/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6894998
The average federal employee( ie welfare job) makes more than a webtoon artist with 1 million likes.

>>6894998

he/she wouldn't have made that mistake if they didn't use AI. In fact using AI actually made their art worst. This is another case of a lazy motherfuck that wants to earn easy $$$. If you hate your art that much then quit being an artist.

>>6894998
looks like another samdoesart clone

>>6894998
Yeah, maybe? I think the actual question should be, assuming it is, is this acceptable? Personally I don't really mind, so long as the majority is actually drawn. A panel can take hours, for a reader to pass over in seconds, so using shortcuts such as AI or 3D or photos or whatever is okay in my mind, but there is a limit.

While with 3D or photos, I'm okay so long as it looks good, I'm harsher on AI. AI can not, and would not, create without the work of others to reference, therefore work should not be created whole cloth from AI - continue to contribute to the artistic legacy that helped create the stupid proompt machine, or you're not really creating anything at all.

>>6895044
>another samdoesart clone
Which is really just a pixar/disney clone.

>>6894998
You didn't have to cross-post this from /co/.

>What do you think?
I think that I don't give a fuck and you faggots need to return to KF with your art drama.

>>6894998
Nah totally not ai bro

>>6895065
>Shaming an artist for trying to learn how to draw hands.
New low, but no bottom in sight.

>>6894998
If they trained the AI using their own art I don't see the problem

>>6895068
You're fooling exactly 0 people.

>>6895072
>just ignore the literal 5 billion images in the dataset, goyim

>>6895072
Their art stayed consistent for years, but now suddenly changed to look like samdoesart pixar shit

>>6895092
>Their art stayed consistent for years
It's still the same style, just a lot more polished. It's feasibly possible they decided to push themselves a level up their rendering (doubt it though).

>>6895110
There's like a month gap between their old style and new one. It's extremely blatant ai. It has all the tell tale signs of ai, just with an attempt to cover them up.

>>6895121
>>6895110
I'm wrong, not a month. 2 1/2 weeks.

>>6895128

Yeah, this is a samdoesart LoRA, one of the hundred that were made in spite when he said he wasn't keen on AI.

>>6895136
his permission is not required
data scraping is legal, thanks be to Google

Wrong board

>>6895049
>is this acceptable? Personally I don't really mind, so long as the majority is actually drawn. A panel can take hours, for a reader to pass over in seconds, so using shortcuts such as AI or 3D or photos or whatever is okay in my mind, but there is a limit.
while agreed, the fact of the matter is that AI is still driven by stolen and scraped art and you don't know to what degree it's used. Could be an artist genuinely skipping steps because webtoon is purgatory or a non-artist generating the entire thing with maybe some basic clean-up. One is more oaky than the other but both use a PAYED tool, created with non-profit, taxpayer money which broke every copyright law imaginable and scraped the entire net.

Anyway I guess my opinion is that it's not okay in any capacity because I'm against for-profit companies stealing non-profit money to steal from artists and con people. Most don't wanna support products made via AI and we both know that webtoon didn't disclose that

>>6895092
that last one looks AI 100%, even if we pretend he decided to completely copy the samdoesarts rendering they suddenly also became significantly better with facial anatomy/aesthetic? Doubt

>>6895196
>stolen
nope
>scraped art
yes and billions of all kinds of images
"Theft" is an actionable word, what they are doing is entirely legal.
Just replacing a bunch of Asian slaves with another chink, just even cheaper, lmao.
It's what Western society is based on.

>>6895198
Then what's the problem with not being able to copyright it, if it's fine? hmm
Why are there lawsuits? hmm
We will never know

>>6895201
Images themselves can't copyrighted, the comic can.
Not that it matters anymore since nobody buys physical and webtoons is the future of these garbage comics, their measure of success is pageviews and kdrama spinoffs, not printed books.
AI created infinite scrolling webtoons is the final destination for comics now, Scott McCloud sure should be proud, lmao/

>>6895196
>my opinion is that it's not okay in any capacity because I'm against for-profit companies stealing non-profit money to steal from artists and con people.
While I agree with you, I'm of the bleak view that it isn't going to be remedied; even adobe's stupid "ethical" AI is pretty damn suspect. So we're just going to have to accept it (while seething) and come up with the correct moral conduct of going forward.

>>6895210
>AI created infinite scrolling webtoons is the final destination for comics now, Scott McCloud sure should be proud, lmao
I recently reread this too, haha. I don't imagine he's too pleased with the drop in artistic qualities (writing or visual), or lack of creativity in the paneling despite having all the room in the world, it seems the standard webtoon is even more confining than the printed page.

>>6895253
It kind of is. By design scrolling is the only device they have to direct pacing, be it the endless wastes of whitespace or those obnoxious long panels. Single panels no longer occupy a certain percentage of a standardised page size you take in at a glance, so individual panel size differences also lose a good deal of their effect in pacing (a large panel "lasting" longer than a small one) since they don't have the context of comparison to other panels on the page to drive that impression.

>Why do humans hurt each other?
>Why do humans hurt me?
>Do I have a soul?

>>6895265
>>6895253
It's horrible pacing, I refuse to read or install webtoons.

>>6894998
>ai has destroyed the only enjoyable careers possible.
>ai will replace the engineers eventually
>low wage/low skill jobs that everyone hates are the only ones hiring
>the future only accentuates the nihilistic worldview instead of improving human existence
we must retvrn.
sillicon valley, politicians, anyone contributing to the degradation of humanity must be exterminated.

>>6895282
hey man to be fair webtoon artist is the diametric opposite to enjoyable career
it's the drawing version of working at a sweat shop, shoddy disposable output included

>>6895282
>>ai has destroyed the only enjoyable careers possible.
90% artfags never made enough money to live off it
>>ai will replace the engineers eventually
probably, but not everyone, just up to 90%
>>low wage/low skill jobs that everyone hates are the only ones hiring
yer not a desperate immigrant, you'll demand too much money, lmao
>>the future only accentuates the nihilistic worldview instead of improving human existence
tech exist to make more money, not to serve you
you'll find some other job, or starve to death, not my prob
I'm going to enjoy these new toys and maybe make comics out of them to make actual money, lmao.

I know fags and ai-bros have some feud gogin on for the past year, but I don't care.
Get a job, I did.
The new Bing Dalle shit is amazing, can't wait for thing to get even better.

>Monster hunter uses AI for promotional art this week
>Overwatch uses AI for their kpop crossover promotional art this week
>Now this
Who cares at this point.
AI is everywhere, we lost.
Either use it yourself and become a famous webtoon artist or spend the rest of your life getting angry at others becoming succesful AI enhanced artists.
It's time to choose, /ic/, companies and artists who are only in it for the money/fame are only going to lean into AI more. It's literally free art.

>>6895283
The ai replaces Asian slave labor with bots, shit's great, too bad they kinda suck, but that's the same for most things.
You want robots to replace underage kids salving at factories, right?
Same shit.

>>6895049
>AI can not, and would not, create without the work of others to reference
retarded and ignorant take.

>>6895196
> the fact of the matter is that AI is still driven by stolen and scraped art and you don't know to what degree it's used.
we know exactly how it's used. it's used to train the AI. the AI learns from it and then never sees it again.
the training images have no direct connection with any of the models output unless it is memorized by the AI by mistake.

>paid tool
complete and utter retard.

>>6894998
you need skill in ai-assisted workflows.
and this tard also made the basic mistake of not using lineart.

Idea bros... it's our time to shine!

>>6895296
>>AI can not, and would not, create without the work of others to reference
>retarded and ignorant take.
are you just pedantically taking issue with the word "reference" because the AI is "trained" and "learns" just like humans do? because scientists and engineers never repurpose common words to describe superficially similar but very distinct phenomena? still, human work was used in the training process, how is that a "retarded and ignorant" take? you understand the core issue, right?

>we know exactly how it's used. it's used to train the AI. the AI learns from it and then never sees it again.
the training images have no direct connection with any of the models output
there you go. you swallowed it whole.

oh look, I put copyrighted content in a zip file and now I can use it to generate more work just like it! What do you mean it's the same picture, the picture is gone! It was used to generate the zip file and now I can create more pictures without referencing the original picture!

Whenever I say, "Trannies are deluded and don't know shit," I always whisper, "Except the Wachowskis."

>Report
>Drama/Community Vendetta
Stop replying to the spammer, you're only validating him.

>>6895317
>I put copyrighted content in a zip file
there you go. ignorance.
that's like saying that by reading a textbook, you put its contents in a zip file in your head.

>still, human work was used in the training process
yes. it was learned from.
the "core issue" you people don't understand is that you're asking the AI to come up with something out of nothing.

the other issue is that you don't understand how the AI actually uses the data.

a simple explanation that illustrates how AI trains:
>it tries to see patterns and GENERALIZE from the training data.
>so if trying to train the idea of "smiley", it sees a large amount of smileys.
>and regardless of how all the individual smileys look like, the model will eventually grasp that they all have certain things in common: a circle, and marks for two eyes and a smile.
>that then becomes its representation for that token. "smiley".
notice how there is no focus on copying the individual images or even using the images to directly to create the new images.

instead what is being used it the models internal representation. THE RESULT of the training. so when you prompt "smiley", it doesn't use any image for reference (the images are GONE). it uses its internal representation to create from scratch.

now this is only the simplest example using a very simple object to illustrate the process to you retards. in reality it will grasp much much more complicated patterns (interwoven networks of patterns, really), like how reflections work, how shadows work, how light works, colors work, etc etc.

>repurpose common words to describe superficially similar but very distinct phenomena?
yes, but there is a reason people use the words they do.

>>6895354
stop talking in circles. I don't know if it's always you or how many of you idiots come to these these threads to seek validation for your own bullshit, I'm not asking you to enlighten us about how it works
I don't give a shit.

>the "core issue"
>the other issue
The only issue is that you wouldn't have AI generated art without the works of human artists who did not consent and did not allow you to use their work to create a process that can generate art at a massive scale
it's not a coincidence that the most common prompts are a variation of "in the style of John Smith". That's what you want. That's what you are doing. That is an issue, regardless of how much you deluded yourself into believing that it is just how human brains work (while accusing others of ignorance, by the way) so there's no problem. Scale is a problem. Automation is a problem. Intent is a problem.

You can own a gun to defend your property in many places. Gun politics aside, I imagine you wouldn't want people buying 100 drones and fitting them with machine guns to patrol their backyards. We have different laws for humans and for automatic processes. We have different laws for different scales. The world is complicated, but we don't need to shut down our brains and pretend that "progress" is inevitable, adapt or die, whatever. We live in a society!!

And this is the third AI shit spam thread. Looking forward to the next

>>6895434
>Scale is a problem. Automation is a problem. Intent is a problem.
it is a problem, why?
it is a problem for artists, who will have to adapt. but how is it a fundamental problem?
do you have a single argument for why the market shouldn't be allowed to change? the same thing will happen to many fields from now on and has happened to many in the past.

>it's not a coincidence that the most common prompts are a variation of "in the style of John Smith"
it's also common that artists are influenced by other artists. disney and manga being huge influeneces, influences that are VISIBLE, is also not a coincidence.
THIS IS INDEED WHAT ARTISTS WANT.
AI or not.
even before AI, i wanted to have elements of sargents painting style in my art and made studies of his works. now i can just use AI.

>The only issue is that you wouldn't have AI generated art without the works of human artists who did not consent and did not allow you to use their work to create a process that can generate art at a massive scale
again, explain to me WHY it should need our consent to do what it did.
because it's can compete against us and artists should be protected?

otherwise explain to me WHY it needs our consent to learn from our art, art that is out in the public.

>>6895453
>it's also common that artists are influenced by other artists.
holy fucking shit
shut the fuck up

>WHY
there is no reason for doing anything
our lives are meaningless and then we die
and yet

>>6895463
fantastic answer.

>why would it need constent?
>uhhhh uh dunno bro life is meaningless
cmon at least try to use your brain.
why would it need our consent?

it looks like your main justification really was the protection of artists, eh?

>>6895453
>even before AI, i wanted to have elements of sargents painting style in my art and made studies of his works. now i can just use AI.
You don't draw. Ywnbaa.

>>6895434
>You can own a gun to defend your property in many places. Gun politics aside, I imagine you wouldn't want people buying 100 drones and fitting them with machine guns to patrol their backyards.
Those are called police officers and you live in my backyard which is called society. Obey the rules I set and pay the taxes I decide you owe or I'll order the drones to take you to prison and/or shoot you for resisting arrest/threatening me.

>>6895471
i've already proven that i draw
>>6876072 >>6876105
now with that pointless ad hominem out of the way, show me you can actually justify any of the retarded beliefs you hold towards AI.

>>6895434
>You can own a gun to defend your property in many places. Gun politics aside, I imagine you wouldn't want people buying 100 drones and fitting them with machine guns to patrol their backyards. We have different laws for humans and for automatic processes. We have different laws for different scales. The world is complicated, but we don't need to shut down our brains and pretend that "progress" is inevitable, adapt or die, whatever. We live in a society!!
there are reasons why we wouldn't want to have drones with machine guns everywhere.

but again, can you give me a reason AI would be a similar issue?
again, your entire argument boils down to "artists should be protected".

>>6895481
AI is pretty much a drone with a machine gun

>>6895477
No one knows who you are or what your deleted posts are. The fact you have them on hand to link to and how you talk makes me think all you do here is argue about ai. You really should just fuck off and kill yourself.

>>6894998
Why wouldn't you use AI if it's available?

What a shame, this was a mildly interesting thread, ruined again by the same Anon whose brain has been destroyed by AI addiction.
Not even once guys.

>>6895498
>mildly interesting thread
Not really, a retarded permabeg decided to use ai to render their shitty woke webtoon, they got caught.

>>6895488
oh really. and artists need to be protected from this "machine gun"?

>>6895491
dead posts link to the archive you braindead retard. and you don't need to know me. the two posts explain everything. somebody asked me to draw yotsuba and i did, end of story.

and i didn't have them on hand, i had to look for them in the archive too.

>>6895498
your brain never functioned to begin with when it comes to AI. but keep staying deluded.

