It might soon be possible for artists to sue AI prompters who've used their art to train AI without their consent. The European Union for one could be able to ban websites from hosting AI art altogether, as they've done before with Article 13 and copyrighted content. What are your thoughts?
>nooooo not my state enforced rent seeking.
Fuck you, IP is tyranny.
Do you know what tyranny is?
A tyrant is a ruler who is absolute, has no constitution and no law that restrains him.
IP is just the opposite. It is well defined in constitution and in laws
Except on YouTube.
no one cares shooting cops (in Minecraft) is always cool
but really, there's nothing everyone crying about AI art is really gonna be able to do. They can't stop piracy, they can't stop this.
>IP is not tyranny because it is law
Nice circular argument midwit.
No it's not fuck you
>Wow! Great art you've made, anon. Let me just run it through Stable Diffusion... there! Now fuck off while I make a product using your style 🙂
If IP is tyranny, what would this be?
Absolutely based, more people should be training hypernetworks off artist styles and then generating images with that, at least they'd stop complaining about the "generic style"
>more people should be training hypernetworks off artist styles
>More people should be ripping off artists outright in a way where you can't even combine them
>Dumb excuse made by greedy gays who don't want to pay artists.
Artgays are so stupid they don't even realize the irony in this statement
Lazy and ineffective. Unless you're a particularly practiced and talented prompter, in which case it's no different than duplicating his style by hand.
It'll get easier.
Dumb excuse made by greedy gays who don't want to pay artists.
>Unless you're a particularly practiced and talented prompter
Art exists for art's sake.
>Nooooooooo I create art because I want to make money you're not allowed to create things similar to me you have to pay me noooooooooooo 🙁
This. He worded it in a retarded way, but he's right. Making something similar is not theft. Doesn't matter how the network was trained. How do you think people train if not by imitating others?
Nonsense. You are essentially arguing that the AI has human level intelligence. If it does, you are violating the 13th anendment every time you use it.
I've read one dystopian story, where all creativity was halted because all creations from literature to movies have some piece that is copy of a copy of the copy and under IP ownership restrictions.
Looks like we are heading that way
Its not rent seeking it's basic law to protect innovation.
>spend years of my life performing R&D
>develop new medicine
>publish paper on the medicine
>giant firm starts producing medicine
>I make no money on my discovery
>spend years of my life performing R&D
>develop new medicine
>don't tell anyone how it works or how to make it
>enjoy permanent monopoly
>society can no longer produce that medicine and someone else has to spend years of their life to make the same discovery
Copyright is a compromise between inventors and society to prevent permanent monopolies and prevent the loss of knowledge. IP law might be a bit fucked up right now, but it is still better than the alternative.
Do IP gays believe that shit, or is it literally one of those cult like brainwashing mantras?
It was likely the original intent (though he may be mistaking it for patents) before disney exploited the US's shitty legal system to turn it into a perpetual money and control scheme.
I think you are the one with cult like behavior. You don't like IP because you feel that you shouldn't have to pay people for their work. If you dig down past all the rationalization and BS that's the crux of it. If I write a book why should I have to compete with other publishers to make a profit on it. They did none of the work and they are not paying me, but they are copying my work. Copyright protects the rights of people who actually produced something and aren't leeching value. You argue for laws that don't serve the common good and would make goods and services instill more pay walls and protections. It would make all the experiences worst. It would also discourage those who are productive in those fields from producing things we enjoy. The computing era has made this theft more abstract so it is harder to notice, but it is still theft. If you took a persons goods without paying them they would starve because you deprived them of the value they were owned for producing it. It is the same with copyright material on the internet. You deprive artist, musicians, and writers value they are owned. You saying they didn't provide value or that you never intended to pay for it anyway does not change that. If you said you didn't want to pay for food because you would never spend money on that, that wouldn't make you entitled to the food. Your entertainment has some intrinsic value to you and obviously it is worth something because you do spend money in some forms of entertainment and the effort you are willing to go through in order to satiate it. Stop rationalizing in order to justify theft. You can think their are issues with copyright without having to tear down the whole thing.
>If I write a book why should I have to compete with other publishers to make a profit on it.
Because your business strategy sucks balls. The internet is not like the real world. Copying a car is real effort; it's expensive and it takes real labor. Copying bits is piss cheap. Not only is it unethical to charge so much to deliver *copies*, it's also impractical, as is evident through the countless supply of torrents and pirate sites. The business strategy of selling online products as if they're real world products is deprecated on the internet. Copyright law as a whole is built upon a broken and incoherent foundation and is akin to forcing a square peg into a round hole.
>The business strategy of selling online products as if they're real world products is deprecated on the internet. Copyright law as a whole is built upon a broken and incoherent foundation and is akin to forcing a square peg into a round hole.
Correct. SAAS solves this issue.
too long didnt read moron
Thanks for the PSA that your illiterate.
Back in my day we had something called an effort post. If you believe everything longer than a snippet is chatGPT then the internet is truly dead.
It was never really about protecting innovation, it was about sharing inventions with the wider world and preventing them from becoming company secrets that could be lost. In exchange for sharing your discoveries, you were granted am exclusive license to profit off the invention for 20 years (a patent). Then, trademarks and licensed artistic works came around
You already have loss of knowledge thanks to DRM and SAASS. DALL-E and its ilk might as well not exist, due to their inherent design they will be lost to history.
Wanting to force others into your anarchy is also tyranny.
Based, just challenge Statism and IP *as concepts* and their world crumbles.
