Lyndis wrote:
Lord_Cegorach wrote:
Just as a side note, someone posted a very explicative comic on the side of why AI art is actually not stealing, and how it can be used effectively as a tool, and not as the end result: here
In particular, I urge you to consider the point regarding the model training: by stigmatizing the local usage of images, you are essentially giving this tech only to big corporations, who will not think twice about tossing you under the bus because they got a cheaper way to get things done (and since it's their artwork, they are untouchable on that argument; you can't force someone to buy pictures).
In particular, I urge you to consider the point regarding the model training: by stigmatizing the local usage of images, you are essentially giving this tech only to big corporations, who will not think twice about tossing you under the bus because they got a cheaper way to get things done (and since it's their artwork, they are untouchable on that argument; you can't force someone to buy pictures).
The creator does address both sides on whether AI is considered theft or not (he acknowledges that acquiring permission for training models would be preferred, but that it would also be impossible for the millions of images needed), just that his own personal method for use isn't.
I have to say that I don't agree with the sentiment that if it were excluded from local sourcing that it would only be available for corporate interests. Honestly, with the cost of the product(s) and the technology requirements to even host and use one of these generative engines, I'd posit that it's already fairly exclusive. The fact that there's so many sites now that offer the average person the ability to generate X-number of pieces a day, or as many for X-number of on-site currency (that you pay real money to gain more of), I personally think the average person is exploited more than the alternative you're suggesting and agree would be arguably better - a true open-source, equally accessible resource for image generation.
Like you said, you can't force people to pay for art. But I suppose this way you can charge them for the simulated experience of 'creating' it themselves.
Alternatively, if a corporation like Disney wanted to put out its own image creation system that was trained entirely on their catalogue where users could create art in Disney owned styles? I wouldn't have a single issue with that.
I appreciate the creator's transparency. It's better to state AI was used as a tool in creation rather that obfuscate that fact for pride or whatever reasons. Yet whenever I see comics like these where someone is up on a soapbox, I have to wonder what the purpose is behind such a thing. I think he mentions it rather blatantly himself: Who is he trying to convince with all this? Possibly no one but himself.
To end this pseudo-thoughtful analysis by wrapping it back around to your main point: Corporations are always going to be looking for ways to not have to pay their talent appropriately. Look at all the lay-offs in the AAA game design sector this year as just one example of that. I don't think championing image generative AI as the solution to this abuse is a genuine argument in its favor in the least. Especially as the folks who would employ its use would still also be choosing these engines in favor of paying actual artists instead.
I mean, it's always important to bring the topic's up, since... well, we're kinda in it these days and it's critical to get an idea of what's going on it.
Regarding the topic of generations, you mentioned this:
Lyndis wrote:
a true open-source, equally accessible resource for image generation.
To which, as you probably know, there's this: A1111 or this The one I use. There are already a lot of open source sources for anyone to generate AI locally (and unlikely before you don't need a very expensive rig to make these programs run... it helps, mind you, but ForgeUI can run on a 1000 Nvidia series GPU, if you give it time, so... almost anyone who has a PC can use them for free. I'm currently one of the "high end user" (for local), and I'm using a 3090 (which costed me 650€ used), but a couple of months before, I was forced to switch to my old, worn 2060 (300€ brand new, used is gonna be around 200€), and I was able to generate the same thing I do now, just slower. The cost has dropped dramatically these days, so it's not so "exclusive" anymore (in a mere term of financial expense... in terms of skills, takes a little bit of training)). I mean, if you are willing to use Linux, you can get a 7900XTX for 1200€ or less, and it's the second-best consumer GPU for AIs in the market; that's not the insane amount one would expect.
Now, online AI generators like NovelAI, Civitai, or others, if we take this into account, cannot be exactly considered just selling the generators themselves (since almost everyone can do it, 95% better than them, too, because you have much more room to customize the work). They are either selling
- A service (Midjourney is a good example, but also NovelAI: they give away expertise, fine-tuning, a prompt refining system, custom-made models, etc.)
