This thread is permanently archived
AI art controversy
| I think the idea of AI "stealing" other people's art is a gross simplification of how it actually works. It may look at thousands of pieces of art as a reference point before making its own, but human artists do that too when getting references or drawing inspiration. As a matter of fact, with what can often be terabytes of visual data I'd say you can't argue it's "stealing" anything because with that much data it's all an information sludge. Not a single concrete idea.
| It makes me feel like the biggest outcry against AI art either comes from people who don't understand the full process of how it works, or people who need to demonize it because they have no confidence in their own work and therefore needs to turn it into public enemy because it's very strong technically.
| ai art is quick and neat but still inferior, all of this will probably just result in lots of art i actually want to see being paywalled.
everyone looses, oh well, tough shit eh
| >>959259 >Not a single concrete idea.
surely you're aware of all the artist specific AI models, yes?
| counter take to >>b724bf
Ai art is incapable of making something wholly original everything is cut and pasted and distorted into something new, now that's fine for a person to do because of parody law but an ai is incapable of having a message which is a requirement for parody
You also can't copyright ai work because under us copyright law a person has to have made it, but the AI is using lots of small parts of other peoples copyrighted works without permission
| That's the definition of copyright infringement
Ai art has the potential to be useful and not harmful at all in the future but currently because the models are being trained without permission it's automatically copyright infringement under US law
I imagine we'll see adobe or someone actually do it right but you still won't see it much in commercial settings for the lack of copyright protection issue
| ^ addendum if a person edits an ai art that person can file for a copyright however they only receive protection on the exact changes they made and anyone can copy the AI parts of that work
| >>959331 but the thing about artist specific models is they're more focused on recreating the style of that artist over anything else. You could type out "Handy Mandy flees the border" and it'll be totally be unrelated to their body of work.
>>959343 I wasn't talking with parody in mind though that's a good point since AI art is often meme fuel. That said I already know AI art isn't copyright protected but IDC about that. I care more about the moral perspective of things over legal
| >>959404 I bring up the legal perspective because I think it's useful to recognize that they're doing something shady and will have to change how they're going about it or they will be sued into the ground and potentially draw legislation, don't ruin it for everyone because you can't ask nicely
Morally I personally don't think using art without permission to train these things is okay, that's such a low bar to get over it's just sad, if you want to use someone's art just ask
| >>959425 Morality related part of the legal perspective
Generally I don't think copyright infringement is moral when you're motive is to make money off other people's work
Parody is an affirmative defense saying 'yes I did it but it's okay' basically
but the AI isn't capable of actually meeting parody so it's back to just copyright infringement, and the companies doing this are after money
Stable diffusion is estimated to be worth ~$4B USD on the backs of other artists work
| Much as I dislike ai art, the fact so many leftist artists fancy themselves future ip kingpins and are rooting for the RIAA shows a lot of them have non principles beyond dunking on drama of the week.
| Copyright law is absolutely fucking evil and done damage to a free Internet and art preservation.
Ai art in its current form isn't great ether since it's funded by tech bros to dick workers over and save money but a tool is only as good or bad as its user.
I just can't stomach hypocrisy is all.
| >>959462 that's the think I'm not accusing it of theft in the very literal way a lot of people are. I view it more as using data as a reference point. Like how one person night look at several pictures of birds before drawing one, or take inspiration from other artists before getting started,
| if calling yourself an artist just because you write someshit in a box, I can be a Italian chef because a order in some app the food.
the whole "art" was made by the IA
not you dummass
| >>959458 they're rooting for the org that's currently supporting one of their interests just because the riaa is a piece of shit in other ways doesn't mean they're wrong, broken clock and all that
>>959459 copyright law is a complete disaster at this point but the intention is to reward a limited monopoly to the inventor/artist for creating something new for them to profit off it and encourage new works to be created
| You can tell it's not working because Disney gets like 125 years on a mouse and if a pharmaceutical company made a cute for cancer tomorrow they'd only get 20 years
| Cure not cute, thanks autocorrect
| y'all gotta stop reading the opinions of 'twitter artists' and thinking we're all on the same page.
| >>959255
>Do you feel AI art like something legit or something possibly harmful for the art community?
Is this is a joke? AI art programs were funded by large corpos with the explicit purpose of replacing artists. Rayark has already done this, it's happening NOW.
>>959481
Copyright and patent are two different things.
| >>959509 yes but they're also similar and basically serve the same original intent to incentivize new things to be made, in copyright to incentivize or further the arts, and with patents for pharmaceuticals to incentivize the creation of new drugs
I should have mentioned for pharma it's patent law though
Point being life of the author plus 70 years, or 95 years from publishing is far too long imo
This thread is permanently archived
| What do you think of those so called "AI artists" and what makes a prompt different from a basic google search? (And guess what: if i search "Van Gogh" I'm not Van Gogh).
Do you feel AI art like something legit or something possibly harmful for the art community?
I've been using AI as a tool to get good concepts or to get copyright-free art for a virtual museum i made as a project, but I'll never consider it as my own art.
What do you think?