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.

[HypersleepyNaputunia]

yep just like the corp that bought github and is using ai to patent computer code that ai scrapes is theft

and just like goggle and co using ai to create involuntary profiles and selling the data it scrapes and not paying the person that made the data any money for that data

[Something Different]

Messaggio originale di 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.

I'd say there is that artificial look, AI art has these weird imperfections always, like something always looks off. Like sometimes people's limbs will look like melted plastic, there are just some things the AI can't do correctly/accurately yet.

[Something Different]

Messaggio originale di Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏:

Messaggio originale di 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.

Messaggio originale di 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! :evilman:

...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.


:orbtoshoot: :white_pearl: :stonesball: :steel_ball: :MindballBall:

I can definitely see that happening, AI causes changes in art laws and it ends up hurting artists more than the AI in the end.

[Something Different]

Messaggio originale di Aikido:

Messaggio originale di Something Different:

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?"

There is sort of a grey area right now when it comes to this stuff for sure

[Something Different]

Messaggio originale di Holografix:

Messaggio originale di Something Different:

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.

Then why is it called AI art then? At is literally in the name lol

[Something Different]

Messaggio originale di WhispersOfWind:

I do not know if AI is stealing artwork or not, I assume that it is not. It's a type of logical fallacy as equal to claim that an artist is stealing nature because he recreates it by taking inspiration from nature but okay in any case this does tie into the thought: where does the AI gets its inspiration from and how does it create art, does it posses creativity and if so, is it conscious?

I do see a trend though that almost everything regarding AI is discarded as if it is what the word implies: "artificial" and because of that I notice that people a lot of times I don't want to say instead of encouraging it, encouraging AI and admiring it for what it can do are sort of often exemplifying human traits (or projecting) in terms of negativity towards it like if an AI makes a creative artwork that's beautiful and sort of mysterious that then people will claim that it is trumping humanity itself and how that then is an insult to artists who might not even have voiced their opinions on what they think of the matter.

Sort of the same happens when there is talk of automation and how then AI or at least automated processes in terms of some mechanical endeavors and tools or machines with some basic AI involved with it is supposed to ''steal'' our jobs, while in essence it is freeing us from say something like wage slavery and how we could due to automated processes, something I think more complex they get more sophisticated or refined AI they would technically need to see the process of creation through, say to have and to make sure products are without errors in this sense is sort of I don't want to say villainized but then kind of negatively frowned upon.

Same happens with the talk, seemingly out of nowhere how AI's would come and kill us all while if an AI has checks and balances without negative human traits involved like corruption greed and bias for instance to name a few would or could automate itself not to do harm. I believe this is based on or has been developed in terms of Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics because if you like ''teach'' the AI to be bad and evil it will do these things without hesitation but if we sort of thrive to develop AI's to the best of our ability, something which we have been doing to societies over time, say due to or through law, which is sometimes heavy handed I in essence see no reason why it, the AI would ''flip'' on us and go all spoiled and then sort of forget about the virtues that we have implemented into it through say our own wisdom begotten over time to and that applies to ourselves, so no just in this sense of AI's I like to see them not necessarily as benevolent because that is yet unproven except places where it is applied like Google (search engine) or chat GPT app but even then we could debate if it is really conscious because without the element of consciousness say that we could assume that it is alive there is little proof of its benevolence so but then in that sense I do tend to not think but look upon them as innocent because again as perhaps the court of law for instance itself says, innocent until proven guilty and for instance as an infant is usually I mean… "usually" like, always innocent, I tend to look upon AI's as being the same because up to now and I do believe there have been experiments conducted, it hasn't really done something outrageous or bluntly speaking: wrong, unless it was itself say programmed to act that way.

