11 ms·
DeviantArt upsets artists with its new AI art generator, DreamUp
- scrapcode 4y agoWould court decisions in cases such as what is going on with GitHub automatically affect business products such as this, and to what extent (e.g. retroactive royalties, etc)...
- zone411 4y agoUnlikely. Check out this article that was linked here previously: https://katedowninglaw.com/2022/11/10/open-source-lawyers-view-on-the-copilot-class-action-lawsuit/ https://katedowninglaw.com/2022/11/10/open-source-lawyers-vi...
- constantlm 4y agoGiven the uproar from artists around SD, this move from DeviantArt seems a bit tone deaf.
- odessacubbage 4y agoit's actually worse than tone deaf because they clearly understand why people are mad well enough to propose fake solutions.
- visarga 4y agoAre you referring to their opt-out from training? Artists were complaining about not being able to say no to training on their works.
- yieldcrv 4y agoLooks more like trolling their community because they dont matter in this shift. The opting program is conpletely unnecessary, we shouldnt even be debating about it being optin by default with opt out being the choice, the opting program shouldnt have been done at all. AI models will be trained on everything visible whether DeviantArts is going to respect a flag or somebody else’s Stable Diffusion model doesnt. Poor taste to say its opt in by default knowing the AI can read it all extremely quickly and probably already has and will never forget. They could have just handled the backlash without an opting feature.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Weryj 4y agoWill they be retraining the model as people opt-out?
- Gigachad 4y agoNot a chance considering how expensive it is. But you’d expect new uploads wouldn’t be used
- wccrawford 4y agoIf they're not retraining, you'd expect new uploads wouldn't be used anyhow. That would effectively make the opt-out worthless.
- downrightmike 4y agoI mean, DA is now about 50% preggo anime porn anyways... Edit: Has been for years.
- charcircuit 4y agoLooking at the comment section it seems that people struggle to understand how it works and thinks it is literally copying parts of people's images. Educating people about such a technical topic seems very difficult especially since people get emotional of their work being used.
- pyridines 4y agothat is unfortunately a common misconception among artists on Twitter (however representative that group is)
- kadoban 4y agoIt's worse than copying parts of images, it's replacing artists. I know because I'm literally working on setting up Dreambooth to do what I'd otherwise have to pay an artist to do. And not only is it replacing artists, it's using their own work to do so. None of these could exist without being trained on the original artwork. Surely you can imagine why they're largely not happy?
- toomuchtodo 4y agoNo one is happy when technology renders them obsolete or drives the marginal cost of what they produce to zero.
- kadoban 4y agoAnd in my lifetime it'll probably come for coders too. What happens to society when none of the workers are needed anymore, and any pretense of it being anything other than solely "the rich get richer" disappears?
- toomuchtodo 4y agoTransition to a superior compatible economic system? It’s all I’ve got honestly as a suggestion. The technology is coming regardless.
- gardenhedge 4y agoSince Microsoft is doing it with code, it makes sense others will do the same.
- Daub 4y agoDeviantArt is not the cultural force it once was. All the cool kids moved to Artstation. It is on Artstation images that a lot of these AI tools have been trained.
- echelon 4y ago1. ArtStation got the sweet Epic Games buyout/exit. It is also the better community as it serves as a Github-like professional portfolio for artists. 2. AI-unaided art is on the way to becoming a niche artisanal field. Kids of tomorrow will treat illustration as they do calligraphy, celluloid film, and butter churning. 3. Because of these trends, their userbase will stop growing and eventually dwindle. DeviantArt sees the writing on the wall. This is a risky but probably necessary pivot, though it will accelerate the loss of their existing userbase.
- Daub 4y ago> 2. AI-unaided art is on the way to becoming a niche artisanal field. Kids of tomorrow will treat illustration as they do calligraphy, celluloid film, and butter chuRning Maybe I agree 80 percent With this. I teach art and certainly our illustration stream will have to re-think itself. We are already seeing students of their own accord incorporate AI into their work. Mostly this is for ideation and development. But the best results come from the students who best know the formal language of art. This is not easy to come by and only very experienced artists and art directors speak this language effectively.
- Gigachad 4y agoThis reminds me when I was told “a skilled driver can shift gears better than an automatic”. It was probably true and perhaps even more back then but now the machine is good enough that it’s better than the vast majority of people.
- MrMan 4y agosometimes worse is better, people are perverse
- nbzso 4y agoRemoved my meaningless rant. There is no point in sharing my views here on this subject. I forgot that I am on HN, and artist are underrepresented here.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- heavyset_go 4y agoI'd be interested in reading it.
