Discussion about AI created banner

[Springer]

@etardiff

So—particularly since the version banner is the first thing you see when visiting TW-com—I think we stand to lose more by using recognizably-AI images than by avoiding them.

Nicely put. And from both an ethical and an aesthetic point of view, the “recognizably AI” look is not what we should want. I very much hope such an image would not be chosen for our public-facing banner image.

I think my point above about the asymmetry (between LLM-generated TiddlyWiki code and artificially-generated images posted at our forum) was out of place in this context (banner image contest).

If someone relied on something like Midjourney for an image that was a mockup of, say, a desired interface result (that the person would like help implementing in TiddlyWiki), that’s where it seems the use of such technology wouldn’t so directly undermine our forum’s purpose (though we still might have good reasons to resist it). But the public-facing nature of a version banner makes for a different kind of high stakes.

(I suspect that as time goes on, many software tools will become so intertwined with big-pattern-automation — and many real artists will become adept at using these tools in a not-grotesque-looking way… So in the future we may find less of an obvious line between those whose workflow benefits from this technology and those who resist relying on the all-consuming technology. Still, that complexity will call for even more thinking-through of accountability, not less…)

[jeremyruston]

Thank you for the fascinating discussion. I’m embarrassed to have only just realised that a couple of years ago I used generative AI to make the banner image for the newsletter in the “Find Out More” tiddler. I’ll try to come up with something better, but contributions are welcome.

[dongrentianyu]

I believe that using AI to create images is acceptable, provided that the generated images are thoroughly checked to ensure they carry no negative connotations. Only on this basis should we consider whether the images are aesthetically pleasing and appealing enough. For the TiddlyWiki community, there is always a shortage of promotional images, which hinders the ability to let others know about TiddlyWiki. If people who don’t use TiddlyWiki are still aware of its existence, the community can attract new users to join.

[Springer]

@stobot Could you include a disclaimer, as @pmario did above, about your use of energy-guzzling and artist-labor-cannibalizing big-data-driven image generation tech for the steampunk-vs-aerodynamic train image?

[stobot]

If that is the policy of Jeremy and/or the site administrators, I’ll be happy to comply. They’re also welcome to delete my post if they choose. I apologize for getting off topic here, but I genuinely am trying to understand people’s views in a community I love.

I work in data science and have been building and using algorithms and ML(AI) models for > 25 years. My use is primarily in business across many domains whether optimizing service vehicle routing for a large fleet to reduce carbon emissions and fuel usage, or optimizing where products are stored across the country to minimize shipping and it’s associated costs and environmental impact. Given my experience, I find it discouraging to see the vilification of methods and technologies that do a lot of good.

Given that even modern spell check is running ML(AI), and most image editing software packages like Photoshop that create all of these banners contain “AI” tools (even good old area-selection, color-fixing etc.). I can’t imagine people want a disclaimer if spell check found a spelling or grammar issue.

To create the image I posted I sketched it in pen on paper, scanned and converted it into a painting using an image generator api, and then edited using Paint .NET to clean up some artifacts / version number, change the coloring, and get into an appropriate resolution.

Where would you draw the line for shaming the contributor? Is it the technology entirely, a specific tool, the company providing the tool, or something else entirely?

[Christian_Byron]

@AI Generated Content on talk.tiddlywiki.org

to propose an amendment to our code of conduct: Please do not post the raw output of AI generated content from tools like ChatGPT or Claude. The fundamental reason that we should try to contain the slop that AIs generate is that they are not reliably truthful or accurate.

A couple of points from my POV:

• AI is a tool that people can master the use of - just like github is a tool or even TW is a tool - it improves peoples productivity and capabilities - but doesn’t replace their creativity & imagination (maybe emphasise that as most valuable aspect of any contribution - regardless of tools used)
• Avoid words in this discussion and in the policy like “slop” and "rubbish" - while I agree that Ai can produce poor quality atm … ‘It’ doesnt care what you think of it - but the user of the tool will care about what you think of what is actually their contribution.
• the policy should ask for disclosure of any contributor of a piece of work including AI - thats why I mentioned my use of Sora - as I believe it is ethical to be honest about that … If I hadn’t credited Ai, I wonder if anyone would have been as critical - or maybe use more human friendly tone ?

Lastly - try to remember that we all volunteer contributions to this community because it is rewarding to do so… I posted my image in the spirit that it is a fun competition…