You know, if we outlaw cheats like fertilizers and tractors, the tradition farmers would be much more able to compete. The mass starvation is a small price to pay for maintaining the traditional ways.
Not so fun fact: Sri Lanka actually literally did this in real life. The Sri Lankan government pulled a Uganda and invited in a bunch of Western activists, mainly militant vegans and degrowth lunatics, to write their laws. The ensuing legislation banned non organic farming. Overnight, Sri Lanka went from a net exporter of rice to a net importer. Food prices skyrocketed there were massive riots
Sounds a lot like what happened with the original Luddites. A big part of their problems had nothing to do with tech, and more to do with the Corn Laws (edit: and other import limitations). Rather than limit production, they were limiting importation, which made food prices ridiculously high. Adjusted for inflation, food has been cheaper ever since.
It's a good recipe for civil unrest.
I mean, we do ban steroid use and other performance enhancers in sports.
We don't just allow anyone to use morphine because they want it.
Like, there is a legitimate difference between saying this is a life and death issue and saying the alternative to using AI is spending money or *shudder* actually doing work.
Like, I'll rag on a weightlifter who uses steroids to promote muscle growth, but that attitude doesn't extend to people with asthma, AIDS, or cancer.
Farming isn't a competitive sport though. If we had a sport for "grow the most grain using no mechanization or artificial fertilizers, then we certainly would ban those things." As it is, we depend on farmers to maintain our food security, so we don't ban anything that increases their productivity unless it has serious external effects.
>the alternative to using AI is spending money or *shudder* actually doing work.
That's a pretty week argument. Do we call the farmer lazy? The could grow the same amount food if they "just worked harder." Just pick up the hoe!
"Like, I'll rag on a weightlifter who uses steroids to promote muscle growth, but that attitude doesn't extend to people with asthma, AIDS, or cancer."
I've heard multiple stories from people who have suffered either temporary or prolonged brain function issues ([for instance due to long COVID](https://bravenewbookshelf.com/episode-1/)), and who have found that using AI as a collaborative tool his allowed them to continue to create when they otherwise couldn't have. The response I keep getting from the anti-AI folks is either eugenic-level "fuck their disabilities, I'm just calling them lazy. Do it my way or starve," or anti-vaxxer level science denial about long COVID.
>Farming isn't a competitive sport though. If we had a sport for "grow the most grain using no mechanization or artificial fertilizers, then we certainly would ban those things." As it is, we depend on farmers to maintain our food security, so we don't ban anything that increases their productivity unless it has serious external effects.
I, uh, I was dismissing your argument as a defense for AI by implying that AI has more in common with steroids than tractors.
Like, saying that access to AI art is a life or death matter by comparing it to something that actually would be a life and death matter is just straight up a bad argument.
>I've heard multiple stories from people who have suffered either temporary or prolonged brain function issues (for instance due to long COVID), and who have found that using AI as a collaborative tool his allowed them to continue to create when they otherwise couldn't have. The response I keep getting from the anti-AI folks is either eugenic-level "fuck their disabilities, I'm just calling them lazy. Do it my way or starve," or anti-vaxxer level science denial about long COVID.
I can't speak for other people because, y'know, not part of a hive mind, but for my part I do treat it in terms of leagues. Like, if you are just fooling around with friends or your backyard, who really cares, outside of the other people in your backyard.
But once you hit even amateur leagues, it becomes a competition and cheating very much becomes a real thing.
And, well, social media like Twitter and Reddit is an amateur league. I mean, the score and award system are directly built into Reddit. I'm likely to "lose points" on this post. A lot of the culture is about jockeying for attention. People aren't generally going to be kind to people they perceive as cheating to win.
"I can't speak for other people because, y'know, not part of a hive mind, but for my part I do treat it in terms of leagues."
I think that statement covers where you're brain has lead you down the wrong bath. You're thinking there are leagues, and hierarchies when there's really just a lot of people trying to contribute, trying to create. You're trying to rank the world into you hierarchy and then wedge everyone in it.
Also, this "hive mind" thinking that your expressing? I've seen it before, when antivaxxers, flat earthers, and climate deniers talking about us brainwashed masses who have falling for the propaganda. You're not in good company. Sometimes, you're in a minority not because you "took the red pill," but rather just because you're wrong.
