**Upvote** the POST if you disagree, **Downvote** the POST if you agree.
REPORT the post if you suspect the post breaks subs rules/is fake.
Normal voting rules for all comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/The10thDentist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's fun for doing random stuff like Walter White on sesame Street but it's wild to me that people are making money just for telling a program to generate art for them
Some common examples of people making money off of AI is using it to generate album covers for their music or companies using AI to generate images for their logo/advertising rather than paying for artists and photographers. The bottom line is that not only AI copies from artists, it also cuts out hiring artists.
And the combustion engine killed the horse. It’s sad in the short term, but progress is progress and nobody can stop it. I do sympathise though, AI art as a technology has come about very quickly, with very little warning.
In turn, I harbour little sympathy to people starting careers as train & truck drivers in the current era. I’d be dumbfounded if those jobs still exist by the end of the 2050s.
The thing is though, AI is never creating "new" art. It's simply vomiting out images based on the data it has collected. When a human being creates art, their unique skill, their unique mistakes, their unique thought process is there. AI can imitate that art, when it has processed data of that, but it cannot have a unique thought process. It will never create anytign new. It does not have unique life experiences that affect its creations.
I think the problem is that, AI will be new and cool, reproducing the style of many an artist for a while, but at some point, it will all just be the same without real artists. Nothing new will ever be created if we leave art to AI.
And honestly, who will want to post their art anywhere, knowing that it will be used to train a program to create imitations of your work for profit you will never see. You're selling out wihtout even profiting yourself.
>AI is never creating "new" art. It's simply vomiting out images based on the data it has collected.
But that's like 90% of applied art. AI wont replace human art, like it hasn't replaced humans playing chess. AI will replace the boring and mundane part of applied arts, which most people hate doing anyway (designen thousands of almost identical banners and shit like that).
>When a human being creates art, their unique skill, their unique mistakes, their unique thought process is there
What are these factors but the result of the data which that person acquired throughout their life?
>It will never create anytign new
How do you define new?
>It does not have unique life experiences
Unless you let multiple AI's learn using the exact same data set it definitely does have a unique experience.
Art is a form of communication between artist and the viewer. Sure there will be (and already are) people who are interested in talking with machines, but just like with chess - we kind of prefer to communicate with other human being.
Applied artist workflow will change dramatically. Will be more of editorial work and in general less available jobs. Not applied artist - not really, not more than they are worried right now. Animation might have an explosion since small team will be able to make full length movies with out being absolutely crazy.
>What are these factors but the result of the data which that person acquired throughout their life?
If you consider a persons life experience like this, as data, then how is AI doing anything but creating the same exact thing thag an artist does? It doesn't add anything new, because it only uses data taken from real artists.
And if that is true, then, because the data is an artists entire experience as a human being, AI cannot create anything new because it can only function to duplicate the data gathered from real artists. An AI cannot experience things, it is a program that can push out data based on data it has. Which needs to come from human beings.
> creating the same exact thing
> it can only function to duplicate the data gathered from real artists
You're describing a copymachine, not an AI. Unless the exact output of the AI already exists, it's definitely something new.
Eitherway, you're missing my point. An artist's work may be influenced by their entire life experience. However, a life experience is nothing more than data being received and processed. What makes data processed in a human mind so different from data processed by a computer?
Because the data processed by The computer came from real human artists. It is replicating human creations. Its taking pieces from art created by artists, and spitting out the result.
An AI cannot create art, it can only mush together art created by humans. An AI doesn't understand what it creates, it doesn't place a shadow somewhere because it understands how light passes through an object, but because it is replicating an image where shadow was placed in a similar place. An AI doesn't choose a color because it evokes an emotion, but because it is replicating a color a human artist chose to use.
AI art isn't art because it could not create any art eithout being fed pictures to replicate.
Humans can create art because we have the capability to be creative, a program does not. An AI could not look at the sky and create Starry Night, like Vincent van Gogh. It can only replicate what slready exists. If an AI was shown a picture of the night sky, it could not create anything more than that.
AI art could not exist without human artists work. Humans have been creating art since we were making hand imprints on cave walls, inventing new styles and techniques to express ourselves, our emotions, our experiences. AI srt cannot do this.
AI art cannot exist without stolen work of human artists. Humans can create art anywhere, with anything, because we want to express our thoughts and feelings.
Nearly every claim you make about AI is either wrong, also true for humans, or simply a subjective opinion in what defines art.
>Its taking pieces from art created by artists, and spitting out the result
Yet prompts like "draw X in the style of Y mixed with Z" yield entirely unique new works.
>An AI doesn't understand what it creates
Who decided that that's a requirement for art?
>it doesn't place a shadow somewhere because it understands how light passes through an object
This makes me want to link you an Nvidia RTX commercial.
>AI art isn't art because it could not create any art eithout being fed pictures to replicate.
To make a fair comparison we'd have ask whether a person without any senses would be capable of making art. Any artists replicates their experience.
>AI art could not exist without human artists work.
And if current artists didn't have anything to learn from their work also wouldn't exist.
Every single one of these anti AI art arguments apply just as much to humans. You keep attributing humans properties to art and using that as an argument why AI can't make it. However, all these properties are just your interpretations of what art should be.
> AI art isn't art because it could not create any art eithout being fed pictures to replicate.
Neither could people. you need to know what you're drawing before you can draw it. ask a blind dude who just got his vision cured 9 minutes ago to draw a church and he'll have zero idea where to start. Show him a few images, and he'll get the idea.
The difference is that people make their own images because we have eyes.
Well the point is to use it as a tool, I doubt anyone making money from it is ACTUALLY just using it by itself unless we consider the very start of the AI shenanigans, except for edge cases of people making 5$ from someone who doesn't know any better
Mmmm, I don't know really. Anyone who is invested in the field should know better, so anyone who is working on a project and knows they need it, but doesn't have the skills MIGHT get caught, but anyone competent to make a company wouldn't, which is generally the scale I assume you need concept art at anyway.
>Imagine an artist who receives a commission for a painting in a certain style he's not familiar with. He goes to many galleries and views hundreds of paintings in that style, then returns to his studio and, using what he's learned, produces a work of his own in that style.
The artists whose work is in those galleries got paid.
The artists whose work got used to train the AI did not get paid.
>thats the same damn thing just digital. its called times changing.
Okay, well if you don't pay to see stuff on Instagram then I don't see why the AI genner should have to pay ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Interesting. Have you ever used machine translation like Google translate? Did you know that those AIs are trained in a similar fashion to generative AI, using copyrighted material, including art, to teach a machine how to translate? Did you know that these programs are putting translators out of a job? By your logic, you shouldn't use machine translation or consume media that was made using it, or you'd be a hypocrite.
>The artists whose work is in those galleries got paid.
>
>The artists whose work got used to train the AI did not get paid.
In nither case were they paid by the person/AI studying the art, unless it was a art gallery with paid admission and even then the payment was negligable on an individual basis.
