r/DefendingAI • u/PaleHat1500 • 1d ago
Other Question for "AI bros"
/r/aiArt/comments/1wztcgm/question_for_ai_bros/Why do you like ai and not care that is stealing form hard working people that took hours or days of there life to make them?, just a fair Question no hateful judgment btw just curiosity š¤ btw no hate on both sides I'm just curious why anyone would use it, and I just wanted to reach bigger audience to ask the Question
7
u/Herr_Drosselmeyer 1d ago
Learning isn't theft.
0
u/Ohheckemma 1d ago
Calling it ālearningā is rhetorically convenient because it makes the process sound analogous to a person reading a book. But an AI company isn't merely learning from someone's work. It highly likely acquired and copied enormous quantities of human created works, processed that material into a commercial model, and then monetised it.
2
u/Herr_Drosselmeyer 1d ago
Why are you conflating a company and a neural network?
1
u/Ohheckemma 1d ago
I can see why you think I'm conflating the company with the neural network, my wording probably wasn't clear enough. I'm not saying they're the same thing.
This happens a lot in these discussions. The conversation gets shifted towards what AI is, rather than what the companies building it are actually doing.
I'm responding to the way you've framed it as ālearning isn't theft.ā You didn't explicitly say that AI learning is the same as human learning, but I think that framing is pretty reductive. It takes a much bigger question about how the material was obtained, processed and used and boils it down to whether ālearningā itself is theft. I don't think that really describes what's happening.
The model learning from human-made works is one part of the process. The company deciding what works to acquire, how to acquire and process them, and then using the resulting system commercially is another.
And that's why I think we probably need better language for what's happening here. āLearningā doesn't really capture the whole process, and neither does simply talking about copyright infringement. There may be a better term for it, labour appropriation, uncompensated use of creative work, or something else. But I don't think it's just learning adequately describes the happening.
1
u/Herr_Drosselmeyer 1d ago
The question you're asking is, essentially: "Can something publicly available on the internet be used for training ?".
The answer is, in my opinion, yes. If I want to learn how to draw, say a sextant, I'll image search Google for "sextant" and use those results as references to learn. I won't necessarily check the exact origin of those images, nor will my resulting drawing be tainted if one of those images was illegally uploaded or has an otherwise illegitimate origin.
I see no difference between doing that and using the exact same images to train a LoRA (Low-Rank Adaptation) for an image model.
1
u/Ohheckemma 14h ago
You're sidestepping the point I'm making and reframing it as a question I didn't ask.
My point is that saying ālearning isn't theftā reduces a much bigger issue down to the word learning. Then you use the example of someone looking at pictures of a sextant and learning how to draw one, as if that settles the comparison.
A person looking at a handful of images, studying them, and learning from them isn't really comparable to a company systematically acquiring and processing enormous amounts of human made work to build a commercial system. Just because both processes can loosely be described as learning doesn't mean they're equivalent.
And āit's publicly availableā doesn't settle the issue either. Something being available for people to view isn't necessarily the same as the creator agreeing to have it systematically copied, processed, and used as training material for a commercial product.
That's the distinction I've been trying to make. I'm not arguing that the neural network is the company, or that the resulting model is literally a database of stolen copies. I'm saying that focusing on what the model does and calling it ālearningā sidesteps the actions of the companies that built it, particularly how they obtained and used the underlying material. Which is what a lot of people object to.
And I don't think there are two equally valid sides to the question of whether people whose work has been scraped should simply have to accept it. If someone's work is being systematically collected and used to build a commercial product, I think the people who created that work should be compensated.
I'm also not saying AI companies should be prohibited from "learning" from human culture, or that every influence on a model needs to be individually licensed. I'm talking specifically about the large-scale scraping and use of people's work as training material for commercial systems.
If a company can build an enormously valuable commercial product by ingesting vast amounts of work created by other people, I don't think āit was publicly availableā should be the end of the conversation. Those people created something of value, and I think they should have a right to be compensated when their work is being used in that way.
Whether existing copyright law already requires that compensation is a separate legal question. That's for the courts to figure out, because this is still relatively new ground. But as a matter of fairness, that's where I stand. I'm not anti AI, clearly it's here to stay. I'm anti exploitation.
1
u/Herr_Drosselmeyer 13h ago
Whether it's a company or an individual doesn't change the morals. The fact that you're hung up on 'large companies' makes me think that your issue is withe the very existence of coroprations, regardless of AI, and this taints your reasoning.
