How is AI art stealing?

I thought the whole idea of Stable Diffusion was to analyze thousands of pictures and fuse them into something new, essentially remixing to create something new.

The anti-AI art crowd is moronic, even the artist themselves have begun to use AI art to some extent.

ChatGPT Wizard Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

ChatGPT Wizard Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's stealing their thunder

  2. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >fuse them
    No.

  3. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's capitalist boot licker cope.

  4. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    There's a lawsuit in Congress and once it passes all AI art will become illegal and creating ai art will be a criminal offense.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Even if that passes and corporations go on a reluctant crusade, there is no losing Pandora's box.
      Do you think something like Steam is going to auto-purge all games that feature AI-art? Doubt it, they will deny knowing about it.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        AFAIK Steam is already banning AI art games that can't prove the AI was trained legally.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          oh? that's news to me? source?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >creating ai art will be a criminal offense.
      first amendment of the constitution allows generative ai output created from a prompt.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      You mean the one that was thrown out for being moronic and insane? Or is there another one

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >lawsuit in Congress
      >lawsuit
      >in Congress

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Just like piracy?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Idiot.

  5. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    AI art stealing because it was trained on copyrighted images. Corporations are making big money while original authors don't get any money in exchange.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Drawing is stealing because the artist was trained on copyrighted images. New artists are making big money while original authors don't get any money in exchange.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      it's practically impossible for a human artist to not be influenced by copyrighted art, either
      you'd have to have lived in a padded room all your life

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        it's almost like everything is a remix

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          it is, all you can really control is how obvious/similar your art is
          and human artists skirt that line on the regular

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      so, is using copyrighted material as a reference is also bad?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        i've seen unironic anti-ai drawings which were straight up traced from a still from a copyrighted movie
        they don't seem to see the irony of that

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, if you tried to resell and mass distribute Disney art that you traced and shaded slightly differently you would get Disney right up your ass with a c&d

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          They could only sue you if you do carbon copies of it. If it's different enough from the original Source then they can't do shit because that's fair use and transformative. SD is inherently transformative therefore these lawsuits will all undevitably either feel completely or be nowhere near as impactful as the plaintiffs believe they'll be

          If you been to any Seaside tourist town you'll see plenty of kiosks that do spray paint art of different IPS of different characters as well as caricatures and shit. But your logic they should be getting sued up the ass and get nothing ever happens to them. What about fan art of copyright material that is literally everywhere on the internet. Including but not limited to: instagram, twitter, deviantart, r34, etc. They don't get sued. They don't get dmca because they cannot do shit about it as long as it's not a carbon copy.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      What corporations? What money? I get my models from Civitai for free.

  6. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I have not seen one example of an AI art image that looks similar to an original piece of work.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous
      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        You're joking, right?
        Do you realize the players are literally deformed? Even a child could tell it's AI generated.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Even a child can tell they look similar.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            How fricking delusional are you?

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              The fact they look similar is the whole point of the lawsuit where that pic comes from.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Then that lawsuit is guaranteed to fail. It's only copywriting French meant if you make a carbon copy, as in, a 100% copy of copyrighted work and then claim it as your own. AI is damn nearing capable of doing that on its own even with embeddings and loras specifically trained to generate a specific character, concept, Etc. Pic rel for example is not copyright in the US or any relevant Nation because it's Unique and transformative. It's not a direct rip off of official Demon Skayer - KNY artwork

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >copywriting French meant

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Google VTT is pretty ass :/

                I think the discussion needs to rather be:

                How can we continue to ensure artists are incentivized to create their unique styles and content, which is how the AI is able to generate so many styles and content for us in the first place.

                they have always been naturally incentivized to create unique stuff. i think AI will only force them to do that even more.

                they're naturally going to have to pivot to areas where current technology doesn't work as well, which will in turn improve the technology
                this is nothing new at all, it's happened in every industry where technology plays a role

                >How can we continue to ensure artists are incentivized to create their unique styles and content, which is how the AI is able to generate so many styles and content for us in the first place.

                ???

                That wouldn't change anything regarding how AI learns. It can theoretically learn any art style or any visual concept if you give it enough training and tag the data sets correctly. A lot of anti and even some Pro AI people incorrectly assume that AI is only able to replicate generic looking anime styles. People here will often say "well if AI was able to replicate your art style or be similar to it then you probably weren't a good artist anyway" but that implies it's only able to "copy" a very narrow range of art styles.

