Rodrigo Petunio
Molly Whiteš
hoping AI companies remove your work from their datasets (after already including it without consent) is not going to be enough
Cloud Janitor@molly0xfff something that weāre just going to have to get over, collectively: all content is derivative. The process of that derivation might be very complex, but whether it happens in meatspace or on a bunch of gpuās isnāt particularly important.
Pax Ahimsa Gethen@TheLostRewatchWasActuallyOK @molly0xfff
I'll "get over it" if and when artists are paid a living wage.
jordan@funcrunch @TheLostRewatchWasActuallyOK @molly0xfff they'll have to join a union and demand one. hoping and asking politely isn't going to do it.
AnthonyNo, we are not going to have to get used to this collectively. That's a fatalistic belief that hands power to thieves. I mean, you do you and whatnot, but I'm sure as hell not going to "get used to it". Besides, you are conflating "on the shoulders of giants" with the actual additions made by a particular artist, which are identifiable and important. The fact that they learned from someone else does not give license to any rando to take their creativity and claim it as their own.
CC: @[email protected]
CC: @[email protected]
@abucci @molly0xfff Iām not saying itās fair, Iām just saying that this cookie has crumbled. AI detection will not keep up with AI expressive capability. Maybe there will be good corporate players in the space (lol), but there will certainly be plenty of folks who wonāt be.
Why are you saying the cookie has crumbled, then citing a supposition about technology (AI detection vs other AI capabilities) and corporations? Again, this sounds very fatalistic, and frankly sad. There are plenty of other actors in this situation who could change the dynamic, including government and us collectively. This AI stuff could be legislated out of existence overnight with the flick of a pen, were the regulatory powers that be so inclined. The fact that AI exists in this form and has these particular effects it has is a consequence brought on by the planning of human beings, and that planning could be directed towards other ends. Acting like this is some kind of law of nature, as if it were gravity, is nonsense.
This is the same, capitalists stealing what they want and selling it back to us story that's played out in capitalist societies since capitalist societies first appeared. People thought that was inevitable before, and it's been stopped/altered before, countless times.
CC: @[email protected]
This is the same, capitalists stealing what they want and selling it back to us story that's played out in capitalist societies since capitalist societies first appeared. People thought that was inevitable before, and it's been stopped/altered before, countless times.
CC: @[email protected]
Thomas Michael Semmler@TheLostRewatchWasActuallyOK @molly0xfff Iāll get over it when corporations arenāt getting rich from it, instead of the original artists.
kainisenni@TheLostRewatchWasActuallyOK
I don't think that's the same. Machine Learning (this is not intelligent in any way), remixes existing stuff, with no originality of its own. ML adds nothing. It can only mimic. A human creator takes inspiration from others, certainly, but the synthesis of those inspiration still involves creativity. Something new is being created. (This idea is mostly based on parts of Patrick H. Willems' "A.I. Filmmaking Is Not The Future. It's a Grift.")
I don't think that's the same. Machine Learning (this is not intelligent in any way), remixes existing stuff, with no originality of its own. ML adds nothing. It can only mimic. A human creator takes inspiration from others, certainly, but the synthesis of those inspiration still involves creativity. Something new is being created. (This idea is mostly based on parts of Patrick H. Willems' "A.I. Filmmaking Is Not The Future. It's a Grift.")
tamas@TheLostRewatchWasActuallyOK @molly0xfff You are missing the fact that even 1:1 reproducing someoneās art takes skills and effort when done by hand (not to mention truly derivative, but original pieces). Some dudebro prompting an AI model to ādraw X in the style of Rukowskiā lacks both.
@TheLostRewatchWasActuallyOK @molly0xfff this trash take has to die so bad man.
ani betts@molly0xfff here's the thing - if I copy a painting in Greg's style, AI or not, who is publishing that painting? Images are published by *people*, not robots or AIs, saying "AIs are copying my art" is like saying "Pencils can copy my art!"
It doesn't matter *how* they copy it, if a person copies work and publishes it, the *person* is at fault. It's on people publishing AI art to prove they haven't copied anything so overtly that it crosses the line into plagiarism
@molly0xfff that being said, it's 1000% clear that the randos in /r/stablediffusion and likely in bigger companies as well, give zero fucks towards the issues of Provenance and seeing what source images contributed to an output which is deeply disappointing and frustrating :-/
Bruno Nicoletti@anizocani @molly0xfff What you said is a variant of the āguns donāt kill peopleā argument. Machine learning systems arenāt pencils. A thing has been made that both massively simplifies and obscures acts of piracy, laying it all on the user lets the ML creators off in the same way gun pushers are let off.