>>6895481
Human existence should be protected, yes. How is this confusing?

>>6895501
>link to the archive
Your posts don't link to anything, unless you think I care enough about you to go search for your posts on whatever archival website.

>>6895501
No the world as a whole does. Art is a strong propaganda tool and now anyone can use it to create it at a ridiculous pace. The dalle model was censored as a direct result of memes being made out of the israel plaestine war for example

>>6895503
how are artists equivalent to "human existence", you mongloid?
are small stores protected when big supermarkets pop up?
and this is fundamentally assuming that AI will replace artists. not even giving artists a chance to adapt.

>>6895508
yes, misinformation is a decent argument against the scale of AI's ability.
but that's a discussion about AI in general and weighing its pros and cons.

as far as artists are concerned i only asked the following: why would it need our consent to learn from public images?

>>6895506
lol...
they would if you weren't a newfag :)
but here's the thread: >>/ic/thread/6874737#p6876105

Just stop replying to the attention whore.

>style is so shitty and generic you get mass accused of using ai
Lmao, I would log off the internet forever. Not that it isn't ai, it totally is.

>>6895519
>shitty and generic
Except everyone pointed out the exact artist they're ripping off

>>6895523
Nobody here ever praised samdoesart, tourist.

>>6895516
keep putting your head in the sand.

>>6895528
nobody cares about this shithole filled with crabs and permabegs

>>6895528
Who said they did? What?
You called it generic but were able to easily tell the artist. That was the point.

>>6895297
Idea bro, the. A person too lazy to learn a craft and instead daydreams about the idea of being good at something.

Yeah it's obviously bad AI and made even worse because it's blatantly stealing from Samdoesart

>What do you think?
I don't give a shit because why would I? The overwhelming majority of webtoons are just picture books for grownups, and the illustrations are subordinate to delivering the plot. I don't think anyone cared about the artistic value of the images alone, and even if they did, they again only exist to deliver the story. The author might as well collage google image results for all I care.
>It has garnered over 40k likes, almost half a million views, and 87k followers in the last two days.
I took a really big dump today.

trad or die

>>6895296
Isn't it funny how proompters need another's art in order to work? You never seen AI users do their own take on style.
PS - Kill yourself.

>>6896220
>blatantly stealing from Samdoesart
Artist copies other artist
>BASED BASED BASED JUST INSPIRED BRO
>You can't OWN an art style, idiot!
>He's worked hard to get to that level!

AI copies artstyle
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>IT'S THEFT AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

I would add some kind of basedjak as the image but am too lazy to download one so just imagine the most insane onions-ey basedjak you've ever seen as the picrel.

>>6896333
>You never seen AI users do their own take on style.
lol

>>6896220
to be fair, Sam just draws aged up Pixar chicks normies can get horny for w/o feeling guilty.. There isn't an original idea or thought in his body work... literally "sad girls in the snow" cliche-monger and professional patroen whore, it's appropriate such a style becomes used by fellow low effort ai-shitters... nobody is stealing Dave Sim's style, lmao

>>6896367
nice blurred shit

>still trying to troll nonstop
>"gaise i totally did this"
lmao even

>>6896470
>>6896367
???
what is this???

>>6896353
so anon did that artist credit anyone, were commissioned to do a pose, was it a meme template like the jack o pose or stock family guy fall...etc etc when copying or doing some studies
>transparency my nigga

>>6896475
he's an attention whore pajeet that thinks his ai images are really good art. he got completely destroyed by some guy's goblin drawing though

>>6896475
Some butthurt tranny that got btfo by a beg and the whole board about how the image generator work and still seething a month later just vendettafagging and trolling

mods and jannies are in on it that's why he still didn't get banned

>>6896491
I guess, but what is the point of blurring it?
Is the point using ai to recreate something else?

>>6896500
I think he's trying to pretend it's his art, but is blurring it because he's totally famous and doesn't want to get doxxed

>>6896503
very silly

>>6896500
>what is the point of blurring it?
So it can't be reverse searched as that specific character from fire emblem or some other obscure weeb game he took the character art from, put through the line art filter and then through the autorenderer.
And so then he can call everyone a jealous crab and that he is better when they tell him its not his work

Its so low iq it's embarrassing to witness it

>>6895068
Try grindr

>>6895049
>is this acceptable?
By the company? Yes, to a certain extent. By other webtoon artists? Nope, it's like Artstation.

>>6895290
>use it yourself and become a famous webtoon artist
Good luck doing this with every gen alpha kiddie uploading millions of ai comics a day
>>6895296
>you need skill in ai-assisted workflows
Imagine being so deperate to feel special that you believe this

>>6896608
ai bros... why do they persecute us so...?

>>6896662

>>6895136

aitards truly are the most vile creature on earth.

>>6895296
You are one of the dumbest AIfags I've seen on here. Most dance around the obvious, you just willfully deny it. And a tripfag, no less.

>>6896353
Come now Moeshe, you know a computer program isn't a person.

>>6895194
data scraping for plagiarism is not legal

>>6894998
Bitch is stealing from Sam Yang. She deserves to be bullied.

>>6895453
Bitch this isn't influence, she is straight up copying SamDoesArt
This is plagiarism and she deserves to get beaten bloody for that

>>6896889
Then shouldn't SamDoesArt be beaten bloody for copying Disney?

>>6896892
bitch, I still have to see anything that is a straight up copy by Sam like this bitch is plagiarizing him. Hope she gets cancelled, bitch deserves it.

>>6896892
Inspired, sure. Nevertheless, his style is still uniquely recognizable, as anybody who has seen just a small handful of his works will be able to recognize his style and won't confuse it for Disney.

>>6896892
>beaten bloody
Good morning sir

>>6896900
if it's recognizable
IT SHOULD BE COPYRIGHTABLE
bitches can learn to draw their own unique recognizable style if they don't like it.

>>6896905
It's pretty hard for people who actually draw and don't literally trace to avoid winding up with even a marginally unique and recognizable style, even when they're trying to mimic other artists.

>>6896713
What are they hoping to accomplish?
The plagiarism is obvious. Look at this plagiarist bitch >>6894998

>>6896912
In those cases it was a deliberate attempt to piss him off. More broadly, it is a desire to replace artists, by using their own works against them.

>>6896914
Replace how? Plagiarism has been condemned and punished since the 1st century.

>>6896912
It's both wanting to hurt him personally, because he's openly against AI, and a deep sense of inferiority. AItards for some reason think that popular artists are a breed of ubermensch that don't deserve their skills and at the same time want to be like them, often they're people that abandoned art when they realized it's difficult, like Shad, and desperately crave praises.

>>6896919
>>6896912
>>6896885
>plagiarism
lmao
>>6896905
styles can not be copyrighted, sorry sweaty

>>6896895
Sam literally copies 1:1 screencaps from TV shows/popular media.

>>6896892
>Then shouldn't SamDoesArt be beaten bloody for copying Disney?
Styles are not copyrightable, so no.

>>6896928
>copies
You mean immensely improves and un-pozzes?
He's doing the Lord's work.

>>6896925
I can instantly recognize Sam's unique style and work.
So yes, plagiarism. Bitch be stealing Sam's work, no question about it. That's not her work, that's Sam's. She ought to get a smacking for that.
And laws can change.

>>6896931
Then Sam should sue Webtoons for big time money, lmao.
I won't hold my breath/

>>6896929
Styles should be copyrightable. Sam has nothing to fear from that, since his style is unique and instantly recognizable from any other, including Disney.

>>6896931
>>6896934
to be fair, Disney+Pixar would sue Sam first
seethe more
every tech company are going HARD on ai this year, maybe after the bubble pops, you might see some change and the suits move through the courts

>>6896937
>Disney+Pixar would sue Sam first
Over what? His style is his, and it's unique. That's normal, he draws. You need to draw to form your own style, I know that's hard to comprehend.

>>6896940
He literally draws the same pixar bitch over and over, that's his entire oeuvre, his insta look like an ai-tard account, wall to wall sameface thot in difference outfits... and that's fine, he's found a niche and become successful, but if styles were ever copyrightable he'd be fucked fast as any ai douche in your imaginary scenario...

What you want is new laws protecting human artists over machine made images, not extending old IP laws that would overreach and harm current artists whilst benefiting only corporate IP holders.

>>6896928
>pathetic uguu moeshit weeb garabge
>disgusting modern faggot casting
I choose to hate both.

>>6896945
>if styles were ever copyrightable he'd be fucked fast
How? He draws his own unique chicks, can you point where he copied Pixar exactly?

>>6896475
>>6896505
my lineart with an AI generated underpainting. the idea is to put the lineart back on top and then work from there.
they're foaming at the mouth as you can see. blurred just in case i get recognized.

in this thread i already proved beyond a doubt that i draw.
>>/ic/thread/6874737#p6876181
but as you can see they will do anything to keep up their delusions.

these people don't care at all about facts, they only care about "winning" against AI. they're braindead ideologists.
even >>6896496. you should see the thread that was actually posted in...
over the course of last month i tried to explain things from many angles, but these people are too mentall ill to even grasp the minimum gist of it.

>>6896968
Of course he can't, he's an ai nigger and he's making shit up because doesn't want artists to be protected.

>>6896968
the irony here is that AI "copies" that artist in the same degree that sam "copies" pixar.

a lot of people have the idea that behind an AI image, there is a real piece of artwork it has stolen from. or at least parts of many art pieces, but that's not how AI works.

>>6896934
>Styles should be copyrightable.
Good job, you just gave corporations and criminals the keys to art.
>be company
>hire artist once
>or use AI
>generate pictures endlessly until something that can be seen as original and pass the copyright screening is made
>copyright anything you can
>any other private person/indipendent creator/company even coming remotely close to your copyrighted style is liable to cease&desist, sued for any damages or getting their work removed.
>"did you just make big eyes? well, you shit outta luck, buckarro. pay up lol"
>anyone else can't copyright their work if grifters already copyrighted everything they could
As usual, most don't understand that there are very clear set rules on whether something can be copyrighted, considered copyright infringement or fair use for that matter.

As long as say; You draw a piece in a known style of known characters, that work is your intellectual property, you can't copyright that in the first place, but it is indeed YOUR work, that you made, IF you made it.
It can be considered fair use and not be liable to a copyright infringement claim IF:
>the artist did the work
>the work is transformative
>it doesn't compete with the original source or claim to be official art to sell
But you can sell a work that has copyrighted characters IF it is indeed a transformative work of YOUR making, and not just printed out from a rng machine.
The nature of generated pictures already makes anything it produces, not able to receive copyright or intellectually property rights, but it can be accused of plagiarism and copyright/intellectual rights infringement because of how it operates.

This samdoeskitsch did work at disney though
And sure, his work is low effort and panders to teenagers and kiddies, but at least he makes the work himself so he has a right to whatever he makes, even if reminiscent of knowns styles.

>>6896982
>still can't provide one single example
There's plenty examples in this thread of the ai plagiarist on webtoon plagiarizing Sam, but you can't provide a single piece of evidence of your claims.

>>6896984
tl;dr
learn to draw

>>6896984
You have Dunning-Krugers, please refrain from commenting on copyright law anymore.

>>6897000
>>6896990
>no arguments
he accepts you your concession
you lost to a schizo

>>6897002
I accept his retardation. You can shove your cutesy bon mots up your ass.

>>6896986
AI can plagiarize. just like a human can choose to do so.
but the question is: does AI inherently copy?

>but you can't provide a single piece of evidence of your claims.
i can explain how the entire thing works again but you wouldn't read it anyway :)
you people deliberately choose to ignore it every time, thinking it doesn't matter.

also what single example? i can post anything that is context dependant, like reflections, mirrors, and that would already be proof that AI doesn't copy.


>>6896608
>Imagine being so deperate to feel special that you believe this
>noooo impossibruuuu!!!!! AI bad AI bad! no touch!
it's just the truth.
it's very simple to understand too: if if you want to improve on the AI with your input (as in, manual input, like sketches, corrections, overpaints, photoshopping), you need to make decisions that won't make everything worse, but better.
otherwise you will just make the result worse with every manual thing you do.
shadiversity is the best example of this in action.

>>6896984
Though the post is full schizo, it does bring up an important issue with copyright.
If you go down this road of "An artist's style is his trademark", then big companies will win this battle defacto by having an army of artists producing art for them.
Right now you can draw cutesy shit in the style of disney's old movies and sell it, but you can't do that with mickey mouse because that's where their copyright ends.

Imagine if walt disney copyrighted the idea of 2D animation and 2D movies. Sounds ridiculous? You know disney lawyers would cream their pants at the idea.

Luddites in /ic/ gatekeeping as usual. Not sure why you hate AI so much when 99.9% of you don't even pyw let alone make money off your art. If you used AI in your work and pumped it on twitter you would build a following and maybe make a few dollars.

>>6897015
So you don't have shit, thanks. AI prompter bitch is plagiarizing Sam, while Sam is creating his own original stuff, and all your accusations are shit. As we all knew already.

>>6897017
WGA and SAG-AFTRA are fighting for artists of all kind to retain ownership of their IP even while employed by the likes of Disney, and you bitch about that.
An artist's style is his trademark, true. Labor needs to change so that Disney can't own it even if they employ him. THAT is the change that's needed, and you aren't talking about that, you just want to steal.

>>6897017
Ask a fa/tg/uy about what happened to 40k fan animations last year.

>>6897019
Stop plagiarizing Sam, it's his work, not yours. Nigger.

>>6897017
Here's a revolutionary thought
IP BELONGS TO THE ARTIST, NOT TO THE COMPANY
I know, that's too revolutionary for /ic/

>>6897021
who is this plagiarizing?

i'm sure you think that there is some pieces of artwork out there that this has "stolen" from.
...otherwise, how could this be possible? machines can't learn after all.
and this is why you're a retard.
:)

https://youtu.be/-MUEXGaxFDA?si=XsE_uRWbzDaiK4K8&t=285
btw this video proves aishills wrong once and for all

>>6897017
>the post is full schizo
If by schizo you mean autistic, yeah nigga, how the fuck am i going to explain this shit if not by writing many words? no offense
>Imagine if walt disney copyrighted the idea of 2D animation and 2D movies. Sounds ridiculous? You know disney lawyers would cream their pants at the idea.
Yeah that was the point of my post and that is why you have all these laws to make sure bad actors can't fuck shit up and get away with it too easily.
>>6897025
>ip belong to artist not company
yes but also no

If an artist makes a work for a company, this implies being hired by them to do the work, sure they are the creator of a specific work(s), but the company reserves all the distribution/copy rights to it, because it originally is their own property they hired the artist to work on.

