What do you think about AI images?

[OscarM]

Hi. I am curious what others think about images generated by AI and sharing them here. It seems like some are collected in the Galleries for Art and others are mixed with photographs of real humans in various Themed Galleries and Forums.

Personally, I think they can be fun. But, I feel negatively when I don't initially understand that it is AI. I feel a little tricked. With photos of real guys, knowing that he breathes/breathed the same air as me is important and, in my erotic imagination, very hot (like maybe I'll get stuck in an elevator with HIM!). Imaginary men can be hot too though, so it's not just real vs. unreal. I guess it's about expectations? Maybe I need to look more closely at everything? Or less closely?

In truth, I am not certain what I think about this new technology here or anywhere. What do you think? 

[robertrolwing]

30 minutes ago, OscarM said:

Hi. I am curious what others think about images generated by AI and sharing them here. It seems like some are collected in the Galleries for Art and others are mixed with photographs of real humans in various Themed Galleries and Forums.

Personally, I think they can be fun. But, I feel negatively when I don't initially understand that it is AI. I feel a little tricked. With photos of real guys, knowing that he breathes/breathed the same air as me is important and, in my erotic imagination, very hot (like maybe I'll get stuck in an elevator with HIM!). Imaginary men can be hot too though, so it's not just real vs. unreal. I guess it's about expectations? Maybe I need to look more closely at everything? Or less closely?

In truth, I am not certain what I think about this new technology here or anywhere. What do you think? 

don't like them /they are fake

30 minutes ago, OscarM said:

Hi. I am curious what others think about images generated by AI and sharing them here. It seems like some are collected in the Galleries for Art and others are mixed with photographs of real humans in various Themed Galleries and Forums.

Personally, I think they can be fun. But, I feel negatively when I don't initially understand that it is AI. I feel a little tricked. With photos of real guys, knowing that he breathes/breathed the same air as me is important and, in my erotic imagination, very hot (like maybe I'll get stuck in an elevator with HIM!). Imaginary men can be hot too though, so it's not just real vs. unreal. I guess it's about expectations? Maybe I need to look more closely at everything? Or less closely?

In truth, I am not certain what I think about this new technology here or anywhere. What do you think? 

 

[Ludwick]

AI isn't all bad, but I'm not a fan of it overall - especially when it fools people into thinking they're looking at an image of something real, be that a person, or a supposed work of art. Artists who use the internet to promote their work already face a lot of piracy, so AI adding to that isn't great for them. 

Don't feel too bad if you get fooled by AI. We don't all have the same abilities when it comes to recognizing different images of the same real person, never mind telling a good fake from something real. Me being me, I've compiled the following list of things to watch for if you don't like being tricked by AI:

• feathery, too perfect hair  
• smooth, shiny skin - AI hasn't mastered pores, and humans tend to have wrinkles, dents, moles, freckles, etc. that AI doesn't always capture
• odd-looking musculature, perfect abs, veins too close in color to the skin or in an unreal pattern
• oversized / out of proportion anatomy - which we've seen for years with images altered by graphics programs
• extra fingers or toes - AI is iterative, so it tends to add extra digits. 
• missing fingers or toes
• fingers or toes that are too uniform in length, width, and knuckle placement
• the infamous penis thumb (or alternatively, the infamous thumb penis); some AI seems to have trouble telling a thumb from an uncircumcised penis
• other fiddly bits like ears, noses, etc. that are too smooth or lack detail. 
• lighting that generally seems a bit off
• tortured, unnatural positioning of arms, wrists, fingers, etc. Ai doesn't seem to understand the limitations of humans' bendiness. 
• merged figures, when more than one person is in the image. AI can't always tell where one body ends and another begins.
• AI generally does a decent job with overall proportions, but it's another thing to watch for.
• fake looking liquid of any sort; it tends to be too uniform, and/or has droplets that are too large. Since liquids reflect some light, see the previous bullet point. AI isn't so good with randomness or understanding how liquid moves.
• Text in AI tends to look like a fake or foreign alphabet, or is nonsensical. 
• clothes merging with skin. It's not common, but exists.

In regard to all of the above, a lot depends on the AI source. Not all AI image generators are created equal. Ai is also learning and improving, so it will probably eventually learn how to do a better job of representing the human figure.

Edited May 14 by Ludwick
spelling bloop, adding/reordering items

[blasebalg2016]

Even if the AI pictures may display cuties something, I feel, is missing: Who wants "perfect" guys? I think natural bodies, even with deficiencies are far sexier, because knowing that blood in running through their veins.  

[OscarM]

@Ludwick Thanks for the great list of "tells" and your comment. And @blasebalg2016 I agree that a poreless, "perfect' guy would freak me out and that our quirks are part of what make us so beautiful.

