Im so sick and tired of greedy artists trying to halt AI Art

[Millennial_KiwiGamer]

AI Art is the ultimate equalizer in the sense that it allows anyone to put in a description of what they want and then they get that, or something near enough.

It's fantastic for users. It gets rid of needing to commission every little thing saving $$ for the average bob. Not everyone is made of money to be paying artists tons of money for a picture that might take days to make when you can just roll the generator a few times and get something of equal if not better quality than the artist themselves.

The "compromise" argument is also hilarious. Anyone who pays an artist OR uses a generator is compromising because they're relying on a third party to make their vision.

AI Art Good. Greedy Artist bad. :)

[lightwo]

It isn't greed, it's doing business that ultimately feeds the AI model. AI art cannot be attributed, so it (presumably) cannot be sold as-is, but it could find use in the artist space to enhance workflow.

Not a fan of automating things this way, since art is (at least in its core) not about efficiency, but creativity and expression that would be difficult to represent with what is, essentially, a salad mish-mash of visual associations that range from a horrifyingly inaccurate vision to something impressive, albeit containing very obvious inaccuracies.

Also, bragging about cheaping out on an industry that can, among other things, result in art dedicated to you personally, is very tasteless and disrespectful, but who am I to say that? If you have any respect towards smaller creators of any kind (indie game developers, for example), cut some slack.

Besides, how is it greed if the artist spends working hours drawing and painting, and likely depends on the art income to survive? I agree that many offer art for ridiculously high prices, which feels unfair, but you are comparing "greed" to not paying anything, so I'd say the tables have turned...

[TwisterCat]

Depends how view art. If you're just looking for whatever's prettiest, AI will suffice. But AI lacks soul, it lacks grit, it lacks passion and pain, no story is being told, it is soulless work that you'll find no solace in; it's not art at it's finest if you ask me.

[Rio]

引用自 Kamiyama：

引用自 Harusp3x：

How would you feel if the primary method by which you earn your living experienced a sudden and startling rise in AI and automation?

But honestly, how people feel about AI art doesn't matter in the slightest, and all these efforts to kill it will ultimately fail. Even if they manage to get governments involved, it's already out there. You can run a very good AI image model privately on a powerful desktop computer. If one country tries to squash it, another country will take full advantage of it and out-compete the ones who squashed it.

No, the only thing anyone can do is accept the reality of it and ask "What's next?"

Inevitably everyone will be replaced. Humans won't need to work anymore.

UBI is going to need to be accepted and commonplace otherwise there's going to be a French Revolution style uprising. The rich won't be able to unemploy the entire world population and expect society to keep working like normal.

When the AI does everything, why will they need you to still be around? Specially if your a threat if you aren't kept appeased?

[Devsman]

引用自 TwisterCat：

Depends how view art. If you're just looking for whatever's prettiest, AI will suffice. But AI lacks soul, it lacks grit, it lacks passion and pain, no story is being told, it is soulless work that you'll find no solace in; it's not art at it's finest if you ask me.

For now, that is.

[Kamiyama]

引用自 ⛧：

引用自 Kamiyama：

Inevitably everyone will be replaced. Humans won't need to work anymore.

UBI is going to need to be accepted and commonplace otherwise there's going to be a French Revolution style uprising. The rich won't be able to unemploy the entire world population and expect society to keep working like normal.

When the AI does everything, why will they need you to still be around? Specially if your a threat if you aren't kept appeased?

AI safety is a big deal. Robert Miles has a lot of youtube videos about it.

It's an question we will need to answer because the first nation to develop AI will have a strategic advantage over nations who don't.

But AI safety takes time. It's quicker and easier to make a dangerous AI. So we are faced with a problem. There is a reward for developing AI quickly, but doing so may destroy us. If we try to prevent AI development we just increase the chances that one of our enemies develops AI first.

Fun times.

[Devsman]

引用自 ⛧：

引用自 Kamiyama：

Inevitably everyone will be replaced. Humans won't need to work anymore.

UBI is going to need to be accepted and commonplace otherwise there's going to be a French Revolution style uprising. The rich won't be able to unemploy the entire world population and expect society to keep working like normal.

When the AI does everything, why will they need you to still be around? Specially if your a threat if you aren't kept appeased?

That's so dumb, lol.

I dunno what kind of movie you live in but I don't think the THEM people care enough about you or me to send the death squads out as soon as they don't need labor anymore.

[Raelic]

引用自 Lord_Dweedle：

AI Art is the ultimate equalizer in the sense that it allows anyone to put in a description of what they want and then they get that, or something near enough.

It's fantastic for users. It gets rid of needing to commission every little thing saving $$ for the average bob. Not everyone is made of money to be paying artists tons of money for a picture that might take days to make when you can just roll the generator a few times and get something of equal if not better quality than the artist themselves.

The "compromise" argument is also hilarious. Anyone who pays an artist OR uses a generator is compromising because they're relying on a third party to make their vision.

AI Art Good. Greedy Artist bad. :)

I'm not against AI art. But anything sourced that the AI uses needs to be credited and paid for. And the AI art can't be sold or used for marketing unless every artist agrees.

