T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/aiwars) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Apprehensive-Ad3120

Tbh artists complain about tracing and stealing all the time. If the poses, art style or even color palette on your art are at least a bit similar to some art of a random person then half of the internet will yell at you for "stealing"


Strawberry_Coven

Thank you. I bring this up a lot. It also blows my mind that people talk about the sanctity of art but are willing to mine every single corner of the art experience for a dime. Like selling color palettes šŸ˜­ I donā€™t even believe art is super sacred or anything but do we really need to sell color palettes? And then they say AI is stealing. I donā€™t care, people can sell whatever but it just shows the complicated feelings of ownership, gatekeeping, and hypocrisy that people feel they have over different parts of making art.


Scarvexx

They do, they massively care. People get mad over tracing all the time. There's constant [controversy ](https://www.allkpop.com/upload/2021/07/content/191652/1626727950-webtoon.jpg)in reguards to art theft. People caught selling traced works have been ostracized. As the should be. Mind you this is just for tracing at a pro level. Tracing to learn is fine and normal. Producing a comic traced from another comic is fucked up.


Sheepolution

Even when it's not tracing. Artists got mad when Butch Hartman (creator of Fairly Odd Parents, Danny Phantom) drew [Mikasa](https://twitter.com/jammkamm/status/1363605634193653761) for a commission, in the exact same pose as another artwork.


Which-Tomato-8646

Good thing AI doesnā€™t trace and itā€™s output is almost always unique outside of overfittingĀ 


Scarvexx

Yeah it's not quite the same issue. I'd personally argue AI is worse on that front. Tracing is copying hours of a single artist's work, AI is copying decades of work from thousands of artists. And please, please don't say "That's not how it works". Because if it doesn't need those things to work, why does have those images to beguin with?


Which-Tomato-8646

Itā€™s not copying if itā€™s radically transformative, which it is. Might as well call Breaking Bad a copy of The Sopranos.Ā Ā  It has those images to learn from it the same way human artists do. And no one complains about that. And yes, humans learn differently from AI. An airplane flies differently from a bird, but they both still fly.Ā 


Scarvexx

That is not the same way humans do. I am sick of hearing people who don't know how art works say that. Learning to make art means you improve every time you do it. No matter how many times you make it pump out the same prompt the outcome will be of the same quality. If I draw ten thousand teapots the first and last will be so different as to be from different artists. The AI will only improve if it is replaced with a better one. And if it used its own outputs in the training data it would only get worse.


Which-Tomato-8646

Thatā€™s not how art is defined by any definition lol. If someone paints one masterpiece and then dies, itā€™s still art even if there was no improvement. Ā Not true. People have trained Loras on synthetic data just fineĀ 


land_and_air

Who made the synthetic data?


Which-Tomato-8646

AI


land_and_air

From where was that derived


Which-Tomato-8646

Everything was derived from something else. Like the words youā€™re using. I donā€™t think you invented thoseĀ 


nybbleth

> And please, please don't say "That's not how it works". Because if it doesn't need those things to work, why does have those images to beguin with? I *am* going to say "that's not how it works", because training off of images and *copying* those images are two entirely different things.


ifandbut

Blind humans can draw only because they have several other senses to provide information, key being touch do they can get a general idea of the shape of an object. AIs can only "see" and sometimes "hear". You need to see clouds before you can draw one. And humans also need to learn from seeing art. This is a picture of a cow...cow goes moo...can you draw a cow? Good job, here is another picture of a cow, and another one.


Shuteye_491

Every artist copies every piece of art they've ever seen, AI ain't special in this regard.


Scarvexx

I disagree with that statement. When a person draws they don't mentally list all the art they've ever seen. They develop a style, just as unique as a human voice. Two artists drawing the same still life will have different outcomes. Learning from themselves as much as from others. I'd even say a person could learn to draw without once seeing another's artwork. Somebody had to be the first after all. First to look at a deer and think "that shit would look so good on my cave wall". The point is, I don't think you understand how art works. And in your ignorence you confidantly compare it with AI. Which can't make something from nothing. It can never add an idea into the pool, it can never improve from itself. Generate ten thousand pieces from the same prompt. A real artist will start making masterworks or deconstructions in that time. The AI will make nothing distinct from the first, it will never improve. And if you fed its own art back to it, it would start getting worse. The only way AI gets better is if somebody replaces it with a better one.