If you make a work, say fanart, as a private person, you have intellectual property and copyright to a certain extent over that work alone, but no rights to any of the characters in it, but you still have the right to sell that work.

If you want to own a work you create for a company, you have to establish that in the work contract.

>>6897030
>there is some pieces of artwork out there that this has "stolen" from
ai needs to be trained on existing images to work, and those look like the kind of stuff Pixiv artists draw, and don't tell me companies never stole data from there because pffffft

>>6897034
>If an artist makes a work for a company, this implies being hired by them to do the work, sure they are the creator of a specific work(s), but the company reserves all the distribution/copy rights to it, because it originally is their own property they hired the artist to work on.
This, this needs to be changed. The property should remain with the artist and companies should be forced to accept a mere license. Kinda like Rowling and Warner Bros.

>>6897036
No, it does not need to be changed, just make a contract with the company.

Forcing it to be made law will inevitably make companies jump to AI asap even more so than they already do.

You have to be fair to the company too and give them an incentive to even hire someone.
>Kinda like Rowling and Warner Bros.
Anon, WB bought the rights from her to make the movies about the books she wrote.
What the fuck are you on about?

>>6897044
>companies will be forced to jump to ai if they can't forcibly take your creations from you
Why do you want to work for such a shit company?
>WB bought the rights from her
Not exactly in the way you think. Rowling is smart and has kept a huge amount of rights to herself, WB can't do shit without her. That's why she was able to force various casting choices on them.

>>6897044
>WB bought the rights from her
>Still need her permission to film a new series

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/23101964.warner-bros-boss-hints-new-harry-potter-film-j-k-rowlings-permission/

>>6897034
that video is made by the average anti AI tard. except he pretends to understand how the tech works.
just like the retards here actually. somehow you can read the explanations without truly understanding anything you read.

>>6897035
>ai needs to be trained on existing images to work
none of you truly understand this line of argument. the true extent of it is much more complicated than your tiny peabrains can imagine.
AI needs to train on dogs to have an "understanding" (i.e. an internal representation) of dogs.
it needs to train on cats to understand cats
it needs to train on paintings in order to understand what makes something a painting.
it needs to learn from [thing] in order to understand it.

now you can argue that AI should not be able to see a single piece of art and should just learn from photos and historical art, but that's not how you learned (if you can draw at all, lol). artists grow up seeing all kinds of art and let themselves in influenced by them. we even deliberately study them, copying their art for practice.

you call none of that "stealing"
but for some reason, when the AI does it, it's stealing. despite the fact that the training data is not recreated.
it's actually simple to understand the basic issue. and i already said it.
to summarize:
you retards, consciously or not, believe that when the AI makes the images in pic related, it is referencing pictures of dogs.
but what happens in reality is that the AI is relying on what it has learned about dogs, and is RECREATING the features step by step. first the blurry, then eventually edges and details that converge to become the features of a dog.

>BUT AI CANT CREATE NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
yeah yeah. whatever you say you people lack the IQ to understand any of this anyway. i've given up and i'm dissapointed.

>>6897048
>the training data is not recreated
>literally in a thread where some bitchis getting burned for having deliberately copied SamDoesArt's trademark style
pffftbwahahahahahahahahahaaaaa

>>6897045
>>6897047
Yes, because she worked out a contract, and that's what you should do when you're trying to work for/with anyone.
You are not forced to accept any contract as it is given to you.

There doesn't need to be a law that could influence how the market and contracts works regarding this cases, because then IF
>artist, even if hired by a company to work on a company's property, retain every distribution right of the work they did
You have given bad actors more leverage to fuck shit up for a company, hence making companies way more selective to whom they might hire for a project.
Imagine this
>someone gets hired by company
>makes work and retains all the rights
>suddenly that someone decides to not let the company use his work anymore for xyz reason
could be something like ideology, mental illness or they got paid by another competing company
>company has to find someone else they trust that will not fuck shit up
>ffw now anyone that might want to work anything, will need to be "one of them"
>any small company that can't afford to lose money will be taken out of commerce
>only the big corporations will remain
>competition is kill
>companies have no incentive to create anything and offer jobs because the risks far outweigh the rewards
>economy is kill
And there you go, you destroyed the free™ market and any chance of climbing up the ladder for anyone that isn't already known in the industry.

If there is demand for your work, of course you can work out a better deal for yourself. No need to involve the government into this.
Laws are supposed to protect everyone into not getting fucked over and make sure everyone is playing fair.
>6897048
>lol lmao u r dumb kek
typical damage control non-response

didn't expect anything else coming from you.

>>6894998
>Be lazy fucks
>Gets called put for being lazy fucks
Serves them right.

>>6897059
>There doesn't need to be a law that could influence how the market and contracts works regarding this cases

Hard disagree. Rowling was able to negotiate her contract because she was already a massive success. People who are just starting out do not have that kind of power behind them, and they need to pay the bills too. The need to pay for essential things like bills, food and housing drives people to accept conditions they would not accept if they were not so desperate. The law needs to protect them better.

>>6895194
It's not. It's like during early industrial era when burning smog and dumping wastes aren't illegal... until someone made a big fuss over it. Google has only been around 2 decades. It's only a matter of time before the silicon valley get their comeuppance.

>>6897054
you think learning a style is the same as recreating an image?
>pffftbwahahahahahahahahahaaaaa
:)
see, you people really don't have the slightest clue about any of this.

and that is the scary part about this, isn't it? that the AI can actually do this.
though realistically speaking, it would probably take a lot of effort to make it actually fully learn a style in a meaningful way instead of just having a surface understanding of it.

>>6897067
"learning"? bitch is literally copying, I can instantly see it's Sam's work, that's the definition of

pla-gia-rism

>>6897063
>Rowling was able to negotiate her contract because she was already a massive success
And there you have your answer
Her own original work, she made herself, was in demand and she could work out a better deal for herself.
That is really not hard to grasp that because it was her OWN original work, she had actual rights on how to distribute it and companies were willing to pay lots to buy a license from her.
>People who are just starting out do not have that kind of power behind them, and they need to pay the bills too.
Ok, pay me $3.5 millions right now for all the work i'm putting in right now trying to make you understand the consequences of such shallow and honestly highly self-centered decisions based on short term gain.
Would you pay a plumber a whole month's salary to fix one pipe? He has to eat too.

>>6897070
Plumbers don't work on salary where I live, they set their own prices.
And the fact remains aspiring artists need to protected from predatory contracts.

>>6897059
>>6897054
btw, didn't read a single thing i typed. exactly as i predicted.
and you want me to not insult you subhuman permabeg shitters. lol.

>>6897069
overtraining can lead to memorization (copying). bad loras can lead to that, yes.
but it is not what the AI does in principle.

and i'm curious to see you providing an exact example of that here. of actual plagiarism, and not just
>it's the a similar style bro!

>>6897070
>Her own original work, she made herself
That she was able to create because she had someone else paying the bills for her.

>>6897077
>i'm curious to see you providing an exact example of that here. of actual plagiarism

read the thread
>>6894998
>>6895092
The comic is copying Sam's stuff, her own stuff looks way worse.

>>6897074
>And the fact remains aspiring artists need to protected from predatory contracts.
Anon, for fuck's sake, just learn to read contracts.
Don't have your eggs all in one basket.
Learn to negotiate.
Learn to draw.
No amount of laws will make up for being retarded.
>>6897079
And that is relevant how?
It's not anyone's responsibility to manage your life and make sure you become rich&famous.

>>6897084
It's relevant because it's completely unrealistic to assume material conditions don't matter. Material conditions DO matter. If someone is at risk of ending up homeless, they can't negotiate for shit and you know that. It's dishonest to deny it.

>>6897079
There's a reason most writers are married women.

>>6897090
That's not even relevant to the thing we're talking about.

You want equity and affirmative actions based on your personal and financial situation? You're going to end up with what we have now.
Sorry, i guess you couldn't get a job at big video game company because you weren't sexually degenerate enough and we gave your job to a transsexual black jewish woman, even though her parents are rich as fuck but you know, muh oppression.

If someone is at risk at going homeless, he should get a job, any job, not get into arts.

And anyway, all writers are currently on strike because of AI, if you weren't aware of that.

>>6897083
..doesn't their style look like that to begin with? s/he was trying to imitate that style even before this.
and you don't understand. this is exactly
>it's a similar style bro!
it's not what i normally consider plagiarism.
this is not what i mean when i say "copying".

unless, if that is seriously what you're arguing? then you're saying that AI shouldn steal styles. but those are specially made lora, and that should mean that AI as a whole is okay then? but i doubt you believe that.

>>6897104
>doesn't their style look like that to begin with
Lol no. Her actual style looks much worse. The faces in the webtoon comics look exactly like Sam's, as if drawn literally by him, they have a sharpness and appearance that Sam creates but that she never has in her stuff. I see a huge difference between the two, you gotta be blind not to see it yourself.

>>6897121
i think we're talking past each other.
i don't disagree with you in this case anyway. i don't think using AI/lora to specifically imitate an artist should be encouraged.

but i was talking about the entire AI discourse as a whole.
would you still be against it if it wasn't this particular style, but something more unique?
or would that be an issue as well because "she can't do that on her own"?
does that mean you would be okay if she could actually draw like that on her own?

>>6896977
>in case i get recognized.
lol

>>6897131
In a perfect world, an artist would draw something, use ai trained on exclusively on their own art and/or royalty-free stock for whatever improvement, and call it a day. I have no objections to that. It's not my process but hey, to each their own.

But in the real world, that's not what's happening and that's why people are against AI.

>>6896977
nigga you mentioned about being new here with that same name I wanna say almost a year ago.

For how often you spam shit I don't know why you believe you can change your story.

>>6897139
and that would not work.
because ai needs to learn how to make art in the first place and needs copious amounts of data to do so.
the things it sees through your art alone would not be enough for it to learn a lot of these concepts.

but you tards think AI is magic so you think you put in your art and then it'll just work out. lol.

>>6897148
i replied this exact post before, can you not learn anything new?
are you just generally incapable of reading? i thought it was only about AI but damn bro you have mental deficiencies huh?

i only started using AI in the summer you fucking gigantic shitter lmao. and this trip is a month or two old at best. and i told you this before as well: i'm a returning oldfag from before anime was still shunned on /ic/

>>6897182
I don't care what ai needs, ai doesn't need shit, it's not a person.
You are not entitled to anyone's data. Fuck, data privacy laws can't come fast enough.

>>6897197
People put their data online publicly available for free, not my problem.

>>6897204
>people put their mailbox outside that means I'm entitled to snoop into their communications
No chief, it doesn't work that way.

>>6897204
Data being online does not mean it's not protected by rights and it does not mean you are entitled to do as you please with it. Copyrighted images are protected by copyright offline and online. It is unlawful to use them for machine training.

>>6897182
>only started in the summer
your not helping your case newfag

It's bad when you have to add "totally not AI!" to the bottom of every update. Also the art process is not convincing at all
I am impressed that she has a 4.49 star rating, which is even lower than Religiously Gay (6.28 stars), which offended christfags so hard Webtoon had to hire the creator them a religious sensitivity specialist

>>6897210
>Copyrighted images are protected by copyright offline and online
Yes.
>It is unlawful to use them for machine training.
No.

>>6897208
Sue me then lol.

>>6897226
There's like a dozen lawsuits going on chief, I wouldn't move so fast.

>>6897197
it literally looks at your art and learns from it.
you think this is some kind of cope but this is pretty much what it is doing.
i could explain in depth how this is true but none of you retards would read it anyway because you DONT WANT TO BELIEVE THIS.
but it's true :)

educate yourself.

>>6897226
You forgot your trip nigga

>>6897239
>it literally looks, just looks promise :)
>but it doesn't work without scraping your data reeeeeee give me access reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

>>6897182
>ain't reading your shit
>fuck your retarded AI spam "discussions"
>this is what AI "discussion" 65 or something

>>6897233
The current law (in the USA) is pretty clear, call me when it changes.
>>6897240
meds.

>>6897251
>your posting style is still the same c(YOU)m slut

>>6897246
>but it doesn't work without scraping your data
you don't understand the process at all. and this is the only way you can describe it.
because you're a fucking idiot. :)

it looks at the data. it tries to copy it, if it gets it wrong it adjusts itself.
it does that for every image.
it learns to do it more effectively the more images it sees, so it learns what all the images with the same token have in common.
it learns features and relationships.

that is what it takes from its training data. this is how AI works.

and this is again just a simplified explanation for you toddlers. writing any more is futile anyway.

ask me and i'll explain more in the evening if anyone is really curious.

>>6897226
cool
thanks bro

>>6897261
>it learns to do it more effectively the more images it sees, so it learns what all the images with the same token have in common.
forgot a line:
because of this, what it essentially does is finding patterns.

>>6897261
all that space for
>it doesn't work without scraping your data reeeeeee give me access reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

>>6897266
>my god c(YOU)m slut
>>6897148
>(YOU)ing yourself now

>>6897263
Oh no, as if I don't already have plenty of my traditional copyrighted art being resold on redbubble by 3rd worlders and there's literally nothing I can do about it.

>>6897274
>as if i dont have plenty of my tradition copyrighted art
What do you mean? You don't draw.

>>6897274
>t.tripfag
>I'm more successful "believe me"

>>6897276
>>6897278
I do, but even if I didn't it's still just as true that I can screenshot any copyrighted art online, put it on a tshirt and sell it and there's nothing anybody can do to stop me if I'm persistent enough, especially if I live in the 3rd world or China.

