AI Derangement Syndrome / Anti-AI artists / Pro-AI technocultists / AI "debate" communities - The Natural Retardation in the Artificial Intelligence communities

[Trench Raider]

I have seen this sentiment echoed throughout this thread quite a bit but I'd like to point out that it isn't really true if you look at legal guidelines and history. Lots of kiwis (rightfully) laugh at furfaggot tankies losing their shit over AI but uncritically turn into Lenin the second the subject shifts to ©

I'm not legal expert, neither I'm american so my understanding of american law is very narrow to say the least. I was wrong about reach in the US law of copyright laws. But from perspective of a random guy it seems that AI generally is fine in most criteria (Substantiality of the individual art pieces is very low because it uses shit tone of training data, In case of purpouse it's heavily dependent one the context of use, Nature of coyrighted work as far as I know primarily is applied to fiction, when LLM's create some kind of story they don't copy preexistent work but generate new ones based on training data) the only case when it seems questionable is the effects on the potential market.

Although case of AI and copyright is rather complex one, I'm sure of one thing: It isn't art theft. AI creates completely new things from training data. The only problem is the occasional problems as you mentioned, but they are Errors, these things shouldn't happen and due to that we can hope that as tech develops this issue becomes obsolete.

 

[tumblrkek]

But in that case, physical objects you own are being taken and used, presumably you notice that your own resources are missing/dwindling. Larry didn't have the right to give what he borrowed from you to others. But in the real world, Laion isn't giving anything to anyone. If someone else misuses their giant database, it's not their problem. It's not even a problem if you find out it wasn't "someone else" and they were secretly funded by some company who benefits, because the act that would get them in trouble is the misuse of the dataset, not the entirely legal creation of it. A benign act doesn't become illegal because of a criminal act that later happens derived from it.


I don't think this is why you can't sue Larry. I mean, in this case, you probably CAN sue him, because he's actively giving your stuff to someone else without permission.

But in real world terms, I don't think the reason you can't sue Laion is because they're a nonprofit doing research. The reason you can't sue them and expect to win is because they're not doing anything illegal. Like trying to sue a rival company for sending someone to walk into your store and look around and take notes. Sorry, they're simply allowed to do that. If they actually perform some illegal action like directly copying your trade dress, then you have a case.

Analogies don't really work because there was never anything quite like it, so I apologize is my poor larry/barry story had an unintentional © maximalist-shaped hole in it. I just thought it sounded close enough to put one in the shoes of someone in a similar predicament to those of writers whose IP got swept up in a data woodchipper and used to compete with them.
Again, you're completely right when you say that Laion isn't doing anything wrong in itself. But when you take a step back and see how the data it collected was being funneled into a for-profit venture, I know you can put 2 and 2 together as well as anyone.

To elaborate further, have you tried any AI model based on open source stuff? They are awful, barely functional. It turns out that most of the value of these LLMs is derived from an Internet's worth of copyrighted pictures/text they fed into their models.
They need it. They need your copyrighted furporn very badly. But they won't pay you for it. In fact, their entire business model hinges on making certain that they do not have to pay royalties to anyone, especially not the people with the skillsets they're trying to displace, or it would be even less profitable than it already is. So when they don't argue that training on copyrighted stuff is fair use, they are doing their best to obscure where they sourced the data.
Laion is the one case where the AI startup actually showed where they got everything from. They were savvy enough to use the nonprofit status and managed to stay out of trouble that way. Other big AI players took notice of it and got so fucking scared of this potential Achille's heel that they are finding every excuse in the book not to divulge where they sourced any of it from.
They know what they're doing, and so is everyone aware of such things. Again, this is where the indignation comes from, and in my opinion, these IP holders aren't always old egomaniacs screeching at clouds.

This is what pro-IP cannot fathom, they make these allegories comparing limitless supply and limited supply and equates intellectual theft with physical theft.

View attachment 7209920

For the record I'm mostly pro-piracy, on one hand because IP laws are antiquated and riddled with bullshit none should have to deal with, but also because I'm convinced that small-time piracy it is harmless and even beneficial for IP holders the majority of the time.
However in the case of AI, the copy isn't just some p2p-transferred file existing in some NEET's hard drive, it's actively being weaponized against the original creators in an unprecedented industry-wide assault.

I'm not legal expert, neither I'm american so my understanding of american law is very narrow to say the least. I was wrong about reach in the US law of copyright laws. But from perspective of a random guy it seems that AI generally is fine in most criteria (Substantiality of the individual art pieces is very low because it uses shit tone of training data, In case of purpouse it's heavily dependent one the context of use, Nature of coyrighted work as far as I know primarily is applied to fiction, when LLM's create some kind of story they don't copy preexistent work but generate new ones based on training data) the only case when it seems questionable is the effects on the potential market.

