Hey everyone! This is a discussion topic dedicated to AI images, their impact on human artists, opinions, how we can deal with it, and more.
This is not a pro-AI thread. I just want to encourage human artists to discuss things calmly.
Many human artists are protesting against AI art. I would be protesting as well to yeet all those AI image generators and chatbots to a volcano, because yeah, I am frustrated with it as well. Sadly, no one can stop humans from developing technology, even if it's harmful. I think that instead of just screaming at AI artists, we need to focus on fighting for our rights. A lot of artists do that, and that's amazing! Not sure how are other countries doing, but sadly mine doesn't have much progress yet.
So, here is an open question from me:
What kind of laws and ethical guidelines would you like to apply to AI art?
I would 100% classify taking art and photos for AI training without the artist's consent as a form of art thief that could lead to opening a copyright case. I also think that even if AI was trained ethically, then it shouldn't hold any copyright protection laws.
I'm not sure about people who passed away or royalty-free art and photos, though. Let me know if you have any ideas.
Another thing on my mind is how can actual artists benefit from AI. I use Chat GPT for questions about drawing resources, such as looking for the best sites showing animation studies. That's how I found an amazing website, https://characterdesignreferences.com/art-of-animation
Not to mention that AI chatbots are often the best reverse dictionary.
So yes, artists can benefit from AI. In my opinion, AI-generated images and stories should be completely separate thing from art created by humans. Just like a sane human being wouldn't shame a traditional artist for not being able to show something the way photography does, human artists should be compared, or put on the same level as AI art generators. It's just not fair, and it doesn't even make sense to me.
What are your opinions? I'm pretty open-minded and curious, so don't be afraid to point out if I may see that my opinions are flawed or harmful, or add your opinions.
Just keep things civil.
ALSO! Artgram.co is a website for artists where AI images are 100% prohibited!
If I remember correctly, the devs also mentioned developing an AI that can spot AI art so they remove it!
This is not a pro-AI thread. I just want to encourage human artists to discuss things calmly.
Many human artists are protesting against AI art. I would be protesting as well to yeet all those AI image generators and chatbots to a volcano, because yeah, I am frustrated with it as well. Sadly, no one can stop humans from developing technology, even if it's harmful. I think that instead of just screaming at AI artists, we need to focus on fighting for our rights. A lot of artists do that, and that's amazing! Not sure how are other countries doing, but sadly mine doesn't have much progress yet.
So, here is an open question from me:
What kind of laws and ethical guidelines would you like to apply to AI art?
I would 100% classify taking art and photos for AI training without the artist's consent as a form of art thief that could lead to opening a copyright case. I also think that even if AI was trained ethically, then it shouldn't hold any copyright protection laws.
I'm not sure about people who passed away or royalty-free art and photos, though. Let me know if you have any ideas.
Another thing on my mind is how can actual artists benefit from AI. I use Chat GPT for questions about drawing resources, such as looking for the best sites showing animation studies. That's how I found an amazing website, https://characterdesignreferences.com/art-of-animation
Not to mention that AI chatbots are often the best reverse dictionary.
So yes, artists can benefit from AI. In my opinion, AI-generated images and stories should be completely separate thing from art created by humans. Just like a sane human being wouldn't shame a traditional artist for not being able to show something the way photography does, human artists should be compared, or put on the same level as AI art generators. It's just not fair, and it doesn't even make sense to me.
What are your opinions? I'm pretty open-minded and curious, so don't be afraid to point out if I may see that my opinions are flawed or harmful, or add your opinions.
Just keep things civil.ALSO! Artgram.co is a website for artists where AI images are 100% prohibited!
If I remember correctly, the devs also mentioned developing an AI that can spot AI art so they remove it!
I'll support AI when someone comes out with a training model comprised of 100% licensed/voluntarily submitted data. Adobe is poised to offer an AI tool based purely on their stock, but that well is poisoned by thousands of AI generated images that have already been uploaded as stock. Additionally, Adobe sneakily slid in a default opt-in setting to their cloud hosting services that permits them to use works stored there for generative AI training. ChatGPT is just as guilty of scraping data.
Until/if we reach a point where training models are ethically sourced, I will never use generative AI, nor will I permit my clients to submit AI generated references for commissions.
I think there needs to be heavy regulation surrounding the use of copyrighted data for AI. The US government is poised to outline laws governing AI technology, but I think it's a "too little too late" situation. I also don't trust people who have poor comprehension of technology to think far enough ahead when it comes to this sort of thing.
As of right now, in the US, AI imagery and text cannot be copyrighted unless a human has done substantial work on it, such as paintovers, etc. I think that's fair and reasonable, and I'm glad that legal stance has been taken.
Until/if we reach a point where training models are ethically sourced, I will never use generative AI, nor will I permit my clients to submit AI generated references for commissions.
I think there needs to be heavy regulation surrounding the use of copyrighted data for AI. The US government is poised to outline laws governing AI technology, but I think it's a "too little too late" situation. I also don't trust people who have poor comprehension of technology to think far enough ahead when it comes to this sort of thing.
As of right now, in the US, AI imagery and text cannot be copyrighted unless a human has done substantial work on it, such as paintovers, etc. I think that's fair and reasonable, and I'm glad that legal stance has been taken.
Auberon wrote:
I'll support AI when someone comes out with a training model comprised of 100% licensed/voluntarily submitted data. Adobe is poised to offer an AI tool based purely on their stock, but that well is poisoned by thousands of AI generated images that have already been uploaded as stock. Additionally, Adobe sneakily slid in a default opt-in setting to their cloud hosting services that permits them to use works stored there for generative AI training. ChatGPT is just as guilty of scraping data.
Auberon wrote:
Until/if we reach a point where training models are ethically sourced, I will never use generative AI, nor will I permit my clients to submit AI generated references for commissions.
DumboOctopus wrote:
There is no way that I will use any AI, except for the ones that got trained ethically.
Unfortunately, I don't know of any generative AI that was trained on a fully ethical model at this point.
DumboOctopus wrote:
I'm planning on making commissions in the future. I was thinking about forbidding AI images as references. Do you perhaps know if this would make me lose a lot of clients?
I haven't noticed any sort of dip in my commissions as a result of my no AI references policy.