Comment on Data poisoning: how artists are sabotaging AI to take revenge on image generators

• drmoose@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨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.

  source

  • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Also not every profession is entitled to income

    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.

    source

    • drmoose@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I’m literally a professional artist lol

      source

      • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        So you think you’re not entitled to income from your work? That doesn’t sound like something a professional would say. “I’m obsolete, don’t pay me.”

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨11⁩ ⁨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?

    source

    • drmoose@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨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.

      source

      • TrickDacy@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        What a shitty shitty shitty take

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • sukhmel@programming.dev ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I would assume the first to be an ad, because most of depicted people look happy

      source
• cm0002@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  using it to train their plagiarism machines

  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.

  source

  • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨11⁩ ⁨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.

    source

    • Astarii_Tyler@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨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.

      source

      • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I’m sure you know something the Valve lawyers don’t.

        source
• teichflamme@lemm.ee ⁨11⁩ ⁨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.

  source

  • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨11⁩ ⁨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.

    source

    • teichflamme@lemm.ee ⁨11⁩ ⁨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.

      source