4 ms·

It is expected of any professional artist to have an online portfolio if they are serious about generating work. Scraping my portfolio that I put out because I

It is expected of any professional artist to have an online portfolio if they are serious about generating work. Scraping my portfolio that I put out because I want to generate revenue is a shitty thing to do. Also 'trained' is a complete misnomer. AI is fed images made by humans, labelled and tagged by humans, categorized by styles defined by humans, then plotted, copied, traced by a program written by humans. Along comes a human who inputs keywords and the AI uses statistics and algorythm programs also written by humans to amalgamate a resulting 'work of art' for the human with no physical art making effort. If you were to erase all tags and labelling from source images you would find zero learning happened. Art is made with physical motor skills, time and effort. AI is a human made program that uses human made imagery, classified by more humans to generate a shopping list written by another human who want art that requires no effort of aquiring the physical skill needed to make the art. With no physical product, there is no AI art and that art costs the maker. Public and free are not synonomous. If you want to physically copy my art, go for it, I will applaud your skill, but taking my art and shoving it in a program with a bunch of other art to dilute the provenance doesn't change that you are utilizing the effort and skill of artists for your own gain. If you can live with that, then I am very sad for you.

bioemerl 4y ago
> Also 'trained' is a complete misnomer. This here shows that you are speaking without understanding what you are speaking about. AI is absolutely trained. It's a process that is quite literally inspired by the way we understood neurons to work in the 1970s. AI start with a big batch of random numbers. There's a big fancy scientific method used to adjust those numbers in order to cause the system to learn to do some task. The process creates genuine and novel understanding of the problem space at hand. AI trained to do something simple, like add two numbers, will have a real solution to add two numbers in them once you have finished training them. With bigger problems, similar understanding certainly exists and in some cases has been proven to exist. However, once you get to the difficult problems with billions of parameters, it's very difficult for us to check that because if we could we would have just written it without needing to use an AI in the first place. There are lots of researchers who do lots of study and effort to ensure that AI are actually producing real outputs and have genuine understanding of the problems face they are working in. Do not insist that AI has no understanding if you have not taken the time to learn about those techniques. Stable diffusion has genuine understanding of different images and how to produce them within it. It is not a simple system that reproduces would already exists. It is not a collage tool. It is not incapable of producing novel outputs. Diffusion models are perfectly capable of producing any image that can possibly exist. It is only a matter of time before someone invents a new style that hasn't been seen before, and someone else is able to find a combination of descriptive words that causes stable diffusion to produce that output. Or that someone produces a novel combination of words, chucks it into stable diffusion (or some other AI model), and produces a new style of art. > Art is made with physical motor skills, time and effort. AI is a human made program that uses human made imagery, classified by more humans to generate a shopping list written by another human who want art that requires no effort of aquiring the physical skill needed to make the art. With no physical product, there is no AI art This is simply not true. Art is incredibly cultural, vaguely defined, and often involves little to no work at all. If someone prompts an AI, gets a result, and sticks it to a wall, calling it art, it is probably able to be considered art. > If you want to physically copy my art, go for it, I will applaud your skill, but taking my art and shoving it in a program In short, it appears that you are threatened by the existence of AI and the copyright argument is not actually about copyright, it's about ensuring that the competition does not exist, and that people did not have access to these tools that might make artists less valuable.
- ForestCritter 4y ago
  I personally care very little for copyright or copycats. I have great disdain for those who would profit off the backs of the labor of others. Saying that art often involves little to no effort just shows how ignorant you are of the subject. I am not threatened by AI and frankly I don't see it as competition, it's not really that good. Besides that the majority of my art is three dimensional. I am just saddened by how it will be misused to disrespect the effort and labor of the artists that it is feeding off of. No matter how complex AI might be, it is not sentient and it relies on human work and direction and is therefore not actually creating.
  - webmaven 4y ago
    > I personally care very little for copyright or copycats. I have great disdain for those who would profit off the backs of the labor of others. This is actually an anti-capitalist argument, rather than an anti-AI one. That doesn't weaken the argument, IMO, but it does help to know whose ox you're trying to gore.
stale2002 4y ago
> Art is made with physical motor skills, time and effort Apparently it isn't. Now a computer can do it. > that requires no effort of aquiring the physical skill needed to make the art. So what? This doesn't matter. > If you want to physically copy my art, go for it This is the same thing as if a computer does it.
- tveita 4y ago
  > Apparently it isn't. Now a computer can do it. Why do we need farmers when you can just buy a burger at McDonald's?
  - ForestCritter 4y ago
    Thanks, I needed that chuckle
  - stale2002 4y ago
    False equivalence. My AI art generator works right now, on my PC. If everyone stopped making art, the "normal" way, my AI art generator would still work. This is a false equivalence to your example, because if farmers stopped farming, then it would not be possible to make burgers. But, thats usually what happens when someone comes up with a pithy, one off meme response, like you just did, instead of actually responding to the substance of the argument. (I expect any future response from you, to instead not be engaging with the substance, and instead coming up with reasons why the silly analogy still works)
whywhywhywhy 4y ago
> Art is made with physical motor skills, time and effort. Hasn’t been about the motor skills time and effort for a long long time. Art has been about the idea rather than a fetishization of how much time and skill something takes to build.

