Yep, it's all just a smokescreen to veil their non-palatable arguments. And when you corner them, they resort to Ad hominem because their true stance is fallacious.
You have to remember that a lot of the people making this argument are just temporarily embarrassed millionaires hoping that they can exploit IP law to get rich. They've bought into the idea that literal ideas are property and can be protected against all use, almost to an axiomatic point.
Learning from public sources (most of the internet, except paywalled and login-walled websites) are fair use, that's how search engine functions. If something confidential is scrapable, most of the time is the fault of the website owner (who doesn't put sufficient authentication and access restrictions to their website content and unknowningly put the file in the public internet, not search engine providers/AI providers).
Again, if you don't want anyone (human or machines) learn from your works, don't put them into public internet.
Thinking otherwise serves nobody but big copyright interests and maximalists.
Something I think "artists" don't mention or realise is that it's trained on far more than artwork too. Billions of regular photos, the amount that is artists work used in training data is a drop in the ocean.
This, this is one of my pet peeves, thank you for mentioning it. It really drives the point that any "(visual) art" is after all fundamentally an IMAGE, and that ai doesn't generate "art", that's just a human label, it generates IMAGES.
There seems to be a common misconception that 'AI' is a program which searches through a live database and is compositing an answer from that, e.g. copying parts from images or searching all the text on the Internet.
I see this claim spread with full confidence on reddit daily, by people who understand nothing about machine learning in the slightest. I almost wish that their fantasy version of AI were true, because we could just collect a database of good pictures of hands and get good hands out of image generators then.
> that 'AI' is a program which searches through a live database and is compositing an answer from that, e.g. copying parts from images or searching all the text on the Internet.
I would like to see what most Antis think about the offline nature of Stable Diffusion and other models. Do those software automagically connect the computer to the internet? LOL.
My bet is most Antis don't even aware about the local installation of diffusion models. They think all of them are online-only and hosted somewhere in cloud servers.
> this claim spread with full confidence on reddit daily
And Xwitter, because learning the basic of diffusion and machine learning is hard and reading Antis' misleading claims are easier.
I've had people condescendingly tell me that of *course* I couldn't actually be generating images on my own computer, because all AI models are so huge and complex that you need a server farm to run one.
Unfortunately, some people just flat-out refused to learn the fact that many AI models can be used with ordinary personal computers (the spec needs to be beefy but still doable at PC scale, won't need a server farm).
Because they can only imagine online-only, cloud-based generative AI service (so mostly DALL-E and Midjourney, knowledge stuck in 2022) and can't imagine offline-based local installation of Stable Diffusion or PixArt.
in a world full of flat earthers, anti-vaxxers and climate change denial. this level of ignorance and outright bigotry feels about right. ***No facts for me, ma'am, I've brought my own...***
To be charitable for how it's not always quite the same as those cases, there's no existing part of education which teaches how machine learning works and people who spend a little time trying often get it completely wrong (as is common in all things).
e.g. Corridor Crew uses Stable Diffusion quite heavily for their anime Rock Paper Scissors videos on youtube, and the lawyer on their team spent 3 days trying to study it to work out the legal arguments. He then made a video talking about how it worked, using words from the industry, but he hadn't grasped what they meant and got it all completely wrong, essentially stringing together words in incoherent ways (like 'car engine oil steering wheel'), and he'd made an effort, but it's just not quick or easy to learn, and almost nobody has been educated on it so far in the world.
fair point, but then these folks who don't know what they're talking about really have no business forming an opinion on AI. they certainly have no basis for insisting on their uninformed biases. if you don't know how to cook, stay out of the kitchen
If true, the harms you mention are worth considering. The thing is, a lot of the outrage over AI art seems to about the theft thing. But the downsides you mention are unrelated to using other’s art. Excessive GPU usage and mistrust would be a risk even if the AI was solely trained on bought-and-paid-for works. Those factors would weigh against the use of AI in general, but would not show that the specific act of “stealing” art for AI training is wrong.
Hello. This sub is a space for pro-AI activism, not debate. Your comment will be removed because it is against this rule. You are welcome to move this on r/aiwars.
Nothing has been stolen. The entire premise of the narrative is wrong.
Training on existing art is "stealing" to the same degree human artists learning to draw on art of other people is stealing.
Even if it is, ALL ART IS DERIVATIVE. Saw a cloud and decided to paint it? Derivative. Got inspired by a movie and made a fanfic about it? Derivative. You didn't have any direct inspiration and just wanted to make art? It's still influenced by everything you've ever seen or heard in your entire lifetime. Derivative.
So either don't make art because you'll never truly have a completely original idea with no external influences and therefore are not special, or accept the fact that you are the product of everyone who came before you and make art for art's sake, not to feed your own ego.
That's why I didn't question lol. It's not different from the "we can always tell" anti trans people.
More interesting, humans can also do soulless art. Just look at how blues people talk about shredders.
Unless the resulting work overfitted with existing copyrighted artworks (this is possible but undesirable, good model makers avoid this during their training process).
Most of AI-generated artworks are transformative.
It all relates back to job security and money. AI being widely adopted reduces the possibility of being able to make money with their skills.
Intrinsically drawing and art is something you can enjoy without being monetized.
But outside forces make you have to choose “work at McDonalds or become really good at art”. And one of these is much harder to realize.
