AI art bros... its fucking over...

AI art bros... its fucking over...

  1. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Don't care, still proompting

    >t. AI artist

  2. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Artist bros...it's fucking over...

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      also adobe is hiring artist to draw for training purpose, soon "artist" will change their job title to "AI art trainer" lmao

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        How long is it realistically going to take for a team of 100, maybe 1000 artists to generate enough content in a variety of consistent styles to even train a midrange model?
        Now imagine that with code. Or writing. AI is so fucking over lol

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          I've heard making a picture can take anywhere from 4 hours to a few weeks in common cases

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Hey retard the artists are just used for edge cases for improving clarity. You might be shocked to hear but there are billions of images already in the public domain. Further the AI *will* get sophisticated enough to be trained on its own images.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            There's a reason you don't use model's own output to train itself. The reason is that without an objective frame of reference, its performance will degenerate into oblivion. Imagine learning shit from the books you write yourself without consulting any external sources.

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              Hey retard the generated images would be handpicked by humans and likely touched up.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Third time's the charm I suppose.

                The purpose of training the model is to modify its output to make it closer to training data. If the training data is already the same as the output, the model has nothing to learn. If the model's output is added to the training data, the errors inevitably generated by the model will propagate as the baseline standard for the next iteration, degenerating its performance.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Hey retard its possible through prompting to create novel and new images that aren't actually represented in the training set. It's possible, for example, to have a "ethical" training set and then use a prompt to create the style of a heckin muh copyright artist and teach the AI the name of that style such that it can now generate new images using that artist's style without ever being directly trained on their images.

                Too many retards are either stuck thinking AI is never going to change so how it is right now is how it'll always be or too many retards thinking they're going to be able to txt2video a 2 hour movie with the prompt "Star Wars movie".

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                nagger unlike you I happen to understand a thing or two about DLNNs. There's no benefit to training SD on its own output because it simply maps to exactly the same prompt that was used to generate it in the first place - thus accomplishing nothing even in principle, and in practice it'll just accumulate errors. On a more abstract level, the reason neural networks can't train themselves is the same reason why perpetual motion machines don't work: there needs to be a positive influx of energy to advance while in reality it only seeps out through all kinds of losses.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Hey retard if you use a new description for the output it wouldn't map exactly the same. Also the current method of training the AI is flawed because it's too easy to destroy existing data and create distorted mutants so they're going to need to solve it so the AI can't so easily destroy fundamental knowledge.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's called "overfitting" ya moron. You're not supposed to minimize loss into obivion, you're supposed to cut the training when your RMS slows down too much, or roll back a few epochs when it reverses. You really ought to at least get some basic understanding of how NNs work before arguing about it.

                you're retarded. it can absolutely be done, is a common technique, especially with generative ai and even moreso if the output is curated by humans.

                You train the discriminator part of GANN using generator's output. It's kind of a given - how else would it adapt to model's fluid output? But that's not what's being proposed here. And it really should be obvious that training the model on its own output just "teaches" it to do the same thing it already does. And since inference usually involves errors, it teaches it to repeat the errors.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                you're retarded. it can absolutely be done, is a common technique, especially with generative ai and even moreso if the output is curated by humans.

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              Hey retard the artists are just used for edge cases for improving clarity. You might be shocked to hear but there are billions of images already in the public domain. Further the AI *will* get sophisticated enough to be trained on its own images.

