So, I have been paying an eye on this, and it has been really funny seeing artists trying to come up with some justification for why this thing is bad or unethical. The best argument they came up with, which to their credit at least doesn't involve "we shouldn't invent this technology cause we should keep people's jobs", but it still a bad argument, it is regarding the dataset:
"Oh, the dataset, I didn't autorize them to use my work to train an algorithm (even though the algorithm is doing essentially the same thing a human does), so they shouldn't train my work on it".
But, like, even if they succeeded on this – note that anyone can train the algorithm on their own computer locally, so I'm not sure how would such enforcement take place –, this would only be delaying the inevitable.
Like, there is a lot of work out there in public domain, AI art companies could just buy the rights of the works of a few thousand poor artists, who have a style similar to household names, such as Greg Rutkowski, and train the algorithm on THEIR work. It is worth to highlight you can't copyright an art style, this has been a long lasting established precedent. Hell, studios themselves could used works from artists that they already previously commissioned, and which they own all the rights, to train internal models.
So, ultimately this would be only trying to delay the inevitable. Also, these machines are evolving so fast, it wouldn't surprise me the next versions of the program can come up with their own styles.
Ultimately this argument is disingenuous and cynical. It is actually being made because artists are afraid to lose their jobs, and even them have enough self awareness to not use the luddite argument, so they try to latch onto some technicality. But even if you solve this thing, whether it be through using public domain art, paying a few thousand starving artists for their work, developing an algorithm able to create models on their own... artists would come up with a new, and even worst, excuse for why this technology should be banned.
Real artists don't give a shit about it. They'll create because they want to.
Grifters and coomer artists are awaiting the Amazon Prime truck to deliver them a rope, because now a computer can do perfect coom art.
AI art is awesome. Only butthurt and untalented libtard "artists" are crying about it, since it produces actual nice things instead of flecks of paint flicked across a canvas. Or, my personal favorite, the "invisible" artpiece which is literally just a pedestal holding up THIN AIR, which they call "art".
AI will never be the actual creator of the art, it can only ever be a tool that helps humans to express themselves with. I think it is cool that AI is getting better and better because it makes artists jobs easier, but it will never actually take over art completely. Only a real human can think and feel like humans and this is what it takes to create beautiful art that other humans connect with. Think about these AI drawing tools. I have used them and ended up with some beautiful images, but I still had to think of what I wanted to see, then the AI drew something and I fine tuned the image based on what I did and didn't like until I eventually had a picture I was happy with, the computer did 99% of the legwork by drawing, but that last 1% was all me and it is everything. I suppose it's like a plane on autopilot, it is cool that they can do that, but you still need a qualified human overseeing the flight because AI makes mistakes too, and you could end up on the wrong continent if no one is there to check to make sure that it still on track. It would be easier to make self driving cars than AI artists, because at least there are fixed rules with driving, but art is a lot harder to define, it is just whatever people happen to like, and who knows what that is or isn't except real humans, even then we don't all agree anyway.
>>1558969(OP) >"we shouldn't invent this technology cause we should keep people's jobs"
lmao, so the exact same argument feminists have over the impending horizon of sexbots. Perhaps if artists stop producing 'art' that makes Jackson Pollock look like a fucking savant, while having takes less dry than Xanthippe's frigid vagina, and owned up to their giant money laundering scheme, then good art could be produced again.
Or maybe if these faggots actually suffered like old artists used to because it was their passion and they effectively stayed penniless while honing their craft until they made it. I dunno; whatever they go with, it won't be the logical answer of 'git gud' and they'll be ushered out by low-tier robots once again. C'est la vie.
>>1558969(OP) >teehee beauty is ackshually subjective, this banana on a wall and toilet are valid art, chud >REEEEEEEEE THIS CAN'T BE ART WITHOUT A HUMAN SOUL BEHIND IT WHAT ABOUT MY COMMISSIONS OY VEY THE 6 TRILLION
You get what you fuckin deserve
I couldn't care less about AI art, but I am concerned about this shit.
Given enough development you'll never be able to trust anything you see again, to a far worse degree than today.
I've been using AI to help me come up with ideas for paintings, it's great if you only work in traditional mediums. If I was into digital id be concerned, I guess. To be fair, I'm not too informed I only started taking art seriously a year and half ago but boomers buy my shit so whatever.
And coders are doing the same thing over Github Copilot. Sometimes coders that dunk on artists re the same ones screeching about muh open sauce licenses being violated by Microsoft and saying this is just like a browser war int he 1990s that nobody gives a shit about.
AI is cool, not least because it is going to destroy everything you love and hold dear and you will be reduced to a gasping fish trying to learn to walk up a beach in the coming singularity.
the only ethical concern is that the people developing ai image generation technology are taking away responsibility from creators in the name of "safety mitigation". people can already use photoshop to create questionable content, is adobe held responsible because the artist used their software? anyone concerned about AI taking their art job probably doesn't create very good work to begin with, or they are overestimating the average person's ability to conceive of the string that will produce the image they so desire.
Artists should all collectively sue the companies charging talentless coomers to use their servers. Would be funny if these gAI companies got sued out of existence by a class action lawsuit by all the artists they ripped off. I say that as a hobbyist scribbler.
>>1558969(OP) >But, like, even if they succeeded on this – note that anyone can train the algorithm on their own computer locally, so I'm not sure how would such enforcement take place –, this would only be delaying the inevitable.
