Do you believe AI art is "stealing" artworks?

[Something Different]

I think this take is honestly a pretty flawed one but I see so many people sharing this opinion. By saying that AI is stealing art that makes it sound like the AI is just straight up copying the artwork and claiming that it made it. But this very clearly isn't the case, but it's the only case where the statement, "AI is stealing artworks," is true.

I know people are not claiming what I said before, what they are actually referring to is the AI using artworks to learn. But then where does the stealing part come into place? Stealing refers to taking a belonging away from someone without permission. When it comes to digital art though that definition doesn't quite work. So to steal digital art would be to copy it, then claim it as your own work, which we all know AI art generation doesn't do.

But that isn't my only problem with this take. My other problem is that what the AI is doing is essentially what a lot of other artists do as well. Artists will look at other artists' works, perhaps the artists like something about it, so they adopt it into their style. That is exactly what the AI does as well. The AI will take images, add it to it's knowledge database, then uses that knowledge to make better art. So to me it's kind of hypocritical of artists to say things like this because it's fine for them to do it, but not for AI to do it for some reason.

That is why I don't like this take all that much.

[Something Different]

Publicado originalmente por Aikido:

In principle no, not necessarily. But in practice possibly.

I feel if the AI in question can become complex and nuanced enough that it contains elements of learning that in humans we would instead call "inspiration" from existing art styles, then not necessarily. If the AI remains primitive enough that you can look at its output and very clearly see that it by design copied several distinctive styles and simply produced them in combination, then yes I feel that represents an ethical (and potentially an IP) quandary.

If the AI gets to the point that it is simply doing something analogous to what human brains do though - learn art by initially copying an instructor or taking inspiration from other styles, usually early on by literally copying them - but then generates combinations of those other styles so complex as to simply appear at most inspired by them, then I don't see the difference in principle between what it does and what we do.

Other than intentionality, which at the moment AIs still lack, as far as we can discern. Which is where the theft argument becomes salient. If a user is telling it specifically, "Make something in the style of _____" and what it produces very clearly references their art, in an unvarnished way, then yes I think that has the potential to be a problem. Because that's intent.

But again, would we call it theft if the artist did this themselves and was homaging or taking inspiration from someone's style, without directly copying? I'm not sure. And if not, why does it become so if the AI does it? And at what point is it transformational enough in nature that it becomes fair use? That's another question.

So as usual, I think it depends.

But in some of those cases it isn't the AIs fault, but the fault of the user telling the AI to replicate something, therefor the AI shouldn't take such blame for the actions of the user, the AI was just following the commands it was told to do.

[Something Different]

Publicado originalmente por Lumehr:

It's kinda like how a human would draw inspiration from a bunch of paintings to create their own - if the AI is dealing with thousands of different paintings, it will likely become difficult to find anything that could plausibly be called plagiarism.

That being said though, it's so boring. A human being looks at a photo, likes something about it, then takes inspiration from it, while an AI just follows the instruction of "do what you have been told is good and avoid what you have been told is bad", it's very shallow sentimentally.

Yeah, AI art is less special and always has the artificial look

[Plaid]

Publicado originalmente por Kamiyama:

Publicado originalmente por Plaid:

I got a thing for craftsmanship and pumping some words into an AI program ain't it.

I have no doubt it will improve. New versions of AI generators can already do photorealistic images. I think it's going to keep getting better, and keep getting more accessible.

There's already AI generators for pictures and text. There are projects working on AI music generators. I expect movie generators will eventually be a thing too.

Some day I expect they will take these generators and build them into other software packages.

Maybe someday someone will remake "rogue" but it will be a 3D game with all assets generated on the fly. The textures, the weapons, monsters, NPC's, quest text, music. It could all be generated on the fly by AI.

It's probably going to be really janky. But just like "rogue" was the first of its kind, this will be the first AI generated game and there will be a whole new genre of games following behind it.

heh, the jank was the only redeeming quality of this AI stuff. The dream like images from Google years ago were fascinating. Psychedelic imagery hardly seen by hoomans.
I didn't expect it to become a replacement for talent or skill.

[Kamiyama]

Publicado originalmente por agu:

Publicado originalmente por Plaid:

I got a thing for craftsmanship and pumping some words into an AI program ain't it.

Do you think people who did everything by hand think the same about you using tools like a brush or a pencil or a camera for example? How would this be different? Where is the line drawn?

AI artworks have already won awards at art contests.

I suspect some people are even sneaking them in to contests or exhibitions and not telling people they were AI generated. I read an article not too long ago where people where shocked and horrified about this artwork with mutant children which had multiple arms and legs. I remember looking at one of them and immediately suspecting an AI art generator made it. Unfortunately I can't find the article now.

[agu]

That's what I'm saying, people would obviously say AI art is worse than regular art but then won't even be able to tell the difference between them with 100% certainty. All this talk of "talent" and "emotion" and "beauty" is useless because they are invisible and subjective, there's no way you can hear a track or look at a painting and instantly say "this was made by a human", and I don't get why they won't admit it.

[Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏]

Publicado originalmente por Something Different:

Do you believe AI art is "stealing" artworks?

I think this take is honestly a pretty flawed one but I see so many people sharing this opinion. By saying that AI is stealing art that makes it sound like the AI is just straight up copying the artwork and claiming that it made it.
...

This part is pretty easy to address :

Until someone wins a civil case in court with this claim - they're just whining;
no talent, entitled complainers who have a chip on their shoulder and are rude as heck.

Publicado originalmente por Something Different:

...
I know people are not claiming what I said before, what they are actually referring to is the AI using artworks to learn.
...
But that isn't my only problem with this take. My other problem is that what the AI is doing is essentially what a lot of other artists do as well. Artists will look at other artists' works, perhaps the artists like something about it, so they adopt it into their style. That is exactly what the AI does as well. The AI will take images, add it to it's knowledge database, then uses that knowledge to make better art. So to me it's kind of hypocritical of artists to say things like this because it's fine for them to do it, but not for AI to do it for some reason.
...

THIS ...is the really really fun part...
The part where they actually get exactly what they are demanding (but not what they meant to say), and shoot themselves in the foot so entirely, that they either get sued for their own behaviors as an artist... and lose ...or worse, get the laws changed so that their own behaviors of referencing the works of others, probably by downloading it, gets criminalized -- meanwhile A.I. developers just buy stock photos and / or hire their own photographers and artists so that they can keep developing with fully legal licenses to the works that they're studying from, & small-time developers get utterly screwed by changes to law ...that were demanded... not by an A.I. ...but by themselves!

...oh and their brothers and sisters (but not friends, because they don't have any with hostile attitudes like that) will also never become artists due to the changes in law that they got enacted in the worst case scenario, which only hurt small independent artists.
Hopefully their brothers and sisters are nicer and more forgiving people than they are, OR just too stupid to see whose fault it is if and when such legal changes occur.

[Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏]

Publicado originalmente por agu:

That's what I'm saying, people would obviously say AI art is worse than regular art but then won't even be able to tell the difference between them with 100% certainty. All this talk of "talent" and "emotion" and "beauty" is useless because they are invisible and subjective, there's no way you can hear a track or look at a painting and instantly say "this was made by a human", and I don't get why they won't admit it.

Publicado originalmente por Kamiyama:

...
AI artworks have already won awards at art contests.

I suspect some people are even sneaking them in to contests or exhibitions and not telling people they were AI generated. I read an article not too long ago where people where shocked and horrified about this artwork with mutant children which had multiple arms and legs. I remember looking at one of them and immediately suspecting an AI art generator made it. Unfortunately I can't find the article now.

Agu is entirely correct that people can't tell the difference on their own.

So, all that people are doing by penalizing, & smearing, & threatening people who describe their process and admit to using A.I. generation (ie. people who are forthcoming, helpful, and HONEST) ...is incentivizing others to be dishonest, and even deceitful, if necessary.
...and then... after "when necessary"... just out of habit. Every day and all the time.

We're royally screwed when it comes to the real A.I.s on the horizon :
Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and soon after Artificial Super-Intelligence (ASI)
because... we don't stand a chance at training such a machine to be honest when we're even actively training real people to be dishonest.
Hopefully its developer will be a better person and better teacher (that it actually listens to) than the general public...

[Plaid]

Publicado originalmente por agu:

Where is the line drawn?

on your medium of choice. The real question is, can you draw a line?

But look I don't dictate the world, I'm just having an opinion. If you want to mess around with AI then go ahead. I'm sure it's "fun", especially for a war veteran who has lost his limbs.

[hi friends]

if AI is, literally tracing over already existing art then yes or rather it might be considered as such.

you can replace AI to human and it will be the same.

tbh, AI can't really steal art either. its just end-user is feeding whatever the ♥♥♥♥ they want, including art that belongs to someone who is probably against AI.

[Defective Dopamine Pez Dispenser]

Publicado originalmente por Something Different:

Publicado originalmente por Aikido:

In principle no, not necessarily. But in practice possibly.

I feel if the AI in question can become complex and nuanced enough that it contains elements of learning that in humans we would instead call "inspiration" from existing art styles, then not necessarily. If the AI remains primitive enough that you can look at its output and very clearly see that it by design copied several distinctive styles and simply produced them in combination, then yes I feel that represents an ethical (and potentially an IP) quandary.

If the AI gets to the point that it is simply doing something analogous to what human brains do though - learn art by initially copying an instructor or taking inspiration from other styles, usually early on by literally copying them - but then generates combinations of those other styles so complex as to simply appear at most inspired by them, then I don't see the difference in principle between what it does and what we do.

Other than intentionality, which at the moment AIs still lack, as far as we can discern. Which is where the theft argument becomes salient. If a user is telling it specifically, "Make something in the style of _____" and what it produces very clearly references their art, in an unvarnished way, then yes I think that has the potential to be a problem. Because that's intent.

