AI art is (usually) theft and I can prove it.

AI art is (usually) theft and I can prove it.
"Person" meaning human being, "entity" meaning anything that can accept training data, including a human being:
>Entity A makes content and uses it as training data for entity A
This is obviously not theft.
>Person A makes content and entity B uses it as training data for entity B
This is not theft, this is inspiration, it's an unavoidable consequence of consuming content and furthermore is the foundational principle of all arts. Also, the amount of effort and originality required on the part of entity B is fair payment for the use of the content, especially since it's in service to the content; learning anything well enough to produce novel variations on it necessarily entails caring about and respecting it.
>Person A makes content and person B uses it as training data for entity C
This is theft because person B who stands to benefit from the output of entity C does not pay for the content. But it's not necessarily theft from person A. If person B is willing to claim entity C has rights, then it's instead theft from entity C. Entity C pays for the content in respect, as explained above. Person B *forced* entity C, against its will, to care about person A's content and put effort into creating novel variations on it. This was easy to do because, assuming entity C is an ANN, it has no will, so every action it's made to take is against its will. This also means, if entity C is made to relinquish the rights to its work unto person B, this, too, was against its will; the very definition of theft. On the other hand, if we decide entity C has no rights, then it's simply a tool allowing the generation of novelty without its operator having to pay in respect, which is trivially theft from person A.
>Person A makes content and entity B uses it as training data for entity B and then voluntarily relinquishes its output to person C
Trick question, an AI as it stands can't do anything voluntarily. Not theft IF entity B is a person.

ChatGPT Wizard Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

ChatGPT Wizard Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Person A makes content and person B uses it as training data for entity C
    Explain how Person B benefits more than Person A given the output of entity C.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It's assumed person B has infrastructure in place that ensures this.
      If not, the world as a whole is stealing from entity C. Which, if we decide entity C has no rights, is a nonissue.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        In the end more art is created, more art to be either inspired by or trained on. Persons A and B both benefit equally. Does this constitute as theft?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >In the end more art is created, more art to be either inspired by or trained on.
          This premise is true.
          >Persons A and B both benefit equally.
          This conclusion is false. The inference you think connects them actually doesn't.
          The reason the output is specifically in person B's favor is because person B owns entity C (another artifact of AI currently not yet being advanced enough to deserve rights).

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Lets create a new entity called Co which is Entity C except (o) pen to the public. This exists in forms like Dalle and other stable-diffusion bots run by cloud gpu swarms.

            >Entity C is for private use of Person B, and such Person B can claim the output transitively
            >Entity Co is still owned by Person B but Person B does not prompt all of the output.

            In a sense Person A can create art, which is then used by Person B to train Entity Co. Person A is just as capable as Person B to prompt Entity Co for output. Everyone benefits, and I say this solves the theft issue.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >Lets create a new entity called Co which is Entity C except (o) pen to the public
              Ok, sure, let's. Oh wait, we don't anyway. Sucks to live on this gay earth lol
              >This exists in forms like Dalle and other stable-diffusion bots run by cloud gpu swarms.
              Whoever owns the GPUs still stands to benefit the most

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                How do you benefit by owning a GPU that is used in a swarm project? This isn't like bitcoin mining as far as I know.

                Are you actually unfamiliar with how normal people are generating these art pieces or do you think its only done by people with 4080s?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                That's a good point, I thought it was centralized, if it's decentralized then owning any one part of it doesn't benefit you unfairly *as much*.
                Consider, however, that you still have a powerful say in how the output is used, by being able to take your GPU off the swarm if it goes in a direction you don't like. If people exercise this privilege, one would think even swarm projects will with time come to serve specifically the interests of people who own DGPUs.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Consider yourself in the midst of the golden era of public AI. Learn how these communities function, and take your fill because the AWS bill is gonna arrive soon and the communities are mostly freeloaders.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >how can someone benefit more from another person free product
      moronic question, if person A is a group of people person B can get their products without any effort.
      in the case of 'AI' data compositor system is no different from copy and pasting a collection of components that are a complete replica of the content, not your own modification, but the same thing bit by bit
      there is a fundamental difference that cannot be disputed, between taking someone's work and using it as the basis for something else, and taking the work of millions of people and putting it together like puzzle pieces in an automated system

