Its Habbening

[Anonymous No.933803]

2 lawsuits against dumb ol AI already. One yesterday, one today. Its OVER.

https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/17/23558516/ai-art-copyright-stable-diffusion-getty-images-lawsuit

[Anonymous No.933809]

>>933803
For what purpose?
Stable Diffusion and the company didn't create the datasets, it's mostly CLIP and shit, which is done by a completely different entity.
It's gonna fail pretty hard in court. Assuming it can be explained to retards in a way they can understand. The technologically illiterate can be dangerous people. They're retarded and can be swayed by any fuck who pretends they know what they're talking about and can trigger an emotional response, since they only function based on emotion and not rationality.
I mean for fuck's sake look at all the retards who still think AI is stealing parts of their drawings and photobashing them into something new.

[Anonymous No.933822]

>>933809
>Although the creators of some AI image tools (like OpenAI) refuse to disclose the data used to create their models, Stable Diffusion’s training dataset is open source. An independent analysis of the dataset found that Getty Images and other stock image sites constitute a large portion of its contents, and evidence of Getty Images’ presence can be seen in the AI software’s tendency to recreate the company’s watermark, as in the example image below:

its OVER

[Anonymous No.933836]

>>933809
I can see why they are mad tho. It would be one thing if the image generators were going to be free but it's obvious they will charge for them. Novelai already does. It's simple, you can't sell the image generation service when you got the models "from the internet" . "Somebody else scrapped the images we're just planning to sell it" is a retarded excuse

[Anonymous No.933853]

>>933803
It's too late
I already have a local install and the ability to train models myself

Don't @ me feds I won't reply

[Anonymous No.933873]

>>933853
Fucking this, the amount of porn I've generated FOR FREE would be enough to put every single jewish porn site out of business.

[Anonymous No.933874]

>>933873
really now, you think you have the audacity to use a different method of consuming porn? you will regret this manoeuvre.

[Anonymous No.933879]

getty's looking to settle and reach a licensing agreement, it says as much in their press release:
https://newsroom.gettyimages.com/en/getty-images/getty-images-statement

they'll probably get their way.

the other law suit is a bit griftery.

major media companies may eventually make their move and we'll see what happens then. but those companies will be looking to in-house/pvt solutions - they got squeezed by tech once (streaming), but they're pushing back now with their own platforms. they see opportunity here and once they're ready / threatened, they'll make their move.

individual artists tho? lol. fucked.

[Anonymous No.933887]

>>933879
>individual artists tho? lol. fucked.
not necessarily.
If big companies create precedents, then individuals will jump on that train too. Class action law suits will be prevalent.
Its all about creating enough force to break the dam.

[Anonymous No.933888]

This shit takes so much time, that by the time any of this gets settled, the AIs will very likely be so unrecognizable from their current forms, that none of the things they settle on will matter. Not that it matters anyway, since even if they set a precedent in the US, nothing's stopping people from continuing to use these tools elsewhere in the world. This is essentially impossible to stop, it's inevitable. It's time to stop hoping for a miracle, and start adapting to the future instead.

[Anonymous No.933891]

>>933888
>nothing's stopping people from continuing to use these tools elsewhere in the world. This is essentially impossible to stop, it's inevitable

They said the same about music and video piracy but now its almost entirely disappeared due to streaming and your isp blocking it and sending you notices. Or do you only have "selective" memory or are very very young?

[Anonymous No.933897]

>>933891
That is an entirely different matter, and has more to do with convenience than law enforcement.

It's not gone either. Anyone can pirate essentially risk free with VPN, if you don't count the risk of malware, for those not familiar with how to protect against it. VPN goes for around $20 per year, often lower for first timer deals. However, people really only pirate TV shows and porn these days. It's simpler to just pay for a game on steam than get one, and music is readily available on youtube and spotify. There's very little reason to pirate those theses days, unless you're extremely poor/live in a poor country. TV/Movies are a different matter, due to the fracturing of the streaming services, and regional limitations and do still get heavily pirated.

[Anonymous No.933899]

>>933897
No, you cant pirate with a vpn idiot because they are banned / blacklisted

[Anonymous No.933900]

>>933899
Bullshit. Get a better VPN service if you're really having trouble. But I doubt you've even tried one, if you seriously think it's hard to pirate these days.

[Anonymous No.933901]

>>933900
I have tried multiple and they are all blacklisted. No speeds on piracy sites, only getting connections on legit gpl torrents

[Anonymous No.933902]

>>933901
I use PIA, and have never had any issues. Speeds are comparable to speeds without VPN. Of course varies on the server you've connected to, if one is not working great, try another server.

[Anonymous No.933903]

>>933902
I used pia. Now i have a job and no need to torrent. I respect the content creators.

[Anonymous No.933905]

>>933903
Same here! The only time I torrent these days, is if it's something that's not available in my region, due to some contrived local licensing shit. So we're in agreement, you're chiming my initial point I made here >>933897

Piracy being in the downlow is not comparable to AI regulations in any way.

[Anonymous No.933906]

>>933905
It is comparable, because the creators dont get any money off of their copyrights

[Anonymous No.933909]

>>933906
I'm not disputing that, even if it's not quite that cut and dry. I was talking about the viability of regulating it. The other guy used piracy as an example of how it's been regulated, and I mentioned that those regulations haven't changed shit, that piracy's decline is related more to convenience, than law enforcement.

[Anonymous No.933922]

>>933803
AI bros are about to get fucked, hard.
kek

[Anonymous No.933924]

>>933909
Its easy to regulate ai. They are already doing it with the pizza it can generate both on the ai platform level and the spying on you through os and hardware backdoor level

[Anonymous No.933931]

>>933809
>I mean for fuck's sake look at all the retards who still think AI is stealing parts of their drawings and photobashing them into something new.

that is exactly what AI does though.

[Anonymous No.933938]

>>933931
>that is exactly what AI does though.
Just like human artists. Not an argument. "Art is stealing" exists for a reason.

[Anonymous No.933941]

>>933938
>Just like human artists. Not an argument. "Art is stealing" exists for a reason.
you cant steal copyrighted material. You cant steal designs that you have collected from the mouse or you will face the consequences. You have to respect copyright.

The phrase is "Art imitates life". You do sims (fluid, smoke, fire, muscle) on top of mocap to imitate real life. There is no stealing from another artist, it is from real world phenomena. You should know better. Hell, who the fuck are you?

[Anonymous No.933985]

>>933931
It's not.
Just like you can look at an image's style and deconstruct how to reach that product, the AI does the same thing, but from noise.
The imagesets aren't arsenals of bits and pieces to choose from to photobash together, it's reference same as what you'd grab if you were to do something (you are using reference when you make things, aren't you).
The only difference is the AI doesn't really "know" which parts are important or not to the final output and style, so you get shit like the OP pic where there's a watermark. The more of something there is in the dataset the more important the AI thinks it is to the final output, so it'll do its best to replicate (not copy/paste) it in the final output. If it were copy pasting bits and pieces, text would come out nearly perfectly readable, especially with those Getty watermarks, if it appears so much in the dataset that it's appearing on outputs that it could grab every section of the watermark to put on there. The fact that the text is partially readable, suggests that there are quite a bit of watermarked images in the dataset though.

[Anonymous No.933988]

>>933985
>Just like you can look at an image's style and deconstruct how to reach that product, the AI does the same thing, but from noise.
You have le mouse's copyrighted designs. You "reconstruct them" as you say, but, you cannot sell them. In some countries fair use is defined differently than it is in the US, etc.

>The only difference is the AI doesn't really "know" which parts are important or not to the final output and style, so you get shit like the OP pic where there's a watermark.
The OP pic shows that these are copyrighted images, taken and used without consent. And its as clear as day. This is not legal, which is why they are being sued...