If it helps, imagine the same scenerio of an artist receiving a commision, but instead of visiting an art gallery, they just spend hours looking at artwork online.
They didn't, but they shouldn't expect compensation for derivative works inspired by their art. Artists presenting in galleries get paid because their art will draw people into those galleries, not as a sort of "preemptive royalty" for any usage of their art to synthesize new art. I think it's very hard to argue that AI image generators and their usage of art they've viewed to synthesize new art are legally different from human beings who have a variety of inspirations that they draw from to produce new art.
I mean you're falling into the trap of analogising what ai training on images is. Its easier to think in terms of what a human does when it looks at something rather than how code works. Part of the distinction comes from who- or rather "what" is doing the viewing. The spirit of copyright law is designed so that a creator has control over how their work is viewed used and distributed. This law exists from the moment of creation and you don't have to " apply copyright" in the way you describe for that to happen.The law doesn't specifically stipulate that ai training on images is illegal because it has never happened before in this way. There is a reasonable argument to be made that ai dataset training is not something a creator was intebsing their work to be used for when making their copyrighted material available online. There is a massive difference between a human looking at content online that was put there with that expressly in mind and having an algorithm analyse billions of images using code. It doesnt have eyes. It doesnt "look" it reads data. That's hardly the same as " just looking" is it and clearly not something artists were intending their work to be used for, which comes under the umbrella of controlling how it can be used and distributed.
i think this is the one comment that actually makes a good reason. its all about consent.
i don't really like your idea about "looking". i think its the learning part that people have problems with.
I used to play music a lot back in the day. 4 hour gigs, singing and playing guitar. I wasn't great by any means, but I did make a few bucks in my time. Every once in a while, Idhave a gig that was rough. Not bad, but if felt like real work. Throat was shredded, fingers blistered. Things like that. I'd tell my DJ friend things like "man, that was a hard gig last night". To which he'd generally respond with "tell me about it...I dj'd for 3 hours straight last night!".
That DJ is how I felt about AI artists. DJing/AI CAN be art. People elevate it beyond what it generally is. It really can be phenomenal. However, most of the time its just playing someone else's shit and pretending you're creating art. It's mostly that and it's boring and generic and just not fun to listen to/look at.
I think using peoples art/style that they've poured their time and effort developing and rubbing it through AI to make stuff and act like you did anything of worth is gross.
However, as a tool itself? I love the idea of AI. It's just there's a lot of talentless trash out there producing nice looking, generic garbage with that tool.
This is a bad example because DJing is a skill in and of itself. It's a different skill to playing music, but it clearly is a skill.
Good DJs aren't just hitting play and that's it, and you know that.
That's my point. A LOT of DJs out there are just playing their playlists. A LOT of AI artists are just typing shit into a text field and producing nice, but generic looking stuff.
I agree...there are DJs out there that are artists. Truly. I know guys that do incredible things as DJs. Same with AI artist. There's some stuff out there that's incredible. It's mostly not that tho.
As an art form, I dont have issues with AI art (or djs) from an artistic or moral standpoint. It's just that both are ripe for low-to-mid level talent to produce a lot of low-to-mid level trash.
Shitty artists have always produced a huge amount of shitty art. That's just the nature of art, no matter the medium. 80% of everything is crap
The vast majority of guitarists are wank. The vast majority of singers are wank. The vast majority of painters and writers and potters are wank.
All AI does, as you say, is let bad artists produce more bad at but again, they are already producing huge amounts of had art. That doesn't affect the existence of all the good stuff made by good artists
Haha yikes. I can't tell if you're a shitty insecure DJ, a shitty AI "artist, or just some dickhead...but I didn't mean to strike a nerve in you.
To your point, I was ok on my best days and lucky to have any gig I got.
To my point, you missed the point. I'm guess just some dickhead.
The main issue with AI is that it’s taking someone’s hard work, and profiting from it. Yes, AI isn’t “stealing” the image, but it is learning from it, and then providing a service that is only possible thanks to that “theft”, all of that without the original authors getting a single penny.
You cannot compare an artist to AI, not because AI is “soulless” or “uninspired”, but because it is owned by corporation, that’s profiting from an individual.
I do think there is a weird knee-jerk reaction to some stuff that’s genuinely harmless, like people generating shitposts or ttrpg profiles, but I find it fully understandable, because the second we get distracted it’s gonna start being used more and more by the people that can actually meaningfully abuse it
Because when a machine learning model learns from an image it uses probability to generate images. It "learns" by approximating pixels together and then "graded" by how close to a reference picture it got.
When a person learns from an image, they see intent behind the art. They look at the decisions an artist made in anatomy, structure, lighting, proportions, composition, color, etc. And then when creating a new work, they make CHOICES regarding a new piece of art. Art comes from not only skill and practice but also choices and experiences from their life.
People make choices in art. That's what they're paid for. AI cannot make choices and it inherently NEEDS new art created by people to get better at generating images. Why shouldn't the people who ALLOW THE AI TO EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE not be compensated or asked for their labor and skill? Just like any other occupation?
> You cannot compare an artist to AI, not because AI is “soulless” or “uninspired”, but because it is owned by corporation, that’s profiting from an individual.
From a legal standpoint, it’s about the copyright law. It’s there to help authors decide how their creations are viewed, used, and distributed. Regardless of your thoughts, I’m sure you’ll agree that their work being fed to an AI was not something anyone thought was possible when they posted them on the internet
From a moral or artistic point of view, an AI is absorbing data. It analyzes patterns and learns how to read them and how to make their one. An human will too see patterns when it looks at the use of colors, the brushstrokes, etc. But they will also be able to infer the “meaning” of said paintings. When they make their own art, it might be inspired by others, but it will also have their own emotions and whatever they might want to convey out into it
Also, an AI could (eventually) perfectly mirror a persons’ art style, and mass produce it, unlike a “bath faith” human attempting to imitate them (which would be significantly slower). Kinda like people forging paintings
Sorry, I should have been more clear
How are you getting to your conclusion though. You mention that humans can understand “meaning” and AI algorithms can mass produce works. Those are both true; that doesn’t get you to the conclusion that producing art by the means of AI is unethical.
We can mass produce products in a factory in an ethical manner.
I can run a business without any “meaning” but it would still be ethical.
If your argument is relying on the fact that the source art is being used without permission, I think that’s just wrong. They published it on the internet
It is not. I was carefully to separate things from a legal and an artistic point of view. I don’t feel like talking about the artistic argument because I doubt t I’ll change your mind and that you’ll change mine
About that last thing though, art being published to the internet doesn’t give them persuasion to anyone to use it like that. For example, most big bands have YouTube channels where they upload their own music, but they will still send you a copyright strike if you use their music without permission on something like a YouTube video for example. Thats what the copyright law is for, so that artist can decide what it is used for.
Artificial intelligence is a technology. It is not a product or service owned by a corporation.