>>6897280
>i do
>doesn't post work
tell me more anon-kun
did your father come back from buying cigarettes yet?

>>6897095
>And anyway, all writers are currently on strike because of AI, if you weren't aware of that.
nope. Went crawling back to big Daddy Goldberg and to save faith they claim they'll get paid more if the movie "does well."
kek

>>6897284
*face

>>6897283
Alright ask for something and I'll draw it for you, make it simple though cuz I don't got all day.

>>6897290
cool
draw me a stick man beating the shit out of a woman with a knife while a monkey dances on her corpse
not stabbing, but beating the woman in her tits with the handle of the knife

i dont care about the quality but im going to know if you prompt

>>6897290
how about this? (;

>>6897269
>retard thinks saying "it can't learn without having access to what it's trying to learn" is a winning argument for him
>because he calls this "scraping"
yes, you ARE all retarded. end of story

>>6897767
Hey it's the failure that can't proompt anything but generic anime girls

>>6897025
>IP BELONGS TO THE ARTIST, NOT TO THE COMPANY
lmao
IP belongs to the IP holder, it's "property," you dumb commie, it belongs to who ever holds it, and 9 time out of 10, it will be a giant corpo scumbags, not the workers who created it.

>>6897064
>It's only a matter of time

>>6897220
>Also the art process is not convincing at all
idk, looks fine
she obviously is an artist
she claims she doesn't use AI
what are you gonna do about it?

>>6897767
you're getting more and more unhinged as time goes by

>>6897767
I can learn to draw without stealing from the internet

>>6898199
no i just stopped trying as hard. idiots can't be convinced.

like look >>6898578
this retard thinks he can "learn to draw without stealing".
"""stealing""".
and most anti AI tards think like this because they've been misinformed from the very beginning.
the irony is genuinely laughable at this point.
in reality you retards just lack the IQ to see the parallels.

i'm only going to engage seriously with people who actually care or want to know how this works. trying to teach idiots just isn't worth it.

>>6898923
That retard would be right.

>>6898928
everything you've ever known is an accumulation of things you have """""stolen"""".
>REEEE NOOO THATS DISINGENUOUS
>WAAAH WAAAAH MUH SEMANTICS

no, you simply do not understand how AI works.
none of you have any REAL idea what you even mean when you say it "steals".
how it apparently steals or how it uses the training data.

THAT'S IT! They're about to do your 'dream job' with a machine. You're 38, you're getting a job and you're paying rent.

>>6898995
It is very disingenuous to compare how machines work to a human.
very akin to the disingenuous
>but it learns just like a human
argument
and yes indiscriminate datascraping across the web to be used for monetary gain is stealing and so is being unpaid for filling out captchas
machine learning and AI should never be treated the same as human standards

>>6898995
you got it explained countless times and all you do is screech about how everyone's an idiot

kill yourself.

>>6899063
he really needs to fuck off and stay on /g/

>>6899066
tripfag is a chatbot, anon
he's not leaving no matter how many times you prove him wrong

>>6899066
>>6899101
Looks like you newfags need to adhere to ancient 4chan coda and STOP REPLYING TO NAMEFAGS/TRIPFAGS

They're claiming they didn't use tomato to make spaghet because they mashed it up first. Now stfu.

>>6899063
>this retard really thinks anti tards actually understand anything well enough to offer explanations.
I AM THE ONE OFFERING EXPLANATIONS. pretty much always. and you are the people choosing to ignore it because it sounds like voodoo magic to you so i must be
>disingenuous
>lying
>using semantic tricks
>etc etc etc etc
and that's pretty much how you shitters always "refute" me. there are no explanations, you can't make any. you don't understand shit.
it's literally always the same. :)

>>6899005
what part is disingenuous?
again, you only think that because you don't actually see the parallel at the bottom of it.
because you think AI works a certain way, but your understanding is simply incorrect.

you call it datascraping because you think the AI copies and mashes up the data and then uses parts of it to create new images. (or something along these lines)

artists have tons of folders of their favorite artists, they look for DIRECT inspiration in other artists all the time. you would never call that datascraping because here you DO understand what those files are used for.
but in the case of AI your understanding is different. even though none of you ACTUALLY know what happens with the data and how it is used. how the AI actually makes images.

and when someone tries to explain, it's always
>it doesn't matter how it works broooo
even though as i explained just now, having an understanding will fundamentally change your viewpoint on what the AI is doing.

>>6899634
>having an understanding will fundamentally change your viewpoint on what the AI is doing
I have been using gans since ... 2017 or so, I know how they work, I still think it's a form of stealing to train one on someone's work. Imagine for a moment there are no AI image generators, then a programmer figures it all out, and chooses to scrape his favorite living artist, just the one, no permission asked. The artist hears of the project and says he doesn't like the idea. Then the programmer releases the weights, let's anyone use the generator to create works in that artist style, content, composition, every pattern the ai picked up. Is that a moral thing for him to do? Was it good?

>>6899634
we say 2+2=4
you say 2+2= omg just believe me bro its 5 why are you so dumb

Why do you keep resetting your router?

>>6899646
*I realize I neglected to note diffusion only gans, I used various diffusion google colab notebooks, discodiffusion for a bit,

>>6899646
*I realize I neglected to note diffusion, only mentioned gans. I used various diffusion google colab notebooks, discodiffusion for a bit,

>>6899650
2. 3. and 4 with a 3 holding a coral snake deserve to get kicked in the head.
a yellow middle finger, and red thumb. with a black and white wrist band are just gay Georgie's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescopium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microscopium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiuchus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ara_(constellation)
https://www.worldhistory.org/Izanami_and_Izanagi/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hansel_and_Gretel
Shit's a circus side show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3PGKUiSco

>>6899650
using AI doesn't really mean you understand it. you don't have to understand any of it to just use it. unless you also train models, then you could make more of an argument.

>then a programmer figures it all out, and chooses to scrape his favorite living artist
you cannot actually make a model just using the art of one artist. it's simply not enough even if you pad it full with photo and other non-art data. so really you're talking about LoRas here.

>Is that a moral thing for him to do? Was it good?
first off: i think plagiarism is scummy, so if it's used for that, then probably no.
but your case is tailor made to come to that conclusion. let's compare with reality: like i said, real models are pretty much NEVER based on one artist. instead it's always a mix that doesn't imitate anyone in particular.

(and plagiarism is not a black and white issue. see pic related. that's an artist whose characters were HEAVILY inspired by hiroaki samura. but he also brings in his own flair. does that make his copying of samura's style okay? i think it does.)

so your point speaks against LoRA and people aiming to copy specific artists, but not AI or training as a whole. your case literally doesn't apply AT ALL to any actual models out there. none of the actual artwork used in the models get their full style imitated in any real degree. not any more than what the artist in this pic is doing.

>I still think it's a form of stealing to train one on someone's work.
why? what is it stealing? or you think styles should be copyrighted? pic related should never have happened? manga artists shouldn't be allowed to copy aspects of each others styles?

That'd explain why she has somehow gotten even more souless than her The Phoenix Requiem days.

>>6899727
I know how they work well enough, I've watched all the explanation videos, seen all the diagrams. It's not about the style being copied, it's the labor, all the learnings of the artists are gained in a way. If I painted 100,000 styleless photoreal portraits, that's more than enough for a dataset to make a gan that creates very good mimics of my work, if somebody took my work and made that gan and then monetized it, they have "stolen" my work, using it without compensation. Infact, look at 2016s Rembrandt AI, they didn't need many* images to create a new rembrandt. Had they used images from a living artist without compensation, what word could one use other than stealing?

*There was face detection/recognition software involved here, which may count as somehow using more images, but I'm not sure.

>your case literally doesn't apply AT ALL to any actual models out there.
So it's not ok to do it to one artist, but it's ok to do it to millions, somehow the scale of the neo-theft makes it ok.

Let's go one more hypothetical, let's say artists working in Photoshop were all unwittingly sending all their pen clicks and image data to Adobe, then adobe comes out with an ai Photoshop user, that can do any task in Photoshop, replacing the need for a pro photoshoppers. Labor was stolen, uncompensated, it's just clicks and images no style was stolen, adobe is in the wrong here yes?

And another hypothetical, let's say artists don't have styles, we all draw the same way because of religion or something, making an ai from a billion images these artists collectively made and making an ai to do it, what else can you call that but "stealing the labor."

>>6895110
You don't suddenly improve that much in a month no matter how hard you push. Improvement is almost always gradual

>>6894998
Not news until AIfags start killing themselves.

>>6900058
None of that is wrong, the sooner you realize we all stand on the shoulder of giants the sooner you can let go of your anger.

>>6900084
>let go of your anger.
I'm particularly mad, I am purely going on logic, morality/law here. If I am wrong, I am happy to be shown the error of my thinking. losing an argument means I get to learn something new.

>>6895289
>>6895290
Good morning sirs

>>6900084
>let go of your anger.
I'm not particularly mad, I am purely going on logic, morality/law here. If I am wrong, I am happy to be shown the error of my thinking. losing an argument means I get to learn something new.
>we all stand on the shoulder of giants
it took a lot of labor to reach that giants shoulders.

>>6895068
Why are you like this?

>>6900093
There doesn't have to be an error in your thinking, you're just thinking about immaterial things.

>>6900114
immaterial things that put material food on the table.

>>6894998
>>6895001
how much money is that?

>>6900058
>So it's not ok to do it to one artist, but it's ok to do it to millions, somehow the scale of the neo-theft makes it ok.
yes because it's fundamentally not theft. the AI is learning your style by analyzing your art.
and by having more things to learn from it literally is not even "stealing" anyone's style anymore, which is the ONLY issue where i'd agree with you.
unless you're saying that drawing pupils in a certain shape. using certain colors together is actually "stealing" and not just using techniques that NOBODY really owns. or should own.
if you do argue for that, i'm sure you can imagine what kind of parallels i would draw to humans doing the same throughout all of history...

>Let's go one more hypothetical, let's say artists working in Photoshop were all unwittingly sending all their pen clicks and image data to Adobe, then adobe comes out with an ai Photoshop user, that can do any task in Photoshop, replacing the need for a pro photoshoppers. Labor was stolen, uncompensated, it's just clicks and images no style was stolen, adobe is in the wrong here yes?
let's break it down, say an ai learns how to separate a character from its background. (or any photoshop task you can think of really. like changing adjusting colors in an image, or changing the colors of an object to be something different.)
do you consider that "stolen labor" just because it wouldn't be able to do it without using examples to train on? even though all it did was learn how to do the task by seeing examples?
how can labor be stolen in the first place? how does the logic work here?
it seems to me like you're basing this ENTIRELY on the result, without considering what actually happens. for your case, it would be more accurate to say that JOBS were stolen.

but in actuality, [what] has been stolen? basically just techniques and processes. here, without the baggage of style and artistry, do you think the basic ability to adjust some curves is something that can be "stolen"?

>>6901044
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MUEXGaxFDA&t=219s&ab_channel=JimmyMcGee

There is no need to argue with you here. People can just put video this on in the background while they literally just draw.

>>6901044 >>6900058
continued:
it's funny because imo your hypotheticals REALLY highlights how flawed your viewpoint is.

-normally only objects can be stolen.
-in terms of ideas, only protected ideas can be stolen
-so in your hypothetical photoshop example, without artistry or style, the AI is just learning processes that are free for anyone to learn.
so where is the theft happening? what is being stolen?

and i know you insist on the "it wouldn't be able to do this without the training data" part, but YOU CAN PAY SOMEONE FOR THE LABOR, and then what? the end result is still a machine that can create MUCH more labor than was put in.
and do you think the people providing that labor actually are the source of the photoshop techniques they are using?

lets say they make 10 professionals provide the training data.
let's say you actually value that labor by its output value. so in this case, the value of all photoshop skills in existence combined: a million billion poozillion dollars or whatever.
do you think those 10 professionals actually deserve that money? what they are providing is the accumulation of photoshop knowledge. but are THEY themselves actually deserving of that amount of compensation?
don't you see how something is CLEARLY not adding up here?

(and this argument can absolutely be extended beyond your hypothetical, with styles and artistic input. but this hypothetical is good at showing the core issue so thank you for that.)

>>6901072
and to be perfectly clear, i'm only using the number of 10 pros to highlight the issue: that those 10 pros are not the sole source of the knowledge they are sharing. the things that the AI is actually learning.

>>6901072
All that seething because someone pointed out your thievery lol

>imagine spamming whole threads with this off-topic shit EVERY SINGLE THREAD because some begs explained AI better than him and mogged the shit out of his nodrawing thieving ass
Are all prompters this fucking pathetic?

>>6901072
>all this cum chugging mental gymnastics to avoid admitting the obvious
Bro, all this ai generative work is literally just hi-tech plagiarism; the fraudulent representation of another person's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions as one's own original work. The key word there is original, because there is inherently /nothing/ original about any work of generative ai piece, it cannot innovate unless used as a tool in an incredibly more sophisticated way to do so, which 99.999,% of its users are not doing. And no this is not how human art is made, if that were the case we'd still be talking in ye olde Shakespearean English or listening to traditional folk songs or making paintings of Jesus. You don't get the natural evolution of language with ai, you just get the hacks with no originality who pump out generic work we've already seen a billion times before. And no you don't need to train specific lora models for it to spit out generic versions of other artists works, I spotted a few knock offs just with using free ai sites like Bing or dalle or whatever the fuck and just typing in a few words got it to spit out an incredibly obvious Nomura Tetsuya knockoff for me. Sure, there are artists out there with zero originality who work in similar ways to what ai does, but it is entirely disingenuous to say that every artist does this. Think of the generic anime artist, now contrast that to the artists who modeled that original comic style. You don't get anime with how ai works, you'd just be left with a bunch of hokusai knockoffs. Same goes for rap, grunge, breakcore, impressionism, abex, surrealism, minimalism, etc. You don't get anything with ai art except derivations on old ideas. So no, this isn't how humans make art. AI would not have come up with James Jeans style, or Ashley Woods style, or Tomer Hanukas style on it's own.