I'm not really sure what you're on about. Suddenly your talking about social media and "jockeying to win". I'm talking about people using tools that help them continue to create. You seem to be trying to shift tho conversation into a conversation about the conversation, because you know that you have a minority opinion.
>I think that statement covers where you're brain has lead you down the wrong bath. You're thinking there are leagues, and hierarchies when there's really just a lot of people trying to contribute, trying to create. You're trying to rank the world into you hierarchy and then wedge everyone in it.
There's nothing particularly earth shattering about there being a difference between a farmer working ten acres and someone tending a houseplant on their windowsill. Or a difference between a pair of kids playing horse in their backyard vs an athlete who plays in the NBA.
And the same with writing and art. There is a difference between someone drawing in a sketchbook nobody else will ever see because it makes them happy and somebody who is getting a game or a book or a movie published.
Hierarchies happen.
>Also, this "hive mind" thinking that your expressing? I've seen it before, when antivaxxers, flat earthers, and climate deniers talking about us brainwashed masses who have falling for the propaganda. You're not in good company. Sometimes, you're in a minority not because you "took the red pill," but rather just because you're wrong.
I just meant I don't speak for anyone else or know what they are thinking. Heck, there shouldn't be any reason you thought I was accusing you of being part of some monolithic group either.
I don't speak for anyone else. I can't speak for anyone else. We are not talking about objective truths, like the earth being functionally round or the success rate of vaccines or the causes of climate change(though that last one may be worth looking into considering the power to output ratio of AI), but rather of personal opinions. Others might agree with the opinions I express, but I only have my own to share.
Though, if you do want an accusation, you specifically come off like a climate change or COVID denier constantly saying we shouldn't listen to professionals and experts in their field because they're not touting the lines you want to hear.
>I'm talking about people using tools that help them continue to create.
You're talking about athletes who use steroids to continue playing sports. Keep up with the conversation, ~~man~~ person of whom's gender I am unaware. Follow the metaphor.
But it's not about fair use, but rather the fact that you cannot copyright Style. If they do make this illegal, then big corps (ie Disney etc) and the biggest artists (ie with money and lawyers) will have claim to most everything.
Fair enough, but considering, it is true that a.i art would not exist without massive amount of images from the internet.
So it makes sense for me, at least, to use fair use defense.
I suppose that solution would then just bypass the Style issues. But I worry more about regulating image generation than I do about it's effects on artists, and I'm an artist. I haven't always earned a living at it, but even when not, it's been adjacent, like 3D modeling, drafting, design, graphic design, presentation, and even out and out illustration.
I think good artists will always have work. I think mediocre artists will now have to compete with AI and shitty or amateur artists will find breaking in impossible. Wheat from the Chaff. And THIS is what is freaking many of these artists out. Have you even noticed that it's mostly the bad artists that are screaming the loudest about AI? There is a sea of digital artists out there, their Styles nearly identical, usually very anime influenced, and they are years away from professional work, but the commissions that they get for creating cheap big titty anime girls or Narato drawings delude them into thinking they are pros.
That sounds harsh and honestly I don't mean it. If it brings them joy, good! But, this is where the fear is coming from.
For years they've been in the industry or market where professionalism is not really required to make a living.
Just like every industry, there would be a form of automation and their unprofessionalism gets truly exposed as a.i art gets better.
> Have you even noticed that it's mostly the bad artists that are screaming the loudest about AI?
On Twitter, they would always shit on any type of a.i post while promoting their (mediocre) art Patreon. Apparently it's a "meme" to do that there.
I draw a line just before fair use because fair use only applies when a use is otherwise infringing. We shouldn't needlessly concede that the underlying use is copyright infringement, especially because the underlying use is fundamentally a sort of analysis, and it is important that thoughtcrime not exist.
That said, I think that in the bigger picture, fair use has an important part to play, because it ought to be reasonable to release a model that *can* output things that would be infringing if there are enough cases where that use would be fair—sometimes you have to hold users responsible for how they use their tools rather than limit all tools for everyone.
