Because AIs are just statistical models that don't have inspiration, they just save and apply the probability of certain pixel being of one colour instead of another.
Is not the inspiration within the prompts the human chooses? Because that's all humans do when they make art, get an idea make it, the prompts are just the idea written verbally. Additionally, you clearly know very little of AI art, because cleverly constructed prompts flawlessly make images indifferenciable from human-made art. Additionally, there is so much more to AI art than just "copying" look at the file sizes of AI models, they can be as small as 2gb and still recreate any scinario you can think of. This literally can't be done purely via copying, it's abstract, equally if not more so than the human mind's art.
I've noticed that the artists most angry about AI are twitter furries and all-digital patreon whores who make fotm stuff of copyrighted characters.
If a banana taped to a wall, a urinal, and pollock's random splashes are art then AI art is art. >muh skill
art is not defined by how hard it is to make >muh intent
plenty of existing art incorporates things the artist had no part in designing or composing
Funny how leftoids' definition of stuff like gender is fluid and relative but their definition for art is extremely rigorous all of a sudden.
Nobidy likes finding out their skillset has been made obsolete, it's a personal tragedy. Of course we wouldn't be here had we not sacrificed them in the name of our gain, so they may take solace in that atleast
AI draw me 50 furry catgirls >48 abominations, 2 you could work with >Spend half an hour doing img2img on it
AI draw me 50 furry catgirls with bee knee sneezing fetish >50 images that look nothing like what you asked for
The thing is, these fetish images didn't exist before, but now they do. Who cares what parts they take from other works, they're now matching exactly what was requested. Peoplw with specific fetishes are having a field day
They probably have issues with copyright. Depending on where you live, using images ppsted online may be illegal without explicit written consent from esch one
Here's an example: in finland if you take a picture of someone standing in front of a highrise, you might need to get the permission of the owners (likely the residents) to publish that picture, since their building is in your picture, and they own the copyright to its imagery
But in this case the picture is an AI image of similar looking buildings that may or may not have used the buildings picture while being generated, so the precedent doesn't exist.
Copyright applies to copying, holding, using, distributing and viewing. If you can show the model used your images without your explicit consent (which they would have a record of), you could have a case against them. Of course that requires a country with strict copyright laws like aforementioned finland. Did you know showing youtube videos to other people is illegal? Since they all count as movies, you need a written permission from the uploader to show them in any kind of capacity. Author cannot override this unless making a specific, explicit claim that it uses a public domain or creative commons license. Even then attribution is mandatory always, regardless of copyright holders opinion
>Posts another example that doesn't involve AI generated content
Again, there is no precedent
2 months ago
Anonymous
There are plenty of precedents for using someones property for your own gain eithout their consent. It does not mstter what you do afterwards.
2 months ago
Anonymous
In terms of intellectual property what you're referring to is copyright >look at some paintings >make art inspired by them >copyright can't touch me because my work is transformative
2 months ago
Anonymous
Except your'e not looking at it, you're making a digital copy of it, and using it in your very physical machines. Keep in mind hand copying books is also legal, but producing mass copies is not. Laws sre very different to humans and software
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Except your'e not looking at it, you're making a digital copy of it,
An AI model is not a copy, the SD model is under 10gb, if they had made a compression algo that could copy every image on the internet into a thumb drive they would be marketing that instead of the AI. >copying books by hand is legal
it's not, and also you're talking about COPYING again, which this isn't
2 months ago
Anonymous
You need digital copies to train your model. Just downloading an image without consent is a copyright violation. Downloading a youtube video is piracy here.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Everything you view online is already downloaded
2 months ago
Anonymous
Doesen't matter, copyright law is arbitrary. Downloafing for the purposes of viewing as a human is different from making a copy, even though they are actually the same thing. Thus if you download an image with the intent of not only viewing it as a human, it is not allowed and you can be sued.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Training an ai isn't making a copy of anything you dullard. No more so than your brain when it remembers something, at least.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Did you not read my comment? How are you going to train a model without data? Just having an image that is copyrighted is already an infringement. You cannot have any digital copies of copyrighted works at all on any of your machines ever without explicit written consent from authors.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Training a model isn't copying anything lol. Unless remembering your favourite song is illegal too... fuckin doylem. You can't even get any of the original data out of the model. It'd have to be original.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Are you playing dumb on purpose? How are you going to train the model if you don't have any images?
2 months ago
Anonymous
> Downloading a youtube video is piracy here. > piracy
2 months ago
Anonymous
I know right? It's reallt difficult ro do anything by the books here
So does the "artist" who made this include all of the shitty doodles and sketches on their 13 year old deviantart when they show someone one of their finalized pieces?
And yet not a single artist has ever said "here's my finished product, please look at every mistake I've made up to this point otherwise it's not art."
Picrel is a blend of psychedelic fantasy and surrealism. Basically the aesthetic blueprint of modern sci-fi.
AI will only replace twitter commissions, shonen/capeshit comic artists, and dicky drawers. What's important is the meaning and purpose of an oeuvre, what you can learn from it. One Piece, K-On!, Bocchi the Rock!, Chainsaw man and Spy x Family are all souless unlike things like Squid Girl, Berserk, Lain, Angel's Egg, Tintin...
Ai is the only art
>not even a single woman in that video
sadge
If an artist remembers 5000 paintings and makes a painting based on the inspiration of those paintings, then why isn't AI art again?
Because AIs are just statistical models that don't have inspiration, they just save and apply the probability of certain pixel being of one colour instead of another.
So?
Most humans lack any inspiration either, and they make pretty good stuff. You don't need to be the best, just good and cheap enougg
That's where you are wrong. God provides inspiration.
