Talk:Artificial intelligence art/Archive 1

Archive 1

Self promotions!

People seriously wikipedia is not a place to self promote or promote your website! Please stick to the facts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norttis (talk • contribs) 19:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit Warring/Reliable Source Discussion

Dear @DaveOomah and Norttis:,

Please be careful about running into edit warring. An edit has been made, and then reverted. The next stage is discussion - the burden of evidence is on DaveOomah, as they are the one trying to add new content, and need to convince that it is a viable edit and not, in fact, promotional. While not enough on its own, a critical part of this is going to be demonstrating that Coinpost is a sufficiently reliable and independent publication. Comments like "Even if you apply from a press release, if the CoinPost editorial department determines that it is important information, it will be adopted as news." (on their press release page) is somewhat concerning, as it suggests that insufficient editorial control and fact-checking is being exerted, as well as independence issues. However, perhaps I can be proved wrong. If you guys can't agree, then you can raise the question on reliable sources noticeboard. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Repeated additions of false self-promotional claim of "world's first published AI Art book"

This article contains the obviously false claim that in 2019, the "world's first published AI Art book" was published, and includes a promotional image. I have tried to remove this, however "Norttis" has repeatedly added this obviously false information and spam image. "Norttis" has also removed references to AI art projects from the 1960s through 1990s, in an apparent attempt to bolster their false claim the first AI book was published in 2019, over 50 years after several prominent AI art projects. "Norttis", do you have any defense for including this obviously false information? And do any other editors have an opinion on this? Elspea756 (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have no clear understanding of AI art is and what computer generated art is. A generative adversarial network (GAN) is a class of machine learning frameworks designed by Ian Goodfellow and his colleagues in 2014, so what ever happened in the 1960's is not relevant on this page.

I created this page over 2 years and have kept it as relevant and up to date as I can, and many others have added to it. In a single day you take it upon yourself to rewrite almost the entire page, not even bothering to ask anything in the talk section before doing so. You removed not only my work but the work may other wikipedians, and tried to turn the page into what you wanted, not what it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norttis (talk • contribs)

The topic of this article is not "generative adversarial network art". Any art produced by AI, even in the 1960s, would be on topic. - MrOllie (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no such thing as AI art without A generative adversarial network (GAN), the rest is just computer art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norttis (talk • contribs)

There have been efforts to apply machine learning techniques such as genetic computation to art since well before anyone thought of GANs. Also, please remember to sign your posts. - MrOllie (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

AI has existed as an academic field since 1956. Yes, in the 60s, they used very different techniques than AI does today. Not because those techniques were not "artificial intelligence", but because those techniques had limits. From a historical perspective, it would be a smart bet to guess that current techniques will also have limits, and that new techniques will be found. Thus, we, as Wikipedians, can't just redefine the term AI to mean "AI in the 2020s". AI is whatever people called AI. It's just one field of study, with a history.

If someone used a technique to create art that came from AI's huge arsenal, in any decade, then we would have to label it as "AI art". Even if they used AI techniques invented in the 50s (such as adversarial search, or generative grammar, or neural networks). Or a combination of these (which is what "generative adversarial network" sounds like).

Computer art, by the way, is a term used by the world to describe any art that involves a computer at some stage -- even photoshop collages. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 06:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Attempted removal of Harold Cohen, etc. yet again

