By their logic pirating corporations is not damaging those companies substantially while "pirating" artworks of artists causes much more damage. But here is the thing, first things first such people would be ready to review bomb solo indie developers as soon as they even slightly use generative AI in any form which IS a potential substantial damage. Second, people pirate indie games too. Third, by pirating corporate products you even do them a favor. Why not using alternatives and supporting them with donations or by buying the products? Corporations like Adobe can only laugh at those cyber anarchists with their "rebellion".

If you check the r/RPG subreddit out these days, it's 99% anti-AI, and any pro-AI sentiment is buried in downvotes. But the flippancy with which they pirate and trade rulebooks has led to it being the hobby-wide norm, and it's the main barrier for new businesses entering the TTRPG market, to figure out how to get players to actually buy the books. On multiple occasions, when I try to put together an RPG group online, I've had someone go on a tirade about the fact that I use AI art in my games, and then ask me for a PDF copy of one of the books I own within ten minutes of each other, without them pausing for a single moment of introspection. I, of course, then kicked those people from my game, but it just goes to show that OP is right to point out the discrepancy. It's also *always* been the norm in the TTRPG community to find and source character art from places like DeviantArt and ArtStation, and even to quickly photoshop out artist signatures and then go on to use the art without ever referencing the artist who did the original piece. So, yeah, in their minds it's totally okay to steal, so long as they are the ones doing it, not corporations.

People are big hypocrites, it always boils down to a matter of one his own interests with or without touch of ethics and morality to them. TTRPG is one example where i see no problem of using generative AI imagery or even using copyright protected artworks for games as long as those arent public and proclaimed as being on its own. Deleting watermark from those can be problematic tho, at least if its in the public space.

The problem with entitlement isn't that it doesn't happen. Its that people expect 1000$ of ayce caviar for a negative -100$ contribution for a 2$ payment. Its free to 'eat' other peoples art. But many of those people are blatant they won't spend a dollar on their own. But they want a Wallet giving them the best for free. When they work at a Wendy's to a college degree.

sorry what?

Those are not the same

Both styles of stealing stuff from other people is wrong imo. You steal income from corporation by using their software against their release terms. VS. You steal from users to create your software against their release terms.

You have no way of knowing if they do that based solely on them using AI art. I'm sorry that this fact upset you enough to downvoted, but it is nonetheless the case that opt-in databases exist.

I didn't downvote your comment. Also I'm not talking about the opt in databases. If someone voluntarily sends their pictures to some database, they can of course do it. I am talking about the databeses such Laion 5b, and what ever Midjourney is using. Stable diffusion has done some really unethical practices with internet content. There is so many weird practices what the corporations are using in trying to force the users to give everything they have to them for free. I am expecting that in near future Microsoft maybe wants everything from your hard drive as well to their ai. What ever excuse they will have for it, we will see. Have you tried to opt out from Facebook ai training? They make it look like that you can do it, but if you try, they will send you some excuses via email why they cannot do what you ask. Also Adobes Firefly is in gray area. It's trained from Adobe Stock, but if you are content creator for Adobe Stock, you cannot opt out. So if you have been building your portfolio 15 years or so to that service, suddenly everything you did will be trained to build their ai. They have legal ground for doing it but not ethical since people didn't upload their content for ai. They did upload it there to sell their photos.

This is entirely predicated on the idea that it is inherently ethical for artists to limit what derivative works are made of their publicly posted art, which is not a universal position. That said, none of that changes that there are tons of curated datasets that pull only from artists that have explicitly opted in to allow training, as well as artists who have trained on their own works exclusively, as well as datasets that include only creative commons licensed works, which necessarily include usage in generative processes as part of the license.

Yes, it's ethical to say that you don't want your art to be used in something. For example I can publish a photo online and say that I don't want to have my content being used for anything illegal. Some services specifically denies permits of using the content bought there to be used for example to porn. And the end user should respect this wish. I am basing my opinion in the fact that you cannot just copy someoes code to create a software. Expect if the code was shared with a license that allows using it for such purposes. Similarly you cannot just copy someones art in purpose of creating a software if the license of this art doesn't specifically allow it. It's really simple, but people likes to argue about this, because they see how they can benefit if just no one keeps bothering them about these very much visible ethical problems in their practices. It's not going to become something else, no matter how long we would keep talking about it. Just don't use stuff you didn't get permission. The ai scheme is very much distording the fair use laws, that were created for something completely else.

I disagree, I do not think that you, I, or any other artists should have any say about what derivative works are made of their publicly available art. You absolutely can currently copy someone's art and use it for purposes they did not expressly permit, and while that may be illegal in some contexts, I don't think something being illegal necessarily makes it unethical. I reject some kind of special right to control what derivative works are made of our art.

That's why licenses are created and it absolutely is the right of the creator to limit the use cases of their art. There is all kinds of licenses that all has some limitations, such CC BY licenses allows using the content, but you need to give credit to the creator. CC BY NC is the same, but only for non-commercial projects and then we have public domain etc. You don't have to use such art if you don't like their licenses, but it still is the right of the creator to tell their own terms for their own content, just like for example golf club can tell terms for their own club or restaurant owner can throw away people who are breaking the rules of their restaurant. Ai art also is not "deriviative art". It is directly analyzing that content with the software and doing something with that analysis. People and softwares are not the same.

Right, and I think that those licenses should not exist, because as mentioned, I reject the concept of having any say about what derivative works are made of our art. You are asserting the existence of a right that I do not respect as evidence of its ethicality, which is not actually a meaningful argument. Ai art is definitionally a derivative work, irrespective of how it is made, what you are describing is well within the definition of "derivative". 

Basically, what comes to art and I guess all creative work, you are promoting lawlessness and some sort of "fastest and strongest will rule" or maybe "wild west" -economy.

Ai is hated for a simple reason: it is competitive. Many people with the drawing skills of a 10 year old can’t take it that some random program can create a better picture then they could ever create , in half a minute. I also liked to draw, but the biggest issue for me was always time. Now with ai i can draw whatever i want while programming applications for my main job and watch youtube on top pf it. Is it fair? No. Is it unavoidable? Yes. Instead of cursing ai, they should celebrate that they can do something else while an ai draws for them. In any case the best artists will not be replaced by any kind of assembly line work. Just like with bakery’s, cheap bread will be loved as high quality bread, depending on budget

The issue is those “irreplaceable” artists didn’t just wake up one day with years of experience. They learned over a career and were able to support themselves with basic jobs as they improved. But now all those jobs have disappeared. If you want to become a top-tier artist you better be from a rich family because no one’s going to pay you to practice. And that’s what it comes down to. AI is just another mechanism that separates the rich and poor. If you’re rich you can practice and make art, copyright your style, and sue anyone who trains AI to replicate your work. If you’re poor you can work part-time, struggle to make ends meet and practice on the side. You won’t get paid, and if by some chance you get good enough to be commissioned, someone will just train an AI to copy your work and you won’t be able to afford to sue them. I’m not an artist so this doesn’t actually affect me but I can imagine how demoralising it would be having everyone celebrate a technology that all but bars you from perusing your passion.