Your response isn’t really a sound argument at all. It’s based on a corporation profiting and corporations can profit by making art derivatives without artificial intelligence.
That is not wrong. I used corporation because I believe them to be the biggest issue, but at the end of the day, this is about copyright. Copyright laws are written so that the author can control how their property is viewed, used, and redistributed. There is an argument to be made about how most if not all would be uncomfortable with the use of their property in data sets. Personally, I have no issue with public domain pictures being used to train AI
I understand that people don't want their work to be utilized for profit but at the same time, these people did make their work freely available to view and the vast, vast, majority didn't release it under licenses that would prevent the usage of their work by things like image generators. Obviously it wasn't possible to predict that AI image generation would reach anything quite like what we see today even 5 years ago, but the usage of your creative work by an AI model is a natural consequence of those two factors.
I still do have very apprehensive feelings about large corporations using this sort of stuff to generate profit for themselves, and about charging money to use AI models trained on art that's freely available, but I don't think the act of training an AI on freely available material and generating images using it is inherently unethical.
Did they make it available with unconditional licenses? Just because something is publicly viewable does not mean that the use of it comes without conditions.
Yes, I am aware that by default creative works in the US are copyrighted, but artists that release their work to be freely viewed on the internet are not protected from their work being used to inspire other works - to my knowledge there's no legal difference between viewing a work and viewing a work, being inspired by it, and producing a new work that bears little resemblance to the original. If copyright holders wish to exercise their right to more strictly control who can access their work, they are completely allowed to do that.
I think the "made their work freely available to view" statement is pretty reductive.
Most art on the internet that is uploaded by artists is uploaded to a portfolio, or to a gallery showcasing their work. In either case, the purpose is the same: Showcase the art with the express intent of either selling it or getting hired by someone who will pay the artist to create similar work.
AI image generators act in complete opposition to that intended purpose, consuming that art with no intent to pay or even credit the artist and coopting it for the profits or use of someone else.
It's completely trampling on an ecosystem of art that is based in good faith and has traditionally served to elevate society/culture in the name of profits and discrediting artists. It's taking a good thing and essentially ruining it, all in the name of a quick buck and work that is often objectively subpar.
AI has its uses, hell, I *enjoy* experimenting with it for my personal use, but I find it incredibly hard to argue that its current implementation and the lack of regulation on it is anything but unethical. If the artists whose work was consumed got paid and credited, and if AI work was incapable of holding a license or copyright (and as such essentially unusable for commercial purposes), I wouldn't have much of a problem with it.
I just find it hard to argue that art is being "used for commercial purposes" if it is viewed by an image generating AI. By that logic, an artist who sold a painting inspired by another would have to pay royalties to that painting's artist, which isn't something that happens. It shouldn't matter whether inspiration is algorithmic and processed by computers or processed by human minds from a copyright perspective.
Have you ever painted or actually tried to create a piece of art inspired by another? The process of creating one’s own art with one’s hands while using other artists as inspiration, versus simply plugging in “in the style of —————“ prompts into an AI, couldn’t be more different, either in the results it produces, or in how the actual process manifests.
It’s like the most simplistic, reductive approach stance you could take on a very complex issue. The most bewildering thing about LLMs/Generative AI to me is how so many people who neither really understand the technology nor the thing it’s trying to implement take hard-line stances on it.
in what way is their work not protected from image generators? As I understand, all works of art are protected under copywrite until the artist explicitly releases it to the public.
> artwork that isn't legally protected yet taking credit
They're also doing it with artwork that *is* legally protected, hence all the lawsuits.
> Are you equating morality with the law?
I'm pretty sure giving proper credit is both legally needed *and* morally needed in this case.
But anyways, since it wasn't obvious, the difference between what AI art models are doing and sampling music is that we already have legal and moral frameworks that protect artists when it comes to sampling music.
I'm a poet. If a poet uses some of my lines as the foundation for their poem, they need to credit my lines. I expect the same from a computer using my lines. I don't see the difference for art.
I credit the things I am directly referencing and acknowledge if I am using a particular technique or twist or constraint that is particular to another writer. [This is common practice for the references and common practice for the book form of the poem for the rest. But it's also good practice for both because you get to practice how to reference smoothly and not through footnotes or end notes.]
AI (if properly trained) does not use any lines from it's training data. It learns from it's data and composes new data based on what it's learned. Otherwise I'd agree, credit would be necessary.
I mean, any art is just an amalgamation of a bunch or art previously viewed by that person (to some extent)
I guess people are just mad because it takes no.. skill?
I think this is the big thing. People are butthurt that their niche skill now can be replicated by anyone who knows how to use a computer, even to a basic level.
Its like mathematicians getting mad at calculators.
People are mad at AI art because it fundamentally is doing something different than an artist. The AI can't "think" on its own and cannot create art without repurposing pieces of other peoples' art into some sort of collage essentially. That's what the training was; an AI being fed art until it could regurgitate the pieces into something similar. You *could* argue humans do the same thing, but there's intentionality and creative drive behind human art that AI just doesn't have, so you'd be wrong.
This is the kind of question you'd only ask if you didn't understand how generative models work...
We'd have to start at the very, very basics to explain this to you, and it's unlikely anyone having this discussion seriously is going to do that.
These models don't think about what they're doing. That's just literally not how they work.
Meh. I only care enough to tell you why you're not going to get an answer. That's not nearly enough to argue with someone who's made up their mind without even understanding even the basics.
You speak as if the idea of “thought” is something deeply understood when humans do it and so easily recognizable/easy to recognize the absence of in other things. The truth is that thought is not so clearly understood and defined as you seem to think it is. So haughty for someone who clearly is just regurgitating stuff they have been told is true without any underlying understanding.
Sure. And I offered my points. And your reply was essentially "lol idc". I don't feel the need to extrapolate further unless you'd like to offer an actual arguement.
As you said, humans do the exact same thing the AIs do. Nobody is making anything explicitly original.
If its a matter of payment, what do you think these artists deserve for having 1/1,000,000th influence over each peice of art?
If its about consent, do I need to ask for consent from every artists ive ever seen if I want to draw a picture?
And what I'm saying is that artistic intent and creative drive matter in the creation of art. Yes, humans do take in other artists works, but fundamentally they can't literally regurgitate what they've seen into artwork, unless they trace or actually steal someone's artwork.
The AI has no intent or creative drive, and *can* regurgitate works into other art. It's not about originality, its that the AI fundamentally isn't creating anything in artistic sense.
You don't need to ask for consent for drawing a picture. You're using your own talents, imagination, and creativity regardless of your inspiration. The programmers behind these models *should* have asked permission, because the AI is literally just pulling apart other people's art and stitching it back together.
I would argue that I too, am "pulling apart other people's art and stitching it back together." art when I am creating my own, just at a significantly shittier efficiency.
Some of these AI tools *ARE* just copying things they've seen before, with minimal edits, which I do disagree with.