Editor "Nortis" has been repeatedly warned against removing early examples of AI art by multiple editors including myself, Mr. Ollie, and Charles Gillingham above on this talk page. "Nortis" has returned to delete every example of AI artists because those examples apparently disprove Nortis's theory that AI art began just a couple of years ago. For example, Nortis has particularly targeted artists like Harold Cohen, whose work is described as "AARON was an artificial intelligence program created by Harold Cohen (1928–2016), artist and pioneer in computer-generated art" by https://direct.mit.edu/leon/article/54/4/412/97258/Harold-Cohen-and-AARON-Collaborations-in-the-Last Nortis has removed this and other examples with the summary "Listing random people in the field is just nonsense" and "A computer programme is not AI art." And we also now have "Drmies" also removing this information, with their justification being that mentioning Harold Cohen and other AI artists in this article is "namedropping, promotional sourcing." So, let's reopen this discussion on whether AI artists like Harold Cohen should be discussed in this article on AI art. Thank you. -- Elspea756 (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus on this talk page or in the article history to bloat this article with an arbitrary list of names of people loosely associated with this topic; that's what categories are for. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for joining this conversation, OhNoitsJamie. It looks to me like the article history shows there's been consensus for that list for a majority of the article's existence, ever since "Petekistler" added it in May 26, 2020. Nortis, for example, was adding artists to that list at least as recently as February 2021.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_intelligence_art&type=revision&diff=1008351344&oldid=1008343559 I am not really a fan of lists, but that list was in this article when I discovered it back in July, so I did my best to improve the article with it since that seemed to be the desire of previous editors. It seems pretty standard to talk about representative artists in an article about a particular type of art, including in bulleted list format as in for example Impressionism. Is your issue, Ohnotisjamie, that early AI artists like Harold Cohen were in a bulleted list? If so, would you mind if I added Harold Cohen back into to this article, but inside of a paragraph instead of a bulleted list, so this article doesn't read like AI art started in 2014? This article, after its recent changes by Nortis and Drmies is written in a way that makes us look like we are unaware of about 50 years of AI art history. --Elspea756 (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I am going to summarize some of the discussion above. 1) I say we should have examples of contemporary AI art projects as well as "AI art projects from the 1960s through 1990s"." 2) MrOllie agrees, saying "Any art produced by AI, even in the 1960s, would be on topic." 3) CharlesGillingham also agrees, saying "If someone used a technique to create art that came from AI's huge arsenal, in any decade, then we would have to label it as "AI art". Even if they used AI techniques invented in the 50s". 4) Nortis, you have repeatedly attempted to remove all AI art history prior to 2014. Can you please explain your reasoning behind this? 5) After I undid Nortis's most recent attempt to remove these 50 to 60 years of AI art history, Drmies has arrived to apparently support Nortis's version of history. Drmies, could you please explain your reasoning for removing all AI art history prior to 2014? Thank you. --Elspea756 (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

When I created the page, I added a few examples of people who where working in this field. It was so the general public could have a better understanding of the people involved at that time as the field was very new. Lets make it clear the people I added, I had no connection to whatsoever, I had spoken to them or ever been in contact with them. It was purely for public guidance. Now there is literary hundreds if not thousands of people working with AI art. There is no need to start listing every single person in this field now, to do so would be ridiculous, no other art subject on wikipedia does this. There are now many sites dedicated to AI artists which list people in this field with full profiles and contact details etc. Clearly it would seem user Elspea756 has an agenda in to include some people on this page for whatever reasons that may be. --Norttis (talk) 07.20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Norttis, we have been over this repeatedly. AI art has existed for over 50 years. Multiple editors who study in this field have all told you this over and over. We have provided multiple sources to try to help you learn about this topic. There is no way you were editing this Wikipedia article when "the field was very new" unless you were somehow editing this Wikipedia article 50 years ago. --Elspea756 (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Elspea756, who is "we"? I know I can speak of a "we", as in "the people who keep reverting your edits because we don't believe they are helpful" or something like that--but who is your "we"? Because you are the only one bringing that content in. And I have to say that I'm a bit tired of things like "Drmies, could you please explain your reasoning for removing all AI art history prior to 2014?" Well, have you stopped beating your wife? Drmies (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

"We" who have have explained the early history of AI art include myself, MrOllie, and CharlesGillingham. The only two people I see who support the idea that we should remove any description of AI art prior to 2014 are Drmies and Norttis. --Elspea756 (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh stop that bullshit. My reverting your edits does not mean I endorse this or that definition. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, other than the profanity, that's great to hear! It sounds like three of us (MrOllie, CharlesGillingham and I) all agree that AI existed before 2014, Norttis is the sole person who disagrees and believes "the field was very new" in 2020, and Drmies holds no opinion? That sounds like we again have strong agreement to include mid-20th-century AI art like Howard Cohen's. Thank you for clarifying, Drmies. --Elspea756 (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I continue to think that efforts to define 'Artificial intelligence art' as a recent phenomenon are misguided. That said, I don't support keeping a laundry list of artists in the article. - MrOllie (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC) To that end I restored the prose mention of Cohen's AARON, with a new third party source that calls it an AI. - MrOllie (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, MrOllie. Yes, you and I are in agreement that we should definitely describe AI prior to 2014. I really appreciate your addition of Harold Cohen's important work to this article again! --Elspea756 (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