Although case of AI and copyright is rather complex one, I'm sure of one thing: It isn't art theft. AI creates completely new things from training data. The only problem is the occasional problems as you mentioned, but they are Errors, these things shouldn't happen and due to that we can hope that as tech develops this issue becomes obsolete.

It is definitely not wholesale theft, we wouldn't even be having this discussion if it were. But I do strongly believe that they are abusing the current system and exploiting the work of artists, and that in the long run it could have dire consequences on creative industries as a whole. Your logic is good and I wish people even thought that much about it, as well as the caveats I brought up.
btw I didn't mean to bombard you with a fucking redditpost worth "erm ashktually", but I thought your initial post was a good excuse to offer this thread some contrasting views based on what legal knowledge I have.

I'm sorry. I think I polluted this thread enough for a bit now, but its the only place I get to read interesting opinions. Please show me some cows soon.

 

[Runch]

Again, you're completely right when you say that Laion isn't doing anything wrong in itself. But when you take a step back and see how the data it collected was being funneled into a for-profit venture, I know you can put 2 and 2 together as well as anyone.

To elaborate further, have you tried any AI model based on open source stuff? They are awful, barely functional. It turns out that most of the value of these LLMs is derived from an Internet's worth of copyrighted pictures/text they fed into their models.
They need it. They need your copyrighted furporn very badly. But they won't pay you for it.

Sorry, I'm not trying to be hostile or intentionally obtuse or anything, but I don't see how the use of copyrighted data is an elaboration on the discussion about Laion. If training embroils a company in copyright issues, that still has nothing to do with a dataset created legally. It seems like you keep trying to imply that recording a list of URLs is fine, buuuuuut...

I don't think there's a "but" there.

For the record I'm mostly pro-piracy, on one hand because IP laws are antiquated and riddled with bullshit none should have to deal with, but also because I'm convinced that small-time piracy it is harmless and even beneficial for IP holders the majority of the time.
However in the case of AI, the copy isn't just some p2p-transferred file existing in some NEET's hard drive, it's actively being weaponized against the original creators in an unprecedented industry-wide assault.

However, it's not being weaponized against the original creators by the model makers. Other people are the ones using the models in a way that might compete with artists, so if they're doing so in an illegal way, then pursue them, not the model makers.

Like saying Adobe Photoshop is at fault for competing directly with painters, when it's actually the people using Photoshop who are doing that.

In fact I think those are some of the arguments that helped Sony win against Universal in the Betamax case. Sony weren't the ones making infringing copies of broadcasts, that would be the individual users who are responsible for their misuse of this recording technology.

 

[AnOminous]

Not derangement syndrome but basically after a series of being delt bad hands, a content creator is basically out of a job due to AI slop.

At least taking him at face value, it isn't "AI slop" that fucked up his life, it's a guy who stole his scripts. If what he's saying is true (big if), he has a solid copyright infringement case.

That does explain why one form of AI that has the hardest time breaking through is voice AI. When you use a voice of a celebrity to advertise your product, instead of hiring them, it is very easy to prove that you weren't counting grains of sand, but stole the whole bag.

This is a different right than copyright. It's a right of publicity, a general right that if your public image has value, someone can't simply appropriate your image in order to sell their product by falsely suggesting you endorse it. This is why Tom Waits curbstomped Frito-Lay in court when, after he refused to do an advertisement for them, they hired a sound-alike to imitate his voice.

They weren't merely appropriating his image itself, but also creating the impression he was endorsing a product, when a large part of his reputation is rejecting such commercialism, such as in this famous song:

AI isn't theft. AI is a tool. It's a tool that can be used to commit theft, but most uses of publicly available creations to generate something original, that is to say, derivative works, are subject to a fair use analysis. While the fourth factor @tumblrkek cites is very often the most important factor, the four-part balancing test of fair use can really depend on any single factor as predominant in a specific case.

The fourth factor is market impact, that is, how much does the use cost the original creator. It's one of the most often cited determinative factors in fair use, but that doesn't mean it's the whole game.

 

[linchan]

It's a right of publicity, a general right that if your public image has value, someone can't simply appropriate your image in order to sell their product by falsely suggesting you endorse it. This is why Tom Waits curbstomped Frito-Lay in court when, after he refused to do an advertisement for them, they hired a sound-alike to imitate his voice.

I don't think that's even bad for violating right to publicity, that's straight-up fraud. I have less issues with someone doing that because they didn't ask for permission of the guy, but with the fact they deceived the customer in thinking the real guy did it. The victim should be the the people who watched the ad and not the person they did the impersonation of.

 

[AnOminous]

I don't think that's even bad for violating right to publicity, that's straight-up fraud. I have less issues with someone doing that because they didn't ask for permission of the guy, but with the fact they deceived the customer in thinking the real guy did it. The victim should be the the people who watched the ad and not the person they did the impersonation of.

