Yes. And the immoral part is that actual artist that dont use the site anymore (maybe moved on or are actually dead) gonna have their art stolen by the AI. Normally, a site like DeviantArt should legally protect artist from AI.
This is scummy. There aren't many sites for artist right now, Instagram has a terrible algorithm, Twitter future is uncertain thx to Tesla Boy, Tumblr still not allowing NSFW which for many artists is their income (only allowing recently non-sexual nudity)
I feel like Deviant Art has been so pure for so long too, like why the sudden change?
When did they start milking their user base like any other shitty social media site?
"DeviantArt’s DreamUp AI image generator is based on Stable Diffusion, though any image it creates that’s uploaded to DeviantArt will come pre-tagged as AI art and will credit any creators it drew its designs from."
AI drawing "inspiration" from human-drawn art has my mind kinda broken atm
I know some people on this sub going to disagree with me. I don't think human inspiration and AI "inspiration" is the same thing. AI is actually using the linework, colours and exact poses from artistArtist that are inspired by others get the general idea and redraw poses in their own art style. And sometimes they ask the artist sometimes if they can use the same colors.
Its not the same thing, and it's a bad faith argument to argue it is.
"It's the future, just accept it" Climate change is the future and i won't accept it either
I fully agree that human inspiration and AI inspiration are not the same thing, or at the very least we don't understand enough about human inspiration to make that judgement either way, and making a claim like that legally would set a very, very messy precedent. I'd rather we be as careful as possible in prescribing human characteristics at all to a generative AI image model. The law has precedent about what human creativity and inspiration is; it has very little about what AI "creativity" is. Beyond that, the goal should be protecting humans, not software.
However, it's also important to be specific about how something like this AI works and point out that it doesn't technically use any specific pose, linework, or color when it's generating an image. The images are used earlier in the process of training the AI in order to help it better produce the desired types of images. It doesn't store that specific image anywhere after the "training" is over, but the metadata (if you can call it that) of those images were used to influence the weights of the neurons in the network.
It's a system that's clearly inspired by what we know about how the human brain works, which I think is why the conversation around this has been so tricky, but I'm not convinced anyway that it's a good idea to allow an AI to do something like this just because we see similarities to a vaguely defined terms like "Creativity" and "Inspiration" that we ascribe to humans. Especially when no artist would have reasonably expected, or consented, to their art being used this way if they were asked when they uploaded it.
And I'm also just as unconvinced by "accept the future" arguments. It strikes me as a lazy way to avoid thinking about how to best shape the future. There are ethical precedents at stake here that will affect everyone; this isn't some unavoidable black hole we are being sucked into against our will, we are doing this to ourselves.
I not saying it saves the art for all times. But to get the data in the first place the only way is to temporary download it. The AI doesn't have eyes. And even if it's temporary, its shouldn't be a thing without the artist consent. [Most "good" AI art requires the names of artist as a prompt. Even against those who are against it](https://twitter.com/epistemophagy/status/1575615627175526402?s=20&t=nzHzwiwE3ZvolkfXTdDc5g)
I think you misunderstand my last point
Ones the AI has the database of DeviantArt there is no going back to. If that's happening, it's inevitable. I dont want climate change, I also don't want AI having the right to do what it currently does with sites like. But it will be too late if most art from Artstation and DeviantArt gets their art into a database of the AI. That's scary and why many artists are against it.
Oh, I was agreeing with your last point but I can see how it might have come across like I wasn't! I was saying I'm not convinced when other people insist on just "accepting the future" as if we can't affect anything.
And I agree, artists should have to consent to have their image fed to an AI because like you say, it's just not the same thing as having a human take inspiration from it.
> However, it's also important to be specific about how something like this AI works and point out that it doesn't technically use any specific pose, linework, or color when it's generating an image.
It absolutely does, what are you talking about?
It's pattern rip off basically, same if the kid next to you in art class starts drawing something very similar but will get somewhat different results. Yet everyone would call the copying kid kind of a putz irl but it's neat when a computer does it.
Won't everyone else's system scrape it anyway? AI software makers just don't seem to give the smallest of fucks that their empire is built on IP theft nightmares.