>>6901044
Not what, but how. If 10 photoshoppers provided that data and adobe was able to use it to create an ai that could do anything there, that's ok(but would be incredible, "using Photoshop" is not just the tools, it how they are used, invented uses for things). for the no style example, if one artist provided the data to make an ai, that's ok. The end result might be the same, but how it's done is ethical.

If someone filmed you secretly 24/7, then created an ai chatbot based entirely on your voice, word choice, mannerisms etc, then released that, have they stolen something? They could have hired professional actors to create similar data, the end result might be the same, but you were the source, you were involved in an unethical transfer of data.

people do have rights that protect use of their likeness, even faked data that mimics it can have legal consequences, but I'm not trying to draw a comparison to art style here, just the source of a thing.

>>6903097
People understand the scumminess better when you suggest that somebody could train an image generator on Facebook photos of their child.

>>6903120
Lol yes.
Reminded me, I was banned for a month last year(global rule 1) for suggesting I'd made a face recognition smart glasses software by hacking Facebook. It was in response to an ai/technology argument... I shoulda green texted...

>>6895092
hahaha oh wow
AI is a crutch for NGMIlets as usual

>>6903097
>Not what, but how.
the what is still very important. but sure, lets focus on the other stuff for now.

you didn't answer my question. i asked you what those 10 photoshop pros should be paid, and if they would deserve that pay.

let's completely set aside the case for artists and styles and such. and just focus on what you call the labor.
what i'm trying to highlight here is that the AI is not copying the labor (whatever that would even mean). it is learning to DO that labor.
and you are saying that it is learning unethically. but how can learning be unethical?

again, what is that labor worth in training? if you're willing to go down that line of thought, by putting a number on their labor, the VALUE of it, you'll quickly realize huge issues with your logic.
because in the end, those 10 dudes are still giving all of the photoshop techniques to the AI, which will then in turn replace hundreds of thousands of professionals.

they are using techniques that, for the most part,
-THEY DON'T OWN
-THEY DIDN'T COME UP WITH
and giving it to the AI, who also doesn't own or develop any of them.
you're saying that this passing of techniques and knowledge is unethical unless the pros are paid. but consider this: the AI and those pros are in the same situation.
given you logic, the pros should also have paid everyone else to learn what they did. and that is in fact what you are demanding from AI right now.


cont.

cont.

>>6903097
>If someone filmed you secretly 24/7, then created an ai chatbot based entirely on your voice, word choice, mannerisms etc, then released that, have they stolen something?
it would have learned the ability to mimick my identity. and if it does that, it would be highly unethical.

but only IF.
you asked what it has stolen: you tell me, what did it steal?
it CAN steal my identitiy. but it is only unethical if it actually DOES.

now what if it learned from millions of people instead? if is no longer mimicking anyone specific?
if i like to wave my hand in a certain way, you think i own that gesture?

outside of that, can you even say at all what it would have "stolen"?
in the beginning you said this is not about what, but how.
as you can see, the "what" is clearly important here.

>>6903120
yes it's easy to be outraged and emotionally manipulated like this.
until you realize that the child would never show up in its output.

now what? if those photos were private, then sure. they should never have had access to them. but if they're in the open?

answer this: can i take a photo from the internet and trace over it?
the answer is yes, i can. and that's literally all that needs to be said. because what the AI is doing cannot be compared to that in terms of how much more transformative it is.

cont.

>>6903097
>If someone filmed you secretly 24/7, then created an ai chatbot based entirely on your voice, word choice, mannerisms etc, then released that, have they stolen something?
it would have learned the ability to mimick my identity. and if it does that, it would be highly unethical.

but only IF.
you asked what it has stolen: you tell me, what did it steal?
it CAN steal my identitiy. but it is only unethical if it actually DOES.

now what if it learned from millions of people instead? if is no longer mimicking anyone specific?
if i like to wave my hand in a certain way, you think i own that gesture?

outside of that, can you even say at all what it would have "stolen"?
in the beginning you said this is not about what, but how.
as you can see, the "what" is clearly important here.

(the "secretly" filming is obviously unethical if it's private data. but that is not what is happening with image AI at least.)

>>6903120
yes it's easy to be outraged and emotionally manipulated like this.
until you realize that the child would never show up in its output.

now what? if those photos were private, then sure. they should never have had access to them. but if they're in the open?

answer this: can i take a photo from the internet and trace over it?
the answer is yes, i can. and that's literally all that needs to be said. because what the AI is doing cannot be compared to that in terms of how much more transformative it is.

Has anyone ever gotten this assblasted?
Lmao imagine being so fucking destroyed you actually feel the need to write paragraphs explaining how not-destroyed you are

>>6903023
art is fundamentally derivative.
yes the AI cannot nearly innovate to the degree that humans do. because humans can have many more inputs to draw from than only visuals.
we can also "train freely", anytime we experience or see something new. we're even essentially training on our own work as it comes out on the page. and that is probably a huge part of why we can innovate.

but the AI can innovate to an extent as well. see >>6899727
that piece is also stealing an other artists style. but it adds its own painting style and other flairs. it is combining different to create something original.
(even though the facial style is strongly derivative of hiroaki samura)
and at least this is something that AI can fundamentally do as well. because it learns all kinds of techniques and styles and it will inevitably combine it all in order to create new images.

>And no this is not how human art is made, if that were the case we'd still be talking in ye olde Shakespearean English or listening to traditional folk songs or making paintings of Jesus.
we were. for a long time. and things only developed slowly.

now we're in the age of information so things move a lot quicker. but even if you look back a few decades, for every skilled artist, you could still clearly see or hear about their influences.
nowadays there is so much good art out there that things get a lot muddier, but that doesn't mean that art is suddenly not derivative anymore.

>the fraudulent representation of another person's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions as one's own original work.
you think this sentence makes any sense?
either it is a real idea or it's not. what is a "fraudulent" idea or expression?

see pic related. i prompted for something showing a "fraudulent idea".
is this fraudulent? do you think someone else made this image or idea and the AI is merely stealing it?

if so then like many others, you don't understand how AI fundamentally works.

>>6903531
>you didn't answer my question.
They don't deserve a billion or whatever, the assumption was they were salleried adobe employees I guess.

>the AI and those pros are in the same situation.
Elaborate. The AI is a new type entity with new ethical considerations for us to make laws around.

>it CAN steal my identitiy.
If the source is you, even if they change you into a robot with a robot voice, the end result is not you but what they did it unethical. I see it the same with AI, it's a new type of entity that can steal an artists "identity" from a collection of pictures. We didn't know that by sharing our work, we were giving away a lot more of us than we bargained for. The issue of public vs private could be considered. I am totally fine for humans to copy my work, so I put my work out publicly. I am not ok with an AI doing it. It's like when I shared my work, it was privately among humans, and now an alien has been secretly filming me and wants to take over earth with a mutated clone army.

>>6903538
>it would have learned the ability to mimick my identity. and if it does that, it would be highly unethical.
Why? Mimicking somebody's identity is just learning from art.

>>6903579
(narrow) AI is a nonentity, it does not possess consciousness, self-awareness, or personhood. Therefor if one creates art using AI they get the credit and if one commits crime using AI they are held resposible.

>>6903750
You don't have to treat it like that. it's a proto entity.

>>6894998
That’s the most AI thing I’ve ever seen. Also what a stupid title.

>>6903750
>(narrow) AI is a nonentity, it does not possess consciousness, self-awareness, or personhood.
AI is not a passive instrument, but more like an active agent. It's complex, it can learn(you can teach it by creating a LoRa for example). It's unlike any tool we've ever had, entity is a bit of a strong word to describe this I agree(and is harder to define, when is AI an entity?, what is the line it has to cross?).
>Therefor if one creates art using AI they get the credit
Well, maybe they can share credit, depending on how it is used.
>and if one commits crime using AI they are held resposible.
yeah. and you may be doing it with AI whether you know it or not(plagiarism) due to how it was trained. again, depends on new laws made around this new paradigm.

>>6903579
>If the source is you, even if they change you into a robot with a robot voice, the end result is not you but what they did it unethical.
only in the sense of impersonation and privacy. this does not apply to art. i.e. IP.

>I see it the same with AI, it's a new type of entity that can steal an artists "identity" from a collection of pictures.
it CAN. (only in the case of a well trained deliberate lora),
but your artistic identity is made up of ALL of your techniques and choises. if the AI only takes or uses part of them then the entire situation changes. because it's no longer about your creative identity. it is merely about the techniques you use. techniques that, even if you invented them, would never be yours to own.

example: if you invented a new painting style, you could never own that. you can never stop others from adapting that style. you can only claim to be its originator.

>Elaborate. The AI is a new type entity with new ethical considerations for us to make laws around.
the AI learned PS skills through example.
the pros also learned the same way.
the AI needs to pay for those examples, otherwise you call it unethical.
does that not mean the pros need to play the people they learned from as well?

>We didn't know that by sharing our work, we were giving away a lot more of us than we bargained for.
but we did. this image again being a good example >>6899727 the guy just took samura's character style. this was always possible. this is just a strong visual example but all art is derivative like this. we're building on top of our influences.
and the people providing that influence, they have never been able to stop others from doing that. it is in the nature of art.

>>6903562
>art is fundamentally derivative
Wrong. So fucking wrong, if that were true we'd still be making cave paintings. You can very clearly an evolution of different works each century of art. That's not something ai does. The kind of "innovation" you're talking about from ai is entirely an illusion because it is drawing from such an incredibly large dataset (the entire history of human made artwork) that it can give the /impression/ that it is creating something novel, by combining different elements from the works of old. But on an intellectual level you must understand that this is not the same thing as actual innovation, which does not draw itself exclusively on the works of others, only partially. Even if people talked in ye olden style of English for countless generations, there was still innovation in language, Shakespeare himself literally invented new words which isn't at all how ai writes anything. The only novelty that you're seeing from an ai generated work is entirely a fictitious one. And that definition for plagiarism is literally taken from the dictionary. It's hilarious that you keep saying that no one here understands how ai works, when the actual problem is that you don't understand how your own species works. Humans absolutely do not create art in the same way that current tech does, not even close.

>>6903868
>pros also learned the same way.
Wrong

>>6903868
>but we did
Not in the way I mean, style is not all. so much unconscious work goes into creating an image that an AI picks up on.

>>6903868
It takes a lot of skill to copy and plagiarize some artists styles and even more skill to make something original out of it. With AI it takes a few clicks. It's okay when a human does it but not a computer, I don't know why that's such a hard concept for you. And yes, photoshop harvesting data of your brushstrokes and how you use the program is absolutely a breach of privacy which can lead to impersonation.

>>6903699
it's a literal crime in most countries (impersonation, identity theft)

plus you DO actually need consent for access to things relating to privacy, like likeness, voice in recordings etc. even in public settings as with security footage, the files need to eventually be deleted. though that differs from country to county.

the difference with art is that we are not in the realm of privacy, but intellectual property.

>>6903869
>You can very clearly an evolution of different works each century of art.
....yes. exactly?
because it's derivative.
do you think that means it is never changing or something?
if you need an obvious example of something being derivative, just look at music. music genres specifically.
artists influence each other. and the derivation is small at first. but ages later and suddenly things sound so different that they are considered entirely new subgenres.

>The kind of "innovation" you're talking about from ai is entirely an illusion because it is drawing from such an incredibly large dataset (the entire history of human made artwork) that it can give the /impression/ that it is creating something novel, by combining different elements from the works of old.
eh, this entire paragraph smells to me like you don't understand how AI works.
do you think the AI just puts parts together from its dataset?

>But on an intellectual level you must understand that this is not the same thing as actual innovation, which does not draw itself exclusively on the works of others, only partially.
do you know the life story of every one of your influences? what they thought about when creating?
no? i certainly don't. for most of them i judge them by their work and it is their work alone that influences me.

>Humans absolutely do not create art in the same way that current tech does, not even close.
and how would you know how similar it is in the first place without knowing how AI works...?

you assume so many things about AI without knowing how it works..

>>6903880
*for example, heartbeat affecting lines, I think it's feasible for an AI to pick up on that. and replicate it, while a human would never. These things once private or protected because of the limitations of humans, is now up for grabs? not cool.

>>6903910
the techbro really doesn't understand how unethical machines are. he deserves to have his mother and sister trained and turned into porn loras and ai for sexbots using all their public data. for free of course. i bet he wouldn't mind if an ai copied how he used ai

>>6903912
I'm wondering if movie stars are going to go after Microsoft. some of the things I've seen the /tv/ threads... if that was my family, kyoani2 in minecraft. I know the result is hardly different from photoshoping, but the scale and speed. soon there will be more degenerate images of these stars than not.

>>6894998
Theoretically, could someone sue them for plagiarism?

If the data used to train the AI contains even 1 picture someone drew, that should count right?

>>6903904
You are one condescending faggot. Bro, tell me with a straight face that ai can write plays with new words it invents like Shakespeare did. Because that's not how it currently works. You're not going to get Bosch paintings from cave art no matter how many data you put into it. It has a limited amount of outputs it can generate based on the rules it has coded into it to not make any "mistakes" in language.

if there was a way to opt-out of being used on generative AI how many artists would let the works be trained? companies would sell their hired artists work for a price of course

>>6903924
the companies used a loophole.
>scraping for training is legal in academia
>nobody has datasets big enough for good AI generators.
>Stability AI fund the research(Laion) so they can gather bigger datasets
>train AI on that data.
>Use the resulting trained AI for profit.

>>6903886
>With AI it takes a few clicks.
that's what you assume. because you don't understand anything about it.

do you know how training actually works? the AI is just putting out random crap, and then comparing that to the training image. and then it is nudging itself to get closer to that training image by writing notes into various "notebooks" (tokens).
it does that over and over. until it gets things right enough to move on.
does that process sound familiar to you in some way?

it takes a lot of computing power to train an AI from the ground up.
a style LoRA is easier to make, but it only works at all because there is the base model, which has learned a ton of stuff already. otherwise a lora would be unable to do anything at all other than directly copy or mash together images in nonsensical ways.