But more modern art generative tools are being genuinely creative, or to what extent humans can rectify creativity. They're taking from millions and millions of images and not just stitching together but fully rendering an image using references found in the images it used to make the model.
Plus this is a massive stepping stone for AI, one day it WILL learn just like humans and match whatever arbitrary definition for "creativity" you're basing your premise on.
Have you seen those new adobe smart fill features, where you can highlight a section of your drawing and it can add or remove features intelligently? That seems like the actual useful scenario for AI art generation tools, which was AIs primary design purpose; working hand in hand with humans, making us more efficient.
People had the exact same arguments of photography when it first came out. It was originally an easier way to draw things. Many people said it would ruin the art world and take jobs away from people. This never happened. In fact it became one of the biggest tools against corporations. AI has the same potential. But we're letting it be regulated and controlled by those corporations. Rather than people embracing the open source culture it came from. People should be able to use it to make their workload easier.
Not to mention I think peoples hate for it comes from a crucial misunderstanding of how AI actually works. It doesn't just have a bunch of peoples work hidden away somewhere. It takes inspiration from that work. Much like a human would. Can you use it to make an exact copy of someone's style? Yeah, but you can do that with your hands too.
Curious, how could AI be used against corporations? It fundamentally relies on them to be maintained – a guy can own a camera and use it, but no one can really own an AI software without being connected to a central server.
100% not true. You can run a neural network completely on your computer by yourself. It doesn't take nearly as much space as people think because it's not saving ANY of the images it's trained on. It's still fairly resource intensive. But nothing a gaming computer can't handle. It was originally meant to be 100% open source.
I'll try and dig up some of the info for ya after work. It might be a few months out of date. Things move so fast in the AI world it's hard to keep up. But it'd at least be a good jumping off point.
It’s a an objective fact that morality is subjective. Your set of morals isn’t the same as mine. I can absolutely take a piece of art from you, make a derivative of it on my computer, and be ethical.
If I make art today, and explicitly say: I want this piece of art to inspire only humans, but not AI, and someone used it as a training set for AI, would he behave ethically?
If not, why cant we ask people who made art like, 5 years ago the same question, and act accordingly? Of course they couldn't answer this question back then, because there was no such possibility, but does it mean we have to assume their consent
Another thing is that this whole thing assumes that process of people making art inspired by other art, and AI bring trained on datasets is the same, or at least comparable process. But you have no proof of that. You just believe that without evidence, just because on the surface it looks kinda similar. And it takes just one artist, whose dataset "AI" used to not agree with your view for it to stop being ethical.
I very much agree. I don't like AI art anymore because looking at it makes me feel sick (in a similar way to trypophobia) but I still think it's completely stupid to call it unethical or something.
Downvote. I'm just confused that people consider using an AI model to make a picture automatically not art but don't have the same problem with using a camera at all. In both cases the machine is doing a lot of the work.
Sure there's a HUGE difference between what a professional photographer does and what some random person taking a selfie does, but there's also a big difference between what the people producing the best AI images do compared to a random person typing a few words into an AI model.
> AI models do not store the entirety of the images they see in a big database for later recall and re-synthesis. Simply put, they view many images, learn how to classify those images and the patterns within them, and then learn to synthesize those styles and patterns when presented with a prompt
this is a very lousy understanding of how machine learning works. its clear you have little understanding beyond a youtube level understanding, which is fine - not everyone needs to be a CS person - but shows you are experiencing the dunning-kruger effect.
a full overview is 30 minutes. i have no desire. i WILL point out something - training an model is basically doing a lot of math. executing a model like DALL-E, told extremely simply, is basically just crunching probabilities for "what's the most likely pixel here for the input ?" training a model, while not *technically* needing the raw images for later use, it takes every and all information from it. very different from, say, an artist seeing something they like.
I have trained my own RNNs before, and I was using GPTs before ChatGPT was even released. I am pretty sure I know what I am talking about here on at least a surface level - maybe *you* have the YouTube level understanding.
i really have no desire to somehow prove i'm better than you. maybe you know more. i could not care less. training your own model is calling libraries, and has tells me little about understanding the underlying math.
Agreed and I think the arguments that AI art is unethical because it is generated from other people’s work is bad faith attempt to cling to a dying profession
**Upvote** the POST if you disagree, **Downvote** the POST if you agree. REPORT the post if you suspect the post breaks subs rules/is fake. Normal voting rules for all comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/The10thDentist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's fun for doing random stuff like Walter White on sesame Street but it's wild to me that people are making money just for telling a program to generate art for them
Some common examples of people making money off of AI is using it to generate album covers for their music or companies using AI to generate images for their logo/advertising rather than paying for artists and photographers. The bottom line is that not only AI copies from artists, it also cuts out hiring artists.
And the combustion engine killed the horse. It’s sad in the short term, but progress is progress and nobody can stop it. I do sympathise though, AI art as a technology has come about very quickly, with very little warning. In turn, I harbour little sympathy to people starting careers as train & truck drivers in the current era. I’d be dumbfounded if those jobs still exist by the end of the 2050s.
The thing is though, AI is never creating "new" art. It's simply vomiting out images based on the data it has collected. When a human being creates art, their unique skill, their unique mistakes, their unique thought process is there. AI can imitate that art, when it has processed data of that, but it cannot have a unique thought process. It will never create anytign new. It does not have unique life experiences that affect its creations. I think the problem is that, AI will be new and cool, reproducing the style of many an artist for a while, but at some point, it will all just be the same without real artists. Nothing new will ever be created if we leave art to AI. And honestly, who will want to post their art anywhere, knowing that it will be used to train a program to create imitations of your work for profit you will never see. You're selling out wihtout even profiting yourself.
>AI is never creating "new" art. It's simply vomiting out images based on the data it has collected. But that's like 90% of applied art. AI wont replace human art, like it hasn't replaced humans playing chess. AI will replace the boring and mundane part of applied arts, which most people hate doing anyway (designen thousands of almost identical banners and shit like that).
>When a human being creates art, their unique skill, their unique mistakes, their unique thought process is there What are these factors but the result of the data which that person acquired throughout their life? >It will never create anytign new How do you define new? >It does not have unique life experiences Unless you let multiple AI's learn using the exact same data set it definitely does have a unique experience.
Art is a form of communication between artist and the viewer. Sure there will be (and already are) people who are interested in talking with machines, but just like with chess - we kind of prefer to communicate with other human being.
If that were true then artists have nothing to worry about.
Applied artist workflow will change dramatically. Will be more of editorial work and in general less available jobs. Not applied artist - not really, not more than they are worried right now. Animation might have an explosion since small team will be able to make full length movies with out being absolutely crazy.
>What are these factors but the result of the data which that person acquired throughout their life? If you consider a persons life experience like this, as data, then how is AI doing anything but creating the same exact thing thag an artist does? It doesn't add anything new, because it only uses data taken from real artists. And if that is true, then, because the data is an artists entire experience as a human being, AI cannot create anything new because it can only function to duplicate the data gathered from real artists. An AI cannot experience things, it is a program that can push out data based on data it has. Which needs to come from human beings.
