Mastodawn

Merryjest Dec 8, 2022

@lorenhall If you create your own models based on your own artwork, I have absolutely no issue with you- you are doing ethically. I wish more people were like you.

Loren Hall Dec 8, 2022

@merryjest Thank you! This is another personal thing, but I also think proper attribution is important. I don't like it when people say they "painted" a piece of AI art, I would rather them tag it accordingly ...accurately, whether they train their own models or not.

DDAkishi Dec 9, 2022

@lorenhall I don't know alot about using AI art myself but if I understand it right if it's trained on someone's own art it can be very useful if they get a lot of commissions to help keep up with them. And imo any tool used correctly that helps us in what we do is always good.

Paul Dec 10, 2022

@lorenhall what’s that old saying “I don’t know art, but I know what I like”

@lorenhall I think this isn't about tools, it's about human behaviours we perceive as immoral. I could be a traditional artist and be exploitative, dishonest or.. I don't know, just be an ass about it, and I hope people would be outraged, because I'd deserve the hate. Lately we're seeing AI advances that are clearly dick moves made by companies. We are against that because we think they're harmful, but I don't think anyone in their right mind would think that what you do is wrong. Luddites aside

@enriquericos In the last 2 years I've seen people claiming AI art is "their paintings", I've seen people directly rip off other people's work, and claim it as their own, I've seen NFT vigilantes, I've seen corporations surfing copyright law while fiercely maintaining their own copyrights, people winning art competitions with work they didn't technically execute, AI tools that are totally broken to appease advertisers and sponsors - and artists getting used and discarded. I also see good though!

@lorenhall what can I say, I'm less informed than you are, but I agree with everything you said. Though I'm finding it harder and harder to see good in any of this. I'll have to wait and see how all of this goes, but I'm more worried about changes in power dynamics, in how we treat each other, than by changes in tech.

@enriquericos That is very well said, and I agree. I think if people treat each other with dignity and respect, the technology will bend to that will - the extent to which we don't do that though, is the extent to which it can be bent in the wrong direction. That worries me too, a lot. It's already happening.

But this is why I'm such an advocate of personal empowerment through creative expression. Feelings of hopelessness and apathy are inevitable, but we can fight back with art.

Sincerely.

@lorenhall I can't add anything else to that, It seems like we are exactly on the same page!. It's been a pleasure talking with you.

@enriquericos To be clear I don't have a problem with AI art at all, even when the models are trained on all possible images (not just your own) because I believe in personal empowerment through creativity - but IMO we need to be attributing our work accurately, and honestly. If it's a remix of another's work, say so. If it's rendered in their style, say so. If you used AI to render the image at all, say so. The images will still be unique.

Beyond that, just have fun and take the world back!

@lorenhall Yeah, I got you, it's about being honest about what we're doing. And I think you get me too, but I'll clarify: AI is cool and I'm pretty sure I'll use it, predatory practices are not (I'm thinking datasets without consent, used to replace the artists that fed them), dishonest uses of AI, like with any other tool, aren't OK either.
Tools change but the same ethic rules apply.

BTW, I'm struggling with English and the character limit!

@enriquericos You speak English better than a lot of native speakers!

It's one thing to use the legacies of long-dead artists, which is what I see a lot, but what about people in 2022? Someone could just download my 2k images from twitter, make a GAN, & generate "my artwork" all day. Would I be 100% okay with that, as long as the person who generated it attributed it correctly - even if they sold it?

Within limits, yes. Just don't open an etsy store with my name on it lol.

That's just me tho.

@lorenhall Well, I'm trying to improve my English, thank you.
And the Etsy argument is just on point, profit and intent are key. Also, the way I see it, the references we've learned are comparable to the datasets AIs use, I can't avoid having learned from Monet or Velázquez, that's not a bad thing, forgery is.

If someone remixed my work... I could be flattered or angry, it all depends on how it's done.

SideWalkAstonomyNetherlands Dec 12, 2022

@lorenhall art is vastly overrated we need to go back to the seventeenth century where art had to prove it's worth and artists had to sell works, and do the work to survive. AI could help with this. Weed out the rubbish.

Loren Hall Dec 12, 2022

@SideWalkAstronomyNetherlands Personally I don't need an AI to weed out rubbish for me, tyvm. And unless they had rich patrons or the good graces of Peggy Guggenheim, artists have always had to survive on their own merits. Those merits change according to the whims of societal taste, not any one person's personal preferences.

SideWalkAstonomyNetherlands Dec 12, 2022

@lorenhall well tis just I saw a lot of rubbish here in musea, the Kröller Müller for example had heaps of sand as art a few years back...come on... and 17th century pin-ups, no that's not art, it never was.. I'm Dutch, don't try selling heaps of sand as art I say to this Museum.

SideWalkAstonomyNetherlands Dec 13, 2022

@lorenhall My theory is that Rubbish is easier to make with an AI and it would flood the market :)

kripfeifer Dec 14, 2022

@lorenhall Recently I was in a restaurant and everybody said: "What a beautiful photograph about a tavern!". Looking at a pic on the wall.

I looked at it closer and noticed that it was generated by some AI. I told them that. They first did not understand but I could show them the typiqual AI clitches. Everybody was interested.

I think real artwork and photography will gain in value... because they are real and it's not given to be real. People will start to look closely.

Soupalphabet Dec 14, 2022

@lorenhall Tools.

The raw output of an oscilloscope has certain properties that can be eye pleasing.

However, if one were to take the raw output of an oscilloscope and slap their moniker on it, it's not something they created. It was created by the oscilloscope.

Howeverever, if one were to take that same oscilloscope output, mold it, fold it, hold it, date it for 2 years... then specific elements within change. Some elements once made by the tool then can become a product of the creator.

Loren Hall Dec 15, 2022

@Soupalphabet The fact that they did not create the oscilloscope image would not matter. They would still slap their name on it because their job as the artist was capturing that image. A photographer isn't responsible for making the Eiffel Tower, just photographing it. The artist just aimed and pushed a button.

This is why at one time digital art and photography were not considered real art.

...Even though they are.

Soupalphabet Dec 15, 2022

@lorenhall It's something that will never stop being discussdebated.

Perpetually funfrustrating.

Just happy to be underfoot on the forefront.