>I don't know why that's such a hard concept for you.
lol. because you cannot justify that in any way. or at least none of you have succeeded in doing so to me.

the way i see it, most of you have one of two reasons as justifications:
>protect artists
which is fair enough, but i don't think artists should be protected from the world changing just professions may change shape
>because AI is unethical/steals
which is simply not true

>>6903912
you're an idiot who only understands things through emotion.
i already said that direct plagiarism, direct impersonation is unethical.
but it is not at all what AI fundamentally does. it doesn't even take directly from its training data, it only learns from it.

in fact,
>you can remove 10000 top attributing images from a model without it change what the AI learned(https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.03149))
>you can train on an entirely different dataset of faces and still result in similar faces at the end, because the model gained a similar understanding of faces in general
(https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.02557))

of course you can't see past that because you're too fucking riled up in righteous anger :)

also pic related lol.

>>6903959
Hey tripfag explain this sentence

>Examination of these bases reveals oscillating harmonic structures along contours and in homogeneous image regions

>>6903959
So I guess it's fine to recreate your mother's and sister's face and use it for porn as long as you don't directly train on images of her and learn from images of others. Aren't you the more emotion driven one considering how you're the only one constantly trying to push and defend AI in a place that clearly doesn't want anything to do with it? Why are you still here again

>>6903959
>>because AI is unethical/steals
>which is simply not true
Even though AI is useless without actual art?

is it ethical to track someone down using forensic linguistics and image hashes to harvest all their public data? whether that public data became public through ethical means is another question

>>6903986
>I suffered, I gave up art and want to return but by now I am far behind my peers, I need a leg up, but it is shameful, I want to twist the perception of this crutch so that it is accepted by my peers and I can stand alongside them without judgement.

>ai art being used to color stuff
>nobody cares
>ai art being used to rip off craig mullins
>nobody cares
>ai art being used to rip off kim jung gi
>nobody cares
>ai art being used to cure cancer
>nobody cares
>ai art being used to make mountains of futanari porn
>nobody cares
>ai art being used to make manga
>nobody cares
>ai art used professionally
>nobody cares
>ai art used to make victorian boob women
>nobody cares

>ai art being used to rip off some youtube hack that almost solely relies on digital gimmicks and autoshading with an uninspired disney artstyle that lacks all the soul of an actual disney artist
HOLY SHIT STOP THE PRESS CALL THE COPS HOLY MOLY LOLI WE NEED TO STOP THIS
RIGHT
NOW!!!
O
W
!
!
!

>>6904022
your nobody cares list is wrong. but you knew that already. rope.

>>6904022
>being used to cure cancer
Sad thing is AI would grant us access to all sorts of medical cures. But we can't have AI destroying the medical industry like that now can we?

>>6904035
They are protein folding with it which is pretty based but it's infinitely more difficult then placing pixels in artibrary sets of pleasing patterns on the screen especially since the margin of error needs to be nigh impossible whereas people are fine with attrocious aislop as long as it somewhat resembles something along the lines of what some of the prompt requested

>>6903985
the paper is definitely a shitshow for a novice to read, i'll give you that. i also only came across it through a summary.

but that sentence is essentially just saying that the model is recognizing patterns. particularly around edges and uniform areas.
the ability to recognize those patterns lead to better representations, and that leads to a stronger ability to generalize.

>>6903986
yeah. or at least i wouldn't blame the AI. it would clearly be your fault. or whoever the person doing it is.

i'm merely bothered by how horrendeously misinformed anti AI fags are. this will only get worse if you build more opinons on these ignorant base assumptions. so i might as well try to correct them now.

>>6903990
yes. but that's just the nature of learning.
people are useless without education. but do you ever call the knowledge you learned "stolen"?

>inb4 that's disingenuous!
it's not. AI generalizes. unless you understand this, you will never understand what people mean when they say that AI learns.

i mean, other machine learning applications will have the AI directly learn from its own mistakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw3BZ6O_8LY
it's all about pattern recognition in the end. it's about using a neural network to find the best way of doing something.

>>6904035
Imagine if all the resources and time techbros were putting into enabling and becoming fakeartists were instead targeted towards cancer cures. we'd have done it by now!

>>6904045
Scraping images from the internet that are the real intellectual property of an artist and including them into a data sets used to train machine learning models without a license agreement is unethical. As is the human intelligence tasks that are being performed by economically destitute third world slaves.

It is disingenuous when you intentionally and repeatedly ignore facts that are being provided to you and make analogies that are based on misinformation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MUEXGaxFDA&t=219s&ab_channel=JimmyMcGee

>>6904045
>so i might as well try to correct them now.
You should have learned by now that is a battle you can't win.
AI is going to become more advanced, and emergent properties of AI will continue to... emerge, how does it know how to do X? well... it's kind of a black box that's impossible to interpret. knowing how something works shouldn't be the basis on how we make opinions/laws, the effect of that thing is how we do so.

>>6904045
>shit show for a novice to read
my nigga you could just say it's poorly explained for general audiences.

If you could only understand it from what I'm guessing some elses summary, how good is to keep directing people to it.

>>6904061
that video is made by a person who has no real understanding of AI either. only someone who pretends to read a paper and then puts all his biases on top of it anyway.

and tbf none of it is easy to understand. even i am only slowly gaining a better understanding, partly because i'm trying to get better at explaining it. my earlier analogies were way worse than what i tend to use now.

>As is the human intelligence tasks that are being performed by economically destitute third world slaves.
they only label images. if they are actually underpaid then that's an issue. but not one directly related to whether AI art is ethical...
(and i read that they aren't underpaid relatively to where they live anyway.)

the AI sees the patterns on its own. without human intervention.
it's like you and me seeing a bunch of human faces and realizing that all of them are oval from the front. these kind of patterns, among many many others and much more complicated ones.

>It is disingenuous when you intentionally and repeatedly ignore facts that are being provided to you and make analogies that are based on misinformation.
sorry? like what? any examples?
it's very rich when i hear my arguments thrown back at me from people who can't explain a single thing about how SD works.

>>6904063
>it's kind of a black box that's impossible to interpret
it's not impossible, it's just really hard, because it's a lot of data.
to understand it, you have to
>figure out which layers, which nodes have which functions
>and the reason we don't know that in the first place is because it's not something we configure manually, but something that the AI configures ON ITS OWN (through training) as it tries to get more efficient at its task.

>knowing how something works shouldn't be the basis on how we make opinions/laws, the effect of that thing is how we do so.
that's not how law works. and there is a reason law doesn't work like this. because it matters.
if you understand it is learning, not just saying, but REALLY comprehending it, then that will change your entire outlook on what it is doing.

>>6904077
well fair point. and i was aware of it desu. but you can still try to read it. and the other paper is easier to read iirc.

>>6904101
>if you understand it is learning, not just saying, but REALLY comprehending it, then that will change your entire outlook on what it is doing.

1. machine
2. data in
3. math
4. data out

Why should it mater what happens at step 3? There is nothing at all in math that can make step 2 ok.

>>6904101
You never answered my question about if ai could generate plays inventing its own words like Shakespeare fid. I'm sure you could code one to try but the problem with ai generative work is that the output has the potential to be so vast if its following unconstrained parameters that it won't produce anything distinguishable from useful human language to absolute gibberish. So, what rules is it following to produce "successful" works, because humans don't follow hard rules of language, only soft ones. You're going to tell me it can make Bosch paintings from cave art or even gooby pls comics from Disney all on its own with no additional creative input from works of human origin to train it on? You'd probably need the coders to put that into it from the beginning the same way they already have those shitty cubist and impressionist settings you can try to get it to usr. But I'm not convinced at all by anything you've said that it can generate entire genres on its own, like rap music or something. Even people who have been working with generative music for decades like autechre say that it still needs a lot of human guidance to generate anything worthwhile. You're honestly going to try to tell me that ai can go from negro spirituals to straight out of Compton on its own, with no additional source material along the way to guide it or train it on? Sounds ridiculous to me but that's what you're saying about art, that it can go from stickfigure doodles to Rembrandt all on its own via machine learning. Ok bro, sounds legit.

>>6904139
i showed you.
...actually, the post has been deleted, i don't know why. weird.

it's here. >>/ic/thread/6894998#p6903959

>I'm sure you could code one to try but the problem with ai generative work is that the output has the potential to be so vast if its following unconstrained parameters that it won't produce anything distinguishable from useful human language to absolute gibberish.
yeah. almost like it is a tool. a tool that contains human knowledge but is also able to use and apply it (to a degree).

>So, what rules is it following to produce "successful" works, because humans don't follow hard rules of language, only soft ones.
then it understands those soft rules.
calling them RULES is already wrong. it's about patterns. not only one or two, but countless interconnected ones.

>You're going to tell me it can make Bosch paintings from cave art or even gooby pls comics from Disney all on its own with no additional creative input from works of human origin to train it on?
no? i'm all for AI-assisted processes. i don't think we're going fully autonomous anytime soon.

>You're honestly going to try to tell me that ai can go from negro spirituals to straight out of Compton on its own, with no additional source material along the way to guide it or train it on?
no this is EXACTLY what it can't do. it has to learn from given examples and can deviate from that, but not as much as humans.
but that still creates quite a large space to work with to find originality within those confines.

>>6904237
>no? i'm all for AI-assisted processes. i don't think we're going fully autonomous anytime soon.
Of course, and that was my point from the beginning. AI does NOT produce work the same way that humans do, you're insistence that its just learning the same way that people do is wrong. Saying that all of human art is just derivative is incorrect. That's what distinguishes it from human art, ai is just an incredibly sophisticated tool for plagiarism, it is not generating original art in the same way that humans do. It doesn't matter if the output creates the illusion of novelty because it is fundamentally derivative in a way that human work is not.

>>6904119
what if step 3 is everything posted in this image? >>6904095

what if the in-data and out-data are fundamentally different, save for them depicting the same type of thing? (dog vs dog)

what if the in-data is literally not even inside the model, and only its understanding of the data is inside the model?

what if by looking at a zillion faces, the AI actually learns the shape of a face, where the eyes can go and how everything plays together?

what if, when you write "dog" the AI is actually building a dog from scratch, using its learned understanding of what a dog can look like?
and yes, BUILDING.

>>6904260
>what if step 3 is everything posted in this image? >>6904095
"from its training data" that does not belong to the creator of the AI. if it did, no problem. why can't there be consent for how data is used?

>what if the in-data and out-data are fundamentally different, save for them depicting the same type of thing? (dog vs dog)
The fact that you can prompt AI and see some of the training data means we know it's not always fundamentally different. if it actually was, even then I don't think it changes much, it would still be doing something particular without consent of the creator of that data.
>what if the in-data is literally not even inside the model, and only its understanding of the data is inside the model?
as above
what if by looking at a zillion faces, the AI actually learns the shape of a face, where the eyes can go and how everything plays together?
as above as above, all about who allowed their face to be trained on.
>what if, when you write "dog" the AI is actually building a dog from scratch, using its learned understanding of what a dog can look like?
and yes, BUILDING.
Building huh. maybe using the dna data it could one day? and extrapolating 3d forms etc like how the latest forensic tech can guess what someones face might look like from dna? I don't really have an issue for dogs. natural objects with no human/creator are not really the concern here.

>>6895296
blow your brains out buddy

>>6894998
erm so? i know people on patreon making bank with ai

>>6904294
>"from its training data" that does not belong to the creator of the AI. if it did, no problem. why can't there be consent for how data is used?
i don't need your consent to use your images for photobashing
i do not need your consent to take your image, put it through a filter, trace over it digitally and doodle a moustache and some other stuff on it and posting that on instagram.

you know what these cases have in common? their need for consent depends on how transformative they are.
but in both cases i used data that didn't belong to me and fed it into photoshop.

now if these cases can work, how do you think your argument has any legs at all with AI?

>The fact that you can prompt AI and see some of the training data means we know it's not always fundamentally different.
that's overfitting. and it is neither desired nor the goal of the AI model. and they are tiny outliers that happen due to errors.
that right image in particular is actually a stock ad-photo where they would keep the same background and only change the phone skin that is being sold, so it's no wonder the AI overtrains on it.

>Building huh. maybe using the dna data it could one day?
one day? is already doing that. it is trying to see an image of your prompt inside the noise, and then gruadually builds on that with more detail and clarity.

>I don't really have an issue for dogs. natural objects with no human/creator are not really the concern here.
jesus anon...
you understand that it creates paintings of dogs in the same way that it creates photos of dogs, right?
in neither case is the AI using a real image as reference. it is building them from its own "knowledge" base

>>6904350
jesus christ, can you stop being so emotional? move on with your life, nobody here will ever consider slop as art no matter how many disengenuous walls of text you vomit.

>>6904350
You are dodging the point and being an ass now. Why should I continue to engage with this discussion?

AI is doing something with data the creators of the AI have no right to, or should have no right to, laws didn't keep up with developments. Humans are allowed certain usage of images. Your photobash example, wouldn't fly in the art industry, but for a shitty instagram post it doesn't matter. it's the monetization that affects it. Artist can lose careers for tracing(see no game no life).

It doesn't matter how it works, it's not a human, it's also not just a tool.
.

>>6897261
>from its training data
The training data is stolen images.

>>6904386
>stolen images.
You know what's worse? prompters have to often mention artstation when they're prooompting or else the end result will look extra goysloppy.

.

tripfag are u cooking up another wall of text for us? how cute :)!

>>6904402
I'll set him up with 5 very uncharitable interpretations of his arguments. tit for tat.

>>6904369
>You are dodging the point and being an ass now.
i adressed every point. not liking my counterpoint does not equate to dodging. don't kid yourself.

>AI is doing something with data the creators of the AI have no right to, or should have no right to, laws didn't keep up with developments.
i see, so irregardless of laws and rights, YOU think they don't deserve that right. that is supposed to be your argument?

photobashing is common practice in certain parts of the art industry. but what, it's okay because they're using photos, not art?
either way, this is only supposed to illustrate that the degree of tranformation matters.
and that it is not at all a given to need consent to use images, as you would like to pretend.

what is also common is to use other peoples art as references. for their techniques, their colors, moods or even design choices. and that is okay too as long as it isn't stealing wholesale (at which point it becomes plagiarism).
but for the AI it isn't, even though it's doing the same thing?
again, do you actually understand that it is the same thing? or do you believe this is some disingenuous trickery i'm using?

we're right back at >>6904260
do you understand that those are not what-ifs, but just plain truths?