                Pic rel if the result of training on a unique art style that come up while cartoony, isn't generic and it's not super anime-ish.

                https://x.com/ryuwanshoy?t=EJTnCK5Ru21RwZZnEhCqQQ&s=09

                I don't see how AI would incentivize the "WOE IS ME THE HECKIN AI IS TAKING OUR JERBZ" crown when even if they they improved their art style ( whatever that means for them. Improving an art style is extremely subjective), it's still possible for the AI training to learn that new, improved art style.

                By their own admission, the artist that originally had Pic rel's style basically gave up on shading their art style so now it doesn't look like a 3D render ( and personally I think their recent stuff blows their earlier stuff out of the water). Just because they change up the art style doesn't mean the AI is suddenly unable to replicate the style. That's like saying once you learn how to crawl you are now unable to learn how to walk or run for the rest of your life.

                Correct. It will weed out the "artists" who do it for the paycheck and have no artistic spirit. Artists are, ironically, already using AI as a tool to make their art with.

                Probably not. There are plenty of artists that don't make a lot of, if any money or even straight up no - draws that are still as mad about AI

                This image is a straight up lie btw. You cant get these results without altering the program to the point where you cant even call it SD anymore.

                It's called using the img2img tab. Or if you're even lazier, a filter

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                your own example already shows the point. due to AI, that artist tried coming up with a more unique style of rendering. even if it's mostly just flat rendering.
                and according to you, it's better too.

                the important part is that they try to diverge from the norm. like i said, artists were already incentivized to do that, and they will be even more so now.
                in fact the ability to innovate will be a strong point to focus on for artists now.
                imagine someone trying to make a new game with unique artwork. if they are particularly paranoid, artists might even save their newly developed styles for their portfolios just so they can be used in large projects. and then they will have to innovate again, if that style becomes overly popular.

                personally i think AI in general boosts the base ability across the board and encourages frontier development.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >personally i think AI in general boosts the base ability across the board and encourages frontier development.

                Amen to that, I am so fricking sick of all the shit anime crap

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >due to AI, that artist tried coming up with a more unique style of rendering. even if it's mostly just flat rendering.
                Words or proof? As I said in the previous post, they literally said in a Twitter post that they just sort of gave up on shading. They in a sense got lazy but it actually ended up (in my eyes) improving their style. No work if they imply AI with the reason they changed out their style. Styles can change over time all the time.

                >the important part is that they try to diverge from the norm.
                By what that matter when the AI can still replicate their style? Whether it looks generic or not is irrelevant because it can replicate ANY. STYLE.

                >and they will be even more so now.
                If they are reactionary dimwits then sure. I've already explained two times now why that wouldn't protect them from AI like you seem to be suggesting

                Why not try Whisper

                >Why not try Whisper
                I'm a filthy Phone poster.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Words or proof? As I said in the previous post, they literally said in a Twitter post that they just sort of gave up on shading. They in a sense got lazy but it actually ended up (in my eyes) improving their style. No work if they imply AI with the reason they changed out their style. Styles can change over time all the time.
                oh i thought you implied that's what they did. nevermind then. though i still stand by the general prediction here.

                >By what that matter when the AI can still replicate their style? Whether it looks generic or not is irrelevant because it can replicate ANY. STYLE.
                i understand that very well. but even humans can replicate any style. theoretically, that is.
                in truth. there are trends. this is why certain styles are kind of tied to AI now, even though AI, like you said, is not inherently tied to any style at all.

                >If they are reactionary dimwits then sure. I've already explained two times now why that wouldn't protect them from AI like you seem to be suggesting
                the point is not to protect yourself from AI.
                you have to be a dimwit to even try. the point is to stand out despite it. see any famous artist out there. they'll have tons of people copying their style or be influenced by it. but in the end they will still matter as the original creator.
                that is what i meant when i said they'll likely save their styles for the sake of big projects, which incidentally also will be easier to make thanks to AI.

                i mean what do you think the alternative is? to just stop creating new things or to leave that job entirely to the AI? what is the point of being an artist then? the point is to adapt to the future. not to just give up on everything.
                artists seeing AI as something adversarial is entirely the wrong approach to take for creatives. they're still being moronic right now but more and more people will eventually see its usefulness.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >to just stop creating new things or to leave that job entirely to the AI?
                No one with a functioning brain is suggesting there should be the case. It CANT be the case because like you said, the original artist will still have value even if people do straight up carbon copies of their art style. I train art style loras regularly ( https://civitai.com/user/AI_Art_Factory ) yet most of the public don't even know I exist because I have that little impact on them or art in general.