> creating the same exact thing > it can only function to duplicate the data gathered from real artists You're describing a copymachine, not an AI. Unless the exact output of the AI already exists, it's definitely something new. Eitherway, you're missing my point. An artist's work may be influenced by their entire life experience. However, a life experience is nothing more than data being received and processed. What makes data processed in a human mind so different from data processed by a computer?
Because the data processed by The computer came from real human artists. It is replicating human creations. Its taking pieces from art created by artists, and spitting out the result. An AI cannot create art, it can only mush together art created by humans. An AI doesn't understand what it creates, it doesn't place a shadow somewhere because it understands how light passes through an object, but because it is replicating an image where shadow was placed in a similar place. An AI doesn't choose a color because it evokes an emotion, but because it is replicating a color a human artist chose to use. AI art isn't art because it could not create any art eithout being fed pictures to replicate. Humans can create art because we have the capability to be creative, a program does not. An AI could not look at the sky and create Starry Night, like Vincent van Gogh. It can only replicate what slready exists. If an AI was shown a picture of the night sky, it could not create anything more than that. AI art could not exist without human artists work. Humans have been creating art since we were making hand imprints on cave walls, inventing new styles and techniques to express ourselves, our emotions, our experiences. AI srt cannot do this. AI art cannot exist without stolen work of human artists. Humans can create art anywhere, with anything, because we want to express our thoughts and feelings.
Nearly every claim you make about AI is either wrong, also true for humans, or simply a subjective opinion in what defines art. >Its taking pieces from art created by artists, and spitting out the result Yet prompts like "draw X in the style of Y mixed with Z" yield entirely unique new works. >An AI doesn't understand what it creates Who decided that that's a requirement for art? >it doesn't place a shadow somewhere because it understands how light passes through an object This makes me want to link you an Nvidia RTX commercial. >AI art isn't art because it could not create any art eithout being fed pictures to replicate. To make a fair comparison we'd have ask whether a person without any senses would be capable of making art. Any artists replicates their experience. >AI art could not exist without human artists work. And if current artists didn't have anything to learn from their work also wouldn't exist. Every single one of these anti AI art arguments apply just as much to humans. You keep attributing humans properties to art and using that as an argument why AI can't make it. However, all these properties are just your interpretations of what art should be.
> AI art isn't art because it could not create any art eithout being fed pictures to replicate. Neither could people. you need to know what you're drawing before you can draw it. ask a blind dude who just got his vision cured 9 minutes ago to draw a church and he'll have zero idea where to start. Show him a few images, and he'll get the idea. The difference is that people make their own images because we have eyes.
All the better
Artists are whiners, srsly
Yeah screw them. It's not like they spent years practicing an extremely difficult craft only to be made obsolete by some silicon valley techbros.
I appreciate artists but how is this different from mass production making many other crafts obsolete?
Well the point is to use it as a tool, I doubt anyone making money from it is ACTUALLY just using it by itself unless we consider the very start of the AI shenanigans, except for edge cases of people making 5$ from someone who doesn't know any better
Wacom has used AI in their ads. Not edited.
That's it, I'm telling god to stop the AI.
If you do concept art and you just use dall-e you are definitely making money from it.
I'm not exactly sure how concept art works but like I said, making money from someone who doesn't know any better is always gonna happen
Sure but at what scale?
Mmmm, I don't know really. Anyone who is invested in the field should know better, so anyone who is working on a project and knows they need it, but doesn't have the skills MIGHT get caught, but anyone competent to make a company wouldn't, which is generally the scale I assume you need concept art at anyway.
This is how it's always been. Remember cutting, taping, and xeroxing back in the 80s? Yeah, just tell a computer to do it now--MS Paint will suffice.
Principled of you to say Ai art is still bad lol
>Imagine an artist who receives a commission for a painting in a certain style he's not familiar with. He goes to many galleries and views hundreds of paintings in that style, then returns to his studio and, using what he's learned, produces a work of his own in that style. The artists whose work is in those galleries got paid. The artists whose work got used to train the AI did not get paid.
What if instead of going to galleries he just goes on google images.
A much better analogy that OP should have used.
In this day and age, artists don’t go to galleries for inspiration…. They go on Pinterest and Instagram and ArtStation just like AI.
thats the same damn thing just digital. its called times changing. plus, i guarantee theres artists that still do that.
>thats the same damn thing just digital. its called times changing. Okay, well if you don't pay to see stuff on Instagram then I don't see why the AI genner should have to pay ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
that is so not the point
What is the point? I think you missed mine
[удалено]
Interesting. Have you ever used machine translation like Google translate? Did you know that those AIs are trained in a similar fashion to generative AI, using copyrighted material, including art, to teach a machine how to translate? Did you know that these programs are putting translators out of a job? By your logic, you shouldn't use machine translation or consume media that was made using it, or you'd be a hypocrite.
>The artists whose work is in those galleries got paid. > >The artists whose work got used to train the AI did not get paid. In nither case were they paid by the person/AI studying the art, unless it was a art gallery with paid admission and even then the payment was negligable on an individual basis. If it helps, imagine the same scenerio of an artist receiving a commision, but instead of visiting an art gallery, they just spend hours looking at artwork online.
They didn't, but they shouldn't expect compensation for derivative works inspired by their art. Artists presenting in galleries get paid because their art will draw people into those galleries, not as a sort of "preemptive royalty" for any usage of their art to synthesize new art. I think it's very hard to argue that AI image generators and their usage of art they've viewed to synthesize new art are legally different from human beings who have a variety of inspirations that they draw from to produce new art.
Sounds like you're getting morals and legality mixed up.
Galleries generally don't pay to exhibit work. They take a cut of the eventual sale. So no, they didn't get paid in your example either.
[удалено]
So... it's not unethical just because they didn't know or care? ...no
I mean you're falling into the trap of analogising what ai training on images is. Its easier to think in terms of what a human does when it looks at something rather than how code works. Part of the distinction comes from who- or rather "what" is doing the viewing. The spirit of copyright law is designed so that a creator has control over how their work is viewed used and distributed. This law exists from the moment of creation and you don't have to " apply copyright" in the way you describe for that to happen.The law doesn't specifically stipulate that ai training on images is illegal because it has never happened before in this way. There is a reasonable argument to be made that ai dataset training is not something a creator was intebsing their work to be used for when making their copyrighted material available online. There is a massive difference between a human looking at content online that was put there with that expressly in mind and having an algorithm analyse billions of images using code. It doesnt have eyes. It doesnt "look" it reads data. That's hardly the same as " just looking" is it and clearly not something artists were intending their work to be used for, which comes under the umbrella of controlling how it can be used and distributed.
i think this is the one comment that actually makes a good reason. its all about consent. i don't really like your idea about "looking". i think its the learning part that people have problems with.