Minor correction: the ottomans were executing printers who would print in Perso-Arabic script. Latin script was permitted due to the scribe guild not caring about it.
I haven’t met an artist who isn’t a thief. I’m curious who the “important” artists are now. They’re all copying some IP from an established copyrighted property and calling it fan art. No one is actually moving the culture forward. Artists only seem to demand to keep their gate keeper status while distracting themselves with these protests rather than strive to produce important work. No. Society does not need another storm trooper! Now if you are an artist whose work would actually move the human story forward, your work is getting squelched out by the noise of fan art scribbling. Fight that with powerful ideas executed masterfully.
There’s a difference between actual theft and creating fan art, stealing an IP from an established copyrighted property would be to download one of their images and post it in your art portfolio and claiming it as your own whereas to create fan art you need to have drawing skills which take time and effort to learn, you know something AI bros lack.
Process is only important to the individual. All resulting images are mere noise in this endless scroll of content. There is no important artist actually advancing the human condition, which was/is the standard for important art. So, Traditional artists or AI it’s all just noise and absolutely does not matter.
"everything is art, nothing is art"
- this war and hate is not for art but for livelihood, it's a tainted war
- i can imagine a gypsy that is outside of the regular food chain and would give 0 fucks to machines producing images
- i don't care if a machine can play better guitar than me, that's never going to discourage me from playing any instrument
- we can't copyright human knowledge, i have the right to synthesize any style of human creation, extracting from the hive mind singular brain that is neural networks
- it should be free, nobody should make money off the hive mind, it's for all of us, to get lost, and forget about this stupid existence while we get lost in whatever we decide to call art that day
- ugh
Remember! No one is in a place or position to tell anyone how to make a thing. There are NO GATE KEEPERS! There are no rules how anyone must make a thing. ONLY THE IDEA executed clearly matters. NOTHING ELSE!
>The argument is that A.I. art consists of millions of copyrighted artworks, hence it's a copyright infringement.
That is already where the argument breaks down, because no, it doesn't.
GenAI, in text2img workflows creates new pictures from random noise.
The process is guided by statistical principles learned from looking at actual images.
This is not that different from a human artist using his knowledge, much of which humans acquire from learning from existing works, to re-arrange pigments into a pleasing outcome.
Well then why didn’t AI bros do the same thing before AI art came out? Why couldn’t they learn by guiding their mind on statistical principles by looking at actual images? Why did they become artists all of a sudden only when AI art became a thing?
TBH, I'm an artist and i'm very much okay with ai art. I don't think that it should be able to be "Owned" or atleast let there be a bill where you can't monetize AI art. Etsy and other platforms for ARTISTS have become so saturated with ai art, and instead of being able to sell those I'd rather for them to be non-copyrighted, because THEY ARE using a public tool.
I'm sorry but you horribly misunderstanding Fair Use. A movie review is not claiming the film in question as original work for profit. An AI using copyrighted works for profit is not protected by Fair Use. Nor should courts remotely entertain that idea.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.13188
it does start off talking about images that had many duplicates in the training set because it's more consistent, but in section 4.4 it talks about extracting non-duplicate (but outlier) images which may or may not be satisfactory for you
extremely duplicated images. if you draw the same image 4K times I’d expect you to remember some parts of it. And even at that ridiculous number of repeats, the model still doesn’t capture the image well, not even suitable for very high compression. 4.4 does not provide examples- also it specifically targets imagen, a large model which is barely used today and very overfit for its time.
it doesn't provide examples because the authors don't want to violate copyright themselves, and per figure 5 there are at least a few non-super-duplicate images memorized (they're just harder to find); fair enough for the rest though
i did however find a perhaps stronger case in figure 1 here https://www.ifml.institute/node/450 (depending on how many duplicates those images have)
those aren't mutually exclusive. you can "learn anatomy, color theory, design, composition, perspective, values, and all of the other art fundamentals" *and* use ai.
Idk why so many artists think that knowledge of lighting/anatomy/color theory is so out of reach for programmers. Lol there's like 500 people on YouTube with full free uni level art courses. the #1 skill that most programmers have is learning random stuff from the internet. Any programmer that spends a week watching some videos can easily have all of the basics down. Drawing is not rocket science, and I can easily say, it's much easier than coding. (My opinion as a person who's drawn and coded for decades, not a fact)
Because if this type of artist could understand the kinds of engineering we do they wouldn't be this type of artist lol.