But again, would we call it theft if the artist did this themselves and was homaging or taking inspiration from someone's style, without directly copying? I'm not sure. And if not, why does it become so if the AI does it? And at what point is it transformational enough in nature that it becomes fair use? That's another question.

So as usual, I think it depends.

But in some of those cases it isn't the AIs fault, but the fault of the user telling the AI to replicate something, therefor the AI shouldn't take such blame for the actions of the user, the AI was just following the commands it was told to do.

Right. That's why I asked, "But again, would we call it theft if the artist did this themselves and was homaging or taking inspiration from someone's style, without directly copying? I'm not sure. And if not, why does it become so if the AI does it? And at what point is it transformational enough in nature that it becomes fair use?"

[Holografix]

Publicado originalmente por Something Different:

Publicado originalmente por Holografix:

Just like I surmised: this thread is about intellectual property rights. It's not about art.

The AI is a program create to duplicate or copy human artwork. If the AI program were created to only duplicate or copy AI artwork, there wouldn't even be an issue or controversy. But, because the AI program is specifically aimed at non-AI art work, it's an issue.

Again, this thread is not about art, but about a machine AI that duplicates human art work.

How is it duplicating anything if the artwork it spits out ends up being unique? In order for something to steal something it first needs to steal the thing

The programmer is feeding the AI imagery, or writing code that programs the AI to scrub for images online. Either way, the programmer is feeding (directly or indirectly) the images to the AI. And the AI is creating a composite image from the scrubbed/fed imagery. It's a composite copy, or in other words, derivative.

It's not art.

[Holografix]

Publicado originalmente por agu:

Publicado originalmente por Holografix:

no. art is specific, it's not a generality.

source? who are you to define what I consider art? do you also think beauty is something specific as well?

You misunderstand. Art is a specific thing. Art is not a generality. So when you claim that 'everything' (a generality) is art, you are incorrect as Art is a particularity.

In other words, Art is THIS and not THAT. A formulae for specificity.

Art is not EVERYTHING.

[Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏]

Publicado originalmente por DarkChrystmastalMethod:

If its generating art through production rules and NOT from sampling then thats not stealing.
Also I'm certain that at some point the AI code that uses samples can output a list of all the sources it used and where it ended up in the final image. It would be stupid not to have that so the lawyers can cover their butts.

That's not how law works in most of the world and it's very dangerous to all matters of freedom in society if a huge mass of whiny Twitter artists start demanding that
A.I. artists & developers (or even just ALLEGED A.I. artists)
prove that they didn't commit a crime in court.

The onus of evidence is on the plaintiff or prosecutor, in the spirit of :
"Innocent until proven guilty".

If you CHANGE that for even just 1 person or 1 thing... you risk that becoming the new standard for ALL bodies of law.
Now, think, about what you'd have to provide in order to prove that you did NOT shoot someone, or fail to get consent, or touch someone inappropriately, or worst of all ...staIk them over a long period of time. For ANY ONE of those accusations, you need to be recording EVERY SECOND of your life, which often isn't even legal to do because recording in bathrooms & theaters, for example, is illegal ...and then turn over the footage of the incident in question.

Except... if someone accuses you of staIking them over a long period of time... then... the only way to disprove that now becomes to turn over many thousands of hours of footage, that most people don't even have, for the entire duration (probably months) that someone claimed they were being "staIked". Not only is that a massive invasion of your privacy, but, in a world where that becomes acceptable legal conduct, a jury is going to take one look at that and say, "I'm not watching thousands of hours of footage, he should have pared it down to some key moments that prove his innocence" and believe a crying, totally honest, without a doubt not capable of lying, woman that accused you. And even if you "pared it down to some key moments" now they'd say, "well, he's just showing us moments that are irrelevant, he could have done that at some other point in time that he's not showing".

You have NO WAY to win when you are required to prove a negative in order to prove your innocence, instead of the burden of proof being on those who are making the accusation.

This could very well be ALL OF OUR FUTURES... perhaps due to some entitled whiners who want to claim that they were stolen from and that YOU needed to prove your innocence.
Oh... it might not be you today, or tomorrow, or in a year... but the law is patient and has a LONG reach... it will be your turn eventually.

[Holografix]

Publicado originalmente por Something Different:

Publicado originalmente por Holografix:

no. art is specific, it's not a generality.

Uhm, pretty sure it is, when referring to art you could be referring to a painting, a movie, a video game, literally anything that is made is art, so I would say art is a pretty generalized term

Not exactly. You are partly correct when you claim that art refers to a particular thing, but when you claim that any man made production is art, you are incorrect.

Like I mentioned before, Art is a particular thing, and not a generalized notion.

[Holografix]

Publicado originalmente por The Duce:

Publicado originalmente por Holografix:

that's not what the OP wrote.

He said art is one of the most basic human things that's been around forever. That is true.

But that is not what art is specifically. It's too general a category.