Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

MiniTwiglets t1_ixcjguj wrote

People saying he didnt make this. Ai is a tool like any other. If someone makes something in say Maya, would you say its not their own work because they didnt make the program? No, you wouldnt.

And even if you still apply that logic, its pretty obvious which parts of this piece are non ai generated. If the whole piece was ai generated sure maybe, but this is not that.

I find the people who get pissed off at ai art are typically not artists.

Edit: while ai does use the work of other artists to learn, i feel we can say the same about people who look at the art of others to improve their own. And just like a person it can make derivative/copycat work. Its like getting angry at a kid on deviant for tracing their favourite character from my little pony.

This is more my opinion then anything else, but people need to get the idea of "ownership" or "ip" out of their heads, no one owns ideas, be it for art or otherwise. But thats more a critique of capitalism than anything else.

−10

cjschnyder t1_ixclm4z wrote

I've generally seen the opposite, since AI art generation is only done by the programs scraping the internet and stealing art to compose an image. Artists generally don't like their work stolen.

Also regardless of who doesn't like AI art, read rule 11 of this subreddit.

3

olemeloART t1_ixcnzuj wrote

>AI art generation is only done by the programs scraping the internet

That's absolutely not how it works. You're right about the rule ("don't make me tap the sign!"), but there was clearly effort, idea and intent that went into this. If mandalas made by spirograph can belong in this sub, then why not this? It's the message, not the medium that matters (yeah, I know what I said, Mr McLuhan).

0

cjschnyder t1_ixcp6hy wrote

"That's absolutely not how it works." That's absolutely how it works. That's why when prompting AI art generations you can ask for it in a specific artists style because it was fed into the machine to learn. And I'd bet that the WIDE majority of artists were not asked permission.

As for the effort that went into this, I can't tell. It's so obviously AI art that whatever other manipulation might have been done by the poster is unknown.

3

olemeloART t1_ixcpqi3 wrote

It really isn't, I promise you. It's based on a specific semi-curated dataset (a shitty one indeed, to be sure), not on continuous scraping of the interwebs.

−4

cjschnyder t1_ixcqy7t wrote

It sounds like the big assumption here is that scraping = taking literally anything and everything. You're correct in the sense that it's semi-curated but my guess is that any AI generator isn't doing that with teams of people each looking across the web and loading in images into a dataset. It's doing it with bots. And those bots are scraping the web.

What they pull definitely goes through a filtering process but just cause it's a " semi-curated dataset" doesn't mean that data wasn't scraped. In my day job I work in building analytics data pipelines for web traffic, I'm familiar with how vast amounts of data is aggregated and put together.

1

olemeloART t1_ixcti51 wrote

The point was that the LAION dataset, on which the model was trained, is static. it was created once and isn't continuously updated - a snapshot of a point in time. The curation was also automated, but biased for the aesthetic score ("how likely would a human find this pretty"). That's why so much art was captured in it. So, if you put an artwork out on the internet today, it will not be used by the current crop of AI art generators. Whether this is "stealing" is a matter of opinion, as all of those images were public and went into a common "melting pot". I was only specifically addressing the "scraping" statement, because there is a lot of misinformation and confusion around that - some people literally seem to think there are bots hiding in the shadows waiting to snatch their works.

Mind you, that is different from someone downloading a specific artist's collection from Artstation and purposely training a checkpoint to specifically imitate that artist. That's shitty and gross, and in my mind definitely amounts to theft and plagiarism, and many in the AI art community agree with me.

0

cjschnyder t1_ixd1qtx wrote

So that's the first time a specific dataset, or rather a dataset manufacturer, was mentioned. While that one may be static, others may not be. It should also be noted that LAION is making other datasets so while ONE of their sets might be static and completed they are continuously making updated sets.

I would also hesitate to say it's a "matter of opinion" in the stealing department. It is stealing. Something extremely common place on the internet today as to not really be noticed but just cause something is in a public space does not mean it is public domain.

What is the difference between what you posed, someone taking a specific artists work to make a dataset to copy them and a dataset that includes enough of someones art to copy them and then is used in such a manner?

1

SeeShortcutMcgee t1_ixdy75i wrote

Why hasn't the artist stated that they used AI art as a medium then?

When you make something in a 3D modeling program that takes an enormous amount of skill and time, when you make AI art you type words or sentences into a program.

What parts are "obviously" not AI generated? I work with AI art at a university and would be very interested to hear your input.

2