@bjn @molly0xfff uh, no? ML is not used solely for plagiarism and you could make an identical argument 20 years ago about Photoshop. It is a Tool, just like Photoshop is.
@anizocani @molly0xfff ML isnāt an image editing program, its trained on millions of other peoples work, Photoshop (well until recently) isnāt. Just like a pencil isnāt. Saying they are ājust a toolā ignores the fact the tool was fundamentally built on copying. So when it produces copies (sometimes verbatim in LLMs) you canāt say āooh, itās the users faultā, because thatās what the thing was designed to do.
@bjn @molly0xfff wait until you find out what the Selection tool does in Photoshop - it literally copies others' work!
Maybe you weren't around for this but this was *actually* the argument and people banned digital art for exactly these kinds of ideas, only even more literal
It didn't kill art then, it actually mostly made it better, and I don't think this will kill art either
@anizocani @molly0xfff Iāve been writing software to manipulate images since the 80s. So Iām well aware of what photoshop did then and does now. There was no ML in photoshop until recently.
Where did I say that ML will kill art? Iām saying itās built to copy art at best and will steal art at worse. Iām also saying that the people who make it know that their tool will be used for that, so putting infringement all on the user of the ML system, rather than the creators of the system, is wrong.
@bjn @molly0xfff it sounds like we just disagree. Have a good day!
@anizocani @molly0xfff theft is theft, even if you get a computer to hide the fact from you.
Gestalt Project Begins@anizocani @bjn @molly0xfff art can't be killed. The huge issue is that artist that charge money for their art will see their incomes affected because users will get for free what they could only get by paying the artist before. Those artists didn't agree to have their art used for this purpose. At least before ML when copying from someone, practice and talent was required and that produced derivative work which included the new artist's own style. Now its just plain and simple theft...
@ChristianRVHM @anizocani @molly0xfff ML will still need to be paid for, but the money will go to the companies that scraped other peopleās IP rather than the people who made it.
@bjn @anizocani @molly0xfff indeed, there is no way that a single penny will go to the artists. It will never be profitable to share with the artists.
asandikci@molly0xfff there is no escape š
Armando@molly0xfff so long and thanks for all the prompts
Omurettu@molly0xfff I just want to sudo rm -rf the datasets of all those dudes and watch their faces writhe in agony.
Guybrush Threepwood@molly0xfff Is that Karn?
P0LARiS_Punk 
@molly0xfff The disrespect for an artist they like shows exactly why these parasites shouldnāt be in creative fields and wouldnāt without their fancy toys
pedro š@molly0xfff in the same way that the fact that there is a patent on an espresso machine won't keep me from creating one at home and using it to serve espresso to everyone who wants one.
TheOldManBear@molly0xfff kinda feeling like we need the death penalty for all white collar crimes because they just NEVER LEARN
John G R Wilson@molly0xfff it isnāt āAI.ā It is machine-driven-plagiarism.
7 1/2@molly0xfff https://glaze.cs.uchicago.edu/ Did you see this?
@elmtrees @molly0xfff Wow that's really impressive! Reading what it is I hope it's effects help for a really long time and that all artists use it to throw a wrench in this art theft.
number137@molly0xfff how did Stability AI actually "remove" him from the weights as such? Except retraining everything anew??
broccoliccoli@molly0xfff LoRAs have always felt pretty scummy to me. With artist names in a prompt you at least have something like a citation. A direct link between the piece and to whom it owes so much.
LoRA launder away even that tiny redeeming bit.
LoRA launder away even that tiny redeeming bit.
Soy@molly0xfff 'as it is open source there is nothing he can do' isn't totally true of course. Legally he always has options. (I'm not saying a thing about his chance of winning however).
Carlos SolĆs@molly0xfff And when I say that artists that donāt want their artwork to be reproduced must start paywalling it (because otherwise scrapers WILL reach it), people tell me that Iām being too harsh and putting the burden on the victims. I mean, theft is already illegal, but to prevent thieves from stealing you still need locks