How does AI REALLY Steal Art?

[@bycloudAI]

The comment section is gonna be a shitfest, so brace yourself But I finally released this extremely delayed video, hope I clarified something for you in this one! And also check out NordVPN at www.nordvpn.com/bycloud if you are looking for a VPN and get started to browse the internet safely & privately ;)

[@cerostymc]

Thank you for this video! There is a lot of fear and confusion and misinformation spreading in the art community right now, so it's really important that we can settle the facts and have a civilized conversation again. This is one of the very few videos about this topic that are actually well thought out and offer more perspectives than just "AI steals art" (which is not true) and "AI bad because it steals our jobs" (which is not a good thing, but that doesn't mean the technology itself is bad, and progress ALWAYS comes with the loss of certain jobs). The most important thing to note is that these AIs are incredibly game-changing and powerful tools and will only get better over time. They have a lot of potential to be used for good, but as any new technologies, there will also be ways it can be abused. The AI itself does NOT steal art. In fact, it isn't even able to technically do that because of the way it is programmed. It does not take parts directly out of artworks and mashes them together to create new images. Everything the AI does is a 100% self-created because it learns from the datasets the same way we humans do. So if it'd be "stealing" when the AI is trained on art without the artist's permission, then any artwork that was influenced by any other artwork in any way (which _every_ piece of art is) would be stealing as well. However, this does not mean the AI cannot be _abused_ to "steal" art. Just like a human can reproduce an image from his memory, when the AI becomes better over time, it will also be able to precisely copy any artwork you ask for. While I agree that there should be regulations to avoid this, the AI itself is not the issue but the people malevolently misusing it.

[@dyoanima]

te quiero, i love you work for the comunity

[@corwin.macleod]

The prompted generated images ARE a subject to copyright, because the prompt requires human interaction, which is the only prerequisit for art being considered being made by human.

[@mfatihbilhaq4977]

@@corwin.macleod the anti a.i art mob would argued that the 'interaction' is not enough to be classified as 'human labour' And yet we see bunch of 'artists' draw some scribbles that costed million of dollars and it's probably a scheme for money laundering.

[@corwin.macleod]

​@@mfatihbilhaq4977 We see similar 'interactions' with paint bucket being thrown at canvas forming random stains and it still somehow counts as art, even though it requires literally no labour, no intellectual effort, yet it's enough.

[@samthesomniator]

Believe me, a world in that style is copyrightable would be hell on earth for everyone who tries to do a creative job. Can you just imagine the shitshow of lawsuits?

[@nicholash1278]

True, better is just not have AI than to copyright style.

[@herrlehrer1479]

@@nicholash1278 why not have ai

[@Jose04537]

If you could copyright art styles, then Disney would sue into oblivion anything that remotely looks like classic cartoons (Cup Head, among others)

[@MrMadvillan]

copyright is only enforceable if you have lawyers which is why it’s only corporations who enforce. copywriting styles just wouldn’t be worth it for anyone else.

[@samthesomniator]

@@MrMadvillan copyrighting styles would just be absurd in itself. It would end anyway to produce art in general without having money.

[@KelvinNishikawa]

Once you have a trained model, you can train on new images without labels. While it may not get every last unique detail of the newly sampled images, I find that interrogating the model to generate a prompt from an image works pretty well.

[@TheCephalus]

To correct a fact, the references to artists are found in the CLIP guide that accompanies the OpenAI large language model, rather than in the image data. This has an interesting implication: any model can benefit from a prompt such as "trending on artstation," even if it was not specifically trained on that type of data. The reason is that such a prompt acts as a hyperconnector, bringing in all the relevant words associated with it, such as "beautiful." In short, one should not assume that models are trained on certain topics just because people are promting them.

[@maxwellboop]

My opinion, the A.I isn't really the problem... It's more of the people that are being snakes by using it to gain money or fame.... The A.I can help people with their art like a random pose, or if the background is not an important part of the drawing/the low quality buildings, like there's so much good but the only problem is the people that use it for money, just make a system that shows in the code of the image as A.I generated and can not be removed, and just like the NFT screenshot that gets blur if you did it.... That's useful, basically now the only way to fix this all is to find a way to automatically tag them

[@gara8142]

Thing is an image created by an AI is, algorithmically, literally indistinguishable from that created by a human. And I do mean literally. An image is just a bunch of pixels, pure data that can be stored is many different ways. Unless we somehow enforce a metadata-only sharing platform, this is not something that can be achieved

[@jameshughes3014]

Like any tool, it's what you do with it that matters. Personally I'm fine with it if you don't use it to copy one person's style and then pretend you painted it yourself. But if you mix three or four styles together and come up with the content yourself.. I really don't see how that hurts anyone.

[@Eren_Yeager_is_the_GOAT]

i agree i think AI is amazing but people can use it for bad stuff, but almost everything can be used for bad stuff

[@kibi8999]

It would never work under post-scarcity communism. No way to get capital, no fame. Yet they herald AI as post-scarcity. The irony is that they all want entitlement to others' work which isn't very socialist because they don't compensate others' labour. So it's all some weird contradictory crypto anarcho-capitalism at the moment. A contradictory made out jealousy, and the ridiculous cyberpunk culture.

[@beans11138]

I think it’s too early to make a decision on anything. No one seems to have the right solution nor knows what exactly is going on. I hope this gets resolved without much damage towards human artists though. Art is a beautiful way to express oneself after all.

[@kidchuckle]

thats the conversation should be happening. Instead of some of the attitude that art should be stolen to further the technology. There should have been rules and guidlines implemented so its a tool that can benefitted by all. Just like the music world operates. If work is sampled its used with permission and compensated for.

[@nicholash1278]

I think a decision on this should have been made years ago

[@kidchuckle]

Art is a beautiful thing. But unfortunately they rushed the technology without thinking about the ethical implications. They should have been looking for active participation from artists rather than taking. Currently this data collection at the moment is just focused on art and its application. But what worry some is the data collection of other materials that are seeping or will be sucksd into this AI that people feel is "free use" such as medical records, law evidence etc that should not be collected or use at all. There needs to be regulations. what can be put in and what can be out putted. eapecially the more it becomes real to photography, video and audio synthesising and making it harder to discriminate false evidence or true fact.

[@jameshughes3014]

I'm not sure there's a solution because people haven't yet articulated exactly what they don't like about it. It's all raw emotion. I suspect the pain they're expressing has as much to do with a cold uncaring capitalistic system that puts a monetary value on their creations as it does with the idea that machines can now draw pictures. I think people have felt undervalued and under appreciated for a long time. I don't think the AI is the problem as much as it is a representation of what many feel is wrong with the world. The solution for that won't be easy to find.

[@nicholash1278]

@@jameshughes3014 You really must have severe brain damage, because artists have clearly articulated why this technology is highly unethical and harmful time and time again.

[@jackie-tk9641]

Commenting on this section of the video: 08:00 - 08:36 As an artist with over ten years of posting my work on the internet, I do not upload high resolution of my work. I've had it stolen, cropped/painted out my signature, and sold without my consent back when I used to. I'd find people printing out my work and selling it at conventions, online websites for t-shirts/etc, and even pretending to be the original owner of my character or original artist to fanart I've done. All because the resolution was high enough to print and/or manipulate. To avoid that, I only post with a resolution under 1080 and in jpeg format. No higher and not png. This makes the quality less capable for printing, pixel-wise. Despite the fact, that I work on a 300dpi+ with a canvas size over 3000. I'm not trying to tell the world to follow in my footsteps, by no means! I'm just sharing my experience and the ways I've done to overcome those setbacks in regards to art/character theft.

[@OnTheThirdDay]

AI can improve quality. Do you know if it works for your work?

[@wpelfeta]

I think one very important thing to talk about is the importance of open source AI art. Given how ingrained capitalism is in our culture, laws, and economy, AI art is here to stay, whether we like it or not. It's obviously economically useful to be able to generate art that is 75% of the way there in mere seconds. Big corporations will 100% leverage this technology on their own art. Open source AI is absolutely critical if we want to level the playing field. So while I sympathize with artists in their movement to make sure their livelihoods aren't harmed, I really do not want to see open source AI get harmed in the crossfire. Not everyone who uses AI art generators are artists. It is incredibly important in the fields of indie game development. Some of my friends who are writers have used an AI art generator to create book covers. I'm sure there are many more fields that are already leveraging it's usefulness. It's incredibly important that this technology exists for small creators who may not even be artists. Otherwise we will be beholden to corporations who control this incredibly powerful technology. And I fear that is what will render us all uncompetitive. tldr: I think AI was a pandora's box that has already been opened. We can not stuff it back inside. So we must embrace it and learn to coexist with it.

[@CollCaz-2]

this and so much this if the corporations are going to have this then everyone should have it either we all have it or no one does. no matter how bad AI art is, it's always better that we all have access to it.

[@kusog3]

I think the primary talking point should be about the artist being displaced and not about stopping or limiting the use of AI. We should be making sure Artists displaced by this technology is supported until they can find another way to make a living. After all, limiting the use of this AI is impossible since anyone outside of that country can still use it, and anyone with a computer can use it locally and hide their usage.

