4 ms·

This is missing the thrust of my argument. By stealing a physical painting you are removing the ability for other people to look at that painting. When a digita

This is missing the thrust of my argument. By stealing a physical painting you are removing the ability for other people to look at that painting. When a digital painting is used in the training of some AI model it is not removed from the internet. Anybody can still go look at that digital painting wherever it is posted. Nothing is being stolen from anyone in this scenario. The argument then is that the AI model is stealing potential profits from the artist who posted the image. This also doesnt make sense because the artist is not charging to see that image. It is posted for anyone who has the link and a web browser to see it.

__loam 3y ago
Artists make public portfolios to find work and get jobs. Being available to view publicly is not the same thing as the artist giving you permission to do whatever you want with their work. In fact, I saw a blurb under one of these posts from an artist that explicitly said they did not want their work used in any ai training, earlier today. The problem that you're ignoring is that these models can substitute for the product these artists were making. Why go to a particular artist when you can train an AI model on their public portfolio and reproduce their style? That's the argument that this isn't fair use, it damages the market and reputation of the original artist.
- MeImCounting 3y ago
  Absolutely AI will change the market nobody is denying that. Calling it theft or wanting to ban it is absolutely ridiculous though. Technology changes markets. Photography changed the art market. The internet changed the art market. The printing press changed the art market. Notice people still paint, do caligraphy, do linoleum block printing etc. AI will not destroy art and im sure it will change the art market but thats just how things are.
  - __loam 3y ago
    It's theft.
    - MeImCounting 3y ago
      Good argument, thanks for the nuance.
      - __loam 3y ago
        I've given plenty of nuance in comment after comment on this site. I'm tired of hearing the same slimey garbage over and and over and over again. "It's not theft. It's actually way more complex than that and artists have no right to be upset because they said the model was a database". If this hurts the art community, that's the fault of the AI companies that scraped their work. If it's legal, I guess you can go and do it, but I'm not going to stop saying it's theft to your faces. AI has alienated a generation of artists from their work. You ought to at least feel bad about it.
        MeImCounting 3y ago
        Look, I am an artist. I was raised by artists. I live with and love many artists who work in many mediums. Some of them dont like AI some of them do. The world changes. It is possible that the age of doing gig and illustration art online is coming to a close. I doubt it, but it is possible. Either way some people will have to switch professions or mediums. I definitely feel for those artists who will be effected by the rise of image generation more than I feel for knowledge workers who will lose their jobs to LLMs. None of this makes it theft. You can say it as much as you like but that wont make it so. There is always the danger with putting anything online that someone will come along and use it for something you disagree with. Many artists dont put any work online or only do so with caveats because of this. This is no different. Its just one of the risks of putting yourself out there.
        __loam 3y ago
        I respect what you're saying here and I mostly agree. I still think there's an opportunity to push back on some of what I think is abusive and exploitative technology. I'm gonna stay mad about it. I do think it's theft in a way that using reference in art isn't and I hope we normalize making it unacceptable to automate the artistic process. That doesn't have to mean it's legally theft.

__loam 3y ago

Artists make public portfolios to find work and get jobs. Being available to view publicly is not the same thing as the artist giving you permission to do whatever you want with their work. In fact, I saw a blurb under one of these posts from an artist that explicitly said they did not want their work used in any ai training, earlier today. The problem that you're ignoring is that these models can substitute for the product these artists were making. Why go to a particular artist when you can train an AI model on their public portfolio and reproduce their style? That's the argument that this isn't fair use, it damages the market and reputation of the original artist.

MeImCounting 3y ago
Absolutely AI will change the market nobody is denying that. Calling it theft or wanting to ban it is absolutely ridiculous though. Technology changes markets. Photography changed the art market. The internet changed the art market. The printing press changed the art market. Notice people still paint, do caligraphy, do linoleum block printing etc. AI will not destroy art and im sure it will change the art market but thats just how things are.
- __loam 3y ago
  It's theft.
  - MeImCounting 3y ago
    Good argument, thanks for the nuance.
    - __loam 3y ago
      I've given plenty of nuance in comment after comment on this site. I'm tired of hearing the same slimey garbage over and and over and over again. "It's not theft. It's actually way more complex than that and artists have no right to be upset because they said the model was a database". If this hurts the art community, that's the fault of the AI companies that scraped their work. If it's legal, I guess you can go and do it, but I'm not going to stop saying it's theft to your faces. AI has alienated a generation of artists from their work. You ought to at least feel bad about it.
      - MeImCounting 3y ago
        Look, I am an artist. I was raised by artists. I live with and love many artists who work in many mediums. Some of them dont like AI some of them do. The world changes. It is possible that the age of doing gig and illustration art online is coming to a close. I doubt it, but it is possible. Either way some people will have to switch professions or mediums. I definitely feel for those artists who will be effected by the rise of image generation more than I feel for knowledge workers who will lose their jobs to LLMs. None of this makes it theft. You can say it as much as you like but that wont make it so. There is always the danger with putting anything online that someone will come along and use it for something you disagree with. Many artists dont put any work online or only do so with caveats because of this. This is no different. Its just one of the risks of putting yourself out there.
        __loam 3y ago
        I respect what you're saying here and I mostly agree. I still think there's an opportunity to push back on some of what I think is abusive and exploitative technology. I'm gonna stay mad about it. I do think it's theft in a way that using reference in art isn't and I hope we normalize making it unacceptable to automate the artistic process. That doesn't have to mean it's legally theft.