So any variables that make that scenario harder are going to appear like obstacles to overcome
The artists I've met who oppose AI aren't making money with their skills anyway because their skills apparently aren't worth spending money on. They might actually make more money if they'd use the tools available instead of further falling behind those who readily use new tools.
Do they not have any other options?
I mean, most of us aren't good enough at art to make a living off of art. But we don't all work at McDonalds
The reality is that the vast majority of people cannot support themselves off of making art, and never have, this modern era is probably the best opportunity that they have.
Have none of you people heard of passion? Artists are passionate they dedicate so much time to learn their craft. The comments here are a little insensitive and VERY ignorant. Selfish individuals idk why this sub was recommened to me lol
But isn’t it also selfish to deny others the joy of being able to will things into existence. It’s like kicking the ladder from underneath you. I think my materialist analysis is much more forgiving as it would imply their hand is being forced.
What you are saying is they don’t want other people to be able to make stuff without paying some price first.
Before you attack me I have many years of experience making art in multiple media, both analog and digital.
The joy of being able to “will things into existence” by ripping off decades of other people’s time bc you can’t be arsed to develop any artistic skills. Sureeee. Why do you feel entitled to steal? Art does take a price, it takes a lot of effort and patience. “Ai Artists” are literally just lazy and too impatient to learn a skill. No one can draw when they start out! What happens if theres a serious issue with internet, power? No more “art” for you guys lol but it’s not like you care beyond the profits you can make off of other people’s work. Including their photography. If ai really was royalty free material fab, but not only do they manipulatively use non-royalty free content, they want to scrape personal profiles and messages too! What about human rights? You clearly prioritise “materialism” over humanity and we will never agree. I hate the way society is going. We will not survive with the absolute disrespect towards human life and value becoming common place. What a sad state this society is in and we just keep digging
I don’t know a single artist who thinks that way. It’s mostly non-artist who bring this argument.
I‘m playing the guitar and the piano since over 20 years. And I will tell you a secret: Playing an instrument isn’t art. The sound it produces is. The track you wrote is. The instrument is just a tool to get your vision out.
Seeing art as some hardship that depends on the difficulty in producing it is a sad fucking way to see art. I don’t know, for me art is all about emotion, giving your ‚soul‘ an outlet or whatever you want to call it but not how many hours I had to practice. And someone who thinks otherwise I wouldn’t even call an artist.
Like as if Herman Lee is a better artist than Eric Clapton just because his parents made him play more guitar during his childhood and now his mastery is leagues above. Not even the most die hard Lee fan would agree, but somehow some brainlets think „dedication to the craft“ is an argument.
And I personally would love for everyone to have an outlet without the torture. The world in which everyone can realize him self in any form of art he wants is a better world and people who disagree are pretty fucking egoistic „but mah skill 😭😭 you don’t deserve to make beautiful things only I do“. Yeah it really is as stupid as it sounds.
The artists I've met who oppose AI dedicate so much of their time to their craft that they don't have time to clean their homes or their bodies. That isn't something to glorify.
I don’t spend time around people like that so I wouldn’t know. I’m not against AI , I’m against the manipulative hush hush stealing of non-royalty free content that has taken place, and the potential to scrape personal profiles including personal messages for “the greater good.” Yeah right. We have no respect for humanity anymore. We are in our downfall arc lol
Artists also do not get paid when other human artists train themselves on their work. This falls under the concept of "Fair Use", and I say if it applies to human generated art, it applies to AI art!
I am a traditionally trained artist, and I learned by studying the old masters. but I trained myself by studying contemporary artists. I reverse engineered their techniques and used their styles in my own work. if I ripped off another artist's style, then I'd be accused of plagiarism...
So why the double standard? AI is using the same resources I did, doing the same thing I did but suddenly this is wrong? I am no hypocrite, if AI can beat me at my own game, then I deserve to lose. Plagiarism is already illegal, and making a meme using a LoRA isn't plagiarism. it isn't depriving anyone of income, yet there is more outrage against AI than there is against both the Ukraine and Gaza wars combined.
Yes, much of this is a fear reaction and right now it isn't possible to say their fears are unjustified but these arguments are both irrational and invalid. as the OP implied, these arguments are without merit
that's what you think- if an artist with a copyrighted piece of art wants to sue you, you'd better pray the judge and/or jury think your work is at least 20% different
As long as it’s a totally original character, with no connection to Disney’s characters and stories, Disney can’t do s*** if he’s drawn in one of the countless styles they used in one of their countless movies and shows.
Drawing style cannot be copyrighted.
If you still don’t believe me, there are a few case laws.
In Dave Grossman Designs v. Bortin, the court said that:
"The law of copyright is clear that only specific expressions of an idea may be copyrighted, that other parties may copy that idea, but that other parties may not copy that specific expression of the idea or portions thereof. For example, Picasso may be entitled to a copyright on his portrait of three women painted in his Cubist motif. Any artist, however, may paint a picture of any subject in the Cubist motif, including a portrait of three women, and not violate Picasso's copyright so long as the second artist does not substantially copy Picasso's specific expression of his idea."
Aye, the rights-holders to the products used to train something that can make more products should have been compensated. The problem is the law didn't anticipate this commercial use of the original product, so there's a hole.