[@Askejm]

i remember asmongold when reacting to the dreambooth vid he said there once was artists who was proud of being able to draw super realistically, then cameras were made. you just gotta adapt, the world moves on. i think its very true

[@thecreativeducky5781]

@@Dave-rd6sp I mean, maybe they just enjoy the way it is? Typing words and just fine tuning the result isn't very fun compared to painting the entire piece imo, and most artists could probably agree. I love seeing what I can paint, trying to surpass myself each time. Like yeah, you are more productive at the end, but art was never about being productive, it was about creating. People just used it for income, because the economy requires for them to do so.

[@rebelangel8227]

this is the full truth right here...last week as an artist i got my pc all set up with AI and running my art into it to see what i can cant do with it...its amazing seeing your very own art you spent time on turn into something really really well done granted it still needs a lot of post op work but im totally inspired on this...the glass is either half empty or half full on this one...

[@templargfx]

My main issue with discussions about this is that the tool is blamed for the actions of the human using it. I can legally go to artstation, download someone's artwork and then use that to create my own piece of art solely for my own viewing pleasure and this is not illegal. Copyright issues would only come in if I took that art and then tried to make money off of it or posted it online claiming it was my own unique work. The technique I use is not to blame for the illegal action I take, I am

[@markcooperartcomofficial]

Doesn't matter. The main issue is the speed at which this stuff can be made. Real artists can't keep up. So might as well slow down and make even better art.

[@templargfx]

@@markcooperartcomofficial what do you mean doesn't matter? How exactly does speed of output negate all other concerns?

[@v0kinn0ed5]

@@markcooperartcomofficial You do realize that.... It can take up to 8 hours or even days of prompt writting, selecting and piecing together images to even get something that -may- look like what you are imaging? Anything done with this tool that 'looks good' I promise you, they put their blood sweat and tears into it and spent probably just as much as a traditional artist. Second, Artist CAN USE THIS TOOL to get concepts to work on, photobash or whatever to create something to fit their imagination and speed up their art process. The great thing about this tool is you can choose rather or not to use it in your work. And before you complain more about what I said, digital artist already use a form of AI to do filters, lighting, pixel smoothing, color adjustments and other such things through programs like Clips Studio Paint and Photoshop. It is a tool. And like ALL the other tools out there, there is a CHANCE for abuse. @bycloudAI

[@templargfx]

@Ks that makes no sense

[@evsanger]

​@@markcooperartcomofficial people who make AI art are real artists. And they will continue to be real artists as the technology develops. Adapt to the new medium or play into the uniqueness of an old medium, but don't gatekeep what art is by handicapping artists as to what tools they can use. People said the same shit about Photoshop back in the day. Don't be an old conservative.

[@Creslin321]

Listen guys, I’m going to tell you a truly superior way to steal art. No need to go through complicated steps like running hundreds of generations on an AI just to try to get something close to the art you want to steal. Okay guys are you ready? Here it is. 1. Find the art you want to steal in your browser. 2. Right click the art. 3. Click “save as.” That’s it.

[@kibi8999]

I wonder how AI posters would react to accounts cloning their postings lol.

[@Creslin321]

@@kibi8999 lol I wouldn’t care.

[@evsanger]

@@kibi8999 imagine posting something on the internet and expecting it NOT to be stolen

[@I-ONLY-BUILD-MECHS-AND-DUSTERS]

@@Creslin321 You wouldn't care because you don't say anything of value, you're just a consumer.

[@OnTheThirdDay]

Laughing in my life savings in NFTs

[@jameshughes3014]

Thank you for this. People are afraid, and discouraged. I can understand how they feel.. but many are responding to to what they see in media, not the way it really works. We need more videos like this that just demystify these tools. Particularly the basics.. that these tools don't just copy and paste bits of images that they've seen.

[@Because_Reasons]

This is humans 101 on literally every major contentious issue from abortion to climate-change lol

[@YVZSTUDIOS]

man, now I feel like I should tell my followers the true basics of ai (art), just to clarify and fight misinformation 🤔

[@Because_Reasons]

@@YVZSTUDIOS I think it's important the tech literacy is nill.

[@nicholash1278]

the most depressing thing is the end game of this... that all the media we consume is ai generated to exactly what we want to see... so people never expand their minds through seeing the art of others. seems like in the future we are all just going to be closed off into our ai bubble, with our own ai music, our own ai art, our ai sex robot instead of a partner... etc. the future of ai seems so dystopian.

[@jameshughes3014]

@@nicholash1278 That seems an apt commentary on how things have been the last few years, but I don't think its the future. I feel like there's a bit of a quiet revolt against social media and algorithm driven content, and soon more people will see more value in messy human driven content and the beauty in the flaws of human nature. A bit like how music was perfect pretty pop in the 1980s, and then in the 1990s everyone wanted grunge. At least that's my hope.

[@RykerArt]

As a artist myself there is only one thing to do which is adapt. There is nothing you can do about this as it’s only getting better everyday. Adapt and learn how to use the Ai tools or get left behind. Atleast that’s what am doing myself.😁

[@Homiloko2]

Exactly. The next generation of artists is going to grow up on AI-generated and AI-assisted art, just like the previous generation grew on digital art which was unimaginable to pencil and brush artists 30 years ago.

[@evernam993m8]

@@Homiloko2 the problem is when AI become too good, corporates will start using AI instead of commissioning human artists, to save cost and time. Artists sure will lost their job and starve.

[@Dhruv1223]

what i'm doing myself as well

[@Dhruv1223]

@@evernam993m8 as has happened with literally any other job that has been replaced by machines and automation not to mention improving technology. You will agree that many people should switch over to EVs, so that we reduce our dependency on Oil. this is the estimate i got from an article on Automotive Worlds website "According to Essen, Germany-headquartered Center for Automotive Research (CAR), although e-mobility could be behind the creation of 109,000 new jobs by 2030, it could also lead to 234,000 job losses at suppliers and automakers in the same timeframe." Also remember because of digitisation of art (the kind of artists you are worried about now, i'm guessing), we had several artists emerge, but at the same time many traditional artists ended up loosing their job. Take for example the cartoon industry, earlier there were 100s of people employed in making a small 2d animated film, as there were only so many cells one animator could work on. But when cartoon creation became digitized that same small film could be made by a handfull of people, maybe even one lone animator. Those who adapted won, those who refused, well protested. The same thing we are seeing today. The thing is that yes, jobs will be lost, so do we stick to what we know and protest for no more change, or do we try and further our knowledge and adapt to an ever changing market, its only going to be an accelerating race from now on, as it has been all this time.

[@evernam993m8]

@@Dhruv1223 well, i will take my time to read your long reply, but should we feel bad for our childrens when they will have live and work harder?

[@Crisisdarkness]

I agree with these technological advances, but I would feel sad if, after this, many artists could lose their jobs, I hope this is just a tool to further enhance the creativity of artists

[@Askejm]

cant have too many cars around, the horse riders may lose their job

[@nicholash1278]

same, I hope video game/publishing/ film and animation companies view it as a tool to generate thumbnails, ideas, or do render over lineart, etc, instead of just firing all their animators/illustrators/ concept artists to save money

[@nicholash1278]

@@Askejm the funny thing is cars are terrible for the environment and society in general. Just research how highway construction destroyed neighborhoods and communities all over the USA and how many us cities are filled with empty parking lots. Technology can always have the potential to hurt more than it helps. The atomic bomb for example. Or the Zyklon B gas used to kill millions of people in the holocaust. I think AI is similar (not just image ais, but artificial intelligence in general that will replace billions of jobs in every field)

[@pipkin5287]

I think the sad truth is that it will cost many artists their jobs, and even their careers. When the process of creation, or the labor that go into the work isn't respected at all, we get people who are willing to throw out others because they can generate results faster and cheaper this way. It will cost people their livelihoods and I do think there will be less new art in the world, in the coming years, if these diffusion models aren't regulated, and the artists whose work they were trained on, aren't compensated sooner rather than later.

[@Crisisdarkness]

@@pipkin5287 Oh, it's sad, because there are many people whose real great talent is art, so I hope that despite this technology, there should still be spaces for artists, because the AI's that I have seen so far are creative to a certain point, they have their limitations, that's why the help of an artist with an AI, would be the best result

[@MrRandomguy098]

I think that most reasonable arguments for or against AI art are absolutely valid. I think the true dissonance around the topic is because people fundamentally disagree on 3 things: 1) What is art? 2) What is AI? 3) What is creativity? I believe that a productive conversation about AI art requires all parties to come to a shared understanding about how each other party views these 3 topics. Instead, I think that many of the online arguments I've seen surrounding AI art are ACTUALLY debates and concerns about capitalism in disguise

[@gabudaichamuda2545]

Art is not a grey area. It's a technical skill with fundamental principles. Machine learning skips the entire creative process for an immediate end result. Ergo, it cannot be called art. It is image generation.

[@MrRandomguy098]

@@gabudaichamuda2545 since you assert that art isn't grey, could you give me the objective definition of art? Do there exist art pieces that are not synthesized via "fundamental principles"? Furthermore, could you describe what you believe the creative process to be? These questions aren't meant to antagonize you. I pose them to highlight my point about how different people have different takes on those questions.

