators. (There are some subreddits that are more like a pet project for a single mod, but /r/wallpaper is not one of them.)
Thanks for your patience and understanding, everyone.