                The people claiming that AI is any threat to artist at all have room temperature iq.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The people claiming that AI is any threat to artist at all have room temperature iq.
                and ironically the people claiming that the most right now are artists themselves, which is why i find the current discourse so moronic.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                That's the thing. A lot of them don't even fricking draw yet they want to take some Grand stance against AI just because it's trendy. It would be like a no-coder like me trying to claim that Pearl is the best programming language in the world but I haven't even fricking touched Pearl in my life

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >what is the point of being an artist then?
                To draw what you like. That's it. Anything more than that is self-important clout chasing. Stop caring about your measly ego and maybe you guys wouldn't be so Doom and Gloom about new technology.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I've never drawn anything. Using SD as a tool i was able to do so. Not simply pressing "generate" but also refining, improving, cleaning up, etc. The tech "allows" me to be an artist which i couldn't be before. I've spent hours on images and not once did it cross my mind that i should be given compensation for this. Between prompt construction, upscaling, inpainting and controlnets, this shit can get almost as arduous and complex as actually drawing the piece.

                A legitimate artist who is not a grifter would be doing the same thing i did; learning how to leverage this tool to enhance their craft or reduce the time spent. Nobody becomes an artist or a musician "for the money", that's just a happy consequence for a few lucky outstanding ones. The real asspain comes from the managing class (record companies, patreon, etc.) which exploits these artists for their revenue. For the artist, the creation itself is its own reward. Get a fricking day job.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                who gives a frick about style, it's the content that is severely limited in ai art. you want to do something other than an anime girl face portrait? good luck.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >speaks about things he has no knowledge on: the post

                What part of "it can replicate anything " do you not understand?

                I've never drawn anything. Using SD as a tool i was able to do so. Not simply pressing "generate" but also refining, improving, cleaning up, etc. The tech "allows" me to be an artist which i couldn't be before. I've spent hours on images and not once did it cross my mind that i should be given compensation for this. Between prompt construction, upscaling, inpainting and controlnets, this shit can get almost as arduous and complex as actually drawing the piece.

                A legitimate artist who is not a grifter would be doing the same thing i did; learning how to leverage this tool to enhance their craft or reduce the time spent. Nobody becomes an artist or a musician "for the money", that's just a happy consequence for a few lucky outstanding ones. The real asspain comes from the managing class (record companies, patreon, etc.) which exploits these artists for their revenue. For the artist, the creation itself is its own reward. Get a fricking day job.

                >Nobody becomes an artist or a musician "for the money", that's just a happy consequence for a few lucky outstanding ones.
                /ic/ crabs and Twitter teenager would say otherwise lol

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why not try Whisper

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >There are plenty of artists that don't make a lot of, if any money or even straight up no - draws that are still as mad about AI
                >plenty
                I love when people use meaningless words to obfuscate a point. We are talkibg about artist, sweety. Not twitter scribblers. Most, as in the majority, as in frick your worthless minority, of artists do not do it for free

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            But everything about them is different, other than the subject. I mean, both of the men's poses are different at the very least

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >intentionally try to replicate an image
        >get an image that closely matches an image in a dataset
        >act surprised???

        AI is just a tool, the user controls the buttons they press. If someone infringes copyright using AI, it's the users fault, not the researchers who made the AI.

        If I draw an image in Photoshop that infringes copyright, I get sued for copyright infringement, not Adobe.
        It's the same shit with AI, it's the users choice whenever they want to infringe copyright and "steal" from artists, not the AI models.
        Even then, I don't think it's stealing. If I see an artists images in a gallery and get inspired by his artstyle, should I be forced to pay royalties to them for my images being partially based off of their style?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >commission human artist to draw a picture with excruciatingly specific instructions
        >they make a picture to your specification
        >your instructions describe a copyrighted stock image
        >artists goes to jail
        heh

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.13188

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        This image is a straight up lie btw. You cant get these results without altering the program to the point where you cant even call it SD anymore.

