12 ms·
> someone doesn’t like them AI art is literally working against what Kickstarter was made for. AI art is about putting together the work that artists have don
by Guvante 4y ago
> someone doesn’t like them
AI art is literally working against what Kickstarter was made for.
AI art is about putting together the work that artists have done in a way that isn't technically theft (well it might be the law is very slow about reacting to this thing and you can't go after someone for copyright violation as a class action lawsuit)
If someone wanted to pay artists to create a brand new collection of art to train AI on that would be fine. However the reality is current AI art is all farmed from publicly "available" images. (Copyright law currently allows you to display images for public consumption without worrying about those images being re-appropriated, AI art bypasses that)
> Let bad ideas be rejected by society
Except society doesn't understand what is going on and explaining it requires expert testimony. Of course you can discard those complaints by just making shit up and sound nearly as convincing.
> Because inevitably they don’t represent everyone
Kickstarter didn't say they were doing this for everyone. They explicitly said they were doing it to support artists. Artists haven't universally called out AI art as theft but a ton have.
- kristofferR 4y agoLuddism has a pretty long history, by now it should be clear that fighting against technological advancement is such an impossible challenge that it's utterly pointless and a massive waste of time. While I understand why some artists are upset, the ones who succeed in the future will be the ones who use the technology in their work, instead of those who just complain and whine.
- vouaobrasil 4y agoI disagree. Fighting against technology has a point. Some people are already recognizing it and using less technology, and trying to live simpler lives. Every dollar that is not spent on technology slows its progress, and if enough people quit spending money on it, it cannot develop. Movements can grow unexpectedly and seemingly out of nowhere. It may be possible that enough people will enjoy the idea of living a life unencumbered by pointless junk and if so, their actions can have the power to shut down companies like OpenAI and the like. If I could convince even one other person on this planet of the dangers of technology, I would consider the effort I put into talking about it worth it. In fact, I myself have been convinced by other people and in turn I have already spent far less money on technology because of it. Maybe it's a drop in the ocean, but drops of rain can become floods, and one day I truly hope that flood will come to completely shut down efforts like UnstableDiffusion and similar projects.
- kristofferR 4y agoHonestly I think that's an absurd pipedream, OpenAI can't keep their servers stable due to the massive demand and Unstable Diffusion has over 100 000 users in their Discord. To hope that they shut down due to a lack of users is just a thought process that is only guaranteed to cause unhappiness.
- vouaobrasil 4y agoUnhappiness? That must be a strange definition of happy you are using. All those people can go on to amuse themselves some other way. It's as silly as saying that people would be unhappy if no more Marvel movies were made. It's just a little diversion and people would go on to do something else. I think it's very unlikely that true happiness is caused by the highly specific diversions we have created in society. I can put myself out there -- I have hobbies too. And if they stopped, I would miss them a little. But I certainly wouldn't go far as to say that would make me unhappy.
- __pache__ 4y agoI think you're whooshing here. Thinking you can control others will lead to unhappiness, I think is their point.
- vouaobrasil 4y agoI don't aim to control anyone. Only not support AI and find other people of a similar mindset to do so, and spread this message. People can of course ignore it.
- __pache__ 4y agoUh huh....
- Guvante 4y agoBuild an AI using copyright free work and we can talk. Stealing other's work under the guise of "advancement" isn't futurism...
- vouaobrasil 4y agoAs a content creator, I believe unstable diffusion and AI models is theft, at least in a moral sense. Computer programmers have taken all the art that humans have worked hard to produce, and are producing it themselves at a rate much faster than any artist can produce it and reaping the financial benefits. Because AI is so general, it operates on a scale not previously known in the realm of automation, and so it's too much of an unfair advantage -- far more so than someone coming up with an invention that makes a few other previous inventions obsolete. AI is like an alien race coming to our planet. The alien race is so advanced that it can do everything better than any human, and they use their technology to sell us perfect products of every nature in return for degrading acts. Such a thing disrupts the fabric of society, which is held together by people needing each other. Computer programmers and tech companies are not just robbing artists, but robbing all of humanity of the necessities that we need in order to have a fair chance at this world.