[Anonymous No.933993]

>>933924
Problem with regulating it is, that everyone needs to agree on those regulations, not just the US and Europe. Or what do you think will be the end result, if productivity rises exponentially elsewhere thanks to constant advances, while AI is heavily regulated in the west? How well do you think the artists in the west would fair against their Chinese colleagues, who have access to unrestricted tools to help them create content at speeds unimaginable right now. No country is going to shoot themselves in the foot over this, unless there's some treaty that gets agreed upon by the entire world, and even then some if not most countries will keep developing in secret. Even if the regulations are focused solely on preventing art theft it's hard to estimate what kind of effects and restrictions those might end up causing for overall AI development.

[Anonymous No.933995]

>>933993
You have to operate within the law

[Anonymous No.934028]

>>933988
You're really not getting it, are you?
Let's step back a bit and dumb things down a tad. Completely ignoring style and copyright, and pretending like you know how to draw, making skill not an issue.

Let's say you and an AI want to make a picture of a dog, a German Shepard for example.
Going through the creative process, you'd gather up a bunch of reference images of dogs in general, and more specifically German Shepards, making sure to have good reference of the different telltale aspects that make that breed of dog, that breed of dog.
Now you start drawing that dog, and because of all that reference material, you have a good idea of what dogs look like, and what German Shepards look like. You draw a novel image of a German Shepard from scratch that's not a 1:1 recreation of an existing image, or traced from other parts of existing images, but rather a completely new image of a German Shepard based off of the knowledge you have about dogs and German Shepards.

For an AI, the process is very similar.
The AI is given a dataset to learn from that has a bunch of images of dogs, and a bunch of images of German Shepards. With that it can form neural pathways (in a loose sense), that tie all the aspects of what a "dog" is together (4 legs, a tail, floppy ears, etc.), as well as the aspects of a German Shepard (large size, long nose, black/brown coat, etc.). When you're looking at your reference, you do a similar thing.
The AI then takes a picture of random noise (based on a seed), and tries to infer that dog out of the noise (kind of like squinting at an image to make it look like something else). Because of all that "knowledge" it has about dogs and Shepards, it's able to (hopefully) create a novel image of the dog you tell it to make. The image isn't a collage of bits and pieces of other dogs to make your image, but the noise seed being inferred by those neural pathways of what a "dog" looks like to the AI ("to the AI" is the important bit).

cont. in next post

[Anonymous No.934029]

(continued from >>934028 )
The main issue with copyright is that inside the dataset that the AI learns to infer from, contains copyrighted images. The outputs themselves aren't copyrighted, but by training the AI on these copyright materials, certain telltale signs start to pop up that otherwise wouldn't be there if they hadn't.
In the case of the OP image, the prompt could be "stock photo of a crowd of people, black and white". Which means that the AI goes through those neural pathways of people and how they should look (2 arms, 2 legs, face, hair, etc.), black and white photography (monochrome, high contrast, etc.), and the part that's getting them into hot water, stock photos. Stock photos have a certain "look" to them, but in the dataset there's (potentially), a bunch of stock photos from Getty Images, images that are copyright. Going from what we've just learned about how an AI learns what a subject is, the AI had learned what a "stock photo" is, but as part of that, it also learned that the watermark is part of it. Just like how it would learn that a dog has a tail.
This doesn't mean that the outputs themselves are copyright and property of Getty images or that they contain anything explicitly from them, but rather it's kind of a smoking gun that says that those images are ocntained in the dataset it was trained from. Like a little kid who stayed up late watching a spooky movie with their dad and was told to keep it a secret and let it slip to their mom accidentally. The mom wouldn't blame the kid for letting it slip, she'd blame the dad for knowingly letting it happen. Kind of a shitty analogy, but the point is that the watermark is the "secret" that slipped. Not that they were trying to keep anything obfuscated, but datasets are extremely large and hard to curate by hand, and when scraping a fuckton of images, some copyrighted material falls through the cracks even when you add safeguards to prevent it.

[Anonymous No.934032]

Last bit from ( >>934029 )

>>933988
>le mouse copyright
I don't really know what you mean in reference to "le mouse" (Disney?), but trademarks and stuff can be copyright sure, and images of copyrighted characters are probably definitely present in the datasets, but that's a gray zone that's even gray when talking about people drawing things. Given how prevalent a lot of things are in pop culture, it might be extremely hard (or even impossible) to create a model from images scraped from the web that don't have any copyrighted characters from pop-culture in them.

As for "style" that's not really something that can be copyrighted (thought it's not a hard and fast rule). Though I had used it as an example of how the AI can learn (just like the dog example). In the case of a style, it's more about making those pathways that define a look, like brush strokes, color, tone, etc. You'd do the same thing if you tried to make something in a given style yourself. You'd grab a bunch of reference images of what you're going for, get an idea of what makes it up (distilling it to its elements), and give it a go yourself.

But yeah, long post that's a bit of a read, but hopefully it clears up a bit about how AI works (as I understand it), and how copyright is involved. Things might be a bit wrong, especially the bit about inferring it from noise, but it's the gist anyway.
I'm not any kind of computer science guy though, I just play around with AI image/text gen from time to time, and it's just a little bit of what I've picked up from hanging around threads. If you've got any questions I can try to answer them.

[Anonymous No.934051]

>>933941
>you cant steal copyrighted material
>You cant steal designs that you have collected from the mouse
The original is still there. What was stolen? Explain.
>The phrase is "Art imitates life".
"Art is theft" - Picasso. Educate yourself.
>Hell, who the fuck are you?
An artist. And who the fuck are you?

[Anonymous No.934053]

>>933803
It literally says "geety" instead of "Getty". There's literally nothing wrong with it.

[Anonymous No.934060]

>>934028
Anon, dogs exist from nature. They cannot be copyrighted. Capeche? Not going to read the rest of your novel.

[Anonymous No.934061]

>>933985
yes it is. didn't read the rest of your post.

[Anonymous No.934149]

>>934061
By all means then, explain to me how AI works, because you're clearly an expert on the subject.

>>934060
No shit dogs can't be copyrighted. I'm explaining HOW copyright material is injected into the AI by means of having it in the dataset.
If you DID dog that had a watermark in your data, the AI would think that watermark is intrinsic to what makes up a dog and put it into outputs.

[Anonymous No.934151]

>>934149
Stability did the following and they got caught red fucking handed

>Stability AI “unlawfully copied and processed millions of images protected by copyright”

You can tell this because they used protected, copyrighted images in the dataset. This isn't rocket science, kiddo. They got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

[Anonymous No.934154]

>>934151
>copied and processed millions of images protected by copyright
Show us where it says that this is even illegal. If I see an image on the Internet, I save it on my computer because I like it; How come that isn't illegal? Then I use that image to photoshop myself in front of the Eiffel Tower and post it to some social network, but this is not illegal either. Explain.

[Anonymous No.934163]

>>934154
So you are saying you find an image of the Eiffel tower, you save it, you photoshop yourself in front of it, and then you post it to social media.

If that image is under a CC0 or similar free license, hooray - *You* are in the clear. If not, you possibly cannot post it to social media nor download the image. You probably wont get dragged into court for downloading and image, but is possible, just like the music industry does for mp3s. My friend had to pay over 7k in early 2000 dollars for torrenting. Fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement and varies wildly according to what country you are in. Scraping millions of images for your ai that was once free but is no longer free is not fair use. I hope you learned something today.

[Anonymous No.934166]

>>934163
I can't help but notice that you typed an opinion, but I asked for a fact. If you're gonna educate us, show us where it says those things, instead of telling us that it is so. Source? Also, did you know that you can have copyright for a derivative work that was made illegally from a copyrighted work, and it has stood in court? When you post the source, also let me know what kind of law you specialize in.

[Anonymous No.934168]

>>934166
what clown court, in what country, buddy?