BECAUSE THATS WHAT POLITICIANS WANT, in the not so far future, politicians will push for heavily regulating the technology, as the big tech companies want to corner the market for AI applications.
You will be able to train some models in your pc, but you will be banned from publishing or profitting from them due to (((ethical concerns))), and i would not be surprise if big tech create scanners to detect implementations of AI libraries in personal computers.
There is also another need by big tech to heavily regulate AI in their favor, its the so called "MetaVerse" AKA: Virtual Reality, Matrix like virtual reality is a strong posibility in the future, the only limiting factor are Brain Computer Interfaces ( being developed right now ) and Artificial Intelligence to sustain those VR worlds, thats why companies are cornering the market, this is a deliverate conspiracy to make artist seethe and spearhead the mass regulation of AI.
The next thing they will say, is that the technology must be regulated due to child porn, screencap this, (((they))) will use the pedophile moral panic to push for heavy regulations of AI, in order to "save the children".
The future is dystopian so i would suggest any anon reading this to start stockpiling training datasets and weights.
Artists won't be out of their job if all the AI is capable of is photobashing, which is the only capability of the current AI.
Wake me up when we hit Singularity, actual Singularity, where AI is truly conscious and has creative drive. Until then, AI art will be for nothing more than have fun, scam retards, and give quick life to concepts in your mind.
It's great for making tans, though. Here's an AI-generated Kuruminha. Can't wait for the next happening having AI art employed. La Palma General sure had fun with the resources avaliable at the time.
>>1558969(OP) >all of that cope >Brazil flag
Makes sense. also AI "art" proponents and ladyboys are literally 1:1. Allow me to outline.
AI "Artists": >trivialize the meaning of the term artist >have to contort the definition of the word artist, because everyone subconsciously knows what an artist actually is. for this reason it is necessary to go in mental gymnastics mode as to rationalize themselves as artists >symbolic of the lost soul of a nation >stealing prizes (placements, rewards, etc.) from people who are actually artists >pompous as shit while doing all of this
Ladyboys (the "MtF" kind for this example): >trivialize the meaning of the term woman >have to contort the definition of the word woman, because everyone subconsciously knows what a woman actually is. for this reason it is necessary to go in mental gymnastics mode as to rationalize themselves as women >symbolic of the lost soul of a nation >stealing prizes (placements, rewards, etc.) from people who are actually women >pompous as shit while doing all of this
g/ like always has an abysmal and infantile take on this. Ai art will decimate the art "market" which was pozzed bullshit anyways. The most interesting and worthwhile artists have been isolated and fringe for at least a century. Stupid resentful assholes here didnt care about art before they wont after this either. The ones that care will continue to hold the torch.
So suck on that retards!
you stupid fucks, with that tech the only future artists are people who have the ideas for the ai and or the once who can better manipulate it
in the grim darkness if the future, there is only cope
Creativity in whatever form and appreciation that someone did something in one way and you in another dying out?
"People" dropping any standard for what their life consists of because they can use all kinds of personalized AI's to do whatever with their home, bedroom, office?
The world going out with a whimper after atomization split everyone apart?
I'm a budding comic artist and I want something more in the line of tools to make my job easier. Everybody is talking about neat looking characters the AI develops from scratch, but I don't really care about that. Most of the characters are as bad and generic as the training data they are based on.
I want AI tools though:
1) if I submit a design on paper, the AI would help me put it in different poses,
2) would automatically shuffle the clothing around so I don't have to manually redraw all the crevices,
3) would automatically fix any perspective or proportion mistakes in line with a pre-established model so I can stay on model even when drawing the character in a radically different position,
4) would automatically fill in pre-established colors or linework,
5) would allow me to change the lighting in a panel automatically, tint it with a different color, add bloom effects,
6) would take a font for word balloons, and make it look more hand drawn, subtly varying the font so that not every letter is exactly the same, but more like it's genuinely hand-written
Tools to take away the busy and tedious work with artificial intelligence. Most designs are trash, and most AI designs are trash. I haven't seen a good design yet from an AI. But where are the tools? And when will they be available on Clip Studio? I await them.
You AI mouth breathing tech faggot joggers want to take away the ONE, most beautiful and human thing in existence. If this AI faggotry continues I will blow up the house of everyone behind those jewish inhuman algorithms
It seems pretty obvious that the copyright should belong to the person who entered whatever parameters or chose the dataset to train the AI program.
Derivative works are copyrightable, as long as they have been substantially modified from the original underlying work to create something new.
If you feed a piece of art into your AI and tell it to make variations of it that are just minor changes to the colors or whatever, that's likely copyright infringement.
But if you feed it a lot of different art works and it starts outputting new works that are new and unique and very different from the art you put in, that would be ok.
You are a retard who hasn't been paying attention to actual arguments. A central argument is that these algorithms literally feed on copywritten materials and use it without compensating the artists of said material.
Imagine if an AI started just gobbling up songs online and using that exact material to "create" (i.e. mash together) new songs. And yes, these algorithms don't "change" the material at all. It's just a mashup. You know how many lawsuits would pop up over night?
Stupid fucks like you who support stealing people's work are why these lawsuits are needed.
The stories and discussions posted here are works of fiction and falsehood, none of which are to be taken literally under any circumstances. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.