>...or should have no right to
i think it comes down to this. in the end your point is ultimately also just about protecting artists, isn't it?

>>6904394
and what do you think that is doing?
legitimately, i'm curious what you think that is doing.

>>6904443
Sure hope you're actually getting paid to shill this hard. It's been literally weeks.

>>6904452
Yeah that's the funniest part.
The mental gymnastics here >>6904260 are utterly hilarious.
>>6904443
If there is no Y then you can't do X. No matter what transformations Y will go through, X will still need Y.

>>6904443
>i adressed every point. not liking my counterpoint does not equate to dodging. don't kid yourself.
you weaseled out of the main points and leaned on "you don't understand sweaty", don't kid yourself.

>photobashing is common practice in certain parts of the art industry. but what, it's okay because they're using photos, not art?
With that you've proved you don't know shit. Those images are all licensed. Nobody uses unlicensed photos because they don't want to cause trouble for their employers.

>but for the AI it isn't, even though it's doing the same thing?
>again, do you actually understand that it is the same thing? or do you believe this is some disingenuous trickery i'm using?
It's not OK for AI to do it. I said that, you keep dodging it, why is it ok? because humans do the same thing is not a correct answer. that does not make it ok.

>do you understand that those are not what-ifs, but just plain truths?
They are not truths. see
>what if the in-data and out-data are fundamentally different
1s and 0s representing color and position(and a million other parameters), not fundamentally different.

>i think it comes down to this. in the end your point is ultimately also just about protecting artists, isn't it?
I mean, that's part of it sure.
It's not ok to use data in certain ways without consent. AI image generation was more or less sprung upon us without any warning(though not to me, as I said ages ago, I have been on this since google deep dream). if an AI was wholly trained on liscenced work, that's ok. why can't there be consent for how data is used, in an AI? in an AI is the whole point. you keep deflecting back to "durr humans do it" like I should give a crap.

AI using data, absolutely no, unless there was explicit consent.
Humans using data, yes with some caveats(law etc).
What is so god damned hard to grasp? it's right there! grasp it! reach out! go on!

I'm curious if tripfag thinks Art is some universal truth/science, and AI is just arriving at an understanding of it, so it doesn't matter the source in the end.

.

>>6904529
..

People will use it because it works, all there is to it. Any logical or emotional arguments beyond that are irrelevant.

,

>>6904538
No one is arguing that it won't get used though?

>>6904538
>Any logical or emotional arguments beyond that are irrelevant.
tell that to the judge.

>>6904493
>1s and 0s representing color and position(and a million other parameters), not fundamentally different.
utterly dishonest argument.
you're basically saying "picture in, picture out" so it's the same. with this kind of argument, it literally doesn't even matter what's in the picture anymore.
so try again. tell me again how those are not truths.

>you weaseled out of the main points and leaned on "you don't understand sweaty",
its because you clearly don't. and when i explain, you pull shit like the above.
it's not that you can't. you just refuse to understand. at this point it can't be just attributed to stupidity.
instinctually, you probably understand what it means to accept those things i mentioned. to accept that AI actually learns.

>I mean, that's part of it sure.
don't kid yourself.
it's most of it, if not all of it. it is the reason why you ultimatively believe that this is "not OK".

>why can't there be consent for how data is used
learning from public info never required consent. that's why.

an AI uses an image of yours to gain an INFINITESIMALLY small amount of understanding for the sake of larger patterns, and you think it needs your consent to do that? to ANALYZE your image?
did you know that the AI never directly copies your images? i literally just makes RANDOM shit and then COMPARES that with your image, and then tries to get closer to your image. it does that over and over again.
those adjustments make it better at depicting the things in your image using its OWN MEANS, and when combined with tons of other images, this then becomes the ability to generalize, simply because the AI wants to be efficient.

>AI using data, absolutely no, unless there was explicit consent.
>Humans using data, yes with some caveats(law etc).
>just grasp it bro!
the question is WHY this is the case.
law, IP rights clearly don't matter to you as you showed me.

like i said, my guess is you think it is unethical BECAUSE it "harms" artists.

>>6904570
Nta but it is unethical because all of its values in terms of what it learns are based on the values of the entire history if human image generation plus whatever additional data you're specifically trying to get it to emulate+. The plus here is just a limited amount of differentiation from the source materials its basing its image generation on to the point where its only original enough to look "normal" in a professional context by the values of pro artists labour. Basically, it's just emulating pro artwork without having any ideas of its own on what that means, copying countless pros patterns to spit out a derivative of what they do without any personal intellectual creative generation of its own. "BUT THSTS NOT TRUE IT LEARNS AND CREATES ITS OWN ORIGINALITY FROM COUNTLESS SOURCES!". Sure, but within a margin so narrow that you really have to look hard to find it. Show me one ai generated work of art that doesn't look like generic cg shit we've all seen 10,000 times already before. I've never seen ai work with fresh ideas with regards to style, just amalgamation of existing shit. Just because that's how some shitty artists work doesn't make it ok to do it with software, you've essentially automated 3rd world slave labour ripoff factories to a singular program with no real original visual ideas whatsoever. You've turned visual commercial art into basically Nike shoes, or coke where you just rearrange enough elements and ingredients to pump out something "new" that looks and tastes like something we already tried 10 years ago. All this does is put people out of work using their own recipes as the blueprint.

>>6904570
Your argument is because it learns, it's ok? I fully understand that it learns, I never claimed otherwise.
I simply said in-data and out-data are not fundamentally different. they are not. You say fundamentally an awful lot btw.

>its because you clearly don't
I do understand, you've just taken things in ways I didn't expect, I didn't add enough qualifiers to my statements I guess. don't lump me in with others itt who do not, I get it, I know how they are trained, I know about the labels, the clips, the adversarial networks, the perceptrons, the weights, the noise, the latent space.

>learning from public info never required consent. that's why.
This is because, wait for it... AI wasn't watching. That info was public for humans to learn from. Read that again if you are struggling to keep it in your head. For humans. Unlicensed data was ok for humans to learn from.

>the question is WHY this is the case.
law, IP rights clearly don't matter to you as you showed me.
I showed you they clearly don't matter? where? I said the matter on a case by case basis, Human only. for AI, it's different because it is a new paradigm we are dealing with.
>like i said, my guess is you think it is unethical BECAUSE it "harms" artists.
It's not unethical "because it "harms" artists". an ethically sourced AI could do just as much "harm", it may just arrive later. It's unethical because the data was used in a way where if they had asked for consent, they would not have gotten it. They knew this of course, and did it anyway because they are greedy.

>>6904605
>This is because, wait for it... AI wasn't watching. That info was public for humans to learn from. Read that again if you are struggling to keep it in your head. For humans. Unlicensed data was ok for humans to learn from.
and again, that changed now because...?
because AI can compete with artists?
and because that could result in some amounts of jobs being lost?
i.e. because artists need to be protected?

if not this, then what IS your argument here?


>I showed you they clearly don't matter?
i showed you that based on current laws, it depends on the degree of transformation, and your response was essentially the "the law is just too slow. it SHOULD not have the right to."
is that not disregarding how law and IP work in favor for your own ethical argument? you tell me.
>It's not unethical "because it "harms" artists". an ethically sourced AI could do just as much "harm", it may just arrive later. It's unethical because the data was used in a way where if they had asked for consent, they would not have gotten it. They knew this of course, and did it anyway because they are greedy.
but this is assuming they needed the consent in the first place.
again, you take this entirely for granted. but can you provide a reason for why this would be the case?

what we've got so far is that you seem to think that AI is a paradigm shift and will disturb the current markets.
so you want to protect artists from AI.
is that not what it all comes down to?

>for AI, it's different because it is a new paradigm we are dealing with.
i completely agree with this. but i think this should play out in the real market. and not have the tech be restricted for the sake of the current art market.

>>6904598
nta also.
>Show me one ai generated work of art that doesn't look like generic cg shit we've all seen 10,000 times already before.
Maybe pic rel? idk

> I've never seen ai work with fresh ideas with regards to style, just amalgamation of existing shit.
This is probably going to remain true. even with good artists, it's hard to make big visible jumps in style that you'd feel what you are looking at is actually "fresh".

>>6904622
Thanks, I hate it.

In terms of the original artists thing being rare, sure that's what makes them tops in the industry but its through their own personal journey of refinement that they get there. Miura's work in berzerk develops over time, just like any other artist. Could be anyone from Chris Ware, to James Jean to Neo Rauch. They tend to have their own set if visual codex that they build over time. AI just tries to do some attempt of emulating what it thinks good work is based on inputs but the result is often flat on visual ideas. People who are impressed with high polished anime waifus might say otherwise. Imo it's a dead end creatively which is why you still need human input, the same human input that ironically the ai has to heavily "borrow" from to do anything resembling originality. Its s tool that's useless without "free" human labour.

>>6904618
>>This is because, wait for it... AI wasn't watching. That info was public for humans to learn from. Read that again if you are struggling to keep it in your head. For humans. Unlicensed data was ok for humans to learn from.
>and again, that changed now because...?
Because companies are taking your data to use for profit, against you, yes affecting the market place with your own data regurgitated through a learning algorithm.
>because AI can compete with artists?
Sure
>and because that could result in some amounts of jobs being lost?
Not because of that, that sucks but could also happen with ethical AI.
>i.e. because artists need to be protected?
Sure, they should have final say what is done to their art in this environment, which changed too fast for law to protect them.
>if not this, then what IS your argument here?
That is part of my argument, it's unethical to use someones data against them in this way. if it was all for research, I would have not minded so much
>i showed you that based on current laws, it depends on the degree of transformation, and your response was essentially the "the law is just too slow. it SHOULD not have the right to."
>is that not disregarding how law and IP work in favor for your own ethical argument? you tell me.
I don't think it's disregarding how law and IP work. It's having a complaint about how it has not kept up is all.

>but this is assuming they needed the consent in the first place.
The laws were not written with AI in mind. I said this already. some laws come from what society deems ethical
>again, you take this entirely for granted. but can you provide a reason for why this would be the case?

>what we've got so far is that you seem to think that AI is a paradigm shift and will disturb the current markets.
>so you want to protect artists from AI.
>is that not what it all comes down to?
I want it to be illegal to train a for profit AI using artwork without consent. why is that wrong? Why am I wrong to want that?

>>6904637
All very true. That progression over time, it's kind of funny, AI has kind of had a regression over time, the art is more refined but less fresh looking. I remember thinking some of the early stuff from midjourney looked fresh. and the Stable diffusion beta.

>>6904598
...for the most part you're not even arguing about ethics, you're just arguing for AI not being AS creative as humans. and not just any humans, but humans who make new and original shit.
what does that have to do with AI being unethical?

> Just because that's how some shitty artists work doesn't make it ok to do it with software, you've essentially automated 3rd world slave labour ripoff factories to a singular program with no real original visual ideas whatsoever.
so it looks like you as well are making your argument from the base that artists need to be protected.
but consider the case of AI assisted art. and much larger projects that AI might allow to help with.

if you and me and everyone had a nike factory, do you think we'd all be making nike shoes?

>plus there is just a limited amount of differentiation from the source materials its basing its image generation on to the point where its only original enough to look "normal" in a professional context by the values of pro artists labour.
i'm not sure what you mean. it sounds like you're describing some sort of limitation in what the AI can output.
but i'm not sure, the space of possibilities is not as limited as you say. it's not limited to "pro" work at all either. people just prefer good looking stuff.

>Basically, it's just emulating pro artwork without having any ideas of its own on what that means, copying countless pros patterns to spit out a derivative of what they do without any personal intellectual creative generation of its own.
it simply has the ability to depict things. the intention often has to come from the user.
it does understand what it is making, only in the visual sense. though. it does not necessarily understand what those certain colors or values mean to humans, but it imitates it anyway.

besides, you critisize it for derivative work but it can make good stuff all the same. the idea is to use that as a tool and you can still use humans to innovate and break the mold.

>>6904660
It's possible you just don't have a good eye for that sort of thing.

>>6904638
>Because companies are taking your data to use for profit, against you, yes affecting the market place with your own data regurgitated through a learning algorithm.
it doesn't matter how they use it if it isn't something that requires my consent.

>Sure, they should have final say what is done to their art in this environment, which changed too fast for law to protect them.
but you MUST be able to see the parallels with other forms of automation over the history of humanity, no?
like the loom and power looms replacing weavers, cars replacing horses. steam engines, robotics replacing workers.
why would they get a say in how the market handles jobs?

> It's having a complaint about how it has not kept up is all.
sure but at the base you're still just saying this hasn't happened, but it SHOULD happen because artists need protection.

>I want it to be illegal to train a for profit AI using artwork without consent. why is that wrong? Why am I wrong to want that?
because it's just your wishful demands if your REASON for doing so is because you want to protect artists (and probably your own) current interests.

it's like a small store owner saying he wants to make it harder for a supermarket to set up in his region because otherwise it's unethical! it's entirely a self justification.

>>6904682
AI as a tool in the way in which you describe or at least think it will be used is fine. But in actuality its just going to flood the market with cheap derivative labour. Using it refine your own style, fine, but more than likely it'll just be used by studios to take peoples intellectual ideas and kick them out of the production process. Why hire an artist at all when you can just get an ai to "borrow" their ideas and complete the work? You could still do this before ai by cheaply outsourcing derivative works offshore, but since it's human made there is at least some plausibility for it to be at least somewhat original, with ai its hard to argue that its doing any real creative work which is why you'll have a harder time getting it copyrighted.

>>6895331
they made most of their bangers while they were still dudes.