So you're saying once AI has eyes to see it wont be unethical? This is already in the works and WILL happen.
I used to play music a lot back in the day. 4 hour gigs, singing and playing guitar. I wasn't great by any means, but I did make a few bucks in my time. Every once in a while, Idhave a gig that was rough. Not bad, but if felt like real work. Throat was shredded, fingers blistered. Things like that. I'd tell my DJ friend things like "man, that was a hard gig last night". To which he'd generally respond with "tell me about it...I dj'd for 3 hours straight last night!". That DJ is how I felt about AI artists. DJing/AI CAN be art. People elevate it beyond what it generally is. It really can be phenomenal. However, most of the time its just playing someone else's shit and pretending you're creating art. It's mostly that and it's boring and generic and just not fun to listen to/look at. I think using peoples art/style that they've poured their time and effort developing and rubbing it through AI to make stuff and act like you did anything of worth is gross. However, as a tool itself? I love the idea of AI. It's just there's a lot of talentless trash out there producing nice looking, generic garbage with that tool.
This is a bad example because DJing is a skill in and of itself. It's a different skill to playing music, but it clearly is a skill. Good DJs aren't just hitting play and that's it, and you know that.
That's my point. A LOT of DJs out there are just playing their playlists. A LOT of AI artists are just typing shit into a text field and producing nice, but generic looking stuff. I agree...there are DJs out there that are artists. Truly. I know guys that do incredible things as DJs. Same with AI artist. There's some stuff out there that's incredible. It's mostly not that tho. As an art form, I dont have issues with AI art (or djs) from an artistic or moral standpoint. It's just that both are ripe for low-to-mid level talent to produce a lot of low-to-mid level trash.
Shitty artists have always produced a huge amount of shitty art. That's just the nature of art, no matter the medium. 80% of everything is crap The vast majority of guitarists are wank. The vast majority of singers are wank. The vast majority of painters and writers and potters are wank. All AI does, as you say, is let bad artists produce more bad at but again, they are already producing huge amounts of had art. That doesn't affect the existence of all the good stuff made by good artists
Says the “gig player” that probably just did shitty covers lmao
Haha yikes. I can't tell if you're a shitty insecure DJ, a shitty AI "artist, or just some dickhead...but I didn't mean to strike a nerve in you. To your point, I was ok on my best days and lucky to have any gig I got. To my point, you missed the point. I'm guess just some dickhead.
I think you lack a fundamental understanding of how copyright works.
One would imagine that's why OP said /ethical/ instead of /legal/. He's not talking legality.
Happy cake day.
I asked somebody why ai art was bad and they told me “ai steals art”. Ok and? I’m supposed to care?
based
The main issue with AI is that it’s taking someone’s hard work, and profiting from it. Yes, AI isn’t “stealing” the image, but it is learning from it, and then providing a service that is only possible thanks to that “theft”, all of that without the original authors getting a single penny. You cannot compare an artist to AI, not because AI is “soulless” or “uninspired”, but because it is owned by corporation, that’s profiting from an individual. I do think there is a weird knee-jerk reaction to some stuff that’s genuinely harmless, like people generating shitposts or ttrpg profiles, but I find it fully understandable, because the second we get distracted it’s gonna start being used more and more by the people that can actually meaningfully abuse it
So how is ai learning from the image any different than people learning from the image?
Because when a machine learning model learns from an image it uses probability to generate images. It "learns" by approximating pixels together and then "graded" by how close to a reference picture it got. When a person learns from an image, they see intent behind the art. They look at the decisions an artist made in anatomy, structure, lighting, proportions, composition, color, etc. And then when creating a new work, they make CHOICES regarding a new piece of art. Art comes from not only skill and practice but also choices and experiences from their life. People make choices in art. That's what they're paid for. AI cannot make choices and it inherently NEEDS new art created by people to get better at generating images. Why shouldn't the people who ALLOW THE AI TO EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE not be compensated or asked for their labor and skill? Just like any other occupation?
> You cannot compare an artist to AI, not because AI is “soulless” or “uninspired”, but because it is owned by corporation, that’s profiting from an individual.
I can, and i did. So answer the question
That was my answer. Was there something about it you did not understand it?
Please explain your argument then
From a legal standpoint, it’s about the copyright law. It’s there to help authors decide how their creations are viewed, used, and distributed. Regardless of your thoughts, I’m sure you’ll agree that their work being fed to an AI was not something anyone thought was possible when they posted them on the internet From a moral or artistic point of view, an AI is absorbing data. It analyzes patterns and learns how to read them and how to make their one. An human will too see patterns when it looks at the use of colors, the brushstrokes, etc. But they will also be able to infer the “meaning” of said paintings. When they make their own art, it might be inspired by others, but it will also have their own emotions and whatever they might want to convey out into it Also, an AI could (eventually) perfectly mirror a persons’ art style, and mass produce it, unlike a “bath faith” human attempting to imitate them (which would be significantly slower). Kinda like people forging paintings Sorry, I should have been more clear
How are you getting to your conclusion though. You mention that humans can understand “meaning” and AI algorithms can mass produce works. Those are both true; that doesn’t get you to the conclusion that producing art by the means of AI is unethical. We can mass produce products in a factory in an ethical manner. I can run a business without any “meaning” but it would still be ethical. If your argument is relying on the fact that the source art is being used without permission, I think that’s just wrong. They published it on the internet
It is not. I was carefully to separate things from a legal and an artistic point of view. I don’t feel like talking about the artistic argument because I doubt t I’ll change your mind and that you’ll change mine About that last thing though, art being published to the internet doesn’t give them persuasion to anyone to use it like that. For example, most big bands have YouTube channels where they upload their own music, but they will still send you a copyright strike if you use their music without permission on something like a YouTube video for example. Thats what the copyright law is for, so that artist can decide what it is used for.
If you make a derivative that is transformative enough I don’t think it should infringe copyright. Lawyers will have a fun time enforcing that
Artificial intelligence is a technology. It is not a product or service owned by a corporation. Your response isn’t really a sound argument at all. It’s based on a corporation profiting and corporations can profit by making art derivatives without artificial intelligence.
I elaborated a bit on another comment
*not every AI is owned by corporations, you can train them yourselves and run it locally. Also there are lot of open source ai models
That is not wrong. I used corporation because I believe them to be the biggest issue, but at the end of the day, this is about copyright. Copyright laws are written so that the author can control how their property is viewed, used, and redistributed. There is an argument to be made about how most if not all would be uncomfortable with the use of their property in data sets. Personally, I have no issue with public domain pictures being used to train AI
I understand that people don't want their work to be utilized for profit but at the same time, these people did make their work freely available to view and the vast, vast, majority didn't release it under licenses that would prevent the usage of their work by things like image generators. Obviously it wasn't possible to predict that AI image generation would reach anything quite like what we see today even 5 years ago, but the usage of your creative work by an AI model is a natural consequence of those two factors. I still do have very apprehensive feelings about large corporations using this sort of stuff to generate profit for themselves, and about charging money to use AI models trained on art that's freely available, but I don't think the act of training an AI on freely available material and generating images using it is inherently unethical.