[Anonymous No.934171]

>>934168
>he doesn't know about one of the most important precedents regarding derivative work in the United States, that went all the way to the Supreme Court and involved two famous musicians
Oof. I knew you're not a lawyer. Well, then let me educate you. What they did with the AI is not illegal. They're just trying to see if it sticks, because then they would be able to sell AI scraping licenses and make some money. They figured that what they'll lose in the litigation is worth betting on.

[Anonymous No.934172]

>>934171
>the united states

are you finished?

[Anonymous No.934173]

>>934172
>are you finished?
With you. You may go lick your wounds now.

[Anonymous No.934174]

>>934173
>his defense is a case from the fucking united states
>claims someone else needs to go "lick their wounds"

[Anonymous No.934175]

>>934174
>one company is in New York
>the other one is in California
>he's too stupid to realize why he's wrong

[Anonymous No.934177]

>>934175
clown court, clown country

[Anonymous No.934199]

>>934151
I know this. It's what I said (here >>934029 ).
I realize I wrote a fucking novel explaining HOW AI works to get to that point, but the main point was that copyrighted images were used and processed as part of the AI training.
In explaining how AI worked, I tried to give context to why the shit showed up in the first place.
Don't use watermarked shit in the dataset, the AI doesn't learn it, use watermarked shit in the dataset, it learns it. Which is why you get the "Geety images" in the OP. It's the "smoking gun".
Only reason I had to explain how the shit worked is because some people are getting caught up on how the shit works, and thinks that the outputs themselves contain copyrighted material and use chopped up bits and pieces to create a final output. The final output isn't what matters, it's the information taught to the AI to reach the final output that's the big "issue" here. How can people have a proper discourse if they don't understand what they're talking about? Though it looks like people see a slightly large bit of text, and turn their brains off. Easier to fling shit about something they don't understand than to try and shift their perspective.

At the end of the day though, this isn't too much of a big hindrance to AI. Legislation wise, all it means going forward is that people are going to pay closer attention to what and where they get their sources from. Which might be good since it means more curated datasets. Might be a bit of a setback for Stability AI, but they're not that important to things anymore anyway. The floodgates are open.

[Anonymous No.934425]

New TOS update today. They made it clear. It's over for ai folk. You legally cannot use the website to scrape.

[Anonymous No.934429]

>>934177
Jews get away with anything there, have you seen them extending copyright law durations?

What's standard in USA will apply to the rest of the world eventually thanks to globalization

[Anonymous No.934433]

>>934429
and yet you cant even scrape a single second off a copyrighted mp3, another pile of 0s and 1s. You're dead in the water

[Anonymous No.934446]

>>934425

... does this realy matter at this point? the trained model allready "knows" to produce artwork that looks somewhat whats currently on artstation! and even when stable ai trains no models, users can create models of litterally everything they like ...

[Anonymous No.934449]

>>934446
>Computer, what date is it?
>2003*

[Anonymous No.934450]

>>933938
Are you bot or something? I see faggots like you btfo constantly but you are always back somehow like you can't understand difference between human brain and one-click generator.

[Anonymous No.934465]

>>934450
cope artlet

[Anonymous No.934472]

>>933803
aitards we got too cocky

[Anonymous No.934475]

>>934446
Just from the way you type I can tell you're an idiot.

[Anonymous No.934487]

I tried to explain this so many times on this board to AItards it's not even funny.
AI-art, no matter how good, will never get you hired because every single industry out there from Hollywood, to Disney, to Bollywood, to everything else will fight tooth and nail against it. This is because even by some miracle the law declares AI-art as fair use, then essentially what you have created is not only a program which can create art per se but, more importantly, a program which can remove copyright out of anything. Essentially if AI-art becomes fair use, say goodbye to any ability to make money out of ANY artform including: painting, photography, music, podcasts, novels, brands, PATENTS, etc.

AI-art will never become anything more than a gimmick.

COPE.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efFkzxZYpl8&

[Anonymous No.934504]

>>934450
You're comparing two different abstraction levels. The human brain is a one-woosh generator if you abstract it similarly. Alternatively, AI using transformers is an immensely complex thing. Compare them on the same abstraction level.
>>934487
This post is like 2 hours old but it already aged like milk. Hollywood and Disney already said they're using a lot of AI to generate stuff in the future; I think there's even a series that's AI generated coming out. It sure doesn't look like they're "fighting tooth and nail against it" if they're changing their workflows to use the stuff. Now, consider the following:
>the prompts don't write themselves
>a human has to know how to prompt optimally
>that guy is most certainly not doing it for free
It looks like somebody will actually get hired to become a "prompting engineer", because it has to be that way. Tell me again that AI won't get me hired.

[Anonymous No.934509]

>>934504
>Hollywood and Disney already said they're using a lot of AI to generate stuff

When you own a database of trillions of images which goes back a century or more then yeah... why wouldn't you train your own AI. You're under the impression that using AI = using Stable Diffusion.

You're coping so hard you don't even understand the issue I, like many others, have explained. There's a reason why EpicGames in their EULA explicitly forbids training AI with any of their stuff. Companies have started putting "not for AI training" in their EULA's years ago. This is nothing new.

And this whole "is AI-art fair use?" has been settle years ago when deepfakes became a thing. It was a resounding "NO".

[Anonymous No.934512]

>>934509
EULAs are not laws. I can't break your EULA if I'm not even a user in the first place. You can have a site/software saying that I can't train AI on your stuff, but I still go and do it. What are you gonna do? You can't even ban me because I'm not even registered to begin with. EULAs exist to protect you from legal liabilities and not really to protect your interests, because it's gonna depend on your ability to enforce them; this depends on economic viability of the process and on the country you're in, among other stuff. EULAs and TOSs mean literally nothing; they also say that me and my brother can't both play the game with the same license and all sorts of stuff. If your best cope is to bring up EULAs, you might as well snitch to your mom and expect her to ground me, because they have about the same power.

[Anonymous No.934513]

>>934509
>when deepfakes became a thing. It was a resounding "NO".
Deep fakes have nothing to do with this. Deep fakes infringe likeness rights. If you are born with Tom Cruise's face and try to go into acting, there are legal tools to stop you because of rights only famous people have. That's the issue with deep fakes. It's not even about copyright or fair use. It's about likeness, privacy, and safety.

[Anonymous No.934518]

>>934509
>EULA
>End User License Agreement
Never become an end user, never get in trouble.

[Anonymous No.934526]

>>934512
>>934513
Let me guess - you are one of those conspiracy theorists who believes that this ai is the singularity like ray kurzweil, that all patents, all copyrights across all industries will be ripe for the picking, that we will live in a post money world, that even the poor in the 3rd world will live like kings, that we will have ai invent the holodeck for us and we will all live for 500 years and travel the stars? Am i right? Is this a good enough cold read, dumbass? Ive seen your kind a million times and its never more than a conspiracy and delusion.

[Anonymous No.934531]

>>934526
>I b-bet you believe something c-completely different than what we-we-we-we h-h-have been talking about, and that hypothetical belief is my only shot at redeeming any of the things I've said
Only idiots assume stuff. I don't know about the other guy, but I am not what you described. You even assumed we were the same person. You were free to type absolutely anything, but you chose to go with a thing that you even knew you didn't know. Sit down and think about it and you will realize that you're a huge idiot for acting in a way that makes no sense. Was it out of despair? Are you an artist losing commissions to AI or something? Do you really have nothing of value to say? I pity you.

[Anonymous No.934532]

>>934531
>avatarposting

[Anonymous No.934533]

>>934532
>not knowing what avatarposting is
Back to whichever site you came from.

[Anonymous No.934534]

>thread made 1 week ago
very organic thread here fag/g/ots

[Anonymous No.934535]

>>934533
i wont go

[Anonymous No.934548]

>>934513
>If you are born with Tom Cruise's face and try to go into acting, there are legal tools to stop you because of rights only famous people have.
No such thing. If you have a smaller face, you can get prosthetic attachments/makeup and copy.