[@DanknDerpyGamer]

@@gabudaichamuda2545 > *Art is not a grey area.* Apparently art experts and historians have a lot of disagreements over what constitutes art - and this kind of debate was seen in advancements like photography, so I'm not sure you can it is objectively black and white - that sounds ... wrong... unless I missed something or misunderstood your point (in which case, apologies haha I do that sometimes, inadvertantly).

[@dibbidydoo4318]

@@gabudaichamuda2545 "It's a technical skill with fundamental principles." This contrary to all the art styles and mediums developed in the 20th century.

[@sabertoothlegend4758]

​@@gabudaichamuda2545 When you enter prompts into the ai and also set weights isn't that the creative process? Adding more weight to certain prompts. Adding more prompts and removing the previous ones. Deciding the art style you want. That is literally the creative process.

[@PriestessOfDada]

One thing stable diffusion taught me is that I suck as an ai art forger. Eyes and hair are pretty easy to get past your sniff test. Just render at a higher resolution. Only so much you can do with smaller screen graphs, even on an upscale. I'm skeptical about the lines argument on upscales. It can be, but you can get really crisp renders at the right settings.

[@kattman4605]

Just don't be an art forger. It pushes us closer to deceiving ourselves senseless.

[@kibi8999]

AI usage is just deceit of yourself and others into the idea you're something you're not.

[@PriestessOfDada]

@@kibi8999 I think you need to look at yourself here, and ask why you feel the need to bully other artists, and adopt views on art that were held by third reich. Also, if you can't compete at my level with analog tools, baby, you shouldn't talk.

[@angelicloli9381]

@@PriestessOfDada my brother in christ you are NOT an artist LOL

[@PriestessOfDada]

@@angelicloli9381 If nazis like you are defining what art is, that's probably for the best

[@wyzrd777]

I have made my living as an artist for over half a century. I recently found my name on lists of artist names to use in prompts. I think it's obvious that the AI system is not just using random images to produce results or you would get weird unartistic results. It has a recognizable style limited to a curated input.

[@zyxwvutsrqponmlkh]

Google has already won us in court the right to use cropped (say something like 512x512) images to train ai models. They were doing it for image search but this is a direct descendant of that effort. A couple hundred years ago somewhere above 90% of people were engaged in agriculture to get enough food to stay alive, today in America that is 1.4%, from a nation that is a global food exporter. One hundred years ago there were offices packed like sweat shops full of people doing arithmetic by hand, they were called computers guess what's taken over their jobs. You can't put this cat back in the bag, AI art is here to stay and whiny entitled gatekeeping hacks should not be coddled and need to learn to deal with it.

[@chmod7559]

Good comment, since the use of factories and the technological approach to the production of things or products, a lot of professions have lost their meaning, but why did no one defend them on twitter? But when they took the art, which the artist himself uploaded, then this is considered a problem for them, wtf? Artists should accept this and learn how to use this tool instead of crying that they will lose their jobs.

[@miguelanjo2776]

bruh these are real human beings losing jobs, calling them entitled gatekeeping hacks because they don't wanna lose their livelihoods isn't really a good point

[@miguelanjo2776]

what you're saying is "its inevitable, so complaining about it is stupid" think of it like this: it is a problem, so people complaining about it is inevitable, therefore you complaining about them is stupid. there you go, i used your argument to say your argument is stupid. please try actually engaging with it. it being inevitable does not make it less of a problem nor does it make it pointless to complain.

[@sabertoothlegend4758]

​@@miguelanjo2776dude people have been losing their jobs to automation for a long time. Just think of the car industry. Cars were pieced together by hand now they use machines. When self-driving cars happen, truckers will lose their job. It is called progress. If there is a better alternative why not take it? You can complain people are losing their jobs. that's how it is .

[@sabertoothlegend4758]

​@@miguelanjo2776you can complain no doubt about it. Doesn't change your circumstances ai is improving and art is one of the fields it's encroached on now. It will only take a bigger slice of the pie as time goes on. If you're a dedicated artist who built up a base you shall be fine. Others who can't compete will be left behind. Though since ai is a tool you could train it on your art. Though who cares about that? Let's just bash heads against the wall.

[@MustafaO.Artisan]

hey friend, been following this topic for awhile, and I found myself in this called "A.I. bro community" or whatever, and I feel like many of them are scammers or people who don't look at the bigger picture and the problems that A.I. can cause if it's used wrongly. I wanted to say, I really appreciate your videos and people like you who truly care about what this new tech can do, both good and bad, like the analogy you used, it's like knife. Keep up the good work 🙂👍

[@aiartbx]

Appreciate these types of videos where actual facts are discussed instead of just feelings. Ai art is complicated due to amount of features it has. Literally being able to copy someone's work 1:1 and profit from it must not be tolerated. But this is the same in human art community anyways so I doubt the general public will accept this. The problem is the human artist community is getting the Img2Img art stealing confused with the text-image generator workflow. It is much harder to get a 1:1 copy of the original work replicated using the general method albeit not impossible. I think this all boils down to the user. There are shitty artists and good artists both in real life and in ai art community not the tech itself. One thing I am surprised about you mentioning in the video is that your identifying methods seem outdated. Ai art quality has gotten so good that you can ai upscale, fix eyes, get pristine hair and outlines too. I would suggest instead just reverse googling images like others have found online. That is a sure way to find out if someone is literally stealing art from another person. I am guessing there are even better ways to do this type of reverse search too.

[@Askejm]

yeah the video was like delayed by a month lmao but the artifacts are still quite valid, just less noticable. reverse search is really hard since often the image is different enough and it also havent been uploaded to a search engine

[@kimyona9746]

I mostly use Anime V2 which is based on Dream Diffusion which is based on SD V2. I think Stable Diffusion V2 and DALLE should be the only AIs usable by the public. I think what should be a thing is that maybe for the future, AI users should be forced to put their synthographer (the name for ai art users) signature/real name/account name/email address or something like that, and the AI would by law have to put that in there as a signature on like the bottom right or top left or whichever the AI distributor (i.e. Wombot, SD) would prefer in white. And if it's an image to image generation, it could be in red or something. And someone could show proof they drew a picture and fed it through AI to finish it.

[@ayylmao.mp3]

I can't wait for the shitshow on twitter when a proper open Music model comes out. There is a few pretty promising ones, so I'm expecting a similar kind of dalle1 level woah perhaps by summer this year.

[@Askejm]

there are already music AIs, but few large models if any. i suspect its because music copyright is op, so i doubt it will happen for quite some time

[@nicholash1278]

proper music ais exist but people don't care for some reason. they can actually produce good music

[@ayylmao.mp3]

​@@nicholash1278 if you know any good ones would you please share the names of the models so we can look them up?

[@aodoemela]

As far as im concerned its the equivalent of finding out some company used pictures of your face from Instagram to generate fake people on the internet that look similar but not identical to you. I think this is a perspective that the non-artists do not understand because they don't do art but its inrceadibly malicious.

[@sabertoothlegend4758]

True a nonartist like me doesn't understand how malicious or is. I just see it as progress. With these new ai, anyone can create new art with just a couple of prompts. That's amazing in my opinion. Artists who are upset about it need to get it. a reality check. Ai art is getting better every day and the art being produced with novel or stable diffusion for anime is wonderful as well as mid-journey and dalle 2 for regular art. They just got to accept that ai is here to stay. As long as their art is good they are gonna be fine.

[@arakemi1080]

@@sabertoothlegend4758 it can create wonderfully generic anime images. I can't exactly call it art because art for me is not just the end product that comes from the artist, it's also the journey to the image's creation. I'm trying to be on neither side here because some artists are taking it a bit far while others are just struggling to keep the income flowing from the work they do based on their passion. While most non artists (there are some with the ability to reason) do not understand why the images produced by human artists is called art while AI images are not, simply because they have not been on the artist grind, they don't know how much work, how much pain and suffering, how much sweat and how many tears were spilled during the whole time the artist in question was learning. And trust me, it's far harder than you might think to be an artist. Tbh I personally prefer human art simply because I can choose and refference a pose from one image, an outfit from another image, a hairstyle from another nother image, all applied to the character in my pfp which is actually my oc. All while I also have the guarantee that it's gonna be my character that comes out with all those referenced things rather than some druid with some leaves on her hair, and a dress that doesn't even look similar to what I want.

[@sabertoothlegend4758]

​@@arakemi1080 you can also fine-tune ai art by weighing things and including more prompts to get a specific image. It's easier to get into and requires fewer lessons. 1 week of GitHub an you can have a portfolio of art.

[@sabertoothlegend4758]

Ai art is gonna be the future for people to use. Very accessible and easily create. Can call it generic all you want. There are many diverse art pieces in multiple styles anime, realistic, etc.

[@arakemi1080]

@@sabertoothlegend4758 name 10 specific art styles, by name of artist. You already said 2 so it shouldn't be that hard. Make sure to ask the machine overlords too.

[@vanillasky88]

I cannot wait for AI generated youtubers that will take all revenue from people currently defending AI art.... Just a matter of time.

[@strumyktomira]

Like poor artist who cry over AI tooking his job, the same are poor KZbinrs who make profit only from ads on his videos. This is not the only way to make profit from YT. And should not be.

[@bustedd66]

you cray. even if does happen. by that time all artist will be unemployed as will almost everyone else. no ones job is safe. artists are just at the front of the line not the end.