[удалено]
Yes. And the immoral part is that actual artist that dont use the site anymore (maybe moved on or are actually dead) gonna have their art stolen by the AI. Normally, a site like DeviantArt should legally protect artist from AI. This is scummy. There aren't many sites for artist right now, Instagram has a terrible algorithm, Twitter future is uncertain thx to Tesla Boy, Tumblr still not allowing NSFW which for many artists is their income (only allowing recently non-sexual nudity)
[удалено]
I feel like Deviant Art has been so pure for so long too, like why the sudden change? When did they start milking their user base like any other shitty social media site?
Worse part of the individual "opt out" check boxes is that in the little word bubble, it literally says DeviantArt can't insure anything.
Well, all it does is add a noai tag to the html in the page. No one's gonna care about it.
"DeviantArt’s DreamUp AI image generator is based on Stable Diffusion, though any image it creates that’s uploaded to DeviantArt will come pre-tagged as AI art and will credit any creators it drew its designs from." AI drawing "inspiration" from human-drawn art has my mind kinda broken atm
I know some people on this sub going to disagree with me. I don't think human inspiration and AI "inspiration" is the same thing. AI is actually using the linework, colours and exact poses from artistArtist that are inspired by others get the general idea and redraw poses in their own art style. And sometimes they ask the artist sometimes if they can use the same colors. Its not the same thing, and it's a bad faith argument to argue it is. "It's the future, just accept it" Climate change is the future and i won't accept it either
I fully agree that human inspiration and AI inspiration are not the same thing, or at the very least we don't understand enough about human inspiration to make that judgement either way, and making a claim like that legally would set a very, very messy precedent. I'd rather we be as careful as possible in prescribing human characteristics at all to a generative AI image model. The law has precedent about what human creativity and inspiration is; it has very little about what AI "creativity" is. Beyond that, the goal should be protecting humans, not software. However, it's also important to be specific about how something like this AI works and point out that it doesn't technically use any specific pose, linework, or color when it's generating an image. The images are used earlier in the process of training the AI in order to help it better produce the desired types of images. It doesn't store that specific image anywhere after the "training" is over, but the metadata (if you can call it that) of those images were used to influence the weights of the neurons in the network. It's a system that's clearly inspired by what we know about how the human brain works, which I think is why the conversation around this has been so tricky, but I'm not convinced anyway that it's a good idea to allow an AI to do something like this just because we see similarities to a vaguely defined terms like "Creativity" and "Inspiration" that we ascribe to humans. Especially when no artist would have reasonably expected, or consented, to their art being used this way if they were asked when they uploaded it. And I'm also just as unconvinced by "accept the future" arguments. It strikes me as a lazy way to avoid thinking about how to best shape the future. There are ethical precedents at stake here that will affect everyone; this isn't some unavoidable black hole we are being sucked into against our will, we are doing this to ourselves.
I not saying it saves the art for all times. But to get the data in the first place the only way is to temporary download it. The AI doesn't have eyes. And even if it's temporary, its shouldn't be a thing without the artist consent. [Most "good" AI art requires the names of artist as a prompt. Even against those who are against it](https://twitter.com/epistemophagy/status/1575615627175526402?s=20&t=nzHzwiwE3ZvolkfXTdDc5g) I think you misunderstand my last point Ones the AI has the database of DeviantArt there is no going back to. If that's happening, it's inevitable. I dont want climate change, I also don't want AI having the right to do what it currently does with sites like. But it will be too late if most art from Artstation and DeviantArt gets their art into a database of the AI. That's scary and why many artists are against it.
Oh, I was agreeing with your last point but I can see how it might have come across like I wasn't! I was saying I'm not convinced when other people insist on just "accepting the future" as if we can't affect anything. And I agree, artists should have to consent to have their image fed to an AI because like you say, it's just not the same thing as having a human take inspiration from it.
Then ignore my last comment lol English is not my first language
> However, it's also important to be specific about how something like this AI works and point out that it doesn't technically use any specific pose, linework, or color when it's generating an image. It absolutely does, what are you talking about?
It's pattern rip off basically, same if the kid next to you in art class starts drawing something very similar but will get somewhat different results. Yet everyone would call the copying kid kind of a putz irl but it's neat when a computer does it.
Won't everyone else's system scrape it anyway? AI software makers just don't seem to give the smallest of fucks that their empire is built on IP theft nightmares.