alt Hacker NewsWhile I love this idea generally, the scope of the use of generative AI for artwork is too vague for my comfort.
The README.md mentions that "no art is AI-generated, though some has been retouched with AI." Superficially, that sounds mild. Some of the other closely-related projects, however, use different verbiage, or none at all.
For those of us with ethical concerns around generative AI application to artwork, much more detail may be needed before we could decide if this was appropriate for us.
Replies
jrflo • today at 3:48 PM
What is the ethical concern in this use case?
hirako2000 • today at 3:25 PM
Could be for the montage. Is that unfair to say no AI generated the arts, but that AI put individual pieces together?
Author here: Fair, i could've been more explicit in my writing. Concretely:
Every bird is a cutout from a real scanned 1800s plate (Gould, the von Wright brothers, Dresser...). The manifest (https://github.com/arnegiacomo/fugleramme/blob/main/assets/a...) links to each source, so you can compare them to the original scans. No bird has been prompt/diffusion generated, although I did use diffusion-based tools to remove birds from the perches (https://github.com/arnegiacomo/fugleramme/tree/main/assets/a...).
Nothing at runtime uses AI either, at least in the sense of LLMs or diffusion. The collage is Pillow and numpy, and detection is BirdNET, which is a classifier, not a generative model.
However I have used LLMs for code-related work, and for writing scripts for programatically editing the images, like cutting, contrast and colour corrections.