  7. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    only they're allowed to study art and create something based on what they've learned, because reasons
    they're just ultra butthurt that they've spent a ton of time and money on a skill that someone who hasn't can now do with a fraction of the time and money
    that's just called progress/technology
    i'm sure people were just as pissed when photoshop came out, or cad software, or computers in general, or the printing press, or typewriters, or y'know, the power loom

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      I've said it before, but most artists are liberals, and I know a lot of them had no problem with conservatives losing their jobs to technology (truckers etc), so it does give me a little bit of happiness.

  8. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    You're focusing too much on the nomenclature and phrasing and not on what is actually bothering people, namely the people who make the art do not wish to allow others to use it to train "AI" image generators. Whether you call it "stealing" or whatever else is irrelevant, the point is that the creators and owners of the art did not allow their work to be used for this purpose, or at least they didn't allow it for free (I imagine a lot of them would sing a different tune if somebody paid them for the rights).

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Did the original artist ask nature for permission before making their shit? No.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Artists ARE nature.

        oh? that's news to me? source?

        https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/07/valve-says-steam-games-cant-use-ai-models-trained-on-copyrighted-works/
        >Over the weekend, Valve confirmed that report, telling Ars in an e-mailed statement that the company is blocking games that use AI-generated content unless developers can prove those AI models were trained with data that does not "infringe on existing copyrights."
        >"The introduction of AI can sometimes make it harder to show that a developer has sufficient rights in using AI to create assets, including images, text, and music," Valve spokesperson Kaci Boyle told Ars. "In particular, there is some legal uncertainty relating to data used to train AI models. It is the developer's responsibility to make sure they have the appropriate rights to ship their game."

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Why is coming from a random third website instead do direct statement?

          Regardeless, From VNDB keeps list of games that have AI-generated assets and are on Steam, such being:
          https://store.steampowered.com/app/2286940/Faculty/
          https://store.steampowered.com/app/2428190/Town_of_Dusk/
          https://store.steampowered.com/app/2376550/Haunted_Heye_Apartment/

          Waiting those to get banned

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Dunno, maybe they don't want to make a public post about it and maybe have to make a second one taking it back.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >and maybe have to make a second one taking it back
              *if the law changes.

  9. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    it's too late for them to take back my ability to make all the 1girl images I want

  10. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    AI ART IS STEAL-ACK

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Not seeing it.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Regular artists also steal, is the point i think.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        it's a scene from a movie, traced over by several artists, including one of them as an "anti-ai" picture
        the "poor me, they're stealing my pictures" argument falls flat when they do it themselves

  11. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
  12. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I thought the whole idea of Stable Diffusion was to analyze thousands of pictures and fuse them into something new, essentially remixing to create something new.
    ai art isn't stealing but you're a moronic homosexual for having strong opinions on things you don't actually understand

  13. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    if we leave out all the details, then the model is basically gaining information through seeing many many patterns across its training dataset. not single images, but similarities across many images. this is what it does during training, it learns generalized concepts and ideas.

    so a "dog" is not represented by any SPECIFIC image, but rather by the features and relationships that can can describe a dog visually. a dog would never have antlers, it would never have the shape of a snake. it would never have scales, it would never have certain colors (like green). it is only represented by a limited amount of visual ideas.

    during inference (the creation part outside of training), the model uses all that information that it has learned to create the image. it does not use and in fact no longer has access to its training data. the only thing that remains is what the neural network has learned from its training data.

    that being said, you can try to explain this to anti-AI tards all you want, they don't really care. the more you talk to them, the more you'll realize their issues aren't intellectual but ideological.
    they want to villify AI using any means necessary, hoping that this will cull or stop AI in art.
    which is of course, utterly moronic.
    >let's bully AI away!

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >their issues aren't intellectual but ideological
      Their issues are financially motivated. Artists fear AI because it can do their job better than them. If iI had to chose between the works of modern 'artists' and a AI, I prefer 'soulless' AI art.

  14. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Looking at AI images makes me sick. Like my reality is disintegrating. I was never an artist so I don't really give a shit.
    But I don't like how they make me feel in my tummyt

  15. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    it isn't. you are allowed to copy a style of an artist as much as you want. you just can't say it is by person X if it wasn't. it is crybabies complaining.