[@jurandfantom]

Take this. Generate for yourself dataset (will be never published). Create model from that dataset and publish images only created by that one. All copyright problems gone.

[@gara8142]

This is the sneaky problem. While a random dude could kinda do this, the problem is when stupidly big companies just kinda do too, behind closed doors. After a model is trained it's not realistic to prove it was made using X copyrighted art. And then they have free range to do whatever they want to.

[@new-bp6ix]

I thought artificial intelligence would take my job But I started to receive more work than I could draw And also artists. Don't stop drawing There are many companies that need artists The art industry is going to get very big in the coming years. These AI companies know this and want to steal this opportunity from artists. The only way to succeed is not to let this artificial intelligence get you down!!.

[@justacheese34yearsago28]

I think the problems is that this is AI were talking about, they rapidly made progress, i mean there always going to be "competitive" feeling in community wether its for fun or not, but its the fact that someday you will rival best Artist if you keep practicing, but you will never rival AI, i mean some kid could literally type "Vangough, 4k, abstract" and create marvelous art in like 15-20 minutes, how human gonna rival that

[@Monkchelle_Kongbama]

@@justacheese34yearsago28 it only takes about 20 seconds actually. Thats the nature of abstract works. The one area that drawn art can still compete is with very specific scenes, designs, poses etc Ai makes clean but generic art, and it still takes hours shotgunning img2img or touch ups to make things perfect. but ive yet to see AI do the kind of stuff that fusu does with his pieces for example. Theres room for both, the crying minority are honestly just "mad cause bad" they need to innovate.

[@revimfadli4666]

I really like how you debunk misconceptions some "creative" people echo around, while also addressing their worries in a well though-out manner

[@thehangingparsiple5692]

So what are these misconceptions those naughty 'creative' people are echoing around?

[@revimfadli4666]

@@thehangingparsiple5692 the idea that the generators simply copy paste and crop collages?

[@evsanger]

​​@@thehangingparsiple5692 the so-called 'creative' people in this case are just people who have no skill in this area and can't adapt to the medium so they spread misinformation in an attempt to stop it from taking off

[@kibi8999]

​@@revimfadli4666 Except denoising/diffusion is designed to reconstruct images not generate them? Because they're interpolative that creates the illusion they are creating. But if you tell an AI model to make something through artistic fundamentals, or even instruct basic shapes (e.g. a red circle to the left of a blue square) it'll fail UNLESS it has the text-coupling of an image of a red circle to the left of a blue square. So they're NOT trained to make art but rather recreate only the specific text-image couplings they're given and then interpolate that. That is copy-pasting, but diffusely.

[@revimfadli4666]

@@kibi8999 reconstruct from what? A completely new starting noise? What would make generation different then? How do you even "copy paste with interpolation"? Is there another tool that can do that? An option in photoshop perhaps? Does that mean taking inspiration from multiple sources is just an illusionary interpolation?

[@AbjectPermanence]

Artists can't withdraw their consent to having their published art be used by others as a reference. If an artist publishes a thing, I am allowed to look at that thing, study it, transform it, and use it in Fair Use ways. It's not like artists can arbitrarily take away Fair Use from other artists they don't like. Fair Use applies to everyone.

[@otapic]

Yes everyone, that being other humans

[@d8ys]

@@otapic ai deserves human right because they are more sentient and conscious than you and that's a fact

[@TerraAustralis01]

​@@d8ys repeat last sentence again!

[@nbshftr]

i dont think its going to be possible to fight against people training whatever source material they want

[@nbshftr]

people are just going to like... do it? artists that make their livelyhood need to adapt cuz the internet definitely isnt going to stop moving just because its a bad thing

[@jameshughes3014]

Is it bad?

[@nbshftr]

@@jameshughes3014 people getting their jobs replaced by ai? in the short/mid term yeah. if you're a believer of the future being an ai run utopia where nobody has to work, then idk maybe not??

[@jameshughes3014]

@@nbshftr who said anything about people losing their jobs? I was just asking if learning from previous art is bad. I think you're looking into your crystal ball to see the future that has not yet happened. Its a scary vision, but it remains to be seen. I dont think many will lose jobs. Some will for sure. but i really don't think it will be as bad as people think. I honestly believe it will be maybe 1 out of 100000 people who do. the other 999,999 people will still be working. These machines aren't magic.

[@_B.C_]

It doesn’t steal, it learns. Fair use includes education purposes. Nothing ever specified the education had to be for humans.

[@Red.Rabbit.Resistance]

"trained" is a loose phrase that people get confused about... Ai takes notes of what art looks like, and it compiles a textual data base of ..."words". I can write an entire book describing the mona lisa and its not stealing the mona lisa. lol. Its not stealing because the Ai was literally programmed to "train" on publicly accessible non copyright materials. So even though artists imply a conceptual copyright, and are entitled to one. Artists dont have to feel robbed anymore, it was never a robbery. Artists have a the ability to opt out of Ai learning. literally! If you use Adobe, you have been training Ai for years. (you can turn that off too) edit: I think traditional art value will sky rocket in the next five years.

[@FaTaL3RRoR88]

The authors assign the rights of their illustrations when they upload them to any web page, it is written in the terms and conditions. It's not stealing, it's like when a human uses the illustrations of other authors as a reference, only that the AI does it much faster, a new work is obtained that is not 100% the same as the original. Finally, you cannot claim copyright of a style of drawing or painting.

[@Dozer22334]

03:16 "AI is referencing, just like human, so when user creates art with it - i'ts not stealing" - Ok, fine/debatable. "Creating software, (or even freeware), using tons of copyrighted stuff, without which it can't even function" - Plain stealing.

[@JamesMiller-w8e]

Bottom line is only the legalities matter, currently you can't copyright a "style" and I don't see that happening "ever" as it would open a Pandora's Box which would effectively create the inability for anyone to create anything without someone or some corporation screaming "style" flaw to stop a competitor.

[@PhotoMentor]

There is no original art. Every art student is required to study art HISTORY. Every artist is influenced and inspired by those that came before them.

[@crisvis8905]

Why every pro AI art person is a moron. If you study art history you see how art has evolved. Every generation of artists adds something new. If art was just copying it would be the same since the very beginning. AI just copies, and cannot imagine or be creative like a human can.

[@PhotoMentor]

@@crisvis8905 ​ You might want to do more research on how large language models and generative AI actually work. Also, keep in mind is December 1903 in Kitty Hawk North Carolina. We have just flown a few hundred feet but have idea of what manned flight will look like or can achieve in 50 years. At the speed of AI development, we are looking at probably 3-5 years. What we see now is the WORSE it will ever be, it gets better and better by the day. Also, remember that just because a person "creates" something does not automatically make it new, unique or creative. If AI Imagining was simply "Copying" as you say, then every image would look the same and the results would always be the same. But the text of how you phrase the prompt, and what reference images, style and information YOU enter, also affects the output. Finally not sure what you mean by a "Pro AI Art Person", but this is just a tool like any other. In the right hands a hammer can be use to break up rocks or build a house. It is all about how creative YOU are and how you can use these tools to convey you own vision.

[@crisvis8905]

@@PhotoMentor You have zero creativity or talent, that's why you don't understand what art or creativity is. You think by studying history you can learn how to be an artist. That's not how it works. Funny everyone that loves AI lacks both intelligence and creativity AI, because it makes up for what you don't have. AI is just a set of algorithms. Those algorythms are based on humans. It copies and mimics and creates the illusion of intelligence. That's it. I'm a software engineer and an artist. Imagine being me and having to talk to brain dead people like you pretending to understand things you don't.

[@crisvis8905]

AI is literally taking human jobs. Hard working humans. But who cares? Lazy, dumb uncreative people like you can now pretend to be smart and creative with AI.

[@theheroichunter6793]

Well looking at ai images... they are quite the same. Faces do look the same if you re talking about art. Most of you ai gooners think that ai will replace every artist but artist will still be here. Just in different areas. Just in case I will say that promting and generating an image is not any form art so these ai Artists are nothing but clowns mocking artist and when someone steals their image, they start crying. What a joke Also you dont get to train your precious ai on copyrighted music so why does it make it okay to do it to these artists if it is not stealing. Music industry is much more powerful. Noone would have a bit of a problem with AI if it wouldnt be stealing.

[@samizo5842]

I don't know about the stealing thing I know some people steal art and claims it is there own before ai was a thing People should fight the stealing not the ai 😂

[@nicholash1278]

I can't wait till gtp 4 comes out and every one of these a hole software engineers is out of a job just like they said the artists would be, while the truly creative artists still produce interesting works that the prompters never even think of try to make

[@samizo5842]

@@nicholash1278 I don't think it can replace engineers They will just adapt and use the technology to make there job easier I don't think ai can replace anyone at all

[@nicholash1278]

@@lazysnail145 because web developers deserve to lose their jobs. there is nothing important to the human soul about making a basic website.

[@thestarchas3r]

​@@nicholash1278 I'd like to see how many multilingual multicurrency websites and creative interactive web applications you have made if you think web dev is so easy or soulless. I'm betting you'd pretty annoyed if no one made your favourite web applications and designs. Have some respect for those who spend hard work and sleepless night creating the societal infrastructure and UX you so take for granted. I am also curious what exactly your "job" is.