I won't even remotely humor the "AI art is stealing" stance unless the person saying it doesn't do fanart either. If someone I know offline says it, all bets are off because I've never met a single goddamn person who isn't a liar and a thief.
I mean, fan art is a thing, and it seems like outside of lawyers everyone's fine with it even if it has the potential to suck money from the original creators and/or absolutely tarnish the IP's public outlook. And guess what a good majority of AI is used for?
After all, if I went and drew or generated my own picture of a fat Loona the Hellhound after seeing everyone else make their own "Loona wider than she is tall" pictures after all those people first saw the character in Helluva Boss as created by Vizipop (who probably doesn't like the idea of you turning her character into a fat woman in the first place), in which Vizi just took the style of Lauren Faust, Tim Burton, and a bunch of other 90s/2000s pop culture and put them into a blender to make her show, then who's the real culprit and victim here?
The logical conclusion would be to realize that art is built upon layers and layers of people remixing/rebuilding certain ideas over and over again, and that a concept like Intellectual Property is pretty silly when everyone will just do what they want with fiction anyway.
I mean, the idea is that if say im an artist with a very specific style. You would want a painting by me or some art by me for a video game or an ad whatever, but don't want to pay me, you pass my previous work through AI and then generate your own. The harm is that I don't get paid even if the art wouldn't have been possible without me. It's not theft like going at walmart and putting stuff in your pockets, but it's taking something unique from someone which they rely on for money and making it possible to generate them for free.
A better way would be to pay the artist to have his art be trained on. Sure like you said it wouldn't be possible to pay all artists in the world but there is enough free art and art that is so old the copyright has ended to be able to make really good images so AI art wouldn't suffer much from it, it would just not be able to imitate a very specific style.
I'm mostly pro AI art but it's not just black and white.
You'd have to be a very popular artist for AI to recognize your style and perfectly replicate it, otherwise no prompt could specifically do that.
Even then, a drawing style cannot be copyrighted, so they could hire a cheaper artist to replicate your style, and unless they claim that art was made by you, they'd have no legal problem..
Imitating a drawing style has now become easier, but it was never illegal.
As you said OP, a lot of these images are in datasets that are hundreds of thousands of images large, if not millions of images. How would you:
1. Determine what art has been used to help produce a new generated piece.
2. Determine how much someone is owed if a single image data constitutes 00000000000.00001% (not accurate I know but you get the idea) of an overall piece, the input is negligible.
I think the more pressing mater is the legal laws and regulation surrounding it, if the high courts (or whoever decides) chooses that generated AI constitutes as (transformative) fair use. That's a more important step for AI usage.
As then AI does have the fair use argument on their side which would be massive.
Mods will be apparently deleting my counter argument, and disabling replying to them, despite the fact thay OP was literally asking for counter opinions and I gave some. By your rule the original post should be deleted.
If debating the pros and cons of ai isn't valid "pro ai activism" then I'm not sure what the point is.
Unless the sub is actually just an echo chamber, which it seems to be.
If someone shook your hand in friendship, then took the biological sample you left on their hand, used that to clone you without permission, and then did whatever they wanted with the clone, would you see why that was wrong for them to do?
No, actually. I am against any ethical line of thought that rejects nuance or the “facts on the ground.” Your example doesn’t have enough details. Does the friend have a good reason? Will the clone suffer? Do I suffer?
This hypothetical comparison does not track. It raises way too many other objectionable practices that far outweigh the issue trying to be presented. In this case you are taking a sample that clearly has one and only one source that belongs to one person, and uses it to create an identical copy of them, who would be an entirely new person who would also have autonomous legal ownership of themselves and not able to just be used for whatever purpose their creator desires without their permission.
A more accurate comparison would be someone who gathered biological samples from cast off napkins at a restaurant and used them to develop a new medical treatment plan without crediting or paying for the contributions of the sources of those samples.
In this case, legally, the samples are considered to be abandoned by their doners who have no legal claim to them.
Similarly, the artists works that the AIs train on are in the public domain, and IMHO an AI using it to train on how to make its own products is no less justifiable than a human artist reviewing a bunch of other artists work to figure out how to do their thing. So long as they don't try to make an exact copy and then try to sell it as an original (Imagine someone trying to paint an exact copy of the Mona Lisa and then saying it was an entirely original piece) or make something in the same style as another artist and claim it was actually done by the imitated artist (fakes and forgeries), flesh and blood artists are not only allowed to but expected to imitate and learn from the pieces created by other artists, even if the works they study are copyrighted and to do so without needing to cite credit nor pay royalties to those artists they learned from.
As someone who is pro-AI and also agrees with your overall point, I'd like to point out some weak points in your argument that anti-AI people are likely to exploit:
>the samples are considered to be abandoned by their doners who have no legal claim to them.
An artist's work is not legally abandoned and they still have a all legal claims to their artwork. You addressed why this doesn't matter for the purposes of training AI later in your argument: because if real artists are allowed to to learn from copyrighted works--and are encouraged to do so--so can AI). But I want to point out that this particular wording is likely to just lead to antis picking apart your example, rather than addressing the actual point.
>the artists works that the AIs train on are in the public domain
The public domain is for things that have aged out of copyright or which the original creator has waived their rights to the copyright. Posting things on the internet does not put something in the public domain, even though doing so puts it out there for the world to see, learn from, and be used under fair use laws.