Stop being a schinzo living in 1800s anon, the truth is closer to ability do not guarantee doing.

[Anonymous No.934554]

>>934475
>Just from the way you type I can tell you're an idiot.

[Anonymous No.934571]

>>934513
every single element of "transformative work" applies to deepfakes yet it was denied the status, same will happen to AI-art

The entertainment industry around the planet is not dumb, they make money because they own the copyright rights, they will never agree to suddenly release the copyright to everything they own. I can't sell Mickey Mouse toys even if I redesign and manufacture it myself under a different brand. People have been trying to do so (legally) for over 100 years yet all of them failed because Disney sued them into oblivion. Why do you assume the same won't happen to Stable Diffusion?

[Anonymous No.934573]

>>934512
>EULAs are not laws
No shit. Still doesn't change the fact that GettyImages, ArtStation, DeviantArt, etc will soon change their terms of service to prohibit AI training. This in turn will make any AI trained on their stuff ILLEGAL.

You are living in a fantasy world. You can't take art created by someone else, photobash it, and then claim it as your own. There are very old laws in place which forbid you to do so. Google invested m(b)illions in an AI that can identify copyrighted stuff. You think they're not training an AI right now to identify AI-art and block it from their site?

[Anonymous No.934577]

>>934571
>>934573
>in the future, X will happen
Guys, nobody knows the future, get your heads out of your asses; humans have never been good at making predictions. Look at the past instead. The only technology I can think of that got banned is human cloning; everything else companies took it and used it to make money. If some companies decide to forbid AI on their stuff, it's probably just because they want to scrape it themselves and make their own AI. A prompting engineer would be a position, and human drawing would shrink. If you're artists, you better learn to prompt and start building a portfolio.

[Anonymous No.934578]

>>934577
They just banned gas stoves, numb nuts

[Anonymous No.934587]

>>933803
only the lawyers will win here

[Anonymous No.934596]

>>934577
how is prompt engineer going to be hired exactly? Professionals need to be able to make multiple variation and changes to a concept. The director isnt going to stand for someone that only relies on randomness, someone that dont understand what they are making, and slowing down the workflow pipeline for the whole studio. If anything this responsibility is going to pushed to artists that already in the studios since they have experience in the field. Also prompt generator is aleady a thing so prompters are already replaced from the starting line.

[Anonymous No.934618]

>>934596
>The director isnt going to stand for someone that only relies on randomness ...

... you seem not having a clue what power this technology holds for people with ideas! the director himself, when he reads the script, will play around with stable diffusion to create the first visual ideas of the story - stable diffusion is an easy access machine concept artist ...

[Anonymous No.934620]

>>934596
You know what, I think you're right. They're gonna install SD in a computer and when they want some art they will walk to it and the thing they wanted will be waiting right there. I think it could be done by a ghost, or maybe a script that has psychic powers to know what the producer is thinking of. Hiring a human for that role sounds crazy when you put it like that.

Protip: download SD and try using it; you will find out how hard it is to get the right thing. Prompting SD has the same energy of using SQL. When I walk into a company with my SD portfolio, I'm gonna steal the job from whomever they pushed that responsibility to, because I'm perfecting my prompting at least 4 hours a day for like 3 months now. I am literally a prompting engineer, and I could challenge any artist to a prompting duel in front of their bosses to prove that my prompting saves money and he should be fired.

[Anonymous No.934635]

>>934620
Probably, but I think there's still a distinction to be made with prompting something that looks "good", and something that captures the artistic intent of a director. Right now AI can't really compose an image based on an exact feeling you want to impose on a viewer. It can handle broad strokes for sure, like coloring a spooky image in dark tones, but it can't handle subtleties like composing an image in a way that actually makes it spooky without obvious cues.
It understands images, but not the why.
I think an artist as a prompting engineer might be something to worry about though, since you have that compositional understanding and the chops to wrangle the AI, but also the know-how to do shit in between like paint up a quick scene with the correct composition and feed it to the AI.

[Anonymous No.934762]

>>934577
>The only technology I can think of that got banned is human cloning

this only proves that you can't think
how the fuck can you ban something that doesn't even exist?

>prompting engineer would be a position

yeah, it's going to be right there next to "photoshop filter operator"

>prompting engineer applies for job
>qualifications: can write words into a text box
>starting salary: "GTFO out of my office, you retard"

the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior therefore:
> Stable Diffusion will become illegal and underground like deepfakes
> AI-art will become like torrented/pirated stuff, a lot of people will use it but nobody will ever admit to it publicly
> nobody will get a job as an AI prompt engineer (LMAO) just like nobody gets hired because they have an account on CGPersia

/thread

[Anonymous No.934765]

>>934762
> Stable Diffusion will become illegal and underground like deepfakes
Deep fakes' legal angles are completely different.
>AI-art will become like torrented/pirated stuff, a lot of people will use it but nobody will ever admit to it publicly
Disney, Google and Microsoft already admitted they will be using them. Doesn't sound like the timeline you're talking about.
>nobody will get a job as an AI prompt engineer (LMAO) just like nobody gets hired because they have an account on CGPersia
What does this false equivalency have to do with anything? I can make SD put out exactly what I want. You can't because you're not a query artisan. You think it's just about typing words, but that's a low intelligence abstraction; in that vein one might as well say that writing a novel or writing a song is just typing words. There's a whole world in SD queries that makes in complex enough for a position of prompt engineer to exist. Not only that, but even specialized positions: a background prompt engineer, and anime prompt engineer, and so on. You obviously speak from a position of not being good at prompting, or maybe even never having used it. I understand why you think it will amount to nothing, but it's really that you don't have the skill to use it. Push the pencil while you can and enjoy it, because when the rubber meets the road we're gonna have an art showdown in front of your boss and I will prove that SD saves money and take your job from you.

[Anonymous No.934767]

>and take your job from you.
Not that anon but good. This industry is terrible.

[Anonymous No.934768]

>>934765
Any prompt engineer that might get hired would likely be expected to have some actual art skills as well, so they can fill in for the AI, for the parts it might not create the exact wanted results in. Not to mention, that just because you can output good results on occasion, doesn't mean you actually have proper understanding on what constitutes as good results. Someone who doesn't do art either as a serious hobby, or for a living, is unlikely to be able to take a prompt to the next level, and will settle with something that they think looks good, but is actually just barely above average. You see this with inexperienced artists as well, where they might create content faster than an experienced one, since they don't understand how to take their average looking creation further to the next level. Essentially, what they might consider finished, is what someone with actually experience only considers as barely getting started.

[Anonymous No.934770]

What models are you people using? Mo-di? Robo? OpenJourney?

[Anonymous No.934792]

>>934765
>Disney, Google and Microsoft already admitted they will be using them. Doesn't sound like the timeline you're talking about.

I already explained this many times over, goddamnit.

Stable Diffusion is AI-art but not all AI-art is Stable Diffusion.

You are using Stable Diffusion or whatever else that's publicly available.

This is illegal.

It will never be legal as time has shown.

AI-art is a tool which will be used because companies will be training their own AI.

You do not have access to their proprietary AI-art software.

You will not be given access to their proprietary AI-art software.

You will not be hired to operate a piece of software you never used before or know that it exists in the first place.

Nobody will ever become a prompt engineer (LMAO).

>I can make SD put out exactly what I want. You can't because you're not a query artisan.
>There's a whole world in SD queries that makes in complex enough for a position of prompt engineer to exist.
>a background prompt engineer, and anime prompt engineer

HAHAHAHAHHA
the level of cope is incredible

>"I'm an expert at typing words into a program that you can't use for legal uses. I specialize in anime loli prompts. Please hire me."
>Disney: "SECURITY!!"