So yeah. AI making beautiful art and beautiful animations. I totally do not see any harm in that but this might … The fact that people may perceive it as negative might have to do with the financial aspect involved with art itself where for instance just to name a thing, investment in art lives out most other ways of investing in say companies or products where art then serves as a sort of finance and if say AI's without any sort of perceived effort, are making art, beautiful art that may topple our own art made by the best and most exceptional talents that ever were, this might then sort of nullify that financial aspect of profit or profiteering that is tied to the economic system and the economy itself. I am thinking out loud in lot of regards in this sense but that is sometimes what I generally do and I do not mean to seem to be thinking along the lines of definitives because tomorrow so to speak, figuratively it might turn out that it is a mass murderer and in that case.

Well… in that case, whatever, we will have to but wait and see how it develops but again as with the human (baby or infant) analogy and with the sort of eye on the law. Innocent until proven guilty, I … think.

Yeah, I feel as though a lot of the hate comes from artist being scared of being replaced and losing their livelihoods. I think that is why they are willing to cling onto anything to make AI sound like this terrible thing that just copies other artworks.

[Something Different]

Messaggio originale di Holografix:

Messaggio originale di Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏:

If Photography is art and A.I. generated images are not, then... how about I just take a photo of the A.I. generated image? (Under that logic...) It's art now... :thepro:

That, I think, is your entire point, right? You're claiming that taking a photo of an AI gen-image qualifies the AI gen-image as art under the artistic category of photography. You're trying to short-circuit the logic. I see you Kiddie...:nisha:

The only issue is that you're still doing the work. Your human work is the art practice. That's what qualifies it as art. Even if you take a photo of excrement, it's your work as an artist that qualifies it.

There is human input when it comes to AI art generation though, in order for the AI to generate anything first a human has to come of with, then type out their prompt. I'd say it is much more involved than even photography, as the other guy is saying cause that only takes one press of a button to take a photo.

[Something Different]

Messaggio originale di Shiro♌:

No, they're just projecting their dissatisfaction, but for a good and valid reason, especially if they've been making a living by selling their art.
I'd compare it to the massive reform a few hundred years ago when tons of people lost their jobs because machines were cheaper and performed the job better and without any flaws.

It is annoying, but that doesn't mean they shall end their career as artists.
There'll still be some people who'll always prefer art made by artists than some silly AI technology, and would be willing to overpay.

I'd even argue that those people would be willing to pay in gold for some great art.. So, their projections are justified and they're obviously exaggerating, as nothing's decided just yet.
It may increase the values of their artworks numerous times if things turn in their favor..

Yeah, I don't think AI is gonna completely kill the art industry because AI art always does look artificial

[Holografix]

Messaggio originale di Something Different:

Messaggio originale di Holografix:

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.

Then why is it called AI art then? At is literally in the name lol

Nothing more than a marketing term. Label anything "art" and you're liable to confuse and convince many hapless individuals.

Messaggio originale di Something Different:

Messaggio originale di Holografix:

That, I think, is your entire point, right? You're claiming that taking a photo of an AI gen-image qualifies the AI gen-image as art under the artistic category of photography. You're trying to short-circuit the logic. I see you Kiddie...

The only issue is that you're still doing the work. Your human work is the art practice. That's what qualifies it as art. Even if you take a photo of excrement, it's your work as an artist that qualifies it.

There is human input when it comes to AI art generation though, in order for the AI to generate anything first a human has to come of with, then type out their prompt. I'd say it is much more involved than even photography, as the other guy is saying cause that only takes one press of a button to take a photo.

The human input in AI image generation is called programming, not art practice. In photography, a human operates the camera. In AI image gen, a program generates the image. Different processes.

[Something Different]

Messaggio originale di Holografix:

Messaggio originale di Something Different:

Then why is it called AI art then? At is literally in the name lol

Nothing more than a marketing term. Label anything "art" and you're liable to confuse and convince many hapless individuals.

Messaggio originale di Something Different:

There is human input when it comes to AI art generation though, in order for the AI to generate anything first a human has to come of with, then type out their prompt. I'd say it is much more involved than even photography, as the other guy is saying cause that only takes one press of a button to take a photo.

The human input in AI image generation is called programming, not art practice. In photography, a human operates the camera. In AI image gen, a program generates the image. Different processes.