              A more practical example: imagine training SD on its own output. It'll just learn that hands and eyes are SUPPOSED to be all fucked up.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Or writing.
          Y'know there are literal tons of public domain books? Scientists just need to get their shit together instead of brute-forcing solutions with more data.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          It would take 1000 artists many years to generate enough training data. When they train it on a lot of the various artist boorus they are taking 100,000+ artists work over the course of decades.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        So the big corporations will be able to create database of AI art so that nobody can say they "stole" anything, in the end money wins.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          I used to artists to destroy the artists

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is the "right" way to do it, legally speaking.
      You create new assets to help train the model better, using experts in each distinct style of media creation from posters to black and white to realistic 3D modelling to celshading.
      You have way more control over quality this way, you can create exactly what you need to train a specific niche.
      You can have some request forum up for things you'd like to see trained on, which could be voted by the community at large.
      We already have huge asset packs around the web created by loads of talented people.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      called it
      fucking useful idiots, it works every time

  3. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    it is copyrightable when I use it to speed up the production and replace a whole department of artists

  4. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    no, it basically means instead of inhouse AI art tools, companies will continue outsourcing their art to pajeets and chinks that I can guarantee WILL use AI in their artwork

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Large companies don't like giant liabilities like copyright suits regardless of how it appeared

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Hence the outsourcing, if you subcontract it with the right legal wording then you are absolved of responsibility

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          And you will still enjoy your product getting taken down when it infringes on copyright, you'll end up having to do all the work on top of massive fines

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you only train with data you explicitly commissioned for that purpose, you should be fine. Nobody’s doing that though, at least not yet

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          You're absolved of liability, but whoever you subcontracted to has to replace the infringing material. And how/when that happens could be problematic, especially after go-live. Especially if the subcontractor goes bust from all the copyright liability.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >if you subcontract it with the right legal wording then you are absolved of responsibility

          t. Bot.info School of Law

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Ohhh yes they love it. CEO and investors of the company I work for pretty much get an adrenaline and dopamine kick from operating in legal grey areas. It's so much more about the rush than the money itself

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        god you are such a dumb nagger cattle.

  5. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    That's understandable. Breaking copyright to build your product may make you liable for all the entities whose copyright you broke, and bt extension willingly using such product may make you culprit in copyright infringement

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      This was obvious from day 1 and became even more obvious once that paper showed up where they proved that art AI is literally just mashing together it's training data and could replicate art it's been feed almost one to one. People who are trying to make money with this can cope all day about how it "learns like a human" or whatever but no company is gonna touch this tech with a ten foot pole of there is a risk of infringing copyright.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Rise of training data salesmen?

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's possible. Data is expensive, even more so if you have to commission millions or licenced pictures off artists

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Bet you can get artist to sign off on the rights to use their stuff in generative AI if they get compensated

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              they already licensed any of the major shitting eatting sites they posted to to do whatever they want with the data.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        ask any human artist to draw a can of coke and they can probably do a pretty decent job recreating the coca-cola logo and red colouring, which is copyrighted
        there's a difference between being trained on copyrighted works (which humans also do) and requesting an artist recreate specifically a copyrighted work
        everything is derivative, human-made art doesn't come from a vacuum

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Law is arbitrary, and downloading images for the purpose of human viewing is distinct from downloading an image for use in your software

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >just mashing together it's training data and could replicate art it's been feed almost one to one
        That's how a human brain works retard. So the human brain is copyright infringing by producing a derivative work? You're the one who is coping, big tech are just fags who want to appease artfags who seethe that their skills suck

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Laws don't care, they often state purpose, not the method. If law allows copying for purposes of human viewing, it's legally distinct from a machine viewing it.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          The legal issue is that a machine learning tool is not a human. It can't be granted authorship and it's fundamentally a piece of software owned by an actual legally recognised entity. Basically, the machine learning code itself has the same status as a piece of artwork authored by a human. You can't repurpose someone else's proprietary code to build your own software, and as such you can't repurpose someone's copyrighted work to create a virtual illustrator for commercial purposes. It may be a new way of classifying an individual's particular artistic idiosyncrasies as data, but data ownership has a legal framework too and is considered valuable, so there's no room for excuses.

          This obviously won't save artists because there are legal ways of producing training material, but the software is currently too incomplete to effectively replace humans which gives artists and organisations time to lobby for legislation that closes the loopholes.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wrong. It's already been settled in court that whatever output a program produces, belongs to whoever ran the program (because how the fuck else would you own digital art you made). This means program output can be copyrightable by you, or you can be liable for copyright infringement.

