The idea that you would actually object to replacing labor with automation, but think replacing art with automation is fine, is genuinely baffling.
Comment on Data poisoning: how artists are sabotaging AI to take revenge on image generators
drmoose@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Just don’t out your art to public if you don’t want someone/thing learn from it. The clinging to relevance and this pompous self importance is so cringe. So replacing blue collar work is ok but some shitty drawings somehow have higher ethical value?
Red_October@lemmy.world 6 months ago
drmoose@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Except the “art” ai is replacing is labor. This snobby ridiculous bullshit that some corporate drawings are somehow more important than other things is super cringe.
cm0002@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Right, if you post publicly, expect it to be used publicly
Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 6 months ago
Yeah, no. There’s a difference between posting your work for someone to enjoy, and posting it to be used in a commercial enterprise with no recompense to you.
drmoose@lemmy.world 6 months ago
How are you going to stop that lol it’s ridiculous. Would you stop a corporate suit from viewing your painting because they might learn how to make a similar one? It’s makes absolutely zero sense and I can’t believe delulus online are failing to comprehend such simple concept of “computers being able to learn”.
yuki2501@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Ah yes, just because lockpickers can enter a house suddenly everyone’s allowed to break and enter. 🙄
BURN@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Computers can’t learn. I’m really tired of seeing this idea paraded around.
You’re clearly showing your ignorance here. Computers do not learn, they create statistical models based on input data.
A human seeing a piece of art and being inspired isn’t comparable to a machine reducing that to 1’s and 0’s and then adjusting weights in a table somewhere. It does not “understand” the concept, nor did it “learn” about a new piece of art.
Enforcement is simple. Any output from a model trained on material that they don’t have copyright for is a violation of copyright against every artist who’s art was used illegally to train the model. If the copyright holders of all the training data are compensated and have opt-in agreed to be used for training then, and only then would the output of the model be able to be used.
ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Wait until you find out how human artists learn.
Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 6 months ago
And you don’t see how those two things are different?
BURN@lemmy.world 6 months ago
They learn completely different from an AI model, considering an AI model cannot learn
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Are you actually suggesting that if I post a drawing of a dog, Disney should be allowed to use it in a movie and not compensate me?
Delta_V@midwest.social 6 months ago
Everyone should be assumed to be able to look at it, learn from it, and add your style to their artistic toolbox. That’s an intrinsic property of all art. When you put it on display, don’t be surprised or outraged when people or AIs look at it.
BURN@lemmy.world 6 months ago
AI does not learn and transform something like a human does. I have no problem with human artists taking inspiration, I do have a problem with art being reduced to a soulless generation that requires stealing real artists work to create something that isn’t original.
cm0002@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Ofc not, that’s way different, that’s beyond the use of public use.
If I browse to your Instagram, look at some of your art, record some numbers about it, observe your style and then leave that’s perfectly fine right? If I then took my numbers and observations from your art and everybody else’s that I looked and merged them together to make my own style that would also be fine right? Well that’s AI, that’s all it does on a simple level
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 months ago
But they are still profiting off of it. Dall-E doesn’t make images out of the kindness of OpenAI’s heart. They’re a for-profit company. That really doesn’t make it different from Disney, does it?
Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 months ago
“Just don’t make a living with your art if you aren’t okay with AI venture capitalists using it to train their plagiarism machines without getting permission from you or compensating you in any way!”
If y’all hate artists so much then only interact with AI content and see how much you enjoy it. 🤷♂️
drmoose@lemmy.world 6 months ago
It has nothing to do with AI venture capitalists. Also not every profession is entitled to income, some are fine to remain as primarily hobbies.
AI art is replacing corporate art which is not something we should be worried about. Less people working on that drivel is a net good for humanity. If can get billions of hours wasted on designing ads towards real meaningful contributions we should added billions extra hours to our actual productivity. That is good.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Yes it is. Otherwise it is not a profession. People go to school for years to become professional artists. They are absolutely entitled to income.
But hey, you want your murals painted by robots and your wall art printed out, have fun. I’m not interested in your brave new world.
drmoose@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I’m literally a professional artist lol
Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 months ago
The ratio of using AI to replace ad art:fraud/plagiarism has to be somewhere around 1:1000.
“Actual productivity” is a nonsense term when it comes to art. Why is this Image less “meaningful” than this? Image
Without checking the source, can you even tell which one is art for an ad and which isn’t?
drmoose@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I’m not sure what’s your point here? Majority of art is drivel. Most art is produced for marketing. Literally. If that can be automated away what are we losing here? McDonald’s logos? Not everything needs to be a career.
sukhmel@programming.dev 6 months ago
I would assume the first to be an ad, because most of depicted people look happy
cm0002@lemmy.world 6 months ago
That’s simply not how AI works, if you look inside the models after training, you will not see a shred of the original training data. Just a bunch of numbers and weights.
Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 months ago
If the individual images are so unimportant then it won’t be a problem to only train it on images you have the rights to.
Astarii_Tyler@lemmy.world 6 months ago
They do have the rights because this falls under fair use, It doesn’t matter if a picture is copyrighted as long as the outcome is transformative.
teichflamme@lemm.ee 6 months ago
It has literally nothing to do with plagiarism.
Every artist has looked at other art for inspiration. It’s the most common thing in the world. Literally what you do in art school.
Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 months ago
It’s not an artist any more than a xerox machine is. It hasn’t gone to art school. It doesn’t have thoughts, ideas, or the ability to create. It can only take and reuse what has already been created.
teichflamme@lemm.ee 6 months ago
The ideas are what the prompts and fine tuning is for. If you think it’s literally copying an existing piece of art you just lack understanding because that’s not how it works at all.