[@nicholash1278]

@@thestarchas3r I've made three multilingual multicurrency websites and launched creative interactive web applications each one made over 50k profits in the first year. It was easy and I paid indian devs barely any money to make them for me. In the future I can't wait to not even have to pay indians and can use gtp 5 instead to do all the programming work and I just have to come up with ideas, (many of which I can use gtp to improve as well). I have no respect for little code monkeys ! Art is about expressing the human and will always be more important than programming!

[@brodiscool2752]

This is truly saddening, as an artist like manyself, I have shat my pants with he force of 50 billion cataclysmic hypernovas. My dog has been given stage 200 Frentocitoillion Rabies, and my wife had a seizure. Truly one of the moments of real.

[@IgorNV]

You said it yourself: the concept of "stealing an art style" is silly, the images used in training are publically available, and artists have been using each other (and other mediums such as photos) as reference for a very long time. Strengthening copyright law in order to stop AI "theft" is **exactly** how you get "a tool that gets misused for evil", because corporations like Disney will abuse the fuck out of that, and fuck both AI and Human artists. Maybe even non-artists as well.

[@blackschema]

@@Dave-rd6sp no they can just make ai/ml regulations not change the whole copyright laws etc..

[@justacheese34yearsago28]

The only guy i vibe with

[@carultch]

I'd much rather live in a world where the Disney corporation keeps extending and complicating copyright laws, than a world where the livelihood of artists is undermined by software being legally allowed to steal it from them.

[@trunghuynh4516]

I think that anyone selling art should state that if it is AI and if it is found out that it is AI when they claimed it not should be. Then the buyer or the person(s) who transacted the transaction should be able to sue or claim liablibity

[@zzzzzzz8473]

this tech is incredibly empowering , greatly expanding our potential , we could still hand paint each art if we want or we can create entire worlds , each our own cinematic universe . let us dream bigger . even if all the artworks were removed from the dataset , it would only set back the quality by like a year , as iterative / evolutionary techniques like picbreeder demonstrate that complex aesthetics can be cultivated from simply starting with math functions / noise .

[@nicholash1278]

what you don't understand is that as ai gets smarter... individual humans will get dumber, leaning on it as a crutch to do everything instead of as a tool. every new technology harms us as well as helps. AI might make us go extinct, especially when you look at the language models and the robots being made by boston dynamics which will eventually be able to do any task a human can do. sometimes I wish I could reject all technology and live in the woods in the ways my ancestors did, just living by hunting and gathering food. I hate the modern of technology.

[@zzzzzzz8473]

​@@nicholash1278 unsubstantiated causality , a calculator does not make humans dumber it lets us focus on more complicated math concepts , rather then rote memorization of basics . these tools have quickly become some of the best resources FOR education a one-on-one personal teacher for everyone . chose for yourself whatever kind of life youd like , however doing the same hunt/gather everyday simply to eat sounds unfulfilling after a few days .

[@nicholash1278]

@@zzzzzzz8473 calculators absolutely make young kids learning math dumber and lazier.

[@zzzzzzz8473]

@@nicholash1278 basic operations that a calculator solves are just that BASIC , it is in APPLYING those concepts to problem solving that is INTELLIGENT . the fundamental operators are such a tiny aspect of what makes math complex , doing division in your head isnt intelligence .

[@nicholash1278]

@@zzzzzzz8473 Writing words in ALL CAPS doesn't make your stupid argument sound any smarter.

[@SianaGearz]

I don't believe whether text-to-image is copyrightable by the person who created the prompt has been litigated yet. As such it's impossible to say for certain. Also IANAL and this isn't legal advice. But my feeling is that it should be copyrightable, as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's copyright and isn't deemed a derivative work, which is a whole other can of worms. The idea that it's not copyrightable stems from a court case where a camera was operated by a monkey to create a surprisingly good selfie; obviously an animal cannot hold copyright. The owner of the camera (the "photographer") argued that he created the conditions for the monkey to take the shot, thus he should own the copyright. But the court deemed that there wasn't actually creative input put by the "photographer" into the picture, it was purely an accident, thus it's not copyrightable. But prompt engineering takes a lot of back and forth until you receive the result that you find satisfying; thus regardless of effort (low effort photographs are generally copyrightable just like high-effort photography or art), arguably there is a creative process involved in operating the text-to-image AI. However it may not be the case where the images are generated in bulk from automatically generated keywords and there's no human in the loop. If someone decided to create a fully automatically curated stock image library by scraping popular keywords off the internet and running them through text-to-image AI, by all reason it wouldn't be copyrightable.

[@thecreativeducky5781]

IANAL?? ANAL??? lol

[@SianaGearz]

@@thecreativeducky5781 "I am not a lawyer" common abbreviation.

[@blinkspacestudio8892]

This tech is great for those who dont want to put the effort in to learn how to draw, like the calculator, computers, emails etc it makes the job so much quicker, just get the robot to do it...I totally get that I use tech too. Brilliant.....but I wont put art that took me months online when it can be just stolen in seconds lol. Sorry that feels like a punch to the liver.

[@jameshughes3014]

I see no issue with machines learning from what they see, and it's been difficult to understand some people's reasoning because I'm not neurotypical. But the way you stated this helps me understand what some people feel. Thank you. Can I ask, what does stolen mean to you? Could you give me a definition of theft in this case? Or is theft not the right word? In my mind, theft deprives someone of the thing that was stolen. Is this bad because it deprives you of something.. Or is it more visceral? Is it more like the feeling you have when someone copies your math quiz answers? If you can, and are willing to answer, please use as much logic as possible.. I don't naturally understand emotional reactions.

[@bustedd66]

thats fair. i used to make memes back in the day of myspace. all i asked was people to link back to me. guess what didnt happen. :) so i stopped and opened an image hosting site :).

[@NakedSageAstrology]

It's not stealing anymore than an artist learning their craft through observing other artists and becoming influenced.

[@kibi8999]

That's not true, artists have a mind-body barrier and most don't just trace and transform references. Artists learn visuospatially, channelling through the fundamentals like perspective, gestalt, semiotics, draftsmanship, mixing colours, etc. AI models don't act like or produce images through artistry, they know not the chronological order or "how" the brush strokes they applied are made or by what technique. AI images just plagiarise from any medium, e.g. sculpture, paint, pencilling, scratchboard, wicker, woven, etc, etc. That's where the hard work in art lies and others are not entitled to profiting from months to years of hard work while the artists don't. If there was an AI that could learn the fundamentals of art physically and make things through the inspiration of real life then I could agree. But artists have a mind-body barrier, capture the details of their imagination in ways that they cannot psychically inform an AI, and furthermore it is the AI's users that are claiming to be "artists" rather than that the AI is the artist. Ask an AI to coordinate basic shapes, like triangle, square, circle and their colours and terms like left, right, adjacency, etc. AIs don't follow instructions but look at the words, searching for image data that relates to those words and then interpolates that. There is no artistry or logic, just plagiaristic interpolations. Denoising (diffusion) is reconstructive not artistic, and that is only comparable loosely to copyists. But copyists don't claim to "design" that which they draw outside of the artistic process, just like photographers don't claim they made the Mona Lisa when they take a photo of it.

[@NakedSageAstrology]

@@kibi8999 I don't think you quite understand how complex Neural Networks actually work my friend; it's very much similar to the human mind, the only problem you seem to have is that they are far more efficient and leading to an inevitable & uncomfortable truth about intelligence. Artists are not special, but the ego is terrified of learning what it is made of.

[@NakedSageAstrology]

@The Hermit It's important to clarify that while diffusion algorithms like Dallee 2 may use noise to generate new images, the resulting images are not simply copies of the original source image. Instead, the noise is used to introduce randomness and variability into the image creation process, resulting in unique and original artworks that are not exact replicas of the source material. Furthermore, it's worth noting that many artists throughout history have used techniques that involve chance and randomness as a means of creating new and unexpected outcomes. For example, the Surrealist movement in art often embraced chance and random processes as a way of tapping into the unconscious mind and exploring new creative possibilities. Additionally, it's important to remember that the process of creating art is not just about the final product, but also about the creative process itself. By using diffusion algorithms like Dallee 2, artists are able to explore new creative avenues and experiment with different techniques and styles in a way that may not have been possible with traditional media. Ultimately, the use of diffusion algorithms like Dallee 2 to create art should not be equated with plagiarism. While there may be similarities between the source image and the resulting artwork, the creative process involved in using these algorithms is distinct and unique, and the resulting images are original creations in their own right. Imagine being an artist in ancient times, imagine doing all of your carving using nothing but your teeth and fingernails and along comes a man with a new tool that does the hard work for him, this knife is able to whittle away the pieces of wood much faster and more efficiently. You would feel similar to the modern-day use of art programs like Dallee 2 as you now feel cheated because you did it the hard way.

[@NakedSageAstrology]

@The Hermit I would argue the same supposition to you my friend; what makes a human? They are made from the very same material as the machines that run artificial intelligence; they both run on electricity and they both compute via hard coded algorithms through trial and error. I don't think the problem is that machines are creating art that rivals humans, I think the problem rests with identifying with a very small part of the universe when the only thing separating it is nothing but an emergent phenomena of mind.