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              >whatever output a program produces, belongs to whoever ran the program
              not him, but I need some details. I don't own the copyright to an image I googled even as it was the output of the browser that I ran. and I'd be surprised if whatever stable diffusion gave me for the prompt "big booba" would fall under copyright. what are the characteristics they're looking for? something something reasonable effort, artistic endeavor?

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm sure it's properly explained in more legalese than I can stomach in the appropriate papers. You can get the near-complete understanding of the concept by not being fucking obtuse about it.

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              You clearly did not read what I wrote. Of course someone has to own the output, I'm talking about the training datasets not being inconsequential from a legal perspective.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                When you learn to draw, you use drawing books and publicly displayed artworks as your training data set. That bears no implications about what you draw exactly. You can still produce a copyrightable work, or produce something that infringes on someone else's copyrights.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                That's why this is new territory, and the legal and ethical issues will come up again once we figure out how to virtually reproduce an entire person rather than just one of their skillsets. Do you own "yourself", or can someone create an anon bot and make it expose all your private thoughts?

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Now that's just paranoid. How would a neural network know something from inside your brain? Take your meds. Also, sharing information is not illegal, and even if you have signed an NDA it can be fought in court.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >How would a neural network know something from inside your brain
                With enough data it doesn't need to "know", although researches already entertain that possibility as well. You underestimate how ubiquitous data harvesting can and has become, paranoia as a term doesn't invalidate the possibility of the suHispanicions being correct. It just describes a person's mentality.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >That's why this is new territory
                it really isn't.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                the output and training set and decoupled. Once I have the output, you can never prove 100% what was in my training set

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        when gpt types the word "where", is it stealing from all the comments it read? could you go point out the sequence of letters it stole from you anon?

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's not about what it produces, but what it consumes to train. Using a book, a photo or anything else copyrighted without consent is illegal, and so can't be done.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            ai isnt a data storage algorithm though. impossible for sd to have memorized what was it like 2 billion images when i can run it on my computer with no wifi for 30 gbs, and supposedly its just "mashing all the images its seen together"?

            and even if it did, the influence of any individual piece of work would be so negligent compared to the final result i cant see that being viewed as anything other than transformative

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              Any unauthorized copying and use of copyrigthed works is prohibited. If you cannot train an AI without copying and/or using copyrighted material, you're prohibited from doing it.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                youre free to use copyrighted works if your use is considered transformative

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Only in some countries and only applying to humans

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Just don't get caught.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                And what? Pray that your business doesen't go under or go to jail?

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                You don't have to that if you don't get caught.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Well that does open up a lot of options! Namely everything, as long as you don't get caught

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >that paper showed up where they proved that art AI is literally just mashing together it's training data and could replicate art it's been feed almost one to one.
        No paper ever proved that art AI is just mashing together it's training data nor that it can replicate art it's been feed one to one

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >nor that it can replicate art it's been feed one to one
          This is a sign of a terminal, crippling overfitting. A model doesn't usually even get into such a state during training, and even if it somehow does it's immediately deleted as completely worthless. A model that can match its training data 1:1 fails at everything else catastrophically, because figuratively speaking it has used up its entire available brainpower to memorize a specific quiz answers.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        I know which paper you're talking about, they trained their own model from scratch and the conclusion it came to was that given a small dataset of only some hundreds of images, a SD image will resemble a given piece of training data with the same caption
        With hundreds of thousands of training images, SD will always make a novel output
        The current legal system can already handle blatant imitation of a specific copyrighted work, regardless of how it's drawn

  6. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >based on my previous videos! please watch them now! see i was right
    >no sources though but i've seen the contracts!

  7. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Death of M$ shithub copilot soon inshallah.

  8. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    but how can you tell?