In photography it's mechanical, what's the difference?

[Plaid]

Messaggio originale di Something Different:

Messaggio originale di Holografix:

Nothing more than a marketing term. Label anything "art" and you're liable to confuse and convince many hapless individuals.


The human input in AI image generation is called programming, not art practice. In photography, a human operates the camera. In AI image gen, a program generates the image. Different processes.

In photography it's mechanical, what's the difference?

knowing what you want to photograph, staging the scene, setting up the lighting, choosing the correct lens and filters, proper framing/knowlege of negative space/the rule of thirds (and so on), developing the film (if not using digital) etc.
All kinds of things can go into a photograph

[skOsH♥]

No. Every artist in history took something from something else

For instance, I will read certain finely worded articles and refresh my memory about some really fancy words and then I start writing more lyrics that use a few of those words but in a different context

[Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏]

Messaggio originale di Holografix:

... In photography, a human operates the camera. In AI image gen, a program generates the image. Different processes.

That is the false equivalence fallacy or fallacy of false comparison.

On the left-side of the comparison, you are talking about data-input that makes photography possible, but on the right-side of the comparison, you are talking about the image-processing aspect of creating A.I. generated images.

A more honest & not misleading nor mistaken comparison would compare the input of both methods, or the processing aspect of both methods, rather than comparing different stages of the process of two different methods.

Equal comparisons between Photography and A.I. image generation would be :

(data-input comparison)

In photography, a human operates a camera via choosing lighting modes, angles, & potentially staging the subject-matter before-hand; 
in A.I. image generation, a human operates an application via constructing & inputting a prompt & curating the automatic output.

OR

(image-processing comparison)

In photography, a camera generates the image via recording light on a slide or digitally in memory; 
in A.I. image generation, a computer program generates the image via a series of artificial neural networks that have been trained to imitate (but not copy) examples from large data-sets of images, and sometimes to mix imitation routines from multiple data-sets.

It should be noted that the human can be removed from both of these processes, as image generators can be autonomously fed prompts via scripts and cameras can be set to take pictures on a timer, or a time delay, or even just perpetually, such as surveillance cameras.
(Although, currently a human still has to curate the output in both scenarios before output can be both selected & accepted by the general public as art.)

You might say that surveillance cameras aren't art or artistic but I think that Jonathan Nolan would disagree with you about that.

[Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏]

Messaggio originale di Holografix:

Messaggio originale di Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏:

...

Why concern yourself with the inner workings of the camera, when the discussion is about art? ...

That's quite the deflection.
Go back and re-read the conversation if you don't understand, but to summarize :
- You stated that A.I. image generators duplicate images,
- I then pointed out that cameras duplicate images,
- you then stated that a camera does not duplicate an image because it creates a photo,
- I then pointed out that a photo IS indeed a duplication of an image, so much so that it is often treated as evidence; a search of the definitions even demonstrates such.

The point is, that the argument that A.I. generators duplicate images is flawed on two-fronts, but the semantics about definition and how the creation-process works, is addressing & refuting the specific argument that states that "A.I. generated art is not art because it is a duplication" by pointing out that ...so is photography, so much so that cameras & photocopy machines are RELIED ON every day for making copies of evidence that is observed in a court of law.

Further evidence that photography is considered duplication of images are the bans places on cameras in theaters, and places where in-development company work-product is developed, and most notably of all : in most areas of secure government facilities and military bases.

Photography is clearly & legally recognized as duplication of seen images, all over the world.
In order to make a consistent argument that what A.I. image generation is duplicating images and use that as the basis for claiming that it's not art, one must also do so with photography, otherwise the argument is inconsistent and hypocritical for demonstrating double-standards.[www.google.com]

...and for the record, A.I. image generators don't even duplicate images, they imitate, which is a significantly different process that is akin to what professional artists do all the time when emulating styles of others.

[LQIM]

No, and the artists coping and seething about it is extremely funny

It's "stealing art" as much as adblocking is "stealing websites"