Pentas of truth I guess
Holy fuck
Is not the inspiration within the prompts the human chooses? Because that's all humans do when they make art, get an idea make it, the prompts are just the idea written verbally. Additionally, you clearly know very little of AI art, because cleverly constructed prompts flawlessly make images indifferenciable from human-made art. Additionally, there is so much more to AI art than just "copying" look at the file sizes of AI models, they can be as small as 2gb and still recreate any scinario you can think of. This literally can't be done purely via copying, it's abstract, equally if not more so than the human mind's art.
I've noticed that the artists most angry about AI are twitter furries and all-digital patreon whores who make fotm stuff of copyrighted characters.
If a banana taped to a wall, a urinal, and pollock's random splashes are art then AI art is art.
>muh skill
art is not defined by how hard it is to make
>muh intent
plenty of existing art incorporates things the artist had no part in designing or composing
Funny how leftoids' definition of stuff like gender is fluid and relative but their definition for art is extremely rigorous all of a sudden.
BOT gays getting fired left and right kek
No one here works for gayman
You don't work for anyone now gay
I'm literally on the bus to work
Nobidy likes finding out their skillset has been made obsolete, it's a personal tragedy. Of course we wouldn't be here had we not sacrificed them in the name of our gain, so they may take solace in that atleast
AI draw me 50 furry catgirls
>48 abominations, 2 you could work with
>Spend half an hour doing img2img on it
AI draw me 50 furry catgirls with bee knee sneezing fetish
>50 images that look nothing like what you asked for
>AI draw me 50 furry catgirls with bee knee sneezing fetish
I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about so why would the robot?
No, but the people who do pay a LOT of money for it
The thing is, these fetish images didn't exist before, but now they do. Who cares what parts they take from other works, they're now matching exactly what was requested. Peoplw with specific fetishes are having a field day
>AI is not art.
Agreed, Ai art is though
Then artists shouldn't have a problem with it, right?
They probably have issues with copyright. Depending on where you live, using images ppsted online may be illegal without explicit written consent from esch one
Here's an example: in finland if you take a picture of someone standing in front of a highrise, you might need to get the permission of the owners (likely the residents) to publish that picture, since their building is in your picture, and they own the copyright to its imagery
But in this case the picture is an AI image of similar looking buildings that may or may not have used the buildings picture while being generated, so the precedent doesn't exist.
Copyright applies to copying, holding, using, distributing and viewing. If you can show the model used your images without your explicit consent (which they would have a record of), you could have a case against them. Of course that requires a country with strict copyright laws like aforementioned finland. Did you know showing youtube videos to other people is illegal? Since they all count as movies, you need a written permission from the uploader to show them in any kind of capacity. Author cannot override this unless making a specific, explicit claim that it uses a public domain or creative commons license. Even then attribution is mandatory always, regardless of copyright holders opinion
>Posts another example that doesn't involve AI generated content
Again, there is no precedent
There are plenty of precedents for using someones property for your own gain eithout their consent. It does not mstter what you do afterwards.
In terms of intellectual property what you're referring to is copyright
>look at some paintings
>make art inspired by them
>copyright can't touch me because my work is transformative
Except your'e not looking at it, you're making a digital copy of it, and using it in your very physical machines. Keep in mind hand copying books is also legal, but producing mass copies is not. Laws sre very different to humans and software
>Except your'e not looking at it, you're making a digital copy of it,
An AI model is not a copy, the SD model is under 10gb, if they had made a compression algo that could copy every image on the internet into a thumb drive they would be marketing that instead of the AI.
>copying books by hand is legal
it's not, and also you're talking about COPYING again, which this isn't
You need digital copies to train your model. Just downloading an image without consent is a copyright violation. Downloading a youtube video is piracy here.
Everything you view online is already downloaded
Doesen't matter, copyright law is arbitrary. Downloafing for the purposes of viewing as a human is different from making a copy, even though they are actually the same thing. Thus if you download an image with the intent of not only viewing it as a human, it is not allowed and you can be sued.
Training an ai isn't making a copy of anything you dullard. No more so than your brain when it remembers something, at least.
Did you not read my comment? How are you going to train a model without data? Just having an image that is copyrighted is already an infringement. You cannot have any digital copies of copyrighted works at all on any of your machines ever without explicit written consent from authors.
Training a model isn't copying anything lol. Unless remembering your favourite song is illegal too... fuckin doylem. You can't even get any of the original data out of the model. It'd have to be original.
Are you playing dumb on purpose? How are you going to train the model if you don't have any images?
> Downloading a youtube video is piracy here.
> piracy
I know right? It's reallt difficult ro do anything by the books here
It's taken several supercomputers at the tail end of moore's law to train a general AI to do addition with nothing but text input
It's taken all the time you've lived and things you've interacted with only for you to and up as a sorry, depressed failure.
Wow, hostile
So does the "artist" who made this include all of the shitty doodles and sketches on their 13 year old deviantart when they show someone one of their finalized pieces?
A lot of timelines do actually go years back all the way when posts were all negative
And yet not a single artist has ever said "here's my finished product, please look at every mistake I've made up to this point otherwise it's not art."
It's even better than art. It frees us from the artistic garden gnome.
Picrel is a blend of psychedelic fantasy and surrealism. Basically the aesthetic blueprint of modern sci-fi.
AI will only replace twitter commissions, shonen/capeshit comic artists, and dicky drawers. What's important is the meaning and purpose of an oeuvre, what you can learn from it. One Piece, K-On!, Bocchi the Rock!, Chainsaw man and Spy x Family are all souless unlike things like Squid Girl, Berserk, Lain, Angel's Egg, Tintin...
Any books or articles that discuss deeper the philosophical dilema of artistic creation and AI ?