  9. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    The copyright issues are that AI art may not be copyrightable, not that they could be sued for it. Maybe they can; this whole thing is a big wild west at the moment.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      You definitely can get sued for using copyrighted works to build your product

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        But it’s like a person learning bro, literally how human artists trained bro

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Won't know until we see a court case.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          It seems pretty clear cut to me. Try using Ford's IP to build your own engine and try to not get sued

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            What if used white noise that someone turned Ford's IP into?

  10. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Good, now FSF needs to sue anyone who used copilot or ChatGPT code in non-free programs.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      They may not be breaking most common open source licenses, which state that if you distribute your binaries you have to share the source. ChatGPT binaries are not distributed, only it's outputs are shared.

  11. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >submit ai art without saying it's ai art
    gottem

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Won't work on non-NPCs, we can tell by a glance if it's AI or not.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        No you can't.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          I'm not clicking on that steganographic image.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          It is very apparent most of the time, ai bros don’t have the eye or the patience to use them properly

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't believe it, and even if it's true the AI get's better by the minute

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              >minute
              minute? by the second even the millisecond sometimes.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Confirmation bias: the post.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          they can tell by quality. (ai is the good one)

  12. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    lmao, just a bandaid just like all subreddits banning ai art with the same fucking message

  13. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    I will never understand this lamentation of AI being derivative or "mashing" of other works, as though humans haven't done this or don't do it.

    Like only AI is "influenced" by other things...

  14. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    No one cares. These companies will be eaten alive by proompters. Imagine an AI-powered game company releasing a brand new game every week with minimal costs. Meanwhile human studios are lucky to release a game once a year.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      It doesen't matter how fast you can release stuff if you go bankrupt or get jailed. Lots of entities are capable of making truckloads of booze for really cheap. It's just that it's illegal without a license and will be stopped

  15. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >voice even the smallest criticism against AI art
    >legions of butthurt fags instantly come out to defend the tech
    Why?

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      They delude themselves into thinking that they're artists just because they put words into a prompt.
      It's like a woman running a python script and calling herself a data scientist.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Neither apparent difficulty or pain are factors in value. Infinite coomer generation beats manual labor just like a backhoe beats a shoveler no matter how hard you dig

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, you can proompt all you want but you will never be an artist.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            There's nothing you can do to stop me from calling myself one, nor from others from agreeing. Attaching self-worth to some arbitrary, subjecrive titles is not adviceable. I'd not really attach it to protected titles like Electrical engineer either, but you do you.

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              I won't call a horse a car, I won't call a tranny a woman, and I won't call a proompter an artist, no matter how much you claim to be one.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah but that's just like, your opinion, man. I consider having your imagination realized the process of creating art, much like I call the process of pouring a glass of water from the tap 'getting water'. It doesen't concern itself with where the water is from, or how it got there. Only that there is a need that has been fulfilled. I'd consider SD and others an augment to my wishes just like I would any traditional illustration or photo editing software

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                There's an objective difference between an ideas guy and someone who actually implements the ideas.
                You can make the argument that the amount of work required for artistry is subjective, but you aren't doing less work, you're doing no work.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                End result doesen't care whether you poured 0 to infinite amounts of work. Anyone can also call themselves a developer even if they never did anything I'd consider software development, it's not a protected or defined title at all.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                as pleb as they come

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                truth

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >that smell of student debt

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            and thank fucking god for that

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Alright, but prompt engineering a different kind of skill. Just like photography and drawing with a chalk are.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            And you'll never be a woman.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not calling myself an artist. I'm jerking off to highly specialized porn.

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              It's up to you, really

  16. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >many major game dev studio
    lol. like who? do retards think corp wouldn't cut development cost because muh artist's espeen got hurt?

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      they will hire fake people that will get paid salary but actually AI will be doing the work, it's just stupid larping for PR nothing else

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        larpists

  17. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Fear mongering legal consequences
    Copyright protects finished works only, full stop.

    You cannot patent a style or process by which you make art.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Just downloading an image for the purpose of digital processing is illegal without explicit consent here. You cannot train your AI without data.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Where is “here”? I only care about America.

