|
it's really cool actually to just train an AI on living artists' portfolios so that you can put them out of a job and flood the market with soulless garbage based on their styles. that owns a lot and isn't at all terrible empowering the next generation of Todd Goldmans The 7th Guest fucked around with this message at 07:08 on Sep 16, 2022 |
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 07:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 13:43 |
|
|
As opposed to mass produced commercial art today which is different because
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 07:07
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:As opposed to mass produced commercial art today which is different because ...you still have to pay a guy. That's it. That's the thing is AI art removes the part where anyone can make a living.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 07:08
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:As opposed to mass produced commercial art today which is different because
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 07:08
|
|
|
secretly best girl posted:...you still have to pay a guy. That's it. That's the thing is AI art removes the part where literally anyone can make a living. That's a commission. Most people buy artworks that are mass produced and you're not paying a person but a copyright holder who isn't an artist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 07:09
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:I understand the trepidation as AI generators are completely capable of creating in infringing art but so do human minds, what ultimately matters and what should be judged is the work that ends up published. its the same as the difference between literally tracing someone else's art and just using a similar design. or like the difference between having a shot that visually references a shot from star wars versus literally putting a shot from star wars into your movie. SCheeseman posted:As opposed to mass produced commercial art today which is different because
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 07:10
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:That's a commission. Most people buy artworks that are mass produced and you're not paying a person but a copyright holder who isn't an artist. The copyright holder paid the artist, op.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 07:11
|
|
|
like to explain i think there is a difference morally and legally speaking between these, and if you fed all of these into an ai algorithm and had it spit out a piece of art that was visually indistinguishable from these. the part i disagree with is the part where these are fed into an algorithm. and this is bottom of the barrel stuff, ai art frequently and often scrapes work from people who are actually making distinct, memorable art for their own pleasure rather than corporate art for marketing purposes. how is that at all justifiable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 07:13
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:That's a commission. Most people buy artworks that are mass produced and you're not paying a person but a copyright holder who isn't an artist. i'm going to joker
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 07:13
|
|
|
Not a surprise, every chinese net board has mocked and joked about tencent hiring astroturfers to smear their competition. They even very recently bribed a game awards judge to throw out almost a quarter of a million votes out just to get their Chinese version of Pubg to 2nd place https://www.reddit.com/r/gachagaming/comments/x665cx/mihoyo_games_win_chinese_national_ip_award_2021/ So them using their gaming site to try and do the same thing is not a surprise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 07:14
|
|
|
Tae posted:Not a surprise, every chinese net board has mocked and joked about tencent hiring astroturfers to smear their competition. They even very recently bribed a game awards judge to throw out almost a quarter of a million votes out just to get their Chinese version of Pubg to 2nd place there's also something to be said for the game they decided to snub being a game aimed at women.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 07:17
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:That's a commission. Most people buy artworks that are mass produced and you're not paying a person but a copyright holder who isn't an artist. Clarste posted:The copyright holder paid the artist, op. Just to expand on this, you seem to be implying that we can "stick it to the man" by not paying corporations for art and using AI art instead, but what you are actually doing is sticking it to the little guy because the corporations will be using AI art and selling it to you at the same price, and the little guy will be losing a job.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 07:23
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:That's a commission. Most people buy artworks that are mass produced and you're not paying a person but a copyright holder who isn't an artist. I'm going to commission someone to drop an anvil on your head op
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 07:28
|
|
|
Gas
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 07:29
|
|
|
Endorph posted:what? even in terms of creation, there's a distinct difference between remembering a piece of art, consciously or subconsciously, and trying to recreate it in some way, and literally taking the actual art and feeding it into a blender. the human being remembering it is still creating their own thing, even if it's heavily based on something else. the ai has to literally be fed the work mechanically. Endorph posted:because a human being made it on their own, even if they were following very specific design trends (shouty guy in armor yelling at the camera in the app icon for instance) they did not literally feed 15 different iterations of that by other artists into a machine and have it be spit out. even if the art is mass produced by some specific firm, that firm has to pay artists to make said mass produced art. an ai would just be a soulless machine spitting out art for said corporation. I agree that a human touch is a big part of what creates meaning behind works, but AI art is ultimately generated by human input and the output of the generator often isn't the last step in the artistic creation process. secretly best girl posted:...you still have to pay a guy. That's it. That's the thing is AI art removes the part where anyone can make a living. Clarste posted:Just to expand on this, you seem to be implying that we can "stick it to the man" by not paying corporations for art and using AI art instead, but what you are actually doing is sticking it to the little guy because the corporations will be using AI art and selling it to you at the same price, and the little guy will be losing a job. SCheeseman fucked around with this message at 07:34 on Sep 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 07:30
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:Both the human brain and AI art generators take the inputs they're fed and generate relationship data and compress the works down into abstract forms. They do it in different ways and the human brain has other things going on, making the process distinct perhaps, but it's a difference in degrees rather than something absolute. i like and care about other human beings