- Computing power (Aka: GPUs, electricity, a place to store said Hardware, etc.)
I won't deny that the offer is bloating the market (which is to be expected: AI is the new buzzword, and everyone wants to try it... sucks that most of those generators are a pale imitation of the real, achievable high), but I can't be mad at them either: they found an opportunity and took it. Also, mind you, I'm not saying the free spread of AI art generation is gonna solve the shitty attitude corpos have onto their employees: I'm one of the very few jobs in the AAA industry who's outside this blood carousel, and I see every year people axed on the chopping block like they are more cattle than humans, and it's sickening (industry of dreams my ass). However, the point made was to consider that stigmatizing AI art generators (and users) will only empower said companies, not actually stop the system behind it at all.
Sanne wrote:
I personally always discard this argument because it's well-known that thousands of Artists use copyrighted material to make their work, sometimes for commercial purposes (commissions, in a way also Patreon could be seen that way, but I'm of two minds about donation systems), but fair use laws protects them from most retaliations from copyright owners like DC Comics, Marvel, "Nintendo" (this one is... a tough nut), etc.
While it is true that AI generators scrape Internet for images in the likes of millions, it is also true that the work is transformative; carbon copies are unlikely, and are confined to the user's intentions (maybe using a trained LORA on that character). In this case, then, I view it as the exact same of someone making a fan comics of Batman having a relationship (maybe NSFW too because "welcome to the Internet") with the Joker and not having to worry for DC Comics coming for them.
I mean, this entire site exists because of this concept...
Lord_Cegorach wrote:
I personally always discard this argument because it's well-known that thousands of Artists use copyrighted material to make their work, sometimes for commercial purposes (commissions, in a way also Patreon could be seen that way, but I'm of two minds about donation systems), but fair use laws protects them from most retaliations from copyright owners like DC Comics, Marvel, "Nintendo" (this one is... a tough nut), etc.
While it is true that AI generators scrape Internet for images in the likes of millions, it is also true that the work is transformative; carbon copies are unlikely, and are confined to the user's intentions (maybe using a trained LORA on that character). In this case, then, I view it as the exact same of someone making a fan comics of Batman having a relationship (maybe NSFW too because "welcome to the Internet") with the Joker and not having to worry for DC Comics coming for them.
I mean, this entire site exists because of this concept...
To clarify, your argument is basically "Because there has been a history of disreputable use of IP on the internet since the internet, I see no problem with continuing such disreputable methods going forward"?
Also, Disney and Nintendo are nortoriously litigious when it comes to their copyright. It's just a matter of whether it's worth the time, money and energy to go after whatever subject. Anne Rice was known for going after after all walks of fan artists/authors while she was alive as it was (unfortunately, maybe) well within her rights to do so.
Lyndis wrote:
Lord_Cegorach wrote:
I personally always discard this argument because it's well-known that thousands of Artists use copyrighted material to make their work, sometimes for commercial purposes (commissions, in a way also Patreon could be seen that way, but I'm of two minds about donation systems), but fair use laws protects them from most retaliations from copyright owners like DC Comics, Marvel, "Nintendo" (this one is... a tough nut), etc.
While it is true that AI generators scrape Internet for images in the likes of millions, it is also true that the work is transformative; carbon copies are unlikely, and are confined to the user's intentions (maybe using a trained LORA on that character). In this case, then, I view it as the exact same of someone making a fan comics of Batman having a relationship (maybe NSFW too because "welcome to the Internet") with the Joker and not having to worry for DC Comics coming for them.
I mean, this entire site exists because of this concept...
To clarify, your argument is basically "Because there has been a history of disreputable use of IP on the internet since the internet, I see no problem with continuing such disreputable methods going forward"?
Also, Disney and Nintendo are nortoriously litigious when it comes to their copyright. It's just a matter of whether it's worth the time, money and energy to go after whatever subject. Anne Rice was known for going after after all walks of fan artists/authors while she was alive as it was (unfortunately, maybe) well within her rights to do so.