I was thinking about the first blog I found that had pictures of naked men and seeing a seriously huge cock. "What. The. F. Is. THAT?" I was amazed and then I compared myself to it with some sadness. That is just the way humans operate, I think. After encountering different sizes in real life, I came to accept the size of my penis and moved on. But if someone didn't understand that an AI image is not a photograph (even one using a lens trick), are they amazed and now comparing themselves to a fictional body/face/cock/ass? If I think of how ignorant and desperate I was, it almost seems kinda cruel to show them those images without some clarification. I'm sure youth today are savvier than I was. Still, I can't help thinking users should tag or collect AI images in distinct galleries. 

I'll relax now but I welcome other thoughts. Be well fellas!  

[Topher92561]

I don't like them and will not re-post them on my tumblr blog.  I appreciate the artistry and time it took to create but it is flat, artificial looking and boring. 

[Jim33317]

If it is a really good image, I am fine with it. But all images should be marked as generated by AI.

But I don't like the poor images where the muscles are wrong or the hair looks funny.  It has to be realistic for me to accept it.

[Ludwick]

10 hours ago, Jim33317 said:

If it is a really good image, I am fine with it. But all images should be marked as generated by AI.

But I don't like the poor images where the muscles are wrong or the hair looks funny.  It has to be realistic for me to accept it.

Thanks for mentioning muscles being wrong. I was reconstructing my list from a post that was lost in the site crash, and had left this off. I've added it and related things (perfect abs, veins that look wrong) to the list.

Edited May 12 by Ludwick

[Ludwick]

12 hours ago, OscarM said:

Still, I can't help thinking users should tag or collect AI images in distinct galleries. 

Agreed. You'll find collections like that in the "Art" gallery here on AdonisMale. Unfortunately, inclusions of AI generated images alongside images of real men will still happen, simply because folk can't always tell when an image is AI. So you'll know doubt find them here and there - especially if an image fits a thematic album someone is compiling; they're looking for things that fit the theme, and probably not thinking about whether the images they find for it are real or AI. It's also not unusual for someone to post an AI or photoshopped image in the Member Requests forum, asking for an ID of the person, who may not be a real person at all.

All of which is to say that I'm not sure what the solution is.

[Idontneed1]

I think the devaluing of human-made artwork and creativity and the over-reliance on technology and monetization will lead to a homogenization of culture and end if not huge blockage of human expression and though.

 

But maybe I'm worrying too much.

[Ludwick]

Another thing to consider, though it should go without saying: Professional photos of actual models have long been retouched, even before software applications existed for that purpose. Apart from that, things like moles have been concealed with makeup techniques, and models have been strategically positioned to hide distracting features. Lighting techniques also come into play, affecting things like the appearance of skin tones, creating shadows, etc. (And such things play havoc with trying to identify images uploaded here when names have been omitted. Earlier I encountered a case of "now you see it, now you don't" with a model's scar from a smallpox vaccination.)

All of which gets us to this question: When are we ever certain that we're seeing reality, even in images of real people? 

Edited May 16 by Ludwick

[Ludwick]

1 hour ago, Idontneed1 said:

I think the devaluing of human-made artwork and creativity and the over-reliance on technology and monetization will lead to a homogenization of culture and end if not huge blockage of human expression and though.

 

But maybe I'm worrying too much.

These are valid concerns. However, the word "monetization" catches my eye here. I've actually encountered the idea before that we should just create art for art's sake, and make it free to anyone for the taking. I don't subscribe to that viewpoint. Artist's have bills to pay, like anyone else. So if you want to know what the immediate threat is to human-made artwork, it's other humans behaving badly, stealing and monetizing work that isn't their own. I can't even imagine trying to make a living as an artist in the world today - doesn't seem worth it to me.

[smokeshadow]

It's not just images that AI is getting VERY good at.  Just look at country singer Randy Travis, who released a new  hit song 11 years after a debilitating stroke took his voice away

 

 

In this instance, I think AI is being utilized like Stephen Hawking used a computer to speak.  It's simply another tool.  How it's used is the key.  

[Ludwick]

9 hours ago, smokeshadow said:

It's not just images that AI is getting VERY good at.  Just look at country singer Randy Travis, who released a new  hit song 11 years after a debilitating stroke took his voice away

 

 

In this instance, I think AI is being utilized like Stephen Hawking used a computer to speak.  It's simply another tool.  How it's used is the key.  

From what I read, James Dupré's voice was used to lay down the main vocal, and then AI is used to tweak it to reproduce Randy Travis' singing style. Dupré had previously performed with Travis' original band, on a tribute tour. I actually think this instance is a pretty cool use of AI, though it's also easy to see how it could be abused by less scrupulous people somewhere down the road. For example, if a voice-likeness of a deceased artist were to be used in the production of new work, would their estate be due any sort of compensation or royalties? Perhaps not. On the other hand, there's the example of a song produced sort of in the style of Marvin Gaye by Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams, with the estate of the late artist winning a lawsuit against them, sustained on appeal.