I saw an article a few days ago that stated that AI is about to pass humanity in content created since the beginning of time.

AI will soon have surpassed us in the amount of generated images, texts, videos. It's truely a revolution and content availability will not be a problem of the future, just to filter out what you want to see.

Btw, "conventional beauty" is effectively an underhanded slur rooted in the envy of the "are-nots" toward the "ares". "Unrealistic" functions similarly, as there are plenty of women with the body proportions depicted in the handful of images I managed to see quickly perusing this page, and so while they may be uncommon (made, shall we say, more conspicuous in an age where obesity has skyrocketed and slovenly dress is ubiquitous), they cannot be unrealistic as such women do exist and do, in fact, dwell among us as fellow human beings. (N.b., some of the women depicted are entirely average or vulgar, and the manner in which some women are 'depicted' is also deficient in taste.)

And as this is effectively an artistic depiction, it would not be unreasonable to expect some idealization (no wrinkles, no blemishes, etc), which is kind of the whole point, as art, at least fine art, as it is produced to contemplate and enjoy beauty (which is, pace the relativists, objective; subjective tastes may conform to greater or lesser degrees to the objective fact). Even when you get your photograph taken, don't you want your "good side" photographed, or the zit on your forehead concealed?

The outputs represent the intents of the users.

No shock with mainstream media resenting “conventional beauty” that people would lean towards it with AI tools.

That sounds roughly like the same ratios for most digital art on the internet. It's also probably indicative of the types of people (kind of nerdy, probably) people who are making images with Midjourney. I'm more likely to use Midjourney to make an image than a trained artist is, but a trained artist's image will likely be higher quality, more creative, and more diverse from what we're seeing here. Clearly, I'm guessing a little bit, but I bet that's what's happening.

This is an exaggeration, right?

Then again, I see your point; even if the actual numbers were half of that, it would be a lot.

>after seeing lots of these images, it seems "boring"

Midjourney very much has a style and like looking at the front page of ArtStation while the images are of a high “quality” in the technique sense, the artistry of them is pretty low.

Very rare to see an image that will surprise you on ArtStation, just a sea of orcs, elves, guns and spaceships in the same “painted” yet completely uninteresting style. Same for a MidJourney output, all very safe, all the same tricks to provide “impact” yet all utterly boring.

I know exactly what you mean even though I basically disagree. While in some pictures, one can really "tell" by picking up on some unconscious "artifacts" or patterns. Uncanny valley stuff. On the other hand most are just too good, which I egocentrically assume is what you also mean. (or at least it makes sense from my perspective)

This leads me to believe that a lot of people may share your view and thus steer the upcoming popular visual styles into the opposite directions (the pendulum). Maybe more abstract / gritty / grunge / minimalist or messy. I've seen a similar development in music and it steered the popular audience to the stoner rock genre for a while, simply for being the opposite of the currently popular in multiple ways.

Midjourney gives little control to artists and straight up ignores prompts. You can't customise it with different loras and checkpoints. There's no controlnet. It's tuned to "look cool" not to output what's actually in the prompt.

For example - if you prompt "low poly castle, isometric". The output wont't be low poly or isometric, but something that "looks cool".

This is why people are hyped about the new SD XL. It understands prompts much better than previous iterations of SD and Midjourney. And it can be customised and extended. Can't wait for the full release, Controlnet XL and other extensions.

>>if i see an image in the wild i can guess it is generated by midjourney

That's because of default settings, it's not a limitation of the model. I get Midjourney magazine for $4/mo; curated examples are quite amazing.

Are these human-created images less boring? https://dribbble.com/shots/popular

Would be fun if someone made an online game where you try to distinguish AI and human generated art. I'm confident I would do much better than chance, but I'd be curious to see if people can reliably get 90%+

The training sets that form the foundation of this iteration of AI reflect our collective culture.

People who complain about biases have only themselves to blame.

The more 'diverse' the people that get involved in our culture - getting their hands dirty and actually creating new things, instead of parasitizing off the efforts of others - the less bias there'll be. Simple as that.

It doesn't represent human experience, it represents the average submission to deviantart

There already are SD plugins for Krita, Photoshop, GIMP and Blender.

Indeed. It sort of blows my mind that they cannot put a simple web UI up given all the resources they have at their disposal. To get midjourney, I need a midjourney account *and* a Discord account (I'm not a gamer).

this is absurd. i have no idea why teens like discord so much, it's like irc with all the bad sides (messy, not stored on the open web, ephemeral, corporate censorship) and without the good sides (privacy, decentralization, etc)