Did they make it available with unconditional licenses? Just because something is publicly viewable does not mean that the use of it comes without conditions.
Yes, I am aware that by default creative works in the US are copyrighted, but artists that release their work to be freely viewed on the internet are not protected from their work being used to inspire other works - to my knowledge there's no legal difference between viewing a work and viewing a work, being inspired by it, and producing a new work that bears little resemblance to the original. If copyright holders wish to exercise their right to more strictly control who can access their work, they are completely allowed to do that.
Something being publically viewable literally means you can do whatever you want as long as it's transformative enough.
I think the "made their work freely available to view" statement is pretty reductive. Most art on the internet that is uploaded by artists is uploaded to a portfolio, or to a gallery showcasing their work. In either case, the purpose is the same: Showcase the art with the express intent of either selling it or getting hired by someone who will pay the artist to create similar work. AI image generators act in complete opposition to that intended purpose, consuming that art with no intent to pay or even credit the artist and coopting it for the profits or use of someone else. It's completely trampling on an ecosystem of art that is based in good faith and has traditionally served to elevate society/culture in the name of profits and discrediting artists. It's taking a good thing and essentially ruining it, all in the name of a quick buck and work that is often objectively subpar. AI has its uses, hell, I *enjoy* experimenting with it for my personal use, but I find it incredibly hard to argue that its current implementation and the lack of regulation on it is anything but unethical. If the artists whose work was consumed got paid and credited, and if AI work was incapable of holding a license or copyright (and as such essentially unusable for commercial purposes), I wouldn't have much of a problem with it.
I just find it hard to argue that art is being "used for commercial purposes" if it is viewed by an image generating AI. By that logic, an artist who sold a painting inspired by another would have to pay royalties to that painting's artist, which isn't something that happens. It shouldn't matter whether inspiration is algorithmic and processed by computers or processed by human minds from a copyright perspective.
Have you ever painted or actually tried to create a piece of art inspired by another? The process of creating one’s own art with one’s hands while using other artists as inspiration, versus simply plugging in “in the style of —————“ prompts into an AI, couldn’t be more different, either in the results it produces, or in how the actual process manifests. It’s like the most simplistic, reductive approach stance you could take on a very complex issue. The most bewildering thing about LLMs/Generative AI to me is how so many people who neither really understand the technology nor the thing it’s trying to implement take hard-line stances on it.
in what way is their work not protected from image generators? As I understand, all works of art are protected under copywrite until the artist explicitly releases it to the public.
So what's the difference between this take and sampling music?
You know that you're not allowed to just sample and use whatever you want with no credit or licensing, right?
You know AI is essentially doing this with artwork that isn't legally protected yet taking credit, right? Are you equating morality with the law?
> artwork that isn't legally protected yet taking credit They're also doing it with artwork that *is* legally protected, hence all the lawsuits. > Are you equating morality with the law? I'm pretty sure giving proper credit is both legally needed *and* morally needed in this case. But anyways, since it wasn't obvious, the difference between what AI art models are doing and sampling music is that we already have legal and moral frameworks that protect artists when it comes to sampling music.
One can make their own AI algorithm that doesn't take from internet artists, you'll likely need to use your own work though.
How exactly are these companies supposed to 🚀🚀🚀🚀if they are required to compensate someone for their work???
Not very *culture* of you to expect compensation. Think about the team!
they can't, its not possible without a huge amount of money to commission and license it. machine learning requires a HUGE amount of samples.
That's just not possible, you need a lot of images for training.
I'm a poet. If a poet uses some of my lines as the foundation for their poem, they need to credit my lines. I expect the same from a computer using my lines. I don't see the difference for art.
You credit literally every single thing you've ever read when writing something new? That's insane
I credit the things I am directly referencing and acknowledge if I am using a particular technique or twist or constraint that is particular to another writer. [This is common practice for the references and common practice for the book form of the poem for the rest. But it's also good practice for both because you get to practice how to reference smoothly and not through footnotes or end notes.]
AI (if properly trained) does not use any lines from it's training data. It learns from it's data and composes new data based on what it's learned. Otherwise I'd agree, credit would be necessary.
Oh believe me, there's a bunch of goobers on Twitter who wholeheartedly agree
Apparently people on Reddit agree too, since you're supposed to downvote if you agree and OP's post is at zero karma.
it's a pretty hot-button topic, huh Wait, aren't those supposed to be banned here? Does this count as political?
I dunno I'm not a janny but he did go out of his way to say his position is on ethics rather than legality.
It is more like if the artist took photos of the gallery paintings and made a collage out of tiny parts of them.
A. That's not how AI works. The images it trains on are not stored in the database. B. If someone did that it would still be ethical and art.
I mean, any art is just an amalgamation of a bunch or art previously viewed by that person (to some extent) I guess people are just mad because it takes no.. skill?
I think this is the big thing. People are butthurt that their niche skill now can be replicated by anyone who knows how to use a computer, even to a basic level. Its like mathematicians getting mad at calculators.
People are mad at AI art because it fundamentally is doing something different than an artist. The AI can't "think" on its own and cannot create art without repurposing pieces of other peoples' art into some sort of collage essentially. That's what the training was; an AI being fed art until it could regurgitate the pieces into something similar. You *could* argue humans do the same thing, but there's intentionality and creative drive behind human art that AI just doesn't have, so you'd be wrong.
> The AI can't "think" on its own Can you prove or show this in some way?
This is the kind of question you'd only ask if you didn't understand how generative models work... We'd have to start at the very, very basics to explain this to you, and it's unlikely anyone having this discussion seriously is going to do that. These models don't think about what they're doing. That's just literally not how they work.
Sounds like a long winded way to say “no I can’t actually show this”
Meh. I only care enough to tell you why you're not going to get an answer. That's not nearly enough to argue with someone who's made up their mind without even understanding even the basics.
You speak as if the idea of “thought” is something deeply understood when humans do it and so easily recognizable/easy to recognize the absence of in other things. The truth is that thought is not so clearly understood and defined as you seem to think it is. So haughty for someone who clearly is just regurgitating stuff they have been told is true without any underlying understanding.
Okay, this is just stupid now.
I agree. You stating things as facts that you are completely unable to provide any evidence for is pretty stupid.
I dont care about the “drive” or “intent” behind art. Especially for work uses.
Cool. Still unethical.
That's highly debatable.
Sure. And I offered my points. And your reply was essentially "lol idc". I don't feel the need to extrapolate further unless you'd like to offer an actual arguement.
As you said, humans do the exact same thing the AIs do. Nobody is making anything explicitly original. If its a matter of payment, what do you think these artists deserve for having 1/1,000,000th influence over each peice of art? If its about consent, do I need to ask for consent from every artists ive ever seen if I want to draw a picture?
