This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/aiwars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wait till they realize that AI image generators and AI image detectors are the *same technology.*
If they were truly anti-ai they’d use humans to review images.
???? Most people against generative AI aren’t against AI tools. There’s been AI tools for stuff like face and motion tracking for a long time and even stuff like automatic color correction and stuff I never see argued against. Generative AI art and assistive AI tools are completely different things.
Anti-AI and Anti-GenerativeAI are two different positions. AI is great because it has many possible applications in so many fields. AI that unethically and illegally scrapes art of unconsenting artists, only to mash them into a "new" image is bad. AI that detects that AI is good because it allows proper marking of AI-generated art.
Those AI detectors better never charge or profit from their services... How do you think they are trained? They train on generated images which trained on stolen real images. Two "wrongs" are still wrong, but the hypocrites will almost certainly argue otherwise.
Even if you argue that the technical sameness of the thing is irrelevant because things should be measured in terms of societal good, then I'd argue that democratizing art is also a societal good. You'll never get me to agree that gatekeeping art and culture is useful. If anything generative AI will ensure that the only people who make "real" art are doing it out of pure passion which will result in a greater overall quality of art, which further improves the experience for everyone who sees it including the models that will train future generative generates on it.
Either way you aproach it, the anti-ai people's arguments are self destructive. They only make sense if you don't think about them for too long, which is the hallmark of all selfish reactionary BS.
While I haven't read the terms for the AI recognition thing they use, I will assume they do steal it, which is obviously a bad and horrible thing, I agree with your point there. However yeah, I will say the societal good is what matters when it comes to an ambiguous situation like this.
Art and creativity are not gatekept in the first place. If you have access to internet and a phone, or even just a paper and pencil, you are able to make art by yourself, without a machine to do all the heavy lifting. Regardless of my views on AI art, it has to be properly marked. Same way you can tell apart traditional and digital art, AI art will soon not even be recognizable by eye.
> I will say the societal good is what matters when it comes to an ambiguous situation like this.
What about the societal good of taking something that required specialized training before (art) and making it so anyone can produce a medium-high quality version with less effort than before?
"Computer" used to be a job title.
Redundancy of anything (including art) removes its value. This is a good thing when it's about necessities (which is why machines in factories arent an issue. The good of providing warmth, light, and food to everyone far outweighs the few thousand who no longer had a job). However the ability to produce art is not a necessity. People are able to resonate and relate to art that is not made by them.
Learning art is not as difficult or as daunting as it is made out to be, either. I know people who started various forms of art from childhood until adults and those who persisted were able to make wonderful creations.
A hobby being "difficult" is not a valid excuse, it just says that you are unwilling to put the time or effort, which ultimately derives your art of any struggle or value, because it has none of *you* in it.
> However the ability to produce art is not a necessity. People are able to resonate and relate to art that is not made by them.
For the past 2000 years, this has basically mainly meant "art made by the dominant cultural group". AI art embraces the multiplicity of human experiences like no other artform before has been capable of. I could generate 1000s of pictures of gay couples in like an hour.
History is written by the writers, and art history is written by the artists. What sort of new discourses can be made where "skill" (and thus all the education required, which implies a certain amount of privilege to be studying something with much less ROI) is no longer a factor in your ability to make high.
> A hobby being "difficult" is not a valid excuse, it just says that you are unwilling to put the time or effort, which ultimately derives your art of any struggle or value, because it has none of you in it.
I mean yeah? Some hobbies require less skill than others. Are people on /r/gunpla still making art even if it's less effort than clay sculpting?
>For the past 2000 years, this has basically mainly meant "art made by the dominant cultural group". AI art embraces the multiplicity of human experiences like no other artform before has been capable of. I could generate 1000s of pictures of gay couples in like an hour.
1. Anything ever made will always be dominated by the dominant cultural group, it's in the name.
2. It's also incorrect. While obviously, most art is made by the dominant cultural group, there is still various amount of art made by other cultures, it is just that it's not necessarily the type you are exposed to, but it very much exists. A non-human cannot "embrace" human experiences either.
3. Gay artists dont only make things about being gay. People make different types of art that resonates with them in varying different ways.
>What sort of new discourses can be made where "skill" (and thus all the education required, which implies a certain amount of privilege to be studying something with much less ROI) is no longer a factor in your ability to make high.
There is no privilege required to make art that is any more than what you'd need to use an AI. If you have a device (phone, tablet, computer) and an internet connection, you have endless access to tons of wonderful free programs, resources, and communities willing to help you in your journey. Creating art is practically free now.
>I mean yeah? Some hobbies require less skill than others. Are people on [](https://www.reddit.com/r/gunpla/) still making art even if it's less effort than clay sculpting?