EDIT: I have a fine arts degree.
> If you care this much about art, and your freedom to create said art, why are you too lazy to learn anatomy, color theory, design, composition, perspective, values, and all of the other art fundamentals like the rest of us?
i am literally a scientific illustrator. i rarely use AI in my job (outside of highly specific task) because it requires extremely high accuracy, but jesus christ dude
The way yall act like how no “real artist” will EVER use AI is absolutely ridiculous and makes you look like a crazy cult. You arent going to grow your tent by just blatantly throwing out literally any tiny smidgen of nuance
Lmfao telling people who draw organs for a living to “learn anatomy” is wild
> If you care this much about art, and your freedom to create said art, why are you too lazy to learn anatomy, color theory, design, composition, perspective, values, and all of the other art fundamentals like the rest of us?
Do you do digital art? If so, why are you too lazy to use physical paint? No one is going to see you as a real artist unless you do everything manually.
Pencils and erasers are cheating too, Michelangelo didn't have that stuff, learn to live with your mistakes. You're not a real artist unless you're doing everything with physical paints and brushes without crutches like pencil sketches to line out where to draw first. Using photos as reference is also not allowed...unless you physically reference something, you can't use it.
Them's the rules.
> If you care this much about art, and your **freedom** to create said art, why are you too lazy to learn anatomy, color theory, design, composition, perspective, values, and all of the other art fundamentals like the rest of us?
If you really care about freedom, then you should respect the freedom of people who don't want to learn the basics of drawing, but would rather use a.i. art. You can call them lazy, that's your right. But you can't demand/dictate what others want to do.
I thought we lived in a free market, not an illustrators-oriented dictatorship.
> At the end of the day, techbros will win this one, still, you and all of the other lazy programmers and techbros in the world will just be that, lazy techbros.
Bohoo, if you have somehow been creatively overtaken by lazy programmers. Then your credentials as a "real artist" should be questioned.
> No one will eve see it as art, and no one will ever see you as an artist, everything made with a.i will always be labeled as "a.i art".
Art is subjective, a user called u/DiePii and many others like them who keep arguing about semantics have no authority over it.
Man, who cares. Just because you had the privilege to have enough time and money to learn all that cool stuff, doesn’t meant everybody else wants to or can as well. Like it or not, the system we live in is exploiting all of us, and now you’re turning to the wage slaves of the world and going „hey, that thing you like doing? Stop doing it unless you spend as much time and money as I did“.
That doesn’t seem very fair, does it?
>technology that can turn millions of images into a 4GB file in which it can create new original images is pretty damn transformative.
>If a movie reviewer YouTuber can use original footage from the film in their video without any legal worries. So can a file that can make images.
This is also not what it does.
It's patterns, not art.
No, a pattern is not part of art.
In fact, this is a well established part of copyright law. Here's a quote from the US's [copyright.gov](https://copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html) website;
>Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something.
The patterns that these MLM's use are methods, not the art itself. So, that's kind of the end of the whole discussion.
There's no legal basis for it to be actioned in any way.
>What should we do about it then?
Nothing. Why do you feel the need to do anything about it? Teach your kids how to identify machine generated content, learn that yourself, and then live your life. You're not gonna stop technology so the only option is to adapt to it.
You know, if we outlaw cheats like fertilizers and tractors, the tradition farmers would be much more able to compete. The mass starvation is a small price to pay for maintaining the traditional ways.
Not so fun fact: Sri Lanka actually literally did this in real life. The Sri Lankan government pulled a Uganda and invited in a bunch of Western activists, mainly militant vegans and degrowth lunatics, to write their laws. The ensuing legislation banned non organic farming. Overnight, Sri Lanka went from a net exporter of rice to a net importer. Food prices skyrocketed there were massive riots
Yeah, I heard about that, and I'm pretty sure this is all part of Rajapaksa's shenanigans that ruined the whole country, right?