End of article mention of beeple NFT is not AI related

End of article mention of beeple NFT is not AI related

Should be removed or demonstrated to be AI related. 135.23.202.160 (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree, NFTs are an investment bubble-driven fad. I removed it. MrOllie (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Correcting unsourced, false description of a narrow range of AI arts programming

There has been a recent introduction of an unsourced, false sentence saying "There are many other AI art generation programs, ranging in complexity from simple consumer-facing mobile apps to Jupyter notebooks ..." This is an unsourced and false description that AI programs only exist in this very narrow range, since there is of course a long history of AI artists and researchers who are always creating and using new programs that are not available to the general public. There are many types of AI that are simpler than a mobile phone app, and many types of AI that are more complex than a Jupyter notebook. I previously edited this sentence to instead say "There are many other AI art generation programs, including ..." so as not to give the false impression that there are no programs outside of this very limited range. This change was undone by editor Camdoodlebop. The edit summary they used was "reverted vandalism." I am about to remove this false, unsourced "ranging" description again, and I am leaving this talk page message in case anyone wants to discuss whether they have a source saying AI only exists in this very narrow range or whether my correcting this false statement is "vandalism." Elspea756 (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding a Stable Diffusion example

Would it be acceptable to add an example from Stable Diffusion that a user created themselves, or would they need to source the example from a third party to avoid self-promotion? I have some examples I've uploaded to Wikimedia I could add. Camdoodlebop (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

No, this article would not be improved by you adding your images you made. This is an encyclopedia article about notable uses of artificial intelligence by notable artists. This is not your personal website or social media account. Your images have been removed from multiple articles by multiple other editors, including most recently removed from this article earlier today by Lord Belbury, so please stop spamming them into these articles. Thank you. Elspea756 (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Elspea756, should the example of DALL-E 2 be removed then as well? If we expect all Wikipedia images to not be captured or created by Wikipedia users, then there is no Wikipedia. I would hate to think that this specific image is being targeted and not others because it is the only one that features a woman? Camdoodlebop (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Stable Diffusion is not open source, this should be corrected

The current version of this article incorrectly says that Stable Diffusion is open source. It is not open source, because it has usage restrictions. I removed this incorrect information, but the editor has restored their incorrect information with no discussion or compromise. Since this is incorrect, it should be removed again. This has previously been discussed at Talk:Stable Diffusion/Archive 1#Not Open Source with an overwhelming consensus that Stable Diffusion is not open source. This is also unnecessary detail, giving undue weight to a single recent machine learning model in an article on the general topic of AI art. Elspea756 (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I am about to correct this since it is incorrect, against the consensus at the Stable Diffusion talk page, and unnecessary detail bout a single recent machine learning model in an article on the general topic of AI art. It is up to the editor who wants their disputed content to be included to gain consensus for it, and that has not happened here. Elspea756 (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

merging synthography article proposal

The info in the synthography article is already covered by the Tools and Processes section of this one with the exception of the etyomology which would be better served by wiktionary. The synthography article is both very short and cannot be expanded much without treading the same ground as this one. Therefore, I propose synthography be merged here to reduce redundancy. -RenegadeMercuryMmoozzee 03:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Synthography is a distinct new term and the relation between synthography and artificial intelligence art is covered in the article. The article is currently short as it is in its infancy but as anyone working in or observing the space can see that synthography, artificial intelligence art, and especially the tools and processes are inevitably growing exponentially as it gains traction. As far as tools go, there are already hundreds that Wikipedia has not had the chance to keep up with and likewise with processes as the mediums expand across inputs and outputs (text/speech/brain-machine-interface to image, 3D, video, AR/VR, etc). Wikipedians including those of us in direct contact with the researchers in these areas can only write about these so quickly. These areas are expanding every day, not contracting nor requiring of merging. The Original Benny C (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see how synthography is a distinct term. It is, at least as far as the article is concerned, just the making of artificial intelligence art by using text-to-image models, a subject better suited to being a section within either this article or the text-to-image models article than on its own. If the term progresses to the point it could not be addequately covered inside of this one, then an article should be made, not before. More than a month after the articles creation, synthography still does not display any significant differences to justify its continued seperate existance. -RenegadeMercuryMmoozzee 04:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

