Honestly I think people should embrace their medium, whatever it is.
Plaigerism isn't the problem. This society that makes living so hard that you need to snatch every crumb, that's the problem.
Great artists have been stealing and sampling since forever. It really isn't a big deal unless you're broke.
AI plagiarism is on an industrial scale, comparing it with artists borrowing elements from other artists or making pastiches is disingenuous. Open plagiarism has always been frowned upon in art.
I dunno man, 50 years of sampled music might beg to differ about your whole "open plaigerism frowny" thing.
And AI plaigerism is so cryptic, the links so tenuous, that we don't know that they're "industrial plaigerisming" us unless they actually tell us.
Live music people complained about recorded music. Silent picture people complained about talkies. Analog complained about digital. It's old news. Go with it.
Lemmy when discussing health care: Karl Marx
Lemmy when discussing creative works: Ayn Rand
It would sure be cool if all art could belong to all people.
Sadly, as long as we live in a profit driven system, there needs to be a way for artists to claim ownership over their work.
I don't see how people think this is any sort of slam dunk or how it could go against leftist principles.
I don't know if Marx would disagree with individual artists owning the intellectual right to their artworks.
And if you asked Lemmy about how long copyright should last, I doubt that Ayn Rand would approve.
Everything's just a retelling of Gilgamesh anyway, why bother protecting "originality"
Yeah, let a small number of billionaires to steal both the work and job of artists, then flood the market for art with poorly made mass produced garbage, because some idea guys are still pissed off about his artist and programmer friends not teaming up to make him GTA but set in his hometown, with VR support.
because I don't make art to sell, I'd love to train an Ai on my pics or songs and then see what it can make when given cool prompts :)
But I'm far from the competitive capitalism scene so I more view such an activity with a sense of wonder instead of anything to do with a loss of paid work.
Fuck AI art, honestly. I find the idea of using AI for instance in microbiology for finding combinations of proteins awesome, and so is it being used to help people learn and improve. For instance, when I don't understand concept in like math and engineering, I ask AI to give me advice. But using it for 'art' is honestly disgusting. It steals personality from art.
Scientific applications, espcially needle-in-haystack, or insanly huge data sets in general, are the best use for AI that I've seen.
I have also seen artists use generated backdrops for art with a character they drew, and I have though about giving a generator a confusing prompt for an audio clip, so I can edit it, then turn it into a soundfont, or make it into some other kind of muscial tool.
But yeah, "clouds in sky, sunny, high definition digital art backdrop" is easier to type than learn how to make, but it is a starting point for some. Fine by me, as long as it's a tool/element, rather than the piece itself. And LLMs are not to be trusted past a similar point either. They are ok usually for asking where to start, when even that isn't known, or easy to word. They usually give horrible results beyond a what to search for tho.
Tap for spoiler
side note: ChatGPT many moons ago was asked "How difficult would it be to overthrow the US government?" The response started with "It would be very difficult to overthrow the US government," followed by a lot of hooplah about how much access to weaponry and intelligence the military has. I stopped using it shortly after, as it was kind of rude about the question asked, and had no clue what fruiger aero is, outside of an old font/typeface... I'm extremely disappointed in the corpo LLMs tbh.
And also, steals art from actual artists. "Training data" is just a euphemism.
When I was making an android game I wanted to make art so i made an ai art gen on Perchance. OP would hate it most of all since a large part of it is the combining of different artist styles. I personally love being able to combine my 5 fav artists and see what prompts become with them combined.
I recently realized the artist Hannah Yata results in cool trippy pics. I then went to her site and yeah her pics are really like that. She's one of maybe 8 artists I've recently found a special connection to that I would not have known about otherwise.
so yeah ai art may be bad for struggling professional artists but for people that are not big money game studios yet, ai art basically allows having nonstockimage art in projects legally. I can 100% say ai art empowers me to have visuals where I could not have before unless i used stock(gross) images or had starting wealth to pay artists. So if you focus on artists losing, also focus on the poor but smart kid in some poverty place who is now that much more empowered to make something on their phone and legitly escape poverty.
There was a wealth barrier to visual art; now there isn't.
Entrenched struggling professional artists cry. People needing art that weren't wealthy enough to pay for it win.