  16. 3 months ago
    underscore

    I think the discussion needs to rather be:

    How can we continue to ensure artists are incentivized to create their unique styles and content, which is how the AI is able to generate so many styles and content for us in the first place.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      they're naturally going to have to pivot to areas where current technology doesn't work as well, which will in turn improve the technology
      this is nothing new at all, it's happened in every industry where technology plays a role

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      they have always been naturally incentivized to create unique stuff. i think AI will only force them to do that even more.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Correct. It will weed out the "artists" who do it for the paycheck and have no artistic spirit. Artists are, ironically, already using AI as a tool to make their art with.

  17. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    i believe each pixel looks ahead to the next stage to see if it is on the right track to his interpretation of the intent. You do that well enough and you pierce the veil of the whole composition quite early on.

  18. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    They are moronic

  19. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >fuse them into something new
    >fuse

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >diffuse

  20. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because you're stealing revenue from creators who put hours and their heart and soul into their work? Maybe try not being a piece of shit and actually give them some money for their labor? Why is that so hard for you freetards?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      have you donated to every artist whose work you've ever studied or been influenced by?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Because you're stealing revenue from creators
      false, not only am i not stealing revenue, i'm not depriving of future revenue any more than any other artist is
      >who put hours and their heart and soul into their work?
      appeal to emotion
      >Maybe try not being a piece of shit
      name-calling
      >and actually give them some money for their labor?
      you don't pay for your references either

  21. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's not the moral question of is it stealing or not that constitutes the problem.

    The problem lies within the redirection of revenue streams. Artist aren't interested in stealing per se but are concerned about dropping revenues when customers just download free remixes of their art instead of buying art directly.

    And we should be concerned about that as well, because if AI-Art leads to a market contraction and drives artists out of business, they will stop making art altogether, the AI will have much less diverse of a pool of raw material to draw from and so eventually we will all see AI-Art dropping in quality and ingenuity.

    Maybe some people want this world to happen, but not me.

  22. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I love how technology kills ideology and politics. And by collateral damage it saves art.

    Its not the hands or tecniques behind it, if it tramists emotion, and idea or point of reference, its art.

    Problem here is glowing-Black folk destroyed artists, and impose their cripped pseudo arbreasts to us for decades. And now AI does what politics and ideology demonized. And Dall-E is heavily censored to produce what will make us appreciate more like uthopian societies and recreating sides of history banned by them. Look all the violent porn that is on the web, but videos and photos of attractive girls and women that arent empowered? Thas a no.

    For me, if human artists cant capture most people dreams, ideals and admiration then let the AI to take over.

    >pic related

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      bump

  23. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's because the artists are afraid they will end up homeless, it's entirely financial reason. Like with most problems in the world - it's because of capitalism. Within a society that cares about your basic needs regardless if you bring money and you can earn more by working this problem wouldn't exists - good artists would compete with AI for human attention while the shitty artists would fail but failure wouldn't mean dying from hunger.

  24. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    what's the point of learning 2 draw now when AI will soon be able to draw whatever obscure character i had in mind?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's sad that a lot of would be artists, some of them who would have become amazing even will never even get started due to this mindset

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        They would have never grown or improved regardless if they had that mindset. Whether or not the I existed, they would be the type that would see a bigger account getting more engagement on Twitter and immediately get discouraged and claim "welp guess I'll never have their success". Browse /ic/ for any length of time and you'll see what I mean. I'm convinced 80% of them have not even touched a pencil in their life yet claim to know better than anyone else. They're the average dunning Kruger bot schizoid but 10 times as insufferable.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          I'm aware of /ic/, I had to stop posting once I became somewhat successful and the crabbing became relentless. Now I only go into the archives searching for learning material when I want to focus on something specific

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          I have done a lot more drawing since using ai a lot.

          It is hundreds of times more fun to use skills to produce a good looking thing rather than a mediocre piece of shit because you haven't spent 20 years learning

  25. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Every """real""" artist does the exact same thing that AI does, just much, much slower. Every artist makes their "own style" based on the media and art they've consumed already.

  26. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's not stealing, artcels just don't know how else to cope.
    It's also funny how they will scream that it's stealing, meanwhile many of them make money off of comisions of copyrighted IPs like Pokemon, etc. (without licensing, ofc, but here it is of course fair use, only the hekin AI is stealing).

  27. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Artists on social media have been hypersensitive snowflakes for a long time now.

    The same goes for a lot of mod makers. There's been a lot of weird drama and histrionics in those circles.

  28. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    They are not only morons, but massively fricking hypocrites. They all whine about "consent", but still use machine translation, even thought it also works taking people's data """without consent""". And when someone brings this fact to light they just dismiss it saying "oh, with translation is different ..."