[Anonymous No.934804]

>>934767
yes, AI will be great for individuals and small to medium sized teams.

90% of the AAA games industry(and most western media) is trash and bloated, actively harming their mediums

[Anonymous No.934815]

>>934804
AA is the best tier.
More quality and professionalism than shitty indie pixel shit, with nearly the same motivation and drive, but less bloat and bullshit than AAA companies.
Only problem with AA is you get so many games that are 90% of the way there to being great, if only they had the extra bit of funding/developers/development.

[Anonymous No.934837]

>>934792
>This is illegal.
You keep repeating this, but can't quote the law. You need to be more accurate and say that you wish it were illegal, or that your opinion is that it should be illegal. By the way, what kind of lawyer are you?
>It will never be legal as time has shown.
Oh, you see the future too. Why do you care about making these posts if you're a lawyer that sees the future? You should find something better to do.
>You will not be hired to operate a piece of software you never used before or know that it exists in the first place.
I see. Disney is gonna make some clones to use it. Cool.
>Nobody will ever become a prompt engineer (LMAO).
The guy running Disney's generation software.

[Anonymous No.934886]

>>934792
>You keep repeating this, but can't quote the law.
google "copyright laws"
you've got enough material to read now until the next year

>Disney is gonna make some clones to use it. Cool.

you have just exposed yourself as an ignoramus
Disney won't "clone" anything, training your own AI doesn't mean cloning Stable Diffusion ffs

goddamn are you people dumb

you don't even know what AI is yet are so confident that people will hire you because you can type words in a box

zoomers are a failed generation baka

[Anonymous No.934894]

>>934886
>replies to the wrong post
>doesn't provide source of claims
>mistakenly thinks that the guy meant clones of the AI instead of human clones
>the other one is the ignorant
Artbros. We are done if this is what we have on our side.

[Anonymous No.934900]

>>934894
Hopefully people that end up doing more than participating in random thread/forum/fuckingwhatever discussions with know what they're doing.
If that kind of person ends up being on the artists' side in court then we're fucked.
I guess there's always the option of praying that the other side contains bigger retards.

[Anonymous No.934906]

>>934894
>mistakenly thinks that the guy meant clones of the AI instead of human clones

he literally meant AI clone
nobody's so retarded to think that Disney genetically engineers humans in order to create the perfect prompt engineer (LOL)

>doesn't provide source of claims
You want me to prove to you that copyright laws exist?
AHHAHAHAHAHAHA

>Artbros. We are done if this is what we have on our side.
PYW, (so called) "artbro"

>>934900
>>934894
I think I'm going to start calling you retards copebros.


If you:
>think training an AI means using Stable Diffusion
>think AI will finally get you hired
>think AI is a substitute for talent
>don't understand what copyright laws are
>think Disney clones humans
>never post any work
>don't know how to code
>don't know how to draw
>don't know how to model
>don't know how to sculpt
>don't know how to rig
>can't use any function of Blender unless there's a tutorial about it

then you might just be a copebro
sorry

[Anonymous No.934908]

>>934504
>Tell me AI wont get me hired
It wont, more advanced AI models are operating with basically no prompting skills required. You can write literally anything on Midjourney and it will shit out good picture.
>But what if you want something specific, you will need experienced prompter for that
If you want something specific, then you will use artist. AI cant do anything specific, I challenged many prompters into making me requests, I made PromThread on /d/ and nobody fucking posted their promtping from people requesting. AI cant do something specific and edit it, and unless we change in fundamental way how these models work it wont change in the future because you will need to write entire pages of prompts to get everything specific. If you really think it can replace all concept artists, then please, generate me something very simple, something very generic that should be no problem for AI. Make me a rock bug that has 8 legs and head with 4 red eyes. This insect attacks the player by rolling on them, so please also make the insect in middle of rolling, preferably with some spikes sticking from its back as it rolls. Just a rocky bug you find in some random videogame, the most average request somebody who needs creature design would request you to do. No excuses, if you wont do it, you have not proven your point and all the AI is is just the practical equivalent of extended google search giving you more results then currently exist.

[Anonymous No.934910]

>>933879
Individual artists can survive better in almost every situation then big corporation since they can adopt better. The reason why they are getting fucked over more is because AI is a massive fucking nuke that obliterates everything. If Disney can still sell their movies, so can the little guy making indie movies.
>Disney and other corporations will keep their AI for themselves and use it
This is your brain on libertarianism. Disney will continue making shit and sell it, while people who do not want to consume AIslop will just not buy stuff from Disney. AI for everyone just allows everyone to larp as artist and make real human art impossible to find once the AI images get on average unrecognizable. If the small guy can use nukes, so can the big corporations, and it is not better for the little guy to have nukes, this is not like guns where you can use it to protect yourself, this is you giving too much power to everyone and hoping some random psycho that is too retarded to make it big will not abuse it is extremely irresponsible way.

[Anonymous No.934932]

>>934908
A very easy prompting challenge I've come up with that I'm yet to see anyone complete is this:
Pick a character, recreate them using AI without using or referencing their name or source media in the prompt, you can use img2img but only images that you have yourself made.
You can make the challenge easier or harder depending on how well established the character is and how complex their design is.
Bonus points if the AI have never been trained on pictures of that character.

It is needlessly convoluted and likely completely fucking stupid, but I think it does a decent job and presenting how reliable the AI is. I can only imagine how much of a pain in the ass trying to actually design a unique character with that thing is.

[Anonymous No.934935]

>>934906
I do agree with most of what you've said and I am on the side of artists (and do know how to do a decent chunk of the stuff you've listed).
But if you're gonna discuss this stuff it's better to have sources on hand, even for the most basic shit, people absolutely will use the opportunity to call you an idiot when given one.

As for the clone thing I'm pretty sure that yes, they did actually mean star wars-like clones, as in "if they're not gonna hire a dedicated promoter then who will they get for that position, make a clone?".

I guess while I'm here I might as well add that the reason a company will never hire a prompter is also because they can give the task to literally anyone already employed. No reason to hire (and pay for) a whole extra person that's completely unskilled and useless outside of asking a machine for images and hoping they're good enough. There will never be a demand for someone that can only proooompt, if you have a choice of hiring (for the same pay) someone with extra art skills and someone who doesn't have any then you'd be an idiot to choose the second person.

[Anonymous No.934939]

>>934487
>AAA companies wont develop AI tools to save development costs

You're fucking stupid if they wont use something to lower the 300 million that cost to make their woke garbage.

[Anonymous No.934944]

>>934932
The most disgusting part about it is that the unique character would be easiest since the prompter would just write the most barebones description of the character, like "little witch" or "Anime girl with red dress" and then the prompter would take the character and all the other details not specified about the character and use it, basically letting the AI do every part of the design, outsourcing all of creative thought to the computer.

[Anonymous No.934948]

>>934944
Oh yeah, forgot that they often just give a simple and vague prompt, let the machine handle the "being creative" part and then convince themselves that this is exactly what they had in mind.
It's honestly kind of sad.

[Anonymous No.934949]

>>934487
Hollywood, fuck, every industry, will absolutely replace each and everyone if it means the bottom line grows bigger.

Who the fuck wants to deal with people? AI solves that.
Just be happy you can do art as a hobby.
AI

[Anonymous No.934962]

>>933836
Hopefully they charge enough that it forces human artists to lower their prices since they're all closet capitalists.
>Nooooo you can't pirate our dogdicks only big business stuff!

[Anonymous No.934963]

>>934910
Disney already admitted on Shehulk that Kevin Smith actually died and they replaced him with an AI.

[Anonymous No.934985]

>>934935
The issue with copebros is that they fundamentally do not understand what is going on.
Is AI the future? Absolutely.
Will you get hired because you have a PhD in Stable Diffusion prompts? Absolutely not.