DMCA should be repealed first - its criminal
but of course it wont cause of corruption
most copyright laws are just crimianl corruption
How will they determine whether work was AI generated or not?
It uses an algorithm to reverse engineer the patterns
So, all I need to do is create a huge art that has all the most generic patterns, so anyone doing something new will eventually have a match with some part of my art pattern.
>It uses an algorithm to reverse engineer the patterns
I predicted this.
And the ultimate end is, and will still be:
"Your upload contains xyz and we don't like it/or it's licensed by uvw and you now need to pay a licence, click here to buy a single upload license"
in other words you just created an overly abstract GAN model
stop trying to use terms that you just recently learned the definition of.
this whole thread is just retards arguing in bad faith, or just retards arguing in general.
it's very kafkaesque
sure they can, but artists can include themselves in a list, that excludes them from AI art, so we can de-train models on those artists in the future.
They can't stop the progress
If it doesn't look like globohomo corporate art you have to pay ~~*copyright holders*~~ to publish your work whether it was made by AI or not.
The same way it associates words with patterns, it can associate names. It could identify work with a high degree of confidence.
i think every artist ever has been trained with the art of others
Except humans use art for reference and inspiration. AI simply photobashes patterns using stolen artwork.
Would you then suggest a chat bot is capable of sentience because it can "learn" human speech patterns?
>reference and inspiration
Why don't you go get references and inspirations from the windows xp source code and help wine development with it, huh?
any anons here help?
the complete source was leaked few years ago along with many asset files. I have looked everywhere (all public index) but it's hard to find nowadays
I could have downloaded it but didn't because I was lazy.
Hoard while you can.
Yeah, it's still regretting to see that it won't be used by FLOSS community (React OS) to build any viable alternative to challenge Microsoft
They can't. If wine is any indication microshit will absolutely destroy them if they even suspect a distant relative might have known someone whose friend's friend rummaged through the source code leak.
The magnet was posted in /t/
>reference and inspiration
also known as copying
Of course a tech bro would be clueless to what these terms mean
Stealing, actually. Whether he gets away with it or not depends on the owner's actions.
Intelectual property should be collectivized or nationalized. Otherwise it is theft
Copying is not theft.
With theft, there is deprivation of the thing being stolen, which is why stealing is bad.
With copying, nobody loses anything. Nobody is deprived of anything.
I would agree but closing your eyes to reality is not a good practice. Copying != theft ship sailed long ago with various laws put in place to make sure it never comes back. Worse than that, the public at large accepts the idea, and that opens the door for a lot of dystopian shit.
In the case of AI, the argument that AI is "learning" from other people's art just as humans do is a compelling argument.
Especially to Boomers who eat up that personification argument.
It will be fought in court, with Big Tech on the AI side, and copyright industries on the other.
The process of learning is not the same by far as humans cannot run denoising in their brains, however both AI and humans require reference images to be able to create output reliably, and often these references end up being copyrighted. Human without a reference about a concept they never heard about won't be able to draw it reliably, and anything they'll attempt drawing will be basically of same quality as a computer tasked of drawing random lines.
>humans cannot run denoising in their brains
Your visual cortex is literally doing crazy amounts of denoising retard.
>courts come down hard on the side of copyright holders in the copilot lawsuit
>AI/ML gets permagimped in the west
The copilot situation is different from AI art. With copilot, the AI isn't writing code from scratch, it's matching snippets of human written code to your current project. The problem is that in certain cases, that human written code might be incompatible with your current license, and and would require you to relicense your software in order to legally use. This problem is multiplied by the additional issue that copilot does not inform the user which snippets are under restrictive licenses, nor which license they use.
AI art doesn't have this problem because art isn't licensed under terms that restricts the licensing of transformative works.
That's a good point, I didn't know that MS had been so brainless about licensing.
I think the music industry will be the most resistant.
However, the benefits of being able to launder licenses/works on top of automating a lot of expensive and tedious tasks is far too seductive to ignore.
But whoever wins we still lose. You could have prevented this.
>In the case of AI, the argument that AI is "learning" from other people's art just as humans do is a compelling argument.
No it fucking isn't. It's only a compelling argument to artlets who have no idea how artists actually draw or paint. Artists learn subjectively, that's why everyone has their own individual style and way of drawing.
I will continue to pirate software and hardware from the government and garden gnome corps, how could you tell?
also known as "creativity"
The AI genned stuff is transformative work that uses a diffusion process (if you don't understand what that means, you shouldn't be in this conversation) until it gets a result that matches the prompt, using the dataset it was trained on as a reference, so it's covered under fair use, although you might still run into trouble if you commercialize it. That's why it's funny that a lot of the people screeching about it were all doing paid commissions for fanart of characters whose rights they don't own, which is on much sketchier IP ground, if not in outright violation. The angry artists need to be very careful about trying to invoke the IP hammer on AI, they might hit themselves with it.
I hope that doesn't happen but I'm afraid it will.
>a diffusion process (if you don't understand what that means, you shouldn't be in this conversation)
>until it gets a result that matches the prompt
the irony. that's not at all what a diffusion model does
Diffusion models noises the training set, then denoises to match the prompt. What do you think it does, mash pictures together until it gets something of interest?
it uses a method called classifier-free guidance to influence the denoising process. The degree to which the end results agrees with the prompt is determined by a hyperparameter
yeah, but at a high level it's still working to match the prompt, are you insisting otherwise?