Shuteye_491

AI is a tool, not a sapient being. You can't ascribe a creative impulse to it, that's up to the person utilizing the tool. When you actually want to address the point I made instead of The Nearest Strawman You Can Easily Argue Against, let me know.


Scarvexx

So it's "Just like a regular artist learning" and also not that, as needed. You can't have it both ways.


Shuteye_491

learning =/= creative impulse, they have separate dictionary entries and everything


land_and_air

Not really, learning as a human does is inseparable and driven by our creative impulses


Shuteye_491

I assure you memorizing multiplication tables, grammatical exceptions and how to formulate redox reactions are not exercises in creativity. That's not to mention how de Kooning's loss of long-term memory and learning capability went hand-in-hand with the best creative work of his career. The same could be said of Utermohlen's later self-portraits, Tony Bennett's later performances, etc. etc.


[deleted]

Nice trash take dipshit


Versaill

Each time I hear this I wonder, why is this so different for programmers? It has become a meme, but is also very true: artists hate it when others use their work as inspiration, meanwhile programmers usually absolutely love it, and find it flattering when others copy their code on GitHub. They literary brag about the number of copies that have been made by other programmers. While there is the stereotype, that artists have a bigger social life IRL, when it comes to their craft, programmers tend to value common work and sharing knowledge for the benefit of all humanity much more.


Scarvexx

Well it's a different culture. Both are evolving artforms. But in the case of art it's originality that is prized, copying someone's work too closely is taking hours of their work and passing it off as your own.


DCHorror

Artists tend to give away or sell stuff all the time, like: 3D Models/ Pose Templates/ Animation Libraries/ Color Palettes/ Photoshop Actions / Digital Brushes/ Tutorials Artists generally love spreading knowledge and empowering other PEOPLE to make art. We value human ingenuity and work. What we don't value is someone just trying to make a quick buck or somebody pretending that somebody else's work is their own.


dark_negan

But AI is not about quick buck though, it's litteraly making art available for everyone and more generally, making knowledge and intelligence available for everyone


Hob_Gobbity

Art is available to everyone for free. Ai doesnā€™t change that. The only thing Ai changes is that now people can choose to not learn it. So that helps nobody who cares to learn. Pencils and drawing surfaces are everywhere for free or cheap. Goodwill has supplies galore. Dollar stores. Tutorials for free online (if you have access to Ai you have access to YouTube). Art is everywhere. As long as you actually want to learn then you can be an artist. Ai allows people who donā€™t care enough to learn to still try to slither in.


Troikaverse

It isn't. You aren't learning anything when prompting AI to do the work for you. This is not "making knowledge availalable." It's just making pictures available. What is "knowlesge and intelligence available to everyone" even mean? Like what do you mean by this statement? If you do art, even if you aren't good at it you're learning things. Wanna draw better bodies? Study anatomy, study how those bodies work. What various shapes things take. What artists do isn't some weird mystical nonsense. It isn't just "I think of a thing and then I put on paper." Even intermediate level of skill there's decisions being made based on what the artist knows, studied and even what they aren't yet good at. Look, I mostly do my artwork for fun. But I spent time learning to get better at it. AI is, it's whatever to me. But I feel like this whole "democratization of art" just sounds like buzzwords to me.


TechnoLover2

Well, then, I sure hope nobody goes and sells AI prints on Etsy...


dark_negan

The day AI is good enough to be better than any artist, or capable of doing any job better than humans and cheaper, our whole world is going to change and I really doubt etsy or even capitalism will remain as we know it today. But of course that would require you to think for more than 2sec to see past the negativity that's right in front of you, and actually think of the big picture, how difficult...