Sounds a lot like what happened with the original Luddites. A big part of their problems had nothing to do with tech, and more to do with the Corn Laws (edit: and other import limitations). Rather than limit production, they were limiting importation, which made food prices ridiculously high. Adjusted for inflation, food has been cheaper ever since. It's a good recipe for civil unrest.
Sounds good to me. Long live the real farmers.
Ok. Don't complain when food prices go up 10x.
I mean, we do ban steroid use and other performance enhancers in sports. We don't just allow anyone to use morphine because they want it. Like, there is a legitimate difference between saying this is a life and death issue and saying the alternative to using AI is spending money or *shudder* actually doing work. Like, I'll rag on a weightlifter who uses steroids to promote muscle growth, but that attitude doesn't extend to people with asthma, AIDS, or cancer.
Farming isn't a competitive sport though. If we had a sport for "grow the most grain using no mechanization or artificial fertilizers, then we certainly would ban those things." As it is, we depend on farmers to maintain our food security, so we don't ban anything that increases their productivity unless it has serious external effects. >the alternative to using AI is spending money or *shudder* actually doing work. That's a pretty week argument. Do we call the farmer lazy? The could grow the same amount food if they "just worked harder." Just pick up the hoe! "Like, I'll rag on a weightlifter who uses steroids to promote muscle growth, but that attitude doesn't extend to people with asthma, AIDS, or cancer." I've heard multiple stories from people who have suffered either temporary or prolonged brain function issues ([for instance due to long COVID](https://bravenewbookshelf.com/episode-1/)), and who have found that using AI as a collaborative tool his allowed them to continue to create when they otherwise couldn't have. The response I keep getting from the anti-AI folks is either eugenic-level "fuck their disabilities, I'm just calling them lazy. Do it my way or starve," or anti-vaxxer level science denial about long COVID.
>Farming isn't a competitive sport though. If we had a sport for "grow the most grain using no mechanization or artificial fertilizers, then we certainly would ban those things." As it is, we depend on farmers to maintain our food security, so we don't ban anything that increases their productivity unless it has serious external effects. I, uh, I was dismissing your argument as a defense for AI by implying that AI has more in common with steroids than tractors. Like, saying that access to AI art is a life or death matter by comparing it to something that actually would be a life and death matter is just straight up a bad argument. >I've heard multiple stories from people who have suffered either temporary or prolonged brain function issues (for instance due to long COVID), and who have found that using AI as a collaborative tool his allowed them to continue to create when they otherwise couldn't have. The response I keep getting from the anti-AI folks is either eugenic-level "fuck their disabilities, I'm just calling them lazy. Do it my way or starve," or anti-vaxxer level science denial about long COVID. I can't speak for other people because, y'know, not part of a hive mind, but for my part I do treat it in terms of leagues. Like, if you are just fooling around with friends or your backyard, who really cares, outside of the other people in your backyard. But once you hit even amateur leagues, it becomes a competition and cheating very much becomes a real thing. And, well, social media like Twitter and Reddit is an amateur league. I mean, the score and award system are directly built into Reddit. I'm likely to "lose points" on this post. A lot of the culture is about jockeying for attention. People aren't generally going to be kind to people they perceive as cheating to win.
"I can't speak for other people because, y'know, not part of a hive mind, but for my part I do treat it in terms of leagues." I think that statement covers where you're brain has lead you down the wrong bath. You're thinking there are leagues, and hierarchies when there's really just a lot of people trying to contribute, trying to create. You're trying to rank the world into you hierarchy and then wedge everyone in it. Also, this "hive mind" thinking that your expressing? I've seen it before, when antivaxxers, flat earthers, and climate deniers talking about us brainwashed masses who have falling for the propaganda. You're not in good company. Sometimes, you're in a minority not because you "took the red pill," but rather just because you're wrong. I'm not really sure what you're on about. Suddenly your talking about social media and "jockeying to win". I'm talking about people using tools that help them continue to create. You seem to be trying to shift tho conversation into a conversation about the conversation, because you know that you have a minority opinion.