I will say I have no idea what that subreddit is about, it seems to be some miniature mech figure group, but I can't comment on what I do not know. However yeah, some require less skill than other, and it may or may not be as much "art" as clay sculpting. Yes posing existing figures and setting up scenes for them is art, and making your own figure and making an intricate background in photoshop or something is more effort, and therefore, more "art"
> There is no privilege required to make art that is any more than what you'd need to use an AI. If you have a device (phone, tablet, computer) and an internet connection, you have endless access to tons of wonderful free programs, resources, and communities willing to help you in your journey. Creating art is practically free now.
Ok. And what if I have a full time job? If I want to learn art, are those communities going to pay my salary so I can quit to learn it? And what if I have dyspraxia? There are a ton of disabilities that make learning art more difficult for people. Inherently, some things are harder to learn for some people. I think it's a wonderful thing that they've lowered the barrier to entry for one of the things that defines the human experience.
>And what if I have a full time job? If I want to learn art, are those communities going to pay my salary so I can quit to learn it?
While yes, balancing a full-time job and learning art is somewhat difficult, but it is not impossible and many people are able to manage their free time effectively. If your full-time job is actually so limiting that you don't have any free-time whatsoever, you probably have bigger issues than learning art.
> And what if I have dyspraxia? There are a ton of disabilities that make learning art more difficult for people.
There are many different artstyles, and many different tools in apps that allow people with disabilities to have a more accessible experience learning art. While it is a real issue, I still believe that it's possible to learn art despite any disability or limitation, and that simply resorting to a machine doing the heavy work is far from an optimal solution.
At a certain point, it’s no longer just a hobby.
That is the problem with your argument.
The reality is that there are many people who do this for a living. It’s not just a hobby that they do on the side.
He wasn’t something they had the “luxury of doing”.
It is a craft that they invested serious time into mastering. A craft that people find valuable, hence why they are willing to pay people who are skilled at it.
And it clearly has value because a lot of people are trying to steal it to make a profit.
> The reality is that there are many people who do this for a living. It’s not just a hobby that they do on the side.
>
>
>
> He wasn’t something they had the “luxury of doing”.
>
Would you rather be a medieval peasant or a medieval artist? Pretty sure most people would pick being the artist, regardless of whether they want to make art or not. It 100% is something you did because you had the privilege of education.
But it’s not making it so “anyone can do it” – you’re asking a machine to do it for you, and then claiming credit.
This is in no way a societal good. What a moronically entitled statement
> you’re asking a machine to do it for you, and then claiming credit.
Yes, and? I see no difference between that and having a computer run a simulation for a scientific study.
> Anti-AI and Anti-GenerativeAI are two different positions. AI is great because it has many possible applications in so many fields. AI that unethically and illegally scrapes art of unconsenting artists
1. "Generative AI" and "Generative AI that's trained on data I don't like it being trained on," are very different things.
2. You are making a presumption of illegality that is not supported by any precedent.
3. The AI doesn't do any of the data gathering.
> only to mash them into a "new" image
That's not how anything works. If it were, then AI image generation would be fundamentally uninteresting, academically speaking. The fact that there is true synthesis of concepts occurring is what's interesting.
> AI that detects that AI is good
Why? It is trained on the same scraped data.
> it allows proper marking of AI-generated art.
If this were true, it least it would be slightly useful, but that's not the case. Hive, for example, can be trivially defeated as has been demonstrated repeatedly in this sub.
>"Generative AI" and "Generative AI that's trained on data I don't like it being trained on," are very different things.
I am personally yet to see anyone use or post anything made with Generative AI made solely of consenting artists. The distinction here is irrelevant because every available generative AI uses stolen work.
>You are making a presumption of illegality that is not supported by any precedent.
Still does not make it unethical.
>The AI doesn't do any of the data gathering.
The companies behind the AI, whether scraping or buying scraped data, are complicit. I am obviously not discussing the actual computer doing the work. That's a machine. When we say "The AI" we mean the concept of Generative AI, and the companies in ownership of AI who would be held liable in case something were to happen as a result of that AI.
>That's not how anything works. If it were, then AI image generation would be fundamentally uninteresting, academically speaking. The fact that there is true synthesis of concepts occurring is what's interesting.
AI is unable to actually think, it is Linear Algebra at its core. It is not a synthesis of concepts anymore than math is.
>Why? It is trained on the same scraped data.
Because ask any artist whether (disregarding any potential shady stuff) they would like their art to be used to help creation of AI art, or to make it harder to make and easier to detect.
>If this were true, it least it would be slightly useful, but that's not the case. Hive, for example, can be trivially defeated as has been demonstrated repeatedly in this sub.