No, my point is"Because there has been a history of a fair use of IP for their own personal gain, artists' point of Model generators\fineturners taking their work without permissions is hypocritical because you can't have the wife drunk and the barrel full.".
I do not find anything wrong with an artist taking Batman and making them hanky panky with anyone, so long as they add value to the established IP (yes, porn counts as value if the story\drawings\etc. appeals to others) and don't just make a carbon copy out of it. But then the same point stands for AI: artists complaining looks hypocritical to me because they are doing that now that the tables have turned, but before, they were the ones benefitting from it (and that was, and is, fine). The reason why Disney doesn't go after all the artists is precisely because of the fair use law: they could win a court case, but that would cost them too much money and public image to gain anything, and they could lose too. Without a fair use law like the one we have right now, they would always win, which would be awful.
Nintendo is a different case because of a cultural difference: in Japan, fair use laws do not exist, and they are willing to lose money to avoid their copyright being used without permission.
The same fair use laws also make the AI noncopyrightable, mind you, and again, that's 100% fine with me. If I'm benefitting from the fair use laws, it should also be enforced that I lose something out of it for the sake of being fair. With that argument, the artists are saying, IMO, "It's fine as long as it doesn't hurt me, only others".
Lord_Cegorach wrote:
No, my point is"Because there has been a history of a fair use of IP for their own personal gain, artists' point of Model generators\fineturners taking their work without permissions is hypocritical because you can't have the wife drunk and the barrel full.".
I do not find anything wrong with an artist taking Batman and making them hanky panky with anyone, so long as they add value to the established IP (yes, porn counts as value if the story\drawings\etc. appeals to others) and don't just make a carbon copy out of it. But then the same point stands for AI: artists complaining looks hypocritical to me because they are doing that now that the tables have turned, but before, they were the ones benefitting from it (and that was, and is, fine). The reason why Disney doesn't go after all the artists is precisely because of the fair use law: they could win a court case, but that would cost them too much money and public image to gain anything, and they could lose too. Without a fair use law like the one we have right now, they would always win, which would be awful.
Nintendo is a different case because of a cultural difference: in Japan, fair use laws do not exist, and they are willing to lose money to avoid their copyright being used without permission.
The same fair use laws also make the AI noncopyrightable, mind you, and again, that's 100% fine with me. If I'm benefitting from the fair use laws, it should also be enforced that I lose something out of it for the sake of being fair. With that argument, the artists are saying, IMO, "It's fine as long as it doesn't hurt me, only others".
I'm agreeing with you, actually, on this point. I'm not a big fan of people making an income as an artist exclusively creating fanart either. Doing so actually does violate Fair Use laws because the purpose becomes primarily a commercial benefit for said artist. I'd also say having explicit pornography of certain characters could be argued as devaluing the value of the original IP, especially if it's IP targeted at children.
But that's also literally what you just dismissed within the video Sanne posted as valid argument and what has been at the core of every argument in this thread. No one cares if it's used for personal use so much as it's use in commercial and corporate ventures without permission.
Lord_Cegorach wrote:
I personally always discard this argument because it's well-known that thousands of Artists use copyrighted material to make their work, sometimes for commercial purposes (commissions, in a way also Patreon could be seen that way, but I'm of two minds about donation systems), but fair use laws protects them from most retaliations from copyright owners like DC Comics, Marvel, "Nintendo" (this one is... a tough nut), etc.
While it is true that AI generators scrape Internet for images in the likes of millions, it is also true that the work is transformative; carbon copies are unlikely, and are confined to the user's intentions (maybe using a trained LORA on that character). In this case, then, I view it as the exact same of someone making a fan comics of Batman having a relationship (maybe NSFW too because "welcome to the Internet") with the Joker and not having to worry for DC Comics coming for them.
I mean, this entire site exists because of this concept...
