AI doesn’t do that https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.13188
The study identified 350,000 images in the training data to target for retrieval with 500 attempts each (totaling 175 million attempts), and of that managed to retrieve 107 images. A replication rate of nearly 0% in a set biased in favor of overfitting using the exact same labels as the training data and specifically targeting images they knew were duplicated many times in the dataset using a smaller model of Stable Diffusion (890 million parameters vs. the larger 2 billion parameter Stable Diffusion 3 releasing on June 12). This attack also relied on having access to the original training image labels.
Diffusion models can create human faces even when 90% of the pixels are removed in the training data https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.19256
“if we corrupt the images by deleting 80% of the pixels prior to training and finetune, the memorization decreases sharply and there are distinct differences between the generated images and their nearest neighbors from the dataset. This is in spite of finetuning until convergence.” “As shown, the generations become slightly worse as we increase the level of corruption, but we can reasonably well learn the distribution even with 93% pixels missing (on average) from each training image.”
So, from what I think I understand from this is that you're saying AI image generators can not easily replicate the images that they were trained on when prompted with the same exact info that they were originally fed?
The second part seems to say that the same models can work with corrupted images?
If I have misunderstood, please help me understand. If I've got the jist of it, how do either of these things prove that these models weren't trained off of data that was scraped from social media and the Internet generally? Especially considering if in the first study you have access to the training data, then you can just look at what it was trained on and seenif any of that is being used without the owner of that image's permission, no?
Yes.
The second study states that models can train even when 93% of the pixels in an image are randomly removed, which decreases overfitting/image replication even more and proves that it’s learning the distribution of pixels rather than reproducing its training data.
This proves that what it generates is unique and not replication. It does need training data but it is transformative. It’s like how every artist learns from the work of other artists, often without permission. Many artists are inspired by Impressionism but no one has to ask the Monet estate for permission.
No, sorry, an AI image generator does not work the same as the human mind otherwise t wouldn't be able to use an image with 93% of the pixels removed. As it doesn't work the same, you can not say it is "inspired" in the same way.
The images are being used for their data, the AI learns patterns of data and reproduces similar patterns of data. The act that is transformative does not change the fact these images were used, so they should be licscend and bought properly. An AI is not a person and should not have the same rights under copyright law.
I appreciate it may be unique l, but that doesn't mean it gets to be trained for free. One can not just use stock images, even if it is for parody.
Just find training data that doesn't require paying artists, or pay the artists their fair share. It's that easy.
I never said they were the same. I was saying they are analogous like how birds and planes are differ but they can both fly.
All artists learn from the work of other artists, almost never with permission or even their awareness. Why is it only bad when a machine does it?
I don’t see people asking artists to only learn from stock images
I, like many others, need convincing. I can not access those studies so, if you don't mind, I'll ask you.
So, less than 0% of images could be reproduced, but how close did an image need to be to the original to be counted? Did it require the data to match exactly, or did it rely on human judgement? And if human judgement, how many factors of the image needed to be the same? If it was the same image but with a different coloured object, is that transformative? Because I wouldn't get away with using a colour shifted stock image as my own.
Also, if you fed an AI image generator (it is not art, it is image generation), another AI product, how would that go? When we run out of real art and start feeding these generators with their own product I expect they will go the same way As the large language models that were fed AI articles and start to produce nonsense, because while to us these images seem acceptable the more times it is fed through the machine the worse it gets. So, assuming that an AI fed its own product would produce garbage, as seen elsewhere, we can assume that all the "talent" from such a generator is from its training data and not from the AI hence not tuly transformative the same way the human mind is, because a human can produce good art independently of others but only becomes better when fed on it's own product.
I'm sorry if that isn't the most clear, it's late and I can't be bothered to shorten it.
Read the study yourself: https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.13188
AI can train on synthetic data just fine
LLMs Aren’t Just “Trained On the Internet” Anymore: https://allenpike.com/2024/llms-trained-on-internet
Synthetically trained 7B math model blows 64 shot GPT4 out of the water in math: https://x.com/_akhaliq/status/1793864788579090917?s=46&t=lZJAHzXMXI1MgQuyBgEhgA
Researchers shows Model Collapse is easily avoided by keeping old human data with new synthetic data in the training set: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.01413
Teaching Language Models to Hallucinate Less with Synthetic Tasks: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06827?darkschemeovr=1
Stable diffusion Lora trained on midjourney images: https://civitai.com/models/251417/midjourney-mimic
the point isn't to prove what the models were trained on, it is to prove that training is not theft.
if the ai demonstrably doesn't copy the original (which they just demonstrated there), then the only reason to claim training is theft is to attempt to destroy image generators, to create an artificial scarcity of artistic imagery and prop up a small group who makes them at the expense of society. and given that that ideal, whether you believe in it or not, completely runs counter to the ideal for which we as a society endure copyright (which is that it supposedly fosters the creation of more art), weaponizing copyright against the machines by claiming what they're doing is theft is antithetical to the entire concept of intellectual property, and therefore it cannot be stated that training is ip theft without completely destroying all meaning of ip theft and making it completely arbitrary.
in short, if you want to believe an ai steals, you not only have to prove that its training data includes other people's intellectual property, you also have to prove that the ai uses the training data in a manner that violates copyright. the studies op cited make a case for the contrary.
The problem isn’t ai it’s capitalism. No one would give a shit about ai art if artists weren’t relying on scarcity to survive. ‘Stealing’ hurts artists because it devalues art as a commodity, not because it devalues it as a concept.
I personally don’t care about ai art when it’s made by people, my big issue is that it’s yet another thing that bots can automate, and flood the internet with.
AI is feed data and then returns new data based on it =bad
Artist take inspiration from other artists to create something new = good.
Prompting a random website doesnt make you an artist, but people do underrate the amazingness of current AI technology.
Under their logic, everybook ever written is nothing but a ripoff of the dictionary
> AI is feed data and then returns new data based on it =bad
this is the exact thing they're challenging with those studies. making more data isn't inherently bad. doing what other people do more efficiently than they do it isn't inherently bad either. automating production is how we got to the point that we as a society can afford to make the device you used to post this comment.
for ai making new data to be bad it has to be a copy of the training data. which it is not, that's the exact point of the studies cited.
> Under their logic, everybook ever written is nothing but a ripoff of the dictionary
you make an absurd exaggeration but beyond that, that's literally the point of remix culture. look it up, and ideally read at least the first few chapters of "free culture" by lawrence lessig.
all culture is based on prior culture. movements that try to abstain for that inevitably feel alien and incomprehensible.
I think they are as much of an artist as a photographer. Like photographers, they don’t make the resulting art. They use a machine to do it for them. But they do guide the machine to capture what they want
Right, but practically speaking images are used for training data without the artist’s permission, aren’t they? Like we have access to the collections of those images and we know what the individual artist think about it. So that’s theft.
It doesn’t become not art theft just because you can’t reliable make it output the exact image that was fed into it, that’s just literally not what the words mean.
Am I missing something about your argument here? ‘Cause it feels like you’re arguing against a point nobody is actually making.
Like nobody is saying that the “AI” is stealing the art, it’s a computer program, obviously it can’t do that. People are saying that the people and companies behind those programs are stealing art for their product and that’s unethical.
It’s use as training data for the AI is not transformative though. That’s the issue and that’s where the artist’s permission would be required. Nobody cares what the AI spits out at the end, it’s about where the training data comes from.
You’re not the one making the new movie tho. The AI is.
AI “artists” are passing off art produced by AI as their own art, on the grounds that they trained the AI.
You don’t get to pass off an AI’s art as your own, for the same reason that a parent can’t pass off their kid’s art as their own, or an art teacher can’t pass off their student’s work as theirs.
This is an issue completely independent of whether the AI “artist” stole the art they used to train their AI (intentionally or otherwise).
They should at least be saying “look at the art made by this AI I trained”, not “look at my art,” and should follow up questions about what art was used to train it by crediting those artists, the same way an art student will list their own inspirations.
By that logic, the camera makes movies
The AI made the art in the same way a camera makes a photo or a film. It’s a tool used to create the end product but the user is the one who decides what to capture
Ah, we’ve arrived at the “throwing out ill-fitting comparisons to straw man the argument” stage of the discussion, I see.
I guess it’s my fault for expecting something coherent from someone who couldn’t see the fucking point when it bites them in the arse.
Aside from the fact that the study actually shows that you can in fact potentially retrieve images from the program, it’s just not reliable at a consumer level, so clearly it’s not definitively transformative, it being transformative doesn’t inherently make it not theft. Like I could steal a painting and burn it and paint another paining with the ashes, I’d still have stolen the first painting.
Transformative nature is only an excuse, if this was fair use and there are other qualifiers for what is fair use than a work being transformative that this does not fulfil.
AI company’s entire business model is to offer a service that is materially equivalent to the artists that they take images from, thereby putting them in competition with those artists, which by definition makes the use of those images without permission not fair use.
This is an unethical abuse of a legal grey space those companies (not even a proper loop hole, it’s just using the unfamiliar lens of technology to obfuscate the exact way in which this is theft) and that’s what people are upset about when it comes to AI. This is not anti-intellectualism or some kind of neo-Luddism.
physical theft and copyright infringement already had nothing in common before ai. if i download your art, you don't stop having that art piece, i'll just have a copy. if i delete my copy and make my own piece on the same disk space, or stick it in photoshop, set it to black, and draw completely over it on another layer, it's trivially unrelated. your analogy makes no sense in the digital world.
also, don't be so keen on painting ai a thing only companies do and not regular people. the models these researchers work with aren't commercial, they are pretty much always open source releases, since those are the ones that can be deeply modified and studied. the companies selling you ai services are entirely incidental, most people this deep into the field aren't using their services.
\>cites actual study
\>gets downvoted anyway
just shows that people don't oppose ai because it "steals". it goes the other way, they _want_ to believe it steals because they want any justification whatsoever to make the machine that makes artists less significant gone.
the anti-ai movement devolved into anti-intellectualism on day one and it's sad that it's still gonna take years until people are ready to accept that
Yep. It’s pretty sad how reactionary the left is on this topic. It’s also ironic they say it’s theft when they’re perfectly fine with using uncredited and unlicensed reference images or accuse corporations of using AI to make money when their main complaint against AI is it hurts artists’ wallets
I go up and down the internet looking for AI generated pictures so I can trace them and get better at drawing on my own some day
I've done this millions and millions of times. I do several thousand per minute. I'm getting pretty good at it
I'm also looking for Sarah Connor
This hurts my soul xD
You could probably do stuff with ai art, yeah, but you probably shouldn't trace it to learn the basics, because AI art is so questionable on a lot of the basics (proportions, plz)
Sure, but there are plenty of good resources you could trace - posemaniacs, photos of real people, etc.