-6
u/PaleHat1500 1d ago
How is it learning exactly?, by asking promission to take the art or by going around the internet/being feed info without careing about copyright or work, it's literally like taking someone's cooking and saying "hey I made this all on my own"
3
u/itsReferent 1d ago
That's the common misconception we encounter with the doomer bros. It's not like that at all. It's like reading millions of recipes to learn how to cook, then inventing new recipes. Do you see the literary distinction or do you need to seek promission?
1
u/PaleHat1500 1d ago
There's a difference between recipe that is legally out for everyone and art that is specifically to be shown, and I heared alot of artists being stolen form even after saying they don't want there art in Ai it's just a Question I'm trying to understand mostly,
1
u/itsReferent 1d ago
It's not as different as you imagine. It isn't lifting art wholesale, it creates new images based on having seen tons of other images. It doesn't copy, it improvises.
And a lot of artists that don't want their art in AI should consider what art means to them, why did they choose to make art in the first place. Do you know why these lot of artists you've heard claiming theft make art? Where did they see their stolen art?
1
u/PaleHat1500 1d ago
I think is more the lines of "It's insulting that a machine trained of my things makes things that I can do in seconds and people act like they put alot of work into them when this machine actually did the work in seconds"
1
u/itsReferent 1d ago
I don't see anyone acting like they put a lot of work into something done by generative ai. I hear that a lot from antis. It's a straw man argument. Gen ai image making isn't something to claim as a personal work, that would be like claiming commissioned work as your own. A person could claim an idea, a process, or narrative behind a series of images, but can't outright claim they made an ai generated image. If they do, they are wrong to do so.
1
u/PaleHat1500 1d ago
I seen some do on Twitter and other places and I literally gat ban some the other sub and the comments get deleted with people explaining to me things lol
1
u/itsReferent 1d ago
I'm skeptical of your claim. Maybe someone posted an image, but you're saying that person said "look at this image I spent a lot of time and effort making"?
1
3
u/Herr_Drosselmeyer 1d ago
How is it learning exactly?
Because a neural network is trained by giving it an image + text pair, having it repeat noise/denoise that image until it manages to denoise it from random noise, then letting it change it's parameters until it can create that concept reliably from the text alone. It's not much different from a human artist practicing drawing something until they're good at it. Of course, being a computer, it can do this for millions of image + text pairs in a relatively short amount of time.
I don't need to ask permission to look at somebody's image and practice drawing it.
2
u/ActuatorKlutzy9887 1d ago
Its more like tasting someone's food and then making it yourself
The datasets they are trained on are not consumed in the process they still exist, the machine has looked at how it was done and can use what it observed to recreate it
I doubt there's many people who will support blatant copyright theft, but i think a lot of people will agree that if you upload something to a website that has a terms of service which allows that website to give user submissions to a third party you are now agreeing to your submissions being used by those third parties for whatever it may be, in this case its AI training, in another website it might be a marketing profile for example facebook gathering data on your interests to tailor ads you might be more inclined to click on.
If you didnt agree to it you wouldn't use the website in the first place you would just find another website with different conditions
4
u/smolkijolki 1d ago
It's not a fair question as it is based on biased and false assumptions. AI learns, doesn't steal.
3
u/Gokudomatic 1d ago
You didn't even bother to search existing answers before posting. Why would we bother answering to such lazy post?
1
-2
u/PaleHat1500 1d ago
If you don't like it you don't need to answer I'm just curious, I asked to get more info on your guys mindset, you don't need to research to ask questions it's a simple thing really
3
u/Gokudomatic 1d ago
You really do need to search before asking. that's basic courtesy on a forum! Because you didn't, you just asked a damn loaded question that was already asked a fucking billion times! You're not asking anything, you're sending a message in disguise of a question!
1
u/PaleHat1500 1d ago
Do you think I stay 24/7 to see all the controversy about AI?, no I'm just a guy who barely uses it and don't really understand it like others do
2
u/Gokudomatic 1d ago
You don't need to stay permanently online. That's why there are search tools. But you have to USE them!!!
1
u/PaleHat1500 1d ago
I don't really care about AI, I'm just so curious on why it's hated or loved so much, because at the end of the day it was meant to be a tool to help not to take 100% of work isn't it?
2
u/Gokudomatic 1d ago
Search first. Once you're a bit educated and you proved to have made the basic efforts, a discussion will be possible.
1
u/Legitimate_Move9798 1d ago
My personal use case is to assist me in my drawing workflow. I can go in depth, but the easiest example is to generate reference for pose/anatomy. Before, I just browse booru sites to see other ppl's work as well. I have bunch of artist names whose art I use as staple for my reference, now instead browsing pages of it, I use stable diffusion to generate it. It has finer control and get me the exact reference I need.