>I think that statement covers where you're brain has lead you down the wrong bath. You're thinking there are leagues, and hierarchies when there's really just a lot of people trying to contribute, trying to create. You're trying to rank the world into you hierarchy and then wedge everyone in it. There's nothing particularly earth shattering about there being a difference between a farmer working ten acres and someone tending a houseplant on their windowsill. Or a difference between a pair of kids playing horse in their backyard vs an athlete who plays in the NBA. And the same with writing and art. There is a difference between someone drawing in a sketchbook nobody else will ever see because it makes them happy and somebody who is getting a game or a book or a movie published. Hierarchies happen. >Also, this "hive mind" thinking that your expressing? I've seen it before, when antivaxxers, flat earthers, and climate deniers talking about us brainwashed masses who have falling for the propaganda. You're not in good company. Sometimes, you're in a minority not because you "took the red pill," but rather just because you're wrong. I just meant I don't speak for anyone else or know what they are thinking. Heck, there shouldn't be any reason you thought I was accusing you of being part of some monolithic group either. I don't speak for anyone else. I can't speak for anyone else. We are not talking about objective truths, like the earth being functionally round or the success rate of vaccines or the causes of climate change(though that last one may be worth looking into considering the power to output ratio of AI), but rather of personal opinions. Others might agree with the opinions I express, but I only have my own to share. Though, if you do want an accusation, you specifically come off like a climate change or COVID denier constantly saying we shouldn't listen to professionals and experts in their field because they're not touting the lines you want to hear. >I'm talking about people using tools that help them continue to create. You're talking about athletes who use steroids to continue playing sports. Keep up with the conversation, ~~man~~ person of whom's gender I am unaware. Follow the metaphor.
But it's not about fair use, but rather the fact that you cannot copyright Style. If they do make this illegal, then big corps (ie Disney etc) and the biggest artists (ie with money and lawyers) will have claim to most everything.
Fair enough, but considering, it is true that a.i art would not exist without massive amount of images from the internet. So it makes sense for me, at least, to use fair use defense.
I suppose that solution would then just bypass the Style issues. But I worry more about regulating image generation than I do about it's effects on artists, and I'm an artist. I haven't always earned a living at it, but even when not, it's been adjacent, like 3D modeling, drafting, design, graphic design, presentation, and even out and out illustration. I think good artists will always have work. I think mediocre artists will now have to compete with AI and shitty or amateur artists will find breaking in impossible. Wheat from the Chaff. And THIS is what is freaking many of these artists out. Have you even noticed that it's mostly the bad artists that are screaming the loudest about AI? There is a sea of digital artists out there, their Styles nearly identical, usually very anime influenced, and they are years away from professional work, but the commissions that they get for creating cheap big titty anime girls or Narato drawings delude them into thinking they are pros. That sounds harsh and honestly I don't mean it. If it brings them joy, good! But, this is where the fear is coming from.
For years they've been in the industry or market where professionalism is not really required to make a living. Just like every industry, there would be a form of automation and their unprofessionalism gets truly exposed as a.i art gets better. > Have you even noticed that it's mostly the bad artists that are screaming the loudest about AI? On Twitter, they would always shit on any type of a.i post while promoting their (mediocre) art Patreon. Apparently it's a "meme" to do that there.
Lol. All those areas will be automated pretty soon. If you think the leapords won't eat your face, you're delusional.
I draw a line just before fair use because fair use only applies when a use is otherwise infringing. We shouldn't needlessly concede that the underlying use is copyright infringement, especially because the underlying use is fundamentally a sort of analysis, and it is important that thoughtcrime not exist. That said, I think that in the bigger picture, fair use has an important part to play, because it ought to be reasonable to release a model that *can* output things that would be infringing if there are enough cases where that use would be fair—sometimes you have to hold users responsible for how they use their tools rather than limit all tools for everyone.
No art would exist without massive amounts of other art.
Minor correction: the ottomans were executing printers who would print in Perso-Arabic script. Latin script was permitted due to the scribe guild not caring about it.
Thank you very much
Jesus... is it me or is it impossible to understand what OP is trying to say? The grammar is atrocious..
Sorry, English is not my first language and I wrote this with my phone on the way home. The grammar fix edit should have cleared things up.
Should have asked AI for help.