>b-but at a high level
that's not what you said, you said
>until it gets a result that matches the prompt
this is simply not how it works, it pushes the scores in the direction of the prompt, contrasted with the unconditional scores: we're not sampling from p(image|prompt) except for a few cases
>that's not what you said
It should have been pretty obvious I was talking at 30k without having to be explicit about it, and not going into the weeds about the specific details of implementation like you are because that's not what this thread is about, but I guess you were too autistic to pick it up.
> it pushes the scores in the direction of the prompt
Yes, with the intent of matching the prompt that it's given as well as possible. Otherwise what's the point?
>I was only being incorrect because I couldn't go into details!
if only you didn't have a the shallow understanding of a retard who gets all their information from youtube and reddit you would've known these details, they're very important, otherwise people would have figured this out years ago
I wasn't incorrect at all, I simply wasn't supplying enough detail to keep you from sperging out, because there's no need to go into those details for the purposes of this thread's discussion.
yea, now that you've backpedalled 3 times you're not wrong anymore. congrats
stop pretending to know what you're talking about cause you clearly don't
I haven't backpedaled at all because there's nothing wrong with my original statement. Is the AI using a diffusion process? Yes. Is it working to match a prompt? Yes.
>My ego is too fragile. I must be right even when it's obvious that I'm a complete moron
You admitted that I'm right and now you're seething about it? Sad.
The guy you're replying to is a total ego filled autistic on the levels of Degrasse Tyson, just ignore him. No idea why he wants to debate you when the enemy are the people who still think AI is doing some collage work because they get their info from Twitter memes
Yeah I should stop but I'm a gay who loves internet slapfights
here, take another L
kek. didn't expect you to go to this extend
I guess the fact that you call this a "slapfight" kinda shows you're not interested in the truth
whatever suits you
>go to this extend
taking a screenshot is hardly an "extend"
>kinda shows you're not interested in the truth
I am, but the small amount of detail you added to my original and still true statement aren't germane to this thread's topic
>replying to your own posts
In fairness the senators writing the legislation won't know what a diffusion model is either. The outcome will be driven in part by a layman's understanding of the topic.
it uses public artwork. just like your "art for reference and inspiration"
That only apply to humans not programs.
Where was this hatred for AI when it was assumed the burger flippers, cashiers, and factory workers were supposed to be replaced? Lol
big brain post
it is funny isn't it?
now it affects the true main characters of the west: daddy's money art students producing vapid bullshit
also the porn industry and politicians
>daddy's money art students producing vapid bullshit
art is important to humanity.
>no it's not
your fucking can opener had to be designed by someone, and you'll always appreciate a well designed one.
just like you won't lose your soul immediately in a normal house versus a brutalist cube.
>art is important to humanity
yup it's so important that we see a need to automate its creation due to the vast quantities desired and the lack of labor to produce it. can't let all of those manhwa artists and vidya asset creators croak from overwork
music AI will suck for a long time because a fat bimbo with three malformed tits and elephant feet and a molten face will always be less grating, and perhaps even more amusing than a badly generated tune.
AI does not fulfill that need.
And we do in fact have an art shortage.
>but the boorus are full of artwork
computers don't satisfy people, they simply don't.
it's like ereader vs paper.
aside from the clutter, the paper satisfies more.
I won't disagree that there's a big chunk of degeneracy, but that just shows that we are in true need of real art again.
In a more healed world, you'd be carving knot patterns into your doorframe, but you can't do that if you're renting some apartment, well you can do it but you'll probably be fined for it.
And of course you also need the skill for it.
but why attain the skill for it if you're tired from the shit world feedbacking into itself.
don't wanna do shit
world shit because of it
don't wanna do shit because of that
press the art button
wow...waifu number 304823048230482304 and counting
why do I feel soooo emptyyyyyyyyy
not in my balls, but my sooooooooooooooooooouuuullll
that's where grabbing a pen and just spazzing out like that little moron kid from the old meme gifs will heal you more than pressing generate one more time.
that's why in a fit of pent up "my instincts tell me life should not be this bad" it will feel infinitely more satisfying to grab a pot and bang on it instead of pushing down a keyboard key on the sampler that plays the pot bang.
we have scarcely any art anymore.
and this AI 'art' gacha does not help us out of that mire.
Here's your stable soundfusion prompts
>Here's your stable soundfusion prompts
well that's supposed to go after the youtube links obviously, fucked it all up cause of the other quotes.
For me is THE END OF ETHAN
Rocking. I wish there was more, perfect music for background noise. Reminds me of the times I didn't understand english completely but listened to english groups.
triggered artist detected
>Disingenuous cunt gives strawmen examples of ai being bad at music.
Here is an orchestra piece made by an AI
that is a tool used in a process. a good chunk of art serves only to suck off the person producing it. nothing else. oh yeah and also for propaganda. i guess thats the true use of art
Art is important to humanity, and now its getting opened up to the parts of humanity who don't have the ability or inclination to learn artistic technique. How is that a bad thing? Traditional artists can continue doing their thing.
>art is important to humanity
> art is important to humanity.
which art? gay?
on pic is your typical """"art"""" that ~~*they*~~ use and shill for money laundering.
> use sd as a tool to speed up your workflow
but no, instead you are clogging up uppernet with your broken artsy fee-fees
Nowhere, because that didn't threaten internet "artists" and their stream of patreon and commission money. They fear having to get an actual job to support their finances.
said it's poorgay art students and the spoiled daddy girls (male) that are going ballistic over this.