While it is true that AI generators scrape Internet for images in the likes of millions, it is also true that the work is transformative; carbon copies are unlikely, and are confined to the user's intentions (maybe using a trained LORA on that character). In this case, then, I view it as the exact same of someone making a fan comics of Batman having a relationship (maybe NSFW too because "welcome to the Internet") with the Joker and not having to worry for DC Comics coming for them.
I mean, this entire site exists because of this concept...
How can AI work be deemed transformative when there are no legal definitions or laws in place for AI artwork, as you acknowledged already? What defines transformative? Because AI can and does create perfect copies of existing artwork. What makes that transformative?
I wrote this comment on the YT video in response to someone saying "Well what's the difference between AI learning art from copying existing work and a human being learning art from copying existing work?" and I think it directly counters the argument you are making about scraping existing images:
Quote:
AI can't understand WHY an arm is attached to the torso the way it is. AI can't understand WHY fingers function the way they do. AI can't understand WHY a body is limited in movements and why a head can't swivel 360 degrees on a neck. It sees a pattern in a mathematical way and then applies an algorithm to reproduce it based on the keywords associated with the patterns, and the human being gives instructions until the AI 'gets it right'. The AI still doesn't know WHY it's right other than it's told by the input that it's right, and it will never question it, it will never broaden its horizons, and it will most definitely never create something without external input.
When a human learns by copying, they're not just copying what they see. Humans obtain a fundamental understanding of WHY something is the way it is. When you go to art school, you're not sat down and told to copy image after image after image after image after image after image until you've collected a dataset in your head and then you pick and choose what you want to draw. That's not how artists learn whatsoever. We're taught to sit down and study the figure before us, we are taught WHY shapes are the way they are, we're taught WHY colors work the way they do, we're taught WHY shadows behave the way they do. We don't blindly copy what we see and disassemble and reassemble it over and over until someone tells us it's correct, we draw and draw and draw until we understand why the art we make looks the way it does, which enables us to repurpose our knowledge outside of the existing framework that the image was created in.
Meaning, we learn to be inherently creative and understand the world around us, not to copy, disassemble and reassemble because someone told us to and then we're good.
Saying that AI learns the way we do is a false equivalency. It simply does not, because it can't.
When a human learns by copying, they're not just copying what they see. Humans obtain a fundamental understanding of WHY something is the way it is. When you go to art school, you're not sat down and told to copy image after image after image after image after image after image until you've collected a dataset in your head and then you pick and choose what you want to draw. That's not how artists learn whatsoever. We're taught to sit down and study the figure before us, we are taught WHY shapes are the way they are, we're taught WHY colors work the way they do, we're taught WHY shadows behave the way they do. We don't blindly copy what we see and disassemble and reassemble it over and over until someone tells us it's correct, we draw and draw and draw until we understand why the art we make looks the way it does, which enables us to repurpose our knowledge outside of the existing framework that the image was created in.
Meaning, we learn to be inherently creative and understand the world around us, not to copy, disassemble and reassemble because someone told us to and then we're good.
Saying that AI learns the way we do is a false equivalency. It simply does not, because it can't.
Edit: I also want to point out that saying "I discard this argument because..." is deeply annoying to hear. You can disagree with an argument, but you don't get to discard a valid argument because you disagree with it. That's a very manipulative and exhausting way of having a discussion about something because you're saying it doesn't matter what someone else is saying, you're not even considering it. That's not a good faith discussion. Counter an argument with another valid argument, don't say you're discarding/dismissing it, please?
Lord_Cegorach wrote:
Lyndis wrote:
Lord_Cegorach wrote:
I personally always discard this argument because it's well-known that thousands of Artists use copyrighted material to make their work, sometimes for commercial purposes (commissions, in a way also Patreon could be seen that way, but I'm of two minds about donation systems), but fair use laws protects them from most retaliations from copyright owners like DC Comics, Marvel, "Nintendo" (this one is... a tough nut), etc.
