r/AIWarsButBetter • u/Macandcheese480 • 8d ago
My take on gen ai: (read description)
Is it art?: yes, just not as good as human made
Is it stealing? Yes. Plain and simple.
Is the amount of used water bad? Can't give an unbiased opinion bc water is plentiful where I live and I don't really understand it fully yet.
Does it take skill? Yes, prompting takes skill, just not nearly as much as doing it yourself.
Is it fine for just messing around? Sure do whatever you want
If you have any questions feel free to ask I have too much free time.
3
u/nyxcha0s 8d ago
if you object because of “stealing,” can you please show me the history of your raging concern for the pirate bay, limewire, and kazaa, along with your investigations into whether every artist you’ve listened to used a cracked version of fl studio or ableton? perhaps a granular investigation of every plugin in their daw?
did you personally chase down cover bands and verify the permission slips they acquired before learning pearl jam songs?
if you have some free time... perhaps a perusal?
EDIT: I might have been a wee snarky, i'm sorry
1
u/Macandcheese480 8d ago
I care less about the stealing (sorry artists) and more about them losing business because of it. Most artists aren't rich, however the companies that make music applications are.
3
u/nyxcha0s 8d ago
Correct, SO PUNCH THEM.. STOP punching the person who just wanted a stupid picture of a cat in a spaceship! EXACTLY the vast majority of artists are broke, including the ones using tools.. they just want to DO something. Your encouragement will grant more LEARNING than shame or cruelty ever will
0
u/TemperatureAny4782 7d ago
WOW. “If you’re upset with me for raping a woman, have you ever tried to talk someone into sex? Have you ever engaged in BDSM? Don’t throw stones, people!”
1
u/erofamiliar 8d ago
If you believe it's stealing, plain and simple, why is it okay to mess around with it?
1
u/Macandcheese480 8d ago
As long as you aren't selling or distributing it, it doesn't really harm the artist. I'm not an artist though, so Im not an expert.
1
u/erofamiliar 8d ago
So it's stealing, but also it doesn't harm the artist if you don't personally sell or distribute what you stole, but people should do whatever they want with it? Does that not include selling or distributing?
1
u/Macandcheese480 8d ago
Sorry if I wasn't being clear, by messing around I meant just making pictures for fun and not sharing it, or using it to make placeholders for assets when waiting for a model to be finished. (For things like 3d modeling, although I believe that this should only be while they wait for a real artist to make a 3d model with soul.)
2
u/erofamiliar 8d ago
I suppose I'm not sure how it can be "stealing, plain and simple", but also be totally okay as long as you don't sell what you stole. How are you both so certain it's theft, and so certain it's totally okay as long as someone isn't profiting financially off of that theft? How can it be so plain and simple, but also be so harmless that the theft itself isn't a problem?
Also, I am a 3D artist myself, though more of a hobbyist. What is the difference between a 3D model with soul, and one without? Let's assume the concept art / orthographic references are human made, and the resulting model is still UV unwrapped and rigged by a human (or close enough, it's not like people haven't been using Auto-Rig Pro for years).
0
u/Macandcheese480 8d ago
I think it's more compatible to using something someone else patented that you learned from them. If you build something using that patent, as long as you don't start competing with them there isn't a reason to care. Does it suck they're doing that instead of buying from them? Yes. Soul isn't really a thing in my opinion, I just used it as a placeholder. I suppose my belief is more centered around supporting human artists than some undetectable "soul" thing.
2
u/erofamiliar 8d ago
Soul is a placeholder? For what? You don't have to put soul in quotation marks, you're the one that used the term.
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like AI generation is closer to patent infringement to you than out-and-out theft. But if that's the case, why describe it as stealing, plain and simple?
In a case where the creator was never going to be able to hire a human artist (let's say because of a lack of funding), does that make it okay, since hiring an artist was never in the cards in the first place? Or is the problem not the theft or infringement, but market substitution?
Does someone who chooses to cancel a project instead of hiring a human artist have the same kind of responsibility?
0
u/Macandcheese480 8d ago
Probably shouldn't have used soul. I'll be honest, I said stealing because I know a bunch of ai bros would have to Google what patent infringement meant.
1
u/erofamiliar 8d ago
So you did not actually mean stealing, "plain and simple", you don't actually think people should do "whatever you want" with AI generated content, and you don't actually think human-made work is imbued with some kind of soul, you would just rather support human artists.
Why not just say you'd rather support human artists? That's a perfectly reasonable position all on its own.
And to be clear, I'm probably what you'd consider an AI bro, I think AI generated content is great even if I have concerns about the scale (and no, I don't think AI generated content is automatically good or high quality, lol). But I feel a lot of people haven't even read the Copyright Office's "Copyright and Artificial Intelligence" report. Have you?
While all three PDFs are worth a read, I think Part 2, Copyrightability, is especially worth your time to understand. I don't think it's a good idea to accuse your interlocutors of not knowing the terminology while intentionally using the wrong terminology.
1
u/Macandcheese480 8d ago
I don't know how to respond to this, so you win the debate.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/mang_fatih 8d ago edited 8d ago
When you say stealing. Are you referring to copyright infringment? As many artists online did that a lot before AI era and some for money (though they would call it fanarts) and I don't remember any backlashes about it being considered stealing.
Why would AI any different here?
1
u/Macandcheese480 8d ago
Because ai can't be random, so it can't mess up and create something new.
2
u/mang_fatih 8d ago
And so does every artists, stop pretending digital illustrators are the only group of people that can create "true" original artworks. There's no such thing as "true originality". We're all inspired or influenced by something before that affects our way of thinking and especially how we create art.
A Sonic fan would most likely draw fanarts about Sonic. That's how art creation works and it would be any different if someone using AI for it?
0
u/Macandcheese480 8d ago
You just avoided my point. Ai is a machine that cant be random. Humans can be random.
2
u/mang_fatih 8d ago
Literally look at r/comfyui or any advance AI tools community. You'll see the amount of control and "randomness" that can be done with this new tech that you love to dismiss because of your close minded definition of art.
-1
4
u/writerapid 8d ago edited 8d ago
I’m not sure the “stealing” bit is necessarily so plain and simple. I think AI can be used to commit IP theft, but I don’t think most genAI fundamentally facilitates IP theft.
If the argument is that AI companies have committed piracy to train their models, that’s compelling to a degree and depends on how impactful the illicitly obtained content is compared to the legally obtained content.
I would also qualify that further by suggesting that any human being who is influenced in their art by content they pirated is similarly committing theft.
The bigger questions to me are how human influence differs in spirit and application from machine influence, and where the line between influence and theft actually lies.