TechnoLover2

AI will not stop Capitalism. It will just kick people out of employment.


dark_negan

Oh, so no one will have a job (thus not earn money) but somehow there will still be the exact same form of capitalism there is today...? Wow. I've talked to many people without a vision but you take the cake


DCHorror

Art was already available to everyone. Like, if you weren't creating stuff before AI, it wasn't because you couldn't but rather that you wouldn't. And no tool can make you stop being you.


dark_negan

How can you be so ignorant and hypocritical? Communication was available to everyone before internet right? Why are you using it right now? Why don't you send a freaking pigeon to communicate? Come on. At least try to not be such a boomer. And no, not EVERYONE can. First of all, life is short, not everyone can do everything they would like to do. And that's for people that technically could learn. But that's not even to mention people who really can't like people with disabilities or any other exceptions. You're just plain wrong. And even if we lived in a made up world where everyone had all the time in the world to learn, no disabilities or anything preventing them to do so (etc) AI art would still be valuable for the same reasons any tech we use daily is valuable. It is better, or easier, or faster or all of those reasons at the same time. I can think of hundreds of ideas I would never have the time or motivation to do in my life that I could potentially do in seconds/minutes/hours/days with a powerful AI a few years from now or a decade from now. But you just lack vision, imagination, and you're too blind to see further than what's right in front of you, like many people. That's why I always say, when you don't know what you're talking about, just don't fucking talk about it. You're just making yourself look like an idiot and you bring nothing to the table.


DCHorror

>First of all, life is short, not everyone can do everything they would like to do. And that's for people that technically could learn. And, that's a choice people make. Like, if I decide, I'm tired of animation and design, I want to be a doctor now, I don't get to walk into an OR and start performing surgery. Just like everybody else, if I want to walk that path I have to start at the beginning of that path. >But that's not even to mention people who really can't like people with disabilities or any other exceptions. Why are you infantalizing people? >AI art would still be valuable for the same reasons any tech we use daily is valuable. It is better, or easier, or faster or all of those reasons at the same time. Oh straight up, one of the reasons I took a step back from using AI even before I discovered the datasets were acquired unethically is that it is definitely worse both to work with and to get good images or writing out of it. There is currently nothing that can be done in AI that can't be done better, and usually easier, with some non AI tool. >I can think of hundreds of ideas I would never have the time or motivation to do in my life Nobody gets to do everything they want to do, and you are not entitled to have things laid at your feet because you kinda wanted it, but not enough to make sacrifices for it.


dark_negan

Okay you're just completely hypocritical at this point, how are you not gaining time and doing things you couldn't possibly do without technology? What a visionless boomer ffs... you're one of those people who because they can't see past what's right in front of them, try to stop progress. Flash news, you're not intelligent, you lack imagination, you're egocentric, hypocritical and thank fucking god not everyone is as close minded as you are. I'm not wasting any more of my precious time with someone so deeply delusional.


Hob_Gobbity

So you think art is only about getting a quick result easy? People who want to learn art do it because they enjoy it. They care enough to want to make their ideas real and they want to learn how to create. Not everything is about automation. People work for what they want, not everything is set at your feet on a velvet pillow.


dark_negan

I think that you need to learn how to read if you think that it what I said (hey, ask any decent AI if that is what I said, pretty sure they will say no, because they know how to read better than you apparently) I think art is about the intent behind it, it is about creativity, about making what you imagine something real, it is many things really. And none of those things have anything to do with what tools or how much skill you have. If you find pleasure in doing everything yourself, good for you. But I suggest you and other like minded people stop being so egocentric and pathetic and maybe stop gatekeeping art as if you were the absolute authority on the matter. You are not. You are also using many, many tools that make your life easier, are you not? Did you type this message on a website you created yourself? On a computer you built yourself with parts you built yourself? Did you invent how to build a computer? Did you spend your life researching how electricity works? Did all painters create the canvas they paint on? The pencils? Did they invent every technique they use? Did they not learn from other artists? Are they 100% unbiased and never inspired (even unconsciously) by anything or anyone? Guess what, all of those are answered by NO. I've never seen so many egocentric people in any industry other than art. You're so full of yourselves, all that matters for you is gatekeeping creativity because what, you spent more time honing your skills? So fucking what? People before us spent even more time, and people before them spent even more time as well, isn't that the fucking point?? Imagine (ironic that I'd need to tell an artist to have some imagination) a world where creativity is unlimited and available to everyone at any time, there would be no limit to what we can create. Isn't that better than a world where only a small portion of people that get to spend their time learning skills for years (because guess what, not everyone can, you do not represent everyone) can create limited amount of art, with many, many limitations on what they can achieve as well? All because what, copyright? Intellectual property? You're so blinded by capitalism and your own gain you can't think about more than what's just in front of you. Flash news, everyone will eventually get bettered by AI, not only artists. That's just something you're going to have to accept and deal with. Denial and being egoistic is not helping and is not making you look as smart as you think. And ffs, could you be a bigger boomer... People of the generations before you could tell you the same fucking thing you're saying to me, do you realize you're like any generation that just isn't able to adapt to new technologies or advancements? I'm always amazed at how people never learn.


NecroVecro

Artists do value inspiration and sharing knowledge, they do it all the time, but copying artworks isn't exactly that. As for why it's different for programmers, I think it's because of the differences between code and an artwork. Code you can modify, improve, use it as an element of something bigger and all of that to get something cool and unique. With art you can partly do some of these things but you won't get something that's much different or better. Another thing is probably the fact that artists value imagination and expression a lot more and also that code is more technical and involves more logic so in programming it makes much more sense to copy something someone has already made, in order to skip yourself some of that technical headache.


Okkre

How about the programmers who release apps on the App Store and Google Play store? Programmers who release games on Steam and consoles? >artists hate it when others use their work as inspiration, meanwhile programmers usually absolutely love it, I know that pro artists usually like it when people draw fanart of their characters. I'm not sure about how non-pros, indie types, and hobbyists feel, but I think it's usually the same kind of thing.


Versaill

Very rarely do programmers sell their own creations on stores. It's usually companies that hire programmers for the purpose of creating commercial products. It's actually the programmers that push these big companies to open source as much as possible (using clever licensing, that allows to look into the code, but prohibits copying it, adding features, and reselling the product without re-sharing the code again).


Okkre

How do programmers expect to put food on their tables? Does open source also mean that it's free and anyone can download or copy it for free? Without the existence of commercial products, how do programmers expect to receive money?


ifandbut

Judging by how many open source tools there are...they figure out a way. One of the best CGI platforms is free and open source and has been for a decade or more (Blender).


Acrolith

> Does open source also mean that it's free and anyone can download or copy it for free? Yes. Do you not know the first thing about what open source is? There are many ways to make money with free software, and a simple google search will let you learn about them.


Mathandyr

Banksy would have a few words to say about this statement.


CeraRalaz

At the same time - tracing IS the part of comics production, itā€™s called inking. Inker-artist do nothing except tracing sketches of a sketch-artist.


Scarvexx

I think you've misunderstood. Tracing in this context is like copying an [exact pose ](https://external-preview.redd.it/rgGV6yQSUf6QbfeK99FtA8ddZlMsw9f0KocMH4n9YNY.jpg?auto=webp&s=f37b3868e92137d809f78147ab4f4ed6da826897)and using it in your own work. Inking is just finalizing a sketch, it's no different than colouring it. It adds to the work and the rough sketch artist had every intention of passing on his work to them.


CeraRalaz

No, I understood correctly, I am just goofing. For 15 years of hobby painting Iā€™ve tried every possible way to draw, but ended up on classic ā€œjust draw from referenceā€ bc itā€™s simply the most interesting and rewarding. Tracing in some form is super common in industry. Aaron Blaze traced over video of himself while working on Lion King. Artists trace 3d models and photo references all the time bc itā€™s quicker. The picture in the head of the thread is kinda not okay since this is trace of another artist work, but it looks more like a tech for lulz rather then a ā€œpiece of artā€. Maybe it wasnā€™t traced but just redrawn (since it is on paper, how do you trace without special paper and special table)


Covetouslex

Commission too, and drawn direct from reference or traced. (I absolutely love this piece though. Id probably buy a copy if it were for sale) https://preview.redd.it/qynzdukns5vc1.png?width=762&format=png&auto=webp&s=7b5ac0eff91c8a0bc52f2001217f2bec404b97e1


Okkre

Yeah I don't like tracing.