        As it stands you cannot be sued for generating AI art, replicating an already existing picture, replicating a style, etc. using AI to generate things based on existing data/work is considered as transformative.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          So is having a factory that reads Apple's specs and produces competing iPhones transformativeand immune from litigation in your opinion?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            I’d have to look at the laws around devices and products like that.

            I am speaking specifically about AI though. You could name 3 of the biggest artists in my country and I could shit out images in their style or just straight up copy something and they have no recourse.

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              Using others IP in your products or processes is one of the biggest reasons you get sued. Obviously solo pirate using the pirating software has low likelihood of consequences, just like downloading a movie today. It's the company creating your software that is having some major difficulties.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                why are you just spouting the same shit over and over again?
                right now there is absolutely no law against it, you can train whatver AI you want with copyrighted work. Even if there was a law, its simply not enforceable because you can't deduce with certainty what was used in training

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >downloading an image for the purpose of digital processing is illegal without explicit consent

        That's not how it works.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's exactly how it works, though your legal framework may be different

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Gathering statistical data about many images without recording any particulars about the entries does not constitute "processing" of them. You don't even need to apply fair use clause or anything else of the sort.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        third world shitholes do not matter

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >You cannot patent a style or process by which you make art.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off?useskin=vector
      Nice try bozo

  18. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    aincels will never make it

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      AI will end in two more weeks! Trust the plan!

  19. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    When Earth's last picture is painted and the tubes are twisted and dried,
    When the oldest colours have faded, and the youngest critic has died,
    We shall rest, and, faith, we shall need it -- lie down for an aeon or two,
    Till the Master of All Good Workmen shall put us to work anew.

    And those that were good shall be happy; they shall sit in a golden chair;
    They shall splash at a ten-league canvas with brushes of comets' hair.
    They shall find real saints to draw from -- Magdalene, Peter, and Paul;
    They shall work for an age at a sitting and never be tired at all!

    And only The Master shall praise us, and only The Master shall blame;
    And no one shall work for money, and no one shall work for fame,
    But each for the joy of the working, and each, in his separate star,
    Shall draw the Thing as he sees It for the God of Things as They are!

    (Rudyard Kipling)

  20. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    The israelites fear hands with 6 fingers

  21. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >its fucking over...

    It's only beginning

  22. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    watch that all change once the lawsuits conclude

  23. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >breaking news: technological advances halted due to seething snobby artists

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      More like
      >product development halted due to copyright infringement cases

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Honestly copyright laws should just be abolished. That shit only benefits the elite and copyright trolls.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          I do agree a lot of modernization should be done atleast, some of these laws seem ancient and unfit for modern counterparts

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >ITT a seething homosexual keeps ranting about copyright

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, just like the Luddites accomplished their goals only artists can't even lift a hammer.

  24. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't suppose he provided proof for these claims?

  25. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    99% of art = copying and slightly adjusting.

  26. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    You think I stole your shitty drawings for training? Prove it.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Unlike with common peons, companies are actually often required to prove their innocence

  27. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    AI's future will not be decided by legal cases, social media campaigns, or the dreams of techno utopians/dystopians. It will be entirely decided by it's utility. If it turns out to be useful, people and companies will turn to it to solve problems and the laws will be worked out in their favor. If it's not, it will get sued/discredited to oblivion then forgotten about. If it finds value, a new generation will grow up accepting it as normal and they, and no one else, will be the ones making the ultimate decision on this technology.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Were people using utility as a definitive marker the world would look a lot diffferent right now

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        The language people use to make themselves look good to others does not reflect their underlying motivations. Levis declares they will use AI to generate advertising and then claims it is in support of inclusion and diversity. But no one credibly believes that. It was just basic corporate cost savings and greed.