It's like laughing at clutchbros because they just invented the automatic gearbox.
>"Clutchbros BTFO! Now they'll only hire automaticbros!"
Doesn't matter that you can use an automatic because clutchbros can also use an automatic by default. Doesn't matter how great of an prompt engineer (LMAO) you are, artbros are at the very least just as good.

[Anonymous No.935010]

I just landed a prompting gig guys. It's 3 days teaching different batches of staff how to prompt, at a company that makes lamps. Got it over the Internet after knocking on many doors and promoting myself as an AI generation consultant. It pays 35 bucks per hour plus gas, and they also feed me once a day. The future of AI is looking bright.

[Anonymous No.935037]

>>935010
>around 150$
>over the span of 3 days
>have to commute
>benefits: some food
>gig

le prompting engineer career

[Anonymous No.935039]

>>935010
So basically some clueless boomer wanted to jump into the fad and temporarily hired you to teach how to use one of the most idiot-proof pieces of tech that most literate people know how to use by default.
I'm sure your career will go far, especially once employers realize how useful and rare your skillset is.

But hey, I am genuinely impressed with how you managed to make "I can proooompt" appear like an actual position.

[Anonymous No.935061]

>>935037
>>935039
Why are you acting as if getting a job were a bad thing? I looked up local companies and started making prompts of the stuff they make, then contacted them telling them that I can teach them how to automate their design process using creativity-driven software. This gig will put 840 bucks in my wallet and also allow me to network and build a reputation. I don't see it as a low paying job or a clueless business decision because those are things that I don't control, and thus they're not useful to me. I see it as a stepping stone that allows me to:
>impress around 60 people of different departments by teaching them to promp
>impress the company owner by allowing him to save costs of the 2 artists that he hires every now and then to design lamps
>promote myself as an AI generation consultant that has helped local businesses to solve problems and increase profit (I have official experience now!)
>know that I'm one of the people who are spearheading the AI art industry (this is gonna become really valuable later on)
It's not even about the AI. It's about the people I can talk to and what they will tell to their friends about AI generation. My understanding right now is that AI generation is a people-oriented, community-driven, technological revolution that empowers workers to synergize with the customers' values and needs in order to exceed expectations of quality and affordability. I think this is a really powerful message that many businesses will be on board with. My workshop starts next tuesday with batches of around 10 and 10 people in the morning and afternoon, four hours each. I'm about halfway done preparing the curriculum.

[Anonymous No.935074]

>>935061
It's not a bad thing, but not nearly as impressive as you think it is.

[Anonymous No.935092]

>>935061
>This gig will put 840 bucks in my wallet
Something's not adding up.
You said 35$/hour.
840$ means 3 full work days, 8h a day.
You are not going to waste 3 days' work on teaching them how to prompt (LMAO) for 8h straight. They'll probably call you in after lunch to hold a 1-2h presentation, then call you back to do the same presentation for other departments. So at best they'll going to consider it 6h of work, which amounts to 210$. Plus gas money let's assume it's like 300$.

For a company 300$ is like a rounding error.

[Anonymous No.935095]

>>933809
LAION is just a txt file filled with URLs to images
It's up to you to actually download those images

[Anonymous No.935109]

>>935061
I am shocked that you are doing this to be quite honest. Time for you to post some work to back up your claims of "expertise"

[Anonymous No.935609]

My first day was kind of a screw up. I knew beforehand what kind of staff would be in every batch, so I tailored the curriculum to each one. In the morning group I expected the people that work directly with the artists' output, so I figured it would make an impression to emphasize the fact that this tech leaves the two artists the company commissions without a job, but the mood was really heavy. During lunch I was told that they invited one of the two guys to attend as a courtesy, so he was in the crowd when I said it. It was 13 people and I'd say that 5 were super into it, with other 3 really interested. The mood was really serious though.

The afternoon group was made of sales representatives and similar roles. My goal was to get them to understand the limitations of the tech so they can have realistic expectations and communicate them to customers. I didn't repeat the same jokes about AI leaving artists without a job though. Tomorrow morning I have managers, and I'm debating whether to repeat the jokes. If I don't it will look like I made a mistake, and if I do I might make people mad, but also might legitimize my position by doubling down on it. What do you guys think? I have like 11 hours to figure it out.

[Anonymous No.935612]

>>935609
Im not sure how this leaves concept artists without a job. You often cant even rotate the view or get orthogonal views. Are you sure you know enough about this stuff, guy?

[Anonymous No.935623]

>>934618
exactly thats why who would hire prompt engineer if director can do it themselves, but even the director cant exactly get what he wants and would get actual artists do better define the concept.

[Anonymous No.935631]

>>934620
>I'm gonna steal the job from whomever they pushed that responsibility to
>least 4 hours a day for like 3 months now

>wow a whole 3 months such a skill gap im sure no professionals ever spent that much time on their career like me

lol if anything all its going to show is that prompting has such a low skill ceiling that any professional can adapt it to their workflow within 3 months and be able to manipulate their result to better suit the directors vision. Good luck telling the director to take what you can get.

[Anonymous No.935633]

>>935609
Did you explain to them how AI-art infringes every copyright law known to man? Did you then explain that every retard can use SD and because of this every company will use SD because it's easy and because of the oversaturation of the market SD art will make their company seem lazy and out to scam people with minimum effort? And did you then say that SD will eventually become the Comics Sans of the art world?

[Anonymous No.935634]

>>935609
>this tech leaves the two artists the company commissions without a job
>I didn't repeat the same jokes about AI leaving artists without a job
>I'm debating whether to repeat the jokes

What's with your obsession about telling a joke? If it didn't land the first time, it won't land the second time.

[Anonymous No.935635]

>>935634
>If it didn't land the first time, it won't land the second time.
thats not true

[Anonymous No.935646]

>I learned the bare basics of how to use something from 4chan
>Hey, I know, I'll go around calling myself an expert and try to get money
>These people want to use it in a commercial setting, how do I let them down gently that it has almost no creative control and the artists' jobs are safe, without losing my money?
Anon's going to get fucked, plain and simple. This is like teaching people how to use printers, and carries the same sort of dishonesty - you could just point them to voldy's guide and they wouldn't have to listen to your bullshitting for a few hours.

He has the money now, but he stands to lose even more when they discover his lies.

[Anonymous No.935735]

Oh no no no no no aisisters....a lot of people are now using the "memorization" argument against us, saying that we ARE in fact still distributing copyrighted and sensitive images through our neural networks. It is OVER

[Anonymous No.936818]

>>935735
god artfags are so stupid.
is the user prompts mickey mouse and sells something they're at fault. all the ai company has to do is warn you can't sell this image it's too close to something that's copyrighted

pic related
the user asked for some fugly white chick and got her

[Anonymous No.936823]

>>935735
bitch looked AI generated before AI was a thing, no wonder the training got hooked up on her.
wtf is wrong with her face?

[Anonymous No.937041]

>>934985
>Will you get hired because you have a PhD in Stable Diffusion prompts? Absolutely not.
But you will not need a job when you can create a competitive product. This is the crux of what's going to happen -- a level playing field for ANYONE. Large companies will be invalid if AI stays free and open for anyone and continues to grow. Anyone will be able to prompt what they want.

[Anonymous No.937062]

>>937041
>create a competitive product
You just don't know what you're talking about.

You reek of a lazy fatass libertarian mindset.

A "competitive product" isn't about quality or design or usefulness. For any product to succeed you need to FIRST have these elements covered:
>distribution
>a factory
>a brand
None of these elements will ever be provided to you by AI. Give me these 3 elements and I can make any product a success. The only thing AI will achieve is give the people who were born in the business an even greater advantage. What's worse you did it for way less that 30 pieces of gold. Thanks, anon.