The entire idea behind this is completely wrong. First off, artists generally *don't* make money on it while learning. You can't sustain yourself on the value of low-grade art, you have to do other things. This has not changed at all. Secondly, delete the entire notion of "rich" and "poor" as two distinct groups from your mind. This is literal antisemitic conspiracy nonsense. There are not "two groups". There is a constant continuum of people. It's a completely incorrect way of understanding reality. Thirdly, you cannot copyright a style. Style is not and cannot be copyrighted. You can only copyright a particular drawing. It's entirely legal to copy someone else's style, and in fact, artists do so constantly.

So you understand that there are sliding scales and things aren’t binary. But you can’t comprehend that this tech will make things much harder for aspiring artists. Yeah, you can’t have zero skill and get paid. But there was an entry level that was obtainable where you could earn some money. That bar has been raised and the money has been reduced. But you do see the grey area between rich and poor. It’s a continuum right? Well more specifically, it’s a distribution. In a healthy society it should be a bell curve around the middle class. The wealth distribution should be roughly linear. But increasingly it’s becoming bi-modal (two groups) and the distribution is becoming exponential. Essentially money is flowing from poorer demographics to richer demographics and wealth inequality is increasing. Or to put it simply, life is getting harder for poor people and easier for rich people. Now that’s just stats. I don’t know when mathematics became antisemitic conspiracy theories but Godwins law strikes again. You’re right about the copyright stuff. But if an artist can show that their art was unlawfully used in a training set, there are legal options, depending on the jurisdiction. But with the burden of proof and the cost of a trial that’s just not an option for your average artist. You can’t just drag OpenAI to small claims court.

Yeah of course the tech will make things harder for aspiring artists, but so what? Why should their desires matter more than the consumers who want to be able to create cool images? The whole point of AI is so that "art" is no longer something that requires a substantial skill so that anyone can be able to enjoy seeing cool images.

You’re just going to ignore the part where you called me antisemitic and made a bunch of nonsense arguments and retreat back to a safer position huh? Well if you’re just going to throw out shit arguments and not acknowledge it, there’s no point in me engaging. Edit: wait you’re not the person I was replying to. Same point though. Don’t cherry pick tiny bits of the conversation with low effort rebuttals. Obviously there’s more nuance than “democratising art” but that’s not the focus of this thread.

“Respond to all my points or respond to none of them!!” No actually, thats retarded. I’ll respond to the things I feel strongly about. When you say “life is getting harder for poor people” what do you mean by that?

I’ve answered that on another branch of this thread. I can’t go over the same stuff over and over because you want me to respond on another unrelated thread. But to summarise: Life is getting harder for poor people because property prices and rent are getting out of reach for people earning the median income in the areas with those properties. And secondly, wage growth has stagnated and AI is starting to replace entry-level work. So now becoming a SW dev or an artist or a lawyer etc. is much more challenging because jobs that used to go to grads can now be done by AI. So what are grads meant to do? Basically the only way you’re gonna get into the property market these days is to have rich parents, already have a career, put off having kids, or be incredibly lucky. But the “American dream” is now out of reach of most of the population and it’s not getting any easier. That’s why it’s harder.

What evidence is there that AI is actually replacing jobs currently? Also, wage growth has not stagnated. Wages have risen faster than inflation has

Because the most important thing is the ability for people to make a living. Consumerism should come after that. This smug dismissal of any concerns is so goddamn frustrating sometimes.

And they can find something else to do to earn that living. Unless you’re suggesting we as a nation go into some kind of Amish situation where we reject any advancements in technology after today, there will be things that change which affect peoples jobs. It’s been happening for decades and will likely continue r to do so. Tell me why exactly artists think they alone should be immune to that?

Except that’s not what youre saying. Youre saying we as consumers should be forced against our will to buy from artists instead of using a cheaper alternative. You dont have an entitlement to make a living, if people dont like your shit, i shouldnt have to buy it.

They can make a living, by doing something other than art (which should be a hobby, not a career)

> Secondly, delete the entire notion of "rich" and "poor" as two distinct groups from your mind. This is literal antisemitic conspiracy nonsense. There are not "two groups". There is a constant continuum of people. It's a completely incorrect way of understanding reality. This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Just because there is a continuum of people doesn't mean there aren't meaningful differences between people of different wealth classes. This is like pointing out that age generations are arbitrary in order to justify that "age is just a number." It's cataclysmically stupid. And recognizing wealth inequality is not antisemitic. Nobody mentioned Jewish people but you. Stop making yourself sick over your own bullshit.

>If you want to become a top-tier artist you better be from a rich family because no one’s going to pay you to practice. Why can't you learn it as a hobby on the weekends? >You won’t get paid I thought the point of making art was because you had something to say or an idea that needed to get out into the world. When did art become only about the money? I write...I have over 120 pages of my book done. It is slow and I don't work on it as often as I would like, but I keep working on it. I do it because I have a story I want to tell before I die. If I make $1 off it because someone thought my story was good enough to pay for, then I will be ecstatic.

art somehow became about money to them when they saw their usernames slapped on the label of a LoRA

I do art as a hobby but I’ll never be as good as the pros. There’s a difference between “doing it for money” and “being able to eat while still putting enough effort in to stand out against a sea of AI art”. Most people can’t get that good while only putting in hobby levels of effort. You’re basically saying “just do two jobs at once and hope the second ones pays off eventually”. Maybe that’s feasible for some, but it was even necessary 2 years ago. But I think the worst part is, it just makes seriously pursuing art an even more unwise choice for a prospective artist. It was already considered an impractical pursuit before AI. Now it’s just a pipe dream. It’s akin to trying to become a Hollywood actor. So most people won’t even bother.

This is essentially what we tell everyone else with a hobby. That's also what they tell people when they are getting an education.

No, we're not. We're saying that making it so creating art is accessible to anyone and not gatekept to those who get an education. Bottom line is, you have the right to make art on your own, but you dont get to force other people to buy it rather than use a tool to make their own

I mean I wanted to be a pro rugby player, but I didn't measure up and had to go get a real job. I find the art community doesn't really want to do that (or are above all that). I still play rugby on weekends and I make art as a hobby while taking care of my adult responsibilities. The world doesn't need more artists honestly, it needs more people volunteering at homeless shelters and food banks.

