Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

OldWorldRevival OP t1_j0lo52s wrote

Reply to comment by Wassux in Why are people so opposed to caution and ethics when it comes to AI? by OldWorldRevival

Also... people seem to want to exploit others data - such as artwork - and then assume that such an attitude won't come around to bite them in the ass.

−5

Wassux t1_j0m9w5u wrote

It's not exploiting. Are humans exploiting when they learn from others?

Or are the artists insane for claiming a method as their property instead of their work.

10

OldWorldRevival OP t1_j0md448 wrote

> It's not exploiting. Are humans exploiting when they learn from others?

Lets say someone is a very technically talented artist, but isn't very visionary. There are a good number of people like this, where they paint pretty boring subject matter, just do it well but in a very derivative way.

Now say that some artist is friends with someone who is developing an art style, and then this person, who is very creative, comes up with a powerful, unique art style.

But then this artist copies the style and becomes famous for developing the style, even though their friend did it.

This is what AI art does at scale - it does something that is equally unethical when a person does it. It's just that for the human element of it, usually people are protected by a de facto copyright system where you can trace who originated an art style by seeing publishing dates, posting online, that sort of thing. Reputation, basically. AI gives people the ability to steal style before someone develops reputation.

So, yes, sometimes humans are exploiting others when they learn from them.

1

gantork t1_j0mkzfn wrote

Every artist alive today has learned from, taken inspiration and copied other people. It's imposible to come up with a unique art style at this point, unless you lived completely isolated and never looked at anyone else's art in your life. By your logic all artists are unethical and exploitative.

7

OldWorldRevival OP t1_j0mrnb6 wrote

> By your logic all artists are unethical and exploitative.

"All."

That's an absolutely asinine conclusion that you stated just to be inflammatory because you're probably kind of an asshole troll type.

Some artists are absolute asshats and do rip people's ideas off rapidly, or collage people's work into photoshop other people's work and paint over it (which is highly frowned upon). Doing stuff like that can destroy your reputation and cost you your professional career.

AI art is basically an automated version of what is already considered bad form.

You seem like you'd be one of these asshats if you actually took up art.

−3

gantork t1_j0mu7x0 wrote

The truly asinine thing here is how quick you are to start insulting me.

Your own arguments and way of thinking are what lead to that conclusion even if you don't realize it.

I completely disagree with all your takes but whatever think what you want, I'm not gonna waste more time with this.

3

ouaisouais2_2 t1_j0myebu wrote

the richest miners are not those who are the first to find an ore. the richest are those who follow those who are the first to find an ore

3

AndromedaAnimated t1_j0mqs2y wrote

And the example you just gave would not be any copyright infringement or amoral behavior by the way.

If the „mediocre“ artist draws and paints better pictures than the „creative“ one, then the „mediocre“ artist will get famous and the „creative“ one will not. Skill is just as important as idea. Without the mediocre friend, no one would probably even hear of the idea the visionary had.

Then there is luck, marketing, rich parents, a sponsor or sugar daddy/mommy… Lots of ifs and buts on the way to successful living as an artist.

And it’s all not amoral. Not wrong. And has nothing to do with theft.

You cannot steal art actually unless you pick up the physical picture and take it with you. Once you put something on the net, you loose control of its use. I don’t get why instead of crying the artists not just use AI too? To improve their art?

2

OldWorldRevival OP t1_j0msq1r wrote

Yeah.

Not going to get anywhere with you, clearly for the same reason I don't try to teach a dog calculus.

Cya.

−1

AndromedaAnimated t1_j0mu4ne wrote

Thank you for showing that you are not a respectful and fair human. All your points in this moral debate have thus been proven wrong, as you are an amoral person.

Border Collies are kinda good at math, by the way.

2

QuietOil9491 t1_j0pnecj wrote

Dude, this take is dishonest as fuck.