[Anonymous No.937387]

how is this thread still alive? completely unrelated to the board

[Anonymous No.937397]

>>937387
ai is the future of this industry and having ai concept art is hugely deterministic of your overall result in 3d

[Anonymous No.937660]

>>935633
Your scenario is backwards. AI art was Comic Sans of art world since the day it stopped looking like monkey paintings. However unlike Sans in the future it will become impossible to differentiate. Also, this goes for literally all of media and will soon include video, and 3D models for games. This whole board will die except for Cris.

[Anonymous No.937661]

>>937660
no, that wont happen. what you are describing is the singularity which again, wont happen.

[Anonymous No.937925]

Now big ArtStation is saying that if you even make a single edit with AI on your work you must tag it with "Generated with AI" and NO ONE will take it / you seriously.

[Anonymous No.938452]

>>933803
hope the kikes get thrown in jail
typical kikes, steal millions of images, and claim that if they didnt steal it somebody else would

[Anonymous No.938544]

damn I didn't know /3/ likes ai art

[Anonymous No.938557]

>>934504
>Hollywood and Disney already said they're using a lot of AI to generate stuff in the future
typical jews, nuff said

[Anonymous No.938797]

>>938544
only the local schizos like it, a lot of tourists started coming here last year just to post about this garbage

[Anonymous No.938802]

>>938797
pyw

[Anonymous No.938810]

>>938802

[Anonymous No.941252]

>>933803
Good. That's exactly the problem with AI. It's using large amounts of data from the internet for commercial purposes without permission. It's far beyond fair use.

[Anonymous No.941255]

>>933803
This thread sure aged like shit

https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2023/03/21/generative-ai-getty-images/

[Anonymous No.941256]

>>941252
See Nvidia's recent keynote and Adobe Firefly. You're out to linch on this.

[Anonymous No.941317]

>>933803

[Anonymous No.941345]

>>933803
For what? The models don't contain any images. Stop enabling tech illiterates having a voice.

[Anonymous No.941363]

I guess we're going to let AI fags steal our jobs then, without a fight, not even a whimper.

[Anonymous No.941366]

>>941363
the computers rely on literally billions of stolen images made by you and me

[Anonymous No.941507]

>>941255
they have a deal now i guess
>>941363
rip my portfolio ecks-dee

[Anonymous No.941919]

>>941366
In the same way that a human "steals" images to inspire them to make art. How good do you think someone would be if they were exposed to no art before they started? AI is just doing the same exact thing humans do. Learning and producing with that knowledge.

[Anonymous No.941922]

>>941919
i feel like you might need to brush up on your intellectual property law. are you aware of the legal saga around the obama "hope" poster?
>https://www.law.columbia.edu/news/archive/obama-hope-poster-lawsuit-settlement-good-deal-both-sides-says-kernochan-center-director

you may also want to review this case and the impact it had on electronic music:
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Upright_Music,_Ltd._v._Warner_Bros._Records_Inc.
i don't think you'll be able to use uncleared samples in your beats by just saying "the ai did it!", but i'm sure someone will try.

[Anonymous No.941924]

>>941922
This is just an appeal to laws that have become outmoded. What this entire situation is doing is demonstrating the clear absurdity of intellectual property itself. All forms of art are patterns that can be identified and reproduced with enough data input. Laying personal claim to such a thing is ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.941926]

>>941924
generally when the entertainment industry goes up against big tech, the entertainment industry wins. see the numerous copyright extensions and the passage of the digital millennium copyright act. probably what will happen is dominant big tech will license databases of material which you can then use for a fee. that said, the u.s. copyright office has already stated ai generated content cannot be copyrighted since there is no human author, so you'd be paying to generate stuff that you don't even have exclusive rights to.

[Anonymous No.941927]

>>941926
>what will happen is dominant big tech will license databases of material which you can then use for a fee.
>copyright office has already stated ai generated content cannot be copyrighted since there is no human author, so you'd be paying to generate stuff that you don't even have exclusive rights to.
that doesnt make sense since you can train the ai onto your own works and style with dreambooth in like 15 minutes even on a 3060

[Anonymous No.941928]

>>941927
yea, i'm sure training an ai on the 20 pieces in your portfolio that weren't done as work for hire is going to be amazing. the spring 2023 semester of mit's intro to deep learning class is being posted to youtube by the professor. maybe you want to watch some of these to demystify ai for you. here is the first lecture, the rest are being upload to his channel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDX-1M5Nj7s

[Anonymous No.941929]

>>941366
Let's be real here. You and I never made billions of stolen images. Haven't even saved close to that many.

>>941363
Absolutely. A job isn't and ends in of itself. Smash the wage cage.

[Anonymous No.941930]

>>941928
>yea, i'm sure training an ai on the 20 pieces in your portfolio that weren't done as work for hire is going to be amazing
I have 12 years of experience. I have a style. How dare you belittle my work.

[Anonymous No.941931]

>>941930
And if you have a zero-shot inference model you're good to go

[Anonymous No.941932]

>>941931
i have no idea what you just said, nerd

[Anonymous No.941933]

Human 3D printers are pretending to be artists now? Pretending to care about intellectual property with all the bootleg sold as top sellers through sites like CG Trader or using the Patreon method? Yeah I don't think so guys. Aren't you all mostly industry simps anyway who let Autodesk and Adobe Malware into your asses? Your works are the property of the company you're enslaved to; read the fine print.

[Anonymous No.941934]

>>941930
you're the one arguing that your entire training and experience can be replaced with a neural net not me. my point was the 20 pieces of art that own the rights to is not enough to train an ai to do anything useful.

i have shares of microsoft (partner with openai), google (bard, cloud tpus, tensorflow) and nvidia (cuda gpus), so i'm really not too shook up if ai suddenly created some kind of massive value for investors, but it's just ... most of the generated stuff is not particularly useful and often legally ambiguous. it feels like all the influencer types that were hyping crypto on social media a couple years ago have now pivoted to ai. i'm still waiting for those self-driving trucks andrew yang said was going to make everyone unemployed in 2016 to materialize.

[Anonymous No.941935]

>>941933
>Aren't you all mostly industry simps anyway who let Autodesk and Adobe Malware into your asses?
you think autodesk and adobe won't just incorporate ai into their products?

https://www.adobe.com/sensei/generative-ai/firefly.html

[Anonymous No.941936]

>>941935
thats online only, subject to inspection for everything wrongthink. Its pathetic

[Anonymous No.941937]

>>941936
>leftist pretends his values aren't completely aligned with and supported by big tech
surely you don't want chuds using ai for, like, fascist stuff, right? working with a trusted partner can ensure ai is inclusive and equitable.

[Anonymous No.941938]

>>941937
I'm not left. You're horrible at cold reads

[Anonymous No.941939]

>>941938
well your use of "wrongthink" made me think of "crimethinc" which is a well known anarchist brand. also whining about being "enslaved" by employer you have a mutually beneficial and voluntary relationship with is generally reserved for leftists. maybe you're just an edgy dude who's mad at the world. don't know, don't care.

[Anonymous No.941940]

>>941939
Stop deleting your posts, it makes me believe that you have a lot to lose

[Anonymous No.941941]

>>941940
i just don't feel like arguing with ai shills. i wouldn't argue with a crypto shill and i'm not going to argue with you either. have a nice day.

[Anonymous No.941946]

>>933803
You're grasping at straws OP. Even if the data set stable diffusion uses is deemed as illegal you've only delayed what stable diffusion/midjourney etc
does by the time it takes to assemble a comprehensive database of quality art.

Big companies like Disney already own such databases and your win by delaying AI generation for the little guy only handed a even bigger advantage to the corpos.

Anyways it's a moot point since adobe is launching firefly, and that's been trained on dataset Adobe owns.
The genie is already out of the bottle and you're not gonna be able to go back.