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      kjekj

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >no that's different
      >well teknically akchually
      That's pretty much the theme with some people.
      t. used to know someone like this

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      What a terrible analogy, no one has intellectual rights over a langugage you silly goose. There are much better ones to use yet you decided to go with the worst one and die on that hill lmao

  29. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >fuse them into something new
    Thats true, but AI is so bad coming up with something new, the original pictures are still visible if you know their existence. I have seen so numerous AI cyberpunk posts that steal frames from Starwars movies and fuse them with something else.
    The caveat is that the artists that AIs are using, didnt consent to be part of this "source pool", and this is why AI will not have it that easy with generating 3d stuff or videogame apps. There are few examples out there that are free in order to become some sort of "unbiased" model

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I have seen so numerous AI cyberpunk posts that steal frames from Starwars movies and fuse them with something else.
      do you have actual proof of this or is it going to be something as moronic as

      https://i.imgur.com/IAHUV4X.jpg

      ?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >actual proof of this
        This pic from that video looks a blatant mix of terminator and some guy. You can tell its from terminator.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          but you understand there is a difference between kind of looking like terminator and actually stealing from a specific frame, right?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Here. I think this is the frame the ai used to create its own thing upon. I can believe I went through a whole movie to find that frame. Same stands with artists and their own art. They can see parts from it and are able to recognize it

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              homie, so what? That isn't copyright infringement.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >homie
                Bruh you better be black

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >That isn't copyright infringement
                Its going to be in the future, depending on how hard AI will be used on entertainment industry.
                I can see the time in the future where hollywood companies will be making AI slop and steal from each other so much to the point that multiple productions will end up with identical movies. This is where they will start suing each other and try to "protect" their property.

                https://i.imgur.com/9uuw0o6.jpg

                >but its pretty obvious that AI used something as a "base" to build upon.
                I don't recall anyone Itt denying that or implying that wasn't the case.
                >Wouldnt it be wrong if a homie whos using AI, uses my work as base to create an infinite amount of pictures to sell?

                Sell? Kind of dickish. I don't think "wrong" is the right term. Because if you claim that's wrong then you were also a green that making fanart of any IP is also wrong. You can't be okay with making fanart of copyright material and then making a profit from it while also not wanting people to do the same thing for your OCs.

                There are plenty of artists that even encourage other smaller artists to try and replicate their Style. Then the bigger artists can repost it and it's a win-win for both people because it's free advertising for both of them.
                >and why Japan is pushing hard against it.
                No, they aren't. Not really.
                [...]

                >pic rel

                >making fanart of any IP is also wrong
                As I said, AI is good for concept art and anything that is non profit in general. The problem starts when money comes into play. Trust me, there will be "ai artists" that will do that thing for profit. Its just too early now for actual backlash. Now the backlash comes from fear of losing a "job".
                >No, they aren't
                Yes, they are. Some are pushing the government to create new laws to protect them from AI

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Its going to be in the future, depending on how hard AI will be used on entertainment industry.
                Just 2 MORE WEEKS GUYS!!!
                >The problem starts when money comes into play.

                Why? Why do you people care so God damn much when it's AI yet when it's digital art Suddenly It's not a fricking problem? I don't get it? Do you have a mental disability or something?
                >Some

                That "some" is a very loud but very small minority of entitled narcissistic self-important dimwits. No different than the people here in Washington trying to push for the ban of ai art.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Why do you people care so God damn much when it's AI
                I mostly care because so far every actual application that involves AI is half assed, and the actual users behind are usually either artlets or lazygays who never fix the mistakes AI leaves behind.
                I have seen numerous thumbnails from big channels on youtube, that have AI pics accompanied with the classic AI mistakes.
                I have seen politicians upload AI pics on their social media to show that they "deeply care" for x event, only to get clowned online.
                AI will breed laziness and greed. Simple as.

                Now let me ask you in return: Why do you defend AI so much? Are you a backer on some AI project or something? Please make me change my mind.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Why do you defend AI so much?
                Why not? Ignorant people spreading misinformation piss me off deeply and not feeling obligation to correct them whenever need be.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            It pure technical terms, its not "stealing" since it is original content, but its pretty obvious that AI used something as a "base" to build upon. Thats the problem. This time it was a terminator 4 frame

            https://i.imgur.com/bsmqrgC.jpg

            OK. So what? That's not copyright infringement. Who the flying frick cares dude holy shit? That's not even remotely copyright infringement so why do you care? You imply making it look like Terminator wasn't the intent? Do you think other people are disallowed from making content with characters that kind of look like the terminator?