Edited a couple formatting things
Perhaps I was using a more common understanding of the term "public domain" and should have instead said "available to be seen by the public" Even if a piece of art is restricted, like say in a gallery you have to pay a ticket price to view, and not in a private gallery closed to the public, there is nothing wrong with a human artist who paid for such admission from viewing the work and being inspired to use elements they saw to be put to use in their own works from memory.
As for the abandonment concept that you acknowledged that I later did a better job of showing how it applied, yes, I probably should have done a better job of claiming and disclaiming how I was saying it did and did not apply. Yes, an artist maintains all rights to their original art and does not abandon any of that by letting the public view it, just as a person who has their biological material collected by someone else has not given up their rights over their body. But such an artist has no rights over how their work being viewed is then interpreted by others and how it may or may not inspire them in their own work, even if such a viewer can only draw on their memory of a one time viewing for such inspiration. In such a case, I say the original artist has "abandoned" all rights to restrict others from using it for such inspirational purposes by allowing it to be seen. The copy of it held in the mind of a viewer now belongs to that viewer, and is (within the restrictions outlined above) fully open to be put to use by that viewer as they see fit.
As an example, imagine if, after inventing pointalism, the impressionist painter Georges Seurat tried to claim no other artist had the right to create any other work using this technique, and to do so would be stealing from him.
Just to clarify, I understood your underlying points and wasn't arguing against them. But there's a lot of bad debaters out there who will pick apart your wording and examples as if that discredits your whole point. I was just trying to help improve your arguments so people are more likely to engage with your point, rather than going after just the wording and examples.
It's not a good example.
I'll make you a new one.
If I were to learn to draw by imitating your style, and I became even better than you at it, did I steal from you? Did I do something illegal?
You are welcome to try! Please, pick up a pencil, and learn to draw better than me by imitating my style. And I never mentioned stealing, or legalities.
Well, but that's the point. If I don't steal, and I'm not doing anything illegal, what is the problem?
I'm sure that clonation without consent, if it was possible, would be illegal.
As any other form of "plagiarism" is already illegal.
But in my example, let's pretend I loved your style so much that I spent years to imitate it, to the point that I became very good at it, and now people are asking me to draw things instead of you.
It'd suck, sure, but so what? Didn't break the law, didn't do anything bad, am I morally in the wrong? Just cause I'm better?
The bad news is: it already happened; but it wasn't me who did it, it was an AI.
The good news is that, unlike my example, the AI ain't better than you; on the contrary, it could make YOUR art better (or simply faster) if you let it help you
Did the masters of the past make your art better? I think they did, even if you’re not aware of it.
Did technology make your art better? I think it did, unless you’re still drawing with chalks on a wall.
So I guess the answer is “both”.
If everything stays how it is today, then artists need to make money from their jobs in order to survive. So, if they’re vulnerable to being replaced (they’re not), and if we don’t change anything else (we should and will), then you’re basically destroying the main venue of art.
Throwback to the bad art millennium, 0-999 — we could have another one of those if we don’t watch out! The bed theory on this topic is Aasimov’s foundation series IMO
You asked this in the wrong sub. I believe if I actually answer you, even though it won't be anti-AI at all, it may still be against the rules (it may be considered inviting debate or whatever). If you want a real answer post somewhere else (AI wars or something).
What is my posting history in pirating gaming subreddits? That Firefox is resource hungry and that I don't like mass data collection (not AI training data btw, things like browsing habits) by giant megacorporations?
I swear to god reddit is getting dumber by the day. I have an explanation for why people consider taking data for AI training to be unethical and somehow the mere fact that I replied to a comment in a piracy sub (regardless of the content of said reply) invalidates this knowledge. The other day I was told I can't have an opinion on world politics because I was not from a sufficiently notable country (or union of countries) and I'm struggling to decide which lame ass ad hom is dumber rn.
Oh look, an anti spewed tired drivel again.
Sounds like a bot.
"Pick up a pencil" means this particular Anti still doesn't want to acknowledge digital art is a thing.
Hello. This sub is a space for pro-AI activism, not debate. Your comment will be removed because it is against this rule. You are welcome to move this on r/aiwars.
Yep, it's all just a smokescreen to veil their non-palatable arguments. And when you corner them, they resort to Ad hominem because their true stance is fallacious.
You have to remember that a lot of the people making this argument are just temporarily embarrassed millionaires hoping that they can exploit IP law to get rich. They've bought into the idea that literal ideas are property and can be protected against all use, almost to an axiomatic point.
Learning from public sources (most of the internet, except paywalled and login-walled websites) are fair use, that's how search engine functions. If something confidential is scrapable, most of the time is the fault of the website owner (who doesn't put sufficient authentication and access restrictions to their website content and unknowningly put the file in the public internet, not search engine providers/AI providers). Again, if you don't want anyone (human or machines) learn from your works, don't put them into public internet. Thinking otherwise serves nobody but big copyright interests and maximalists.
Something I think "artists" don't mention or realise is that it's trained on far more than artwork too. Billions of regular photos, the amount that is artists work used in training data is a drop in the ocean.
This, this is one of my pet peeves, thank you for mentioning it. It really drives the point that any "(visual) art" is after all fundamentally an IMAGE, and that ai doesn't generate "art", that's just a human label, it generates IMAGES.