Right of publicity is what Waits won on, though. I also think it's a fraud on the public. People shouldn't be able to turn your public image into a marionette selling shit you don't approve of and don't endorse, and on top of that, wrecking your reputation and making you look like a whore.

However, the separate fraud claim would be anyone who actually bought some shitty Frito-Lay product because they thought someone they admired approved of it. And any competitors who lost out (a business tort called false advertising usually litigated between two competing vendors).

I still think Waits was a hero for protecting his image and refusing to allow himself to be whored out against his will for a product he didn't approve of and had explicitly refused to endorse. Waits v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 978 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1992).

Other people also had legitimate claims against Frito-Lay, but that doesn't mean Waits wasn't entirely justified in pursuing his own case.

I suggest anyone actually interested in the real legal issues involved in AI bullshit actually understand the substantive (that is to say not insane) ethical and legal issues. There's more than copyright going on in these AI conflicts.

 

[NSJAP]

Comments are predictable.

And remember, this is the worst it will ever be.

 

[Skylavijas]

This is what pro-IP cannot fathom, they make these allegories comparing limitless supply and limited supply and equates intellectual theft with physical theft.

View attachment 7209920

The view on piracy as theft is a byproduct of PSA advertising, meant to primarily scaremonger, not educate the population. Theft and piracy are seen as distinctly different concepts within US law, and each carries different responses and penalties. Piracy is not theft, but that's not the reason it's seen as illegal.

The most clear example of this sort of crime, which involves people making unsanctioned copies of a certain object, is making counterfeit currency. Sure, it's clear as day to anyone that you're not stealing anybody's money by printing bank notes in your garage, but by printing millions of notes and spending all of that counterfeit money, which starts circulating across the market, you are not only making everybody else's money worth less, due to inflation, making basic goods like food or gas unaffordable, but you're also damaging the credibility of the state's currency. Likewise, you're not stealing anything if you make counterfeits of famous 18th century art pieces and sell them off for tons of money as if it were the original copies, but you are scamming and duping buyers into thinking that what you are selling is the authentic, original copy. You are also not stealing anything if you decide to word for word copy somebody else's novel, and sell it as your own work, but you are making money off of somebody else's work, without their permission, and if your copy substantially outsells the original work, you are maliciously denying the real author a source of income from the work they created.

I could go on and on with the examples, but these instances serve an understanding as for why IP and copyright infringement laws exist. Where does AI generated content fit into this, remains to be seen, but it imitating other works is not theft, that's simply incorrect and that's not even the reason why such new technology needs to be evaluated under judicial scrutiny.

 

[four]

Text:

It's a tool of fascism. It's meant to dumb us down. Destroys artists because they might inspire resistsance. Censors knowledge by manipulating search results and providing bullshit summaries that aren't even accurate. It makes young people/students dependent on it and therefor unable to do their own research, write or think critically. Let alone the whole destroying the environment part. ALL AI use should be banned sitewide.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Negareddit/comments/1jwwop3/reddit_is_too_blase_about_ai/

https://ghostarchive.org/archive/lfTlq

 

[cybertoaster]

Comments are predictable.

And remember, this is the worst it will ever be.

I remember when the excuse to not make cool anime again was that it was too expensive, that making something on the level of AKIRA again its impossible due to costs. Here you have a system that can do 95% of the job for you and these idiots make...........another generic moeshit anime with pedobait characters, and they are tiktokers for the extra cringe.

Goes to show the problem wasn't lack of resources, it was lack of TALENT.

 

[Skylavijas]

I remember when the excuse to not make cool anime again was that it was too expensive, that making something on the level of AKIRA again its impossible due to costs. Here you have a system that can do 95% of the job for you and these idiots make...........another generic moeshit anime with pedobait characters, and they are tiktokers for the extra cringe.

Goes to show the problem wasn't lack of resources, it was lack of TALENT.

Not lack of talent even... going off of recent success of the Minecraft movie, a movie everybody went to watch ANTICIPATING it to suck, tells me that people don't actually want the next Akira. Oh they complain for it, sure, but they keep paying money to watch slop, while productions with actual passion and effort behind them receive fraction of the attention.

You can tell through countless homages to Akira backslide, that people animating both anime and western animation adore the film and probably would love to be part of a film production that requires similar effort and talent, but they're forced to animate for low-budget kids shows. It's like how Mick Gordon had to compose for Nicktoons: Attack of the Toybots to make ends meat, before he got lucky enough to compose for Wolfenstein and Doom. There are probably several Mick Gordons within the industry that never got their lucky break, and had their souls crushed down after making the same kiddy shit decade after decade.