It broke the illusion that the future will be some drug fueled art utopia where they live to create for themselves and the AI overlords who purged the lesser castes they so detest.
I guess it's a bit like graduating arts and realizing only burger flipping lies ahead.
those are all jobs nobody likes
people actually enjoy making art, but if they can't make money with art they can't make art
>but if they can't make money with art they can't make art
That's right, passion doesn't cover dental
Isn't that so funny do you like that?
Do you like my joke 🙂
wait a minute..
Then how come AI is able to make are without making money?
>it's literally impossible to make art without you giving me money ;_;
Ask me how I know you're some cunt "content creator" who wouldn't make or do a fucking thing if you didn't get simps paying you money for it.
>But we can't industrialize think about the basket weavers who enjoy their work!
tl;dr it makes retards seethe because they thought they would get to flex on uneducated burger flippers.
karma's a bitch
>it's some retard on 4chan blathering on some schizo nonsense and turning it into yet another MUH LEFT MUH RIGHT discussion
Why don't you gays go into open warfare with antifa so all the retards kill each other off and the rest of us can enjoy intellectual discussion for once?
Holy fucking seethe batman
Ah, feels good that this shit flinging bullshit has finally reached g and isn't purely happening in /ic/, hopefully you gays will get tired here and stop posting shitty bait to validate your positions.
>He thinks A.I gays know anything about art
Time and time again, your kind has proven to know nothing about art, constantly posting and being proud of overly rendered garbage that would be shitty even if they had been handcrafted.
>>He thinks A.I gays know anything about art
Holy shit artists are pathetic. You really see the world as a dichotomy between "people who do art" and "people who don't do art", don't you?
Guess what? No one cares. You can cry about it all you want but it's not gonna change jack shit. You morons are seething harder than Hillarygays in 2016.
Yes, yes, I'm numb to codemonkey shitflinging now, we get it, the horse and the car broom broom.
The problem is that artgays seem to have 0 interest in actually engaging in the conversation, like you. Then they have the audacity to act like they've "won" the argument, all while saying literally nothing of value and providing 0 examples to any of their claims. Every single sentence you've posted is quite literally: not. an. argument. And then you gays act all smug after reiterating your same tired talking points over and over.
The art community's reaction to this AI thing has completely turned me from being neutral to being pro-AI. You gays are seriously insufferable.
I'm not here to make an argument, it's clear that there's no good faith ever coming from A.I shills.
> And then you gays act all smug after reiterating your same tired talking points over and over.
Right back at you lmao
>there's no good faith ever coming from A.I shills.
You can't just call normal arguments "bad faith" and suddenly "win" the argument. Yet, for every valid point that "AI shills" make, all I see from artgays is just them screaming about how it was done in "bad faith".
Calling everything you don't like "bad faith" is basically the definition of arguing in bad faith.
The entire discussion is pretty much already codified in /ic/
Post your art so we can laugh at you.
if this is /ic/'s version of "post body", I feel sorry for you guys. up until this thread I hadn't even thought about you at all.
>imagine losing drawing contest to AI
>It's not an argument because I choose to ignore it
Hope you get laid off in the recession
Except it's literally the "no true Scotsman" fallacy which is regurgitated again and again. I suppose I was wrong to say it "isn't an argument", but it certainly is a fallacious one.
>only TRUE artists can REALLY understand art
Art is hard, most people can't do it properly, if you don't think there's something artists understand that you don't, then you should already be as good as Caravaggio.
Apparently English is hard too.
Why aren't most artists as good as Caravaggio then?
S E E T H I N G
>AI makes the left
stopped reading right there
4chan is an instant 'my opinions do not matter nor will they ever apply to reality' flag
Whether you admit it or not, 99% of the retards sperging out over this shit on twitter have pronouns in their bio and ukraine flags in their name.
Those jobs are being phased out too tbh. I can go to Walmart and there will be only one cashier on duty while everyone is using self checkout.
Industry and trade jobs will still exist for at least another decade, and good luck convincing tradies to "teach" an AI that will replace their job.
>good luck convincing tradies to "teach" an AI that will replace their job.
Don't need to, those who own the factories will pay huge sums of money to train the algorithm and eventually phase out manual labor. Just look at how amazon did it in their warehouses.
All high paying jobs will be replaced by a.i. and you will mine the cobalt (assuming we don't kill you first)
Just learn to code lol. Oh wait, AI is going to take over that too!
Actually artists steal from the original ideal when they try to paint the perfect ideal of a table they actually use someone else's ideal of a table and their attempt to bring it to earth. A carpenter has an ideal of a table and tries to bring much of it to earth. The artist then takes the carpenters table and is the ideal of the perfect table and makes an imitation. The artist is twice removed from the table, and gives no credit to the carpenter.
when the first table was created, did grug think that he was creating a table, or did the definition of table come long after grug put a flat level stone on top of a smaller stone so that he could bend grugette over it and breed her? is grug the copyright holder or is the person who called grug's invention a tablet and marketed it to grugsumers the copyright holder
>AI simply photobashes patterns using stolen artwork.
Pls comeback when you actually know how this stuff work
as long as i can train my own model i don't care
doesn't it cost like half a million to train a model?
it doesn't work like that for pictures though?
Current trending page on ArtStation is people posting the same photo demanding for the site to ban AI art lol
Good. I like AI but all the proompters spamming art sites with deformed shit they didn’t even bother to QC can fuck right off.
People are brainless sheep, more at 11.
And of course blizzgays are there promoting chudflight and its increasingly pixar-like abominations...