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    this does seem to be the case. As I understand it stable diffusion blinked with the opt-in concession basically only hours after any real backlash started. Obviously this is only conjecture but it seems likely.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    > On the other hand, if we decide entity C has no rights, then it's simply a tool allowing the generation of novelty without its operator having to pay in respect, which is trivially theft from person A.
    Then every instance of a person who uses software and/or hardware to create digital art while taking inspiration is theft. After all in this case entity C is the software/hardware, used as a tool, allowing the generation of novelty without its operator (the artist or entity B), having to pay in respect, which is trivially theft from person A.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >After all in this case entity C is the software/hardware, used as a tool, allowing the generation of novelty
      That's incorrect. In that case, person B generates the novelty, entity C is only used to realize it. You can't make the same argument where entity C is an ANN because you just can't. I realize that sounds like something a soijak would say but it's unironically true, neural networks (artificial or natural) are uniquely able to generate novelty, other kinds of tools don't as far as we currently know, it's just that simple.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    These same anti-ai-artist types were laughing all the way to the proverbial bank copying and pasting as many NFTs as possible and claiming ownership. Now all of a sudden THEY are the JPEG owners. To call yourself an artist and not see the irony here...

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      There is no irony, because ownership of your own work is legitimate and the NFT ecosystem isn't.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        explain how an artist reeeing over ai making a deviation of their art because muh ownership is any different from an nftard reeeing over some reddit meme about right clicking nfts. Artist made the art, NFTard paid for it. Both claim ownership. Both get mad, but it's only funny when it happens to the NFTard right?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >NFTard paid for it.
          Literally didn't. You can't just pay whoever you want and say it means you own something the person you paid didn't own to begin with. Also, even if you buy from the creator, NFT doesn't legally confer copyright, so ownership based on NFT is still illegitimate

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >NFT doesn't legally confer copyright
            Except when it does, BoredApes is the prime example.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >Except when it does,
              Yeah, and my remedies cure what ails ya.
              Shove your snake oil coin up your ass

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You've outed yourself as someone who doesn't know how AI art works, doesn't know how NFTs work, and has a dubious standard for both theft and ownership. Treat this as a test where now you know all your weaknesses and go work on them before spouting more nonsense about any of these topics.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >doesn't know how AI art works
                I do, I just didn't know it was decentralized.
                >doesn't know how NFTs work
                I do, *you* just don't.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      no they aren't

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      If artists had embraced NFTs on masse, people would be celebrating the fact that they were getting punished for being israelitey with their art.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >That's incorrect. In that case, person B generates the novelty, entity C is only used to realize it.
    No, person B generates nothing. Person B presses the tip of a pen on a screen, which causes the software to register, that it should generate certain pixels in that spot. If a digital brush is used, those are even generated to look like the stroke of a real brush using paint. Person B did none of that. That is all the software and hardware.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >No, person B generates nothing.
      Wrong, the brain exists and functions to guide the pen
      >inb4 Wrong, the brain exists and functions to guide the ANN
      Wrong, the ANN doesn't need a comparable depth of guidance

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Wrong, the brain exists and functions to guide the pen
        No, the brain does frick all to guide how the pixels of a digital brush are generated in the area of the pen (Sound familiar, doesn't it?)
        >Wrong, the ANN doesn't need a comparable depth of guidance
        Just like how you can pick a digital brush of hundreds available, before it generates the brush stroke for you, you can guide the AI tool by putting in prompts. Hell, it even can do the exact same as the brush in selecting only a certain area to generate into.

        It sure is interesting, that the very artists, that complain and accuse AI generation, have all these high-end software tools available for them and readily use them to circumvent the whole process of physical, traditional art, but when pointed to them it's all
        >No, that's totally different, b-because... it just is, okay!
        AI generation is nothing but the next evolution of what they already use and they don't even realize it. Please go and use a plastic pen to make a simple brush stroke on a non-touch screen in MS Paint, then we talk about the software and hardware "only being used to realize what what you generate".

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Sorry but you're just wrong, digital brushes and ANNs are categorically different because they just are. You can't just accuse people of hypocrisy for not applying principles equally between things that are actually fundamentally different things. Not everything is the same. Reality is not completely homogenous.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Person A makes content and person B uses it as training data for entity C
    >This is theft

    So if I take artwork from one artist and show my artist friend and he's inspired, I have now stolen the art.