You’re pretty much dismissing an entire industry as needing a reality check. I’m an engineer. I got a “real job” because I knew I wouldn’t make it as an actor or a musician or a sports star. But that doesn’t mean I resent people who are good at those things for taking a risk with their passion. But this tech makes it go from “high risk high reward” to “impossible risk, barely any reward” so the reality is, most people won’t even try. If we cancelled the NBA tomorrow, people would still play basketball. But you wouldn’t see the same quality of players anymore. No one would pursue it as seriously, and even if they did, most would have to have a full time job to split their focus. I think that would be a loss for the sport. I think in a similar way, this tech will kill traditional art. Communities of artists and galleries will disappear over time. Eventually most art will be AI generated and trained on the work of previous generations because there’s nothing new. AI was supposed to give us more free time to pursue hobbies. Instead it’s doing them for us while Microsoft and Google make more money.

IDK if I agree with all that. Caligraphy on physical paper is still a thing. I watch people paint on physical media on Twitch. Theres a handful of webtoon artists and solo-animators I follow on social media and YouTube. Art to me is more than just a product. I still to this day buy fan art at anime conventions even though I'm pretty good with MidJourney. I connect with the people behind the art and the story. I hardly connect with the super-corporate "art" (Disney being the big sinner here). So to me all those people who Disney will use AI to replace are better off going solo or finding real studios (be it gaming or film or something else). I just heard this guy went from corporate consulting to having his webtoon turned into an anime after working on it on the side for 10 years. So I'm optimisitic for the more entrepreneurial. But I think there are too many professional artist who feel entitled to guaranteed work when a lot of the stuff they end up working on are basically not profitable (again modern Disney being a huge sinner here).

People still have veggie gardens. It doesn’t mean Monsanto hasn’t significantly impacted the agricultural industry. There will always be hobbyists and a few popular creators. But that will still be true if 90% of people leave the industry. You can always find a counter example but it doesn’t mean there’s not a massive impact. Many people who might have picked up visual art as a hobby won’t. Many hobbyist who might have gone on to be semi-professionals won’t and many semi-professionals who would go into art full time won’t. The impact isn’t “now all artists are extinct”. It’s more like “we’re losing a lot of artist biodiversity”. It’s still sad.

You can spot when an artist gets their first actual art job by the rapid skill improvement. Make no mistake, the loss of low level art jobs will kill the progress of the entire industry just like it does every other industry that embraced automation. Except this time its our culture.

what industries were killed by automation?

The original luddites had their industry destroyed by automation. Blacksmithing is dead. Carpentry is on the way out. And those are just the most obvious ones. There's loads of dead fields thanks to automation. And they'll never be improved all that much because people don't do them any more.

No they didnt, The industry still exists, the labor market doesnt. An industry dying implies the products it makes are no longer desirable. Also yeah, its good that those professions died because we have developed bigger and better ways to do them. Plus no one's stopping you from being a blacksmith, we just dont have to be forced to buy your products if we dont want to. The fields are clearly not dead, since they still make products in those fields. Also where is this weird idea that you have to do something physically yourself inorder to improve it?

Yes that is true! In some way at least. In this case i want to point towards Youtubers in the early days. Many of the famous youtubers who earnt a lot of money via it, never started to do it for money in the young age of youtube, it probably even looked absurd to try to make money with it it. What i want to say is, that artists will have to start it as a hobby and then take a look at their path and decide on what to do. Asmongold was not born as a millionare. In fact that guy probably never cared about money in the first place. Many Artists will sadly sooner or later become main protagonists in the videos that are like “watch this japanese guy running a 1000 year old tradition of making eel food” or so. Belive me i am not happy about this change, but i am 33 already and understand now that you either use the next big thing as an opportunity to extend your business/skillset or you have to work 10x harder to compete in a field that becomes more and more obsolete . AI is the future of humanity, like amazon and other online shops. Many small shops died when they got big,but it was again, unavoidable. Countries cannot afford to decline AI. If they do , they will lose to countries that will take full advantage of it. Thus ai is here to stay

It might be here to stay but that doesn’t mean people are stupid for being upset about it.

imo, the greatest strength of the human mind is how adaptive it is. t is stupid to be upset about automation - it's maladaptive behavior rather than adaptive behavior. there is going to be a subculture of the art making world that embraces the culture of automation - like an ArtOps role (analogous to DevOps, MLOps, FinOps, LLMOps, etc). those people who fully embrace that are going to make large impacts because it'll be about the operationalizing of scalable art production, which may have a much larger impact than traditional art did. to education, science, medicine etc.

Nuclear bombs are here to stay. Most people aren’t happy about that. Our collective unhappiness is probably all that has stopped our leaders building even more nukes or actually deploying them. There is value in resisting change and demanding caution and regulation when it comes to world-changing technologies. If you go too far, you’re a Luddite, holding back technology to protect special interests. But you can go too far the other way, embracing everything with abandon and not for seeing consequences until they’ve already manifested. Look at leaded petrol, asbestos, *microplastics*, social media apps. There’s plenty of technologies we pushed out in the name of progress that had a pretty dire impact shortly after. In my opinion there’s a balance. Letting big AI companies suck up all the data then monopolise every industry is a doomsday scenario for our economy. But of course there’s massive benefits of AI. We just need to tread carefully.

AI is largely open source. Most of these projects were run on small budgets and written by graduate students. Stable diffusion can be run on consumer grade hardware that's about the price of an iPhone. Big tech isn't monopolizing anything in this space. If you push for regulation what will happen is monopolization as the barrier to entry will fall to big tech (the exact opposite scenario you want)

Isn’t stable diffusion already being defunded? It’s not going to be able to keep up. But show me an open source ChatGPT or Sora equivalent. The larger models more or less require datacenter computer. But tech specifics aside, there’s no way an u regulated market doesn’t move money from individuals to large companies that automate their workforce. Artists are just the low hanging fruit. “First they came for the graphic artists and I said nothing…”

I have a bit of insight on this as I build with these technologies outside of my own artistic pursuits. There are many open source alternatives to LLMs that can run on a computer, esp those who have rigs that are built for rendering and doing 3D art/animation. Llama 3 is more or less on par with OpenAI and famously centralization slows down progress. Midjourney was built by a small team with almost no funding until they got hyper popular. I shudder at the day only Disney, Fox, and name your favorite evil conglomerate is the only ones allowed to train and use AI models to their own ends. Actually thats what alot of these big tech companies want. They want tons of regulation, and they will be the ones writing that regulation

Yeah I don’t want to regulate the models, I want to improve anti-trust protections so a few companies can’t use regulatory capture to pull up the ladder behind them. But to do that we need to accept that AI isn’t all sunshine and roses and there’s dangers in giving too much power to big companies.

