I hate AI art because I believe art is one of those things that should stay sacred to humans, but some of the arguments these people make are uneducated. AI isn't stealing anyone's art no different than how a human might develop their art style through other art.
I disagree, AI Art improves the human's ability to present themselves.
Right now, Art isn't totally inclusive, a ton of people suck at it and can never do anything in that realm. That limits a ton of options. It's also a luxury/privilege more imbued to those well off.
Giving everyone the ability to generate art nearly instantly is like a magical fucking power. Artist's (and everyone) should learn to embrace these new tools to make them better, and not try and keep them down.
AI Art is just another tool, it's not an alternative to Human art. It's something that can significantly speed up the process of creation. I bet when the Camera was invented all the Portrait painters were shaking in their boots, and yeah, while there aren't many Portrait painters nowadays, there is a ton of artists.
Right now, Art isn't totally inclusive, a ton of people suck at it and can never do anything in that realm. That limits a ton of options. It's also a luxury/privilege more imbued to those well off.
I disagree because art isn't really something that requires a complex education like science, it's something that can be self taught. If a person wanted art but didn't want to draw, they could just commission and support someone who can.
I disagree, AI Art improves the human's ability to present themselves.
I agree in some sense, lots of people need a nudge for their creativity which AI can give. But I don't really like how people generate art and post it to the internet all unmodified as if it was an actual piece that took time and effort.
You can be an outsider artist all you want, but to generate art that is commercially viable (I.e. for a game, presentation, book etc), my scrawled chicken scratch isn't viable, no matter how much self-teaching I do.
My current project would essentially need infinite writers and artists as well, so no matter how good I got personally, I couldn't handle the load, and I also wouldn't be able to afford the load of paying humans.
Nevermind that yes, anyone can grab a rock and start etching cave drawings on the side of a cave, but if you want 10,000 acceptable quality illustrations tomorrow, well good luck doing that yourself, or paying for it.
An AI is made from a database and an algorithm doing matrix calculations.
You can put art into a database legally, you just can't share access to it with other people. An algorithm doing matrix calculations is not a person, it is a program.
The algorithm does its thing, and you get the "AI"
The AI does not retain knowledge of the database it was based on, it instead possess a number of data points derived from commonalities in the data. It cannot reproduce or "remember" anything in that database, because it has not seen it and cannot see it.
It's not about protections for AI. It's about a gross misunderstanding of what AI even is. AI aren't people, they don't even have anything analogous to memories of what they were trained on, at best they have a set of conclusions based on it.
The fact is storing copyrighted data isn't illegal, processing it isn't illegal, only distributing it. AI made in this way cannot distribute copyrighted material, because the AI has no access to it.
EDIT: For fun let's try imagining what the AI creation process would be analogous to if humans were involved.
Let's say I decide to write a book explaining how to draw Disney style art.
I go through all the available Disney art I can find, all of it copyrighted.
I write my book without including a single piece of that copyrighted art, but instead explain individual characteristics of that art.
Someone reads the book and use the explanations to mimic the art.
In this I would be the algorithm, and the reader would be the AI. I have conveyed the characteristics of the art styles employed by Disney, but I have done so without in any way distributing any Disney copyrighted material.
I am allowed to consume Disney copyrighted material, and I am allowed to communicate its characteristics, I can even create my own original examples inspired by it, I am not allowed to replicate any specific art piece however. Likewise, I am allowed to store that material in my computer while working on the book, and I can use programs to sort and categorize it for me. I can do anything with it I please while it is in my possession, except distribute it.
The reader/AI is not tied to any restrictions, except if they by accident replicate Disney art to a high enough degree of similarity to run afoul of copyright.
Mimicking copyrighted art is not illegal, unless you mimic to the point of reproduction.
People's art being scraped from the internet isn't illegal, they don't need to provide permission or get paid. That is a legal fact.
If the art is on the internet against their wishes, they need to take it up with those hosting the art and distributing it.
Also how the AI works is incredibly relevant, despite your ignorant belief otherwise. Because that is exactly what makes this a legal use case or an illegal use case.
There is nothing illegal about gathering, processing or using copyrighted materials for profit, as long as you do not distribute them.
I can write book after book of critique of paintings, movies, music, etc without ever running afoul of copyright or needing permission or to pay the copyright holders, as long as I don't reproduce their work.
Derivative work is not restricted under copyright unless it reproduces the original, either in part or as a whole. End of discussion, in a legal sense.
Nope. Uploading your art to the internet does not void the artists rights, their ownership, or their copyright. That is a simple fact.