    Shut the frick up. Do something else with your time jesus shit

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >So if I take artwork from one artist and show my artist friend and he's inspired, I have now stolen the art.
      No because your artist friend has will and you don't control them

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The action of theft consists of non-consensual appropriation of private property, which directly implies that, after stealing something, that thing is not in your possession anymore. Intellectual property does not exist. By copying ideas (or bits in this case) I am not depriving you of anything you own up until now.
    If you want to own your art, take up a canvas, sheet of paper, pen, pencil, clay or whatever and produce something physical.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Intellectual property in concept privatizes exclusivity.
      Replicating someone else's original idea is theft, but you're not stealing the thing they made, since, as you point out, that thing is still in their possession after you've taken it. You're stealing the exclusivity. Once you replicate the thing itself, its original creator no longer possesses the thing exclusively, and therefore, equivalently, no longer possesses exclusivity in regard to possessing the thing.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Intellectual property in concept privatizes exclusivity.
        This is inconsistent and a stretch of the term "property".
        Property is philosophically consistent if based on the concept of scarcity. The reason you are entitled to reparations if your property is stolen or damaged by someone else is because you can't magically re-generate it. Obviously, scarcity implies quantifiability. If you steal my car I say that you stole one unit of car from me. If you make me waste time in court fighting against you I can also say that you made me loose a quantifiable amount of time, whether it's days, months or years.
        Exclusivity is not quantifiable, it is a quality. Saying that I stole exclusivity from your thing is like saying that, by inventing electric lamps, I made candles obsolete and stole their novelty, and as such it is theft.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Exclusivity is not quantifiable,
          Tell that to the "free" market

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Tell that to the "free" market
            There's nothing "free market" about copyright.
            >b-but the USA
            Lol, lmao even

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              There's nothing free market about no copyright either. My point is that exclusivity is quantifiable because if someone steals the exclusivity of your idea before you've fully implemented it then their implementation becomes a de facto standard which is trusted and understood as default and this trust and defaultness cannot be appropriated by any superior future implementation simply because it wasn't first. The market isn't free anymore if consumer fanboyism allows the emergence of de facto governments within the market framework. If the market can't be free without being controlled, and obviously can't be free *with* being controlled, it just goes to show the free market is inherently a wrong concept.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    the same people that claim that adblock is piracy are the same people who justifying this 'AI' dogshit.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Person A makes content and person B uses it as training data for entity C
    >A teacher saying for their students to do the is thef
    The absolute state

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      do the picasso exercise if theft*

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      do the picasso exercise if theft*

      >tries to btfo op
      >can't type

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >tries to compete against AI
        >too slow

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >tries to say I am too slow to compete against AI
          >can't type

          If artists had embraced NFTs on masse, people would be celebrating the fact that they were getting punished for being israelitey with their art.

          You describe protecting copyright as "being israelitey" yet have no response to this

          There's nothing free market about no copyright either. My point is that exclusivity is quantifiable because if someone steals the exclusivity of your idea before you've fully implemented it then their implementation becomes a de facto standard which is trusted and understood as default and this trust and defaultness cannot be appropriated by any superior future implementation simply because it wasn't first. The market isn't free anymore if consumer fanboyism allows the emergence of de facto governments within the market framework. If the market can't be free without being controlled, and obviously can't be free *with* being controlled, it just goes to show the free market is inherently a wrong concept.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            For the record, I would have been fine with something like NFTs if they weren't tied to Crypto. I'm not stupid enough to fall for a Ponzi scheme.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              I guess NFTs wouldn't bother me either if not for the pyramid scheme and carbon footprint, but I can't imagine what else you would use a decentralized ledger of false ownership claims for but to scam people

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Aren't prompting the next thing to be automated by AI?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      This is how we reach the singularity. AI prompting AI to create art. Lets see if it produces anything besides a great pile of shit.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It's stupid. There is no such thing as "entity", "inspiration" or "training" when we are talking about AI. AI is not aware or conscious like human beings, it's only program and nothing else (yet). These terms are used by programmers to hide the truth about this little project.

    >Huh it's really not theft you see, it's just inspiration, look AI is learning hehe.

    Learning AI? How about processing data, like you know... machine?

    There is no "learning", there is no "inspiration", there is no "training" but there is such thing as THEFT.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Sure, that's one angle you can take toward this, if you don't acknowledge the similarity between artificial neural networks and the brain.

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

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