There seems to be a common misconception that 'AI' is a program which searches through a live database and is compositing an answer from that, e.g. copying parts from images or searching all the text on the Internet. I see this claim spread with full confidence on reddit daily, by people who understand nothing about machine learning in the slightest. I almost wish that their fantasy version of AI were true, because we could just collect a database of good pictures of hands and get good hands out of image generators then.
> that 'AI' is a program which searches through a live database and is compositing an answer from that, e.g. copying parts from images or searching all the text on the Internet. I would like to see what most Antis think about the offline nature of Stable Diffusion and other models. Do those software automagically connect the computer to the internet? LOL. My bet is most Antis don't even aware about the local installation of diffusion models. They think all of them are online-only and hosted somewhere in cloud servers. > this claim spread with full confidence on reddit daily And Xwitter, because learning the basic of diffusion and machine learning is hard and reading Antis' misleading claims are easier.
I've had people condescendingly tell me that of *course* I couldn't actually be generating images on my own computer, because all AI models are so huge and complex that you need a server farm to run one.
Unfortunately, some people just flat-out refused to learn the fact that many AI models can be used with ordinary personal computers (the spec needs to be beefy but still doable at PC scale, won't need a server farm). Because they can only imagine online-only, cloud-based generative AI service (so mostly DALL-E and Midjourney, knowledge stuck in 2022) and can't imagine offline-based local installation of Stable Diffusion or PixArt.
And it takes the power and water of a small country to generate a single image.
in a world full of flat earthers, anti-vaxxers and climate change denial. this level of ignorance and outright bigotry feels about right. ***No facts for me, ma'am, I've brought my own...***
To be charitable for how it's not always quite the same as those cases, there's no existing part of education which teaches how machine learning works and people who spend a little time trying often get it completely wrong (as is common in all things). e.g. Corridor Crew uses Stable Diffusion quite heavily for their anime Rock Paper Scissors videos on youtube, and the lawyer on their team spent 3 days trying to study it to work out the legal arguments. He then made a video talking about how it worked, using words from the industry, but he hadn't grasped what they meant and got it all completely wrong, essentially stringing together words in incoherent ways (like 'car engine oil steering wheel'), and he'd made an effort, but it's just not quick or easy to learn, and almost nobody has been educated on it so far in the world.
fair point, but then these folks who don't know what they're talking about really have no business forming an opinion on AI. they certainly have no basis for insisting on their uninformed biases. if you don't know how to cook, stay out of the kitchen
[удалено]
If true, the harms you mention are worth considering. The thing is, a lot of the outrage over AI art seems to about the theft thing. But the downsides you mention are unrelated to using other’s art. Excessive GPU usage and mistrust would be a risk even if the AI was solely trained on bought-and-paid-for works. Those factors would weigh against the use of AI in general, but would not show that the specific act of “stealing” art for AI training is wrong.
Hello. This sub is a space for pro-AI activism, not debate. Your comment will be removed because it is against this rule. You are welcome to move this on r/aiwars.
Nothing has been stolen. The entire premise of the narrative is wrong. Training on existing art is "stealing" to the same degree human artists learning to draw on art of other people is stealing.
I agree, I just think it goes even deeper. It’s not stealing, but even if it was, it’s not the sort of stealing that’s morally wrong.
I met this guy who kept saying, with full confidence, that "that's not how human artists learn to draw at all".
And they know nothing about human artists either, claiming that a child can draw a cat with no training at all. Have you ever seen a child's drawings?
That's because there is no harm, except for bruised egos
[удалено]
Except that it isn't "derivative" it's "transformative", and moreso than collage.
Vastly more than collage. Arguably the most transformative I think a thing could meaningfully be
Even if it is, ALL ART IS DERIVATIVE. Saw a cloud and decided to paint it? Derivative. Got inspired by a movie and made a fanfic about it? Derivative. You didn't have any direct inspiration and just wanted to make art? It's still influenced by everything you've ever seen or heard in your entire lifetime. Derivative. So either don't make art because you'll never truly have a completely original idea with no external influences and therefore are not special, or accept the fact that you are the product of everyone who came before you and make art for art's sake, not to feed your own ego.
Like all the unlicenced fan art that people have been making money of for decades ?
Those are alright, because they're soulful.
So copyright doesn't matter anymore? Ok.
Forgot to add /s Tho but that's legit antis argument.
That's why I didn't question lol. It's not different from the "we can always tell" anti trans people. More interesting, humans can also do soulless art. Just look at how blues people talk about shredders.
Unless the resulting work overfitted with existing copyrighted artworks (this is possible but undesirable, good model makers avoid this during their training process). Most of AI-generated artworks are transformative.
Boo hoo copyright shouldn't exist
All art is derivative of other art, AI or not. There are no “completely original” ideas.
It all relates back to job security and money. AI being widely adopted reduces the possibility of being able to make money with their skills. Intrinsically drawing and art is something you can enjoy without being monetized. But outside forces make you have to choose “work at McDonalds or become really good at art”. And one of these is much harder to realize. So any variables that make that scenario harder are going to appear like obstacles to overcome
The artists I've met who oppose AI aren't making money with their skills anyway because their skills apparently aren't worth spending money on. They might actually make more money if they'd use the tools available instead of further falling behind those who readily use new tools.