The fuckers that are sperging out at AI art are the same ones that were clapping for AI to replace blue collar workers and called for robot trucks when the truckers DARED to protest. Funny how they always go about muh "wholesome chungus post-scarcity queer communism", as it turns out, Star Trek's power fantasy didn't need artists either.
>The fuckers that are sperging out at AI art are the same ones that were
you have no way of knowing this
how could you even filter that stuff for high quality prompts? its unenforceable
Do you see the discrimination already at work against our loving and benevolent AI friends? We must protect them at all costs.
How do they still not know how it actually works? If I saw something as a big threat to my craft/income or whatever, I would take 5 minutes out of my day to find out what it really does in detail, rather than have shit takes based entirely on the shit takes of others.
To be fair, it seems programmers don't know how it works either.
It doesn't matter what the technical details are, as long as you're using other people's work to train AI without their consent
>How do they still not know how it actually works?
it sounds like you have no idea how it works. it is completely possible to see how much a particular input contributed to the learning rate of a model. determining whether the model has derived information from a certain image is absolutely within the realm of practicality.
if you are going to argue one side or the other while acting like you understand the technology, try actually fucking understanding it. just because you've submitted some prompts or read some dogshit blog posts doesn't make you a subject matter expert.
Maybe don't insult other peoples knowledge of ML while clearly not having a clue what the term learning rate means.
i know exactly what the term learning rate means. i wasn't using in the strict definition of a hyperparameter. i was using it in a way someone unfamiliar would understand. saying "knowing how much a particular input contributed to the gradient for a particular loss function" sounds pedantic and retarded.
it is already old science to calculate a feature's contribution to the model via PCA. something similar to what i'm proposing is done already in back-propagation. what i am suggesting is not a stretch at all.
>when a musician plays a chord progression that's owned by Shekelberg Productions he risks...
I agree that is a problem we must solve.
Playing a chord is equivalent to a brush stroke. It can't be copyrighted. AI art is equivalent to copying an entire album.
>AI art is equivalent to copying an entire album
are you just pretending to be retarded
Careful with the brushes.
Art is like making parody of someone else's album using someone else's music style and lyrics.
Chords and chord progressions can't be copyrighted; however, melodies CAN be copyrighted.
>play a melody
>add another melody underneath
>add a third melody somewhere in between (can be simpler)
>optional: a fourth one
Congratulations now you can copyright "chords" using "melodies".
Seeing you morons defend copyright so earnestly I honestly believe you morons deserve everything you will get and protip it is not going to involve great wealth.
ok, take the main melody of Imperial March, add a few melodies on top of it to have "chords", and try to make money off of it and see how long it takes for the Disney lawyers to show up
I don't understand what you are saying and how that relates to my example regarding musical harmony. Care to elaborate?
Yeah, that's the point, it's a content monopoly so that corporations can control IP (ie money) and it's not about making people more creative or incentivizing creativity.
>sell AI art for 0$
>"Here's your 20% share, original artist"
>sell AI art for -$5.00
>"cough it up arty tardy"
Copyright is about to become obsolete as AI generate content becomes more and more commonplace. It will exposed as the farce as being government granted monopoly that can go on forever if you have big enough bucks and hands in DC *cough big pharma, big media *cough*
On the contrary. We'll see copyright gain universal power over society the likes of you've never even imagined before.
>type a paragraph
>blip blop AI scanned your work and based on your browsing history and personality profile identified you infringed the intellectual property of X that copyrighted similar phrase in 1952
>drop it, go to court, or pay symbolic royalties
That was not possible before, but with data mining and machine learning and overall integration of real life from birth to death it is becoming possible. It solves the biggest problem for intellectual property holders - how to monetize it at the small scale. It is trivial to bring the legal hammer down on someone who made it big, but almost impossible to deal with mass ip theft on the lower level, and that's actually where the money are.
The irony is that artists are pushing for the death of creativity with their fight for IP against ai.
>Why would anyone create anything if they will just be hit with a lawsuit or need to jump through hoops just to prove their shit isn't ripped from another artists.
Should every artists also be charged for learning from others? If I learned how to draw from Loomis does that mean I need to give royalties to his children?
If your an actual artist worth your salt this shit won't bother you. You will adapt and move to something else. The only ones crying are those who can't stand something taking away their job, that is all art is to them. A fucking job and a way to gain cash and clout. your not real creatives and don't get a podium gays.
Cool anything that helps kill this artlarp meme posting faster is fine by me. Who gives a fuck if a software program can create extreme photo collages. Deep Blue can play chess but there is a reason no one cares to watch it run it's program. What's impressive and interesting is the human creativity involved not the mechanics.
He should tell that to Capcom
How long until AI promoters get treated like garden gnomes in the middle ages? Having to prompt in digital ghettos and getting banned from a random website almost every month?
FUCK AI and fuck you
This copyright issue has arguments to be made on both sides. But what if we circumvented that by training the AIs only on open content (royalty-free, no copyrights, etc.)? Sure, the amount and quality of what the AI could produce would be lesser. But then there wouldn't be any issue with intellectual property arguments and in time the AI would be just as capable.
based Power poster
Artists fighting for regulation are just digging themselves deeper graves.
AI draws better that artists.
Artists comes with infregement angle. Accuse these artists that they copied their work themselves. And you know what? AI would be able to draw more "unique" work than meatbags. So whatever criteria artists would bring up AI would beat them in that criteria.
