Opinion on AI in art?

[arctic]

I have an unpopular opinion. I don't mind that the Stable Diffusion base model was trained on even images with restricted rights, but I don't think it's quite ethical to use images with restricted rights as the dataset for fine-tuning these models and selling outputs (or work made of this outputs). Because often author of finetuned model is tuning his model as much as needed to recreate author's original style.

AI is not an artist, AI is a tool. And AI enthusiasts trying to do masterpieces using this kind of technology.

I think training Stable Diffusion (or anything comparable) on copyrighted images is no different than a painter viewing the art of others in a gallery.

For the record, I don't think AI is a threat to artists. Or of it is, then AI is no more of a threat to art than the record industry is a threat to indie music.

 

[foxcub]

iv been using ai to see what things i can do would look like if i did them without putting a lot of time into something and it not looking how i want it to.
also its useful to try out a lot of ideas quickly.
the best way i find to use it is by getting some basic underpainting down for an idea, then quickly layering some source images onto it and slapping it into an ai bot as a source image and seeing what it comes out with. if theres any i like i then aim in that direction with the piece, then repeate until i get something i like. i do a lot of layering and overpainting on my work and have always used photoshop to mock up ideas as i go, ai is exactly the same tool but quicker and with the added randomness.

 

[lilSorcerer]

I think training Stable Diffusion (or anything comparable) on copyrighted images is no different than a painter viewing the art of others in a gallery.

For the record, I don't think AI is a threat to artists. Or of it is, then AI is no more of a threat to art than the record industry is a threat to indie music.

I would disagree here. Training the model entails feeding near "perfect information", a near "perfect copy" of a work to the model. This perfect copy is then in my opinion "abstractly stored" in the model (even though, of course the sequence of bytes representing the art is not literally directly in the memory of the model. Thus then means the owner has directly "used" a copy of a protected work. If they have rights, this is a non issue, but if not, it violates copyright.

Although what is the difference between this process and our brains? Maybe there isn't much of a difference, and all human artists are regularly violating copyright as well? It's a strange but interesting thought indeed.

Either way, I think debating the pragmatics/dangers/benefits of ai is more important than debating the general morality.

 

[arctic]

I would disagree here. Training the model entails feeding near "perfect information", a near "perfect copy" of a work to the model. This perfect copy is then in my opinion "abstractly stored" in the model (even though, of course the sequence of bytes representing the art is not literally directly in the memory of the model. Thus then means the owner has directly "used" a copy of a protected work. If they have rights, this is a non issue, but if not, it violates copyright.

Seems like a distinction without a difference . . . .

Human beings and an AI model, like Stable Diffusion, are trained on the same (or substantially the same) type of input data. For example, Stable Diffusion gets digital copies of all versions of all Mark Rothko paintings, ever. I have access to the same data, to the extent indexed on the web. And I also can see the real things in museums and private galleries.

In both of these cases, I have access to the "perfect copies" if not the real thing, directly or indirectly through the instrumentality of Stable Diffusion. And just as I might have access to a paint brush, paint, and a canvas (or many canvasses), so too do I have access to a computer with the horsepower to run stable diffusion. The only difference is that I have to paint with my hands in one case but I can prompt with my keyboard in another. The abstraction of how I map the patterns of "what is quintessentially Mark Rothko" may be different from how Stable Diffusion does it, and it almost certainly is. But the result is the same: Rothko is the inspiration for the future creation.

If the difference you want to draw is what happens to that input data once an AI model has been trained on it, that's not a compelling argument either. For example, if I paint something entirely of my own but in a style that is inspired by Rothko, would anyone dare challenge that my work product was my own? Absolutely not. Only a fool would, unless I created a forgery of Rothko's specific piece. In the same way, if Stable Diffusion creates art "in the style of Rothko" in response to my prompt, the only difference is that I have used AI as the instrument through which my creative vision is executed.

In both of the scenarios described above, I have "used" a copy of "protected" work. The only difference is the instrumentality; in one case, the painting is by my own hand, but in the other the image I create is by a natural language prompt.

Although what is the difference between this process and our brains? Maybe there isn't much of a difference, and all human artists are regularly violating copyright as well? It's a strange but interesting thought indeed.

Either way, I think debating the pragmatics/dangers/benefits of ai is more important than debating the general morality.