[@paulaumentado1588]

This is some shit tier opinion

[@ironman8257]

Artists will get a payback when someone will share or use algorithms and parts of of dall-e or mid journey to create alternative diffusion generators. And same people who copied will be copied themselves,loop will close

[@slyack]

You can make your own one these days. Midjourney and Dall-e are however trained and developed in a lot greater speed so there won't be competition any time soon. There's no "payback".

[@strumyktomira]

It is not possible to measure which artist work was used to or which artist at all to make AI picture. There are no whole pictures inside, and no fragments of it. It can be one artist or three or more and you will not know how many. It's look like all colors mixed in one bucket.

[@otapic]

​@@strumyktomira but it is possible to determine who's art was used in the database. Based on probability and text associated with the images stored for training, it's in the realm of possibility to have an AI to recognize AI art and it's sources. Simply reverse engineering their diffusion method but instead of typing in prompts, the AI figures out what prompts were used and works from there

[@I-ONLY-BUILD-MECHS-AND-DUSTERS]

@@strumyktomira The same is true for any kind of data. The contents of an encrypted file will appear to be noise without the password to decrypt it. Whether you call it a password or prompt, doesn't matter, it can still produce stolen materials.

[@newb_neet]

People who said AI's learning method is the same as human, remember that human learns by UNDERSTANDING, not SEEING. People didn't get better at art just by LOOKING at other arts, otherwise they will be able to draw human perfectly because that is what people see everyday! I looked and "get inspired" at arts and beautiful game landscape everyday but that doesn't mean I can draw it! Meanwhile, tech bros said that these AI tools "are inspired by seeing" and is "the same as human"

[@filiphedman4392]

This is the most true and real comment I've read today.

[@mekingtiger9095]

Everytime I see someone saying AI will replace humans soon, whether in active support by "AI bros" or desperate people feeling existential dread, I remember all of my times playing single player in Total War: Warhammer and Paradox Games. I laugh. And of you've ever played any of these games, you should too. You know damn well that at least these aren't going to get much smarter any time soon.

[@Rasupubegasu]

8:52 Scary thing is AI will improve to the point we can't distinguish it anymore. AI will not have much give away compared to now. Keep it mind that AI art is still a new thing.

[@obi-wan-afro]

Well that sounds like steal with extra steps, Morty - Rick Sanchez

[@amosnimos]

all these ethical question arrived too late, the tech IS here and won't disappear. can it be tweaked or limited, sure but than we are actively breaking something that work. we try to fix what ain't broken, the ethical concerns are relative. and unless the AI had a limit on how much it can reference an artist style. would that really satisfy the artists? what do they really want here? art is hard, and now AI made it so that "most" artist aren't needed. that it steel directly from their style or not, will not change this fact. the world has changed taught shit it's gonna keep changing and most of the time it ain't gonna be for the better. these artist that lost money because of the AI, won't make more money even if all their art where removed from the data set, it will only be slowly replaced by other similar art. at the end of the day it's like Pantone trying to own color. what is your goal? to get more recognision and money for your work. that's good, will removing your art from the ai accomplish that? or is this just some kind of revenge from the tech that took your job? I mean I get it, it suck for the artist. like every job that get automated, it suck for the guy whos job it was.

[@HoriaCristescu]

AI will route around the missing artists, there are plenty of images left. But they might hurt their image as their name will not be conjured in prompts, while their style can be approximated from other names.

[@amosnimos]

@@HoriaCristescu that's my point, but well summarized, AI will find a way. and people bitching about it, even if they do have some points right, are mostly wasting their breath.

[@kylokat]

look up the recent drama on r/art, their mods literally banned an artist’s art for ‘looking like AI art’ and banned the artist as well. The mods went on and tell the artist to find a different style.

[@Askejm]

I'm the artist oi a painting "A muse in Warzone." here for complaining about the unfair ban. I can give you guys the process or the PSD file of that painting. I'm not using any AI supported and that punishtnent is not right. Sorry for my bad English and thank you for your time! Here is my portfolio. Take a look: I don't believe you. Even if you did "paint" it yourself, it's so obviously an AI-prompted design that it doesn't matter. If you really are a "serious" artist, then you need to find a different style because A) no one is going to believe when you say it's not AI, and B) the AI can do better in seconds what might take you hours. Sorry, it's the way of the world. You have been temporariiy muted from r/Art. You will not be able to message the moderators of r/Art for 28 days.

[@gara8142]

@@Askejm holy fk reddit users when things do go their way. Actually hilarious how that community keeps growing in despite of this

[@Somerled_Pox]

Man, can you imagine if platforms like twittard or leddit didn't exist? The internet would be so much nicer to be in

[@shuysnoopy]

Ai art is not about whether its ethical or not, its necessary. The only problem now is about how people use it rather than the ai itself. People who use it for personal gain as opposed to other artists who spent years and years to practice surely gonna make people frown.

[@bustedd66]

lots of things make me frown. AI art is one of the few things that makes me excited.

[@HarryHeck2020]

frown with all the people who were still using a flip phone, frown with all the people taking a boat instead of an airplane, frown like the army charging a gun line armed with pointed sticks... The frowners will be gone, forgotten, a joke children make about old people. Don't be one of 'those' guys.

[@bustedd66]

@@HarryHeck2020 yep. cant fight progress. now we just need to dismantel capatilism before we are all unemployed. im ready for people to be able to do more with their life then create stupid logos for bad business. i dont even understand why they are fighting this.

[@HarryHeck2020]

@@bustedd66 Um, dismantle capitalism??? Bad idea. How did you get that? That would be regression. That would absolutely wreck the world.

[@bustedd66]

@@HarryHeck2020 kinda hard to keep people employed when one person +AI can do the job of 1000 people. and yes i do forsee some bumps along the way :) good luck to us all.

[@Korodarn]

Art theft is a broken concept. Physical property is necessary to avoid the natural conflicts that occur over scarce resources. 2 people frequently cannot occupy or use things at the same time, or there are costs associated with doing so (lack of privacy, etc.) This is not the case with art. In fact, every single person who looks at art or music has a different and unique experience, just as 2 people who receive exactly the same training on a programming language will not take away the same exact details and grow in the same ways from that knowledge. Art "theft" in the AI domain is simply allowing AI to view images, just as a human would, and derive information from doing so that allows reproduction of similar (sometimes "too similar", because of the broken IP concept) images. This is analogous to how humans learn. The argument is made that the difference is the AI does this "perfectly" but anyone who has looked at the images AI produces know this is ridiculous, even when most of the images it produces are "good enough" the kinds of quality errors in the work is often something unacceptable in other contexts. Yes, computer programs can reproduce with more exactness the same picture each time than a human, but this is because computers work on a binary, simplistic mode. Humans have to work in the analog "real" world where exactness is a little fuzzy, even if we can make machines that make it a non-issue in most cases. I do think the courts may make dumb decisions here but I'm not worried over the long run as technology like this is uncontrollable.

[@FaizalKuntz]

AI art should be a public domain where it's illegal to be use as something like NFT because no one own it. while Art by human is legal as long as the human didn't do what AI did basically redraw something similar but a little different. i think art is just art either is Digital Art or Traditional Art but the real person who own the art is something make by AI can't really do unless the AI being trained by using the original artist work and the artist use AI to mass produce it which is the rabbit hole if it's okay or not.

[@trpbootan]

I've seen some artists complaining about AI stealing art, yet I've seen some of them straight up copy and trace poses form other artists work and call it their own original artwork.

[@BaoNguyen6742]

Thank you for shedding a light on AI generated art and stand in a neutral ground, a lot of video talking about this situation just being a bit to too much leaning on the artist side and sometime even spread misinformation about how the actual work behind the AI

[@hotrodhunk7389]

Being inspired by someone is exactly what AI does. Same as an art student studying a famous painter then incorporating their style. I get it artists are shook. But you can't stop it by crying about it.

[@chrissidongo1757]

"Being inspired by someone is exactly what AI does" so Ai has a consciousness now? I mean humans can make consciuos decisions and Ai works purley on algorithms. All i know so far is that Ai still lacks emotions, critical thinking skills, motivation reasons and is simply not able to make decisions on its own. Can it actually compared to an human being? I'm just curious thats all.

[@LM-zj7xp]

1. How does quality change the ethics? 2. Learning isn't stealing, whether it's done by a human or AI. 3. Styles can't be copyrighted 4. Copyrighted works can still be used under fair use 5. Any tools can be used to recreate artwork. Like a camera. Does it make a camera bad? No, breaking copyright law makes the user bad. 6. Names are used because AI learns the essence of something. Calling names and good tags allows the AI to better understand which part of the nearly infinite latent space it should look at for certain aspects.

[@okunamayanad]

if the ai is stealing art then everybody is stealing art. ai is being trained like a child, observes its surroundings and draws its own ideas accordingly.

[@paulaumentado1588]

That's a stupid statement

[@wooolves3749]

ai isnt traineed like a child. Its trained like Superman learning football

[@jenstornell]

The problem I have is to know how much of the generated image is unique. How do I know the photo I just generated is not 99% like a real photography?