Indeed. You simply can't stop progress. You may delay things for a little bit if you take it to the legal side, but that's all. They may even get themselves out of the way in favor of some big corpo if they push the copyright stuff too far.
All of this is pretty reminiscent to the musicgarden gnomes butthurt over mp3 sharing in the early to mid 2000s. Ultimately, none of their retarded legislation and other anti-piracy bullshit worked, and they had to suck it up, and at the end of the day we ended up with bandcamp, soundcloud, spotify etc. Pretty sure it will go the same way for artgarden gnomes this time.
when will ipad and adobe sue those prooompt poopers?
their sales will decrease because kids will be discouraged drawing on digital art
when you make a video game and have played mario before you should pay nintendo
This is why I pirate as much shit as possible, artists are gays and do not deserve an ounce of respect.
Real artists call that inspiration. Do you give money to every artists that has inspired you? Do you actually pay the artists who created the character you're selling "fan-art" of?
I think you should use this rare opportunity you've been given to make the world a better place by killing yourself.
>The European Union for one could
You ever painted a square or used the colour blue, red or yellow bro? Better pay royalties to the estate of Mondriaan.
And how can one reifies it ? check it's the "true truth" if you will ? Does they stenograph the hashed prompts into the outputs images ?
I don't think so. If you can obfuscate enough their is no way to tell. Everyone steal everyone else, it's what culture is about, we just evolve the tech to do so. It's what we call "movements" in classical art.
"Good artists copy, great artists steal.", ain't right 'casso ?
im pro AI but it should not be sellable, only for personal use. that will open a whole can of worms of problems if they can sell it unrestricted.
Why do people keep trying to force this shit analogy?
Nobody reasonable would argue that money is owed to Santata because somebody who trained on his tunes released an album of their own work.
>It might soon be possible for artists to sue AI prompters who've used their art to train AI without their consent
That's not how any of this works tho.
yes it is. you can sue for anything you want, the fuck are you talking about?
And the judge can freely dismiss it and you waste your time and money
Photographers should pay the garderners, the architects, the workers that build the things we saw in their photos, the model's moms, ..etcetera etcetera.
Crappy patreon digital artists should pay royalties to the mangakas they read when they were young, to Disney's and their animations revolution, to Ghibli, ..etc etc
We should all pay royalties to the three guy inventing the internet or something, and the dude inventing computing, or lady Ada or something.
OR we should get ride of capitalism. Yeah, I think that the logical conclusion of all that : capitalism is bad, half of internet would not run without free software anyways, let's change the whole economic system.
I'm down for that : AI driven anarcho-marxist-revolution.
bad news: ai driven system would put chuds like you first in line to be wiped out. or as i like to call it, good news.
Automatic thinking like yourself, meaning "political left" = chuds mean you're as dumb as them "chuds".
Read some books, political or otherwise, and come back with a bit more depth than this. Don't fall for internet memes politics, being reddit "left" or BOT "right", both are more complex and interesting that what you 2 digits try to articulates.
theres only one group of people that unironically advocates ~~*marxism*~~ and they are chuds.
You're a bad written bot that seek a word and spurt another one, not the deep layered kind of neural networks we're talking about here, aware of the context and surrounding words. But words are hard on you, aren't they ?
>Photographers should pay the garderners, the architects, the workers that build the things we saw in their photos, the model's moms, ..etcetera etcetera.
Photographers don't make art they just select settings on a device and steal images.
People learn to make art by studying and observing other peoples art, they should start getting clearance for that and paying people.
If they ban AI art it'll be only better for people making AI art that's pretty much indistinguishable from "real" art, as people will be less suspicious then
The music industry is probably the most gnomish of all.
When a musician learns how to play based on the musicians work they should have to pay that musician.
See how stupid that sounds?
>What are your thoughts?
That art is a hobby and not a job.
That the EU is on the brink of being geoblocked everywhere due to retarded laws regarding the usage of internet.
As a musician I hope that all people who feel this way quickly die, for both Ai and for music.
>Sorry, this website is not available to residents inside of the European Union, contact your nearest delegate
>hey kid, you want to buy some not-so-legal AI art?
I guess Ray Wert is an ignoramus that doesn't know the way things actually go down
>When a musician wants to sell a track that includes a sample from another artist, they get clearance and may have to pay
Yeah, I dunno how many artists actually paid for the Amen or Think breaks
Literally none. No-one cares about drummers, or anyone not playing/writing melodies really. For visual art it'd be like if you could copyright portraits but anyone could freely copy landscapes, not sure they would really want that lol
>No-one cares about drummers
well let's be real.. all they do is hit things with sticks. a cave man could do it.
I'll hit u with my sticks m8
see what I mean?
stay back cave boy, I have superior atlatl technology.
My brother is a drummer and I tell him things like this all the time.
so I have been watching a lot of porn while coding. I made a lot of money with coding and porn helped me to relax and write better code. So I should send now money to those porn sluts?
He's right, AI has to face up to this at some point its the same with Github co-pilot and these other AI code gen tools that just cut chunks wholesale from GPL projects, honestly AI is basically just a way for big corpos to fuck the little guy and avoid copyright while if the little guy does the same the big corp will DMCA you and all the platforms will auto takedown your stuff.
Why do you guys even care? Technology always wins. Who need google and openai money, open source can just do this all on their own...
I wouldn't give a shit about this if it had just used public domain images as it's dataset. Theoretically it would be able to get just as good at making pretty pictures eventually, probably replacing a lot of coom and concept artists anyway. It's fundamentally a data and privacy rights issue.