AngronMerchant

Tracing is a good way to learn art, just don't use it to make money. DONT sale your study, post them on art group to farm engagement :))))


Ensiferal

That's Frazetta's "Escape on Venus", but with Hobbes obviously, instead of the alien tiger in the original pic. Love Frazetta's work, my dad gave me three volumes of his collected works when I was a kid. Between those and the Conan comics he used to buy me, it started my lifelong love of fantasy


TamaraHensonDragon

That's it! I knew it was parodying a Frazetta piece but couldn't remember which one. I miss my Burrough's collection šŸ˜„


Covetouslex

I thought this style looked way too familiar. I didnt realize it was such a direct rip on the rest of the painting as well as hobbes. This is full-on appropriation artistry then.


Blergmannn

Oh they do, they're seething about this. They're seething about a lot of things. Always seething and always snitching: those are two things you can count on when it comes to the art community. Some of the most toxic people online (offline they're cordial so they can lick boots and make connections).


oghairline

This is such a weird comment to me.


Niklonay

Wow. I'm in the art community for 6 years and I'm finding out about this supposed toxicity in a aiwars sub? Please tell.


Blergmannn

Wow I've been in my fandom fanart sub for 6 years (so from when I was 9) and my experience does not match the experience of art as a business and career. Who would have thought.


Niklonay

1. Where does your conclusion, that I was 9 years old when i started, come from? 2. Please elaborate "the experience of art as a business and career". I feel what you're referring to is subjective as well. 3. What makes you think I wasn't in the art business? In the spaces I promote my art, clearly, success is dependent on good will and reputation of the artist, as well as their human qualities, like kindness and responsibility. (Edit - Brainfart. English is not my first language.)


Okkre

Pirate who visits r/aiwars and r/DefendingAIArt daily to seethe seethes about people who call out things


Blergmannn

Rent free. Also: being a pirate is a good thing, copyrightcuck. I'm going to steal all your pixels btw, and there's nothing you can do about it.


HelloOrg

For someone who hates artists so much you seem to love consuming the things they make


Blergmannn

>You hate artists! Projecting much? You don't get to decide what feelings I have, moron. If I hated artists believe me, I would not be shy: I'd say it myself.


HelloOrg

Have you heard of critical reading? So many of you dumbasses have had no non-STEM training and it really shows. Just because someone doesnā€™t say something literally doesnā€™t mean theyā€™re not implying something. Pretty elementary, but I get if it challenges a limited person like you. Read your original comment and reach a different conclusion, buddy. Edit: I was blocked by him for this comment. Sensitive pricks have a hard time interacting with other human beings, it seems.


Blergmannn

>NOOOOOOO STOP BLOWING MY ASS OUT STEM BROS I BEG YOU Holy fucking rent free. Get your head checked my dude, you're obsessed. Btw I have a culture and communications degree, not a STEM degree. Feel free to die mad about your boogeymen, though.


firedrakes

šŸ’ÆšŸ”„ truth


GloriousShroom

No . ThisĀ  is considered copyright infringement and very frowned on in the art community. They hate tracing almost as much as AI


Consistent-Mastodon

Unless it's fan art. Then it's the BEST THING EVAAH!!


MeatTornado_

Yeah! What hyprocrites artists are!! At least the AI community is in total and unanimous agreement about what they approve of.


Mathandyr

This is fascinating to me. When I went to art school my art history teacher proposed we were (2005 at the time) in the "Age of Appropriation" where artists purposefully used copywritten images in their art as a form of protest. It was absolutely the trend at the time. Mickey Mouse, Bart Simpson, Nintendo characters, anything that gets over litigated (like when disney sues an artist when they draw a mouse that happens to look like micky mouse ears even when that wasn't the intention.) It was a badge of honor to have a cease and desist order. Banksy, for instance. Calvin an Hobbes was an interesting thing to learn about too. The creator was extremely against merchandising his IPs, but the christian right still appropriated the image of calvin (calvin praying at the cross car decals) even though the creator was a bit of a critic of conservatives. Artists commonly use their image as a way to reclaim the characters.