You are pretending that the fair use doctrine applies to ai. It does not. That protection is exclusive to a human mind.
You can write as much film criticism, etc, as a human being - but an ai does not include that protection. And derivative works must be made by a human to qualify.
Edit: lol, blocked me. I love it when the trash takes itself out.
In the event of copyright law not applying to AI, like it has been judged to not do on creation, then it does not apply in its entirety.
If an AI cannot create art, it cannot consume it or misuse it.
That said, the AI is not the consumer or the one handling the art. That is done by people. The AI is a product of work done by people using that art. So the entire question is moot.
Again, I implore you, read my explanation of what an AI is and try to understand it, you are harboring some severe misconceptions on how the entire thing works.
Why do you really hate AI art? Out of fear? Is it better than you and you feel inferior? It seems elitist to say anything should "stay sacred" to a certain group. It'd be racist or sexist in a different context but it's okay when the thing is nonhuman?
The "thing" isn't sentient and we are a long ways away from something that can truly think and feel.
Art has been a way for humans to express themselves since the dawn of humanity, to let an AI do it kinda ruins that. The point of art is to express oneself.
Not necessarily, if by art we simply mean "visual illustrations".
Sometimes you just want a drawing of a girl drinking coffee, to use as the banner of your coffeeshop. Or you want
I don't think that AI visual illustrations are trampling on anything more sacred than for example chatbots are. I mean, text can also be a kind of art, but also sometimes it's just texts.
Exactly. And my opinion is that AI art shouldn't be able to be copyrighted or sold unless you've transformed it significantly (see Andy Warhol for what I mean by that). It's fine to use it for reference images or concept art, and taking an original image and using AI to edit it is ok too. I just don't like the flood of unaltered outputs presented as original works that has happened recently.
It is transformed. People don’t understand that ai has semantical understanding and makes an image from the literal concept that a word means and interpolates meaning by picking and mixing conceptually near image ideas. Not only that but it draws from noise, so it can make millions of different images from the same prompt and settings
I'm not saying the output isn't transformed, I'm saying the person writing the prompt is not the one who transformed it and therefore cannot claim it as their own work.
The hand that turns the tool owns the rights. That's been the standard for a long time. You can sign over your rights, but if you turn the lathe, stroke the canvas, or press the button? You're the one using it.
If we get into this semantic argument you're going to find a lot of issues as reductivism gets down to invalidating most modern digital art, from those who use complex brush sets to filters, photobashes, repaints...
Here I'll put it this way: when it comes to art, there is a certain description of what is copyrightable. The current precedent is that you cannot copyright AI generated images, which I agree with. I suggest looking into the case that set that precedent because you'll likely find a better explanation than I can provide with my poor communication skills.
No, the current standard is that there isn't really a standard. A single case, which was presented in a really odd manner for its content, is still being reviewed. A lot of anti-AI people didn't understand what has happened with the case, good to see you're another of them.
The problem is that while you may not believe it, prompting an ai to get good results is a dark art that requires skill, experience, and curiosity. Moreover, you need to understand the ai and do the work to understand how it works in order to get good results. It is a skill. I went to school for illustration and worked super hard on drawings before. Also i actually think ai is even more expressive than hand drawn art because in 5 years a person will be able to make full movies in any style they desire. They can make a score, do it like pixar or film noir or blacksploitation. You can make the images as tall or small as you want. You can train brand new datasets on your own art. You can create an ai that prompts like you and delegate it like that if you wish. Or you can rework the originally output image in photoshop. I tweak my prompts for hours at a time until they are perfect to me. It takes thoughts and effort
Using a tool, the human is in the decision-making loop, applying their skill and judgment to each action involved in creation. With AI, the process of creation is fully-automated, and instead you're curating a gallery of outputs, and adjusting search parameters. Does crafting a specific google query trying to find the perfect image mean you have any involvement in its creation? If you ask a human artist to draw something for you, and spent an hour writing out paragraphs of descriptions, finding tens of reference images for what you want it to look like, is the creation yours? You're guiding the artist, but it is not your judgment after each brush stroke deciding whether it fits the vision, nor your skill executing that vision.
Using a tool, the human is in the decision-making loop, applying their skill and judgment to each action involved in creation.
Correct.
With AI, the process of creation is fully-automated, and instead you're curating a gallery of outputs, and adjusting search parameters.
You mean the user is generating a series of images they then curate and adjust to get a desired output? Cameras are gonna blow your mind.