            Again its not, but as I said, things are blurry nowadays when it comes to art and ownership thanks to AI.
            Lets say I make original characters and original art for living.
            Wouldnt it be wrong if a homie whos using AI, uses my work as base to create an infinite amount of pictures to sell? There is a reason why Steam has banned ai slop and why Japan is pushing hard against it.

            Just to be clear, im not against AI. I think AI is a good tool for concept art and general brainstorming, but in the end of the day, its just a tool and a tool is as good as its user. And believe me, lots of talentless hacks will be using it to make AIslop. True art requires actual effort, but I will be honest with you: AI has killed 70% of voice actors and concept artists. I guess there wasnt much of a talent there to begin with, especially in VA

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >but its pretty obvious that AI used something as a "base" to build upon.
              I don't recall anyone Itt denying that or implying that wasn't the case.
              >Wouldnt it be wrong if a homie whos using AI, uses my work as base to create an infinite amount of pictures to sell?

              Sell? Kind of dickish. I don't think "wrong" is the right term. Because if you claim that's wrong then you were also a green that making fanart of any IP is also wrong. You can't be okay with making fanart of copyright material and then making a profit from it while also not wanting people to do the same thing for your OCs.

              There are plenty of artists that even encourage other smaller artists to try and replicate their Style. Then the bigger artists can repost it and it's a win-win for both people because it's free advertising for both of them.
              >and why Japan is pushing hard against it.
              No, they aren't. Not really.

              >homie
              Bruh you better be black

              >pic rel

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Racism is never okay bro

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              but what it is "stealing" is just the basic composition. one that probably exists in countless other close up shots like this.
              do you really think that is something that is protected? that can be owned?

              > but its pretty obvious that AI used something as a "base" to build upon.
              that is just not how this works. even if they prompted "terminator" directly, all that exist in the model is at best a vague idea of that frame. or maybe there is some overfitting going on here, dunno. or maybe some midjourney specific thing.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          OK. So what? That's not copyright infringement. Who the flying frick cares dude holy shit? That's not even remotely copyright infringement so why do you care? You imply making it look like Terminator wasn't the intent? Do you think other people are disallowed from making content with characters that kind of look like the terminator?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >but AI is so bad coming up with something new,
      That was never the intent. The intent was to automate drawing. That's it. Computers are only good at doing exactly what you tell them to do. They can add variation to outputs in a way that makes it impossible to create a carbon copy of training data, but the intent was to never create something unique that it has never seen before. ( to be fair humans are terrible at that too because everyone who has ever created anything ever get inspiration from someone or something else)

      >the original pictures are still visible if you know their existence.
      Not really. Like this guy said ( please just pick up a fricking book and read before talking about things you don't know about):

      https://i.imgur.com/PtvWUcu.jpg

      if we leave out all the details, then the model is basically gaining information through seeing many many patterns across its training dataset. not single images, but similarities across many images. this is what it does during training, it learns generalized concepts and ideas.

      so a "dog" is not represented by any SPECIFIC image, but rather by the features and relationships that can can describe a dog visually. a dog would never have antlers, it would never have the shape of a snake. it would never have scales, it would never have certain colors (like green). it is only represented by a limited amount of visual ideas.

      during inference (the creation part outside of training), the model uses all that information that it has learned to create the image. it does not use and in fact no longer has access to its training data. the only thing that remains is what the neural network has learned from its training data.

      that being said, you can try to explain this to anti-AI tards all you want, they don't really care. the more you talk to them, the more you'll realize their issues aren't intellectual but ideological.
      they want to villify AI using any means necessary, hoping that this will cull or stop AI in art.
      which is of course, utterly moronic.
      >let's bully AI away!