When drugs become fabricateable at home by anyone, drug companies will also cry. People that weren't wealthy enough to pay for them win.
Same thing.
Poor artists.
But when you're the one no longer paywalled it's a different story.
You could always have commissioned an artist to work with you on your project, there's tons of artists who work for very reasonable prices and your game wouldn't look like an incoherently mishmash.
And I could commission a portrait artist instead of taking a selfie with my phone.
It all depends on your objectives and budget. For many people a few hundred bucks are just too much. And for a small payment (like 5-25 bucks) most commissions will return much worse results that the AI. For a result actually better we would be talking about an amount of money that obviously not everyone is capable to pay.
I can 100% say ai art empowers me to have visuals where I could not have before
"Stealing stuff empowers me to have stuff I wouldn't have otherwise."
You’re doing the corkboard thing in the post. This requires a lot of specific details and assumptions and benefit of the doubt, none of which can be applied to AI generation writ large.
I’m glad your ends are not nefarious. I’m glad you found a new artist you like. But you have to understand that you are not the norm.
AI plagiarism wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for intellectual copyright and capitalism. Ironically, the status quo of AI art being public domain is absolutely based, as the fruits of our stolen labor belong to us. The communists and anarchists should totally make nonprofit AI art that nobody is allowed to own. Reclaiming AI would be awesome!
Unfortunately, tech bros want to enslave all artists along with the rest of the workers, so they'll rewrite copyright law to turn AI into their exclusive property. It'll be an exception with no justification besides "greed=good"
AIs take away attribution as well as copyright. The original authors don't get any credit for their creativity and hard work. That is an entirely separate thing from ownership and property.
It is not at all OK for an AI to take a work that is in the public domain, erase the author's identity, and then reproduce it for people, claiming it as its own.
Even in a hypothetical utopia, the thought of a sea of slop drowning the creative world makes my skin crawl. Imagine putting your heart and soul into something only to watch some machine liquify it into an ugly paste in a nanosecond, then it goes on to do the same thing a million times in a row. It's hard enough to get noticed in this world, and now every passion project has to compete with the diseased inbred freak clones of other passion projects? It makes me feel so goddamn angry that some asshole felt the need to invent such a thing, and for what? What problem does it solve? Why do you need to use up a cities worth of water to make a six fingered Sailor Moon?
I generally agree (especially with the current critique of using up water/power just for one image)
But I can't get behind "this tool will make people who don't use it feel bad". The same arguments were levied against Photoshop and now it's a tool in the arsenal. The same arguments were levied against the camera. And I could see the same argument against the printing press (save those poor monks doing calligraphy)
The goal of "everything shall be AI" is fucked and clearly wrong. That doesn't mean there isn't any use for it. People who wanna crank out slop will give up when there's no money in it and it doesn't grant them attention.
And I say this as someone who despises how every website has an AI chatbot popping up when I visit their site and every search engine is offloading actually visiting and reading pages to AI summaries
Eh. Without the economic incentive, we wouldn't be getting a sea of slop. The energy concerns are very real though.
The sad thing is there is currently a vibrant open source scene around generative ai. There is a strong media campaign against it, as to manipulate the general population so they clamor for a strengthening of copyrights laws.
This won't lead to these tools disappearing, it will just force them behind pricey and censored subscription models while open source options wither and die.
They do indeed want to enslave us, and will do it with the help of people like OP.
IP, like every part of capitalism, has been totally turned against the artists it claimed to protect. If they want it to only be a chain that binds us, we need to break it. They had their chance to make it work for workers, and they squashed it. If we can't buy into the system, we have every reason to oppose it.
On a large scale, this will come in the form of "crime," not revolutionary action. With no social contract binding anyone voluntarily, people will do what they must to serve their own interests. Any criminal activity that weakens the system more than the people must be supported whole heartedly. Smuggling and theft from the wealthy; true Robin Hood marks; are worthy of support. Vengeance from those scarred by the system is more justice than state justice. Revolution isn't what the fat cats need to fear.
It's random slop shat out by a machine. Art requires a living, breathing human with thoughts, emotions, and experiences, otherwise it's just a pile of shit.