>>6894998
its sad that an artist wouldnt even take time to fix the a.i hands. its like, a 5minute fix.

you fag still give that attention whore the time of day baka. get back to drawing

>>6904728
>Using it refine your own style, fine, but more than likely it'll just be used by studios to take peoples intellectual ideas and kick them out of the production process.
i doubt that. precisely because AI isn't able to do that on its own. so the skilled human artist is still worth something, maybe even more so with AI. it's low level work that will be affected more.

even if artists do become more replacable to corporations, personally i also think that works in reverse:
artists can kick studios to the curb because they don't need massive backing anymore to make bigger and quality productions.
it's best if AI can cut out the middlemen and empower individuals.

>>6904724
>it doesn't matter how they use it if it isn't something that requires my consent.
again, skirting the issue.
>but you MUST be able to see the parallels with other forms of automation over the history of humanity, no?
like the loom and power looms replacing weavers, cars replacing horses. steam engines, robotics replacing workers.
why would they get a say in how the market handles jobs?
If the power looms were directly a result of the workers input, maybe they should have had a say, but it was not the case. same for all the other shit.
> but it SHOULD happen because artists need protection.
because it's unethical, artists data should have protections.
>because it's just your wishful demands if your REASON for doing so is because you want to protect artists (and probably your own) current interests.
No, as mentioned, ethical AI could totally take over the market too, something you have ignored me saying the whole time. You really need to stop arguing strawmen and just concede at this point. I said it sucks that AI trained unethically is gonna take our jerbs, it would also suck when an ethically trained one does it, but in that case we would have no real argument against people using it for profit. it's unethical because the data was used in a way that otherwise would not have been publically available had artists known it would be used that way, tons of artists now have retreated to closed communities, no longer sharing online, sharing isn't consent to have your image taken and used as data to feed a for profit AI. it's not a self justification, it's just the facts. If you can explain how it is ethical to take that data that people do NOT want you to take for use in your AI... go ahead, make my day.
|
ethics
/ˈɛθJks/
noun
plural noun: ethics; noun: ethics

Ethics is based on well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues.
|

>>6904708
prove me otherwise, show something fresh from the latest AI models. compare it to the crazy slop from yesteryear, which looks more unique?

>>6904748
>even if artists do become more replacable to corporations, personally i also think that works in reverse:
artists can kick studios to the curb because they don't need massive backing anymore to make bigger and quality productions.
>it's best if AI can cut out the middlemen and empower individuals
This just means that you're competing on the same market as any other entertainment product. Instead of competing against other human artists for jobs in studios, you're competing in the entertainment market against studios and other artists for consumer bucks. But its not like there's going to be an increase in consumers, just a massive increase in producers. I mean, I can see what you're saying but I don't know how optimistic I am about it. I don't hate ai, I just don't like how its going to be used to shrink job opportunities left and right. Stable jobs are likely a thing of the past for commercial artists.

>>6904752
>again, skirting the issue.
what issue? that "they are using it against artists"?
i.e artists need protection? it's all the same argument.

>If the power looms were directly a result of the workers input, maybe they should have had a say
no? why would that be the case?
do you even realize what you're really saying? you're saying that technology should be stopped to artificially prop up the status quo.

because what else do you mean when you say "workers should have a say"? and how long would that go on? ten, twenty, 50 years? when would they stop needing protection? your stance lacks any foresight in considering this.

sure, it would suck more if those workers built the machines that replaced them, but that doesn't actually change the dynamic of the situation: that they are no longer needed.
(i'm not saying artists are no longer needed btw. just that the market and jobs will change)

>No, as mentioned, ethical AI could totally take over the market too, something you have ignored me saying the whole time.
and i was right in doing so because your base argument is indeed protecting artists. so this entire line is dishonest as well, with the goal simply being to put one more obstacle in front of the AI for self serving purposes.

>If you can explain how it is ethical to take that data that people do NOT want you to take for use in your AI.
i'll make your day then :)

cont.

>>>6904752
cont.

because once your art is out there, it is free to be interpreted from, learned from, analyzed.
imagine an author saying
>NOOO I DON'T WANT YOU TO TAKE ELEMENTS FROM MY BOOK!!!!
a painter saying
>NOOOO YOU CAN'T PAINT HAIR IN THE SAME WAY AS I DO!!!!
a musician saying
>NOOOOO YOU CANT PLAY THIS NOTE IN THIS WAY!!!!
you're basically saying that artists have the right to demand that. from anyone.
it doesn't really matter if it is a person or a corporation or an AI.

for example imagine this scenario:
>you are an artist
>there is a super genius painter called bob
>everyone is allowed to view your art in the public gallery.
>but you say that bob should not be allowed, he needs to ask you for consent, because he is a genius and will be able to compete with you if he sees your techniques.
how can you NOT call this self justification?
how is bob looking at the image and grasping concepts in "his" own "mind" supposed to be unethical?

>>>6904752
cont.

because once your art is out there, it is free to be interpreted from, learned from, analyzed.
imagine an author saying
>NOOO I DON'T WANT YOU TO TAKE ELEMENTS FROM MY BOOK!!!!
a painter saying
>NOOOO YOU CAN'T PAINT HAIR IN THE SAME WAY AS I DO!!!!
a musician saying
>NOOOOO YOU CANT PLAY THIS NOTE IN THIS WAY!!!!
you're basically saying that artists have the right to demand that. from anyone.
it doesn't really matter if it is a person or a corporation or an AI.

for example imagine this scenario:
>you are an artist
>there is a super genius painter called bob
>everyone is allowed to view your art in the public gallery.
>but you say that bob should not be allowed, he needs to ask you for consent, because he is a genius and will be able to compete with you if he sees your techniques.
how can you NOT call this self justification?
how is bob looking at the image and grasping concepts in "his" own "mind" supposed to be unethical?

do you not see how this is making a special rule for self serving purposes?
it's not about general ethics at all. the artist in this case isn't even being WRONGED per se. he is simply in danger of competition from bob.

you call this "unethical".

>>6904806
>>again, skirting the issue.
>what issue? that "they are using it against artists"?
That the data was not used in a way artists would have consented to.
>i.e artists need protection? it's all the same argument.
Artists need laws to protect their data from being used in ways they would not consent to.
>>If the power looms were directly a result of the workers input, maybe they should have had a say
>no? why would that be the case?
>do you even realize what you're really saying? you're saying that technology should be stopped to artificially prop up the status quo.
Do you realize that you are reading into what I'm saying, things I didn't say nor intend to say?
>because what else do you mean when you say "workers should have a say"? and how long would that go on? ten, twenty, 50 years? when would they stop needing protection? your stance lacks any foresight in considering this.
Have some say in compensation, if they had their work somehow taken without consent to build the powerlooms, it'd have been unethical.
>sure, it would suck more if those workers built the machines that replaced them, but that doesn't actually change the dynamic of the situation: that they are no longer needed.
>(i'm not saying artists are no longer needed btw. just that the market and jobs will change)
Being no longer needed and something not being ethical are different matters. it's not unethical to replace artists with a machine if it was all above board.

>and i was right in doing so because your base argument is indeed protecting artists. so this entire line is dishonest as well, with the goal simply being to put one more obstacle in front of the AI for self serving purposes.
My base argument is ethical vs not ethical. Please stop making shit up.

>because once your art is out there, it is free to be interpreted from, learned from, analyzed.
Yes, I'm happy for a human to do so.
>it doesn't really matter if it is a person or a corporation or an AI.
no, it really matters. cont

>>6904774
>This just means that you're competing on the same market as any other entertainment product.
you're doing that anyway. even in the studio, once you're done competing with other artists for the job, you are also competing in the market through the studio.

well, i'm not blindly optimistic about it either.

>>6904838
>you're doing that anyway. even in the studio, once you're done competing with other artists for the job, you are also competing in the market through the studio
Sure but if you secure a job at a high end AAA studio there's more job security and the burden of success is shared as a team. You just need to focus on production work and go home, that's your job. Suddenly, every artist is now an entrepreneur who has to worry about budgets, marketing, advertisement, target audience, distribution. etc. Its not about the portfolio to employment model anymore which was simpler and allowed you to focus on an achievable goal; git gud. Not only is it harder but you can get ripped off by your competitors at a lightning pace from all your hard intellectual efforts put into creating a unique brand of work. Shit sucks bro. There's no choice now but to figure out a model that works, but ai creates a lot more problems for artists than it solves.

>>6904835

>for example imagine this scenario:
>you are an artist
>there is a super genius painter called bob
>everyone is allowed to view your art in the public gallery.
>but you say that bob should not be allowed, he needs to ask you for consent, because he is a genius and will be able to >compete with you if he sees your techniques.
>how can you NOT call this self justification?
>how is bob looking at the image and grasping concepts in "his" own "mind" supposed to be unethical?
If I didn't let him in it would be self justification.
>do you not see how this is making a special rule for self serving purposes?
>it's not about general ethics at all. the artist in this case isn't even being WRONGED per se. he is simply in danger of >competition from bob.
>you call this "unethical".
I don't call bobs copying unethical. it's a bit cringe, but other than that, it's just my artistic legacy carrying on through another person, he earned it.

AI trained on human data without consent is unethical because it violates the ethical principles of respect, justice, and beneficence. Respect means that we should treat people as autonomous agents who can freely consent to or decline the use of their data for AI purposes. Justice means that we should distribute the benefits and burdens of AI fairly and avoid discrimination or exploitation. Beneficence means that we should promote the well-being of people and minimize the harm or risk of harm caused by AI.

AI trained on human data without consent can disrespect the dignity, privacy, and preferences of people whose data is used without their knowledge or agreement. It can also create unjust outcomes, such as infringing on their intellectual property rights, undermining their income or reputation, or exposing them to legal or social liabilities. Moreover, it can cause harm or potential harm, such as generating inaccurate, misleading, or harmful information, products, or services based on their data.

Therefore, AI trained on human data without consent is unethical because it does not adhere to the ethical values and standards that we expect from ourselves and others in our society. Ethics can help us to connect our actions and decisions with our moral obligations and responsibilities towards ourselves and others.

>>6904835
>Do you realize that you are reading into what I'm saying, things I didn't say nor intend to say?
i am, but it is the natural consequence of what you are saying. you just don't realize it.
if artists are to be protected, then this technology needs to be stalled, limited and everything else you can think of.
and it is in fact what you're trying to do here.

i'm saying that your argument is only having the appearance of ethical vs unethical.
in reality it is entirely self serving for the sake of artists and their entitlement.

you can not seem to grasp what i'm trying to say about your entire line of logic so i'll leave it at this for today:

you keep assuming that you have the right to make demands on others.
if you made a statue in a public space and told me
>you have to ask for consent before trying to draw this statue
i would just tell you to fuck off.
do you think that would be "unethical" for me to draw that statue?
i would even argue that it is unethical fo you to bar me from drawing a public statue!

again, just like with my earlier points about transformative IP, this point too is only illustrating the fact that you cannot take your power to make demands over others for granted.
there are many things people can do that ultimately DO NOT require your permission, despite your wishes.

and that's what they are, your wishes. you wish they would ask artists for consent, as that would help artists more (by stalling the AI)

you are arguing that going agaisnt the wishes of artists is unethical. that's the nature of your argument. that is why it is self serving.

>>6904879
>If I didn't let him in it would be self justification.
......
YOURE SAYING THAT HE NEEDS YOUR CONSENT TO VIEW IT. so he's not getting in unless you allow it.

>he earned it.
wow, what the fuck? he earned it? and the the AI didn't?
this once again shows a lack of understanding for how ai works.

>>6904900
>wow, what the fuck? he earned it? and the the AI didn't?
>this once again shows a lack of understanding for how ai works.
I've never shown a lack of understanding for how AI works. yes a human can earn things.

you can not seem to grasp what i'm trying to say about your entire line of logic so i'll leave it at this for today:
I am ok with an ethically trained AI, I would use it even.

>>6904900
>wow, what the fuck? he earned it? and the the AI didn't?
>this once again shows a lack of understanding for how ai works.
I've never shown a lack of understanding for how AI works. yes a human can earn things.

(you) can not seem to grasp what i'm trying to say about your entire line of logic so i'll leave it at this for today:
I am ok with an ethically trained AI, I would use it even.

>>6904900
You seem to be using a false analogy when you compare drawing a statue in a public space to training AI on human artists’ work without consent. Drawing a statue in a public space is not the same as using someone’s data for AI purposes, because:

A statue in a public space is intended to be seen and appreciated by the public, whereas an artist’s work may not be intended to be used or copied by anyone else, especially not by AI.
Drawing a statue in a public space does not affect the original statue or the artist who created it, whereas using someone’s data for AI purposes may affect their work or their rights in various ways, such as devaluing, misrepresenting, or exploiting it.
Drawing a statue in a public space is a form of artistic expression that involves skill, effort, and interpretation, whereas using someone’s data for AI purposes is a form of data processing that involves automation, replication, and generation.
Therefore, I do not think that drawing a statue in a public space without consent is unethical, but I do think that training AI on human artists’ work without consent is unethical.

I am not arguing that going against the wishes of artists is unethical. I am arguing that violating the rights and interests of artists is unethical. Rights and interests are not the same as wishes. Rights and interests are based on ethical principles and values that are recognized and respected by society, such as respect, justice, and beneficence. Wishes are based on personal desires and preferences that may or may not be ethical or reasonable.

I respect your right to have your own opinion and to express it freely, but I do not agree with your opinion or your reasoning. I think you are missing the point of ethics and the importance of consent when dealing with AI and human data. I hope you will reconsider your position and try to understand the ethical implications of your actions.

>>6904912
we're right back at the start. you can't seem to grasp that i disagree that AI training is unethical in the first place.

since you (apparently) understand that AI is learning and you don't need consent to learn from something, the sole justification you gave for saying it is unethical is "because it harms artists". "because artists need protection".
you say this is only part of it, but so far you haven't given any other justification from what i can see.

>>6904914
chatgpt does not have any understanding of SD due to its cutoff date (although it can help you explain basic ML concepts and some of the parts that make up SD)
so it will fall for the copying argument every time. depending on how you phrase it.

>tripnog is still replying to himself one week later
>still trying to make a bad faith argument based on seeing AI the same as a human, therefore it should be allowed to steal content to replicate
if people ever come close to demand giving ai any rights, they should all be fucilated