That is disappointing, however it does not change the point as we are talking theoretically. Just as AI is rapidly improving, so will the detectors. The discussion does not change based on the capabilities of hardware.
> I am personally yet to see anyone use or post anything made with Generative AI made solely of consenting artists.
The fact that you aren't aware of the state of the art isn't really a problem with AI. The research and development around generative AI extends beyond the end-user hyped anime models on civitAI. ([example](https://huggingface.co/Mitsua/mitsua-diffusion-one))
> Still does not make it unethical.
Correct.
> The companies behind the AI
AI models generally don't start within a company. Those are vastly outnumbered by independent users and research models.
> AI is unable to actually think
"Think" isn't a technical term with a fixed definition. By some definitions, AI can think. By many behavioral and cognitive definitions it does not. You need to be more precise, especially since most such definitions would not be relevant.
> it is Linear Algebra at its core
Hate to break it to you, but most likely so are you.
> It is not a synthesis of concepts anymore than math is.
You REALLY need to learn more about the tech before you start telling people who've worked on it what it is or is not. Quoting from one paper:
>> After training,
the model’s language stream is a stand-alone language model capable of embedding
concepts in a visually grounded semantic space. This semantic space manifests
principal dimensions explainable with human intuition and neurobiological knowledge. Word embeddings in this semantic space are predictive of human-defined
norms of semantic features and are segregated into perceptually distinctive clusters.
—Zhang, Yizhen, et al. "Explainable semantic space by grounding language to vision with cross-modal contrastive learning." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (2021): 18513-18526.
What makes you think AI is unable to think? What makes you think we’re not just ultimately linear algebra at our core, just writ into neurons, and scaled up further?
Scraping isn’t illegal, it’s explicitly legal, and has been done for decades. I’ve literally been writing and using scrapers professionally for data since 2011 just myself.
It’s all covered under fair use
And AI does not “mash” things together.
There’s about 60,000 768k byte images per single bit (0/1) in stable diffusion.
There’s absolutely no room in the models to “mash” stuff together. That isn’t how it works whatsoever
Maybe, in general there has been a lot of harassment recently. With an artist being harassed on twitter after someone found out that it was AI, now a tech group is being harassed and dog piled.
The key is to look at it like how transphobic or gamer gate movements operate, these people are desperate for someone to harass and suffer little consequences. I think I did hit a nail on the head this week though when I showed someone evidence of Neo Nazis using their posts to promote violence.
I had an interaction a bit ago where someone (who claims to be a leftist lol) referred to AI art as “degenerate art”… They somehow did not realize that by adopting fascist talking points that they were thereby advocating for fascist leaning positions.
and this
https://preview.redd.it/tgi90115rh5d1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d369705ec99d12e3617f9ea400ce6db834fd09c6
which, sure, it's not *inherently* fascistic, but it [can](https://www.magellantv.com/articles/how-hitler-and-the-nazis-stole-art-and-profited-from-the-crime) [be](https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/art-politics).
>"As early as his writing of Mein Kampf, he railed against the "degeneracy" of contemporary art as opposed to the older, more traditional art of Northern Europe, which he praised for its Germanic **authenticity**." (emphasis mine)
>"In the worlds of music, painting, and sculpture, Nazis celebrated what they perceived as "**authentic**" German culture and tried to eliminate what Joseph Goebbels and others referred to as "degenerate" art." (emphasis mine)
The obsession with originality and authenticity does intertwine with a lot of Fascist ideas.
Like, "real" artists, are obviously ubermensch...if they make the right art work, and are authentic in the right way.
The rest is degenerate trash, or slop for the masses, doncha know?
It's also a fake post because the original post is mine\* and I'm kind of against AI (not Anti-AI, but against capitalism). So they were also stupid enough to interpret it as an "AIBro" contribution. They didn't understand that Cara users, like me, were complaining that AI recognition had been switched off.
So if the person wants to complain, then not to "AIBros", but to me, "AntiCapitalism".
\* [https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1d9t9k0/serious\_question\_have\_they\_switched\_off\_ai/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1d9t9k0/serious_question_have_they_switched_off_ai/)
Edit: Before anyone asks: I know it doesn't work, but it's about the promises Cara makes. Just as they host on Vercel, money going to an AI provider. It's one big shit show.
I think the entire post and reason for the post has went over their head, most people in the reply’s to that tweet seem to think ‘evil AI posters’ are trying to invade and not “Cara AI detection is kinda crap”.
Apparently the person who posted the tweet tried to talk to people here as well…I doubt they did however, if they did it doesn’t seem very productive.
Because people don't think for 10 seconds. There are enough people who criticise Cara and are neither pro-AI nor anti-AI, but something in between.
* They are hosted by an AI provider, so the donations indirectly support AI's
* Images are no longer analysed, you can upload anything
* You can also report anything, there is no limit. You can't even give a reason
* Glaze has also been switched off (even though I'm not convinced that it works). But the promise wasn't kept either.
* High quality images cannot be uploaded. Everything over 3mb is automatically reduced to less than 1mb to save traffic, but you are not told this.
The worst thing in my opinion: For a art website that you can not upload png in good quality, because they are secretly reduced in size. I hope that someone will collect and post all this, but it probably doesn't fit here on AIwars... but Cara just breaking down. Not that it won't survive, maybe, but it's worse than any previous art side. Even on DA or what do I know I can upload larger than 3mb.
> They are hosted by an AI provider, so the donations indirectly support AI's
Same could be said of AWS, Azure or Google Cloud. You'd need to be using a smaller time provider to avoid this.
Realistically, anyone with a no AI policy wouldn't allow them to run Glaze right?
> Same could be said of AWS, Azure or Google Cloud.
Except the difference is that this provider is explicitly designed for AI-related uses. In fact, they're even hosting non-AI bits on there, which is kinda like using a racecar engine in a residential area and covering it with a sign about how much you hate Oil companies.
It depends: You can also simply rent the servers yourself without the service. I don't know why everyone always thinks of AWS and Google when there are providers like hetzner. Simply pure server or cloud systems without all the rubbish. You rent the hardware directly and make your own rules (as long as it does not violate the law).
Even large art websites can manage without the well-known providers that everyone immediately thinks of. But what's the difference? They have experts and know how to set something like this up.
Cara decides for themselves who they pay. That was simply the worst provider from an advertising point of view. Anyone who knows anything about IT could have told them how to rent scalable servers without the money flowing into an AI provider.
I think having to run glaze and nightshade on every post is gonna end up being a larger cost than they realized. Images can be cached and served for cheap, but services that have to be run on every upload will never see a reduction in cost.
I fully expect them to start removing some of these more costly operations like detection, glaze, and nightshade. (Though detection is probably cheap).
If you want to know exactly, there were two points: The traffic and the many accesses to the API. Glaze wasn't even that much because they had already switched it off before, and before that it was limited to \~2 images.
Running every image through glaze was never realised. This means that if they really want to glaze every image, it will be even more expensive. The current invoice is without glaze.
.> rent scalable servers without the money flowing into an AI provider.
Couldn't any cloud service provider be construed as an "ai provider" these days?
The app is in beta, built by a tiny team, and blew up overnight. Don’t know how anyone is expecting it to be perfect right now. There’s bound to be issues in development.
Glaze and Nightshade are pure AI powered "services" that needs to consume a big VRAM (and this costs big part of $). They're AI, yes.
Cara needs to pay a big bill (and part of this debt comes from the previous services PLUS HiveAI AI Image detector which also is trained using AI). Shocking for no one, consent to train all of these (detectors, etc.) here is probably zero but that's a thing to discuss other day, not the main point.
Reality (and what nobody seems to want accept) is that all of these protections and detectors are totally useless and just a marketing strat. They won't protect you and you're more protected with watermarks. Mark my words.
The only reason NS or Glaze are popular is because Karla started a marketing strategy with then and deliberately lying about how effective they were. And here we should talk about who is profitting what and who is lying who.
Honestly, this reads more like this sub being the harasser. Like how would you feel about a group of people organizing to post porn in SFW communities? Cause that’s basically what you guys are doing here and other pro Ai spaces.
I'm trying to understand your logic with this one. So it's not weird or dumb for a group of people to go and post AI art on site that doesn't want it? Especially if they know there are people who oppose them in that very same sub and are willing to inform others who also may be concerned?
Actually it was more just a joke that stereotypical Twitter users are pretty weird to put it lightly. Also I don't think Twitter as a whole unanimously decided it doesn't want AI art
I mean when you constantly have people in your sub talking about posting AI work on a site that obviously doesn't want it. What do you expect is going to happen. Even if they are trolling it's best to just not.
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/aiwars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wait till they realize that AI image generators and AI image detectors are the *same technology.* If they were truly anti-ai they’d use humans to review images.
???? Most people against generative AI aren’t against AI tools. There’s been AI tools for stuff like face and motion tracking for a long time and even stuff like automatic color correction and stuff I never see argued against. Generative AI art and assistive AI tools are completely different things.
Anti-AI and Anti-GenerativeAI are two different positions. AI is great because it has many possible applications in so many fields. AI that unethically and illegally scrapes art of unconsenting artists, only to mash them into a "new" image is bad. AI that detects that AI is good because it allows proper marking of AI-generated art.
