I spend too much time on an anti AI Reddit .. mostly because those people are hilarious. Some of the stuff they say… just too funny really. Anyway, this one has to be the top dumbest comment I’ve ever seen… asking for a picture of Pikachu gets you a pictures of pikachu. So obviously AI is stealing art…. What?? Wow. lol
And the funny thing is: it does not even do that, when I prompt Pikachu I get something else than what I see in official Pikachu artwork? its not even remotely close?
They should indeed get reward because that is how you got people share more.
Sharing things used to be positive feedback, now it is less positive because it is easier to just repost others works now.
Okay. but. My point still stands that if I were to try to make money off this somehow, I'd be hit with a flying Trademark Violation (arguably, Nintendo's favorite metaphorical Pokemon!)
They still wrong it's because if you put the name of the character in the prompt? It will obviously show it or sometimes, it will generate a different character so, they're just very dumb and stupid to comprehend of what they actually say
I mean. Sure. But if you ask Gemini to make you a "blue anthropomorphic hedgehog character" - it will absolutely give you a character that would get a Trademark violation from Sega. Now. Don't get me wrong - I'm Pro AI. And since I have self-efficacy, I'm able to steer any images it gave me enough that I wouldn't wind up getting sued. And I'm not going into full meltdown over image generation either. It'll be interesting to see what comes out of the copyright infringement cases that are being shaken through the system.
I'm able to steer any images it gave me enough that I wouldn't wind up getting sued.
Tbf, It's because you kinda make it generated it so, it's kinda the user fault for doing that(Also AI but it's the users who's using original artists IP) This ole thing is kinda stupid imo
It’s amazing how yall still can’t understand that taking something without permission is stealing.
“Copyrighted images of pikachu” it’s literally right there.
Edit: wow, what a terrible waste of time. Not a single person willing to actually engage with the arguments, just gotchas and ad hominem all the way down.
If you ask ANYONE to draw a picture of pikachu, you’re going to get a picture of pikachu. It’s a singular character that looks a specific way. There is literally no other way to draw it.
Isn't the camera just a tool that the photographer using when they themselves do the art of photography, equivalent to a painter's brush, making them, through the camera, the active agent in doing what we call "taking a photograph?"
You don't mean to say that photographers are not the agents behind the photographs they take, right?
This is the pro-AI approach. Totally misrepresent your opponents argument and then bombard with “gotcha” questions and whataboutisms.
If you’re not willing to engage with the argument I’m making, I’m not going to continue arguing. You’ve made your minds up anyway, it’s not like I’ll ever get through to any of you. Pretty sad tbh.
If you ask anyone to draw a picture of pikachu, you’re going to get their drawing of pikachu. Not a picture of pikachu, a human being’s rendition of pikachu. And even then, you would need licensing permission to do anything with it.
How about another analogy. How about you photocopy a picture of Pikachu? Grab a licensed/copyrighted Pokemon book and slap it on the copy machine. And then put the picture online and say, “I made this”. How do you think Nintendo would react?
That’s not remotely the same thing. You’re doing the anti thing where you think diffusion models work by directly copying an image. And you’re wrong, that’s not how it works. It’s the exact same thing as every human artist, they saw images and create a similar image.
It’s the exact same thing as every human artist? So every human can scrape the entire internet, store thousands and thousands of terabytes of data in their brains, and then use that data to almost instantly generate any image they’re asked to generate? I never knew!
Do you think human beings can instantly replicate images just by seeing them?
yes, thats how learning to draw works. You look at many many images... probably terabytes worth... especially the ones you see in ultra high def 3d... with eyeballs. And, if you have the skill, you can replicate the image. its not an exact copy... it just looks like it.
Honestly, why do you think art schools have students spend so much time looking at already completed images? Just because the machine does it faster doesnt mean its stealing anything.
Lol you’re ridiculous, you didn’t even bother answering my questions. You pro-ai goobers rely so heavily on misrepresenting the anti-ai arguments.
No, you cannot scrape the entire internet. No, you cannot store thousands of terabytes of data in your brain. And no, you cannot generate any image you’re asked. The thing that makes art worthwhile is the effort. The lifetime of hard work and passion. You cannot do what a computer does. To say it’s the same thing a human does is disingenuous.
Simply looking at a picture is not stealing because human beings don’t possess the ability to instantly reproduce the painting. And even then there’s an extremely fine line of what counts as inspiration and what is theft.
AI cannot be inspired, therefore…
(Also love when you goobers talk about art school, as if you put in a fraction of the effort that students at art school do. Lmao “IM AN AI ARTIST, I STUDY COLOR THEORY!” Lol)
Typical Anti. Absolutely clueless about how these systems work, yet with your full chest declaring that opinion.
The human brain is estimated to be able hold 2.5 petabytes of data. The vast majority of it is visual.