      It knows how to capture the essence of something. It does not make carbon copies. Even if you try to overfit loras with a setting of like 2 or something, you aren't getting copies. Even if you type bloodborne into the prompt when you are using SD 1.5, you aren't getting a carbon copy. Yells blatant ignorance is starting to get very annoying and it makes it hard for me to not call you names but I want to keep the conversation civil.
      >fuse them with something else.
      They don't use anything. You are talking out of your ass.
      >The caveat is that the artists that AIs are using, didnt consent to be part of this "source pool",
      And? Real artists do the exact same shit all the time. They reference other artists. They copy their art styles. They use copyright at work from animes and cartoons to make fan art, especially coom artists on Twitter, pixiv, and deviant art, just to name a few. Every time you'll pull up this argument you show yourself to be hypocrites.

  30. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    If instead of doing it in SD I did it with pencil and paper, would this drawing also be theft?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      You wouldn't even be able to come with such idea nor execute it
      >Prove me wrong
      >You can't

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I will not answer the question but will go off on a tangent.
        Would it be theft or not?

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          I would have to see the real output behind that hypothetical to properly evaluate such situation. Otherwise you are just dealing in unfalsifiable fantasies and what ifs

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            So the answer is no then, got it. If it's not universally infringement, then it's not in general.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              Looks like you ran out of semantic tricks when your unfalsifiable parlor trick got exposed. I accept your concession

              https://i.imgur.com/JhPgUTy.jpg

              Not mine but it should work, right? It is still a drawing that imitates a style.
              Or are you going to say it doesn't work because it doesn't?

              >Not mine
              >Should it work?
              No. The premise relies on showing what is you own output to try to have an honest answer behind the loaded question

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Looks like you ran out of semantic tricks when your unfalsifiable parlor trick got exposed.
                Nonsense sentence completely unrelated to what I said. Either you stand by your position that a work based on another work, including a work that's the result of learning from another work, is theft; or there's at least some wiggle room where it's not, which means that AI art isn't theft in general.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                So it is not theft? Great

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                god i hate coomers

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                also i just googled this in 5 seconds
                im about as much an artist as you are buddy

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not mine but it should work, right? It is still a drawing that imitates a style.
            Or are you going to say it doesn't work because it doesn't?

  31. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    "Artists" are idiots. So goodbye to the ability to get a patreon doing Tinkerbell fart porn when you get your wish "artists".

  32. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Artists claim Fair Use when drawing their degenerate pornographic fanart of childrens cartoons
    >Kick and scream when AI apes their style

  33. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >show human collected works of artist who always draws in the same style
    >human can study that style and put his own unique spin on it, copying certain aspects while changing others
    >train AI off a dataset of that same collection
    >AI can only ever replicate that exact style with no meaningful deviations
    b-but AI learns e-exactly like humans g-guys!

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >join different styles, models, colors, prompts to make a new one
      Easy peasy.

      god i hate coomers

      >no image is of a sexual nature
      >calls me coomer
      Turn off that projector, it's not my fault you think about sex just by looking at a picture.

      https://i.imgur.com/N4OAWkP.jpg

      also i just googled this in 5 seconds
      im about as much an artist as you are buddy

      I never claimed to be an artist, the one who got in the crossroads of thinking that being inspired by something is stealing was you.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Calling you a coomer because the only thing a picture needs is a cute girl to be good (for your type)
        Doesnt matter if the composition doesn't make sense because your brains too fried to catch the details
        You ain't made shit and you're pathetic for taking the talented and difficult work of software developers and artists to brag
        Homie, you're a third order leech.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Look, a house, are you happy now?
          Because all I see is that you're upset because you couldn't validate your point.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >train AI off a dataset of that same collection
      a lora you mean? because a base model can not be trained on just a few images.

      >AI can only ever replicate that exact style with no meaningful deviations
      and how do you think that works? if that was true, then AI would only be able to make exact copies in the first place.
      but because it can deviate and mix things together, it can also create new things. although in a limited way when compared to humans, who can basically train themselves in real time in a constant loop.

      in practice this means that the base model already counts as a foundation of sorts. and that influences the lora when it is used. that is similar to what you call a human's unique spin.

  34. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    The whole stealing argument is just a cover for the actual issue, which is that the artists know they're gonna have an even harder time finding work. Irrespective of the actual morality, they don't have the influence to do anything about it and most normal people don't care and never did care much about artists..

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      nobody cares about anybody really, not sure what they were expecting
      there was no sympathy for the truckers, crypto/grift victims, and in murica mass child death barely moves the needle anymore
      work in generals gonna get harder for em, but at least entry level coders will suffer about as hard

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >nobody cares about anybody really, not sure what they were expecting

        People generally only care problems that affect themselves personally.

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