As a on-going process of terminology creation, I'd propose synthography legitimacy to differentiate from artificial intelligence art, as it is a visual arts technique rather than "any artwork created through the use of artificial intelligence". The term AI art is time after time perceived as generic and not reflective of the technique [1]https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/10k9d6i/can_we_stop_saying_ai_art_and_instead_start/. It is machine learning and neural networks rather than artificial intelligence, and it is image creation rather than art. However, the Synthography page is rather short, so it could be needed to add sections as history. FabianMosele (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Likewise, I agree with FabianMosele's agreement with me The Original Benny C (talk) 11:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I like this. I'm no technobro silocophant (coined this, b t dubs)", but I concur. Moreover, I feel the right collective term is "synthomphony". Electricmaster (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The synthography article seems to only have two sources that use the term, so it seems like it doesn't have the sources that would indicate it belongs in this overview article on AI art. With only two sources, it looks to me like a more likely candidate for deletion than for merging anywhere. Elspea756 (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree with that agreement -RenegadeMercuryMmoozzee 09:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• assessment

-RenegadeMercuryMmoozzee 11:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned before, the only thing that kept me from expanding on the page is lack of time. Since the merge topic was raised on Feb 6, these are the modifications made to the Synthography page:

• added citable independent sources
• added methodology section including information on the different mediums used in Synthography currently and in beta
• FabianMosele added history section
• added clarification and diagram of difference between Synthography and Artificial Intelligence Art terms and the algorithms behind them as many people in general don't know the difference between artificial intelligence as a whole, machine learning, neural networks, generative models, and GAN's
• rewording and clarification throughout

There are some unavoidable overlaps and some obvious distinctions between the Synthography and Artificial Intelligence Art pages. If anything, the Artificial Intelligence Art page is too narrow in coverage. It only touches on music, video game design, cooking, and doesn't even mention the artificial intelligence art in graphics design and CGI software like what Adobe and others have been working on for years now or smartphone and in-camera AI image processing. When the technologies in the areas of image-to-3D modeling and printing, image-to-video, video-to-video, and brain-to-image become commercially available, there will be a leap forward in content. When artificial intelligence art output includes augmented reality and virtual reality environments, there will be another leap forward in content. If anything, the categories we are currently talking about will outgrow the current article sizes and will require new categories to be made. It is extremely short-sighted to think otherwise. The articles are fine in size as they are now, are much larger than many other articles on Wikipedia, and leave room to inevitably grow. The Original Benny C (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Are we all in agreement then that the Synthography article should not be merged here? I see editors (including myself) who think the Synthography article should not be merged here because it lacks reliable sources, is largely a dictionary definition, and is better off being deleted. And then I see the counter argument is that some believe that Synthography is an important encyclopedia topic that requires its own article. So, are we all in agreement then that either way, the Synthography article should not be merged here? -- Elspea756 (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes I agree it should not be merged. Thank-you. The Original Benny C (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Elspea756, Thank-you for your input. Can you tell me what else I could add to the Synthography page currently? As mentioned earlier, additional citable independent sources were added in addition to the existing sources such as scholar.google.com. I can add links to the publisher of the paper too (but it is for the same paper). There is also a doi.org (Digital Object Identifier) page for the paper which I know Wikipedia references as one of the more popular citable sources, which redirects to the original source. There are also threads dedicated to this topic and term on social media where a lot of discussion and support of it happens but I understand those are not citable? (Unless a magazine source or news source writes about it.)

In terms of being a dictionary definition, there is other content there such as the different mediums (that's not laid out anywhere else on Wikipedia) and relations between technologies behind synthography. There is more I could write about regarding those mediums and relations that doesn't exist on Wikipedia yet. It's just a matter of how much more time and effort needs to be put into this currently including areas that haven't been released to the public yet (in multiple cases I am in direct contact with the developers) vs the understanding that this is a field that is growing every day that will fill out inevitably and organically.

If you haven't already, can you take a peek at how it looks after the edits of the past few days and see what you think of it currently?