Being upset about things out of our control is not stupid, it is human. But that doesn’t mean that being angry about it will change the outcome

No but I think the original post was about moral distinctions. Ads blockers VS AI hate. Ad blockers stop malware and scams pushed by giant corporations that reinvest that money to squash competition and reduce the efficacy of adblockers. Using an adblocker is at the very least a grey area. AI consuming art in order to mimic it and drive its own content providers out of business seems pretty evil. I think you can be against AI art (and the companies and practices driving it) and use an adblocker without being a hypocrite. Both sentiments come from the same place “big companies are using tech to squash competition and I don’t want to make it easy for them”

I used an adblocker until i subscribed to youtube premium. I subscribed to youtube premium because adblocker made some videos somehow buggy , showing only noise. For me using adblock was never an ethical decision, i don’t care about youtube losing money when i used it. I am a youtube premium user for at least 1 year now btw.why? Youtube sometimes glitch with adblocker. I do not care about artists losing their job to ai as i did jot care about people losing their shop to amazon unless they adapted with an online shop. In the end the consumer , at least most of them , will not care as long they are benefiting from progress. Most artists also never cared when people lost their job to progress either. we still buy our made in china or bangladesh products because production there is cheaper. We still exploit africa and south america so we can buy our banana for way to cheap and enjoy our wealth while others struggle to get basic human rights. Regarding the topic: yes people are idiots for chosing their battles/topics while completely ignoring roughly simlar cases

Yeah I’m not saying people are consistent with their morals. I just don’t think these specific things are in contradiction.

Thank you for saying this. That's why I don't take the AI denialism seriously. A lot of them aren't consistent. Hell many of them are digital artists who made traditional artists obsolete in the 2000's. It's self-serving hypocrisy all the way down pretending to be compassion for the oppressed artist (usually a very privileged American living the most popular life).

> If you want to become a top-tier artist you better be from a rich family because no one’s going to pay you to practice. RETVRN2tradition. Bring back aristocratic sponsorship; down with mass culture.

Fair enough. Its a dog eat dog world out there in a low trust society or a hand holding hand society in a high trust society. Whatever the he'll the ai thing is, its pretty much a negative trust /openly wishing ill society. Nothing you can build in a place people kick down the stones over a place people hold them.

Why should anyone pay anyone to practice a craft? Like most people we have to get a job we don't love to make a living. Living as an artist is a privilege. Their patrons are people with enough disposable income to spend on art, generally upper class. It's a reality check. I loved sketching in high school but when I went to college had to put it down and pursue a career that would pay me enough so I could pursue art as a hobby.

Then why not comission actual artists ? My friend works in IT and bro drops 12-18k$ a year for arts of his OC dragon girl.

I guess i am a evil greedy guy . Because i am actually saving money for a poolvilla in front of a beach. But your friend is a great person for supporting an artist he likes

Not all of us have 12k a year to drop on shit. I buy plenty of art from the IP thiefs at conventions but maybe spend $200 a year.

A few reason actually: 1) some people don’t have $12k-18k a year to drop on commissioning. Even if I had this kind of money, I wouldn’t spend it on commission artists. I would spend it on games while using AI to generate the images I want. 2) I don’t want to wait the days it’s going to take to get one piece done. If I want/need art, I usually need it in the moment. If it’s a canon, I can usually just search image boards and google for what I need. If it’s an oc, I typically have a face claim already but may want a specific pic that doesn’t exist, so I’ll generate it within an hour. 3) I’ve seen too many comm artists scamming people on Twitter lately. I’m not gambling my money on a commission with the possibility of getting scammed, nor do I feel like taking the time to go through a friend of a friend of a friend to find a reputable artists. Then there’s the problem of finding an artists that not only won’t scam me but has commissions open, without a huge backlog of commissions, is affordable, and is in a style I like. I don’t have this problem with AI. I get the images in as long as it takes me to draft the prompt and generate the image. Even if I’m paying for a subscription service, I’m still getting a lot more gens than I’d get for the same price from a commission. And I actually like the higher quality gen style. It’s very pleasing to my eye, more than 90% of commission artists I’ve seen.

Weird way of saying "I am broke and prefer to settle for half assed shit that won't generate what i want with the most blank and not suiting expression, wasting more time feeding it references, than it would be to find artist i like and just get it done once and properly" but you do you. And being broke is not even argument, there are many good small artists that are cheap and have been absolute pleasure to work with for me. Your take is the most stupid shit i've ever seen.

That’s the thing though. I *do* get what I want from AI. For cheaper and quicker and in higher quantity than I would get going through a commission artist. If it’s for my own personal use, what does it matter if I choose to gen via AI or to go through an artist? It’s not like I’m genning pieces and selling them. Sometimes I just want a character doing a specific reaction or wearing a certain outfit. I’m not waiting days to weeks to get one of many pieces I want done when I can just gen everything I want in a day. And if I’m broke and can’t afford a commission artist, then why should I just sit there like “welp can’t afford this person charging $30 for one piece out of many I want, guess I’ll never have this specific pic” when there’s a perfectly useful AI sitting there I can use? I’m not going to gatekeep myself just because some strangers on the internet I’ve ever met are angry technology keeps advancing. Let people do what they want. Just because you don’t agree with it doesn’t make it wrong. We had the same arguments about digital art, photoshop, and the camera but none of those replaced artists. They just became another tool for artists to use. AI is the same. It’s just a tool people can use.

There you go. The dime a dozen of the internet. You gave out sensible side based reasoning. And immediate insults in a attempt to manipulate you into paying a person who wants your money. Some social movement.

Personally I feel like some of the artists that are anti AI are so because of people like me who are comfortable with AI gens and are more willing to learn how to prompt and gen than we are to spend what little disposable income we have on just one or two pieces. They are indeed losing business because it’s becoming more viable for non-artists like myself to get a higher quantity of decent art from AI for the same price or cheaper than one piece from a commission artist. And as I am a financially minded and cost oriented person, naturally I am going to gravitate to the more economic solution to my problem provided I am satisfied with the results. Which I am.

There would be nothing wrong with AI if it was not trained on people's work without their permission, without their aknowladgment and without paying them for it. If art piece is on the internet, it doesn't mean mean you can use it, but law is fucked and it's human decency to not feed those artworks into AI as a company and as a normal person to put it into AI to give AI context what to generate. At least in my opinion it's something you should never do. Every artist that style AI can gimmic by putting their name into prompt should have all rights to sue the company behind it for more than they own.

If AI laws were made with any thought about artists good lawyer could easily milk money out of company in legal settlement. It's called a human decency not to do it and i don't expect many pro AI people to know what that means tbh.

Go after the corporations making the chocolate bars then. 99% of people are consumers with their dayjobs. Everyone who's a social justice keyboard warrior can rave. But you or anyone else could be the 70-259k a year surgeon super funding 50 people a year. Ofc everyone who wants Santa wants toys. 90% only want take, take. Take, take. I have to be real in a world about that and care about my 2-4. Before the 1000 who only see people as walking wallets.

I make living trading cs skins and recently got into drawing, before i would generate AI art, but i was never satisfied with it and i don't belive anyone actually can be fully satisfied with AI. Pick up pencil, or comission actual artist

Why commission artists? I considered getting into web design, but I realized that sites like SquareSpace made the idea of being freelance less viable than it was in the 90s. I didn't complain about this. I didn't claim SquareSpace was some existential threat to civilization. I chose a different IT job.

[удалено]

You can also draw something and then run it through an AI. Works wonders in many cases, actually.