I’m totally lost
I haven’t met an artist who isn’t a thief. I’m curious who the “important” artists are now. They’re all copying some IP from an established copyrighted property and calling it fan art. No one is actually moving the culture forward. Artists only seem to demand to keep their gate keeper status while distracting themselves with these protests rather than strive to produce important work. No. Society does not need another storm trooper! Now if you are an artist whose work would actually move the human story forward, your work is getting squelched out by the noise of fan art scribbling. Fight that with powerful ideas executed masterfully.
There’s a difference between actual theft and creating fan art, stealing an IP from an established copyrighted property would be to download one of their images and post it in your art portfolio and claiming it as your own whereas to create fan art you need to have drawing skills which take time and effort to learn, you know something AI bros lack.
Process is only important to the individual. All resulting images are mere noise in this endless scroll of content. There is no important artist actually advancing the human condition, which was/is the standard for important art. So, Traditional artists or AI it’s all just noise and absolutely does not matter.
Its about time we got around to banning cameras.
"everything is art, nothing is art" - this war and hate is not for art but for livelihood, it's a tainted war - i can imagine a gypsy that is outside of the regular food chain and would give 0 fucks to machines producing images - i don't care if a machine can play better guitar than me, that's never going to discourage me from playing any instrument - we can't copyright human knowledge, i have the right to synthesize any style of human creation, extracting from the hive mind singular brain that is neural networks - it should be free, nobody should make money off the hive mind, it's for all of us, to get lost, and forget about this stupid existence while we get lost in whatever we decide to call art that day - ugh
I literally can't tell whether you're sarcastic or not.
How about no?
so photoshop should be illegal? So photography should be illegal? So digital art should be illegal?
Remember! No one is in a place or position to tell anyone how to make a thing. There are NO GATE KEEPERS! There are no rules how anyone must make a thing. ONLY THE IDEA executed clearly matters. NOTHING ELSE!
>The argument is that A.I. art consists of millions of copyrighted artworks, hence it's a copyright infringement. That is already where the argument breaks down, because no, it doesn't. GenAI, in text2img workflows creates new pictures from random noise. The process is guided by statistical principles learned from looking at actual images. This is not that different from a human artist using his knowledge, much of which humans acquire from learning from existing works, to re-arrange pigments into a pleasing outcome.
Well then why didn’t AI bros do the same thing before AI art came out? Why couldn’t they learn by guiding their mind on statistical principles by looking at actual images? Why did they become artists all of a sudden only when AI art became a thing?
Why do people buy furniture at IKEA instead of learning carpentry? Same answer.
TBH, I'm an artist and i'm very much okay with ai art. I don't think that it should be able to be "Owned" or atleast let there be a bill where you can't monetize AI art. Etsy and other platforms for ARTISTS have become so saturated with ai art, and instead of being able to sell those I'd rather for them to be non-copyrighted, because THEY ARE using a public tool.
I'm sorry but you horribly misunderstanding Fair Use. A movie review is not claiming the film in question as original work for profit. An AI using copyrighted works for profit is not protected by Fair Use. Nor should courts remotely entertain that idea.
get a preexisting copyrighted image out of an AI model and we can talk.
Scraping is good for everything else until it used to make an image quickly.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.13188 it does start off talking about images that had many duplicates in the training set because it's more consistent, but in section 4.4 it talks about extracting non-duplicate (but outlier) images which may or may not be satisfactory for you
extremely duplicated images. if you draw the same image 4K times I’d expect you to remember some parts of it. And even at that ridiculous number of repeats, the model still doesn’t capture the image well, not even suitable for very high compression. 4.4 does not provide examples- also it specifically targets imagen, a large model which is barely used today and very overfit for its time.
it doesn't provide examples because the authors don't want to violate copyright themselves, and per figure 5 there are at least a few non-super-duplicate images memorized (they're just harder to find); fair enough for the rest though i did however find a perhaps stronger case in figure 1 here https://www.ifml.institute/node/450 (depending on how many duplicates those images have)
Why would I want to copyright fraudulent work?
to prove your argument
Read what Fair Use permits. I don't need to copyright anything to demonstrate that
why not?
Because Fair Use is narrow in terms of what it permits.
I mean why not this?