And why are talented people forced to make kiddy shit? Because that's what the executives order, because they know that's what people are gonna watch. Fact of the matter is, something that Youtube video essays will never tell you is that the group of people that are into tik tok e-celebs, pedobait characters and generic moeshit are the silent majority. We people, that demand new, captivating experiences that stay with us for days after watching something - are nerds. We are the loud minority, that everybody hears, but nobody fucking listens to. People will keep on watching garbage and garbage will continue to remain to be more profitable than something serious or unique.

The only silver lining from this AI tech is that maybe japanese animators and manga creators will no longer die from heart attacks due to being severely overworked like Kentaro Miura. But then again... Entertainment industries might as well be run by Satan himself, so if there is no longer need to overwork people, they're probably gonna just dishonorably fire and rip their employees off, while simultaneously somehow managing to overwork the few people that remain.

 

[The Wise Shaman]

I find it rather funny how visual artists are generally the most anti-AI and will get pissed if you dare to use AI in any shape or form, while music artists are unapologetically using it for cover art, merchandise, and music videos, even if they wouldn't even touch AI for music production. Are musicians just built different?

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

I find it rather funny how visual artists are generally the most anti-AI and will get pissed if you dare to use AI in any shape or form, while music artists are unapologetically using it for cover art, merchandise, and music videos, even if they wouldn't even touch AI for music production. Are musicians just built different?

Dunno.

There is a YT channel called "Suspect AI Songs" that is dedicated to making ridiculous songs that most artists wouldn't be caught dead making.

 

[Coolio55]

It's like how Mick Gordon had to compose for Nicktoons: Attack of the Toybots

Haha. Fuck. I'll have to see if the soundtrack is any good.
Also, one of the rare Nick games to acknowledge Ren and Stimpy.

Anyway, having to produce licenced slop for money is nothing new. Wayforward are the fucking KINGS of that tactic.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Watching a video about some game that had AI placeholder art (maybe, might be just generic images from online). The narrator in that went full reddit: "It's problematic you have AI art, you should remove it".

Why are those people like this? The video was a game that just lifts shit wholesale from King's Field. How is that okay and AI art is somehow going over a red line?

 

[Outer Space Traveller]

Watching a video about some game that had AI placeholder art (maybe, might be just generic images from online). The narrator in that went full reddit: "It's problematic you have AI art, you should remove it".

Why are those people like this? The video was a game that just lifts shit wholesale from King's Field. How is that okay and AI art is somehow going over a red line?

Because those people are niggers and cannot resort to anything but arguments about "it is stealing" or "it is theft" or even the thing they laughed at others before, such as the guys of "they took our jobs!!!". But this time it is totally serious, you see.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Because those people are niggers and cannot resort to anything but arguments about "it is stealing" or "it is theft" or even the thing they laughed at others before, such as the guys of "they took our jobs!!!". But this time it is totally serious, you see.

It's the passive aggressive threats that annoy me. Those people have no problem taking concepts, code and style for their tranny games. But god forbid if it has graphics not approved by their gestapo.

 

[Monolith]

I remember when the excuse to not make cool anime again was that it was too expensive, that making something on the level of AKIRA again its impossible due to costs. Here you have a system that can do 95% of the job for you and these idiots make...........another generic moeshit anime with pedobait characters, and they are tiktokers for the extra cringe.

Goes to show the problem wasn't lack of resources, it was lack of TALENT.

It's a proof of concept, I imagine they'll do more intense action if this one works.

 

[Monolith]

Dunno.

There is a YT channel called "Suspect AI Songs" that is dedicated to making ridiculous songs that most artists wouldn't be caught dead making.

Double post because I can't add a quote while editing (it's the jannies' problem):

There are a bunch of those channels. Most of their songs are country, and most of their country songs are either about shitting in public or getting hit in the nuts.

Unsung AI, Beats by AI, Hard Archive, That's What I Call Brainrot!

 

[Kiwisee]

If you don't have attention to detail, the AI anime looks fine
The thing I find funny about the studio training on their own works is that it proves most animators already can’t draw hands and rely heavily on photobashed backgrounds.

Most modern anime (from 2010 onwards), has gotten progressively worse in style over the years. If anything, this trailer holds a mirror to this fact. It has gotten so generic that an AI program can easily emulate the modern style, so long as scene cuts don't last for more than two seconds.

I remember when shows used to have actual distinct styles depending on the genre they're from. My Hero Academia is the only recent anime I can think of that is highly stylized (I would count Jojo, if not for the fact that the manga came out decades before the 2012 adaptation of Phantom Blood).

99% of shows coming out today look like they stepped right out of Sword Art Online. The fact that an AI program can emulate this so easily is extremely telling of how generic the style has gotten.

The way the characters move look off. Not that it's any better than abusing still shots. I do support animators using AI to fill in-between frames, which in time needs more polishing. There's always going to be a job for someone to do post-generative touch ups anyway.