While it is true that AI generators scrape Internet for images in the likes of millions, it is also true that the work is transformative; carbon copies are unlikely, and are confined to the user's intentions (maybe using a trained LORA on that character). In this case, then, I view it as the exact same of someone making a fan comics of Batman having a relationship (maybe NSFW too because "welcome to the Internet") with the Joker and not having to worry for DC Comics coming for them.
I mean, this entire site exists because of this concept...
To clarify, your argument is basically "Because there has been a history of disreputable use of IP on the internet since the internet, I see no problem with continuing such disreputable methods going forward"?
Also, Disney and Nintendo are nortoriously litigious when it comes to their copyright. It's just a matter of whether it's worth the time, money and energy to go after whatever subject. Anne Rice was known for going after after all walks of fan artists/authors while she was alive as it was (unfortunately, maybe) well within her rights to do so.
No, my point is"Because there has been a history of a fair use of IP for their own personal gain, artists' point of Model generators\fineturners taking their work without permissions is hypocritical because you can't have the wife drunk and the barrel full.".
I do not find anything wrong with an artist taking Batman and making them hanky panky with anyone, so long as they add value to the established IP (yes, porn counts as value if the story\drawings\etc. appeals to others) and don't just make a carbon copy out of it. But then the same point stands for AI: artists complaining looks hypocritical to me because they are doing that now that the tables have turned, but before, they were the ones benefitting from it (and that was, and is, fine). The reason why Disney doesn't go after all the artists is precisely because of the fair use law: they could win a court case, but that would cost them too much money and public image to gain anything, and they could lose too. Without a fair use law like the one we have right now, they would always win, which would be awful.
Nintendo is a different case because of a cultural difference: in Japan, fair use laws do not exist, and they are willing to lose money to avoid their copyright being used without permission.
The same fair use laws also make the AI noncopyrightable, mind you, and again, that's 100% fine with me. If I'm benefitting from the fair use laws, it should also be enforced that I lose something out of it for the sake of being fair. With that argument, the artists are saying, IMO, "It's fine as long as it doesn't hurt me, only others".
I'm going to point to an earlier comment I made:
Quote:
In general, I would advise that you stop speculating about copyright and fair use. These issues are still being worked out in the courts, and the way it goes in the U.S. will not necessarily be the way it goes in the rest of the world. We can use the spirit of the laws to inform our ethical discussion, but copyright has a long history of not actually benefitting individuals and favoring large companies instead.
I'm doing this because your responses have made it clear that -- and I mean this without any ill will -- you don't understand copyright and fair use either in general or as applied to this situation.
Generative AI algorithms don't just look at images. The companies creating them make copies of works, in full, to add to training databases. Now copyright protects owners of intellectual property when it comes to copying and reproduction of their work for pretty much any reason. You need a license to reproduce someone's work no matter what you intend to do with it. This is very different from artists creating fan works.
Commercial intent is much less important to deciding fair use than potential commercial damage to the holder of the IP. When people draw fan art, the company that owns the IP is at minimal risk of being materially hurt by it even if that person chooses to sell their art.
The same is not true when it comes to individual artists these tools threaten to replace in the marketplace. That active threat to livelihood is a considerable weight in terms of deciding fair use.
In terms of court cases, most have been up in the air and await judgements. Some claims of infringement have been dismissed, specifically in a case where plaintiffs attempted to argue that every work produced by a model was a direct derivative work. In that case, however, the original unauthorized copying was not decided on and still remains to be seen.
Here's a summary from https://copyrightalliance.org/ai-copyright-courts/
Quote:
In the past year, a few of these cases moved forward with court decisions on various motions. In those cases, it has become evident that while courts may not be as convinced about some of the other legal claims being brought, AI companies’ attempts to dismiss the direct copyright infringement claims arising from ingestion issues have either failed or not even been argued by the defendant AI company.