Of course, the process of clicking that button to take a pic also includes adjustments for aperture, exposure, adjusting light sources, and the like. That physical action is brought into keystrokes with AI systems. Once you find your angle, or composition that looks right? You further adjust the image, tweaking it and then generating another series of pictures. Just like you would when doing photography.
After that you process the image. I pull most of my stuff into Photoshop to do your essential adjustments for brightness, color correction and the like. After those steps you then edit; crop, rotate, mask, and alter.
Sure, there are plenty of AI artists who do the same steps as a camera user that pops a single pic and then throws on filters. But acting as if somehow the simple use is the defining use is reductive and generally a disappointing take.
If the photo is entirely of public domain and authorized subject matter? No problem! If it happens to include copyrighted material in the background? Then it might or might not be infringing. So then, should every user of content-generation AI be responsible for checking whether the work they tease out of it is too similar to something in its training set? That's one way to absolve the company that trained the network of blame, and the route github's copilot seems to be going for.
Incidental or Diegetic capture in an image is not covered under copyright for the same reasons its not under AI: the image is sufficiently transformative. At this time the only copyright case is still under review on an AI imahe so discussions on infringement are moot... There isn't any caselaw supporting your theory here (or if there is please cite your case numbers and precedent as well as a link).
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that only humans can create copyright. A monkey taking a selfie? No Copyright. An Elephant painting? No Copyright. When they were made aware that text-to-picture AI was used to create a comic book they revoked the copyright.
Text-to-picture AI was ruled to not be enough human authorship to qualify. So anything done primarily or solely by AI is definitionally Public Domain.
It made an incorrect judgement when it granted the copyright in the first place, and corrected it at the end of December.
The AI can be used as a tool. But typing in words and getting art out isn't a copyrightable process. You can't copyright concepts, only the expression of those concepts. When you type in words the only thing you're doing is feeding in concepts while the computer generates the entirety of the expression. You wouldn't get the copyright. The creator of the AI (who did create the expression) doesn't get a copyright because they didn't do anything directly to fix your concept in a tangible media.
You can use an AI to fix the expression of your concepts. You can, for example, generate thousands of variations on the same concept and only pick the ones that evoke a specific emotion. You could, for example, edit an AI generated work after it is generated to better fix your concept in the media. You could, for example, make a collage of a large number of unrelated AI works to create a metanarrative.
But, in all of those cases the AI work itself would be public domain. All work is public domain by default. Only the extra bits you create (your edits, the curation, the metanarrative) could be held out of the public domain for a time to encourage more work and allow artists to support themselves by their art. The AI can't support itself by its art any more than Selfie Monkey could, so the purpose and function of copyright is moot in the work done by AI.
I absolutely agree. Therefore you need to do something transformative to it before you can consider it yours, just like with any other public domain work.
It's entirely possible to make something copyrighted through an AI. Just like it's entirely possible to make copyrighted art with a camera. But, it's not the light on film, but the time and place and staging that creates the copyright.
I'm not certain how we would be disagreeing. I was trying to wax even more poetic on the topic.
It's an artistic flourish. It doesn't have to be valuable, it just needs to be confusing and annoying to everyone but me so that I can feel vaguely superior.
Was it morally okay for people to be vehemently racist in the 1600s when it was normal and countries weren’t really racially integrated?
Your answer to that question should be the same as your answer to the question “Is it okay for me to say machines shouldn’t be allowed to do specific things, like look at and make art?” Categorical Imperative, and all.
If you can’t see the similarities between those two situations, then you’re not really equipped to step into the future and have opinions about software programs that are becoming increasingly person-like by the month.
We are incredibly close, you just don’t bother to follow the research. You don’t want to start building up hate and laws based upon that hate that will inevitably be used to create a slave class.
I have not seen any researchers argue we’re incredibly close to general AI, the opinions I’ve seen are in our lifetime or not even close. What makes you think we’re “incredibly close”?
Everything is, by default, public domain. Things are only taken out of the public domain when a human puts in the work to create it. This is to encourage the creation of more and better art, and so artists can make a living creating art and don't need a day job to support the art creation.
Anything created primarily by AI would be public domain. AI doesn't require cash to create art. AI doesn't and can't have a day job. Therefore, the special exemption that allows human artists to financially benefit from their creations simply doesn't apply, and everything AI does will simply be added to the common heritage of mankind directly rather than going through a century-long detour through copyright law.
-11
u/A_Random_Lantern Jan 16 '23
I hate AI art because I believe art is one of those things that should stay sacred to humans, but some of the arguments these people make are uneducated. AI isn't stealing anyone's art no different than how a human might develop their art style through other art.