Thanks. The Original Benny C (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be merged. I'd more inclined on not deleting it and waiting for the upcoming months to develop further. I have seen much expansion on this article since a month ago and the synthographic community has become more inclined on using the terminology. From sources I know, there are going to be upcoming papers/books that will include this terminology too, further expanding the list of references. FabianMosele (talk) 09:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a long history of AI Art that predates neural network based models and has nothing to do with synthographic. The real issue is much what people call AI Art these days is better described as synthography. Ganondox (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

There has been only one comment in this discussion since February, and the "It has been suggested that Synthography be merged into this article" tag has already been removed from the Synthography page several weeks ago, so I am going to remove the tag from this page as well as there is no ongoing discussion and there is no consensus to merge as most commenters are against a merge, other than the editor who originally proposed the merge. Thank you to everyone involved in the discussion. Elspea756 (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Early History AI summary off topic

There is already an AI wikipedia article; the purpose of this article is to specifically explain and summarise how AI art works, methods of AI machine training, contemporary legal discussion, notable people (or companies or websites) in the field to whom we should attribute discovery or proliferation.

Early history of AI art should discuss the early history of AI art programs, not the whole study and development of AI, as this section is completely copy-pasted from the AI article Ulysses4627831 (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP23 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Liliability, Zl4474, Savannah yhzzz (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Zl4474 (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: First Year English Composition 1001

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2023 and 30 November 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ahunter05 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ahunter05 (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

AI image removed as per WP:BLP

Re: AI "photograph" depicting image of a character who resembles Donald Trump being "arrested" by "policemen".

I acknowledge that there is a caption below describing the image as AI artwork, and I appreciate efforts by editors to use it for illustrative purposes.

However, I have removed this image, is it clearly conflicts with Wikipedia policy on information on living persons in biographies and other articles (WP:BLP, WP:BLPGOSSIP etc) due to the potential for possible misinterpretation that this is an actual photograph (especially if reproduced elsewhere), and potential for defamation of a living person.

The article text already describes this image well enough, and a link is provided for readers who wish to see it. WP content is read, quoted and reproduced by search engines, children, non-English speakers and sites with computer-generated content, all of whom cannot be guaranteed to understand this is AI artwork, not a real photograph.

Furthermore, the caption below did not indicate that the depicted action was itself fictional, it merely said it was "A Midjourney-created image of Donald Trump being arrested that went viral in March 2023"

There is also potential that misquoting or republishing of the image (e.g. if it is re-used elsewhere and attributed "Source: Wikipedia", as is common) will undermine the trustworthiness of Wikipedia, which we wish to avoid.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fh1 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The caption could use some clarification that the situation being depicted is fictional, but it's a useful illustration, the article is weaker now that it says that AI art can mislead experts and fool social media, but asks the reader to do their own off-site research to see what that looks like.

Commons has the Pope image at File:Pope Francis in puffy winter jacket.jpg, but I think the Trump image is more effective here precisely because it is presenting a controversial image. People "concerned that AI could be used to create content that is misleading" are more worried about political imagery than the Pope's wardrobe.

I don't see that BLP applies if it's clearly labelled as fictional.

Nor do I think it makes any sense to work around the idea that non-English speakers or children might see the image without understanding the caption or any of the text of the article and think they are seeing something real, or that a malicious actor might deliberately present the image as real elsewhere while wrongly crediting the photo to "Wikipedia" rather than its Commons author of "Midjourney". Wikipedia would struggle to include quotations or illustrations in any article about a hoax or parody, if these were concerns. Belbury (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that either image would adequately illustrate the idea. If the Trump image is considered controversial, then the Pope Francis image should be used. Lwneal (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

That the Trump image is politically controversial is partly the point. The fact that AI images can be used to fake political news stories which haven't happened seems a more important angle than their ability to fake jackets which weren't worn. Belbury (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

An image makes the article more informative. I inserted the suggested Pope Francis image into this article because the status quo was no image at all.

The Trump image has merit: it specifically illustrates the political importance of AI-generated images. I propose that it be moved to Deepfake#Donald_Trump, where the context is crystal clear that the image is fake and not real. Lwneal (talk) 03:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: 20th-21st Century Art, Performance and Media

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 August 2023 and 6 October 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Younakor (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Younakor (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding "AI Art" and Hollywood/commercial cinema and video

Hello! I teach the above course at ASU. I would like to open a discussion about the relevance of AI generated imagery and audio in the context of commercial cinema and video. As an art historian, I understand that "AI Art" may connote specific genres and media related to museum/gallery and/or online digital art practices; however the phrase is ambiguous and is similar to saying "Paint Art" or "Metal Art" to refer to the vast approaches to painting and sculpture.