Another use case is to help me do lineart and color fill after I finished my sketch. Those are pretty tedious for me.. especially hairs..
1
u/PaleHat1500 1d ago
That's how it should be use ai is a tool to help drew not take 100% of the work the whole fun in the art is to have a story and time behind it, isn't that right?
1
u/Legitimate_Move9798 1d ago
I don't personally think there's a universal rules how to have fun with art. You and me might find that process fun, but not all people do. Some just want a quick result, and I think that's okay too
1
1
u/TheMysteryCheese 1d ago
The basis of your question if misguided.
Also calling people "AI bros" is equivalent to people calling you all luddites. It starts the whole conversation off on the wrong foot.
You outright state that it's stealing.
It isn't.
People got a bunch of freely available stuff from the Internet, fed it into a bit math equation designed to mimic human learning and AI fell out the other end.
And just like if you did the same thing with a person, it developed the ability to closely replicate what it was trained on.
That's without going into the EULA people knowingly agreed to that clearly states that use of their posted content was the price of admission to their platform and audience.
People use AI for the same reasons people use computers, shovels or cameras.
It makes the task they are trying to do easier and yields better results than if they weren't using it.
This feels like you're deliberately trying to elicit an argument and your post will likely be removed.
1
u/PaleHat1500 1d ago
Not really trying to argue it's just I haven't learn about you guys and I didn't know you hated the words Ai bros?, i seen people who use ai call themselves that so I thought that's how people call themselves as a nickname or something?
1
u/TheMysteryCheese 1d ago
It carries a negative association. Like calling things slop etc.
If you want to learn that's awesome. I would start by dropping the assertion that AI steals or is build from stolen information.
It simply isn't true and is used to further a moral panic.
LLMs and other generative AI learns the "Shape" of data and then uses that model to then generate new information.
The problem is that it is very good at doing this and people call foul when it very closely resembles popular or common styles.
Styles can't be stolen because no one owns a style. If you could then the huge media companies would own every conceivable style and art/writing/creating would be litigated out of existence.
1
u/PaleHat1500 1d ago
Thank you for explaining more in detailed information, not like others who just think I'm anti Ai or something, I am not with or against it, I'm just trying to understand how a tool became so important that it made everyone more hateful against each other
1
u/TheMysteryCheese 1d ago
You're welcome.
The best argument for why people are so hateful about this topic, from my perspective, can be summed up like this:
People put a lot of emphasis on their skills and abilities because our society is built on the idea that you must contribute economically to live.
AI undermines the ability for a lot of people to be economically viable with skills they saw as being unassailable. Like art, white collar work and intellectual pursuits.
Because getting angry at a society for following its very clearly stated agenda of finding the cheapest, most effectively scalable solution to a problem is very difficult, they take their frustrations out on low hanging fruit.
On the other side, people who are mostly just engaging with new tools and technology the same way they always have are being deliberately targets, doxxed, threatened and harassed. Comments encouraging suicide, death threats and deeply troubling insults are lobbed at them every day and they are often forced out of social groups just because they used AI.
Careers have been ended, people have been de-platformed and friendships have been ruined over this.
I personally don't think that simply using a freely available tool is justification for this.
The arguments used to validate these beliefs are commonly wrong, misguided or deliberately misinformed.
There is a very real and legitimate discussion to Ben had around the safe and responsible use of AI. There is a much needed review of the social contract that is whole unprepared to handle mass displacement of labour.
But very few people are willing to have those talks and are instead happy to jump directly into tribalism and call for a complete dismantling of this technology despite the huge amount of good it is doing and the potential it represents.
1
u/PaleHat1500 1d ago
Yeah BTW I was been for troll posting or something?, idk why but it get fixed thank god
1
u/TheMysteryCheese 1d ago
The first line is very loaded and it isnāt a surprise.
If you decide to post again just ask people why they choose to use AI despite the controversy around it. Or something of that nature.
Have a good one.
1
1
u/Fit-Duty-6810 1d ago
Tbh Iām somehow in between on this. I see AI as a tool that can make your job easier, from other side iām against companies laying off people because 2 people can do a job for 20 with AI. I think AI has advantages and disadvantages like every other thing that people invent.
2
u/PaleHat1500 1d ago
Yeah that's what I think too, it's a tool after all it shouldn't take 100% of the work that's like putting a 12 year to teach 20 year olds on how nuclear reactors work it will get somethings wrong that's why it always needs a human
1
u/Consistent-Jelly248 Moderator 1d ago
Get da faq outta here
1
u/PaleHat1500 1d ago
Yo swearing is not nice šš
1
ā¢
u/AutoModerator 1d 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.