[Anonymous No.941953]

>>941946
Again, firefly is dogshit

[Anonymous No.943786]

they'll win the lawuit too

[Anonymous No.943789]

>>943786
The algorithms underpinning things like stable diffusion is known and are only gonna get better.
The LLM's are now getting linked with computer vision and the AI's are already learning from
watching the real world and self-label objects that can be feed back into it's own reinforcement learning.
Depending on labeled collections like getty images was just a way to bootstrap it.

Best you can hope for from here is a delaying action, but it is so fucking futile as these things have eyes of their own now.

I'm an artist myself anon and I wish this wasn't true but we're up against something that will just run circles around what we can do no matter what.

Sit down with chatGPT and ask it to perform as a master of some subject you yourself know a lot about so you can verify to what degree it makes sense
and you'll rapidly realize just how much knowledge and understanding is already in there, and realize that this is as bad as it's ever gonna be.

In our life time machines will now almost certainly exist that can outperform humans on just about any task you can think of, not just art, there lies the real problem.

[Anonymous No.943821]

>>943789
Precisely, it's only a matter of time before AI and robotics advance to the point that most jobs will really no longer need to be done by people.

[Anonymous No.943829]

>>943821
you're far more likely that a major World War will break out over russia / taiwan and bring the worlds economy to its knees for decades than robotics will advance to the point that the majority of jobs will dissappear / the singularity will happen

[Anonymous No.943839]

>>943829
That would probably only accelerate things even faster as we'd face a wartime economy where all industrial effort would go towards military, including the now civilians that are at the top of the field of AI.

A nuclear war would prob reveal how much of Russian nuclear inventory is just as corrupt and hollowed out as anything else in Russia.
You honestly think assets that they're never gonna use is kept at a cutting edge readiness state?
Whit the few nukes they're likely to be able to cause a lot of damage but not enough to destroy us like in a MAD nuke war scenario.
Meanwhile west would glass the place in the event of a nuke exchange and also win a conventional war like taking some strides.

A tiny % of our warmachine in terms of military aid to Ukraine fought Russia to a standstill, now imagine our airforce our cruise missiles and our ground assets.
Russia is almost a no-factor in this even if they went all out.

[Anonymous No.943840]

>>943829
As for China; it's rotting from the inside. Capturing Taiwan is the absolutely worst thing they could do to themselves as they're already facing insurmountable problems on the home-front. 'Laying flat/ let it rot movement' aging population, everybody soon about to realize their money held up in empty ghost cities real-estate is worthless. Their government flexing military muscle and pretending to be empire means we're withdrawing from the region as they
A) no longer provide what we came for; cheap labor. B) Invest the profits not in lifting their own people out of poverty but acting adversarial towards us.

The west is in the process of pulling out and moving the manufacturing center of the world over to Mexico. China starting a war and further isolate themselves would be the same as them committing suicide by accelerating this same way Russia did.

Honestly we would not even have to fight them (but we would because we're bound by treaty).
We could just stand by and watch it happen with our hands in our pockets and the CCP would still die slowly choking on it's own ambition.

[Anonymous No.943979]

>>943789
Well, on the bright side, if this is as bad as it gets, then things can only get better, right?

[Anonymous No.943983]

>>943979
No. It permanently plateaud.

[Anonymous No.944004]

>>943979
>>943983
As in these systems are currently in the most crude state they're ever gonna be. They're only gonna get more capable going forward.

The step from GPT 3.5 to 4 is enormous in terms of capability. 3.5 cleared exams, 4 cleared those exams finishing in the top 10% of class.
Everytime they've thrown more compute at these ANN's some new capability have emerged that isn't obv at all it should've been solved that way.
An increasing number of researchers thinks that just keep adding to the size of these 'transformer networks' is a route to AGI under any definition of the term.

Nobody knows when and if these things will plateau, including the people building them. The uncertainty what our future will look like is enormous.
If this plateaus tomorrow you already have systems that make human programmers ~50% faster.
Which means some technological breakthroughs that where 10 years into the future may be here in just 5 and so on and so on.
If these things doesn't plateau anytime soon but is exponential to some degree you're looking at tech being centuries away being accessible to people currently alive.
Even if these systems don't go singularity on us (then the sky is the floor, not the limit) we're already looking at a education/codewriting
human driven singularity-type event, the increased rate at which you can educate yourself with chatGPT is hard to measure.

You can research things that would've taken several minutes of googling around and sifting thru forums in mere seconds.
You can ask follow up question and get expert level advice immediately, meaning a lot of smart/curious people are gonna get a lot smarter/informed sooner.

What would a Albert Einstein or Isaac Newton type intellect accomplish if they had acquired 2x the amount of knowledge in the same timeframe they lived?
What a bout 4x? Even if AI plateaued yesterday the 2030's should look a lot like science fiction compared to now.

[Anonymous No.944011]

*record scratch*
*TikTok vox*
Whoops? Did I do that??

[Anonymous No.944031]

>>944004
>As in these systems are currently in the most crude state they're ever gonna be. They're only gonna get more capable going forward.

you're delusional. They are at the very best doing speak and spell, mime-like behavior. They are not simulating neurons. Real thought or intelligence is not ever a possibility. Stop with this wall of text, nobody here gives a shit. Take your meds and fuck back off to /g/ (they don't want you there either)

[Anonymous No.944038]

>>944031
>They are at the very best doing speak and spell, mime-like behavior. They are not simulating neurons.

GPT 3.5 is a ANN (Arificial NEURAL network) it's in the name anon. It's claimed to be a transformer network of about 175 billion artificial neuron.
At this level of interconnection we are now witnessing the emergence of phenomena that isn't obvious when looking at the neurons themselves in isolation.
The neurons in our own skull are much more complex than the ANN's in these models but they very much work along similar principles as the ANN's are inspired by
the way groups of neurons fire together to generate different output depending on input the way it does in our brains.

Stop sticking your head in the sand qualia-anon, these things are real - emergence is real.

>Real thought or intelligence is not ever a possibility

How could you possibly know that? You sit down and interface with these things and witness how much they contribute to your own ability
to reflect and evolve your thinking on a subject at which you're already highly proficient.

They're not just recombining words in some copy paste manner parlor trick. They're recombining them in a highly coherent way
that can make you the observer draw new conclusions and consider new angles to problem, that requires intelligence.

You can describe problems to them and get ready to execute working code back.
If you argue this is not 'intelligence' you have a very very strange definition of the word intelligence.

[Anonymous No.944041]

>>944038
get off of this board you retard

[Anonymous No.944042]

>>944041
You seem profoundly unhappy with the ways things are going anon. Are your cherished beliefs being challenged by observable events?
Events you have trouble to accept despite seeing them act out before your eyes while you're awake?

I suggest you take a few deep breaths and begin reconcile yourself with the new reality we face.
This is only gonna seep further and further into all aspects of our lives going forward.

[Anonymous No.944082]

>>944042
NOOOOO DELET THIS

[Anonymous No.944229]

>>935623
>he thinks directors do any computer work

[Anonymous No.945360]

I'm suing cars for making horses obsolete.
Wish me luck anons.

[Anonymous No.945362]

>>944082
>>944042
You should be preparing in case everything goes to shit in the coming years, even months. I guess preppers do have a real reason to worry now. Everything will be changed.

[Anonymous No.945370]

damn bros theres so many 3d models in this thread

[Anonymous No.945484]

>>933809
>oy vey we didn't create this
Like clockwork.

[Anonymous No.945869]

can't put the genie back in the bottle

[Anonymous No.945974]

>>933803
They literally ran an image through img to img. Thats like suing for an Instigram filter.

[Anonymous No.945978]

>>945974
You are room temp iq

[Anonymous No.946033]

>graphics cards cost more than a car
>US government literally working on passing new laws to ban CPU and/or GPU clusters to combat ai

With todays hearings, its over for graphics card industry. They have become ai cards, with little to no improvement in raster, just dedicated areas of silicon for AI. With the sure eventuality of these cards becoming regulated, it is once again OVER