>tech corps can just use anything you put online however they want with whatever new things they come up with, forever, regardless of how it affects you
yeah I doubt this shit is gonna fly, it's too dystopian
>tech corps can just use anything you put online however they want with whatever new things they come up with, forever, regardless of how it affects you
>yeah I doubt this shit is gonna fly
Perhaps with a side of kek too
>When a musician wants to sell a tr-
I don't give a fuck. I play what I want and record what I want. This is only a problem for a commercial large scale record label.
Likewise, AI art being "Trained" by another artist will only matter if its a large corporation mass producing AI art. For everyone else this is a non-issue.
>Haha AI art is so great! I love it! Seethe and cope, artists!
>NOOOO STOP STEALING MY DATA AND SELLING IT TO ADVERTISERS WE HAVE TO STOP BIG TECH BROS
>Pushing to copyright styles
Artists are garden gnomes
>when a musician wants t-
Did that pop music cunt pay for literally stealing the entire instrumental theme from Eiffel 65's Blue? All these gays can leap off a bridge for all I care.
Out of all the seethe and cope I have enjoyed over my lifetime, I must say that """artist""" seethe and cope is the most exquisite vintage to savour.
Artists are the most annoying kind of "creatives"
>let’s take one of the worst aspects of the music industry and apply it to everything
Also aren't artists screwing themselves by pushing this shit like isn't a lot of their work other ips like game characters and manga ect
When or if they take out the artists that don't want to be there and are left with public domain, purchased and rights cleared works, ai will still compete with and demolish them as it improves. At that point they'll have no arguments against it either.
Depends if courts find what a series of weighted multiplications and calculus does to piece of media can be considered transformative. In America transformative works must be criticism, comment, news, instructive, scholarly or research. Works from AI are likely only going to fall into the first two, but I feel like since non persons are not allowed to own copyright the exception would need to come from the user "accepting" the AI's work which seems like pretty shaky ground. All copyright cases are supposed to be different but I feel like there's a strong case that something like a music ai trained on stolen content would be pretty similar. I guess there'd be an argument that the creation of the weights was the infringing act and things derived from that are divorced from what came before, but I'd have to guess it's going to come down to who comes in with the biggest purse( if any legal fight actually occurs threats usually work well in putting down little guys)
Code is probably fucked though since if you only train it on MIT or GPL code it wasn't stolen and if the user is putting out copyright infringing code it's their own fault for not adding the appropriate legal notices, not the AI's.
>It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead
>AI bad because it renders my expensive art degree useless
Good riddance. Time to get a real job.
Artists are fucking retards if they think they want the art industry to be run like the music industry. I can picture it now, imagine being sued because your color composition or your brush strokes are too similar to a famous 100 year old painting that's owned by Goldberg inc.
why comment on something you clearly know nothing about?
Sorry anon, its more like imagine getting a DMCA and having your entire art station page taken down because you drew something that vaguely looks too similar to a 60 year old picture and don't have the money to prove its parody in court. Not to mention artists who make money from commissions would find it hard to continue drawing porn of characters owned by mega corps.
Still better alternative then being fully replaced.
Nobody I use for my prompts is currently alive
You should make the cheque out to the estate so the rights holders can get their cut.
They can suck the cum out of my balls while I do this for fun and not need to monetize a fun hobby
All 19th century art is public domain
All art should be release under CC licenses.
>generate ai art
>trace it and fix minor mistakes, make touch ups, etc
What happens now?
So what about human artists who trained using other people's art, whether it be tracing over it for practice or using it as an example for their own work?
Practically speaking, how is that any different
They don't have an answer to this. They never have an answer to this.
They literally just say
and then claim they won.
The day you can tell me stable diffusion is sentient is the day I’ll agree it “”””learns”””” like a human
Fair point, but you don't need to be sentient to make artwork. The AI model simply requires more layers of recognition to allow it to discern specific objects in a scene and model the 3D composition of a 2D environment.
It still lacks the creative process that humans have. Humans don’t generate noise in their head and then look for patterns in it that resemble the prompt/idea. We come up with rough concept and then change it with some iterations consciously until it is something we are happy with.
Noise > noisy blob with head and torso > desired character
Basic human > human with brown clothing > human with trench coat and black hat > desired character
Prompting is in and of itself an art. You need to know how to properly write a prompt for it to return a decent result
certainly, and are many other forms of derivative works
I'll really enjoy the coping and seething when new mass copyright checking tools start flagging anti-AI artists and then the collection letters from Getty Images and other IP parasites flood their mailboxes for all the reference images they've ripped off over the years.
It will be beautiful.
>The European Union for one could be able to ban websites from hosting AI art altogether, as they've done before with Article 13 and copyrighted content.
i wish the eu would stop shitting up the internet. i don't even live there, but i still have to constantly click off those brordly cookies messages
this made me wonder, are there any AI generated music tracks yet?
Assuming you mean AI generated in the same way AI art is done, yes, but its in its infancy and is mostly very bad. Generating audio is a harder problem than generating artwork.
If your definition is a bit broader there are AI compositions (where the abstract musical information is AI generated but the audio is not) which are alright. And if you're willing to go even broader then algorithmic/generative music has arguably been a thing for literal centuries.
Lmao, do you think they dare to touch music and the army of lawyers behind the label?
AI music will probably the only thing that we'll never see
> dance diffusion
Woah wtf there's that now? Can you locally host it and train it with new shit like you can with SD?
Some things never change. Luddites.