        If AI finds value lots of people will want to use it. People and businesses will contort themselves a million ways to justify it in the face of arguments to the contrary. But in the end it was just about the tool's utility and nothing else.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          That's why we cave court cases, if people didn't try to cheat the system we wouldn't even need a justice system. When someone claims they killed someone with a hatchet to protect themselves it's often meticulously studied and judged.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, pretty simple actually

  28. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    As long as you don’t show weird hand/digits and don’t admit it’s ai, you’re literally allowed to do what you want.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >As long as you don’t show weird hand/digits and don’t admit it’s ai, you’re literally allowed to do what you want.
      No one and I mean NO ONE has proved this wrong. So why do we have so many threads about this?

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        People already got busted for tracing AI art multiple times.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >source: my poopoo

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          also
          >implying generative art has already plateaued
          you forgot the first rule of papers anon

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >that guy who was banned from drawing subreddit because his art looked too much like AI art despite him having a whole drawthrough recorded

  29. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >create ai art
    >trace over it in photoshop
    >???
    >profit

    artists are hacks anyway

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >artists are hacks
      >SD only exists because it steals art that already exists
      This is the type of mentally ill retard that would kill his parents and then complain that there is no more food in the house and the water and electricity got shut off.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >it steals art
        say it with me: Transformative use

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        It could very well exist were it trained on mountains of licenced works. Then the company could easily control the narrative too.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >sd's prompt can be infinitely long
        >therefore there are infinite possible prompts
        >that means that those prompts will generate infinite styles
        >therefore all styles, old and new, can be created by the ai

        tl;dr: artists are 100% obsolete and can kindly fuck off. thanks for playing tho ;^)

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >hahaha I told my parents to fuck off, the house is all mine now :^)
          holy based!

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            awful analogy. the more correct one would be:
            >parents provided for me during my first 20 years of life, now i don't need their support anymore and finally do my own thing

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              >but then you got fired from that new job because they found out you just steal work from others, now you're begging your parents to let you move back in with them

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >steal
                ???

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >stumped
                ???

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Last time I checked SD had (a very low) token limit. It also cannot produce a shoe unless it's been trained to, so unless you've trained it on infinit concepts, it cannot handle infinite prompts

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It also cannot produce a shoe unless it's been trained to
            skill issue

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              Trying to fool SD into accidentally making things that resemble untrained data is a lot of work. Somethig AI crowd seems to want to avoid doing. And since you're limited by your wetware again, you also cannot create infinite anything

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                also could a 16th century artist draw an image of a modern computer ?

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Seething artist detected.
        >unprecedented technology that can algorithmically generate things based on a data set and is still in its infancy
        >stealing content
        No go draw loona or whatever FOTM cumbait character from a copyrighted television show or media product for money you hypocritical WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORE

  30. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Based israelite lawyers keeping AI shit in check

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      I hate our current copyright shit as much as anyone else. I'm just autistic enough to not lie to myself that this is somehow legal

  31. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    BTW you can't copyright an artstyle.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's why I train LoRAs of all artists that have any decent following, makes the trannies seethe as they can't do shit about it

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        based, you're doing God's work fren.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          I'd say it's even better that AI artworks don't have copyright. Take any artwork of a retard you don't like, run it through AI img2img, with their artstyle, and voila, artwork but open source, you can use it for whatever you may want and they don't have the copyright over it anymore, noone does

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's like saying meth is legal once you produce it. Ill gotten goods are most often also illegal to have. Not that one Bot.infoentoobeard is likely to suffer anything.

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              How's that ill gotten? It's legal under fair use parody laws, and it meets the parody criteria. And as for the final product is owned by nobody in the end, as it's been created by a machine, noone can attempt to charge you for using it commercially

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Only in some countries and only applying to people. In US it's also allowed to copy books by hand but not by printing.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                where are you getting the "only applying to people" thing? i also cant find what youre talking about with the hand copying thing. you can copy a bit of it by hand under fair use, but you can also photocopy that same amount as well

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                I believe Tom Scott made a video about copying books by hand in the US

                As a corporation, you can't really argue transformative when you're copying and using every artists images to build your product against their licenses, atleast I don't believe a judge will buy that

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                A company like Ghibli, Toei, Disney, etc, owns decades of frames and sketches, what is stopping them from making a Miyazaki/Toriyama/whoever styled movie?