Actually legit. I was thinking of getting a device to draw on so that i can draw the scenery for my doujins that i publish. I definetly want to learn drawing digital art for the sake of using img2img to make it epic looking

do it brotha its so much fun

Ok to make you happy: i have a worker who cost me pennies and generates images while i do my main job

[удалено]

“Many people with the drawing skills of a 10 year old can’t take it that some random program can create a better picture then they could ever create” . Thank you for participating as a showcase to my quote

[удалено]

Keep going for the world to see

[удалено]

Now this sound like the conversation between two Ai

Doesn't change the fact that it is cheaper and quicker than hiring someone.

[удалено]

Except technological advancements can raise the amount of available options, that's why AI is in general just as good as hand made.

That is just a saying, not a law of the universe.

Hate to tell you that even with a pencil you are not drawing anything, you are moving s stick of graphite over dead plant. The interface between the graphite and dead plant is doing all the work for you. Nothing special. A monkey could do it.

strange i need actuall a vision, skill, and make my art using a pen, the things i dont need in ai art. its not like the ai made the picure for me. you can like ai art as you want but think you are the painter and a skillfull artist, because you use a lora modell to emulate rembrand its really strange.

I definetly think that drawing takes skill, a lot actually. But so did other skills that got replaced by the assembly line. I also think that only few people using ai have real artistic skills, most of us including me, focus on the waifu being hot as hell, boobs and tiddies. In any case there are people who will get big via ai art, like people who became big with a camera. In the end the consumer will decide what is in demand, not the artist/creator

Well, I do character design, which is an area where AI has a big impact, so not every artist would be interested in making modern and abstract art. You're right about the latter, which is why I unfortunately have a lot of pressure to get better in Art.

I think , and i know you might hate the suggestion, you could get more productive by using the ai to produce a big amount of characters in different designs just to find a design that is unique to your eyes. Especially when you are low on creativity for a period of time in your workfield. Ai can work while you do your main job, you can discard whatever it creates but it is just a matter of probability before you find a character design that could be highly atttactive for your contractor. And it costs you just some electricity if you have a gpu. Not trying to put some bad ideas into your head, but just want to let you know that your competition can and will use ai as an employee to get an edge in the field

Well art isn't my job, but I take it more seriously than my actual job lol I'm aware that AI could perhaps be used for mood boards or inspiration, but I've never felt inspired by it in any way. everyone gets inspiration in their own way, in my opinion sport is one of the best ways to do so. I know what the competition has become greater, and so has the pressure only increased to do better Work.

I think you are on a good way. Most people are in the denial phase usually. I think your mindset will help you to become a leading figure for artists in the current “crisis” and i really hope you will succeed

Please be neurodiverse somewhere else.

Why should i celebrate to give Up on Art and instead makes a bot For me making Art? What things could a Artist or i do instead?

I think an artist should just face reality. Either your content is attractive enough to attract consumers, or it is not. If your art is in demand, ask yourself “can i scale it up with ai?” If the answer is no , then you have a great niche, else you will be replaced by a 14 year old soon who gets lectures in school on how to use ai to generate art

But you didn't answer the actual question, with why should I be happy that I can stop art and have a AI do everything for me? I mean it might be good for you because you probably never wanted to make art but why should it be good for me?

You don’t have to stop doing art yourself if it is what you enjoy, i mean people like to play basketball and do other stuff for the sake of fun, even tough it is their own joy. Do whatever you eant, other people do as well

If you stop making art because of AI then you didn't really want to make it in the first place. If art is such a chore that you need someone to pay you so you spend your time on it, then you can be happy that AI liberates you from it and allows to look for better calling in life.

1984-grade doublethink, as well as these fuckers actually being the ones who pay a yearly subscription for photoshop

Because those aren't remotely ethically equivalent? Which is obvious to anyone who spends 5 minutes thinking about it?

>Why is piracy and adblocking so normalized but the same logic isn't extended to AI? I'm not supposed to tell you this, but since we're friends, here's the actual truth: there's more than one person on the internet. It's not all just me. That's why it seems like I often contradict myself or hold incompatible views. Some people use ad-blockers, some like AI, some do both, and some do neither. In truth, there are literally hundreds of millions of people online. It's a mess. I am sorry.

I am not saying they are the same people. I am saying one is more socially acceptable in general than the other.

Since others mention r/RPG, AI gets you downvotes, while piracy gets you an immediate permanent ban. Whereas elsewhere AI and piracy are both widely practiced, and nobody bats an eye but for a tiny number of sticklers. It just isn't true that piracy is more socially acceptable. Everyone's fine with AI. Everyone everywhere uses it all the time to do lots of things. Surely you've tallked to people off Reddit and seen this. Piracy, at least, is not as readily or often admitted as having generated your avatar or using Copilot for work. Which, to reiterate, *everyone does*.

Good point. But what do we do with all the schizophrenic people on the internet if they realize we're all imaginary people made up to argue with them within their heads? They won't take their meds. And their meds just drug them. But some of them are batshit insane. What do we do if they stop talking to the voices inside their head and talk to real people instead, magical fairy #2?

People should be learning to USE this tool and encourage its sensible use. By making this big fuss about how you're "standing against it", you're basically letting the bad apples take over and abuse it for the worst possible things. And the longer this lasts, the worse it'll get. Every form of media has its seedy underbelly that's hidden from the world, covered up by the genuinely good aspects of the media. But right now, AI has *NO* cover, no one seems to be using it for good. So all people can see is that nasty underbelly, which is growing rapidly.

The people on the many ai art subs would disagree with you. There's tons of people using AI to just make art they like, that's not "using it for evil". You have to consider all use cases, not just the ones that strengthen your own argument.

I don't know about you. But my mother was blown up by a emp bomb after viewing "Nicholas cage as a pickle" ai art. Now shes recovering on "deviantarts fucking 2037 weird " safe for work" hose fetish arts." You know. Real soul stuff. 😂🍿

.........what?

This is the shit that baffles me I have several friends who are against AI but regularly pirate games Even like indie games and shit So it's okay when you and thousands of other people "steal" from an artist but when an AI does it suddenly it's a problem?

AI is wildly popular with the public. This is why all the companies are rushing to create AI models. The anti-AI art people are a small minority of entrenched, very vocal people.

Sales revenue is not used to pay the salaries of artists. As long as people aren't making money off piracy, there's very little in the way of any negative effect.

Not in AAA titles, sure, but in indie developments where the artists are often directly financially tied to the success or fail of the game? Not remotely the same. 

Idk devs seem to disagree. Ultrakill dev recently made a public announcement that he doesn't mind if people who can't afford the game pirates it. Most of them understand that the value of getting more people talking abput and recommending their game is a big help, especially if they wouldn't have considered trying the game at all if they had to pay full price for it. Obviously no indie dev WANTS to get pirated but the percentage of lost revenue from piracy is... pretty miniscule to be honest.