- M4v3R 4y agoThis is a weird take. Of course artists are underrepresented here. This is a tech oriented community. Which is why a different perspective is even more welcome to have, otherwise we will live in our own bubble detached from reality.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- exodust 4y agoReminds me of departure announcements that nobody asked for. It's okay to hate every single piece of AI generated art, just like it's okay to hate everything Andy Warhol did.
- nbzso 4y agoOK Computer
- ta8645 4y agoArtists are no different than all the people who tried to destroy the cotton gin or the automated loom. We're all going to have to live in a world where these technologies exist, and find a way to live a fulfilling life regardless. Just as chess players today enjoy the game even though computers have surpassed our chess abilities. It seems odd to complain that computers are using human's artwork to inspire their own creations. Every human artist has done the exact same thing in their lifetime; it's unavoidable.
- echelon 4y ago> It seems odd to complain that computers are using human's artwork to inspire their own creations. Every human artist has done the exact same thing in their lifetime; it's unavoidable. Agree. But you also have to treat code the same way. We shouldn't be suing Open AI and Microsoft over copilot being trained on open source code. It's no different than models trained on art. Besides, if Microsoft loses, they actually win. I expect they're one of the few companies with enough code to train the model on completely proprietary data. If they lose the case, they'll still be able to build the tool. The rest of us will be locked out of easy training data and won't be able to compete.
- b112 4y agoThe rest of us will be locked out of easy training data and won't be able to compete. There's loads of BSD code, and to share, all that is required is a link to attributation. It seems to me, there is money to be made, in getting model data colinked with "saw first" references. Then, for example, after a github style codebot writes the code for you, it can show a link to "where it learned to help you today!". There is no technical reason the can't be done, only a business model reason. That said, I find the comments in this thread strange. Discussion about how tech moves on, and looms and such. That arg was lost, when people could cut up songs, and slap them together, or cut up 100 textbooks into one. This is settled by endless laws, and caselaw. It isn't a new argument. Microsoft will lose.
- bugfix-66 4y agoThese systems aggregate and interpolate human work. Interpolation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpolation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpolation It's like a very complicated form of linear interpolation: a*x + (1-a)*y These systems do not "think". Today I spent all day mulling an idea, experimenting with variations, feeling frustrated or excited, imagining it, simulating it, making mistakes, following paths of reasoning, deducing facts, revisiting dead-ends with new insight, daydreaming, talking to my wife about it, etc. That's human thought. These models do not "think" like a human, they do not dream or imagine or feel. They run a feed-forward system of linear equations (matrix multiplications). They INTERPOLATE HUMAN WORK. They don't exist without training data (huge amounts of intellectual property) aggregated and interpolated in a monstrous perversion of "fair use": https://bugfix-66.com/7a82559a13b39c7fa404320c14f47ce0c304facc51cdacbba3f99654652bf428 https://bugfix-66.com/7a82559a13b39c7fa404320c14f47ce0c304fa... Starve the machine. Without your work, it's got nothing.
- indiogrindio 4y agoIt's not going to replace artists. It's just another genre. Like any art form that's done over and over, people catch onto the nuances of it and begin to get tired of it after a period of time. It's why we have different periods of art in different regions of the world, or why I want to gouge my eyes out with every bland new Pixar or Marvel movie.
- kupopuffs 4y agoThere are definitely more novel ideas to explore and popularize
- yuzuquat 4y agoIt looks like DeviantArt sent out an update to placate its community [1] with some interesting technical implications: 1) DA tos stipulates that works of art needs to be opt-in for inclusion into AI datasets 2) scraping/downloading art will include a response header with "X-Robots-Tag: noimageai" to indicate individuals building models should not use the downloaded image in a dataset. As someone overall empathetic to the artist community (who have had to deal with NFTs, copycats, difficult industry), I have no illusions that this will have a hard time standing up against fair-use laws. That being said, if you're looking to build an ai-art model, this might be worth paying attention to regardless if you decide to comply or not. [1] https://www.deviantart.com/team/journal/Tell-AI-Datasets-If-They-Can-t-Use-Your-Content-934500371 https://www.deviantart.com/team/journal/Tell-AI-Datasets-If-...