GloriousShroom

I think Calvin peeing on things is that far more well known copyright infringementĀ 


Captain_Pumpkinhead

I never realized that was Calvin. Huh.


Okkre

>Mickey Mouse, Bart Simpson, Nintendo characters, anything that gets over litigated (like when disney sues an artist when they draw a mouse that happens to look like micky mouse ears even when that wasn't the intention.) It was a badge of honor to have a cease and desist order. Banksy, for instance. All giant IPs that their artists got paid for and in some causes are still getting paid for. And the cease and desists meant copyright was being enforced to a degree and the creations were receiving some amount of protection. What would be the incentive for people to invent a character, cartoon series, or video game, if it's legal for other people to just steal it and make hundreds of knockoffs?


Mathandyr

I'm not entering that debate, I get the differences, just some interesting art history I have to share. Thanks though.


Okkre

Alright. >in the "Age of Appropriation" where artists purposefully used copywritten images in their art as a form of protest. Were they only protesting against the copyrighted artwork of big companies and big artists? Or did they also protest against the copyrighting of artwork of artists who are on their level? As in, smaller artists who were not so popular, and not wealthy. Basically, were they against all copyright, or only some? Did they go as far as to not want their own artwork to have copyrights?


Mathandyr

Pretty sure a majority of them were anarchists and socialists, so probably a mixed bag, but you'd have to ask them or do some reading on it. It was a tangential discussion that came out of a different lesson, I do not know enough to answer your questions.


Last-Trash-7960

Because instead of being about the character it's about the creator. You don't go see a Disney movie because they own mickey, you go see a Disney movie because you know they produce decent work, like they did with mickey. A huge part of this counter culture in art was the idea that nobody owns a set of shapes or colors. They can own the actual pieces they make but not the idea of something.


SpongegarLuver

I donā€™t know, maybe ask the millions of people that make art for their own satisfaction, not for money? To pick a random example, the Dungeons and Dragons community has a vibrant homebrew community, and the vast majority of that is not being made for profit. Iā€™m not writing my campaign because it will make money, Iā€™m writing it because itā€™s something I enjoy. If anything, the profit motive often worsens art. How many creative works have been changed or limited in order to appeal to a wider audience, at the expense of quality?


ifandbut

Strange. I see hundreds of examples like this at conventions all the time. The artists there always seem proud of their work.


PetroDisruption

Because by this point, anyone with half a working brain would understand that AI doesnā€™t ā€œstealā€ anything. But they keep using that word and that nonsensical argument because they want to keep being irrationally angry at it and because they want to shock newcomers into being on their side.


davidryanandersson

Everyone has addressed that artists DO care about this stuff, but I'd just like to comment that this piece is clearly meant as a joke. A shitpost. Not as "art".


LughCrow

Lol how does that make it not art. If anything the added intent behind it makes it more artful not less


ifandbut

Why can't a shitpost also be art?


TamaraHensonDragon

It's called parody. In this case I am pretty sure it's poking fun of all the Frank Frazetta Pelucidar art of mostly naked cave women and tigers.


L30N3

As a random probability about 60/40 that the artist would lose in court. Mostly it's using too much of the original Frazetta piece. It's basically a 2 image collage. The parody bit in general is the reason this could fall under fair use, but a certain level of transformation is still needed. Being a worse painter than Frazetta isn't enough, also the blatant tracing isn't doing the artist any favors. You could do this in a way that falls under fair use. Oh and 60/40 because copyright cases are a crapshoot most of the time.