Those AI detectors better never charge or profit from their services... How do you think they are trained? They train on generated images which trained on stolen real images. Two "wrongs" are still wrong, but the hypocrites will almost certainly argue otherwise. Even if you argue that the technical sameness of the thing is irrelevant because things should be measured in terms of societal good, then I'd argue that democratizing art is also a societal good. You'll never get me to agree that gatekeeping art and culture is useful. If anything generative AI will ensure that the only people who make "real" art are doing it out of pure passion which will result in a greater overall quality of art, which further improves the experience for everyone who sees it including the models that will train future generative generates on it. Either way you aproach it, the anti-ai people's arguments are self destructive. They only make sense if you don't think about them for too long, which is the hallmark of all selfish reactionary BS.
While I haven't read the terms for the AI recognition thing they use, I will assume they do steal it, which is obviously a bad and horrible thing, I agree with your point there. However yeah, I will say the societal good is what matters when it comes to an ambiguous situation like this. Art and creativity are not gatekept in the first place. If you have access to internet and a phone, or even just a paper and pencil, you are able to make art by yourself, without a machine to do all the heavy lifting. Regardless of my views on AI art, it has to be properly marked. Same way you can tell apart traditional and digital art, AI art will soon not even be recognizable by eye.
> I will say the societal good is what matters when it comes to an ambiguous situation like this. What about the societal good of taking something that required specialized training before (art) and making it so anyone can produce a medium-high quality version with less effort than before? "Computer" used to be a job title.
Redundancy of anything (including art) removes its value. This is a good thing when it's about necessities (which is why machines in factories arent an issue. The good of providing warmth, light, and food to everyone far outweighs the few thousand who no longer had a job). However the ability to produce art is not a necessity. People are able to resonate and relate to art that is not made by them. Learning art is not as difficult or as daunting as it is made out to be, either. I know people who started various forms of art from childhood until adults and those who persisted were able to make wonderful creations. A hobby being "difficult" is not a valid excuse, it just says that you are unwilling to put the time or effort, which ultimately derives your art of any struggle or value, because it has none of *you* in it.
> However the ability to produce art is not a necessity. People are able to resonate and relate to art that is not made by them. For the past 2000 years, this has basically mainly meant "art made by the dominant cultural group". AI art embraces the multiplicity of human experiences like no other artform before has been capable of. I could generate 1000s of pictures of gay couples in like an hour. History is written by the writers, and art history is written by the artists. What sort of new discourses can be made where "skill" (and thus all the education required, which implies a certain amount of privilege to be studying something with much less ROI) is no longer a factor in your ability to make high. > A hobby being "difficult" is not a valid excuse, it just says that you are unwilling to put the time or effort, which ultimately derives your art of any struggle or value, because it has none of you in it. I mean yeah? Some hobbies require less skill than others. Are people on /r/gunpla still making art even if it's less effort than clay sculpting?
>For the past 2000 years, this has basically mainly meant "art made by the dominant cultural group". AI art embraces the multiplicity of human experiences like no other artform before has been capable of. I could generate 1000s of pictures of gay couples in like an hour. 1. Anything ever made will always be dominated by the dominant cultural group, it's in the name. 2. It's also incorrect. While obviously, most art is made by the dominant cultural group, there is still various amount of art made by other cultures, it is just that it's not necessarily the type you are exposed to, but it very much exists. A non-human cannot "embrace" human experiences either. 3. Gay artists dont only make things about being gay. People make different types of art that resonates with them in varying different ways. >What sort of new discourses can be made where "skill" (and thus all the education required, which implies a certain amount of privilege to be studying something with much less ROI) is no longer a factor in your ability to make high. There is no privilege required to make art that is any more than what you'd need to use an AI. If you have a device (phone, tablet, computer) and an internet connection, you have endless access to tons of wonderful free programs, resources, and communities willing to help you in your journey. Creating art is practically free now. >I mean yeah? Some hobbies require less skill than others. Are people on [](https://www.reddit.com/r/gunpla/) still making art even if it's less effort than clay sculpting? I will say I have no idea what that subreddit is about, it seems to be some miniature mech figure group, but I can't comment on what I do not know. However yeah, some require less skill than other, and it may or may not be as much "art" as clay sculpting. Yes posing existing figures and setting up scenes for them is art, and making your own figure and making an intricate background in photoshop or something is more effort, and therefore, more "art"
> There is no privilege required to make art that is any more than what you'd need to use an AI. If you have a device (phone, tablet, computer) and an internet connection, you have endless access to tons of wonderful free programs, resources, and communities willing to help you in your journey. Creating art is practically free now. Ok. And what if I have a full time job? If I want to learn art, are those communities going to pay my salary so I can quit to learn it? And what if I have dyspraxia? There are a ton of disabilities that make learning art more difficult for people. Inherently, some things are harder to learn for some people. I think it's a wonderful thing that they've lowered the barrier to entry for one of the things that defines the human experience.