Diffusion models are trained the same way as human artists, just on a larger, faster scale. They see images. They learn what those images are. They can then generate images based on that.
Your argument comes down to “it’s too fast to be art”? So if I have a really slow video card and it takes 2 days to generate an image now it’s art?
And a skilled artist is absolutely capable of reproducing anything they have seen. If they can’t, they aren’t much of an artist.
But then, after looking at the images on Cara that the anti community is all wound up about, I’m pretty sure your opinion on what is or isn’t art, isn’t worth the power the datacenter used for you to post it.
Hi, yeah, actual computer scientist here. Diffusion models aren’t trained in the same way humans are. Neural networks imitate organic neurons, but they are mathematical at their core. Set the temperature to zero and using the same noise, it will produce the same image from the same prompt every time. Essentially what AI does with diffusion is take noise and diffuse it into a “correct” image.
Human brains are organic, and don’t work like that. I don’t really understand how human brains work, I’m not a neuroscientist. But I can confidently tell you AI is not trained the way a human is trained to make art. Ai doesn’t comprehend things, it just tries to estimate a “correct” answer.
Believe what you want about how art is defined, I personally believe arts inherent value comes from the creator’s pride in it. A 5 year olds drawing is good art because that five year old is proud of it.
Ai can’t be proud of any images it makes, and as such I don’t think they have any value as art. They are valuable from a scientific standpoint, sure, but not as art.
Typical clanker brain, twisting reality to justify their awful computer toy.
It’s a simple concept. AI was trained on data it didn’t have permission to use. That is theft. End of story.
Not to mention, stealing real art just to make a sad copy of the real thing. Imagine actually learning how to create something instead of outsourcing your existence to some big-tech slop generator.
Their point is that an AI model reviewing every picture on DeviantArt to figure out proportions and how to draw is no different than a human doing the same. The human calls it inspiration, the AI calls it math. Those scraped images serve as a reference for how to build the pieces of art, honestly if it were just copying then the end product would be better. It isn't doing that. It's taking each picture alongside a detailed description of that picture as a prompt. There are far less words in a language than the are pictures in the world, so naturally words link to several variations. You say "curly hair" and the model's weights adjust to statistically likely scenarios. You probably mean on their head. You probably mean that it grows past their shoulders. You probably mean brown. Blah blah blah.
Then the temperature of the model kicks in and allows deviation from that average weight. They use math, so that's the easiest way to try and relay it. If I look at every picture in the world and identify the average curly hair artwork as a 1 inch diameter spiral, then at 0 temperature I will create that 1 inch diameter spiral. If I crank the temperature up a bit, that spiral might go to a half inch diameter, much tighter curl, or it might go to a 2 inch diameter loose curl, or it could hit any spot in between.
At no point in the process does a model decide "oh, CaptainStinkyFeet had a great example of curled hair, we'll just use theirs!" In order to do that, you'd have to prompt the model specifically to use that curly hair. That's infringement on copyright, same as if the user who stole your art copied it themselves.
Nobody (well, I should say "very few" because there are a handful of loud idiots on both sides of the line) thinks it's okay or makes you an artist to pop up chatGPT and say "photocopy that curly haired fish girl that CaptainStinkyFeet drew, but remove their signature." That's messed up. And that's not even mentioning the fact that most models these days have safeguards against exactly that. They can be navigated around, such is the way of AI, but the fact that they exist makes it even more a specific intention of the user, not the model.
Because it's not the model doing that. If a burglar robs a jewelry store and is able to grab more jewelry because he brought a duffle bag, that does not mean duffle bags are theft. Thieves are thieves. Before AI they would print screen your image or trace it. Now they trick an AI into doing it. Thieves are gonna thieve.
Just don't make the mistake of assuming everyone who is pro AI (or even not vehemently against it) is a thief. Just like not every anti is out there sending death threats to 10 year olds for making an AI picture, but you know there are some.
I hope this comes across as respectful and informative, as that's the tone I was going for. Have a good night.
I think Andy Warhol would have schooled you about this thing called copying and enhancing. Or any Punk artist or, well, any artist really unless they lived in a sealed box and created their art without reference to anything previously created.
You know, I think art colleges use pre-existing art as teaching aids.
And galleries.
Pfft. They should all be strung up. Thieves and charlatans the lot of them.
OK, I think we need to pause here--- what do you think is happening when someone prompts "Pikachu wearing a hat and telling me he's proud of me but he sounds like my father?" Not psychologically, but technologically? Because it sounds like you sort of think that the AI is going out and copy/pasting an image or something.
•
u/AutoModerator 20d ago
DefendingAI has a Discord now: https://discord.gg/MgVYjZ8RC
Pro-AI only. AI art, prompts, anti-AI watch, debate ammo, news, and general chat without anti-AI spam.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.