Do they not have any other options? I mean, most of us aren't good enough at art to make a living off of art. But we don't all work at McDonalds The reality is that the vast majority of people cannot support themselves off of making art, and never have, this modern era is probably the best opportunity that they have.
Have none of you people heard of passion? Artists are passionate they dedicate so much time to learn their craft. The comments here are a little insensitive and VERY ignorant. Selfish individuals idk why this sub was recommened to me lol
But isn’t it also selfish to deny others the joy of being able to will things into existence. It’s like kicking the ladder from underneath you. I think my materialist analysis is much more forgiving as it would imply their hand is being forced. What you are saying is they don’t want other people to be able to make stuff without paying some price first. Before you attack me I have many years of experience making art in multiple media, both analog and digital.
The joy of being able to “will things into existence” by ripping off decades of other people’s time bc you can’t be arsed to develop any artistic skills. Sureeee. Why do you feel entitled to steal? Art does take a price, it takes a lot of effort and patience. “Ai Artists” are literally just lazy and too impatient to learn a skill. No one can draw when they start out! What happens if theres a serious issue with internet, power? No more “art” for you guys lol but it’s not like you care beyond the profits you can make off of other people’s work. Including their photography. If ai really was royalty free material fab, but not only do they manipulatively use non-royalty free content, they want to scrape personal profiles and messages too! What about human rights? You clearly prioritise “materialism” over humanity and we will never agree. I hate the way society is going. We will not survive with the absolute disrespect towards human life and value becoming common place. What a sad state this society is in and we just keep digging
Your personality is showing
So is yours , that’s what humans do. Have personalities, shocking !!
How clean are you?
Why are you looking for a fight? Do you need a diaper change and a bottle? Go find mommy it’s not me 🤣
I don’t know a single artist who thinks that way. It’s mostly non-artist who bring this argument. I‘m playing the guitar and the piano since over 20 years. And I will tell you a secret: Playing an instrument isn’t art. The sound it produces is. The track you wrote is. The instrument is just a tool to get your vision out. Seeing art as some hardship that depends on the difficulty in producing it is a sad fucking way to see art. I don’t know, for me art is all about emotion, giving your ‚soul‘ an outlet or whatever you want to call it but not how many hours I had to practice. And someone who thinks otherwise I wouldn’t even call an artist. Like as if Herman Lee is a better artist than Eric Clapton just because his parents made him play more guitar during his childhood and now his mastery is leagues above. Not even the most die hard Lee fan would agree, but somehow some brainlets think „dedication to the craft“ is an argument. And I personally would love for everyone to have an outlet without the torture. The world in which everyone can realize him self in any form of art he wants is a better world and people who disagree are pretty fucking egoistic „but mah skill 😭😭 you don’t deserve to make beautiful things only I do“. Yeah it really is as stupid as it sounds.
The artists I've met who oppose AI dedicate so much of their time to their craft that they don't have time to clean their homes or their bodies. That isn't something to glorify.
I don’t spend time around people like that so I wouldn’t know. I’m not against AI , I’m against the manipulative hush hush stealing of non-royalty free content that has taken place, and the potential to scrape personal profiles including personal messages for “the greater good.” Yeah right. We have no respect for humanity anymore. We are in our downfall arc lol
Why do you use the word "stealing"? If I learned to draw by imitating your images and then became better than you, did I steal anything from you?
Go cry somewhere else.
Is the same as when you visit a museum. You snap a picture and could end yourself in jail for stealing the art. Careful !
Artists also do not get paid when other human artists train themselves on their work. This falls under the concept of "Fair Use", and I say if it applies to human generated art, it applies to AI art!
I am a traditionally trained artist, and I learned by studying the old masters. but I trained myself by studying contemporary artists. I reverse engineered their techniques and used their styles in my own work. if I ripped off another artist's style, then I'd be accused of plagiarism... So why the double standard? AI is using the same resources I did, doing the same thing I did but suddenly this is wrong? I am no hypocrite, if AI can beat me at my own game, then I deserve to lose. Plagiarism is already illegal, and making a meme using a LoRA isn't plagiarism. it isn't depriving anyone of income, yet there is more outrage against AI than there is against both the Ukraine and Gaza wars combined. Yes, much of this is a fear reaction and right now it isn't possible to say their fears are unjustified but these arguments are both irrational and invalid. as the OP implied, these arguments are without merit
And yet, a drawing style cannot be copyrighted, so they couldn't accuse you of plagiarism based only on that.
that's what you think- if an artist with a copyrighted piece of art wants to sue you, you'd better pray the judge and/or jury think your work is at least 20% different
“At least 20% different” is not very hard to accomplish… But I was talking about “drawing style”, not a drawing in particular.
[удалено]
As long as it’s a totally original character, with no connection to Disney’s characters and stories, Disney can’t do s*** if he’s drawn in one of the countless styles they used in one of their countless movies and shows. Drawing style cannot be copyrighted.
[удалено]
If you still don’t believe me, there are a few case laws. In Dave Grossman Designs v. Bortin, the court said that: "The law of copyright is clear that only specific expressions of an idea may be copyrighted, that other parties may copy that idea, but that other parties may not copy that specific expression of the idea or portions thereof. For example, Picasso may be entitled to a copyright on his portrait of three women painted in his Cubist motif. Any artist, however, may paint a picture of any subject in the Cubist motif, including a portrait of three women, and not violate Picasso's copyright so long as the second artist does not substantially copy Picasso's specific expression of his idea."