  • AI isn’t a person
  • AI doesn’t “learn” like a person does
  • Human people are imbued with rights by function of existing, AI doesn’t have human rights
  • AI image models are “trained” by inputting libraries of copyrighted images, without consent of the artists whose work is being used to allow those AI to function

You know full well AI isn’t sentient, nor acting on its own, so it’s not in any way shape or form “learning like a person does”

It’s a fucking computer, run by corporations, for profit, using the work of others without consent

−1

Wassux t1_j0qv84t wrote

Please stop the strawman bs. I never said AI is sentient. Nor did I say it is acting on it's own. It does learn exactly like a human does. The structure is exactly the same as brain structure. Source: I'm an AI engineer (or at least will be in a couple of months, finishing my master)

Human brain works by making connections between synapses, these connections are then given a weight. (Works with amperage of electrical signals in the brain). An AI has nodes that are given weights in math. So you get matrix multiplication, exactly like the human brain. Except way less efficient. Although we're working on edge AI chips that either have memory integrated in the processor or analog chips to completely copy the human brain.

And the method of learning is also very similar to humans. So imagine it as an AI learning from other humans. Just like humans learn from other humans.

You may not like it, but that's how it works.

1

WarImportant9685 t1_j0m1flg wrote

yeah this concerns me. Blatant stealing of art from known artists. With seemingly no public backlash from the tech community seems distasteful. Even though we (the tech community) are the one that understood, that the training data must have been webcrawled from the artists with no permisson. It seems kinda trashy that we don't care about other community as long as it doesn't touch our territory.

I've always identified with tech people. AI makes me think twice.

−4

Wassux t1_j0m9qxo wrote

It's not stealing. It's learning from it. God people should only talk about things they know something about

4

OldWorldRevival OP t1_j0mculy wrote

This is really an ignorant take.

I find that people who take this perspective really don't understand how derivative the works are, or understand how AI webcrawling basically destroys people's ability to develop an artistic style and get credit for it because the AI will gobble up and spit their style out with lightning speed without crediting them at all.

To say that this is exactly how humans do it too is absolutely insane. We have so many different types of much more complex, highly developed mental functions and a conscious experience.

You just want to play with this tool because you have no impulse control to wait for few months for more ethically developed tools to come around.

Supporting this nonsense is exactly how people will exploit legal loopholes to take advantage of you.

−3

DaggerShowRabs t1_j0mei28 wrote

Maybe it's derivative, but it's derivative of a large, large amount of works and artists.

I would challenge you to post an example from a series of random prompts, and point out which artists the work is "derived" from.

You couldn't point one, or even a handful out, because of the sheer amount of different works and artists fed in. Even if it's "derivative", it's nearly imperceptibly derivative due to the sheer volume of data.

To say it's "copying" another artist is just completely, utterly incorrect.

4

OldWorldRevival OP t1_j0mfjh1 wrote

I think you might not be up to date on the topic.

Corridor crew did an excellent video where they showcased the new tech, and credited the artist whose name the used in the prompt, but it was very very much like that artists images.

I think this may more be an awareness issue.

It is absolutely able to copy styles, and with high accuracy. I think artists on artstation are particularly angry because they're very ip to date on the styles and tends of artists, so many of them can also see whose work is being used.

2

DaggerShowRabs t1_j0mfot7 wrote

>I think you might not be up to date on the topic.

You would be wrong on that. I'm talking about a series of random prompts, not prompts designed specifically to invoke a specific artist or style.

3

AndromedaAnimated t1_j0mrsup wrote

So it’s basically a tool that can be misused. Previously, humans have been this tool.

Have you never seen artworks being copied and sold illegally? Every dollar store and flea market has „stolen art“, and you used to be able to even order large physical copies of artwork through the internet (a friend of mine did, that’s how I know, and no, I wouldn’t do that - I am a pretty skilled hobby artist, I‘d copy my Van Gogh myself).

Maybe the problem here is the prompts being used? If a human orders an AI to draw „trending on ArtStation“, it’s the human stealing, not the AI. So it would be very easy to prove you are not guilty, eh?

And it’s even possible to use your own pictures…

Is it the knife that’s evil, or the hand that stabs?

1

OldWorldRevival OP t1_j0msidz wrote

AI art is not evil, innately.

The scraping of people's copyrighted, supposedly protected works and then using that work as tooling for your engineered system? That is evil, and it is a human decision that is the evil.

0

AndromedaAnimated t1_j0mv7h3 wrote

Sorry cannot answer more. Your comment about dogs and calculus shows me that you are not safe for discussion 🤪

0

WarImportant9685 t1_j0mfkj0 wrote

no I have tried stable diffusion, and you can enter prompt with blablabla + name of artist style. It does create the artist style. And sometimes there are even the artist handsign!

−1