[@some_random_wallaby]

Some of the software, like Stable Diffusion, can run locally offline on your PC. To use it requires downloading a database that is only a couple of gigs in size. A quick google gives me a figure of 2.3 *billion* images that this dataset represents. Therefore, it only has the equivalent of metadata. I think of it as words associated with visual patterns in a massive network - if that helps. So, this means that even if you type in "Mona Lisa" you will not get something that is 99% similar to the Mona Lisa. Now, I don't mean to suggest that all AI is like Stable Diffusion in this sense. There are more concerns I have with it than fingers and toes, but I digress.

[@operatic9537]

I love how people insist on never getting mad at the root cause of these problems. This is only an issue at all because of capitalism. Under a system where we didn't require people to work to justify their existence people might be slightly annoyed by plagiarism but that's as far as it would go, it's only because their lives literally depend on their work that this becomes an issue. I happen to believe that a better system is possible now but regardless of what you believe AI will not only usher in this new system, it will REQUIRE it to exist because enforcing the existence of capitalism in a world with highly advanced AI would be impossible.

[@yui.3218]

Yoo Aitrepreneur and bycloud releasing 2 vids in the same minute what a good day it is

[@bycloudAI]

lmao I saw his premiere right after I posted too

[@yui.3218]

@@bycloudAI ayy!

[@GenericInternetter]

If this is considered stealing, then every time a human looks at a piece of art we are also stealing by observing and learning from the art we lay our eyes on.

[@jaypetz]

It will just improve as time goes on. The next step is to start implementing AI to the creative workflow.

[@Natsukashii-Records]

As long as you guys think that AI is copying art/stealing art then this discussion will go nowhere. When you understand how similar it is to how actual brains work, and that like any tool it will be used and learn from other art and real life as any other artist before has, then you can start making demands with an informed opinion. Until then all I hear is crying.

[@mittxns922]

AI isn't a person learning how to make art. AI isn't a person becoming an artist. AI is a tool that enables incapable parasites to leech off of artists and steal with machine precision.

[@floraazul7622]

As an artist who is self taught, and worked in the animation industry: It's so annoying that SO many people out there lump ALL generative ai into "it steals art" category. It shows a complete misunderstanding of what ai actually is, or how it works. That misunderstanding only breeds disinformation. I personally don't care if people use my art, because I truely hope people out there trace screencaps as a way to learn shape theory or do screencap redraws of my work from the shows I worked on to learn how to draw. You trace character sheets as a warmup for character animation, for goodness sake. We use copy paste assets of hands etc even in hand drawn animation in Town Boom. Animation is puppetry. I WANT the art I put out there to inspire and be used to create new things. So I don't care if my art is used, BUT I know others do, and they should have a say. For example: Artists who have recently died are having thier art collected and used without thier permission. That is sickening to me. Having your art being used in generative ai training sets should be opt out by default. Then you also have the iceman complaining about refrigerators, where artists claim they are anti ai or that human made is 'superior'. I've had one of the artists that worked on The Yellow Submarine tell me "the computer did the work for you" because I drew digital art for work. I know how to line traditionally, I started traditionally! Digital art is easier to adjust and more accessible for me. The concept of tech somehow making art less worthy is ridiculous. It's pompous and a superiority complex. Tech enhances our ability as artists! The photoshop patch tool, tween animation, facial tracking for vtubers, etc all run on "ai" and people don't have issues with that. Ai is a tool. So it's not the tool that is bad, it's how the tool is being used. A hammer can make or break! In theory someone could get an entire training set from free to use images/images used with permission/compensation. You could even make an ai trained entirely from art YOU create and YOUR photography. Then what? Are people going to be mad you are producing your own content? My sole issue, and reason I am against a lot of specific ai models out there, is because the ai are trained on open web images. Because you just KNOW there is pictures of NSFW or NSFL illegal content within the ai training. There is no reason an ai should be trained on private medical images or pictures of war crimes. That's why I am against certain ai models, most notably ones big companies seem to be endorsing without understanding what generative ai even is. Corporations should not be monetizing systems that are training off of human trafficking images or animal abuse images ffs. Generative ai doesn't have to be this immoral.

[@nicholash1278]

it's for the greater good that people are against AI, I think spreading negative AI disinformation that slows AI research is actually beneficial to humanity.

[@patrickbateman69420]

Just as regular people have been regularly copying the styles of famous artists for decades, famous artists can now use AI to enhance their capabilities and stay ahead of the curve as before. "Adapt or get left behind" is just as true now as it _always has been._ Sitting there moaning about something you absolutely cannot stop is wasting your energy. You are an artist. Innovate. Adapt. Evolve. Or don't and get left behind. You're not entitled to an easy life just because you're good at being creative, and you're not entitled to sympathy just because you're upset that a machine can do what you do but in a fraction of the time.

[@Jeholista]

Copying ones style have ups and down..but developing ones own style by studying others style..is much i prefer.....

[@DigitalCosmos555]

People should be fighting for ubi not a uphill battle. The need to earn money to survive is the real problem and is why people feel threatened.

[@nicholash1278]

of course, but UBI (which I support) doesn't exist, so you can't criticize people who trained for years to be an artist for being worried they won't make money anymore because the AI is millions of times faster and cheaper. It's traumatic to wake up one day and realize you have no way of supporting yourself anymore and you have to give up your dreams to go work in a warehouse or work at a fast food restaurant or something because your only skill is art.

[@DigitalCosmos555]

@@nicholash1278 Exactly why we need it. Humans hate change good or bad and will always opt in trying to keep things the same. lol thats not going to happen though so we need to focus on ubi when is better then putting our head in the sand before its too late

[@IronFire116]

UBI is a horrible idea. If you don't work, you don't eat.

[@DigitalCosmos555]

@@IronFire116 Why? "If you don't work ,you dont eat." Plenty of people do work and barely have enough money to eat. But also what are you supposed to do once your job is suddenly automated even after going to college to get that career? Just starve and die?

[@DigitalCosmos555]

@@IronFire116 maybe we can start eating the money we don't have or turn to cannibalism.

[@ChristopherCricketWallace]

I argue that these AI art generators are not "stealing" art. They examine art and generate a "transformative work." Yes, it's bad news for artists; but it's still fair use (by a mega bot).

[@ChristopherCricketWallace]

oversimplified: they are fancy, computer generated memes, at scale.

[@BenjiJames]

AI has massively grown since this video and i think another is worth doing.

[@JacobHepworth]

This concept has spread like wildfire and it bothers me so much. If someone doesn't want others copying their style, then don't make it publicly available. This tech can't steal anything other than a style. I like many artists take others work and will do a "study" trying to mimic the techniques. Does that equate to stealing? In my opinion, artists are spreading this because they're afraid of their jobs being automated and lack of understanding. I can empathize because art isn't easy. It takes insane workloads to master and is rarely appreciated as such. Historically, technology has resulted in lost jobs. It sucks but there's no other outcome since it's cheaper and faster.

[@sabertoothlegend4758]

While I acknowledge that some people will lose their jobs thanks to this, I believe artists that have carved themselves out will be fine. Though I do understand that an increase in the pool of art shall affect visibility. If your art is good and you have dedicated time to your craft, you should be fine.

[@veewsol7078]

Everyone who makes a house is stealing to the first humans that decided to do it. I say fuck it. No one is owed anything for inspiration. If I look at your house and then make mine with features I saw on yours, it still is my house, your house didn't disappear. The people who complain about this are holding humanity from advancing and their art was probably amateur crap anyways

[@LionBrine]

I think this video proves that an idea of personal ownership over a digital product is silly. Images, videos; pdfs, games, etc. All have easy ways to copy and distribute. These companies do everything in their power to prevent it, but just like AI art, it is ultimately poorly effective. People should treat online information like personal pictures. Once it’s out of your hands, it has the potential to be owned by anyone on the internet. This is a fact we all must live with, including artists. Nobody is entitled to a consistent source of income from a passion, it is ideal, however supply and demand is the only absolute. Sorry to break it to you, but humans are more error prone, require more necessities like money, and can deny you service. I even find the idea of trying to limit AI, like not labeling artists names, silly since someone else can just label and train the model themselves if that’s what the most demanders what.

[@GosuNoKami]

It is important to know and understand everything, yes. But what to do with that information is what’s really the problem here. The issue here is not about usage, but about credit and money. For credit it’s a problem that can never be solved and requires faith and goodwill. For money it’s the same problem as when machines took over factory jobs, also solved only by faith and goodwill. Either way, though I do hope for that dystopian good society that’s often seen in memes and was shown in videos, I wouldn’t sacrifice progress over fear of nothing in that society in the future. It’s equally evil to stop others from advancing.

[@d8ys]

ai art is 100% not stealing, its takes inspiration from the art, while you can say it used the art to create its output, its in practicality not different from a human uses memories of art they saw or looks at art for inspiration. the ai generates new art which isn't copyrighted by the artists even if it shares some similarities. ai is the future in a good way for everyone other than jobs that become pointless in the future, jobs have always been changing with new technology, e.g. farming, the change is inevitable so stop fighting it

[@oredaze]

Stealing is not even the main problem. Being replaced is. Art value dropping to 0 due to art inflation is. Stagnation of the future art in the absence of humans to improve it is.

[@mfatihbilhaq4977]

Art is already stagnated before a.i. art existing anyway. I mean, look at the popular artworks on the internet. It's either a fan art of a popular trend/shows or an er*tic artworks. Meanwhile the actual good artists wouldn't get their deserved recognition, because people simply don't care. And the most richest artists are usually people who paint weird scribbles that cost millions of dollars that probably a scheme for money laundering. Welcome to the age of art industrialization.