bioemerl 4y ago

> Also 'trained' is a complete misnomer. This here shows that you are speaking without understanding what you are speaking about. AI is absolutely trained. It's a process that is quite literally inspired by the way we understood neurons to work in the 1970s. AI start with a big batch of random numbers. There's a big fancy scientific method used to adjust those numbers in order to cause the system to learn to do some task. The process creates genuine and novel understanding of the problem space at hand. AI trained to do something simple, like add two numbers, will have a real solution to add two numbers in them once you have finished training them. With bigger problems, similar understanding certainly exists and in some cases has been proven to exist. However, once you get to the difficult problems with billions of parameters, it's very difficult for us to check that because if we could we would have just written it without needing to use an AI in the first place. There are lots of researchers who do lots of study and effort to ensure that AI are actually producing real outputs and have genuine understanding of the problems face they are working in. Do not insist that AI has no understanding if you have not taken the time to learn about those techniques. Stable diffusion has genuine understanding of different images and how to produce them within it. It is not a simple system that reproduces would already exists. It is not a collage tool. It is not incapable of producing novel outputs. Diffusion models are perfectly capable of producing any image that can possibly exist. It is only a matter of time before someone invents a new style that hasn't been seen before, and someone else is able to find a combination of descriptive words that causes stable diffusion to produce that output. Or that someone produces a novel combination of words, chucks it into stable diffusion (or some other AI model), and produces a new style of art. > Art is made with physical motor skills, time and effort. AI is a human made program that uses human made imagery, classified by more humans to generate a shopping list written by another human who want art that requires no effort of aquiring the physical skill needed to make the art. With no physical product, there is no AI art This is simply not true. Art is incredibly cultural, vaguely defined, and often involves little to no work at all. If someone prompts an AI, gets a result, and sticks it to a wall, calling it art, it is probably able to be considered art. > If you want to physically copy my art, go for it, I will applaud your skill, but taking my art and shoving it in a program In short, it appears that you are threatened by the existence of AI and the copyright argument is not actually about copyright, it's about ensuring that the competition does not exist, and that people did not have access to these tools that might make artists less valuable.

ForestCritter 4y ago
I personally care very little for copyright or copycats. I have great disdain for those who would profit off the backs of the labor of others. Saying that art often involves little to no effort just shows how ignorant you are of the subject. I am not threatened by AI and frankly I don't see it as competition, it's not really that good. Besides that the majority of my art is three dimensional. I am just saddened by how it will be misused to disrespect the effort and labor of the artists that it is feeding off of. No matter how complex AI might be, it is not sentient and it relies on human work and direction and is therefore not actually creating.
- webmaven 4y ago
  > I personally care very little for copyright or copycats. I have great disdain for those who would profit off the backs of the labor of others. This is actually an anti-capitalist argument, rather than an anti-AI one. That doesn't weaken the argument, IMO, but it does help to know whose ox you're trying to gore.

stale2002 4y ago

> Art is made with physical motor skills, time and effort Apparently it isn't. Now a computer can do it. > that requires no effort of aquiring the physical skill needed to make the art. So what? This doesn't matter. > If you want to physically copy my art, go for it This is the same thing as if a computer does it.

tveita 4y ago
> Apparently it isn't. Now a computer can do it. Why do we need farmers when you can just buy a burger at McDonald's?
- ForestCritter 4y ago
  Thanks, I needed that chuckle
- stale2002 4y ago
  False equivalence. My AI art generator works right now, on my PC. If everyone stopped making art, the "normal" way, my AI art generator would still work. This is a false equivalence to your example, because if farmers stopped farming, then it would not be possible to make burgers. But, thats usually what happens when someone comes up with a pithy, one off meme response, like you just did, instead of actually responding to the substance of the argument. (I expect any future response from you, to instead not be engaging with the substance, and instead coming up with reasons why the silly analogy still works)

whywhywhywhy 4y ago

> Art is made with physical motor skills, time and effort. Hasn’t been about the motor skills time and effort for a long long time. Art has been about the idea rather than a fetishization of how much time and skill something takes to build.