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 07:33
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:
What is the low hanging fruit here? Art you don't think is good, that was still done by artists, who were paid to do it? theres a lot more to dig into in this sentence, christ
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 07:36
|
|
|
Humans are still generating the art. Most of that art is bad, sometimes it's good and when it is it's usually because the person who generated it are good at using the tools provided to them and are able to evoke meaning from what they have created. This is true if it's derived from pencil and paper, photography, a collage from a magazine or uses AI generated materials. I care about artists, I am one, but a superset rather than a subset.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 07:38
|
|
|
plus i dont buy that argument at all. a human being 'takes the inputs they're fed and generates relationship data,' but a human brain is incapable of indefinitely storing millions of pieces of art down to the smallest possible detail and calling upon them exactly when it wants to create something based on them. with a human being's mind, everything gets blended down to a vague slurry of recollection and memory. even if you have the art right in front of you, a human being's brain just doesn't work like that. there is a degree of personalization or ambiguity just to the basic concept of memory or recollection. barring literal tracing - which, again, is something people have a moral and legal problem with - those mistakes in recollection are going to create a distinction. ai art literally mechanically recalls the art its trying to reference in perfect detail and then mixes and matches them. im not really talking about 'soul' here, or anything high and mighty like that, i dont think the clash of clans app icons guys are master artistes, i just think these things create distinct moral and legal differences. and if you disagree, imagine walking up to an artist you admire and saying 'thank you, im really inspired by your work' versus walking up to that artist and saying 'thank you, ive fed all your work to an ai algorithm.' a human being adjusting the end product doesnt really matter to me, because to me that is the same as say, tracing something and then minorly tweaking it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 07:40
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:Humans are still generating the art. Most of that art is bad, sometimes it's good and when it is it's usually because the person who generated it are good at using the tools provided to them and are able to evoke meaning from what they have created. This is true if it's derived from pencil and paper, photography, a collage from a magazine or uses AI generated materials. Where does the corpus come from! Why shouldn't commerical companies have to license every single piece of their corpus, if its being used to create a product that a third party might use to remix things? Midjourney themselves isn't remixing poo poo, under your definition of how this works, so why shouldn't they have to pay artists? edit: like im pessimistic enough to think this cant be made illegal, but forcing licensing on the corpus would essentially (and justifiably) destroy it, so im satisfied with that
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 07:40
|
|
|
studio mujahideen posted:What is the low hanging fruit here? Art you don't think is good, that was still done by artists, who were paid to do it? studio mujahideen posted:edit: like im pessimistic enough to think this cant be made illegal, but forcing licensing on the corpus would essentially (and justifiably) destroy it, so im satisfied with that SCheeseman fucked around with this message at 07:49 on Sep 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 07:46
|
|
|
Humans will stop generating art if doing so means they die of starvation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 07:47
|
|
|
Like if Midjourney used only art its developers had made for its corpus, or stock photos, nobody would use it. They have to use art they don't have the license to, so that their product becomes attractive to users, who then use it to make their own 'art'. It isn't automating anything. You can't automate good art, without first providing the program with good art.SCheeseman posted:AI art that is visually imperceptible from something a human can draw is low hanging fruit. Not sure what there is to unpack? Maybe we shouldn't structure society in a way that forces people to do menial work with no real purpose to survive, particularly when one of the core human principles for the last few hundred thousand years is that we constantly create new tools so we need to do less stuff. You're right, we should structure it in a way that all those people are forced onto the street instead. Incredible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 07:48
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:Both the human brain and AI art generators take the inputs they're fed and generate relationship data and compress the works down into abstract forms. They do it in different ways and the human brain has other things going on, making the process distinct perhaps, but it's a difference in degrees rather than something absolute. man and computer are same. there is no absolute difference. i am very smart. Look sorry I'm very sick and I cannot hope to follow an argument right now and while this is definitely a thorny ethical issue that probably is genuinely relevant to the games industry today, also it's annoying and I want it to stop. Bring up a game that's using AI art or something or idk just do something better with your time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 07:49
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:AI art that is visually imperceptible from something a human can draw is low hanging fruit. Not sure what there is to unpack? Maybe we shouldn't structure society in a way that forces people to do menial work with no real purpose to survive, particularly when one of the core human principles for the last few hundred thousand years is that we constantly create new tools so we need to do less stuff. the issue is that there are cases where ai art could replace something that did actually have care and attention put into it. the end product would suffer, but i dont think corporations care about that. for instance, there are plenty of people doing purely commercial art that do try their hardest and derive some pleasure from it. those people could also lose their jobs to ai art in 20 years or whatever. there is a lot of middle ground between picasso and app store icons. SCheeseman posted:Licensing wouldn't be practical as outputs may not contain anything that is explicitly copyrighted material, in which case the only way use of AI tools could be confirmed is by asking the artists about their workflow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 07:50
|
|
|
studio mujahideen posted:You're right, we should structure it in a way that all those people are forced onto the street instead. Incredible. Not what I'm saying, just that everyone elses solutions don't really hold up either. Endorph posted:so your argument is 'licensing is hard so they shouldnt do it' SCheeseman fucked around with this message at 07:53 on Sep 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 07:51