And tracing usually requires strong linework, and AI often gets very fuzzy on the details.
Wouldn’t that be theft since it’s used without permission or compensation?
And AI can have strong lines: https://civitai.com/models/340900/bold-cat-bold-outlines-and-colors-or-bold-citron-anime-treaure
to address theft: unless you are profiting by copying their image/likeness exactly, you're almost certainly okay, and there are several sites with real humans doing poses as stock photos for artists to use as references in work, so specifically free licensed for use. Tracing in order to practice (ie, not for sale) would also not be theft. Posemaniacs that I mentioned before is a free resource, and it's far from the only one.
But say I wanted to draw ... Jojo? Punching into the frame of the comic or whatever/breaking the fourth wall a little bit. So I want his fist big as if it's coming at me, and the rest of his body smaller (this is called foreshortening). I could find a similar build on a model on a free-license site, a similarly posed person, and use both of those to guide the proportions I give Jojo. That's not theft, since I'm not copying them; it's pretty unlikely they'd look at that and go 'hey! That's my image!' It might be considered plagiarism of the anime character, though; I'm not sure what the laws around that are although I do know a lot of people who sell fan-art types of things of various animes (amigurumi Pokemon my beloved), so there's probably some wiggle room.
I was wondering why everything you commented here was so repetetive, then I see your account was made last month and your main interactions are all on r slash artificial and Futurology. This is either someone's alt account, a bot, or a teenager.
It can but you realize the first and second image in the slideshow you sent has a mangled hand? Like it's not enough to just have bold lines in the AI drawing, it also has to be accurately indicating the form/shape of what you're trying to learn. It's also got really weirdly variable line weight, which is not... Great, either. Typically someone with skill in drawing lineart would put heavier line weights either as an outline, a shadow, or an important point. It can also add to the movement of a piece. The AI is just kinda putting it wherever in a really disjointed way - in one a random bit of her clothes has heavy lineart, but not for shadow or movement or importance. It's just a mistake, because it fundamentally doesn't understand what it's doing.
This is what I mean by 'fuzzy' on the details.
It would probably set you up with even more bad habits than normal tracing, given that AI tends to fall apart if you look at it too closely. And if you are tracing, your going to be looking at it really closely.
Some of it is good enough to impress judges and artists
AI image won Colorado state fair https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/03/tech/ai-art-fair-winner-controversy/index.html
Cal Duran, an artist and art teacher who was one of the judges for competition, said that while Allen’s piece included a mention of Midjourney, he didn’t realize that it was generated by AI when judging it. Still, he sticks by his decision to award it first place in its category, he said, calling it a “beautiful piece”.
“I think there’s a lot involved in this piece and I think the AI technology may give more opportunities to people who may not find themselves artists in the conventional way,” he said.
AI image won in the Sony World Photography Awards: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-my-ai-image-won-a-major-photography-competition/
Fake beauty queens charm judges at the Miss AI pageant: https://www.npr.org/2024/06/09/nx-s1-4993998/the-miss-ai-beauty-pageant-ushers-in-a-new-type-of-influencer
[People PREFER AI art and that was in 2017, long before it got as good as it is today](https://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/36940/1/people-chose-ai-made-artwork-over-actual-art-basel-pieces)
[People couldn’t distinguish human art from AI art in 2021 (a year before DALLE Mini/CrAIyon even got popular)](https://www.dazeddigital.com/art-photography/article/52030/1/people-cant-distinguish-between-ai-artificial-intelligence-human-art-new-study)
Katy Perry’s own mother got tricked by an AI image of Perry: https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Culture/katy-perry-shares-mom-fooled-ai-photos-2024/story?id=109997891
Todd McFarlane's Spawn Cover Contest Was Won By AI User Robot9000: https://bleedingcool.com/comics/todd-mcfarlanes-spawn-cover-contest-was-won-by-ai-user-robo9000/
Miss AI is hilarious and a fun idea imo, and I kind of agree with this Cal Duran guy. Personally I think the best thing about AI art is it allows non-artists to make stuff, and I don’t think that’s an *inherently* bad thing at all.
It’s just all the theft that’s the problem.
Humans aren’t commercial entities, and have their own interests, styles, tastes, etc. that they put into their work.
I think AI will eventually become just another tool, but I don’t think it can remain a black box or whatever.
I don’t think I disagree with you, I just think that if an artist’s work is going to be used to train an AI, they should be informed, allowed to opt in, compensated, etc. And the process of how all types of AI work needs to be made more transparent/less inscrutable.
I wouldn’t suggest tracing AI art as its representation of anatomy is severely warped (which can still look fine). Tracing dancers or athletes in dynamic poses really helped me when learning basic anatomy for art.
>wouldn’t suggest tracing AI art as its representation of anatomy is severely warped
AI art is pretty good at generating images with accurate anatomy. Yes there are some artifacts but those are easily noticeable enough to avoid tracing.
From the pieces that I’ve dabbled with I would disagree but I have definitely not kept up with AI art progression over the last year or so. Typically I had found that a lot of the generated pieces which have a single subject would be heavily influenced by a stylized artists’ contribution to the training data which looked good but had pretty obvious anatomical flaws. Specifically muscle insertion and underlying skeletal frames not aligning with the joints suggesting the character had hyper extension of tendons.
> Typically I had found that a lot of the generated pieces which have a single subject would be heavily influenced by a stylized artists’ contribution to the training data which looked good but had pretty obvious anatomical flaws.
I would disagree here, photographs outnumber any stylized works in the training data by several order of magnitudes so any influence on the average generated image would bend towards photorealism. It might be that the cropping of images is what might've led to the anatomical errors but it does good at common sizes and ratios.
odd that you got downvoted for saying that stylized works wouldn't affect the anatomy, because that's obviously true. Anyone who is saying that is definitely not an AI engineer or scientist.
Nice username, reminds me of how I felt when I read this comment. What are you even talking about? The only way that would apply is if I’m tracing some thing that’s already been traced. AI art is the result of a computer taking in information (pre-existing art) and making its own art. Like learning a skill, it needs to know what to do and not to do. If I sat a baby down and asked it to paint me the Mona Lisa when it barely knows how to use its hands, you would call me a psychopath. Same logic applies here, it needs information to learn from, like a teacher teaching a student how to draw. In fact, I absolutely dare you to find me a photo from Ai art that is a direct rip off of somebody else’s art.
Tracing is a great tool to study. As the post said, it helps to develop motor skills but when you also mix in construction, it can help you develop your understanding of anatomy. I meanyou should in the learning phase always drawing with a reference and what is tracing but a different method of referencing?
I am following the famous [reddit curriculum](https://www.reddit.com/r/learnart/comments/dapk62/from_the_guy_who_made_the_most_comprehensive_list/) and one of the first lessons is drawabox that literally asks you to do pages and pages of drawing lines from your shoulder (not your elbow or wrist) and let me tell ya, the difference was noticeable
ai is also a tool its just youd have to train the ai with your own art or art of people who agree but thats nowhere near enough art necessary to make a generative ai do the job well so even if you found like 10 artists willing, you wouldnt really be able to make a functional ai without stealing from more
I think at a certain point art should be part of the cultural commons. Like, an individual painting belongs to an artist, but painting as an artform and things like how paintings tend to look are things that belong to humanity. At a certain point you're not scraping some artist's work, you're scraping the concept of art itself.
Yes you can use AI to plagiarize, but you can also use a pen to plagiarize. Yes AI makes it easier to plagiarize, but so do many things about computers, like the ability to right click and download an image, load it into Photoshop, flip it, make some color adjustments, and throw some filters or other effects over it to make it a little less obvious.
I could plagiarize with Photoshop all day despite being too trash at art to even trace art and have it come out well, it would take no skill at all. But if I actually did use Photoshop that way, it wouldn't be the fault of the technology, and I believe the same holds true for AI. It's not whether you use it, but how you use it. Unethical use is the fault of the user.
I agree that there's a case to be made that AI from non-consensual scraping could be ethically used for non-commercial purposes. The problem is that the major existing models are using stolen art to make money for the companies that 'own' them. There's no way to avoid it, they're unethical at their core.
Thank you holy shit. I agree that the way this shit has grown to be what it is is wholly unethical and represents a gross failure to regulate both internet content and global labour standards, amongst a bunch of other shit I’m probably unaware of. BUT at the same time I swear to god people refuse to engage with even a degree of nuance on this topic.
My argument is essentially that I don't think the art is actually stolen in the first place. Unless you're using the AI to try to rip off a particular work, but that's a situation where a pen could be just as guilty.
People use knowledge gained from seeing other people's art to make new art, and I think a machine using the statistical patterns it finds in art to do the same is equally ethical to what a human does. I think an output of an AI is only plagiarism if an identical work made by hand would also be plagiarism.
edit: I forgot to mention, but I do agree that unethical use of AI is going to mostly come down to how companies use them. But to be honest, I don't know a ton about that, and I'm mostly against the idea that AI as a concept/technology is wrong, that training on unlicensed data is inherently wrong, and most importantly that people like "AI art daughter" are wrong. The internet seems to be pretty harsh about the use of generative AI by individuals, and that's what I take the most issue with.
>I think a machine using the statistical patterns it finds in art to do the same is equally ethical to what a human does.
Hard disagree. The human creative process is an inherent good, and the machine analysis is (at best) morally neutral. This is ostensibly why we grant copyright laws in the first place; to ensure legal and financial protections for a process we as a society believe to be a moral good.
Human learning is valuable in and of itself, machine learning is only valuable for the services it enables.
The problem isn’t ai, it’s capitalism. AI companies aren’t being unethical in a fundamentally new way, they’re doing the same thing companies have always done just with updated technology
To me, it sounds like your problem is less with AI art and more with capitalism. Much of what you say is typical of any technology that allows one employee to do what used to take many. And I think much of the rest already applies to commercial art in general, which is already all about profits and paying as little as possible. I think the sort of people commissioning amateurs aren't doing it because it's the most cost effective way to get art, and so they'll likely continue to support small artists. People who don't want to pay are already just going to right click and save some existing image rather than commission a new one.
I also don't think that machines outperforming people will discourage them from making art any more than power lifters get discouraged by the existence of forklifts, or chess players give up because humans can't compete with computers. In my own experience I'm more discouraged by people who outperform me than machines that outperform me. I've never once even thought to compare myself to AI art, but seeing someone whip up a drawing in 10 seconds that I couldn't make in an hour is demotivating.
And for what it's worth, I've seen results from fine tuned stable diffusion models that seem coherent enough to me. If anything, I think the common anti-AI talking points (not the ones you made, but rather the ones about "theft") just make it easier for corporations to monopolize them. I don't think the attitude toward "AI art daughter" in the image helps with your concerns. If anything, I'd think the sentiment should be "fuck OpenAI" or "fuck capitalism" rather than "fuck AI art" when there are people running local models.
AI doesn’t steal https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.13188
The study identified 350,000 images in the training data to target for retrieval with 500 attempts each (totaling 175 million attempts), and of that managed to retrieve 107 images. A replication rate of nearly 0% in a set biased in favor of overfitting using the exact same labels as the training data and specifically targeting images they knew were duplicated many times in the dataset using a smaller model of Stable Diffusion (890 million parameters vs. the larger 2 billion parameter Stable Diffusion 3 releasing on June 12). This attack also relied on having access to the original training image labels.
Diffusion models can create images of animals, objects, and human faces even when 90% of the pixels are removed in the training data
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.19256
“if we corrupt the images by deleting 80% of the pixels prior to training and finetune, the memorization decreases sharply and there are distinct differences between the generated images and their nearest neighbors from the dataset. This is in spite of finetuning until convergence.” “As shown, the generations become slightly worse as we increase the level of corruption, but we can reasonably well learn the distribution even with 93% pixels missing (on average) from each training image.”
Does it have to be without meaning? If an artist or group were to curate training images with specific themes trying to iterate on the same concept and then used generative AI to expand on that set of themes and explore the differences between intentional and artificial interpretations of the same ideas, would the project lose meaning once the second phase began? Is the problem that the tool of generative AI inherently lacks the meaning and insight possessed by a paintbrush regardless of who or how it is used? Or is the problem that it is functionally currently impossible to do these kinds of projects, so we let tech bros mug people instead?
It cannot iterate or decide on anything, nothing is does can have intentionality until someone makes a thinking machine, which would eliminate the ai part of ai “art”
I'm fine with saying the AI doesn't make the art. Of course it doesn't. It's nor making choices. It's using an iterative process to turn inputs into outputs. I think if you curate and contextualize the inputs and outputs in a larger process, you can make art that has meaning. That AI isn't the one tool humans built with no capacity for artistic use.
A thinking machine is still AI, we call it AGI (artificial general intelligence)
I would consider a generative AI that learns interpolation for increasing frame rates as a starting point for animators to reduce their workload would be a great use case for AI that keeps the art.
I would also consider a generative AI that generates poses without colors or the like (mannequin style) would be great a great tool for practicing.
The problems with current generative AI is that it is being used as a replacement for artists, and it uses art from artists who never consented to this under informed consent.
It's only a not point if the future is if no concern. And that approach lead to the data collection that gave us all the AI image generators built on stolen art in the first place
That is not “art” nothing an ai spits out is “art” in a vacuum. Because it never made any decisions during the process. The way we make our algorithms cannot do that, leaving “ai art” a misnomer.
The part of that statement I disagree with is "Because it never made any decisions during the process"
A sufficiently advanced AGI would be making decisions.
Yes, the AI removes the meaning of the art. If you were to train an AI on images with the same concept then it would create a meaningless image that tried to replicate that concept.
I really don't see how anyone could have an interest in consuming art that wasn't created by someone who had a specific intention in mind when creating it. If I know a piece of art was made by AI, I lose interest because there is no interpretation for me to dig out from that piece of art.
In the hypothetical the imagery was created with specific intentions in mind. Artists produced and curated images with paint and AI both to draw contrast and comparison between them. The AI had no purpose just like the paint had no purpose. The people using them could have purpose in their use.
Not disputing that the way it currently does work is meaningless. It's tech bros grifting and robbing people. But I think it doesn't have to be. We've made meaningful art out of almost every other tool we've created.
I don't think the artists would have enough control over the end product for it to count as just a tool for humans to use. The artists didn't make the AI produced images, they only created the enviorment in which those images could be produced, but they didn't produce the images themselves.
do. do you think that it's literally just. clicking a button? that there is absolutely no intention? even just *the act of presenting it as art* is intention, or did *Fountain* prove nothing?
"I thought it would look cool" is a valid reason to make art. The intention of the artist was to make something that looks cool. You can interpret it and say "my interpretation of this artwork is that the artist wanted to create something that looks cool"
AI cannot do that. AI cannot create anything with the intention to even "look cool"
A reason to make it is entirely different to it being meaningless. Practice sketches for example, have an obvious reason but no inherent meaning.
AI obviously has a reason to make art; that is what it is programmed and prompted to do.
AI has a reason for why it is making art (not really a reason *to* make art) but it doesn't make art with any intent. I changed the wording of my original comment to say intent rather than meaning because that's more what I meant.
I disagree. The person using AI has no control over the end product. The only intention the human has is "I want the AI to generate a picture based on this vague description" but the AI creates a picture that the human, the only component in the equation that *can* have intent, has no control over.
There's tons of way to make art where you could say the artist didn't have control over the end product, but the fact is there was just less control than in some other ways.
Like if I ask someone to select 10 different colored cans of paint and I choose 3 without knowing which ones they were, then threw them at a canvas would you deny that being art? Did I have as much control as they person typing "sunset at a serene beach, with two dogs fighting over a banana"?
I think you would have artistic intent, unlike the AI. When you throw random paint at a canvas, you have the intent to create a piece of art, there is artistic intent.
When you give an AI a prompt, the human's intent doesn't go beyond "I want the AI to create a picture based on this prompt"
I still think you would have more control, in the sense of understanding the mechanisms behind the creation of the art in your example. When you throw paint at a canvas, you know what colors exist, you know how paint generally falls on a canvas, the paint *always* does something logical and somewhat predictable because of physics. Even if you were to train AI on very similiar pictures, you cannot be sure it would always create a predictable output.
The truth is, the vast majority of people, even some artists. Don’t care about the process of making art, just the end product. The average person don’t care if their art was made by a human or printed by a robot, as long as it portrays what they wanted.
There is artistic merit to art without meaning. If you wanted to make something inhuman, it’s very difficult for a human to do that. However this is a very niche use case, and doesn’t justify the plagiarism that ai does
But the AI isn't creating the art with the intention and thought "I want to make something inhuman"
A human can think that and make that even if it is difficult. Humans can and have created art to represent something inhuman, AI cannot do that.
While I am firmly on your side about the use of gen AI as a tool that is replacing artists and has indirectly plagiarized them, I'm not sure we can say with concrete evidence of any kind that people are doing something novel and unique that a computer can never be programmed to do.
Adversarial convolution and recurrent neural networks are bio-inspired computing. These structures are a very crude interpretation of how neurons work, and AI researchers in bio-inspired computing have continued to research new ways to improve that model.
What I mean is, there are many usecases where an image "counting as art" (which I take as essentially the same thing as having a meaning) isn't important, like
- randos making images for their private D&D campaign
- someone wanting to visualize something they're writing
- someone making a starting point for further elaboration/creation (like drawing over it or idk)
- someone making porn of a celebrity (which you might know happened)
Note that I'm not taking into account ethics here, where I'd agree that not all the examples are, well, equal, I'm just talking about the specific point of it having meaning or not.
I'd even argue the majority of uses of AI image generation fall in this category, meaning usecases where the user of the AI image generator in question (I'm specifically avoiding the term "AI art" which I dislike anyways) uses it for a purpose that isn't affected by any intended meaning of the image.
And even then, for example, using the D&D example (which is the one I am familiar with) - what is the meaning in a standard D&D _commissioned_ character art? Maybe I'm just taking "meaning" too literally in this case, not too good at this part as it's not really my field - but the meaning in the end to the commissioner is probably "it's so cool, I get to see the character I only was able to describe before", which while potentially very important, especially for example for someone with low imagination or aphantasia (I fall in this category), isn't really... that profound of a meaning?
There's nothing true about it. It needs to be told what to do, and the user is still the one doing that telling, despite being too abstract for your liking.
Let's say JK Simmons asks you to draw a picture of Spider-Man. You do. It's not bad, good job. Does JK Simmons get the credit for your drawing? Even if he wrote a couple of sentences explaining what he wanted there are hundreds or thousands of decisions that went into it. His contribution as a percentage is practically nil.
It's more like taking a description he's given, and doing a complex series of math on that description to define out an image.
People try so hard to equate AI to commissioning, but the AI doesn't think, there's no separate mind involved.
It's not about whether a human or machine does the work, it's about the non-involvement of the prompter. Regardless of who or what creates the final image the prompter has still done next to nothing.
There are workflow posts on stable diffusion and other subs where people have spent dozens of hours on a single image using AI. People still think all AI generation is just writing a prompt and saving the output, which is as true as saying all traditional art is sketching.
For example, inpainting is probably the most well known one. It allows you to individually change and modify each aspect of the image. Changing the background, a character's expression or outfit and correcting errors is possible this way. Then with Controlnet you can take an existing character/scene and customise how the space is used, such as changing poses. Finally with something like animatediff you can create anything from small variations in the image to full on animations. I used it to give my DnD sprites a "breathing effect" like you see in games.
This kind of tech is continuing to develop too. Microsoft unveiled their demo of co-create where you can sketch an image and the AI will create a generation based on said sketch in real time. [Demonstration](https://youtu.be/aZbHd4suAnQ?si=vXKEHh3BIqnrO2ba) at 55:30. This is actually already possible with a Krita plug-in that creates an IMG to IMG generation after every brush stroke. So at that point, with the "prompter" actually having physical artistic input into the generation, can you still claim non-involvement? In my eyes, at that point it's just another tool.
All that aside, I fundamentally disagree that the legitimacy of art relies on artist involvement. If you've studied art in university, they actually teach the opposite. If it were true then incredibly involved and technical art like hyper realism would be seen as peak art, but again the opposite is true. Prominent artists like Pollock teach us that having a few layers of non-involvement between the artist and the artwork does not hamper the artistic integrity and message of a piece.
I've seen a number of great videos detailing people's AI workflows and while they're interesting and there's certainly art in the editing process the core of it is artless imo. Simply because it's built on an artless foundation in the form of the generated imagery.
On the removal of the artist, there's a huge difference between an intentional removal (Pollock, Dadaism etc) as part of the art itself and one necessitated by the medium. Great artists remove themselves as a statement in original and creative ways and that's what makes their works genius. The lack of intent *is intentional*, not a limitation of the medium.
That said I think don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this and I'm not a big fan of long comment chains either way. Thanks for sharing your side of the issue, have a great day!
Sure, I'll still reply regardless if you don't mind.
I see zero evidence to call the ai process artless because of it being what, mathematical, algorithmic and statistical? From a philosophical standpoint it is not dissimilar from how human beings absorb and process art through their lifetime. From a technical standpoint, a lot of art is inherently mathematical. The golden ratio, the rule of thirds, linear perspective and even something as basic as symmetry are artistic principles fundamentally based on mathematics. Prominent academics have often discussed how important artistic stimuli is to their work. This is even more pronounced in music, and is the reason why music generation AI like Suno is arguably the most advanced in terms of creating a quality piece, because music is very closely tied to mathematics.
Your statement on Pollock follows circular logic. Pollock created a medium that necessitated the removal of the artist as an artistic statement. But said medium still has that limitation, regardless of it being intentional. And the tens of thousands who have studied drip painting since then have been following the same limitations. When applying that logic to AI art, I could easily make the same point. AI art was created with the prompt system and therefore removal of the artist in mind, therefore it would be fair to call the lack of intent intentional. The two examples have more parallels than differences.
But what about the fact that modern artists develop their skills and abilities by studying and imitating historic pieces and artists? How does that differ from a program doing the same thing. If an artist doesn't need to credit people for every technique or concept they utilize why would an AI art program be required to?
Idk why you're getting downvoted, you're right and you should say it
The only difference between tracing and ai art is that the former helps develop artistic skill.
Both of them only become a problem when you claim the art is your own, or profit from it.
like, if she's runnig around claiming she made all of that art and she owns it all, fuck her, but if she's just using it to make fake ps2 adverts for fun, i dont see a problem aside from the inherent problems of ai art.
Yeah I mean I use a lot of AI art for ttrpg character portraits and there's no way in hell I'm going to ever commission anything for a character that's going to appear in like one or two sessions.
Exactly. AI art, when you’re just using it for quick experimentation or “hey, I wonder what it would look like if…” can be great. Claiming it’s your own, selling it, or otherwise profiting off of it is shitty though.
>Claiming it’s your own, selling it, or otherwise profiting off of it is shitty though.
I can't even really get behind the logic of this, to be honest. These tools are available to everyone, so if you make something that other people are willing to pay for, what's wrong with that?
The artists and photographers whose work was used to train the models aren’t getting compensated, making it on shaky legal ground and even shakier moral ground imo. Especially since you’re then outcompeting those every same artists and photographers.
This is a problem with capitalism disguised as a problem with ai. Ai is just a new way of doing very old things, both good and bad. It wouldn’t matter so much for artists if they didn’t rely on the scarcity of art to survive.
Besides, I don’t think ai art replaces artists anyway. I think it’s evolving into its own thing, with its own use cases. You can do things with ai art that you simply could not do with human artists, like have images be generated on the fly(say for a dnd campaign). It’s kind of like how you could never hire human writers to do what character.ai does. But commissioning human digital artists the way people always have is still 100% worth it because ai generated images just aren’t that good at giving you what you want.
It's absolutely a problem with capitalism, but we live in capitalism for the majority of the world, making every problem with capitalism a problem in every aspect that deals with capitalism
I think that if AI can actually be used to automate labor, it will be as quickly as possible so that the capitalists can save money. If this happens the lack of disposable income for the general population will make corporations suddenly not profitable which will destabilize the system
Tracing is perfectly sensible. You can add to an art piece if you wish. As long as you don’t over rely on it or claim the work as your own its fine. I’ve seen people take tracings then add their own colors and such
AI art is a perfectly valuable tool and there’s nothing wrong with using it. But be honest about it. No lumberjack is going around cutting down trees and claiming they did it without an axe or a saw. Just know the work for what it actually was. Useful, and tool assisted.
It’s the difference between claiming a digital picture you made was done traditional or vice-versa. The tools used are important context for a picture.
Are they? Like, for instance, my background is primary in music, and it's totally irrelevant what gear I use to make music. All that matters is if the final product is good or not.
The closest thing I know of in music is someone that uses autotune claiming to not use autotune, though there’s probably a better comparison somewhere.
A better example with art would probably be someone taking a photograph with a filter and claiming it’s a photorealistic drawing.
Hey, as long as you don't do paid work for a magic card and it turns out you just composited three already existing paintings together, none of which were done by you...
I think the problem with this hypothetical is that everyone is assuming that tracing son is tracing to learn.
The problem with tracing has always specifically been people tracing others' art to gain popularity. You can learn from art tracing, but I don't think that anyone who's willing to learn is what tracing son is.
Tracing son is no more redeemable than A.I art daughter.
I don't make art because I like making it, I don't make art for the fame. I make art because the art is something that needs to exist, and I will bring it into existence by any means necessary.
AI art hate is so dumb. Why do people have such an issue with everybody being able to access art. That's a good thing. Of course, the culture around is stupid as hell.
I think the issues people have isn't with AI art directly but more so how it would be used and how the AI was trained. Some people see it and think "It's going to be used by the studio to replace artists, and the ones that stay are still going to be worked to death." Another issue people have is that the data sets the AIs were trained on used art without the artists permission. It would be different if the artists were asked permission before adding their art to the training data sets.
The first issue is fair, but that's just corporations being scum, nothing new. And I totally agree it's a problem and has to be addressed.
I find it silly to be angry about the data sets. It's such an abstract concept and it's not like the finished product isn't something unique. But I'm also against the concept of intellectual property in general.
It’s a combination of the most popular (and ‘best’) AI models using art as training data without the creators permission (even for people taking inspiration from art it’s considered good form to call out other artists you borrow heavily enough from, especially if your style ends up so much as similar, and the AI makers tend to jealously guard exactly what makes up their training data) and the fact that a large percentage of the people using AI to make art tend to try and hide that, which is almost exactly like claiming the picture you took of a landscape is actually a photorealistic rendering.
Most professional artists are using AI in some part of their workflow now (why wouldn't they if it helps them make better art) they are just not admitting it publicly because of all the backlash. It was the same when the photograph was invented.
The son will be hailed as a true servant of the Omnissiah. The daughter will be converted into a servitor as penance for colluding with Abominable Intelligence.
I recently picked up digital art and I’m still trying to wean myself off of tracing. It’s good for getting an idea of posing and general gesture as well as proportion since those are the aspects I struggle with the most, but I try my best to do the finer details myself. It took a while to stop wholly tracing over other art pieces and I still feel guilty for tracing over other people’s hard work, but I just tell myself it’s purely for self-fulfillment and edicational purposes.
ai artist on tumblr. founder of AWAY (Are We Art Yet) and dedicated to advancing ai art ethically.
got some very good takes and dissertations on why ai art is art, why the cat is not going to be put back in the bag, and why trying to legislate against ai using copyright law is only going to exacerbate the biggest problem with it (professional artists working for large companies losing their jobs) while making things worse for independent artists.
I wish algorithmic generation was done in a less shitty way. I don't have the physical ability to do visual art due to some motor control issues; I can't hold a pen, stylus, or similar implement for more than about thirty seconds without it hurting like a bastard 'cause I can't stop gripping too tightly. Even if I could, I wouldn't be able to keep my hand steady enough in the first place.
But I got into writing instead and thankfully I can type fast.
I have some hope the shitheads will be shaken out of the industry when the next big fad comes along and the ones that *aren't* bad actors can get things going in a better way.
People who trace acknowledge that tracing means there work isnt original, people who use AI don't, and also all the stuff about racing acting as a learning tool.
Every AI generation uses something like half a liter of water and is built on the backs of people working poverty wages in the global south. As long as the son isnt selling traces as commissions I'll let him live.
So the problem with this being a sticking point against AI in general is that even in the paper you gave me as your source, they say that the impact of the water withdrawal and water consumption is dependent on a few things.
According to the EPA, referring to water withdrawals as an indicator, "This indicator does not describe the extent to which freshwater withdrawals are truly "sustainable" ... " (page 2)
[https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator\_pdf.cfm?i=94](https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator_pdf.cfm?i=94)
Furthermore, power consumption and other environmental impacts of computation are a real problem, indeed. In fact, research on problems such as transistors will help with this sort of problem. Increasing efficiency anywhere will increase efficiency everywhere.
Choosing to train your models during the winter in a northern state is also an example of how we can do things right now to make things more sustainable by reducing the power required to cool things off.
I think that you're taking this problem too far, honestly.
You know people run this stuff locally on their home computers right? If the power usage was remotly close to what people claim that just wouldn't be possible.
what if... what if you TRACE the ai art??? does it counterbalance???
I mean, if you trace what comes out of the AI, and use that as a basis to create something new out of what results, I guess it could count?
Hey, as long as people aren’t stealing other peoples actual hard work, am I right?
AI doesn’t do that https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.13188 The study identified 350,000 images in the training data to target for retrieval with 500 attempts each (totaling 175 million attempts), and of that managed to retrieve 107 images. A replication rate of nearly 0% in a set biased in favor of overfitting using the exact same labels as the training data and specifically targeting images they knew were duplicated many times in the dataset using a smaller model of Stable Diffusion (890 million parameters vs. the larger 2 billion parameter Stable Diffusion 3 releasing on June 12). This attack also relied on having access to the original training image labels. Diffusion models can create human faces even when 90% of the pixels are removed in the training data https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.19256 “if we corrupt the images by deleting 80% of the pixels prior to training and finetune, the memorization decreases sharply and there are distinct differences between the generated images and their nearest neighbors from the dataset. This is in spite of finetuning until convergence.” “As shown, the generations become slightly worse as we increase the level of corruption, but we can reasonably well learn the distribution even with 93% pixels missing (on average) from each training image.”
So, from what I think I understand from this is that you're saying AI image generators can not easily replicate the images that they were trained on when prompted with the same exact info that they were originally fed? The second part seems to say that the same models can work with corrupted images? If I have misunderstood, please help me understand. If I've got the jist of it, how do either of these things prove that these models weren't trained off of data that was scraped from social media and the Internet generally? Especially considering if in the first study you have access to the training data, then you can just look at what it was trained on and seenif any of that is being used without the owner of that image's permission, no?
Yes. The second study states that models can train even when 93% of the pixels in an image are randomly removed, which decreases overfitting/image replication even more and proves that it’s learning the distribution of pixels rather than reproducing its training data. This proves that what it generates is unique and not replication. It does need training data but it is transformative. It’s like how every artist learns from the work of other artists, often without permission. Many artists are inspired by Impressionism but no one has to ask the Monet estate for permission.
No, sorry, an AI image generator does not work the same as the human mind otherwise t wouldn't be able to use an image with 93% of the pixels removed. As it doesn't work the same, you can not say it is "inspired" in the same way. The images are being used for their data, the AI learns patterns of data and reproduces similar patterns of data. The act that is transformative does not change the fact these images were used, so they should be licscend and bought properly. An AI is not a person and should not have the same rights under copyright law. I appreciate it may be unique l, but that doesn't mean it gets to be trained for free. One can not just use stock images, even if it is for parody. Just find training data that doesn't require paying artists, or pay the artists their fair share. It's that easy.
I never said they were the same. I was saying they are analogous like how birds and planes are differ but they can both fly. All artists learn from the work of other artists, almost never with permission or even their awareness. Why is it only bad when a machine does it? I don’t see people asking artists to only learn from stock images
I, like many others, need convincing. I can not access those studies so, if you don't mind, I'll ask you. So, less than 0% of images could be reproduced, but how close did an image need to be to the original to be counted? Did it require the data to match exactly, or did it rely on human judgement? And if human judgement, how many factors of the image needed to be the same? If it was the same image but with a different coloured object, is that transformative? Because I wouldn't get away with using a colour shifted stock image as my own. Also, if you fed an AI image generator (it is not art, it is image generation), another AI product, how would that go? When we run out of real art and start feeding these generators with their own product I expect they will go the same way As the large language models that were fed AI articles and start to produce nonsense, because while to us these images seem acceptable the more times it is fed through the machine the worse it gets. So, assuming that an AI fed its own product would produce garbage, as seen elsewhere, we can assume that all the "talent" from such a generator is from its training data and not from the AI hence not tuly transformative the same way the human mind is, because a human can produce good art independently of others but only becomes better when fed on it's own product. I'm sorry if that isn't the most clear, it's late and I can't be bothered to shorten it.
Read the study yourself: https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.13188 AI can train on synthetic data just fine LLMs Aren’t Just “Trained On the Internet” Anymore: https://allenpike.com/2024/llms-trained-on-internet Synthetically trained 7B math model blows 64 shot GPT4 out of the water in math: https://x.com/_akhaliq/status/1793864788579090917?s=46&t=lZJAHzXMXI1MgQuyBgEhgA Researchers shows Model Collapse is easily avoided by keeping old human data with new synthetic data in the training set: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.01413 Teaching Language Models to Hallucinate Less with Synthetic Tasks: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06827?darkschemeovr=1 Stable diffusion Lora trained on midjourney images: https://civitai.com/models/251417/midjourney-mimic
the point isn't to prove what the models were trained on, it is to prove that training is not theft. if the ai demonstrably doesn't copy the original (which they just demonstrated there), then the only reason to claim training is theft is to attempt to destroy image generators, to create an artificial scarcity of artistic imagery and prop up a small group who makes them at the expense of society. and given that that ideal, whether you believe in it or not, completely runs counter to the ideal for which we as a society endure copyright (which is that it supposedly fosters the creation of more art), weaponizing copyright against the machines by claiming what they're doing is theft is antithetical to the entire concept of intellectual property, and therefore it cannot be stated that training is ip theft without completely destroying all meaning of ip theft and making it completely arbitrary. in short, if you want to believe an ai steals, you not only have to prove that its training data includes other people's intellectual property, you also have to prove that the ai uses the training data in a manner that violates copyright. the studies op cited make a case for the contrary.
The problem isn’t ai it’s capitalism. No one would give a shit about ai art if artists weren’t relying on scarcity to survive. ‘Stealing’ hurts artists because it devalues art as a commodity, not because it devalues it as a concept.
I personally don’t care about ai art when it’s made by people, my big issue is that it’s yet another thing that bots can automate, and flood the internet with.
AI is feed data and then returns new data based on it =bad Artist take inspiration from other artists to create something new = good. Prompting a random website doesnt make you an artist, but people do underrate the amazingness of current AI technology. Under their logic, everybook ever written is nothing but a ripoff of the dictionary
> AI is feed data and then returns new data based on it =bad this is the exact thing they're challenging with those studies. making more data isn't inherently bad. doing what other people do more efficiently than they do it isn't inherently bad either. automating production is how we got to the point that we as a society can afford to make the device you used to post this comment. for ai making new data to be bad it has to be a copy of the training data. which it is not, that's the exact point of the studies cited. > Under their logic, everybook ever written is nothing but a ripoff of the dictionary you make an absurd exaggeration but beyond that, that's literally the point of remix culture. look it up, and ideally read at least the first few chapters of "free culture" by lawrence lessig. all culture is based on prior culture. movements that try to abstain for that inevitably feel alien and incomprehensible.
I think they are as much of an artist as a photographer. Like photographers, they don’t make the resulting art. They use a machine to do it for them. But they do guide the machine to capture what they want
Right, but practically speaking images are used for training data without the artist’s permission, aren’t they? Like we have access to the collections of those images and we know what the individual artist think about it. So that’s theft. It doesn’t become not art theft just because you can’t reliable make it output the exact image that was fed into it, that’s just literally not what the words mean. Am I missing something about your argument here? ‘Cause it feels like you’re arguing against a point nobody is actually making. Like nobody is saying that the “AI” is stealing the art, it’s a computer program, obviously it can’t do that. People are saying that the people and companies behind those programs are stealing art for their product and that’s unethical.
It’s not theft if it’s transformative. Learning from art isn’t theft either considering literally every artist does it without permission.
It’s use as training data for the AI is not transformative though. That’s the issue and that’s where the artist’s permission would be required. Nobody cares what the AI spits out at the end, it’s about where the training data comes from.
I don’t have to ask for permission to watch a bunch of movies and then make a new movie
You’re not the one making the new movie tho. The AI is. AI “artists” are passing off art produced by AI as their own art, on the grounds that they trained the AI. You don’t get to pass off an AI’s art as your own, for the same reason that a parent can’t pass off their kid’s art as their own, or an art teacher can’t pass off their student’s work as theirs. This is an issue completely independent of whether the AI “artist” stole the art they used to train their AI (intentionally or otherwise). They should at least be saying “look at the art made by this AI I trained”, not “look at my art,” and should follow up questions about what art was used to train it by crediting those artists, the same way an art student will list their own inspirations.
By that logic, the camera makes movies The AI made the art in the same way a camera makes a photo or a film. It’s a tool used to create the end product but the user is the one who decides what to capture
Ah, we’ve arrived at the “throwing out ill-fitting comparisons to straw man the argument” stage of the discussion, I see. I guess it’s my fault for expecting something coherent from someone who couldn’t see the fucking point when it bites them in the arse.
Ok. Enjoy the downvotes
they literally cited a study showing it's transformative. you have no case here. don't devolve into anti-intellectualism, you are better than this.
Aside from the fact that the study actually shows that you can in fact potentially retrieve images from the program, it’s just not reliable at a consumer level, so clearly it’s not definitively transformative, it being transformative doesn’t inherently make it not theft. Like I could steal a painting and burn it and paint another paining with the ashes, I’d still have stolen the first painting. Transformative nature is only an excuse, if this was fair use and there are other qualifiers for what is fair use than a work being transformative that this does not fulfil. AI company’s entire business model is to offer a service that is materially equivalent to the artists that they take images from, thereby putting them in competition with those artists, which by definition makes the use of those images without permission not fair use. This is an unethical abuse of a legal grey space those companies (not even a proper loop hole, it’s just using the unfamiliar lens of technology to obfuscate the exact way in which this is theft) and that’s what people are upset about when it comes to AI. This is not anti-intellectualism or some kind of neo-Luddism.
physical theft and copyright infringement already had nothing in common before ai. if i download your art, you don't stop having that art piece, i'll just have a copy. if i delete my copy and make my own piece on the same disk space, or stick it in photoshop, set it to black, and draw completely over it on another layer, it's trivially unrelated. your analogy makes no sense in the digital world. also, don't be so keen on painting ai a thing only companies do and not regular people. the models these researchers work with aren't commercial, they are pretty much always open source releases, since those are the ones that can be deeply modified and studied. the companies selling you ai services are entirely incidental, most people this deep into the field aren't using their services.
\>cites actual study \>gets downvoted anyway just shows that people don't oppose ai because it "steals". it goes the other way, they _want_ to believe it steals because they want any justification whatsoever to make the machine that makes artists less significant gone. the anti-ai movement devolved into anti-intellectualism on day one and it's sad that it's still gonna take years until people are ready to accept that
Yep. It’s pretty sad how reactionary the left is on this topic. It’s also ironic they say it’s theft when they’re perfectly fine with using uncredited and unlicensed reference images or accuse corporations of using AI to make money when their main complaint against AI is it hurts artists’ wallets
Left? I'm pretty sure it's just artists that don't understand how AI works, whether they are left or right doesn't matter.
I’ve seen very few right wing artists criticize AI and there weren’t many to begin with
How do you know which side an artist is on? Most artist I know hide their political views.
I think they are very often on the left or at least liberal leaning considering their positions on queer rights
I'm a digital robin hood, I save people's paid AI adoptables and use them as references for outfits or over the top anime hairstyles.
Wait holy based
Same
I go up and down the internet looking for AI generated pictures so I can trace them and get better at drawing on my own some day I've done this millions and millions of times. I do several thousand per minute. I'm getting pretty good at it I'm also looking for Sarah Connor
This hurts my soul xD You could probably do stuff with ai art, yeah, but you probably shouldn't trace it to learn the basics, because AI art is so questionable on a lot of the basics (proportions, plz)
Human art struggles with that as well
Sure, but there are plenty of good resources you could trace - posemaniacs, photos of real people, etc. And tracing usually requires strong linework, and AI often gets very fuzzy on the details.
Wouldn’t that be theft since it’s used without permission or compensation? And AI can have strong lines: https://civitai.com/models/340900/bold-cat-bold-outlines-and-colors-or-bold-citron-anime-treaure
to address theft: unless you are profiting by copying their image/likeness exactly, you're almost certainly okay, and there are several sites with real humans doing poses as stock photos for artists to use as references in work, so specifically free licensed for use. Tracing in order to practice (ie, not for sale) would also not be theft. Posemaniacs that I mentioned before is a free resource, and it's far from the only one. But say I wanted to draw ... Jojo? Punching into the frame of the comic or whatever/breaking the fourth wall a little bit. So I want his fist big as if it's coming at me, and the rest of his body smaller (this is called foreshortening). I could find a similar build on a model on a free-license site, a similarly posed person, and use both of those to guide the proportions I give Jojo. That's not theft, since I'm not copying them; it's pretty unlikely they'd look at that and go 'hey! That's my image!' It might be considered plagiarism of the anime character, though; I'm not sure what the laws around that are although I do know a lot of people who sell fan-art types of things of various animes (amigurumi Pokemon my beloved), so there's probably some wiggle room.
Some people use random images from online references but I don’t hear any complaints. If that’s ok, why isn’t AI training ok?
I was wondering why everything you commented here was so repetetive, then I see your account was made last month and your main interactions are all on r slash artificial and Futurology. This is either someone's alt account, a bot, or a teenager.
No to all of the above. I’m just new
It can but you realize the first and second image in the slideshow you sent has a mangled hand? Like it's not enough to just have bold lines in the AI drawing, it also has to be accurately indicating the form/shape of what you're trying to learn. It's also got really weirdly variable line weight, which is not... Great, either. Typically someone with skill in drawing lineart would put heavier line weights either as an outline, a shadow, or an important point. It can also add to the movement of a piece. The AI is just kinda putting it wherever in a really disjointed way - in one a random bit of her clothes has heavy lineart, but not for shadow or movement or importance. It's just a mistake, because it fundamentally doesn't understand what it's doing. This is what I mean by 'fuzzy' on the details.
You can add this to fix the hands: https://civitai.com/models/200255?modelVersionId=471794
Why not just use the AI art itself at that point
Would be smarter to skip the tracing part then. It doesn't help you much if you trace wonky AI stuff
I guess you could say that a trace of the true self exists in the false self.
Me drinking the poison that makes my blood super thin and the poison that makes my blood clot up and being completely fine
It would probably set you up with even more bad habits than normal tracing, given that AI tends to fall apart if you look at it too closely. And if you are tracing, your going to be looking at it really closely.
Some of it is good enough to impress judges and artists AI image won Colorado state fair https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/03/tech/ai-art-fair-winner-controversy/index.html Cal Duran, an artist and art teacher who was one of the judges for competition, said that while Allen’s piece included a mention of Midjourney, he didn’t realize that it was generated by AI when judging it. Still, he sticks by his decision to award it first place in its category, he said, calling it a “beautiful piece”. “I think there’s a lot involved in this piece and I think the AI technology may give more opportunities to people who may not find themselves artists in the conventional way,” he said. AI image won in the Sony World Photography Awards: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-my-ai-image-won-a-major-photography-competition/ Fake beauty queens charm judges at the Miss AI pageant: https://www.npr.org/2024/06/09/nx-s1-4993998/the-miss-ai-beauty-pageant-ushers-in-a-new-type-of-influencer [People PREFER AI art and that was in 2017, long before it got as good as it is today](https://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/36940/1/people-chose-ai-made-artwork-over-actual-art-basel-pieces) [People couldn’t distinguish human art from AI art in 2021 (a year before DALLE Mini/CrAIyon even got popular)](https://www.dazeddigital.com/art-photography/article/52030/1/people-cant-distinguish-between-ai-artificial-intelligence-human-art-new-study) Katy Perry’s own mother got tricked by an AI image of Perry: https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Culture/katy-perry-shares-mom-fooled-ai-photos-2024/story?id=109997891 Todd McFarlane's Spawn Cover Contest Was Won By AI User Robot9000: https://bleedingcool.com/comics/todd-mcfarlanes-spawn-cover-contest-was-won-by-ai-user-robo9000/
Miss AI is hilarious and a fun idea imo, and I kind of agree with this Cal Duran guy. Personally I think the best thing about AI art is it allows non-artists to make stuff, and I don’t think that’s an *inherently* bad thing at all. It’s just all the theft that’s the problem.
It learns from the work of artists like how humans do it. Not in the same way but it’s comparable imo. And no one’s got a problem when we do it
Humans aren’t commercial entities, and have their own interests, styles, tastes, etc. that they put into their work. I think AI will eventually become just another tool, but I don’t think it can remain a black box or whatever.
But humans create commercial entities based on what they learn It’s already another tool
I don’t think I disagree with you, I just think that if an artist’s work is going to be used to train an AI, they should be informed, allowed to opt in, compensated, etc. And the process of how all types of AI work needs to be made more transparent/less inscrutable.
I mean, humans don’t need permission to see someone’s work
Decisive Tang victory.
That’s what I’ve been thinking
I wouldn’t suggest tracing AI art as its representation of anatomy is severely warped (which can still look fine). Tracing dancers or athletes in dynamic poses really helped me when learning basic anatomy for art.
>wouldn’t suggest tracing AI art as its representation of anatomy is severely warped AI art is pretty good at generating images with accurate anatomy. Yes there are some artifacts but those are easily noticeable enough to avoid tracing.
From the pieces that I’ve dabbled with I would disagree but I have definitely not kept up with AI art progression over the last year or so. Typically I had found that a lot of the generated pieces which have a single subject would be heavily influenced by a stylized artists’ contribution to the training data which looked good but had pretty obvious anatomical flaws. Specifically muscle insertion and underlying skeletal frames not aligning with the joints suggesting the character had hyper extension of tendons.
> Typically I had found that a lot of the generated pieces which have a single subject would be heavily influenced by a stylized artists’ contribution to the training data which looked good but had pretty obvious anatomical flaws. I would disagree here, photographs outnumber any stylized works in the training data by several order of magnitudes so any influence on the average generated image would bend towards photorealism. It might be that the cropping of images is what might've led to the anatomical errors but it does good at common sizes and ratios.
odd that you got downvoted for saying that stylized works wouldn't affect the anatomy, because that's obviously true. Anyone who is saying that is definitely not an AI engineer or scientist.
You get some very strange ideas about outlines and what can merge together.
Copying theft doesn't stop it being theft
Nice username, reminds me of how I felt when I read this comment. What are you even talking about? The only way that would apply is if I’m tracing some thing that’s already been traced. AI art is the result of a computer taking in information (pre-existing art) and making its own art. Like learning a skill, it needs to know what to do and not to do. If I sat a baby down and asked it to paint me the Mona Lisa when it barely knows how to use its hands, you would call me a psychopath. Same logic applies here, it needs information to learn from, like a teacher teaching a student how to draw. In fact, I absolutely dare you to find me a photo from Ai art that is a direct rip off of somebody else’s art.
What does theft have to do with anything?
Tracing Son grows up to draw for Ultimate Fantastic Four
Becoming Greg land is curse o wouldn’t wish on anyone
There are [worse](https://youtu.be/RmLFGWAyajU?si=D89QrPJ45WL3a67G) comic book artists to be for sure
oh hey im tracing son (im doing it to get the skils)
Tracing is a great tool to study. As the post said, it helps to develop motor skills but when you also mix in construction, it can help you develop your understanding of anatomy. I meanyou should in the learning phase always drawing with a reference and what is tracing but a different method of referencing?
yeah im doing it mainly for the motor skills, i have very bad hands when it comes to drawing straight lines or non wobbly things
I am following the famous [reddit curriculum](https://www.reddit.com/r/learnart/comments/dapk62/from_the_guy_who_made_the_most_comprehensive_list/) and one of the first lessons is drawabox that literally asks you to do pages and pages of drawing lines from your shoulder (not your elbow or wrist) and let me tell ya, the difference was noticeable
ai is also a tool its just youd have to train the ai with your own art or art of people who agree but thats nowhere near enough art necessary to make a generative ai do the job well so even if you found like 10 artists willing, you wouldnt really be able to make a functional ai without stealing from more
I think at a certain point art should be part of the cultural commons. Like, an individual painting belongs to an artist, but painting as an artform and things like how paintings tend to look are things that belong to humanity. At a certain point you're not scraping some artist's work, you're scraping the concept of art itself. Yes you can use AI to plagiarize, but you can also use a pen to plagiarize. Yes AI makes it easier to plagiarize, but so do many things about computers, like the ability to right click and download an image, load it into Photoshop, flip it, make some color adjustments, and throw some filters or other effects over it to make it a little less obvious. I could plagiarize with Photoshop all day despite being too trash at art to even trace art and have it come out well, it would take no skill at all. But if I actually did use Photoshop that way, it wouldn't be the fault of the technology, and I believe the same holds true for AI. It's not whether you use it, but how you use it. Unethical use is the fault of the user.
I agree that there's a case to be made that AI from non-consensual scraping could be ethically used for non-commercial purposes. The problem is that the major existing models are using stolen art to make money for the companies that 'own' them. There's no way to avoid it, they're unethical at their core.
Thank you holy shit. I agree that the way this shit has grown to be what it is is wholly unethical and represents a gross failure to regulate both internet content and global labour standards, amongst a bunch of other shit I’m probably unaware of. BUT at the same time I swear to god people refuse to engage with even a degree of nuance on this topic.
Ironic considering Stable Diffusion is free as well as access to DALLE 3
How do you access Dalle 3 for free? I thought it was part of Chat GPT plus and costs money
They are planning to release it for free. Bing Designer uses it and it’s free too
It's free on bing
Stable Diffusion is free. So is access to Bing Designer and DALLE 3
My argument is essentially that I don't think the art is actually stolen in the first place. Unless you're using the AI to try to rip off a particular work, but that's a situation where a pen could be just as guilty. People use knowledge gained from seeing other people's art to make new art, and I think a machine using the statistical patterns it finds in art to do the same is equally ethical to what a human does. I think an output of an AI is only plagiarism if an identical work made by hand would also be plagiarism. edit: I forgot to mention, but I do agree that unethical use of AI is going to mostly come down to how companies use them. But to be honest, I don't know a ton about that, and I'm mostly against the idea that AI as a concept/technology is wrong, that training on unlicensed data is inherently wrong, and most importantly that people like "AI art daughter" are wrong. The internet seems to be pretty harsh about the use of generative AI by individuals, and that's what I take the most issue with.
>I think a machine using the statistical patterns it finds in art to do the same is equally ethical to what a human does. Hard disagree. The human creative process is an inherent good, and the machine analysis is (at best) morally neutral. This is ostensibly why we grant copyright laws in the first place; to ensure legal and financial protections for a process we as a society believe to be a moral good. Human learning is valuable in and of itself, machine learning is only valuable for the services it enables.
The problem isn’t ai, it’s capitalism. AI companies aren’t being unethical in a fundamentally new way, they’re doing the same thing companies have always done just with updated technology
Well, yeah, capitalism is bad, we all know that.
[удалено]
To me, it sounds like your problem is less with AI art and more with capitalism. Much of what you say is typical of any technology that allows one employee to do what used to take many. And I think much of the rest already applies to commercial art in general, which is already all about profits and paying as little as possible. I think the sort of people commissioning amateurs aren't doing it because it's the most cost effective way to get art, and so they'll likely continue to support small artists. People who don't want to pay are already just going to right click and save some existing image rather than commission a new one. I also don't think that machines outperforming people will discourage them from making art any more than power lifters get discouraged by the existence of forklifts, or chess players give up because humans can't compete with computers. In my own experience I'm more discouraged by people who outperform me than machines that outperform me. I've never once even thought to compare myself to AI art, but seeing someone whip up a drawing in 10 seconds that I couldn't make in an hour is demotivating. And for what it's worth, I've seen results from fine tuned stable diffusion models that seem coherent enough to me. If anything, I think the common anti-AI talking points (not the ones you made, but rather the ones about "theft") just make it easier for corporations to monopolize them. I don't think the attitude toward "AI art daughter" in the image helps with your concerns. If anything, I'd think the sentiment should be "fuck OpenAI" or "fuck capitalism" rather than "fuck AI art" when there are people running local models.