- nxmnxm99 4y agoNonsense. The "art" you're creating is derivative of art other people made which you saw and learned from/incorporated into your own work. More to the point, much of modern art is derivative nonsense that lacks soul - which is why it's modern artists who are scared of AI. Their work is easy to mimic. AI isn't going to replace a Van Gogh anytime soon.
- spoiler 4y ago> Nonsense. The "art" you're creating is derivative of art other people made which you saw and learned from/incorporated into your own work. Do you then believe humanity has exhausted its well of original thoughts? That would includes you and this statement, by the way (unless you hold yourself in unnaturally high regard, or are a rogue AI) Edit: phrasing
- EarlKing 4y agoIf it's not reproducing protectable expressions then it's not theft on any level, but merely another tool for producing art, albeit at an industrial scale. This happens in every profession eventually. It's simply your turn. For my part, I'm quite content with this state of affairs. Now, rather than paying exorbitant amounts of money for lackluster results from artists, people can use so-called AI to generate decent results on the cheap. On a long enough timeline this should result in the price of art assets for games dropping into the basement where they belong, taking the price of games with them in the process. The public benefits, while intermediaries lose. I fail to see the problem. TL;DR Humanity should not be compelled to dwell in darkness so candlemakers can continue to profit.
- TheBrokenRail 4y ago> AI art is about putting together the work that artists have done in a way that isn't technically theft (well it might be the law is very slow about reacting to this thing and you can't go after someone for copyright violation as a class action lawsuit) How do you think humans learn art? Humans aren't magic, they learn to make art by looking at and being inspired by other art, and I'd bet quite a lot of that art is copyrighted. AIs are just doing the same thing but way faster, and I don't see any issue with that. (Same with GitHub Copilot for that matter.)
- layer8 4y agoHumans generally recognize when they are plagiarizing. AIs don’t.
- analyst74 4y agoWhen I dated a musician, she would randomly point out all the pieces in various kinds of music that are "borrowed" or blatantly copied from other music. It is understood among musicians that almost all music are derivatives of prior art.
- fedorareis 4y agoWhile yes a lot of music is based on prior art there are levels of that and there is a lot of case law on what doesn’t break copyright. There is a lot of music that steals from classical but that is public domain. There are rules about how much of a riff from a copyrighted song you can borrow before it becomes copyright infringement and you owe the original writer royalties. Music also has a lot of standard conventions that lead to similar conclusions at least if you are using western music theory since that is based on western classical music. So an amount of this deals with scale and the copyright status of the prior art.
- CamperBob2 4y agoYes, and they also put a lot of effort into intentionally disguising the fact that they're plagiarizing. AIs don't. The real problem is that our definition of "plagiarism" did not anticipate, and was never intended to describe, anything even remotely like ML.
- BobbyJo 4y agoAll art, to some degree, is farmed from public imagery. That isn't a great argument for AI art being theft. All major styles of visual art came from somewhere, and people copy them anyway. If you study art in college, art history is literally part of the curriculum and you spend time trying out different mediums and styles pioneered by other people. Truly original art is rarer than 8' tall humans, but that doesn't stop the industry from existing at scale.
- jolancer 4y ago[dead]
- Guvante 4y agoAI art is more akin to uploading a copy of someone's work and claiming it is my own that inspired work. It would be one thing if the AI were actually trained like a human was and created unique artwork based on ideas given to it. The reality is it copy/pastes parts of images it found online.
- BobbyJo 4y agoWhat make you think human inspiration doesn't work the same way as image diffusers? To a degree we know we are compressing input features into our own latent space and conjuring them when producing our own works. The math may not be exactly the same, but the principles are eerily similar.