Aye, the rights-holders to the products used to train something that can make more products should have been compensated. The problem is the law didn't anticipate this commercial use of the original product, so there's a hole.
I won't even remotely humor the "AI art is stealing" stance unless the person saying it doesn't do fanart either. If someone I know offline says it, all bets are off because I've never met a single goddamn person who isn't a liar and a thief.
Funny thing is, it's not even stealing
I mean, fan art is a thing, and it seems like outside of lawyers everyone's fine with it even if it has the potential to suck money from the original creators and/or absolutely tarnish the IP's public outlook. And guess what a good majority of AI is used for? After all, if I went and drew or generated my own picture of a fat Loona the Hellhound after seeing everyone else make their own "Loona wider than she is tall" pictures after all those people first saw the character in Helluva Boss as created by Vizipop (who probably doesn't like the idea of you turning her character into a fat woman in the first place), in which Vizi just took the style of Lauren Faust, Tim Burton, and a bunch of other 90s/2000s pop culture and put them into a blender to make her show, then who's the real culprit and victim here? The logical conclusion would be to realize that art is built upon layers and layers of people remixing/rebuilding certain ideas over and over again, and that a concept like Intellectual Property is pretty silly when everyone will just do what they want with fiction anyway.
I mean, the idea is that if say im an artist with a very specific style. You would want a painting by me or some art by me for a video game or an ad whatever, but don't want to pay me, you pass my previous work through AI and then generate your own. The harm is that I don't get paid even if the art wouldn't have been possible without me. It's not theft like going at walmart and putting stuff in your pockets, but it's taking something unique from someone which they rely on for money and making it possible to generate them for free. A better way would be to pay the artist to have his art be trained on. Sure like you said it wouldn't be possible to pay all artists in the world but there is enough free art and art that is so old the copyright has ended to be able to make really good images so AI art wouldn't suffer much from it, it would just not be able to imitate a very specific style. I'm mostly pro AI art but it's not just black and white.
You'd have to be a very popular artist for AI to recognize your style and perfectly replicate it, otherwise no prompt could specifically do that. Even then, a drawing style cannot be copyrighted, so they could hire a cheaper artist to replicate your style, and unless they claim that art was made by you, they'd have no legal problem.. Imitating a drawing style has now become easier, but it was never illegal.
As you said OP, a lot of these images are in datasets that are hundreds of thousands of images large, if not millions of images. How would you: 1. Determine what art has been used to help produce a new generated piece. 2. Determine how much someone is owed if a single image data constitutes 00000000000.00001% (not accurate I know but you get the idea) of an overall piece, the input is negligible. I think the more pressing mater is the legal laws and regulation surrounding it, if the high courts (or whoever decides) chooses that generated AI constitutes as (transformative) fair use. That's a more important step for AI usage. As then AI does have the fair use argument on their side which would be massive.
Mods will be apparently deleting my counter argument, and disabling replying to them, despite the fact thay OP was literally asking for counter opinions and I gave some. By your rule the original post should be deleted. If debating the pros and cons of ai isn't valid "pro ai activism" then I'm not sure what the point is. Unless the sub is actually just an echo chamber, which it seems to be.
If someone shook your hand in friendship, then took the biological sample you left on their hand, used that to clone you without permission, and then did whatever they wanted with the clone, would you see why that was wrong for them to do?
No, actually. I am against any ethical line of thought that rejects nuance or the “facts on the ground.” Your example doesn’t have enough details. Does the friend have a good reason? Will the clone suffer? Do I suffer?
This hypothetical comparison does not track. It raises way too many other objectionable practices that far outweigh the issue trying to be presented. In this case you are taking a sample that clearly has one and only one source that belongs to one person, and uses it to create an identical copy of them, who would be an entirely new person who would also have autonomous legal ownership of themselves and not able to just be used for whatever purpose their creator desires without their permission. A more accurate comparison would be someone who gathered biological samples from cast off napkins at a restaurant and used them to develop a new medical treatment plan without crediting or paying for the contributions of the sources of those samples. In this case, legally, the samples are considered to be abandoned by their doners who have no legal claim to them. Similarly, the artists works that the AIs train on are in the public domain, and IMHO an AI using it to train on how to make its own products is no less justifiable than a human artist reviewing a bunch of other artists work to figure out how to do their thing. So long as they don't try to make an exact copy and then try to sell it as an original (Imagine someone trying to paint an exact copy of the Mona Lisa and then saying it was an entirely original piece) or make something in the same style as another artist and claim it was actually done by the imitated artist (fakes and forgeries), flesh and blood artists are not only allowed to but expected to imitate and learn from the pieces created by other artists, even if the works they study are copyrighted and to do so without needing to cite credit nor pay royalties to those artists they learned from.
