blueSGL t1_iza1ngp wrote on December 7, 2022 at 4:15 PM

I think at some point someone will train a model from scratch using copyright free works along with synthetic datasets generated using makehuman style systems and NPR render engines.

If these cannot make good artwork of [style] AI will be used to curate lists of artists good at [style]. This will then be cross referenced with other missing [styles] till there is a web of required artists where moving in the space between them will achieve whatever style is required.

A selection of artists from each [style] list will be contacted and paid a lump sum for rights for a block of their work to be used to generate models.

Then you will have a model that is trained on a completely 100% provably legal dataset (Edit: cleaned up the phrasing). A few select artists will make out like bandits, all other artists will be exactly where they are now without the ability to claim that the system is only good because it stole things.

The same will happen with music and literature.

This is why attempting to stop AI artwork in any field is a pointless expenditure of effort. Learning the tools is a better use of time.

bjt23 t1_izaghtp wrote on December 7, 2022 at 5:53 PM

That's the thing, all art pre 20th century is public domain, plus a good portion of modern art is Creative Commons. So like, anyone including AI can use parts of those works.

Heck even with copyrighted works, transformative works are allowed in many places. Sorry luddites, I think you're boned on this one (and thank goodness, the alternative is awful).

TheRidgeAndTheLadder t1_izayfk4 wrote on December 7, 2022 at 7:50 PM

AI art is just an immovable object that makes that fact obvious.

bjt23 t1_izayqrw wrote on December 7, 2022 at 7:52 PM

Copyright in its current form is ridiculous. It may be necessary in some limited form until we reach post scarcity. Agreed we should see it abolished this century though.

NightmareOmega t1_izcpb8e wrote on December 8, 2022 at 3:19 AM

Copyright is alive and well. Copyright protects many of the worlds largest businesses. Much of the code behind these AI is in fact under copyright. What is being made obvious here is that there are two sets of laws at play. Copyright for the rich and mega corporations. Nonconsensual open source for individuals and creatives.

TheRidgeAndTheLadder t1_izd6ikk wrote on December 8, 2022 at 5:56 AM

I can see where you got that, but I see the problem being that copyright is fundamentally incompatible with the information age.

Concheria t1_izbc4hz wrote on December 7, 2022 at 9:20 PM

I think even if you had a dataset that'd only Creative Commons and public domain arts, you'd still have a lot of people whining. Because arguing that this is only about the dataset is disingenuous. This isn't only about the dataset. This is about the threat of automation and the extreme disruption of a status quo where artists are necessary for the production of large-scale media.

I honestly want to see datasets that are entirely Creative Commons, and a Stable Diffusion based on them. I personally suspect that not a lot would change. (Regardless, this is a moot point because training is now at the point where randos with a subscription to Google colab can easily create their own checkpoints. If you don't believe me, let me point you to the Furry diffusion server on Discord.)

Some online artists are really mad at the idea itself that people can "press a button and get a piece of art", and are trying to discredit the idea of "prompt-engineering" as a form of art. Even in videos like Steven Zapata's "End Of Art", he suggests that this should be a tool for traditional artists. The idea of individuals using this to create their own pieces (And worse, sell them!) is intolerable because it's inherently the intrusion of non-artists playing in the field of art.