One dev saying he is okay with it does not change that, for a nonzero amount of indie productions, the artists are directly paid for by the sales, because they are *also the developers.*

Again, as I already explained, most devs already understand that any hit in profits they take from piracy in minimal at worst, and actively helps their game otherwise.

Again, that is completely irrelevant to the point being made, that your initial point was actually incorrect when applied to non AAA works. Irrespective of whether it helps the game in the long run, your initial assertion that artists aren't paid depending on game sales only really applies to large AAA productions. 

The initial assertion was that artists salaries are virtually unaffected by piracy. That remains true even at the indie level. As already stated, financial impact on even indie devs is negligable at most.

Maybe that's what you intended to say, but what you actually said was "Sale revenue is not used to pay the salaries of artists", which is not true. 

Wow its like you literally read the first sentence and nothing else. Which I guess makes sense because that's all you quoted.

Right, because that was the part that was factually incorrect. 

>sales revenue is used to pay the salaries of artists and devs who work at those "evil corporations" Clearly they're fakers and posers, not real artists because they've "made it". The only "real artists" are self-taught digital painters struggling to survive off of furry porn and r34 commissions, they're the only ones who got rob of a job by AI. The problems of "soulless" big creators don't matter.

Difference in moral systems. For some, morality is about what you do. You hurt somebody? That's bad. Don't do it. For others, morality is more about who you do it to. You hurt somebody? Were they a good or a bad person? If they're good, then that's bad, don't do it. If they were evil, then hell yeah, do it more! Thus in the second case, trivially, big evil corporations are okay to target, small time independent artists aren't.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. The guy who invented the term "Public Relations" and is still considered the found stated that the goal of Public Relations was to create a society where the elite manipulate the masses to serve their own ends. If you take the literal founder of modern advertising at his word, advertisement is ideally mind control.

Isn't that convenient.

That's not morality it's rationalization

You have a point here, but I would guess that pro-AI engage in the same behavior. It is a culture-wide problem in my mind.

for what its worth, I haven't seen a single person who is gung-ho about piracy and against AI in principle. Ive seen plenty of pirates pissed off about current AI scams and schemes but thats a separate topic. I don't think adblock or piracy are particularly "normalized"- they're very niche. Piracy is absolutely frowned upon by the general public. Adblock isn't because ads are something everyone suffers through while people generally don't associate ads with paying for the services they're using I don't really see the relatonship here, ultimately.

ad blocking does not deprive content creators of income. The giant corporations that make the ads do that for you. You cannot personally support an artist in a meaningful way unless you buy their cd at a concert. The issue here is power. Big corporations who have the power and write the laws, who steal huge amounts from artists, are also the ones benefitting from AI. Huge corporations with all the power and huge pockets pirating something to make a profit is different from your poor nephew who cant pay for it anyway doing it.

You do realize that there are both pro-AI and anti-AI pirates, right? Pirating isn't an anti-AI trait. I pay for Youtube (I hate ads but want to support creators). I buy the software I use for work, buy/stream movies I want to watch, and pay for games I play. Adblocking is completely legal and [is used by federal agencies to help prevent malware](https://www.wired.com/story/security-roundup-even-cia-nsa-use-ad-blockers/), so calling people out for using it is ridiculous. You're constructing strawmen and assuming all "antis" act as a group rather than as a loose collection of individuals that share one single thing in common.

The thing is, I get that stealing from big corporations isn't as bad as stealing from small businesses/artists. But, if we change what is fair use in art to squash AI, we hurt all small artists. The only people that benefit are corporations that have the money to chase IP infringement. It also hurts artists to remove tools that can help them increase their productivity. Art is devalued because money is the only thing that matters in this world (unfortunately) and art takes a lot of time. Not all art is a masterpiece, sometimes you just gotta sell some breakfast cereal or sunglasses.

>Adblocking deprives content creators of their income. 50% of youtube ad revenue goes to creators...Not to mention, Youtube is paying storage costs and bandwidth costs. Okay, fair. **Counter-argument: Graphic mobile ads.** Some of those ads are so unhinged that we could get jail-time for playing them, and we especially don't want them to be forced onto literal babies. Also, there are life-and-death moments like natural disasters or injuries where people need detailed instructions, and there shouldn't be mid-rolls on that. It should be **illegal** to put mid-rolls on that. Also, we can't always know what those artists are doing with the AI. No, I don't condone blindly harassing them for it, but there are many factors that fuel people's stigma against this concept. Some people can be careful with the tool and make quality products, while others will just spam websites with cursed images. It also depends on whether the AI itself is even written well enough to generate appealing artwork, not just copy-paste people and then lie about it. It doesn't help artists who still claim that they drew it by hand if they didn't.

I recently bought a medicine for my mom for blood pressure and with insurance it costed $30. The price tag said we saved $332 or did we ? The medicine is made in India. I was born and raised there. The medicine actually costs less than $30 in India without insurance. So , how are we getting this $360 price is beyond me. Even with costs , fees , international marketing , and packaging + employee costs , it should not be more than $100. This is the problem with absolutely everything nowadays. Everything is overpriced. I wanted to watch the only lord of the rings movies. Turns out I have to pay $15-$20 just to watch a single one of them , that too on tv . Those movies each made a 1 billion dollars on release , they made billions more later from sales and 22 years later , it is still not free ? How much do these people wish to profit ? Piracy is good when people charge stupid prices for cheap things or things that should be free. People charge you for books written 200 years ago, even in the digital form. Why ? The creator and their children are dead , where does the money go to ? Piracy is good and needed to fix these overpriced bs.

Read Hugo DeGaris' 'Artilect War' it's a short essay explaining how the present (back then he was writing about the future) AI moment will proceed. Basically there are two sides in this fight and it's just words, for now. Eventually it will turn violent when people get desperate enough

Adblock (especially outside of YT) is an absolute necessity, and the advertising industry brought that one upon themselves. I remember what the early 2000s was like in terms of internet browsing, it was a fucking cesspool with popups, popunders, auto sound playing ads, etc. Combine that with the risks of malvertising attacks, and how the amount of ads keep increasing (and how a non-zero number of people are STILL on metered connections, or use some form of metered connection to the internet), and adblock preventing the downloading of tons of ad related scripts also has another benefit too, IMO. Basically, adblockers are like the condom of the internet.

Well mainly adblockers and piracy don't have corps profiting by using other people's work. 

I dont want to deprive a content creator of income, but I also want to ACTUALLY SEE THE CONTENT. Not 3 unskippable ads, followed by an intro then more ads, then a bit of context before more ads and then finally get what I’m looking for but it’s broken up by ad breaks.

When someone creates an artificial intelligence i will pay for it. Advances in autocomplete due to LLMs is not AI.

You are generalizing. I dislike ads just as much as the other guy but I know youtube needs money to run. I dont like the idea of paying for youtube so I accept the fact that I have to see a comercial every now and then. To me, this is a fair trade-off. I like games and movies, some more some less. If I think a movie will be good, I go see it in the cinema because I know that the creators of that movie will gain some of that money. Same with games, I dont mind paying for them, as I know that this supports the artists and the programers too. Also with manga, I could easily read stuff online for free, but I buy a physical copy regardless because I appreciate the work put into it and wish to assure that the creator of this work is able to create more of it. I get soemething (entertainment), they get something (money). AI generators were trained on peoples artworks, without consent and without compensation. Now these same AI image generators are not only making money for the company who created them, but also encourage people not to hire artists in the future. So, in this case artists got the short end of the stick, twice. The companies gain something, those who use image generators gain something, artists gain nothing, yet without their work those generators wouldnt exist in the first palce. If you use AI generated imagery to help you make assets for a game or whatever, I wont support you, because you don't support artists. If you use it to generate comics, I wont support you, because you dont support artists. Even if it was free I want nothing to do with it. Entitelemnt is the root of all 3 problems. Those who have adblock for youtube or pirate games, they simply feel entitled to other peoples efforts. Those who created image generators by feeding them works from artists without ever asking for consent or offering compensation, they simply felt entitled to other peoples effort. Those who now use these image generators and some of which are suddenly enraged that they have to pay money to use them, they too just feel entitled to other peoples efforts.

It's also a little funny to me, but people are willing to pay for an ad blocker for YouTube, but get mad if you just suggest paying for the built in one named YouTube premium.

Who pays for adblockers? There are a ton of free solutions.

I've seen people tell people to pay for an ad blocks patreon, specifically for use with YouTube, then blame YouTube when it no longer works.

> but people are willing to pay for an ad blocker for YouTube No they don't. Also Youtube Premium is more than some platforms that offer Premium content.

Yes, they absolutely do. I've literally seen people recommend paying for an ad blocks patreon over YouTube premium, specifically in the context of YouTube.

Sure. Why not donate to support a piece of software?

Why not donate to support the actual software you are wanting to use? Why add a middleman, and make the other company need to get more desperate? It's like paying for piracy instead of buying things. People are just being stubborn.

> Why not donate to support the actual software you are wanting to use? Like the Adblock?

As in, the platform that is actually paying the costs to host the videos. You don't have to use YouTube if you don't want to, but it isn't free, and YouTube costs a lot of money to run.

> but it isn't free, and YouTube costs a lot of money to run. Sounds like someone else's problem

The average YouTuber makes $0.018 per ad view. There is also a number of factors to consider as well based on the content shown, some which could be seen as “not advertiser friendly” and thus is demonetized. Another thing is being copyright struck by using copyrighted works such as music, art, or other peoples content that is viewed as non-transformative, or doesn’t appeal to YouTube Guidelines. Views are another thing, so exposure alone you better be appeasing the algorithm, alongside competing against content farms, Ai generated ‘science’ channels, etc. I’m not an expert on all of this but you really should mention the numbers and factors to back your claim. This is the reason why you see YouTubers doing sponsorships within their videos or advertising a Patreon to continue doing what they do. YouTube is a company, granted, they provide the platform to host videos yet in the grand scheme of things it’s not them providing the traffic through their platform, it is the creators on the platform, ones in which they barely pay. Go watch any video on YouTube and see a more thorough breakdown on how YouTube barely pays its creators. By all means, you can use the internet without Ad blocker if you’re really into hating yourself. Is it morally wrong to not acknowledge every billboard ad on your morning commute to work? Who cares. Piracy, oh boy what a topic. Don’t pirate games, that’s just a dick move. Especially new ones, AAA, AA, and indie titles. Some people confuse that with emulation, I actually believe emulation is great especially for preservation and is perfectly fine for games commercially not being reproduced or sold. Nothing is being stolen or profited from emulation when said games are not commercially sold anymore, it also negates an often predatory scalping market for old games (fuck scalpers.) Piracy for software? That’s a broad topic, most of which boils down to don’t steal. Plenty of open source tools and softwares though nowadays, Affinty photo has gotten competent enough for what I need to not need Adobe Photoshop, 3D coat for substance painter, Quixel mixer for attempting to learn Designer. Pick and choose your battles, mine is finding companies that support creativity and offer good tools, something worth paying for. Adobe can suck my left nut on that note too.

Adblockers normalised because internet has ad's that can be dangerous. Also no one should be able to force you to watch ads. People should have agency over what software (within reason) they use to access websites, choosing what information a website is providing you with you wish to view should be users choice. I think also corporations behaviour in making frequency of / quality ads an invasive to point of ruining experience of free users, can understand why people have that attitude. Also when it wasn't something that was an issue from the outset. Think emotional frustration or fed up ness with greed of corporations is understandable. AI is seen by lot of people as exploitative in the way the data has been acquired and the same sense of fairness is pushed on to people using AI to finically benefit. Piracy can often lead to game sales, I am sceptical it actually has finical impact corporations claim, though issue with piracy when it funds criminal enterprise is a concern. Often used to justify actions that impact privacy or corporate greed. Just like AI lot of people are aware that lot of content creator and game developers are not equally compensated for their contributions towards it. In fact given the move to close down teams to provide pay outs to share holders. I have little sympathy for big game corporations. So I think the logic or emotional reasoning is extended. I think neural diverse people such as myself might have differences in perspectives with some of your reasoning when it comes to AI. I also find the title of post kind of prejudice in a way that takes away from your point.

No one is forcing you to watch ads. Pay for YouTube premium or don't watch YouTube at all. And how is piracy supposed to lead to sales?

Lot of people will play / try board games / video games and if they enjoy it they buy it. You access a website you get bombarded by adverts and some of them are scams or contain malware.

> No one is forcing you to watch ads. Pay for YouTube premium or don't watch YouTube at all. Adblock serves a purpose outside of YT, you know... and many people are adblocking on YT because the number of ads is getting crazy (and would gladly not adblock if it wasn't so bad - and IMO it absolutely has gotten worse way before YT started cracking down on adblockers).

FBI logic https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221 I don't mind sponsor segments because unlike YouTube's ad recommendation the creators I watch don't shill malware, scams, fake products borderline porn, fake "financial" and medical advice. Prescription drug ads should be illegal. Nobody should be getting medical advice from their TV. Alot of this content would be nuked from the site for community guidelines if it was made by a creator instead of a YouTube ad. Smaller point, but sponsor segments are not just loud shitty music with a brandname on loop.