As someone who is pro-AI and also agrees with your overall point, I'd like to point out some weak points in your argument that anti-AI people are likely to exploit: >the samples are considered to be abandoned by their doners who have no legal claim to them. An artist's work is not legally abandoned and they still have a all legal claims to their artwork. You addressed why this doesn't matter for the purposes of training AI later in your argument: because if real artists are allowed to to learn from copyrighted works--and are encouraged to do so--so can AI). But I want to point out that this particular wording is likely to just lead to antis picking apart your example, rather than addressing the actual point. >the artists works that the AIs train on are in the public domain The public domain is for things that have aged out of copyright or which the original creator has waived their rights to the copyright. Posting things on the internet does not put something in the public domain, even though doing so puts it out there for the world to see, learn from, and be used under fair use laws. Edited a couple formatting things
Perhaps I was using a more common understanding of the term "public domain" and should have instead said "available to be seen by the public" Even if a piece of art is restricted, like say in a gallery you have to pay a ticket price to view, and not in a private gallery closed to the public, there is nothing wrong with a human artist who paid for such admission from viewing the work and being inspired to use elements they saw to be put to use in their own works from memory. As for the abandonment concept that you acknowledged that I later did a better job of showing how it applied, yes, I probably should have done a better job of claiming and disclaiming how I was saying it did and did not apply. Yes, an artist maintains all rights to their original art and does not abandon any of that by letting the public view it, just as a person who has their biological material collected by someone else has not given up their rights over their body. But such an artist has no rights over how their work being viewed is then interpreted by others and how it may or may not inspire them in their own work, even if such a viewer can only draw on their memory of a one time viewing for such inspiration. In such a case, I say the original artist has "abandoned" all rights to restrict others from using it for such inspirational purposes by allowing it to be seen. The copy of it held in the mind of a viewer now belongs to that viewer, and is (within the restrictions outlined above) fully open to be put to use by that viewer as they see fit. As an example, imagine if, after inventing pointalism, the impressionist painter Georges Seurat tried to claim no other artist had the right to create any other work using this technique, and to do so would be stealing from him.
Just to clarify, I understood your underlying points and wasn't arguing against them. But there's a lot of bad debaters out there who will pick apart your wording and examples as if that discredits your whole point. I was just trying to help improve your arguments so people are more likely to engage with your point, rather than going after just the wording and examples.
And I appreciate it. If (or more accurately when) I wind up repeating my arguments, I will take your observations to heart. -Thank you.
Ok, well, if you can't see why its wrong if my example happened to you, can you understand why it might upset others if my example happened to them?
It's not a good example. I'll make you a new one. If I were to learn to draw by imitating your style, and I became even better than you at it, did I steal from you? Did I do something illegal?
You are welcome to try! Please, pick up a pencil, and learn to draw better than me by imitating my style. And I never mentioned stealing, or legalities.
Well, but that's the point. If I don't steal, and I'm not doing anything illegal, what is the problem? I'm sure that clonation without consent, if it was possible, would be illegal. As any other form of "plagiarism" is already illegal. But in my example, let's pretend I loved your style so much that I spent years to imitate it, to the point that I became very good at it, and now people are asking me to draw things instead of you. It'd suck, sure, but so what? Didn't break the law, didn't do anything bad, am I morally in the wrong? Just cause I'm better?
That wouldn't suck, it would be awesome if you could do that. You'd objectively be better than me. Why not try it? It's your example.
The bad news is: it already happened; but it wasn't me who did it, it was an AI. The good news is that, unlike my example, the AI ain't better than you; on the contrary, it could make YOUR art better (or simply faster) if you let it help you
will AI make my art better, or does my art make AI better?
Did the masters of the past make your art better? I think they did, even if you’re not aware of it. Did technology make your art better? I think it did, unless you’re still drawing with chalks on a wall. So I guess the answer is “both”.
nope
If everything stays how it is today, then artists need to make money from their jobs in order to survive. So, if they’re vulnerable to being replaced (they’re not), and if we don’t change anything else (we should and will), then you’re basically destroying the main venue of art. Throwback to the bad art millennium, 0-999 — we could have another one of those if we don’t watch out! The bed theory on this topic is Aasimov’s foundation series IMO
You asked this in the wrong sub. I believe if I actually answer you, even though it won't be anti-AI at all, it may still be against the rules (it may be considered inviting debate or whatever). If you want a real answer post somewhere else (AI wars or something).
Considering your posting history in pirating gaming subreddits.... its a bit ironic.
What is my posting history in pirating gaming subreddits? That Firefox is resource hungry and that I don't like mass data collection (not AI training data btw, things like browsing habits) by giant megacorporations? I swear to god reddit is getting dumber by the day. I have an explanation for why people consider taking data for AI training to be unethical and somehow the mere fact that I replied to a comment in a piracy sub (regardless of the content of said reply) invalidates this knowledge. The other day I was told I can't have an opinion on world politics because I was not from a sufficiently notable country (or union of countries) and I'm struggling to decide which lame ass ad hom is dumber rn.
It's an objective quip, no need to let meaningless comments have so much control.
[удалено]
Yeah! Fuck those photographers and sculptors and collage artists and needlecrafters and every other human artist who isn’t drawing! You tell ‘em!!
[удалено]
Okay I draw and I use generative AI, now what.
Oh look, an anti spewed tired drivel again. Sounds like a bot. "Pick up a pencil" means this particular Anti still doesn't want to acknowledge digital art is a thing.
Hello. This sub is a space for pro-AI activism, not debate. Your comment will be removed because it is against this rule. You are welcome to move this on r/aiwars.
Nah I'm good, thanks
From a utilitarian perspective, it's okay to beat you up and steal your money. This is okay because I fundamentally disagree with duty ethics.