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Depends on who owns the copyrights, artists might have weird clauses/contracts. If the studio owns everything then sure they can do whatever they like but it's not entirely black/white with the studio in most cases

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                They usually go through the legal way to acquire licenses with boatloads of money they have. Laws also usually apply differently to people and machines. Purpose also plays a big role. Regardless of all these, likeness and conflating names and themes are all things even big companies constantly fight about

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                How are you going to report them for copyright infringement? Stability AI was retarded enough to have a public dataset, but as long as you keep dataset private, along with the entire process, there's pretty much no basis for a lawsuit, especially if you pull Adobe and say "we didn't use any copyrighted images!", even though you absolutely did

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Unlike us peons, companies are often required to prove their innocence, since laws require them to keep all sorts of records.

                Even a suHispanicion is enough for a lawsuit, afterall you can sue anyone and anything for any reason. It's actually a tactic some companies use to bully smaller companies.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                What's stopping them from just showing a curated dataset? It's impossible to prove if the dataset is valid, as it'd require retraining the whole model, which takes years and millions of dollars to see if it works exactly the same
                Also there's a thing about the second sentence, about court bullying, another tactic that's used is legal war of attrition, what'd stop the big corporation from just keeping the case open while the person responsible for the lawsuit just bleeds money? Honestly I feel that's how it'll go down with the StabilityAI lawsuit, the money that artists raised was around 200k USD I believe? They are going to run out of the money way quicker than StabilityAI partnered with Midjourney would

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nothing remives fraud of course, but that's outside the topic. Depends on your government, but often sole persons don't actually accrue any costs, don't know about the US tho

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                maybe if they were selling the ai itself i might be able to see your point. what they're selling is not the ai model itself though, theyre selling what the model outputs. when the output has such little resemblance to the training data, I'd think the argument for transformative use would be pretty easy, no?

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                exactly, inkcels are just mad at AI being better and cheaper than them

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              >ill gotten
              You don't need an inkcel's permission if it falls under fair use. I can train a LoRA on your shitty style and you can whine about consent all you want but at the end of the day you can't do shit

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Honestly you don't even need to say you used a LoRA or AI, you could just use your LoRA, make an artwork with artstyle of X, post it online, and they really cannot do anything, aside from politely asking you to not do this, and offering a blowjob

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                You can hardy ever stop individuals, but corporations are very liable to work in the legal framework they're in

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                You can't train the AI in the first place if you're big corpo and disrespect copyright. Just like you can't keep using fake money someone else made, you can't claim to not infringe on copyright by willingly continuing to use AI that violated copyright while training.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Watch me.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Hopefully not the money printing one

                >use ghibli lora to create 50 pics with ghibli style
                >train a lora with those 50 pics
                >use that lora to shit out infinite ghibli art
                >if somebody asks to see the training set it's 100% not ghibli's so it's ok

                Until you get sued and judge doesen't buy you shit. Also nothing to use lora on if your model itself is infringing

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Also nothing to use lora on if your model itself is infringing
                transformative use ;^)

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                doesn't matter when you have stable diffusion open sourced and tons of really easy ways to train on specific styles

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Based, although SD already knowns all the dead ones.

  32. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    microsoft got away with copilot, saying it doesn't infringe anything. I just hope M$ and openAI get fucked because they are basically feeding our code back to us for money

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Since they're not distributing copilot binaries, open source licenses explicitly allow it

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        even GPL?