AI is used for many design purposes increasingly inside and outside the fine art world. For this reason, I think there should be a subsection here to account for how AI generated designs, even when used in commercial contexts like Hollywood film, can be included, as they certainly count as "AI Art" in a more encompassing sense of the term.

Please see contribution via User:Younakor for consideration: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_intelligence_art&oldid=1176631558 and consider a new subsection on AI Art & Commercial Design and/or AI Art & Cinema — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceiap (talk • contribs) 21:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Digital Media and Information in Society

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cadancummings24, CaseyIsSheep (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Stevesuny (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Split

Split article: Opposition to artificial intelligence art

@AndyTheGrump: Could you explain why you undid the page split? Per WP:SPLIT it was entirely appropriate. The section is a distinct topic that stands separately from the main topic. The article is also over 50kb, which is when WP:SPLIT says to consider splitting. Overall I think your undoing of the split and calling it "inappropriate" was unjustified, considering it fits the criteria for a split perfectly. Redirecting the new page was especially unjustified, considering it has information about protests that isn't included in this article. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Given that you seem to have made the split without any discussion whatsoever, I really can't see how you can complain about being reverted. That's how WP:BOLD works. As for 'fitting the criteria' the split you have created separated out entirely distinct subtopics under a single title. Law regarding copyright is a question of considerable significance when discussing AI-generated art, and has nothing to do with 'opposition' to it. As for the remaining issues, it is inappropriate per WP:NPOV to separate potentially negative coverage of a topic from positive coverage - this inevitably results in POV-forking even if that is not the intended result. Anyway, that's my opinion, which I am as entitled to as anyone else, and accordingly I suggest you wait for further input from other contributors before attempting to restore your split. Attempting to edit-war [2] an undiscussed split made with a 'bold' edit summary justification is unlikely to be seen in a positive light. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: Reverting one edit is not an edit war. Please refer to WP:3RR for reversion guidelines. Di (they-them) (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Edit warring: it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. You made a 'bold' edit. I reverted. Discuss it. Or be prepared to account for your refusal to wait for breader discussion and consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• Posting this from the talk page of the fork

The new article is only a few minutes old [or at least it was when I wrote this], so it seems rather rude for me to sully it with a tagbomb, even if I think it needs one. I think that people who write articles should be given some courtesy and not immediately BLAR'd or AfD'd or plastered with maintenance templates. But there are some rather serious problems that need to be addressed.

First of all, the way this is written, it seems like an obvious content fork. I'm not sure that there is really enough content on this subject to warrant a separate article from Artificial intelligence art. Even if there was, this article is written in a clearly opinionated way, with seemingly undue coverage.

Overall, there are a lot of weasel words. Looking over it, I see: "many people have opposed it for various reasons", "sparked several debates", "popular discussion renewed over", "some have claimed", "potential problems and concerns that these systems pose on creativity and artistry has risen", "raised concerns", "raises concerns of malice or greed", "raised the concern", and "some people".

I think these should be avoided wherever possible, and replaced with a straightforward attributed quote of who the people are and what they said. At best, they are editorializing, and at worst they are performing alchemy to transmute claims into facts. That is: "Aunt Gladys and her friends say that the cell towers are killing their petunias" is a claim. "Many in the neighborhood have raised concerns that the cell towers are having negative effects on the health of flowers", or "One concern with cell towers is their deleterious effects on petunias" is a claim that we're implying is true (or at least reasonably true).

To give a concrete example, there is a long paragraph written about a lawsuit filed by some artists, which more or less takes their word as gospel: it opens with "An issue with many popular AI art programs is that they generate images based on artists's work without their consent". This isn't presented as a claim, it's just said as fact. But the lawsuit, where three artists alleged this, was dismissed by a judge due to their complaints being "implausible". If legal complaints are deemed to be implausible, we should not introduce them by saying "An issue with [...] is".

Pinging @TheChunky, AndyTheGrump, and Di (they-them):. jp×g 01:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I can support the idea of moving the lengthy "Criticism, issues and controversy" section into another article. Among the reasons is that similar sections exist in other articles such as in Generative_artificial_intelligence#Concerns. Putting these issues into their own article would help editors maintain them in a single place, and help avoid giving these issues undue weight in overview articles. That said, the article title "Opposition to artificial intelligence art" seems overly specific to visual art, since the same issues exist with other types of AI generated material, and "Opposition" seems incorrect, since most of the concerns are about specific aspects of specific current AI systems, not complete opposition to AI art in general. My suggestion would be to merge these concerns into preexisting articles, such as Ethics of artificial intelligence and Workplace impact of artificial intelligence and also Artificial intelligence and copyright. Elspea756 (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Technical Writing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 October 2023 and 1 November 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nusme (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jazaam02 (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Criticism, issues, and controversy

@Elspea756: Those were a good few edits you made this morning. My basic ideas for that section are something like this:

• Unemployment and displacement are an issue, but not really a criticism; they're a logical consequence of basically all technology. The section titled "income and employment stability" is also framed very confusingly; it frequently goes back and forth between those issues and random (seemingly unrelated) copyright stuff.
• "Without their consent" is a strange phrase to use for training data, which seems totally dependent on (and therefore subsidiary to) the copyright issues. I'm not aware of any moral, ethical, or legal doctrine where, e.g. me looking at a website on the public Internet, browsing someone's DeviantArt profile, etc. and then viewing the images posted there requires them to explicitly give me permission. The idea seems to be either that it's a copyright violation for neural networks to view the images during their training process, or that the networks are secretly storing full copies of the images somewhere, but this is far from settled, and all attempts to demonstrate hitherto have been unsuccessful.

I intend to do some editing on this section and clear up some of the issues, but I'll try to write some explanation here during the process. jp×g🗯️ 20:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Your ideas for further improvements sound great and I'm looking forward to them. And yes, I agree there is a lot of seemingly random unrelated stuff in this article, particularly in those sections. Elspea756 (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)`

Discrimination by AI art models due to bias within training data has been a serious controversy within the field, but has gone unmentioned within this or any other section of this article. Therefore, I plan on editing this section and adding a subsection detailing how these models have shown bias as well as how companies have responded. Nnarwani (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nadpnw, Nnarwani (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Thecanyon (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

CSAM Controversy

I believe the recent discovery of Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) being a part of the dataset used by multiple models should be added to the controversy section.

https://cyber.fsi.stanford.edu/news/investigation-finds-ai-image-generation-models-trained-child-abuse

https://www.iwf.org.uk/about-us/why-we-exist/our-research/how-ai-is-being-abused-to-create-child-sexual-abuse-imagery/

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/09/ai-generated-child-sex-imagery-has-every-us-attorney-general-calling-for-action/ 2604:2D80:A302:FB00:92E0:6031:84B8:2E2A (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Citation needed for Drmies and Nortis's new definition of AI art in the intro

The second sentence of this article has for over a year read "[Artificial intelligence Art] includes works created autonomously by AI systems and works that are a collaboration between a human and AI system." (Bolding is mine for emphasis.) Drmies and Nortis have recently redefined AI art much more narrowly to say the exact opposite, writing that "The AI art must be created autonomously by a AI system without the collaboration of a human (although a human may help contribute to the input of data, the artwork must be completed entirely by the AI on its own merits)." (Again, bolding is mine for emphasis.) This new definition is not consistent with my reading of the literature on AI art, which is almost always by definition a computer/human collaboration of some sort. For an example from the popular press, The New York Times has described AI artists "using machine learning to create ghostly digital avatars that dance along with live performers."[3] That is very much a machine/human collaboration, and doesn't fit at at all with your new definition that says AI art "must be completed entirely by the AI." So, Drmies and Nortis, can you please provide your sources for this new definition of AI art that you've written into the intro? Thank you. --Elspea756 (talk) 06:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Elspea756, I have not written that. In addition, you said on my talk page that I was "disregarding the discussion of previous editors", which is of course untrue: there is no discussion here or any other place I know of that I would have somehow disregarded. Au contraire--as I said in my edit summary, it is you who disregard the comments and actions of previous editors (User:Norttis and User:MrOllie), and continue to edit war, against consensus. So I would like to ask you to kindly represent the editorial actions of other editors correctly, and to be more careful in your edits and your comments. Three times now you have reinstated the list of people; it's really time to stop. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Drmies, you in this edit [4] and also and this edit [5] changed this article to say that "The AI art must be created autonomously by a AI system without the collaboration of a human." Do you have a source for this? Also, which specific "comments and actions" of MrOllie do you think I have disregarded? You can see above that MrOllie agrees with me that "Any art produced by AI, even in the 1960s, would be on topic." MrOllie does not seem to agree with Norttis and you that "what ever happened in the 1960's is not relevant on this page." --Elspea756 (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't speak for Drmies's intentions, but the diffs you included also included the arbitrary list of names and promotional sourcing; the more restrictive definition was originally introduced by Nortis. I removed the restrictive clause, though to be fair the previous version which explicitly stated a more expansive definition was not sourced either. There may be multiple definitions of the scope of what's included in "artificial intelligence art," but in any case we need a good source for what that is. My gut feeling is that the title of the article implies a more narrow scope. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

THANK YOU, Ohnoitsjamie! I really appreciate your removing that factually incorrect information that Norttis and Drmies have been insisting on including in the introduction! I did provide a source in my comment above where The New York Times describes AI art as including human/computer collaboration. Would you mind if I added human/computer collaboration to this article, using the New York Times as a source? Thank you again. --Elspea756 (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh stop that bullshit. My reverting your edits does not mean I endorse this or that definition. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Drmies, I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying you do not have an opinion on whether AI art can be created collaboratively between a human and AI, vs. AI art must be created "without the collaboration of a human"? I was assuming since you put "without the collaboration of a human" in the article twice, then you were endorsing that statement, but if you are saying you don't have an opinion on this, that's helpful to know. Sorry if I have misunderstood. Thank you! --Elspea756 (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Assuming you're talking about the paragraphy beginning with "Mr. Skybetter is similarly...", that paragraph is specifically talking about "choreographic software"; the bit about human input being needed was also noted in the narrow definition that Nortis proposed. So no, I don't think that source supports a broad scope for this particular article. If we're talking about using AI as a tool in creating art (versus art created singularly by an AI), perhaps that's better covered in Applications_of_artificial_intelligence#Art. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

That New York Times article describes several examples of human/AI collaboration. The article describes "choreographer Trisha Brown ... employed a program that responded to her dancers’ movements by drawing graphics that were then projected onstage." That's one example of a human dancer collaborating with an AI program. The article also describes "Pontus Lidberg ... set out to use A.I. as a more integral part of his choreography, in rehearsal and performance. The goal: To create a dance that articulated the tension between man and machine, by putting the two together onstage." That's another human/computer collaboration. And, yes, the paragraph you point to says "Mr. Skybetter is similarly adamant that “none of these technologies can really exist without a human hand.” A human is needed at every stage ..." To me, this is so commonsense that it shouldn't need a source (of course humans collaborate with AI to create art! Can you provide sources for AI art where humans do no collaborate with the AI?) but if you are demanding a source for this, is there any agreement among editors here that this New York Times article a good enough source to describe the existence of human artists collaborating with AI? --Elspea756 (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

That article is specifically talking about the application of AI to dance choreography; the article does not attempt to define AI art broadly. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so we are in agreement that dance is one art form where artists collaborate with AI, but you would like examples of other art forms where artists collaborate with AI? --Elspea756 (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

We are in agreement that people can collaborate with AI in all sorts of ways. We are not in agreement as to whether the scope of this article broadly includes any AI collaboration/usage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I just want to note that, if I now understand correctly, Drmies clarifies up above that they don't hold an opinion on this either way, as to whether AI art can or cannot be a collaboration between humans and AI. So, if I'm understanding correctly, the only person who disagrees completely with the idea that AI and humans can collaborate is Norttis, Ohnoitsjamie agrees artists can collaborate with AI but that might be outside the scope of an article on AI art, and I think the idea that human artists and AI can collaborate is just commonsense and belongs in an article on AI art. It was in the article for over a year, and I have provided a New York Times source for it, and I am open to providing more sources if desired. Are there any other opinions on this that I may have missed? --Elspea756 (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I find the title of this article misleading. 'Artificial intelligence art' as a category of artistic practice is usually referred to as 'artificially generated art'. Since the launch of MidJourney, DALL·E and similar image generators the field has grown exponentially and needs a far more comprehensive and detailed explanation. New terms such as 'promptography' suggested by Boris Eldagsen’s, the thorny questions of authenticity and copyright EU AI Act need to be introduced. Shazan (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

This does fit the definition of Conceptual Art though. According to the wiki. 82.131.6.207 (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)