AI is a tool. The product can be a random slop if you give it sloppy instructions, or someone can realize this way their great artistic idea that they would not be able to make real otherwise. The pictures don't just generate themselves, you know? It's living priple who tell the machine what's on their minds. If your mind is creative, the results can be good.
It's only immoral, not inherently of lower quality. Aesthetics and ethics aren't about what actually is, but about what should be. Even if an AI and a person produce the same image, the AI isn't a living, breathing human. AI art isn't slop because of its content, but because of the economic context. That's a far better reason to hate it than its mistakes and shortcomings.
How do you continue to be so awesomeand wise? Teach me your ways.
Eleuther AI
As someone who is largely around the art community admiring and sharing thier work, the fact that I could confuse AI Generated Images and thusly falsely share or save them has been such a huge anxiety of mine every since 2022
One easy way to check is the look for JPEG artifacts that doesn’t make any sense. A lot of the systems were trained with images stored as JPEGs, so the output will have absurd amounts of JPEG artifacting that will show up in ways that make no sense for something that actually went through JPEG compression, such as having multiple grids of artifacts that don’t line up or of wildly different scales.
I'm really bad at noticing small details. Luckily 99% of AI artists use the same art style (with more or less Pixar influence for humans) so I can still spot AI imagery from a mile away
Or you only notice the obvious ones and are oblivious to all the ones you have not recognized
I've had moments where they admitted to Generating the Images in thier Bio, yet even with that knowledge I could not tell. I reccon this is much more of an issue in the Anime Artist scene where there are more varied Art styles to steal and replicate...
Confuse AI with what?
How do you "falsely share or save"? I think every time I shared or saved something it worked. I could be wrong.
(I'm in art too. Or was. I'm sorta changing these days.)
Wow, you sure are a technical genius.
https://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-stupidest-people-planet-are-all-donald-trump
The way some people defend AI generated images reminds me of the way some people defend the act of tracing other people's art without the artist's permission and uploading it while claiming they made it.
Some of that ai art is pretty awsome actually.
It's not 'art' ffs. It's an image. Sure, it may look nice, but it has 0 meaning, thought, or emotion behind it. This is just another scheme by the rich to milk us some more, as it promotes the idea that art is just a pretty image people pay to look at (consoooom). That's NOT what art is. Art is made by a living being, go pick up a pencil.
Art theft is the antithesis of awesome.
I only consume garbage slop when it's manmade. A song with 57 kajillion views is real art. A movie with Dwayne Johnson is real art. Only rich people should be able to subject everyone to their limited imagination. Now that regular people can create slop my delicate capitalist machines that shit out content for me to consume are being disrupted. I'm too lazy and dumb to form personal connections with other humans so these fake ass systems are the only way I can get content. And you just can't tell if it's human anymore, it's so sad.
This is an interesting take honestly. A lot of art is made without much care or creativity. That isn't a bad thing. So why should AI "art" be considered inherently bad?
If you look at it from this perspective, it sounds way more obvious. I like this PoV.
It's not just compressing images in an archive. The AI model is trained off the data, but it doesn't contain the data.
It’s just very lossy compression /s
That is one hell of a garden path sentence
Tech bro: I don't know you stranger. But here is the source code of my lifelong project, have fun and do whatever you want with it
Etsy Artist: NO, you cannot have the raw files of your wedding pictures, are you insane? THOSE ARE MINE AND ONLY MINE!. I want to be paid for anytime you vaguely look in the direction of anything I done, FOREVER!
But you are telling me the former is the greedy bad guy and the later is the light for the revolution or something.
I'll go all in:
Yes, art has always been derivative. One artist inspires the other, borrows from the other, reacts on the ither. That's the way it works. The copyright laws we have now are pushing all life out of art in the name of making money.
Tech bro: I'm taking all of your creative work without permission, all your personality, uniqueness, everything that makes you worth anything as an artist. I will make billions and give you absolutely nothing in return.
Artists: here are my artworks for you to enjoy for free. You can listen / look / share / whatever. But I'd love to make more of this instead of being a cashier, can I get $5? Or $0.00000000001 per view/play?
Skill issue.