- knaik94 4y agoIt's becoming harder to have a meaningful discussion on the topic of what defines art and what place AI generated images have moving forward. It feels like defending either side will cause backlash and people will implicitly include extra conclusions with a response. There is a place for AI art generation and there is a place for artists. NFTs were interesting in how they overvalued otherwise mediocre art. These models are interesting in how they bring down the cost and experience needed for making derivative art. To me, the creativity still lies in someone being able to produce something meaningful. Art is about being able to convey ideas in a way that's impossible to communicate in some other way. An artist is someone that makes art. In that sense everyone who has generated art is an artist. Oversaturating the world with derivative art will only make novel things stand out more. It's very hard to share a nuanced take on this topic because this argument has become framed in such a binary way. With something like medicine, the value of a doctor's opinion is very clear to a layperson. But when it comes to art, the value of an artist's perspective is not clear at all. However, I think making parallels to music makes it clear for me. AI generated music will replace elevator music at best, but I don't think the public fears ai models will ever replace musicians. At most ai will complement the art creation process. The "soul" and novelty in art will always come from an idea another human wants to communicate.
- causality0 4y agoIn terms of "what is art" I think it's just normal ludditism. AI is a tool just like the "sharpen" button in Photoshop. Sure it takes it easier, but so does using a computer and being able to draw on different layers make it easier than using paint and a canvas. People, now just like decades ago, are just grumpy at the idea of someone having an easier time than they had.
- jonathanstrange 4y agoI don't think that's true in general, it really depends on the AI and the workflow. I've seen prompt-based "art" on r/stablediffusion that almost certainly violates existing copyright and looked very much like photoshopping existing images onto each other, violating the copyright of each of them. It is well-known that this type of work can be derivative and original, but it need not be. With some of the newer models, prompts can be literally one line of text like "photorealistic image of a girl on a motorbike." Even if the result counts as art, it is definitely not the artwork of the person who wrote the prompt.
- Curufir 4y agoI'm curious what the legal position on copyright is with ML assisted works. Up until now the tools being used aren't usually defining the end product. I don't mean library code or song samples, etc. where licensing comes into play. The tools I'm referring to, like an IDE, or art program, or even a paintbrush, might enhance the process of creation but they don't define the product. With ML the output of the tool becomes a concrete part of the end product. So, surely the copyright ownership for the part of the product generated via ML is not held by the person using the tool. Which means you would have to license the ML generated part of your product from whoever produced the tool. I have no legal expertise but it definitely feels like there is a dangerous trap in using these tools without that question being answered.
- fimdomeio 4y agoI have a problem with this concept of "unethical sourced data". what does it really mean? Isn't google search business built on "unethical sourced data", they keep a pirated copy of every website they encounter and feed it to their algorithms. Isn't by definition human culture built on "unethical sourced data" remixed by the human brain? Example: imagine you are creating a punk band. You will use all your background knowledged of what punk is, the band's you like and maybe if you're creative an unexpected source of inspiration from things outside the world of punk? How's that essentially different from how stable diffusion works? Another good example is the "Who let the dogs out" song. There's an article / podcast at https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/whomst-among-us-let-the-dogs-out/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/whomst-among-us-let-t... where they try to find the origin. At some point even the creators don't really know where the source of the inspiration came from but some of the sources are geographically close which seems to point to a common source. Some of the variations seem quite different, some are pretty close. Overall I think this is just computers replacing some human capabilities, like machines in factories. You lose most of the poethics in the artistry of a human doing something by hand and gain the capability speed. Doing x per second instead of y per month. If you need the symbolism and the poethics of art you'll keep using a human. if you need to generate a thousand variations of an idea you'll use stable diffusion.
- teddyh 4y ago> Isn't google search business built on "unethical sourced data", they keep a pirated copy of every website they encounter and feed it to their algorithms. Yes. Do two wrongs make a right? An accusation of hypocricy is not an argument. > Isn't by definition human culture built on "unethical sourced data" remixed by the human brain? Do not compare AI to human brains. They do not work the same at all, but however similar they are (or might become), they are legally distinct, since copyright law is meant to encourage humans, not AI, to create works. The problem is people at large companies creating these AI models, wanting the freedom to copy artists’ works when using it, but these large companies also want to keep copyright protection intact, for their regular business activities. They want to eat the cake and have it too. And they are arguing for essentially eliminating copyright for their specific purpose and convenience, when copyright has virtually never been loosened for the public’s convenience, even when the exceptions the public asks for are often minor and laudable. If these companies were to argue that copyright should be eliminated because of this new technology, I might not object. But now that they come and ask… no, they pretend to already have, a copyright exception for their specific use, I will happily turn around and use their own copyright maximalist arguments against them.
- Cypher 4y agoIt's an unfortunate side effect of progress. Just like when journalist were displaced by mommy bloggers.
- MomoXenosaga 4y agoWhen you go to a museum do you go for the art or do you go for Van Gogh? AI will never cut off their ear or do something artistically bizarre. It's usually the man or woman behind the art that makes art art.