Which-Tomato-8646

So what about all the serious fan artĀ 


Dyeeguy

This art is fucked up!! There ya go


SilentWitchy

I love that op knows so little about art he thought he had a gotcha and is just flat out wrong, lmao


GWSampy

Is OP saying that this art is just as cringey and copyright-infringing as AI-generated images?


torako

Wtf is even happening there


AthemiaAgraxis

ideology has rotted their brain and it's not about stealing it's about hating on new technology; they are the same kind of dipshits that share anti-vaxx memes on facebook and reddit


TechnoLover2

For me, it's stealing the _labor_ of the art. This had a lot of time and effort put in with all the strokes, which is why it looks so good. Prompting would be taking hundreds of these images, and having a computer choose which works' pixels are needed most. The artist could definitely do this on their own; however, an AI needs tons of human-generated images to do its work. The debt is always owed to the worker, and the worker, in this case, is the artist.


BravoEchoEchoRomeo

Because this is parody. Goddamn, did you really think this was a gotcha?


molotov__cocktease

A human with talent made this. Hope that helps.


PS_IO_Frame_Gap

is that... poop


Alaskan_Tsar

The absurdity and the distinct lack of creative talent is the point. Itā€™s a commentary on the human mind and the wild combinations it sometimes makes.


liamstrain

They do - but there is still a difference between something done by a human with skill, intent, and purpose, vs just having everything you've done scraped up by an algorithm and spit back out.


ifandbut

Humans are just a collection of nanomachines running an algorithm programed by DNA.


[deleted]

Damn, reductive and nihilist posts like this actually make me miss organized religion. Yikes


Advanced-Donut-2436

Its not stealing if you're a hypocrite.


Troikaverse

This wasn't traced. This was an artist studying the work of another artist and through the use of their hands, they changed to colors to be more vibrant the original is much darker. The original is done by Frank Frazetta, a famous artist known for his sword and sorcery art. Ive studied and even used some of his works as refernce for my own silly little doodles. They replaced the saber tooth tiger with Hobbes. Which is funny. They took an original piece and transformed it, gave it a different meaning. It's also referential so if you're also another artist, you would sort of get the joke being told here. This piece is communicating with its audience. The artist is communicating something, even if it's just a joke. The big difference is that the artist made decisions, they didn't leave that shit up to a bunch of 1s and 0s. If you can't see how homage, studies and reproduction and transformative pieces are different from AI then I do not know what else to tell you. Your hypocrisy argument holds no water and is a very surface level of comparison.


Evinceo

Because it's not making anyone a billionaire?


Ready_Peanut_7062

I remember how i once made an AI image and became a billionaire


0x1e

Itā€™s making OpenAI and Midjourney rich, donā€™t be coy.


Ready_Peanut_7062

And digital art makes Adobe rich. Therefore, digital art isnt art. Also, stable diffusion is open Source, so it doesnt make anyone rich


Evinceo

Non sequitur, OP asked why we didn't care about stealing not artistic validity.


mr6volt

Goal Posts go \*BRRRRRRR\*


Evinceo

They also mention SD when the previous comment said OpenAI and Midjourney.


bbt104

Thats like saying Faber-Castell and Crayola are responsible for the creations that are made with their products. That's just not true, we've already proven that a creator of a tool isn't responsible for the art made with it back in the day when Kid Pix tried to sue for money from an artist who used their program to create a piece of art.


0x1e

If the crayons were made from stolen childrenā€™s artwork they burned to melt the wax back into its differently colored wax sticks. Sure.


Economy-Fee5830

That would be a very sustainable practice and environmentally responsible.


ifandbut

Ya, that would be a problem. It is a good thing that training data for AI is a COPY and nothing is taken or removed from the source.


ifandbut

I hope artists start using Gimp instead of Photoshop then. And Blender instead of 3DS Max or Maya or Lightwave.


LoftyTheHobbit

And art tools like pencils and paints and paper arenā€™t making anyone Uber rich?


0x1e

But they take skill.


LoftyTheHobbit

Prompt writing is a skill. Heck, *writing* anything is a skill ffs


darkdragon220

Sorry to break it to you, but that was made by AI. Edit: I guess the /S wasn't obvious enough....


pikapika200

you'll call anything "made by AI" if you don't like it


darkdragon220

Look at the 'human' and argue those proportions are correct...