In short, I don't think you should be dismissing arguments offhand because you misunderstand both the intention and application of fair use. Copyright and fair use are also woefully out of date laws that prioritize the interests of corporations much more than individual creators. Ethically, the theft engaged in by the tech companies developing generative AI is quite clear, and artists benefitting from fair use or individually engaging in dubious behavior has no relation to the discussion at hand.
Ben wrote:
Lord_Cegorach wrote:
Lyndis wrote:
Lord_Cegorach wrote:
I personally always discard this argument because it's well-known that thousands of Artists use copyrighted material to make their work, sometimes for commercial purposes (commissions, in a way also Patreon could be seen that way, but I'm of two minds about donation systems), but fair use laws protects them from most retaliations from copyright owners like DC Comics, Marvel, "Nintendo" (this one is... a tough nut), etc.
While it is true that AI generators scrape Internet for images in the likes of millions, it is also true that the work is transformative; carbon copies are unlikely, and are confined to the user's intentions (maybe using a trained LORA on that character). In this case, then, I view it as the exact same of someone making a fan comics of Batman having a relationship (maybe NSFW too because "welcome to the Internet") with the Joker and not having to worry for DC Comics coming for them.
I mean, this entire site exists because of this concept...
To clarify, your argument is basically "Because there has been a history of disreputable use of IP on the internet since the internet, I see no problem with continuing such disreputable methods going forward"?
Also, Disney and Nintendo are nortoriously litigious when it comes to their copyright. It's just a matter of whether it's worth the time, money and energy to go after whatever subject. Anne Rice was known for going after after all walks of fan artists/authors while she was alive as it was (unfortunately, maybe) well within her rights to do so.
No, my point is"Because there has been a history of a fair use of IP for their own personal gain, artists' point of Model generators\fineturners taking their work without permissions is hypocritical because you can't have the wife drunk and the barrel full.".
I do not find anything wrong with an artist taking Batman and making them hanky panky with anyone, so long as they add value to the established IP (yes, porn counts as value if the story\drawings\etc. appeals to others) and don't just make a carbon copy out of it. But then the same point stands for AI: artists complaining looks hypocritical to me because they are doing that now that the tables have turned, but before, they were the ones benefitting from it (and that was, and is, fine). The reason why Disney doesn't go after all the artists is precisely because of the fair use law: they could win a court case, but that would cost them too much money and public image to gain anything, and they could lose too. Without a fair use law like the one we have right now, they would always win, which would be awful.
Nintendo is a different case because of a cultural difference: in Japan, fair use laws do not exist, and they are willing to lose money to avoid their copyright being used without permission.
The same fair use laws also make the AI noncopyrightable, mind you, and again, that's 100% fine with me. If I'm benefitting from the fair use laws, it should also be enforced that I lose something out of it for the sake of being fair. With that argument, the artists are saying, IMO, "It's fine as long as it doesn't hurt me, only others".
I'm going to point to an earlier comment I made:
Quote:
In general, I would advise that you stop speculating about copyright and fair use. These issues are still being worked out in the courts, and the way it goes in the U.S. will not necessarily be the way it goes in the rest of the world. We can use the spirit of the laws to inform our ethical discussion, but copyright has a long history of not actually benefitting individuals and favoring large companies instead.
I'm doing this because your responses have made it clear that -- and I mean this without any ill will -- you don't understand copyright and fair use either in general or as applied to this situation.
Generative AI algorithms don't just look at images. The companies creating them make copies of works, in full, to add to training databases. Now copyright protects owners of intellectual property when it comes to copying and reproduction of their work for pretty much any reason. You need a license to reproduce someone's work no matter what you intend to do with it. This is very different from artists creating fan works.
Commercial intent is much less important to deciding fair use than potential commercial damage to the holder of the IP. When people draw fan art, the company that owns the IP is at minimal risk of being materially hurt by it even if that person chooses to sell their art.
The same is not true when it comes to individual artists these tools threaten to replace in the marketplace. That active threat to livelihood is a considerable weight in terms of deciding fair use.
