#I think the fact that you occasionally
ripe folio
To be fair, that proves my point further about AI being a tool.
such a tool is still capable of being used to steal art.
Are similar things not done already through tracing, and creating fakes of real art?
I don't think such a thing existing should invalidate actual works that aren't stolen.
wind gate
It’s not a tool that is capable of stealing, it’s a tool that entirely exists to steal and then remix
I honestly haven’t read this discussion so I’m not going to argue all the finer points of things like invalidating actual artists
But I do think that the concept of creating and using AI art beyond as a reference/inspiration is morally ambiguous at best
The same way tracing art is great and acceptable for practice but if you pass the traced art off as your own you are a thief
ripe folio
But I do think that the concept of creating and using AI art beyond as a referen...
Then remix artists are also thieves?
If they aren't, what is the difference between taking pieces from other art and remixing, and outright stealing?
steady canopy
AI Artbros trying to justify the fact they have no talent
bro check out my prefixes and searchterms!!!!
ripe folio
Common "Avoid answering" Momen
steady canopy
remix artists are not thieves
that is inspiration because a HUMAN used it to INSPIRE them
meaning WORK had to be done
im sorry you cant get validation by doing /imagine in your midjourney AI bot dms
if a HUMAN were to say, trace or just reupload, that's theft because no significant change happened, nor did the meaning of it change
but AI art just yoinks from datasets of artists that did not consent to being used in that way, and presents it as "original" work
why do you think you can use "in the style of"
its because its copying
you're using a faulty copy machine
ripe folio
but AI art just yoinks from datasets of artists that **did not consent** to bein...
Okay, what of AI art that pulls from artists who deliberately make it to be used for AI art?
or a bot whose makers actually ask artists?
inb4 "that doesn't happen"
steady canopy
point to where it does happen
and even then its still a robot making soulless copies of datasets
it is inherently valueless
ripe folio
And what of sample artists? who straight up rip songs and then take the sounds and make something new?
is that stealing?
what if a robot did that?
is the fact that code does the same thing make it inherently valueless? why?
steady canopy
if a robot did it and a human tried to pass it off as their original creation, yes its stealing
if a human did it then fair use laws and morals come into play
wind gate
Okay, what of AI art that pulls from artists who deliberately make it to be used...
At that point it isn’t really stealing but you still don’t have any right to claim ownership over it, and honestly it’s so outside the realm of possibility right now that it couldn’t really be considered an option
steady canopy
please see @toxic violet's message
ripe folio
I did, and I believe the biggest point they make that I agree with, is "right now".
toxic violet
yes right now. If people want to validate AI art as a tool purely for assistance with drawing, it better clean up its act and be as transparent as possible
ripe folio
^ I completely agree.
steady canopy
once AI doesn't need art to create new content then it wont be stealing
it needs to actually truly create new content
and even then i would argue its not the user's original content, but the machine's
and still not valid as original art
toxic violet
that’s practically impossible IMO. it takes imagination, and we barely even understand our own brain.
steady canopy
then it will likely always be stealing
toxic violet
that’s as long as they keep avoiding to address what they’re doing. The moment AI Artists are genuine about their tool and their practices (no stealing, no monetizing), I will support it.
i’m just on the edge of it all right now
steady canopy
the saddest part of all of this is that its likely not going to stop and eventually AI "artists" will start making similar money to real ones
ripe folio
^ I completely agree.
To argue that taking pieces of original content and re-using it to make something your own is stealing, completely disregards artists such as Daft Punk and Toby Fox, both of which were/still are making their fame by using samples of music.
(also see SilvaGunner, who if you don't know, is a channel where they take music and copy it, note for note, using sounds from other music.)
steady canopy
you missed something
those are human people
yes it does matter
no i dont care about your reductive argument because you refuse to step down and you'll blame your head for it
ripe folio
yes it does matter
How does it matter?
what changes from Person to Code that makes it different?
steady canopy
and finally, no that does not invalidate our side, its just that i dont want to deal with arguing with a brick wall who goes in circles in order to win by attrition
toxic violet
To argue that taking pieces of original content and re-using it to make somethin...
Sampling is also quite a hot topic with with the music community. The thing about sampling is that “is the new creation original enough to be known as its own thing?” or “This is just (that one song)! Is this not stealing someone’s flow?”
toxic violet
as of now. I REAAAALLLLY HOPE it gets moderation asap
ripe folio
So do I
toxic violet
So we’re just on the same conclusion I guess. Just different views on it
wind gate
How does it matter?
what changes from Person to Code that makes it different?
It isn’t even the code of the people using it. I personally really dislike when people sample others music but even then they are finding a new use for it, using their own ingenuity and time to do so. To make something lifeless do all the hard work for you through a combination of theft and algorithms, you lose all right to take any ownership of it, you have done nothing but leach either the artwork or programming of someone else than slapped your own name on it.
toxic violet
not all of them. I understand where fablor is within this argument
steady canopy
(even though i will always see them as grifters because they dont put any work into being artists)
toxic violet
the tool itself is very volatile, but it’s what the artists themselves make use of it for that ultimately divides it
wind gate
I agree that it’s entirely the user that makes the issue
I personally believe that as a learning or inspiration tool, it’s incredible
But in the end it’s nothing but stealing, so it shouldn’t ever be used beyond that
As long as you can put your own creative spin on an idea you got from AI art than it’s not really an issue
It’s the people who make AI art that share it with others as if it’s something to be proud of, or claim it was their own ingenuity that made it that makes me angry
ripe folio
the tool itself is very volatile, but it’s what the artists themselves make use ...
This is my entire argument.
Much of what has been said against what I've said has revolved around current iterations of the idea.
What of AI art that isn't made through stealing?
regardless of if it isn't currently possible, would the tune change if it was?
And even then, so long as you don't slap your own name on it, and simply state it as "found art" then that would do wonders I think.
I do agree that if your purpose is to make money, you should do so on your own skills and benefits.
Something I see as a possibility in the future is people making a profit off making the bots, or even specifically being good at cherry picking the art from the bots.
wind gate
This is my entire argument.
Much of what has been said against what I've said ha...
I think the ‘current iterations’ are here to stay, it’s already pushing our technology to create through stealing, to truly create is basically impossible with what we know now, so I’m arguing as the issue is now rather than the possibilities in the future.
ripe folio
Then we are in agreement then.
toxic violet
I do agree that if your purpose is to make money, you should do so on your own s...
Yes! the only reason it is an issue in the first place because the creators are directly leeching of big art forums’ databases (without the knowledge of the artists). If the AI creators were transparent about this, and the artists of the artwork in those databases consented to being used as AI assistance (with appropriate compensation of course), AI art will become a wonderful thing
polar vapor
Basically, people whose art is used by ai to make images should a.) consent and b.) recieve royalties.
The rest of profits should go to the programmer who designs and publishes the ai, not someone who randomly does what the customer themselves can do.