[Kamiyama]

https://youtu.be/JRuNA2eK7w0

[Tonepoet]

引用自 Kamiyama：

引用自 Sword of Gabe：

I'm so sick of people trying to claim AI generated art and writing as their own, probably one of the most audacious moves from this current generation, theifs one and all.

AI has no rights so under our current legal system the art is literally the property of the human running the AI.

The fact that A.I. has no legal rights under our legal system is not quite enough to establish that anybody owns the copyright. The Monkey Selfie Dispute[en.wikipedia.org] exemplifies that nicely.

Now if I were a judge, I might have ruled that the money does have rights in consideration of Dred Scott being nullified by the 13th amendment, but that doesn't entitle anybody other than the monkey to the copyright, still denying P.E.T.A. any rights to royalties but also making the monkie selfie de-facto illegal to distribute altogether since the monkey hasn't granted anybody distribution rights or granted P.E.T.A. any right to be its representative, assuming I did not just dismiss the case for P.E.T.A's. lack of legal standing. but that's just me.

If the human operator does own A.I. generated art, then what probably gives them legal right is the fact that they operate the A.I. software.

However, something that needs to be noted is that artists do not only own the rights over the specific artwork they create, but also the right to create derivations of that artwork. A.I. artwork may just run afoul of copyright in general because of this.

[Kamiyama]

引用自 Tonepoet：

引用自 Kamiyama：

AI has no rights so under our current legal system the art is literally the property of the human running the AI.

The fact that A.I. has no legal rights under our legal system is not quite enough to establish that anybody owns the copyright. The Monkey Selfie Dispute[en.wikipedia.org] exemplifies that nicely.

Now if I were a judge, I might have ruled that the money does have rights in consideration of Dred Scott being nullified by the 13th amendment, but that doesn't entitle anybody other than the monkey to the copyright, still denying P.E.T.A. any rights to royalties but also making the monkie selfie de-facto illegal to distribute altogether since the monkey hasn't granted anybody distribution rights or granted P.E.T.A. any right to be its representative, assuming I did not just dismiss the case for P.E.T.A's. lack of legal standing. but that's just me.

If the human operator does own A.I. generated art, then what probably gives them legal right is the fact that they operate the A.I. software.

However, something that needs to be noted is that artists do not only own the rights over the specific artwork they create, but also the right to create derivations of that artwork. A.I. artwork may just run afoul of copyright in general because of this.

It's no different than a human using a camera.

The people whining about ownership of AI generated content are the same as human calculators losing their jobs to electronic calculators. Or scribes losing their jobs to typewriters.

It's just the next best tool.

[Angel]

In terms of legality, artists do have ownership of AI as the generator is used as a tool. The only exception perhaps are any infringements I e. Fanart or anything relating to copyrighted intellectual property are not but it's the same as a person painting an image of Mickey Mouse for example.

A lot of American companies such as Shutterstock and Adobe have already allowed AI into their image libraries and have (to be launched very soon) have more obvious AI generation into their system (Photoshop/Firefly).

However for those against AI, there is currently talks of having a blacklist upon AI servers. So if you have an intellectual property, you and get it taken off the AI servers (but I'm not sure what stage this is at).

[Michanicks]

I recently saw AI "artist" was trying to cheat in drawing competition with $300 reward.
He was, obviously, disqualificated, but he was crying and seething for week after that trying to proof that he did it himself.

Why did i wrote about that precedent? As example that people who pay for artworks DON'T pay simply to get "pretty pictures". They paying artist for their skill (they were learning to draw for years), for their time (good artworks may take more than 10 hours of work) and name (if that wouldn't be true, popular artists wouldn't get so high prices seemingly for nothing).

If artwork doesn't take much skill (it's like someone else does it for you), doesn't take much time (it's takes from seconds to minutes instead of from hours to days) and doesn't have name behind it ("if everyone is super, then noboy is") then yes, you got artwork for free (or for very cheap), but there is reason for it - such lack of investment doesn't worth as much as a real artwork.

People who exclusively use AI generated artworks wouldn't even pay to artists to begin with. Good for them, if they getting fun in this - that's completely fair. They are not potential commissioners and artists should not be upset because of them - it's like with piracy, if there would be no possibility to pirate content, they still wouldn't ever buy that content to begin with.

But if such people constantly make fun of real artists, threaten them and mocking them for losing their income, dreaming of artist "getting done and replaced" - then you are main reason of why so many artists complain about AI.

[Fajita Jim]

Reminds me of the arguments when cameras came around. And radio. And TV. Then Netflix. ♥♥♥♥.

[Anosmyk]

A.I. is cool. But it start to become a problem when people try to sale said art. And take artist concepts that have already been done. That takes hours on hours with love and compassion. That’s why artist are mad and they are valid for that feeling.

[Fajita Jim]

引用自 【Ａｎｏｓｍｙｋ】：

A.I. is cool. But it start to become a problem when people try to sale said art. And take artist concepts that have already been done. That takes hours on hours with love and compassion. That’s why artist are mad and they are valid for that feeling.

Any good AI artist spends hours and hours going between img2img and sketch and inpaint and inpaint sketch. It's actually quite a lot of work.