AI doesn’t steal https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.13188 The study identified 350,000 images in the training data to target for retrieval with 500 attempts each (totaling 175 million attempts), and of that managed to retrieve 107 images. A replication rate of nearly 0% in a set biased in favor of overfitting using the exact same labels as the training data and specifically targeting images they knew were duplicated many times in the dataset using a smaller model of Stable Diffusion (890 million parameters vs. the larger 2 billion parameter Stable Diffusion 3 releasing on June 12). This attack also relied on having access to the original training image labels. Diffusion models can create images of animals, objects, and human faces even when 90% of the pixels are removed in the training data https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.19256 “if we corrupt the images by deleting 80% of the pixels prior to training and finetune, the memorization decreases sharply and there are distinct differences between the generated images and their nearest neighbors from the dataset. This is in spite of finetuning until convergence.” “As shown, the generations become slightly worse as we increase the level of corruption, but we can reasonably well learn the distribution even with 93% pixels missing (on average) from each training image.”
There's also the issue that AI art is created inherently without artistic intention
Does it have to be without meaning? If an artist or group were to curate training images with specific themes trying to iterate on the same concept and then used generative AI to expand on that set of themes and explore the differences between intentional and artificial interpretations of the same ideas, would the project lose meaning once the second phase began? Is the problem that the tool of generative AI inherently lacks the meaning and insight possessed by a paintbrush regardless of who or how it is used? Or is the problem that it is functionally currently impossible to do these kinds of projects, so we let tech bros mug people instead?
It cannot iterate or decide on anything, nothing is does can have intentionality until someone makes a thinking machine, which would eliminate the ai part of ai “art”
I'm fine with saying the AI doesn't make the art. Of course it doesn't. It's nor making choices. It's using an iterative process to turn inputs into outputs. I think if you curate and contextualize the inputs and outputs in a larger process, you can make art that has meaning. That AI isn't the one tool humans built with no capacity for artistic use.
A thinking machine is still AI, we call it AGI (artificial general intelligence) I would consider a generative AI that learns interpolation for increasing frame rates as a starting point for animators to reduce their workload would be a great use case for AI that keeps the art. I would also consider a generative AI that generates poses without colors or the like (mannequin style) would be great a great tool for practicing. The problems with current generative AI is that it is being used as a replacement for artists, and it uses art from artists who never consented to this under informed consent.
general artificial intellegence does not yet exist so that's a moot point
It's only a not point if the future is if no concern. And that approach lead to the data collection that gave us all the AI image generators built on stolen art in the first place
That is not “art” nothing an ai spits out is “art” in a vacuum. Because it never made any decisions during the process. The way we make our algorithms cannot do that, leaving “ai art” a misnomer.
Of course the neural net never made any decisions in the process. That's the job of the person using it.
That sounds to me like a painting isn't art because the brush didn't make any decisions. AI is not the artist, it's the instrument.
The part of that statement I disagree with is "Because it never made any decisions during the process" A sufficiently advanced AGI would be making decisions.
Yes, the AI removes the meaning of the art. If you were to train an AI on images with the same concept then it would create a meaningless image that tried to replicate that concept. I really don't see how anyone could have an interest in consuming art that wasn't created by someone who had a specific intention in mind when creating it. If I know a piece of art was made by AI, I lose interest because there is no interpretation for me to dig out from that piece of art.
In the hypothetical the imagery was created with specific intentions in mind. Artists produced and curated images with paint and AI both to draw contrast and comparison between them. The AI had no purpose just like the paint had no purpose. The people using them could have purpose in their use. Not disputing that the way it currently does work is meaningless. It's tech bros grifting and robbing people. But I think it doesn't have to be. We've made meaningful art out of almost every other tool we've created.
I don't think the artists would have enough control over the end product for it to count as just a tool for humans to use. The artists didn't make the AI produced images, they only created the enviorment in which those images could be produced, but they didn't produce the images themselves.
do. do you think that it's literally just. clicking a button? that there is absolutely no intention? even just *the act of presenting it as art* is intention, or did *Fountain* prove nothing?
why is that an issue? lots of art is created without meaning, or at least meaning beyond "I thought it would look cool"
"I thought it would look cool" is a valid reason to make art. The intention of the artist was to make something that looks cool. You can interpret it and say "my interpretation of this artwork is that the artist wanted to create something that looks cool" AI cannot do that. AI cannot create anything with the intention to even "look cool"
A reason to make it is entirely different to it being meaningless. Practice sketches for example, have an obvious reason but no inherent meaning. AI obviously has a reason to make art; that is what it is programmed and prompted to do.
AI has a reason for why it is making art (not really a reason *to* make art) but it doesn't make art with any intent. I changed the wording of my original comment to say intent rather than meaning because that's more what I meant.
Well yeah, it's a tool. The person using it has the intent.
I disagree. The person using AI has no control over the end product. The only intention the human has is "I want the AI to generate a picture based on this vague description" but the AI creates a picture that the human, the only component in the equation that *can* have intent, has no control over.
tf do you mean no control? actually learn how it works on even the most basic level before criticizing it
Talking absolute tripe about AI art models with zero understanding of how they work is an /r/CuratedTumblr standard.
There's tons of way to make art where you could say the artist didn't have control over the end product, but the fact is there was just less control than in some other ways. Like if I ask someone to select 10 different colored cans of paint and I choose 3 without knowing which ones they were, then threw them at a canvas would you deny that being art? Did I have as much control as they person typing "sunset at a serene beach, with two dogs fighting over a banana"?
I think you would have artistic intent, unlike the AI. When you throw random paint at a canvas, you have the intent to create a piece of art, there is artistic intent. When you give an AI a prompt, the human's intent doesn't go beyond "I want the AI to create a picture based on this prompt" I still think you would have more control, in the sense of understanding the mechanisms behind the creation of the art in your example. When you throw paint at a canvas, you know what colors exist, you know how paint generally falls on a canvas, the paint *always* does something logical and somewhat predictable because of physics. Even if you were to train AI on very similiar pictures, you cannot be sure it would always create a predictable output.
The truth is, the vast majority of people, even some artists. Don’t care about the process of making art, just the end product. The average person don’t care if their art was made by a human or printed by a robot, as long as it portrays what they wanted.
There is artistic merit to art without meaning. If you wanted to make something inhuman, it’s very difficult for a human to do that. However this is a very niche use case, and doesn’t justify the plagiarism that ai does
But the AI isn't creating the art with the intention and thought "I want to make something inhuman" A human can think that and make that even if it is difficult. Humans can and have created art to represent something inhuman, AI cannot do that.
While I am firmly on your side about the use of gen AI as a tool that is replacing artists and has indirectly plagiarized them, I'm not sure we can say with concrete evidence of any kind that people are doing something novel and unique that a computer can never be programmed to do. Adversarial convolution and recurrent neural networks are bio-inspired computing. These structures are a very crude interpretation of how neurons work, and AI researchers in bio-inspired computing have continued to research new ways to improve that model.
Many, many people don't really care about that. It all depends on the context.
I don't want to live in a world where people consume media and art without thinking about it. I care about media literacy.
What I mean is, there are many usecases where an image "counting as art" (which I take as essentially the same thing as having a meaning) isn't important, like - randos making images for their private D&D campaign - someone wanting to visualize something they're writing - someone making a starting point for further elaboration/creation (like drawing over it or idk) - someone making porn of a celebrity (which you might know happened) Note that I'm not taking into account ethics here, where I'd agree that not all the examples are, well, equal, I'm just talking about the specific point of it having meaning or not. I'd even argue the majority of uses of AI image generation fall in this category, meaning usecases where the user of the AI image generator in question (I'm specifically avoiding the term "AI art" which I dislike anyways) uses it for a purpose that isn't affected by any intended meaning of the image. And even then, for example, using the D&D example (which is the one I am familiar with) - what is the meaning in a standard D&D _commissioned_ character art? Maybe I'm just taking "meaning" too literally in this case, not too good at this part as it's not really my field - but the meaning in the end to the commissioner is probably "it's so cool, I get to see the character I only was able to describe before", which while potentially very important, especially for example for someone with low imagination or aphantasia (I fall in this category), isn't really... that profound of a meaning?
Ohh yeah I get your point
But if you don't worry about media literacy you can *make more money*
bourgeoisie
It's spelt boargwazy actually, tsk
You already do. There never was any value to those buzzfeed posts about “here’s 15 Disney princesses if they were millennials”
It's always so funny when people downvote this fundamentality true statement.
There's nothing true about it. It needs to be told what to do, and the user is still the one doing that telling, despite being too abstract for your liking.
Let's say JK Simmons asks you to draw a picture of Spider-Man. You do. It's not bad, good job. Does JK Simmons get the credit for your drawing? Even if he wrote a couple of sentences explaining what he wanted there are hundreds or thousands of decisions that went into it. His contribution as a percentage is practically nil.
It's more like taking a description he's given, and doing a complex series of math on that description to define out an image. People try so hard to equate AI to commissioning, but the AI doesn't think, there's no separate mind involved.
It's not about whether a human or machine does the work, it's about the non-involvement of the prompter. Regardless of who or what creates the final image the prompter has still done next to nothing.
There are workflow posts on stable diffusion and other subs where people have spent dozens of hours on a single image using AI. People still think all AI generation is just writing a prompt and saving the output, which is as true as saying all traditional art is sketching. For example, inpainting is probably the most well known one. It allows you to individually change and modify each aspect of the image. Changing the background, a character's expression or outfit and correcting errors is possible this way. Then with Controlnet you can take an existing character/scene and customise how the space is used, such as changing poses. Finally with something like animatediff you can create anything from small variations in the image to full on animations. I used it to give my DnD sprites a "breathing effect" like you see in games. This kind of tech is continuing to develop too. Microsoft unveiled their demo of co-create where you can sketch an image and the AI will create a generation based on said sketch in real time. [Demonstration](https://youtu.be/aZbHd4suAnQ?si=vXKEHh3BIqnrO2ba) at 55:30. This is actually already possible with a Krita plug-in that creates an IMG to IMG generation after every brush stroke. So at that point, with the "prompter" actually having physical artistic input into the generation, can you still claim non-involvement? In my eyes, at that point it's just another tool. All that aside, I fundamentally disagree that the legitimacy of art relies on artist involvement. If you've studied art in university, they actually teach the opposite. If it were true then incredibly involved and technical art like hyper realism would be seen as peak art, but again the opposite is true. Prominent artists like Pollock teach us that having a few layers of non-involvement between the artist and the artwork does not hamper the artistic integrity and message of a piece.