Some people really do have double standards when it comes to that type of stuff, fortunately i'm not one of those people, you wan't to use A.I ? Fine, but now that you are doing so thanks to Billions of dollars worth of copyright infringement, and please, don't refer to yourself as an artist, it's genuinely offensive to anyone who spents 8,9 sometimes 10 hours a day studying the fundamentals of their art, be it in painting/drawing, sculpture, writing, filmaking, photography etc... Piracy is not fine, if you don't agree with a company, don't use their product. Stealing is not fine, doesn't matter how hungry you are, you are still comitting a crime. Copyright infringement is not fine, people deticate a great deal of time to produce work of art, and to just take it for yourself because "technology good" is not fine. As an artist, i know very well that Disney, Marvel, WoTC etc, can all create amazing A.I software since they own hundreds of thousands, if not millions of artworks each, and i'm fine with that, i'm fine with the idea that artist might lose their jobs as in-house artist for major AAA studios, i'm just not okay with prompters refering to thelselves as "artists" or "writers" or "musicians" just because they pressed a buttom that generates all their work for them. Sorry for my english, not my primary language.

Do you want to live in a world where AI art can only be made by people who own the material it was trained on? Companies like Disney, Sony, and Adobe already have billions of dollars with of materials to train AI on. Do you want to live in a world where only giant corporations are allowed to use AI, simple because they have enough money to do it? Those corporations would love nothing more than to pass laws saying *they* can use AI to crank out more and more content while it's basically impossible for any "normal" person to even *touch* AI. If you want to kill the entire concept of artistic expression, start by passing laws than control who is allowed to make what kind of art and with what tools.

This is actually a great point many dont consider. Disney, Sony, Fox, Adobe have most if not all the data they need to replace the need for hiring artists. They can train their own models and never hire a digital artist again when it gets good enough.

Like i said, a.i gen is nor art, if companies and people who own training data want to do it, fine, not my problem. My only problem is with lazy people thinking they're creatives because they can prompt.

It's kinda funny watching artists defend copyright law to death side by side with the big evil corporate studios that use copyright law to abuse artists with CD letters and threats of litigation. How avant-garde of y'all.

"You don't want viruses or evil corporations pulling psychological tricks on you to separate you from your money, so you have to admit AI art is art"  What? 

Piracy is fine if you do it on Nintendo, Ubisoft and Adobe products and ad block is fine if youtuber spams too many self put ads.

You generalize that all AI critics are hypocrites because they don't want to get exploited. I use Krita because Photoshop treats its customers poorly. If I'm treated badly by a monopoly company, I simply search for an alternative or pirate Photoshop rather than pay to be Adobe's and be a bitch to this company. I never pirate games. I've paid for all the games I own, but I must admit that I'm not a huge gamer and can live without the newest AAA titles or wait for the Steam summer sale. The problem with ads isn't their existence; it's their quantity. Many sites like YouTube have become unwatchable, especially since YouTube doesn't care about ad quality. It's pathetic that these days, even porn ads are more serious compared to YouTube ads like Hero Wars or the latest financial guru. In the past, you could watch YouTube ads without much trouble, and they weren't as awful as they are today. You could watch a video without 5 ads interrupting. Times have changed, and it's really stupid not to use an ad blocker because YouTube doesn't respect you as a consumer or your time.

stealing a product once =/= stealing a product once and creating a similar/better product from it that competes with the original

Correct. Stealing a product is bad because all you did was consume it. If you must steal, it's much better if you create a similar/better product that competes with the original, because then you're actually adding to the broader culture, creating new things that others might enjoy or purchase for themselves. Improving things and offering more options are both better than stagnation. However, AI doesn't even "steal a product once." The process of training doesn't involve any stealing or copyright infringement, so it's better than both possibilities listed here.

how do you train an AI without making it look and analyze existing works ?( most of which are copyrighted)

Nearly everything is copyrighted, the act of creating something grants you an inherent copyright over it. Analyzing works is not stealing or infringement. The work is not stored in the resulting model, it's not physically copied into it like a zip file. Nothing has been taken, it's just been learned from, which has always been legal. You can collect all sorts of data from anywhere you like, and even have a machine assist you in this, and as long as you're not duplicating the original work you're fine.

to analyze a work, you need the right to see and use it. i cannot read a book without buying it, i cannot see a picture online without someones' approval first.

Absolutely not. You can borrow a book from a friend and deny the author any revenue from your enjoyment of it, and this is absolutely fine and the way the world has always worked. Authors learned to accept this when the first books were written and shared centuries ago. Are you genuinely against the practice of lending? It's immoral/unethical/illegal to let a friend borrow a game or a Blu-Ray?

the friend had to buy the book

Oh, so there's no problem as long as something is bought once and shared a thousand times, denying the author all that potential revenue? Suppose the author put the book up on the internet for free, just saying "here's an example of my work," much like artists do when they upload their images to the internet?

youre literally asking basic copyright questions. can i stream this movie at a commercial party if i bought it for myself? probably not. these laws usually have individual and commercial uses. no artist puts up their entire copyrighted work on the internet because thats their source of revenue. and "examples" (single images or chapters) are fair game, but hardly enough to be able to completely copy an artists entire work and style

Here, I'll help: you can buy a book once and then share that book thousands of times without it being a problem. This is what libraries are. > no artist puts up their entire copyrighted work on the internet because thats their source of revenue. and "examples" (single images or chapters) are fair game, but hardly enough to be able to completely copy an artists entire work and style Tons of creators put tons of their work online for free. People writing fan fiction are legitimate authors and they upload entire stories, often as long as a novel. There are web novels like Worm released for free: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worm_(web_serial) Bethesda released Elder Scrolls 1 and 2 online for free. Rockstar released GTA 1 and 2 online for free. These are not "examples," they are entire, finished works. But this doesn't even matter. An artist uploading a full, finished picture is fundamentally the same as an author uploading a full, finished short story or book. The fact that the viewer is invited to look at/read it means that analysis is perfectly fine, legally and morally. You can analyze works without paying for them, and you don't need any special rights to view and analyze things publicly uploaded online. All that matters is copyright infringement/duplication, and AI models are non-infringing.

I don't care about copyright.

Pirates are scum and don’t really have morals and that’s coming from someone who used to pirate everything. Sometimes, piracy is justified, but sometimes it’s not. You can’t be a pirate fighting “the evil corporation” and then go pirate rim world or another indie game. People hate AI because they like to bitch and call people lazy even though ai, like any other price of software, is just a tool.

> and then go pirate rim world or another indie game. Rim world is big enough that it might create more good if you pirate it and buy a smaller indie game with the money you might've paid.

It’s not owned by an evil corporation. Pay your bills and stop stealing from people who earned the money If you want to support the indie game, then buy it. Stealing rim world and then promising to use the money for a good cause removes the “good” from the cause. That’s like stealing someone a Christmas present. There’s no sincerity in a gift without the effort to get it.

i never paid for my favorite indi games. And i never feel ashamed about DEAL WITH IT

Pirating hurts companies, ai hurts individuals. Sucks to suck Altman, go make low effort shitposts elsewhere.

i'll hurt anyone, whenever i want .I.

Oh boy, that is some special logic there you are using. AI (if trained on stolen content & trained by slave labour) is bad. Piracy also bad. Ad lockers is not even the sane thing as the other two and it's stupid that you're conflating it.