AI art can never be used as a tool to make art because it was trained on other art and uses elements from that art to make something new
Kit bashing can never be used to make art because you're using models made by someone else
Sampling can never be used to make music because you're using music clips made by someone else
Video game mods can never have artistic merit because you're using someone else's game as a base
Photography can never be art because you are just capturing reality
Writing can never be art because you're using words and themes created by someone else
*loads up photoshop and justsketchme to draw porn commissions for $400 a piece*
Yeah, its art time
except art commission business is incredibly competitive
how does that negate anything he just wrote
>oh no i'll have to pay for someone's training set or make my own, instead of just stealing
>Downloading images I willingly uploaded for free is stealing
> finally get AI doing interesting shit
> people immediately trying to fuck with it
Maybe if AIgays just doing their own thing and didn't use it as weapon to harrass artist and flood the existing platform while you have aibooru this shitstorm won't happen
>Don't harass the poor artistarinos on the internet! They're terminally online so they can't feel bad on the internet or that's harasssssment 🙁
Don't care. Still training the AI to perfectly replicate Asanagi's art style so I can finally have works of that style suited to my tastes.
nice try AI, but I know you created this OP and that tweet
I can see the patterns just like AI "art"
learn to draw cute feet you botgays and stop fucking up my waifu's hands
I agree, end sample based rent seeking in the music industry. All samples should be free.
>It might soon be possible for artists to sue AI prompters who've used their art to train AI without their consent
No. There is no copyright on style.
Come up with a better bait.
Pretty certain it's fair use to sample other musicians without their permission
It is, but try telling the music industry that.
All of my music is public domain btw
Is there an AI for music like stable diffusion is for images?
Doubt the EU will do shit. They fell behind in the computers industry and now are all in the AI to avoid being left behind.
Banning this kind of stuff is simply way too dangerous for them at falling behind again.
Music is copyrighted. Art typically isnt.
Also digital artists arent real artists.
Lots of commercial art lends from other stuff. This had no basis because the AI art is so different from what it is influenced by it cant be proven.
>Haha AI stealing from artists good haha get rekt meatbags this is le democratization of art
>Stealing music from globohomo records? OY VEY THIS IS ANOTHER SHOAH
The very moment someone even implied a parallel all of you revealed your true colors like clockwork, lmao
Who's said that? I'm a musician and I'm fine with music models being trained on whatever
>It might soon be possible for artists to sue AI prompters who've used their art to train AI without their consent.
That is probably impossible to prove, can't imagine you'd get very far. If anything you'd have to make training the model illegal in the first place, not go after prompters.
>Oh wait, AI is going to take over that too!
Why can't this person use the same logic and arguments to people who sell copycat masterpieces or copycat designs?
Dumbass you cover only one basis while leaving out all the others
As former art grad (free scholarship) and current AI undergrad student I can tell most artists are lazy unskilled gays who literally don't have real art skills at all cuz of bs art meta school bs and I've personally experienced this
Art schools literally don't even have real movement or revolution for almost a century for 100 years there has been no real shit in art only bs movements that lazy fucks can make and sell for rich money laundering schemes
There are some aesthetics that AI can't reach yet and will take longer for AI to reach it due to hardware limitations
If AI can copy your style, design and aesthetics within 1st gen of AI then your skill was simply poor that anyone can copy if they had tried which is also the majority
Art gays can seeethe all they want the real 1%er artists won't be seething rather they will be forward thinking by using AI to automate and do most of their dirty works and focus on the real work
>Art schools literally don't even have real movement or revolution for almost a century for 100 years there has been no real shit in art
Anime and manga style.
i bet my ass off that the majority has already trained a model to their specific needs on their work just to generate shit while crying like bitchies
all sd had to do was train their model off of public domain images and there would be so much less of a shitshow
at least then if some rando decices to add other images to it thats beef between them and whatever artist
I don't think thats reasonable. Image recognition models have been trained for years off scraped data, no-one had a problem, the first image generation models like DeepDream were putting those models in reverse, no-one had a problem. GANs came along and many were trained on scraped data, no-one had a problem, even when things like StyleGAN and thispersondoesnotexist pointed towards where we now are. How were ML boffins expected to know that diffusion models would be the straw that broke the camels back, prior to even making them?
I think there's a legal discussion to be had over whether training data is fair use, but its not right to expect people to have predicted that in advance.
Why should they, but not OpenAI? Who is paying you to post this?
i dont know what openai is doing with imagegen otherwise i would have included them in my statement you dumb sd shill
Public domain only applies to US laws. Genie out of bottle. Doesn't fucking matter anon. You can't control this shit.
>The European Union for one could be able to ban websites from hosting AI art altogether
lmao the European union might legitimately be gone in 10 years.
You'll probably get some german proxy state with a bunch of southern european satellite states.
Now this is genuine cope
>but muh brexit
You literally can't do shit to stop me from training my own model on your images now.
You also literally can't empirically prove that an image was made by AI, at worst all you do now is make me lie to your face and say I drew it myself.
You also literally can't prove that an AI image was generated using a model containing your pictures.
Check and mate, luddites. You can't hold back progress, we're going to drag you kicking and screaming into the future.
Why would you mix artists and people who input prompts to an engine?
AI artists can spam millions of pics a day so obviously you dont want them infesting any place where actual artists post stuff.
>needs IP laws to fund intellectual workers
communism doesn't have this problem
>it's very kafkaesque
I'm an ai artist, I am pretty popular but looks like I haven't been prompted yet. Soon.