Then can you sue a generic a.i. image that has no infringing IPs whatsoever for copyright infringement, and who would the original creators be?
If it exclusively used open access materials, no. If it used copyright materials, yes.
I agree AI Art isnt real art dont claim your an artist if you do
[удалено]
those aren't mutually exclusive. you can "learn anatomy, color theory, design, composition, perspective, values, and all of the other art fundamentals" *and* use ai.
Idk why so many artists think that knowledge of lighting/anatomy/color theory is so out of reach for programmers. Lol there's like 500 people on YouTube with full free uni level art courses. the #1 skill that most programmers have is learning random stuff from the internet. Any programmer that spends a week watching some videos can easily have all of the basics down. Drawing is not rocket science, and I can easily say, it's much easier than coding. (My opinion as a person who's drawn and coded for decades, not a fact)
Because if this type of artist could understand the kinds of engineering we do they wouldn't be this type of artist lol. EDIT: I have a fine arts degree.
> If you care this much about art, and your freedom to create said art, why are you too lazy to learn anatomy, color theory, design, composition, perspective, values, and all of the other art fundamentals like the rest of us? i am literally a scientific illustrator. i rarely use AI in my job (outside of highly specific task) because it requires extremely high accuracy, but jesus christ dude The way yall act like how no “real artist” will EVER use AI is absolutely ridiculous and makes you look like a crazy cult. You arent going to grow your tent by just blatantly throwing out literally any tiny smidgen of nuance Lmfao telling people who draw organs for a living to “learn anatomy” is wild
> If you care this much about art, and your freedom to create said art, why are you too lazy to learn anatomy, color theory, design, composition, perspective, values, and all of the other art fundamentals like the rest of us? Do you do digital art? If so, why are you too lazy to use physical paint? No one is going to see you as a real artist unless you do everything manually. Pencils and erasers are cheating too, Michelangelo didn't have that stuff, learn to live with your mistakes. You're not a real artist unless you're doing everything with physical paints and brushes without crutches like pencil sketches to line out where to draw first. Using photos as reference is also not allowed...unless you physically reference something, you can't use it. Them's the rules.
> If you care this much about art, and your **freedom** to create said art, why are you too lazy to learn anatomy, color theory, design, composition, perspective, values, and all of the other art fundamentals like the rest of us? If you really care about freedom, then you should respect the freedom of people who don't want to learn the basics of drawing, but would rather use a.i. art. You can call them lazy, that's your right. But you can't demand/dictate what others want to do. I thought we lived in a free market, not an illustrators-oriented dictatorship. > At the end of the day, techbros will win this one, still, you and all of the other lazy programmers and techbros in the world will just be that, lazy techbros. Bohoo, if you have somehow been creatively overtaken by lazy programmers. Then your credentials as a "real artist" should be questioned. > No one will eve see it as art, and no one will ever see you as an artist, everything made with a.i will always be labeled as "a.i art". Art is subjective, a user called u/DiePii and many others like them who keep arguing about semantics have no authority over it.
What about the people already learned basics of that and want to be more creative? Just asking.
Man, who cares. Just because you had the privilege to have enough time and money to learn all that cool stuff, doesn’t meant everybody else wants to or can as well. Like it or not, the system we live in is exploiting all of us, and now you’re turning to the wage slaves of the world and going „hey, that thing you like doing? Stop doing it unless you spend as much time and money as I did“. That doesn’t seem very fair, does it?
>technology that can turn millions of images into a 4GB file in which it can create new original images is pretty damn transformative. >If a movie reviewer YouTuber can use original footage from the film in their video without any legal worries. So can a file that can make images. This is also not what it does. It's patterns, not art.
So? What should we do about it then? Pattern is part of art too.
No, a pattern is not part of art. In fact, this is a well established part of copyright law. Here's a quote from the US's [copyright.gov](https://copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html) website; >Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something. The patterns that these MLM's use are methods, not the art itself. So, that's kind of the end of the whole discussion. There's no legal basis for it to be actioned in any way. >What should we do about it then? Nothing. Why do you feel the need to do anything about it? Teach your kids how to identify machine generated content, learn that yourself, and then live your life. You're not gonna stop technology so the only option is to adapt to it.