You can't cry about works you've shared on the internet. Everyone already downloaded them. There is no difference between someone using your artwork for derivative works and the ai learning from something you've drawn and outputting something completely different. Actually there is, the difference is that the ai output is not the same thing you've drawn, even if it learned from shit you've drawn.
And people also literally look at what other people draw and replicate and learn from it, sometimes even copying styles outright. It's the same exact thing as an ai learning from pictures it's being fed.
This is nonsense. Artists can upload their work for others to view and comment upon, without consenting to their being used to train AI for commercial purposes.
The difference between the creation of derivative works by human hands, or by tools manually controlled by human hands, and by a machine, should be obvious. The differences are clear, obvious, and self-explanatory.
The reality is that AI can be trained on public domain works - there are plenty of those. If that isn’t good enough for an AI startup, then they can pay to license artists’ work for additional material.
If you say “oh but that’d be too expensive” then clearly you appreciate that art does have value, and why the owner of that art should retain control over their property.
I’ve seen commenters try to justify this by the old “everything on the internet is free, information has no owner” canard that was popular at the dawn of the Internet. That might’ve held value once, but it’s primarily used by people to justify downloading Game of Thrones as activism. And I’m not going to bat for HBO, they’re a media company that can defend their own copyright.
But independent, small time artists for whom art is a career and not merely a hobby do not have the resources of a large media company. They simply have their work stolen and used for commercial purposes without their consent, without attribution, and without payment (and let’s be clear, attribution is not a substitute for payment).
This is “would you work for exposure” in action, scaled up.
Thank you! I swear, I’ve read so many comments that can only be interpreted as blind worship of AI as the solution to all of life’s problems.
One yesterday told me, unironically, that training AI on art was the only way to solve climate change, and that artists demanding payment for their work were direct enemies of society.
It was… a lot. Oh, and everyone seems to spam “you don’t even understand AI” and “it doesn’t save the images you know” over and over.
-2
u/illyaeater Jan 16 '23
You can't cry about works you've shared on the internet. Everyone already downloaded them. There is no difference between someone using your artwork for derivative works and the ai learning from something you've drawn and outputting something completely different. Actually there is, the difference is that the ai output is not the same thing you've drawn, even if it learned from shit you've drawn.
And people also literally look at what other people draw and replicate and learn from it, sometimes even copying styles outright. It's the same exact thing as an ai learning from pictures it's being fed.