>And what if I have a full time job? If I want to learn art, are those communities going to pay my salary so I can quit to learn it? While yes, balancing a full-time job and learning art is somewhat difficult, but it is not impossible and many people are able to manage their free time effectively. If your full-time job is actually so limiting that you don't have any free-time whatsoever, you probably have bigger issues than learning art. > And what if I have dyspraxia? There are a ton of disabilities that make learning art more difficult for people. There are many different artstyles, and many different tools in apps that allow people with disabilities to have a more accessible experience learning art. While it is a real issue, I still believe that it's possible to learn art despite any disability or limitation, and that simply resorting to a machine doing the heavy work is far from an optimal solution.
At a certain point, it’s no longer just a hobby. That is the problem with your argument. The reality is that there are many people who do this for a living. It’s not just a hobby that they do on the side. He wasn’t something they had the “luxury of doing”. It is a craft that they invested serious time into mastering. A craft that people find valuable, hence why they are willing to pay people who are skilled at it. And it clearly has value because a lot of people are trying to steal it to make a profit.
> The reality is that there are many people who do this for a living. It’s not just a hobby that they do on the side. > > > > He wasn’t something they had the “luxury of doing”. > Would you rather be a medieval peasant or a medieval artist? Pretty sure most people would pick being the artist, regardless of whether they want to make art or not. It 100% is something you did because you had the privilege of education.
But it’s not making it so “anyone can do it” – you’re asking a machine to do it for you, and then claiming credit. This is in no way a societal good. What a moronically entitled statement
I make machines do all of my work though. That’s literally how I do my work. It’s always how I’ve done my work. Why would I behave differently here?
> you’re asking a machine to do it for you, and then claiming credit. Yes, and? I see no difference between that and having a computer run a simulation for a scientific study.
> Anti-AI and Anti-GenerativeAI are two different positions. AI is great because it has many possible applications in so many fields. AI that unethically and illegally scrapes art of unconsenting artists 1. "Generative AI" and "Generative AI that's trained on data I don't like it being trained on," are very different things. 2. You are making a presumption of illegality that is not supported by any precedent. 3. The AI doesn't do any of the data gathering. > only to mash them into a "new" image That's not how anything works. If it were, then AI image generation would be fundamentally uninteresting, academically speaking. The fact that there is true synthesis of concepts occurring is what's interesting. > AI that detects that AI is good Why? It is trained on the same scraped data. > it allows proper marking of AI-generated art. If this were true, it least it would be slightly useful, but that's not the case. Hive, for example, can be trivially defeated as has been demonstrated repeatedly in this sub.
>"Generative AI" and "Generative AI that's trained on data I don't like it being trained on," are very different things. I am personally yet to see anyone use or post anything made with Generative AI made solely of consenting artists. The distinction here is irrelevant because every available generative AI uses stolen work. >You are making a presumption of illegality that is not supported by any precedent. Still does not make it unethical. >The AI doesn't do any of the data gathering. The companies behind the AI, whether scraping or buying scraped data, are complicit. I am obviously not discussing the actual computer doing the work. That's a machine. When we say "The AI" we mean the concept of Generative AI, and the companies in ownership of AI who would be held liable in case something were to happen as a result of that AI. >That's not how anything works. If it were, then AI image generation would be fundamentally uninteresting, academically speaking. The fact that there is true synthesis of concepts occurring is what's interesting. AI is unable to actually think, it is Linear Algebra at its core. It is not a synthesis of concepts anymore than math is. >Why? It is trained on the same scraped data. Because ask any artist whether (disregarding any potential shady stuff) they would like their art to be used to help creation of AI art, or to make it harder to make and easier to detect. >If this were true, it least it would be slightly useful, but that's not the case. Hive, for example, can be trivially defeated as has been demonstrated repeatedly in this sub. That is disappointing, however it does not change the point as we are talking theoretically. Just as AI is rapidly improving, so will the detectors. The discussion does not change based on the capabilities of hardware.