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:Licensing wouldn't be practical as outputs may not contain anything that is explicitly copyrighted material, in which case the only way use of AI tools could be confirmed is by asking the artists about their workflow. No, every time you feed a licensed piece of art into your corpus, you should have to own or have access to that license. I can't just take pictures off ArtStation and use them to advertise my game, but somehow when Midjourney uses them to create not art, but a TOOL to create art, that's not commerical usage of licensed material? Because again, your argument is that Midjourney's users are the artists, not Midjourney.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 07:54
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:It'll kill the commercial services and it might be worth it to do that, but the cat is out of the bag. You can run generators locally and while AI training is currently extremely expensive and time consuming, it's dumb to assume it always will be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 07:57
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:Both the human brain and AI art generators take the inputs they're fed and generate relationship data and compress the works down into abstract forms. They do it in different ways and the human brain has other things going on, making the process distinct perhaps, but it's a difference in degrees rather than something absolute. youre a psychopath op.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 08:05
|
|
|
art is human expression even when its putting out garbage for commercial use. an ai categorically cannot create art, and the images it creates are just a very roundabout way to take the work of a human artist and not pay them for it. thats really all there is to it, unless youre a lunatic who conflates the human mind w a deep learning algorithm.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 08:07
|
|
|
yeah that post reads like this is the guy who thought the chatbot was trying to tell him to free it
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 08:07
|
|
|
op i would try to explain why humans tend to see creating works in a different context than using a computer to make 420 royalty-free knockoffs of that work but instead i am going to feed all your posts into an algorithm and throw the resulting turd at your face
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 08:08
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:You can run generators locally and while AI training is currently extremely expensive and time consuming, it's dumb to assume it always will be. it should always be extraordinarily expensive to the point it is not viable because it should involve paying each and every artist whos work is ripped off full royalties in perpetuity for any image created
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 08:10
|
|
|
Feels Villeneuve posted:op i would try to explain why humans tend to see creating works in a different context than using a computer to make 420 royalty-free knockoffs of that work but instead i am going to feed all your posts into an algorithm and throw the resulting turd at your face 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 08:12
|
|
|
studio mujahideen posted:No, every time you feed a licensed piece of art into your corpus, you should have to own or have access to that license. I can't just take pictures off ArtStation and use them to advertise my game, but somehow when Midjourney uses them to create not art, but a TOOL to create art, that's not commerical usage of licensed material? Because again, your argument is that Midjourney's users are the artists, not Midjourney. My view of art since long before AI art was ever a thing is that if a work is transformative enough and stands on it's own and at some point was filtered through a human, then it doesn't matter how it was made. Many of my favorite works are outright copyright infringing or otherwise created without the permission of the original artists, so those kinds of arguments have never held much sway for me. It's effect on working artists? I am far more concerned about that and am a-ok with ways to reduce commercial exploitation, but most of what I've been reading here is akin to plugging a hole in a dam with a finger. Stux posted:art is human expression even when its putting out garbage for commercial use. an ai categorically cannot create art, and the images it creates are just a very roundabout way to take the work of a human artist and not pay them for it. thats really all there is to it, unless youre a lunatic who conflates the human mind w a deep learning algorithm.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 08:14
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:Maybe we shouldn't structure society in a way that forces people to do menial work with no real purpose to survive, particularly when one of the core human principles for the last few hundred thousand years is that we constantly create new tools so we need to do less stuff. teh absolutely epic and untouchable anti-capitalist spin on why corporations boiling the most human thing we are capable of down to lines of code that are operational purely on the back of the work of humans that are not paid is actually good and the same as automating a factory line.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 08:15
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:Not practical, particularly long term. Such a system would rely entirely on an artist being honest that their process wasn't aided by AI tools and the only enforcement that could happen would be with particularly obvious violations. sampling and ai art are not the same thing. typing 5 words into a discord channel so a netowkred learning system can stick together parts of other peoples work for you is not human input the same way chopping the amen break up is. you appear to have a childs understanding of the concept s you are talking about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 08:17
|
|
|
I'm jokering right now holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 08:18
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:Not practical, particularly long term. Such a system would rely entirely on an artist being honest that their process wasn't aided by AI tools and the only enforcement that could happen would be with particularly obvious violations. You keep dodging this question by pretending that everyone is using their own personal generation tools, when that absolutely isn't the case. Yes, you can tool that poo poo up with the right rig, but there's a reason I keep using Midjourney as an example here, because its poo poo is professional and miles ahead of 99.9% of anything you or I could generate on our PCs. That's the problem! Everyone talking about making art like this is using services like Midjourney or Dall-E, which you absolutely 100% can enforce copyright on! Your solution to the dam leaking is to drown the town downriver, because what are you gonna do
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 08:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 13:43 |
|
|
SCheeseman posted:AI art tools can't create art without human input. i am going to input you into a 5000 meter pit
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 08:20
|
|