[@MrTinfoilSombrero]

No one should tell anyone they can't have an opinion on what art is and what art is not. That's their own business.

[@Vinylrebel72]

If I draw in the style of Drew Struzan...and I make collages of art based off of movies, in the style of Drew Struzan... am I stealing? Here's the thing, AI takes from all these artists or art... JUST AS ANYONE would be INFLUENCED by other artists and incorporate a style into their own, JUST LIKE BANDS, AND MUSICIANS DO..."Oh this band sounds like Black Sabbath"...Did they steal Black Sabbath songs? No. AI SHOULD be used as possible reference OR to learn from... NOT to make AI art then take that AI art and sell it.

[@hherpdderp]

I love the technology. The results are amazing. But some of the companies building versions of it shot themselves in the foot by not cleaning their data. Or even commissioning art that would specifically be for it. And not all their training data is art. They could have learnt harder on photographs/video frames of things.

[@gabudaichamuda2545]

They even found private medical data and images in LAION. The indiscriminate scraping was done purely because they thought they could get away with it.

[@Jose04537]

Deviantart is going to allow your art to be harvested by an AI

[@Jake28]

No?

[@amosnimos]

We all want good looking waifu art.

[@justinwhite2725]

You no longer need to prompt an artist's name. Now you can literally just include a reference photo for the art style you want and the AI does the rest. So most of the lawsuits about training data are attacking 'ancient' technology people that isn't even the new standard workflow.

[@I-ONLY-BUILD-MECHS-AND-DUSTERS]

That's like saying if I download a movie that opens with a password it's fine, but a zip file that I just double click on is piracy. Whether you prompt with a name or an image doesn't matter, the thing is built on stolen images.

[@tomo4977]

​@@I-ONLY-BUILD-MECHS-AND-DUSTERSalso the images created on the old workflow are still existing on the Internet, being commercially sold and reshared online. Calling it the "ancient technology" feels like avoiding discussing all the damage it has done, which is still happening considering that all happened only a year ago.

[@imperfects6766]

i was so glad you made this video, i was very interested in hearing your view about this topic

[@ariaden]

In my view, this is a question of license. An artist uploading a picture somewhere in the Internet does not automatically convey a permission for AI to both learn the style and the name (for any prompt artist to build upon).

[@deepfakestudio7776]

actually it does . when you post your art on a site you agree with their terms and conditions which you post your art under a copyright license so anyone who see it can edit it and use it for free.

[@gara8142]

This is in my opinion where the problem lies. There isn't a system that stops you from downloading everything from Twitter or Google, so you can... just do it. This means that everything uploaded to a public site is by transition also public, maybe not technically but definitely practically. And as a CS engineer I don't really see a way to enforce this in a realistic way.

[@ariaden]

@@deepfakestudio7776 > when you post your art on a site you agree with their terms and conditions > which you post your art under a copyright license so anyone > who see it can edit it and use it for free. (I replaced repeated spaces with endlines.) First, the person uploading the image may not be the artist (or otherwise licensed to upload). Ignoring that, I am not familiar with art sites, but I imagine their licenses are less mature than software licenses (which had more time to develop under the copy+paste+edit way of creation). And even if the art licenses are mature enough when considering derivative work, I would expect "copyleft" licenses to be quite popular (similar to open source software). For images that would mean a kind of watermark (obvious to both humans and software). I guess such watermarks are a good idea, as we want the next generation of AI to learn from (old school creation) humans, not from earlier AI (or prompt engineers). Or at leas we want an ability to distinguish the two, in case prompt engineers win.

[@otapic]

​@@deepfakestudio7776 I don't remember nor ever shared my work in certain sites SD and NovelAI used to scrape their data from, so I guess I absolutely agreed on getting my work scraped even though I wasn't even the one who put it up on the website. That was sarcasm btw, an image on the internet has copyright. Just cause it's on some "site" doesn't mean it gives everyone viewing it the same rights as the original holder, the ToS for sites most likely only express that the original holder give limited rights for the SITE itself for legal reasons because social media is a big redistributor and having those rights protects the site from getting sued. So no you don't have rights to all the image on the internet, stop being so entitled

[@xXzman9000Xx]

@@otapic so just so you are aware, any image posted online not behind a paywall, that isn't filed for copyright, falls into a very specific category under copyright law, that's what they are referencing. there's even some legal precedent to back up what the person you are replying to is saying, though to be fair, there is some nuance to the laws that are still a legal grey area so you 'could' be right, but it depends, normally you would have to go to court to find out since its a grey area. luckily for you there are several lawsuits going on right now (not related to ai art) that relate to this area of the law so we may get a much clearer picture of exactly where the law stands on use of online images soon.

[@DigitalXrisXros]

look into their eyes. you'll know. robots/ a.i. : wow. thats discriminating.

[@reeddragon5250]

I'm not against Ai, but I heavly against those pople who use AI and calaiming it was theirs artwork. sorry but no matter how gorgous piece of art you generate from AI, you had zero respect from me.

[@mfatihbilhaq4977]

Well, we also consider someone's scribble (that cost million of dollars) could be categorise as art the person made (if we use the effort it takes to create artwork as an argument).

[@hundvd_7]

7:30 Are we sure that account got stolen? Because it sounds like the exact kind of trolling they were doing with the AMA and the hashtag beforehand

[@caseyczarnomski8054]

The pictures shown in the thumbnails are obviously not 1:1 copies. What, nobody is allowed to draw a purple hired female since it was drawn before? The human drawn one has much more skin definition, the AI has a sheer lace on the purple dress. At 0:31 The characters have a completely different pose, different outfits, worn in different ways, standing on a different bridge, with no bridges in the background, not holding a sparkler, no trees or dangling flowers. The only things in common are: Girl, Purple hair, buildings and water. Claiming fireworks is like saying nobody can paint a sunflower because Van Gogh painted a field of them. Artists need to get over themselves and accept that people who want AI art can have it.

[@baronwest]

Prompt Writers/AI Bros are not artists. They are like an art editor, who can tell staff to use a reference, or change an image, but the editor doesn't get to claim they created something they instructed their staff drew. In the instance of AI, the program is the staff/artist.

[@amykpop1]

so many people crying about AI stealing stuff, can't wait to see how artist will become obsolete as this technology gets even better in the future.

[@demsyciu]

Some of AI has its own unique style of rendering that can easily be spotted.. something bizarre and kind of impressionist-ish rendering.

[@pyropulseIXXI]

AI doesn't exist. it is a terrible name.. Regardless, no this is not stealing. You cannot steal an idea, and people that thin you can get the state to use force against you to force payment for 'stealing' their idea. Ideas cannot be stolen. Copying a work is not stealing. If 'AI' replaces art, then so what. People will want human made art, not AI art. For soulless creations like corporations use, AI is perfect. Just like horse buggies went out of style due to new tech, these people might lose corporates jobs Copyright itself and IP laws are all bogus

[@sabertoothlegend4758]

I honestly don't think people will care if someone made the art by themselves or with ai. If the art looks good who cares how it was made? As long as you didn't use someone's image for it, it's fine. People who complain that they spent hours making a piece of art should get a reality check. If your art is good you ain't losing your job, you can't get upset if ai can print out 10 great pieces of art in the time it takes you to do one.

[@SkillOp]

is it really stealing tho? don't some human artist already do the same thing? the only issue here is a AI takes seconds to create insanely good imagines and a human would take hours, day, weeks or months to create the same on top of that the AI will do this at a cheap or even price while the human can cost a arm and a leg. AI will 100% become copyrightable sure there will be restrictions but its coming to try and stop it would be like trying stop the rise of cars because it would put the horses out of bussines. if any of that even makes sense.

[@wrell]

thanks for another high quality video. really needed this insight on the rise and problems of text to image models :)

[@CoderMedia]

13:58 You are so wrong, these images that were made by the artists have been shared on Twitter, Facebook and other various platforms. When the artists uploaded them, they had to create an account first and by doing so it was required to check "I accept the terms and conditions". By publishing and accepting these terms the artist automatically gives permission to the site owner(s) to sell, remove or modify the content uploaded, better read those 300 pages next time...

[@filiphedman4392]

You know that no society would work if you were forced to read a whole bible every time you clicked on something? It is soft forced to press those buttons.

[@Nakamako1]

how are you going to steal it if its downloading and not copying 1 to 1 after you give a prompt. thats more like retracing. at most you can steal a character or object but why would you if ai can just draw a different better one

[@honichi1]

i dont really have a problem with the latter parts of this video, since there's many ways that are sort of like tracing which is definitely a form of stealing. but the training data is the same as inspiration.

[@mattweger437]

This is like saying you're stealing for having eyes

[@Erdbeerenserver]

Imagine someone would train his Ai to draw a certain character in a certain artists art style and then use it to draw porn to his liking. Luckily mankind is not perverted so this did not happen at all.

[@rajamrifqi5764]

you mean what 4chan anon's did every single day?

[@RebelSee]

Great video. It's the most informative and neutral video I found on the subject. Thanks for doing such a good informative content.

[@botz77]

It doesn't. And if it does "Great artists steal".

[@Homiloko2]

Artists coping, lol