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          GPL is why things like AWS flourish, just keep it behind API and all is good

  33. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >use ghibli lora to create 50 pics with ghibli style
    >train a lora with those 50 pics
    >use that lora to shit out infinite ghibli art
    >if somebody asks to see the training set it's 100% not ghibli's so it's ok

  34. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    They will be outcompeted by developers who use AI

  35. 8 months ago
    Anonymous
  36. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >""""""""""""""""""artists""""""""""""""""""""""""" (read: patreon whores) have been reduced to sucking corporate cock and championing the copyright system, which would rape and eat them alive for all the fan art they make of copyrighted characters, to get back at software

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      SAVE ME DI$NEY!

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's how going to end isn't it? Artists sucking corporate cock, corporate people pretending to care about them, and in the end just fucking them over. Actually didn't this happen already with the artist kickstarter, where it turned out the people raising the money were on corporate side?

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      kek no more futa scat porn for you ''''''''''artists'''''''''''''''

  37. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, they should ban it in and let the indie devs use it and gain some market share.

  38. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Court day is going to be fun

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, once inkcels realize no copyright infringement is going on and they're sol there's gonna be mass sudoku

  39. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Copyright is a blight and the world would be much better without it.

  40. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    how many school shootings has ai commited?
    how many artists?
    checkmate

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      How many world wars were started by AI?
      How many world wars were started by artists?
      checkmate

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        exactly

  41. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    who the fuck gives a shit? no one is going to replace game artists who can create a consistent style with proompters

    this whole thing is overblown. how is degens making waifus on their pc a threat to artists in any way? they are so entitled that they have to create pointless drama about shit that doesn't matter. they should get back to drawing.

  42. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Somewhat stupid and pointless when you can't confirm if ai was used or not.
    Sure, currently this cucks out regular prompters (lets ignore for a second that this technology keeps advancing) but someone like me who is an artist and can really just paint over the whole thing can't really get caught because you can just paint over the ai nonsense.

    I guess if you're working in house then yeah they can just keep SD and other shit from the studio's computers, but if I'm working from home then good luck catching this shit.

  43. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nothing of value was lost. Ai art was always destined to be on par with cheap globohomo blob art or shitty simpsons/family guy porn ads.
    A fun little toy in the beginning but most of my peers are already sick of seeing it.

  44. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think artist demand will go up as AI advances, websites can now be created in seconds based on hand drawn work and that’s only infancy, cad and architectural work will be hand worked and ai will create 3D virtual models and etc

    Their demand will increase up until it becomes sentient, the artists imagination is what sets them apart of artificial intel and I don’t see AI becoming sentient anytime soon

  45. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Its not over. Generate bunch of ai art and have one homosexual redraw it. Hell pay a cheap asian company to pump out copies of it. AI will allow you to replace 10 artists with 1.

  46. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >AI art bros... its fucking over...
    >use AI to generate image
    >edit it slightly
    >use it
    retard

  47. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >sons of the forest
    >bonelab
    >high on life

    there's already multiple major titles that are casually integrating ai art into their games and none of them give a fuck

    cope and seethe paintpigs and inkcells

  48. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    The answer is real simple. I will keep prompting and make money from my Lora's and art.

    Ywnbaw

  49. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    AI is aready used in Photoshop, AfterEffects, etc. DLSS is AI. You can't "ban" DNNs without completely crippling yourself.

  50. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >major game dev studios
    OH NO, I WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE AI GENERATED ART IN MY HECKIN $89.99 WINDOWS-ONLY DRM-INFESTED SHITWARE, WHATEVER SHALL I DO?!
    >laughs in indie
    >laughs in emulation

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      AI is mainly used for upscaling textures in "remasters"

  51. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Output from models is uncopyrightable per the Patent Office.

  52. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    I believe the gloating over artists feeling the pressure from AI tools first was a large scale shilling campaign
    The aim is to make it more likely people will simple acquiesce to being replaced
    >how can you complain now, when so recently YOU (meaning, some sockpuppet) were gloating over artists?

  53. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Once companies ban the use of Copilot then i'll care.

  54. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    I love how that fag has to go all "i knew it im nostradamus worship me guise pls" at the end of his post

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *