Please..
Stop sharing and promoting AI art.
Just got a boost from a guy that has a shop selling over a thousand "art" pieces he claims are his.
In all kinda styles. No artist can make all this themselves...
This is NOT ok.
Real art went into making what is used to generate these images. Copyrighted images.
Respect artists! Spend one minute to validate that you do not share AI!
@dr0p If, and ONLY IF, the training set for the AI you are using is proven to be built on copyright free art, can we have this discussion.
Most all the generative AIs that people use now, have a dataset built using stolen art.
There is no "it is ok if..." scenario where this is ok. This include using it for AI **assisted** art.
@dr0p Sure, and I could call a photo copier "intelligent" and claim that it is "reimagining the art" and argue that all the art I copy is mine.
Seriously.
AI is not intelligent, it has no idea what it is doing, no creativity, nothing, it was called "intelligence" more as a sales gimmic, and you cannot at all compare AI to how an artists mind works.
An AI has no idea what anything is. This "AI just does what artists are doing" crap is words from people that have no idea how AI works used to justify art theft..
Stop justifying tech that kills artists income by stealing their work!
@joerg So, we just... let them win? Or what are you suggesting? That because "it is already here", we shall not care about artists basically having their work stolen?
This is not an "should AI exist" topic, AI is here to stay, we cannot avoid that, it is a tech like any new techs.
But we can, however, restrict what companies are allowed to use as their training data, and we can voice the damage we see when people generate images using stolen artwork, and claim them as their own.
The alternative is a word more or less free of creative artists, as we kill their source of income.
This is like the opposite of what automation should do. It should remove the need for us doing "boring, repeditive work so that we can have free time to express ourselves"
Instead, it takes away the income of those that do.
So no, we should not settle with "that train has left the station"
@lettosprey is using existing art to train AI really stealing? Is what AI does, so fundamentally different from what art has always done?
Taking inspiration, remixing, deriving has, at least when it comes to art for economical gain, always been the norm and the occasional spark of genious that brought something radically new, never before seen, that moves a whole field forward, the rare exception.
To me, the discussion and the arguments around AI echo those of similar revolutions. Like the invention of (relatively cheap) paper, the printing press, the photographic process, the talking movie, the phonograpic record, the music cassette, etc. have always been decried as the end of something fundamental but reliably turned out to be the starting point of something new.
Yes, the cycle is steadily accelerating and yes, AI will mean the loss of income for many, not only in art, but has anything good ever come from resistance to that kind of change? Is there any indication that this time things will be different?
@joerg " is using existing art to train AI really stealing?"
Yes. I am not really interested in explaining why very indept, there should be plenty of resources explaining this.
But the key is that there is no inspiration. AI is not aware. AI is algorithms that mushes existing data to create new output.
AI is nothing without training data. "training" is a regardless a bad word as there is no real "training".
AI has no awareness. AI will never understand what a horse is.
So this is fundamentally different from artists learning to draw by looking at art. AI are algorithms. Given the same input and the same dataset they will always output the same thing.
If AI understood anything we would not have the glaring flaws we have now. We would not have AI companies being terrified of datasets being polluted, because AI would understand that a car is not a horse.
We cannot debate if this tech is ok or not unless people understand how it actually works.
@lettosprey please understand that I am well aware of how the current crop of AI systems and models work.
But I think you are trying to have it both ways. On one hand pointing out the flaws, the lack of awareness, understanding (whatever that is exactly), imagination or inspiration. On the other hand decrying the dangers of the empowerment AI gives to people. That seems to paint your confidence in your (and other human's) creative and artistic faculties in a bad light. If AI lacks all those things, how can it be so dangerous? Consumers will certainly be able to see, hear and feel all that is missing and reject AI generated content. If, however, that does not happen (and I personally think it is way too early to tell), doesn't that mean that what the AI does is far closer to human creativity than you (and I) are comfortable with? Which, by extension, makes the claim that AI is "stealing" at least questionable.
@joerg "please understand that I am well aware of how the current crop of AI systems and models work. "
Then please do not ask questions like these, that are not question someone that understands how AI works would ask:
"Is what AI does, so fundamentally different from what art has always done?"
"But I think you are trying to have it both ways. On one hand pointing out the flaws, the lack of awareness, understanding (whatever that is exactly), imagination or inspiration. On the other hand decrying the dangers of the empowerment AI gives to people. "
AI is not empowering people. Giving people the ability to mush other peoples work together and call it their own is not empowering people.
It is going to become yet another tool businesses will use to automate away the need for humans.
The only "empowerment" you get out of this is the joy of paying a subscription fee to a large cooperation to generate whatever you want based on stolen content rather than paying artists to create it for you.
empowerment?
@deadknight Using AI art even for personal / non profit usage, as it replaces art that you would have had to pay for.
Artists are struggling to get by, and AI art is making life more and more difficult for a lot of artists. People now get their "Personal non profit" art for "free" using AI based on art stolen from artists.
There is not a single ok use of AI engines that train on copyrighted material. NO acceptable usage of sites like midjourney exist, as they step on artists rights to offer what they do. It does not really matter what you use it for, how profitless it may be. It is NEVER ok.
Jed Parsons
Lett Osprey 
🍉 
Snoogles Art
Raymond Evolving
HipsterDM
Vorsos
Dakota 💀
Dr0p
Condalmo.
qu0th the void
Jörg Henne
Tordenstorm