In terms of court cases, most have been up in the air and await judgements. Some claims of infringement have been dismissed, specifically in a case where plaintiffs attempted to argue that every work produced by a model was a direct derivative work. In that case, however, the original unauthorized copying was not decided on and still remains to be seen.
Here's a summary from https://copyrightalliance.org/ai-copyright-courts/
Quote:
In the past year, a few of these cases moved forward with court decisions on various motions. In those cases, it has become evident that while courts may not be as convinced about some of the other legal claims being brought, AI companies’ attempts to dismiss the direct copyright infringement claims arising from ingestion issues have either failed or not even been argued by the defendant AI company.
In short, I don't think you should be dismissing arguments offhand because you misunderstand both the intention and application of fair use. Copyright and fair use are also woefully out of date laws that prioritize the interests of corporations much more than individual creators. Ethically, the theft engaged in by the tech companies developing generative AI is quite clear, and artists benefitting from fair use or individually engaging in dubious behavior has no relation to the discussion at hand.
This is also speculative but I want to add that there is a difference in taking a single instance of an image from the internet and altering it (digitally or otherwise), and taking an image from the internet and storing it on a database to be distributed a theoretical infinite number of times.
The difference is that you have one single instance of something that is stored on your local PC or is a piece of paper in your house, which is (generally) private or accessed by a small amount of people. An image on a database is publicly distributed thousands of times, and then altered client-side to fit the client's needs. It doesn't really matter that the end-user is using something that might count as fair use when the curator of the data they're using is fullstop distributing an unaltered version of the work. They have the infrastructure to redistribute other peoples' works, and that's what's likely to be brought up in court.
Again, this is speculative and anecdotal but it wouldn't be the first time the technology is specifically targeted. Pirate sites get hammered this exact way all the time, even though making your own backups of material you own is protected in the US. YOU can have a digital backup of all your anime DVDs, even if you get them from a torrent site, but the nature of torrenting means that you're distributing while you're downloading and that's how people end up getting arrested for it. It's the technicality behind "you can make your own backups but not download them." You absolutely can just download your own backups from your own private server, it's when that server becomes a distribution vector that you land in trouble with the law. (Historically speaking, anyway. Civil law is actually very wonky and you can't assume much with it reliably.)
That is definitely an interesting bucket of technicalities to add! The whole thing is very complex.
I do find it interesting that many of the companies that would aggressively pursue piracy on the basis that distributing a copy of something is directly financially damaging, are now gleefully experimenting with generative AI, a technology that runs on unauthorized copies.
I do find it interesting that many of the companies that would aggressively pursue piracy on the basis that distributing a copy of something is directly financially damaging, are now gleefully experimenting with generative AI, a technology that runs on unauthorized copies.
AI generated art uses art taken without an artist's consent and I cannot bring myself to ever use it. If there was a model where the dataset was ethically acquired, sure I might make some use of it for landscapes and whatnot, but I would rather commission an artist if it involves a character.
If i ever wanted to make an OC, then, i’ll request an artist for that.
I’m never inspired to make such character, but a real person is more legit than a machine itself.
Not to mention that you got so many cases of art-theft online..
A theft done by a person is easier to track than a machine, so for the AI, i cannot be always aware if something have been stolen.
I wouldn’t consider AI as problematic if it didn’t tried to invade so many things, voice-acting included.
I’m never inspired to make such character, but a real person is more legit than a machine itself.
Not to mention that you got so many cases of art-theft online..
A theft done by a person is easier to track than a machine, so for the AI, i cannot be always aware if something have been stolen.
I wouldn’t consider AI as problematic if it didn’t tried to invade so many things, voice-acting included.
I have to go with both because, even though AI art generation is bad, it has its good moments. You can use AI art for concept art and inspiration but absolutely not for profit. Otherwise, my view on it is neutral, but I'm leaning toward the beneficial side of things.
You are on: Forums » Smalltalk » AI Art Generation: Beneficial or Problematic?
Moderators: Keke, Cass, Claine, Sanne, Ilmarinen, Darth_Angelus