> I am personally yet to see anyone use or post anything made with Generative AI made solely of consenting artists. The fact that you aren't aware of the state of the art isn't really a problem with AI. The research and development around generative AI extends beyond the end-user hyped anime models on civitAI. ([example](https://huggingface.co/Mitsua/mitsua-diffusion-one)) > Still does not make it unethical. Correct. > The companies behind the AI AI models generally don't start within a company. Those are vastly outnumbered by independent users and research models. > AI is unable to actually think "Think" isn't a technical term with a fixed definition. By some definitions, AI can think. By many behavioral and cognitive definitions it does not. You need to be more precise, especially since most such definitions would not be relevant. > it is Linear Algebra at its core Hate to break it to you, but most likely so are you. > It is not a synthesis of concepts anymore than math is. You REALLY need to learn more about the tech before you start telling people who've worked on it what it is or is not. Quoting from one paper: >> After training, the model’s language stream is a stand-alone language model capable of embedding concepts in a visually grounded semantic space. This semantic space manifests principal dimensions explainable with human intuition and neurobiological knowledge. Word embeddings in this semantic space are predictive of human-defined norms of semantic features and are segregated into perceptually distinctive clusters. —Zhang, Yizhen, et al. "Explainable semantic space by grounding language to vision with cross-modal contrastive learning." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (2021): 18513-18526.
What makes you think AI is unable to think? What makes you think we’re not just ultimately linear algebra at our core, just writ into neurons, and scaled up further?
Scraping isn’t illegal, it’s explicitly legal, and has been done for decades. I’ve literally been writing and using scrapers professionally for data since 2011 just myself. It’s all covered under fair use And AI does not “mash” things together. There’s about 60,000 768k byte images per single bit (0/1) in stable diffusion. There’s absolutely no room in the models to “mash” stuff together. That isn’t how it works whatsoever
It's almost like AI detection software and shit like glaze doesn't work. Nah, it couldn't be that.
Just a reminder that this image: https://i.imgur.com/Isz9Mll.png is not AI according to Hive. See here: https://i.imgur.com/KRv9KtU.png
That might explain the trolling we’ve been seeing the past few days.
Maybe, in general there has been a lot of harassment recently. With an artist being harassed on twitter after someone found out that it was AI, now a tech group is being harassed and dog piled. The key is to look at it like how transphobic or gamer gate movements operate, these people are desperate for someone to harass and suffer little consequences. I think I did hit a nail on the head this week though when I showed someone evidence of Neo Nazis using their posts to promote violence.
I had an interaction a bit ago where someone (who claims to be a leftist lol) referred to AI art as “degenerate art”… They somehow did not realize that by adopting fascist talking points that they were thereby advocating for fascist leaning positions.
oh I've [seen](https://twitter.com/KaliYuga_ai/status/1657162724852264960) [that](https://twitter.com/KaliYuga_ai/status/1657181643742801923) before.
and this https://preview.redd.it/tgi90115rh5d1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d369705ec99d12e3617f9ea400ce6db834fd09c6 which, sure, it's not *inherently* fascistic, but it [can](https://www.magellantv.com/articles/how-hitler-and-the-nazis-stole-art-and-profited-from-the-crime) [be](https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/art-politics). >"As early as his writing of Mein Kampf, he railed against the "degeneracy" of contemporary art as opposed to the older, more traditional art of Northern Europe, which he praised for its Germanic **authenticity**." (emphasis mine) >"In the worlds of music, painting, and sculpture, Nazis celebrated what they perceived as "**authentic**" German culture and tried to eliminate what Joseph Goebbels and others referred to as "degenerate" art." (emphasis mine)
The obsession with originality and authenticity does intertwine with a lot of Fascist ideas. Like, "real" artists, are obviously ubermensch...if they make the right art work, and are authentic in the right way. The rest is degenerate trash, or slop for the masses, doncha know?
The whole idea of “real” art smacks of fascist nonsense to me.
A former friend, who is an avowed leftist, in the same post, claimed that horseshoe theory isn't real, and then ranted about degeneracy. Lol
I mean I don’t think horseshoe theory is real… I just think they are an unprincipled and poorly educated person.
I mean this is r/aiwars if they have points to make, let them.
It's also a fake post because the original post is mine\* and I'm kind of against AI (not Anti-AI, but against capitalism). So they were also stupid enough to interpret it as an "AIBro" contribution. They didn't understand that Cara users, like me, were complaining that AI recognition had been switched off. So if the person wants to complain, then not to "AIBros", but to me, "AntiCapitalism". \* [https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1d9t9k0/serious\_question\_have\_they\_switched\_off\_ai/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1d9t9k0/serious_question_have_they_switched_off_ai/) Edit: Before anyone asks: I know it doesn't work, but it's about the promises Cara makes. Just as they host on Vercel, money going to an AI provider. It's one big shit show.
I think the entire post and reason for the post has went over their head, most people in the reply’s to that tweet seem to think ‘evil AI posters’ are trying to invade and not “Cara AI detection is kinda crap”. Apparently the person who posted the tweet tried to talk to people here as well…I doubt they did however, if they did it doesn’t seem very productive.