Anyway. What's wrong with being a cashier, someone need to do jobs. Let's pay those jobs good. And then everyone can do art in their spare time and share for free without worries.
It's what I do anyway. I have a job for what I get paid enough to live, and then I make videogames just for the love of it and share them without worries.
I'm inclined to say that TechBros are usually not the ones whose work they give away for free*, and they really care more about profits than anything.
* there are a multitude of ways to provide information but making sure it's useless, for AI models that usually comes in a way of providing the source code but not training data or architecture, so that you'll need to do most of the work again. A lot of them don't do even that.
Please note, this comment is off topic to the OP post and is only about your idealistic view of TechBros
Tech bro: I don't know you stranger. But here is the source code of my lifelong project, have fun and do whatever you want with it
Hello Spez ohh hi mark, does this guy talking about you?
Yeah, you need to be the right kind of neural network before you're allowed to learn from other artists.
Unironically yes. Art is a part of the human condition. If you think that's something that should be automated, then you don't understand why art has value. Doubly so considering you feel keen on dehumanizing the people who make it. Humans have hopes and dreams. Computers don't.
Art can have value to both its creator and its viewer. Present-day AIs have no self-awareness and cannot derive any value of that sort from the art they create, but that art's human viewers can still derive value from it. Humans already derive value from viewing beautiful things (sunsets, flowers, etc.) which have no self-aware creator (unless you're religious).
With that said, the topic here is plagiarism, with the implication (if I understand you correctly) that an AI cannot create anything truly original because it does not experience the human condition. I don't think that's the case, but even if it is then "truly original" is still a very high standard that most human art does not meet. If I paint a ballerina in the style of Degas, I have created something with little artistic worth but that doesn't imply that I have plagiarized Degas. Why should an AI be held to a higher standard than that?
It could rule tho. It just needs more development. We didn't put men on the moon in a day.
It could give prettier results but that doesn't solve the ethical issues (and even for the prettier part I can see there being fundamental limits)
Raising ethical issues in this culture is like handing out speeding tickets at a racetrack.
Also, we've married technology. We couldn't stop its progress even if we wanted to.
It's a computer program that turns the hard work of artists and utterly ridiculous amounts of water into samey, uncanny abominations. To compare that to the moon landing? I don't even have words for that.
AI generated art doesn't meet the definition of plagiarism though?
plagiarize: : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source.
Since almost no one actually consented to having their images used as training data for generative art, and since it never credits the training data that was referenced to train the nodes used for any given generation; it is using another persons production without crediting the source, and thus is text book plagiarism.
plagiarize: : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own : use (another’s production) without crediting the source.
Since almost no one actually consented to having their images used as training data for generative art, and since it never credits the training data that was referenced to train the nodes used for any given generation; it is using another persons production without crediting the source, and thus is text book plagiarism.
AI systems like generative art models are trained on large datasets to recognize patterns, styles, and structures, but the output they create does not directly copy or reproduce the original data. Instead, the AI generates new works by synthesizing learned features. This is more akin to how a human artist might create something inspired by various influences. If the generated image does not directly replicate any specific piece of the training data, it cannot be considered "using another’s production without crediting the source."
Also AI platforms like Midjourney do not “reference” specific works in a way that can be credited. The training process distills millions of examples into mathematical representations, not a library of individual artworks. Crediting every source is not only infeasible and impractical, it is also not analogous to failing to attribute a specific inspiration or idea, which is a cornerstone of plagiarism.
So does that mean that any artist which has viewed another piece of art and learned from it, and used that knowledge in their own works, has therefore committed plagiarism by not asking for permission or crediting every work they’ve ever seen?
I’m an author and one of the most common pieces of advice for authors is to read more. Reading other authors’ works teaches a lot about word choice, character development, world building, etc. How is that any different from an AI model learning from art pieces to make its own?
Get over it already.
Honestly, I get it. Getting mad about generative AI technology existing gives the same vibes as the people who were mad about Napster existing. Like... sorry friend, cat is out of the bag. We have to learn how to live with it now.
Once I stop seeing this garbage daily, sure~
The buzz over AI art and especially AI wiritng? Sure did! Lots of snake oil there, not so interesting.
Maybe when it isn't an active threat to me having food.