The issue of whether using copyrighted images as training data for AI based text-to-image platforms violates copyright laws is different from what we were discussing above.

 

[LilByte]

There are projects working on how to inspect inside the black box. Once we can track the % of an image stored in a model's memory; I think we can answer the copy write question better by having a legal limit on the % of an artist's images taking under some super small % of the model's memory based on the size of the model's parameters and other factors.

At the moment it is possible for a poorly trained model to be over trained on an artist and there for generate images that I would see in copy write violation.
And tho a well trained model would not do this, it is impossible at the moment to prove a model has become well trained in all areas till such inspection as mentioned above is possible. (at this rate that won't be long)

 

[StrawberryPan]

Wow! That’s a lot of responses. Why is this being discussed on this site?

One day AI waifus will diaper us all, wanted or not.





Ok but seriously I'm itching to reply to this (again) but I really don't want to get into it because its honestly depressing. lets see the last post. replace menial labor. Wouldnt that be so ideal? I freaking wish. But who then gets that money from that computized labor? Surely not us, the everyman. Who buys the results of that labor? Who gets kicked out on the street cause a computer replaced their job? Do we transition to universal income and place ourselves at the hands of the state? This world is too overpopulated to support an economy where AI and computers steal most of the jobs. Our economic system is incompatible with it in the sense of producing a fair and equal society. Sure some jobs will always exist like manual labor. Thats another story entirely. etc etc etc...

Only real answer is now in the face of the future to abandon the cash economy, there are real viable solutions in this model but but human greed and current corrupted state of the establishment will see to it that the alternative will be worse than what we have now.

Thankfully I've completely given up on society and the future and I'm content to little myself out until the end, so I really dont care anymore.

 

[ade]

Our economic system is incompatible with it in the sense of producing a fair and equal society. Sure some jobs will always exist like manual labor.

Swing Riots - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[StrawberryPan]

Swing Riots - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

If only people nowadays had the guts they did back then, we might not be in such a mess right now. Blame social conditioning.

But I'm not really one to talk, I'm just a widdle baby lol

 

[LilByte]

Jobs are like questions, when one gets answered 10 more popup. Work will always be with us because we are creators, if we don't have a problem we will create one for ourselves to solve..

The switch over points in history with large tier jumps is difficult tho because it requires people to adapt and change. With current AI adaptation may be easier then it was in the industrial revolution despite the gap being large, as the same thing replacing your job can help you learn new jobs.

The power of the individual continues to increase exponentially.

In an ideal society in my opinion many things are not free, but are so close to it due to competition and efficiency that they feel like they nearly are.

But I know one thing, fear any man who promises they will protect you from change, because they will enslave you.

 

[LittleRascal]

Short answer? I love it!!! I played with it for a couple hours before buying lifetime dream by wombo

Idc if it’s art or not it’s fun and you can get extremely creative in very fast succession!

 

[StrawberryPan]

Jobs are like questions, when one gets answered 10 more popup. Work will always be with us because we are creators, if we don't have a problem we will create one for ourselves to solve..

The switch over points in history with large tier jumps is difficult tho because it requires people to adapt and change. With current AI adaptation may be easier then it was in the industrial revolution despite the gap being large, as the same thing replacing your job can help you learn new jobs.

The power of the individual continues to increase exponentially.

In an ideal society in my opinion many things are not free, but are so close to it due to competition and efficiency that they feel like they nearly are.

But I know one thing, fear any man who promises they will protect you from change, because they will enslave you.

I wish I could still be this much of an idealist. But I've realized its not nearly so simple nor hopeful. Sure we will always work. But for who? For what? Power and money is consolidating in fewer and fewer hands with each passing decade. Combine that with all the jobs AI will replace and you have a recipe for disaster, however you look at it.

I'll agree with your ideal society bit. Unfortunately we are living on the opposite end of the spectrum. Nothing has changed from the pages of history. The everyman has been exploited since the dark ages and its no different today, and only getting worse. The advent of AI will only exacerbate these issues, exponentially. As I said in my first post in this thread there is a reason Steven Hawking said before his death that AI would be the end of us all if we weren't responsible enough to use it properly (and you know damn well we are not)

Anyways I would wager we are totally off topic now, this thread is about AI art not AI politics so I will shut up about it now, sometimes I just cant help myself.