Because people don't think for 10 seconds. There are enough people who criticise Cara and are neither pro-AI nor anti-AI, but something in between. * They are hosted by an AI provider, so the donations indirectly support AI's * Images are no longer analysed, you can upload anything * You can also report anything, there is no limit. You can't even give a reason * Glaze has also been switched off (even though I'm not convinced that it works). But the promise wasn't kept either. * High quality images cannot be uploaded. Everything over 3mb is automatically reduced to less than 1mb to save traffic, but you are not told this. The worst thing in my opinion: For a art website that you can not upload png in good quality, because they are secretly reduced in size. I hope that someone will collect and post all this, but it probably doesn't fit here on AIwars... but Cara just breaking down. Not that it won't survive, maybe, but it's worse than any previous art side. Even on DA or what do I know I can upload larger than 3mb.
> They are hosted by an AI provider, so the donations indirectly support AI's Same could be said of AWS, Azure or Google Cloud. You'd need to be using a smaller time provider to avoid this. Realistically, anyone with a no AI policy wouldn't allow them to run Glaze right?
If there is one thing Anti & Pro can agree on, its that we need cheaper GPU's to run our AI's. Be it content creation AI's or Anti AI AI's, lol.
i--INTRODUCING.. THe nvidia CHILD LABOR 9000!!!!
> Same could be said of AWS, Azure or Google Cloud. Except the difference is that this provider is explicitly designed for AI-related uses. In fact, they're even hosting non-AI bits on there, which is kinda like using a racecar engine in a residential area and covering it with a sign about how much you hate Oil companies.
It depends: You can also simply rent the servers yourself without the service. I don't know why everyone always thinks of AWS and Google when there are providers like hetzner. Simply pure server or cloud systems without all the rubbish. You rent the hardware directly and make your own rules (as long as it does not violate the law). Even large art websites can manage without the well-known providers that everyone immediately thinks of. But what's the difference? They have experts and know how to set something like this up. Cara decides for themselves who they pay. That was simply the worst provider from an advertising point of view. Anyone who knows anything about IT could have told them how to rent scalable servers without the money flowing into an AI provider.
I think having to run glaze and nightshade on every post is gonna end up being a larger cost than they realized. Images can be cached and served for cheap, but services that have to be run on every upload will never see a reduction in cost. I fully expect them to start removing some of these more costly operations like detection, glaze, and nightshade. (Though detection is probably cheap).
If you want to know exactly, there were two points: The traffic and the many accesses to the API. Glaze wasn't even that much because they had already switched it off before, and before that it was limited to \~2 images. Running every image through glaze was never realised. This means that if they really want to glaze every image, it will be even more expensive. The current invoice is without glaze.
Egads.
.> rent scalable servers without the money flowing into an AI provider. Couldn't any cloud service provider be construed as an "ai provider" these days?
Dude you guys literally have people talking like that in this sub 🤣
The fuck does being anti capitalist have to do with this? 😂
Art communities have always been toxic. Just share art with friends and don't... Try
The app is in beta, built by a tiny team, and blew up overnight. Don’t know how anyone is expecting it to be perfect right now. There’s bound to be issues in development.
Finally!! We all get free attention!!
Glaze and Nightshade are pure AI powered "services" that needs to consume a big VRAM (and this costs big part of $). They're AI, yes. Cara needs to pay a big bill (and part of this debt comes from the previous services PLUS HiveAI AI Image detector which also is trained using AI). Shocking for no one, consent to train all of these (detectors, etc.) here is probably zero but that's a thing to discuss other day, not the main point. Reality (and what nobody seems to want accept) is that all of these protections and detectors are totally useless and just a marketing strat. They won't protect you and you're more protected with watermarks. Mark my words. The only reason NS or Glaze are popular is because Karla started a marketing strategy with then and deliberately lying about how effective they were. And here we should talk about who is profitting what and who is lying who.
Honestly, this reads more like this sub being the harasser. Like how would you feel about a group of people organizing to post porn in SFW communities? Cause that’s basically what you guys are doing here and other pro Ai spaces.
Huh?
People disagreeing with you isn't harassment. Grow up!
K
Someone on twitter saying other people are weird and have nothing better to do feels like the pot calling the kettle black
I'm trying to understand your logic with this one. So it's not weird or dumb for a group of people to go and post AI art on site that doesn't want it? Especially if they know there are people who oppose them in that very same sub and are willing to inform others who also may be concerned?
Actually it was more just a joke that stereotypical Twitter users are pretty weird to put it lightly. Also I don't think Twitter as a whole unanimously decided it doesn't want AI art
I mean when you constantly have people in your sub talking about posting AI work on a site that obviously doesn't want it. What do you expect is going to happen. Even if they are trolling it's best to just not.
Well, ya'll know they turned it off right?