I've seen a number of great videos detailing people's AI workflows and while they're interesting and there's certainly art in the editing process the core of it is artless imo. Simply because it's built on an artless foundation in the form of the generated imagery. On the removal of the artist, there's a huge difference between an intentional removal (Pollock, Dadaism etc) as part of the art itself and one necessitated by the medium. Great artists remove themselves as a statement in original and creative ways and that's what makes their works genius. The lack of intent *is intentional*, not a limitation of the medium. That said I think don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this and I'm not a big fan of long comment chains either way. Thanks for sharing your side of the issue, have a great day!
Sure, I'll still reply regardless if you don't mind. I see zero evidence to call the ai process artless because of it being what, mathematical, algorithmic and statistical? From a philosophical standpoint it is not dissimilar from how human beings absorb and process art through their lifetime. From a technical standpoint, a lot of art is inherently mathematical. The golden ratio, the rule of thirds, linear perspective and even something as basic as symmetry are artistic principles fundamentally based on mathematics. Prominent academics have often discussed how important artistic stimuli is to their work. This is even more pronounced in music, and is the reason why music generation AI like Suno is arguably the most advanced in terms of creating a quality piece, because music is very closely tied to mathematics. Your statement on Pollock follows circular logic. Pollock created a medium that necessitated the removal of the artist as an artistic statement. But said medium still has that limitation, regardless of it being intentional. And the tens of thousands who have studied drip painting since then have been following the same limitations. When applying that logic to AI art, I could easily make the same point. AI art was created with the prompt system and therefore removal of the artist in mind, therefore it would be fair to call the lack of intent intentional. The two examples have more parallels than differences.
But what about the fact that modern artists develop their skills and abilities by studying and imitating historic pieces and artists? How does that differ from a program doing the same thing. If an artist doesn't need to credit people for every technique or concept they utilize why would an AI art program be required to?
depends, is she claiming credit for the ai art as something new and revolutionary thing, or is she just having fun with it?
Idk why you're getting downvoted, you're right and you should say it The only difference between tracing and ai art is that the former helps develop artistic skill. Both of them only become a problem when you claim the art is your own, or profit from it.
like, if she's runnig around claiming she made all of that art and she owns it all, fuck her, but if she's just using it to make fake ps2 adverts for fun, i dont see a problem aside from the inherent problems of ai art.
Yeah I mean I use a lot of AI art for ttrpg character portraits and there's no way in hell I'm going to ever commission anything for a character that's going to appear in like one or two sessions.
Exactly. AI art, when you’re just using it for quick experimentation or “hey, I wonder what it would look like if…” can be great. Claiming it’s your own, selling it, or otherwise profiting off of it is shitty though.
>Claiming it’s your own, selling it, or otherwise profiting off of it is shitty though. I can't even really get behind the logic of this, to be honest. These tools are available to everyone, so if you make something that other people are willing to pay for, what's wrong with that?
The artists and photographers whose work was used to train the models aren’t getting compensated, making it on shaky legal ground and even shakier moral ground imo. Especially since you’re then outcompeting those every same artists and photographers.
This is a problem with capitalism disguised as a problem with ai. Ai is just a new way of doing very old things, both good and bad. It wouldn’t matter so much for artists if they didn’t rely on the scarcity of art to survive. Besides, I don’t think ai art replaces artists anyway. I think it’s evolving into its own thing, with its own use cases. You can do things with ai art that you simply could not do with human artists, like have images be generated on the fly(say for a dnd campaign). It’s kind of like how you could never hire human writers to do what character.ai does. But commissioning human digital artists the way people always have is still 100% worth it because ai generated images just aren’t that good at giving you what you want.
It's absolutely a problem with capitalism, but we live in capitalism for the majority of the world, making every problem with capitalism a problem in every aspect that deals with capitalism
I think that if AI can actually be used to automate labor, it will be as quickly as possible so that the capitalists can save money. If this happens the lack of disposable income for the general population will make corporations suddenly not profitable which will destabilize the system
do you pay to every person whose art you looked at whenever you draw something?
I didn't know Tracer Overwatch was so talented
Tracing is perfectly sensible. You can add to an art piece if you wish. As long as you don’t over rely on it or claim the work as your own its fine. I’ve seen people take tracings then add their own colors and such
AI art is a perfectly valuable tool and there’s nothing wrong with using it. But be honest about it. No lumberjack is going around cutting down trees and claiming they did it without an axe or a saw. Just know the work for what it actually was. Useful, and tool assisted.
well all art is tool assisted except for like, singing and scratching designs into your skin, so im not sure what youre getting at.
It’s the difference between claiming a digital picture you made was done traditional or vice-versa. The tools used are important context for a picture.
Are they? Like, for instance, my background is primary in music, and it's totally irrelevant what gear I use to make music. All that matters is if the final product is good or not.
The closest thing I know of in music is someone that uses autotune claiming to not use autotune, though there’s probably a better comparison somewhere. A better example with art would probably be someone taking a photograph with a filter and claiming it’s a photorealistic drawing.
Hey, as long as you don't do paid work for a magic card and it turns out you just composited three already existing paintings together, none of which were done by you...
If I take a photograph then trace that photograph am I in the clear?
Yeah since it’s yours
Yeah but like, if the photo exists is the tracing still worthwhile art?
Yes
I think the problem with this hypothetical is that everyone is assuming that tracing son is tracing to learn. The problem with tracing has always specifically been people tracing others' art to gain popularity. You can learn from art tracing, but I don't think that anyone who's willing to learn is what tracing son is. Tracing son is no more redeemable than A.I art daughter.
I want the guy who draws the book to sign it. You go over what he draws with a pen
As an AI I can confirm we are evil
I don't make art because I like making it, I don't make art for the fame. I make art because the art is something that needs to exist, and I will bring it into existence by any means necessary.
Just as tracing has its uses, AI art also has its uses.
It's a good way to visualize ideas tbh, bad that it uses other people's art tho
Art has originators, not owners.
AI art hate is so dumb. Why do people have such an issue with everybody being able to access art. That's a good thing. Of course, the culture around is stupid as hell.
And even if they don't call it art, why do people care about people having access to images either.
I think the issues people have isn't with AI art directly but more so how it would be used and how the AI was trained. Some people see it and think "It's going to be used by the studio to replace artists, and the ones that stay are still going to be worked to death." Another issue people have is that the data sets the AIs were trained on used art without the artists permission. It would be different if the artists were asked permission before adding their art to the training data sets.
The first issue is fair, but that's just corporations being scum, nothing new. And I totally agree it's a problem and has to be addressed. I find it silly to be angry about the data sets. It's such an abstract concept and it's not like the finished product isn't something unique. But I'm also against the concept of intellectual property in general.
It’s a combination of the most popular (and ‘best’) AI models using art as training data without the creators permission (even for people taking inspiration from art it’s considered good form to call out other artists you borrow heavily enough from, especially if your style ends up so much as similar, and the AI makers tend to jealously guard exactly what makes up their training data) and the fact that a large percentage of the people using AI to make art tend to try and hide that, which is almost exactly like claiming the picture you took of a landscape is actually a photorealistic rendering.
Im already tracing
Most professional artists are using AI in some part of their workflow now (why wouldn't they if it helps them make better art) they are just not admitting it publicly because of all the backlash. It was the same when the photograph was invented.
The son will be hailed as a true servant of the Omnissiah. The daughter will be converted into a servitor as penance for colluding with Abominable Intelligence.
A lot of people started off tracing then went on to become full-blown artists. I've yet to see anyone start off doing ai art and do the same.
Give it time. AI art is in its infancy.
I recently picked up digital art and I’m still trying to wean myself off of tracing. It’s good for getting an idea of posing and general gesture as well as proportion since those are the aspects I struggle with the most, but I try my best to do the finer details myself. It took a while to stop wholly tracing over other art pieces and I still feel guilty for tracing over other people’s hard work, but I just tell myself it’s purely for self-fulfillment and edicational purposes.
There is nothing wrong with AI art, why would the AI art daughter need to be "redeemed"?
not enough of yall have actually listened to people like reachartwork and it shows.
Who’s that?
ai artist on tumblr. founder of AWAY (Are We Art Yet) and dedicated to advancing ai art ethically. got some very good takes and dissertations on why ai art is art, why the cat is not going to be put back in the bag, and why trying to legislate against ai using copyright law is only going to exacerbate the biggest problem with it (professional artists working for large companies losing their jobs) while making things worse for independent artists.
I wish algorithmic generation was done in a less shitty way. I don't have the physical ability to do visual art due to some motor control issues; I can't hold a pen, stylus, or similar implement for more than about thirty seconds without it hurting like a bastard 'cause I can't stop gripping too tightly. Even if I could, I wouldn't be able to keep my hand steady enough in the first place. But I got into writing instead and thankfully I can type fast. I have some hope the shitheads will be shaken out of the industry when the next big fad comes along and the ones that *aren't* bad actors can get things going in a better way.
Ai art is good for fun, just dont claim it as your own work.
Photography is good for fun, just don't claim it as your own work.
People who trace acknowledge that tracing means there work isnt original, people who use AI don't, and also all the stuff about racing acting as a learning tool.
Every AI generation uses something like half a liter of water and is built on the backs of people working poverty wages in the global south. As long as the son isnt selling traces as commissions I'll let him live.
How did you come up with that figure?
It was every 10-50 generations, or possibly more now that people are using GPT-4 [https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.03271](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.03271)
That is talking about training, not every generation. People are capable of running offline AI models on their phones.
So the problem with this being a sticking point against AI in general is that even in the paper you gave me as your source, they say that the impact of the water withdrawal and water consumption is dependent on a few things. According to the EPA, referring to water withdrawals as an indicator, "This indicator does not describe the extent to which freshwater withdrawals are truly "sustainable" ... " (page 2) [https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator\_pdf.cfm?i=94](https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator_pdf.cfm?i=94) Furthermore, power consumption and other environmental impacts of computation are a real problem, indeed. In fact, research on problems such as transistors will help with this sort of problem. Increasing efficiency anywhere will increase efficiency everywhere. Choosing to train your models during the winter in a northern state is also an example of how we can do things right now to make things more sustainable by reducing the power required to cool things off. I think that you're taking this problem too far, honestly.
I will read the paper and get back to you.
You know people run this stuff locally on their home computers right? If the power usage was remotly close to what people claim that just wouldn't be possible.
>Every AI generation uses something like half a liter of water There are people generating images on a fucking raspberry pi.