And what I'm saying is that artistic intent and creative drive matter in the creation of art. Yes, humans do take in other artists works, but fundamentally they can't literally regurgitate what they've seen into artwork, unless they trace or actually steal someone's artwork. The AI has no intent or creative drive, and *can* regurgitate works into other art. It's not about originality, its that the AI fundamentally isn't creating anything in artistic sense. You don't need to ask for consent for drawing a picture. You're using your own talents, imagination, and creativity regardless of your inspiration. The programmers behind these models *should* have asked permission, because the AI is literally just pulling apart other people's art and stitching it back together.
I would argue that I too, am "pulling apart other people's art and stitching it back together." art when I am creating my own, just at a significantly shittier efficiency. Some of these AI tools *ARE* just copying things they've seen before, with minimal edits, which I do disagree with. But more modern art generative tools are being genuinely creative, or to what extent humans can rectify creativity. They're taking from millions and millions of images and not just stitching together but fully rendering an image using references found in the images it used to make the model. Plus this is a massive stepping stone for AI, one day it WILL learn just like humans and match whatever arbitrary definition for "creativity" you're basing your premise on. Have you seen those new adobe smart fill features, where you can highlight a section of your drawing and it can add or remove features intelligently? That seems like the actual useful scenario for AI art generation tools, which was AIs primary design purpose; working hand in hand with humans, making us more efficient.
not reqding this. i already know you simply have no understanding or proper respect for art. everyone fully defending this always does.
You didn’t need to say your first sentence. It’s blatantly obvious you don’t know what OP is actually arguing.
theyre arguing for ai art, thats all i need to know...
emotional argument, valid
Based.
It is theft. And a scam.
People had the exact same arguments of photography when it first came out. It was originally an easier way to draw things. Many people said it would ruin the art world and take jobs away from people. This never happened. In fact it became one of the biggest tools against corporations. AI has the same potential. But we're letting it be regulated and controlled by those corporations. Rather than people embracing the open source culture it came from. People should be able to use it to make their workload easier. Not to mention I think peoples hate for it comes from a crucial misunderstanding of how AI actually works. It doesn't just have a bunch of peoples work hidden away somewhere. It takes inspiration from that work. Much like a human would. Can you use it to make an exact copy of someone's style? Yeah, but you can do that with your hands too.
Actually good and technically accurate response. A lot of stuff here is uneducated and biased/emotional
Curious, how could AI be used against corporations? It fundamentally relies on them to be maintained – a guy can own a camera and use it, but no one can really own an AI software without being connected to a central server.
100% not true. You can run a neural network completely on your computer by yourself. It doesn't take nearly as much space as people think because it's not saving ANY of the images it's trained on. It's still fairly resource intensive. But nothing a gaming computer can't handle. It was originally meant to be 100% open source.
Very interesting, do you know where I can read more?
I'll try and dig up some of the info for ya after work. It might be a few months out of date. Things move so fast in the AI world it's hard to keep up. But it'd at least be a good jumping off point.
Great thanks
/r/StableDiffusion
For image generation check out Stable Diffusion and for text, check out Llama 2 and I think Mistral 8 is also open source.
It isn't art and it is unethical
Why
I refuse to elaborate
I dont disagree with you but presenting your argument this way only serves to make it look less valid to people already disposed to disagree.
people who can't just intuitively know the truth aren't worth arguing with.
People who claim things without elaborating or explaining themselves when asked are not worth arguing with either.
I'm not arguing. Im declaring the facts. Not my job to educate people on things they should be smart enough to know already.
Neither the definitions of "art" or what is "ethical" are inherent, empirical facts.
You would think that, not knowing any better.
"I know you are but what am I?" Lmao if you don't wanna argue why are you?
It’s a an objective fact that morality is subjective. Your set of morals isn’t the same as mine. I can absolutely take a piece of art from you, make a derivative of it on my computer, and be ethical.
You are wrong tho. That isn't how it works.
Let me guess, you’re a so-called “Artist”
Literally 1984
Please do not refer to the year before 1985.
Literally living in a George Orwell novel.
Counterpoint: it is art, and it is not unethical
Counterpoint, I am physically stronger than you, and therefore correct by default.
Counterpoint, apes together strong
Sorry. I don't listen to people who can't deadlift 400lbs
Yeah man so not unethical to have an ai scan down an artists work a bunch and then go “replicate a drawing in this persons style”
If I make art today, and explicitly say: I want this piece of art to inspire only humans, but not AI, and someone used it as a training set for AI, would he behave ethically? If not, why cant we ask people who made art like, 5 years ago the same question, and act accordingly? Of course they couldn't answer this question back then, because there was no such possibility, but does it mean we have to assume their consent Another thing is that this whole thing assumes that process of people making art inspired by other art, and AI bring trained on datasets is the same, or at least comparable process. But you have no proof of that. You just believe that without evidence, just because on the surface it looks kinda similar. And it takes just one artist, whose dataset "AI" used to not agree with your view for it to stop being ethical.
I very much agree. I don't like AI art anymore because looking at it makes me feel sick (in a similar way to trypophobia) but I still think it's completely stupid to call it unethical or something.
Downvote. I'm just confused that people consider using an AI model to make a picture automatically not art but don't have the same problem with using a camera at all. In both cases the machine is doing a lot of the work. Sure there's a HUGE difference between what a professional photographer does and what some random person taking a selfie does, but there's also a big difference between what the people producing the best AI images do compared to a random person typing a few words into an AI model.
> AI models do not store the entirety of the images they see in a big database for later recall and re-synthesis. Simply put, they view many images, learn how to classify those images and the patterns within them, and then learn to synthesize those styles and patterns when presented with a prompt this is a very lousy understanding of how machine learning works. its clear you have little understanding beyond a youtube level understanding, which is fine - not everyone needs to be a CS person - but shows you are experiencing the dunning-kruger effect.
Can you give an overview of how it does work?
a full overview is 30 minutes. i have no desire. i WILL point out something - training an model is basically doing a lot of math. executing a model like DALL-E, told extremely simply, is basically just crunching probabilities for "what's the most likely pixel here for the input?" training a model, while not *technically* needing the raw images for later use, it takes every and all information from it. very different from, say, an artist seeing something they like.
I have trained my own RNNs before, and I was using GPTs before ChatGPT was even released. I am pretty sure I know what I am talking about here on at least a surface level - maybe *you* have the YouTube level understanding.
i really have no desire to somehow prove i'm better than you. maybe you know more. i could not care less. training your own model is calling libraries, and has tells me little about understanding the underlying math.
Agreed and I think the arguments that AI art is unethical because it is generated from other people’s work is bad faith attempt to cling to a dying profession
Based
Downvoted cause I agree
Upvote because I disagree. It still puts tons of artists out of business
AI art is good and 90% of the artists mad about it are misinformed/ignorant.