- Joined
- Aug 28, 2015
"Haha, yeah, coded up the software for the sentry guns, could you put them in place for me?"
AI Art Seething General
- Thread starter The Thinking Abacus
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2013
off topic but why the fuck does she look like that in every thumbnail, it's hideous
It's what the average female New Zealander looks like
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2014
Found this rant by an artist -- who seems to like anthropomorphic animals -- who compares AI art to "art theft" and a "wood chipper":
No Abused Images by KashimusPrime on DeviantArt
"Let's unpack this."
And if portions used are used in such away where there's no substantial similarity, then that's de minimis or not even a legal issue.
This rant reminded me how fanatical dA artists can be about copyright. Seems that to them, just copying the slightest part of art can be seen as this unspeakably horrible rape-y "theft" which can magically make poor artists destitute. The "copyright fanaticism" on dA reflects what's wrong with (at least the Western) internet: there is way too much "virtue signalling" for fanatical and/or BS values.
(But to me, copying substantial and recognizable portions can be "plagiarism", and certain copyright infringement can replace sales.)
No Abused Images by KashimusPrime on DeviantArt
"Let's unpack this."
If those portions used are used in a "transformative" enough way, or are not significant enough, then it's Fair Use: which is a limit on copyright. No "consent" needed then. Also "consent"? It's art, not sex. Copying itself isn't the same as physical theft, nor rape.
And if portions used are used in such away where there's no substantial similarity, then that's de minimis or not even a legal issue.
I fail to see how copying part of art replaces the sale of the original, or somehow "takes the livelihood" from artists.
Again, copying is not the same as physical theft. And if Fair Use -- such as being "transformative" enough -- it is not infringement.
No it isn't. Unless most or all of the work was copied, not just some part.
This rant reminded me how fanatical dA artists can be about copyright. Seems that to them, just copying the slightest part of art can be seen as this unspeakably horrible rape-y "theft" which can magically make poor artists destitute. The "copyright fanaticism" on dA reflects what's wrong with (at least the Western) internet: there is way too much "virtue signalling" for fanatical and/or BS values.
(But to me, copying substantial and recognizable portions can be "plagiarism", and certain copyright infringement can replace sales.)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2018
Copying is the wrong argument to begin with as even the AI doesn't copy. The pictures it produces are brand new, one of a kind. They leaned so hard into this complete lie (and at this point I call it a lie and not a misunderstanding because you would have to be intentionally ignorant to not know better if you spend more than ten minutes with the topic) that I feel many of them actually believe it. AI generated pictures are a distinct thing in themselves, even if influenced by art styles of artists. No stomping of feet is changing that fact. No 2, 100, 1000 AI generated pictures are the same and they look nothing like pictures that already exist. The AI cannot copy the pictures it learned from because it doesn't have them saved anywhere. Even if you generated a gazillion images and one would turn out like the actual picture of an artist, it would be a purely coincidential, million monkeys with a typewriter stiuation, not the result of copying that artists picture.
Multimodal models when done right will be actually able to copy and modify art you give them - you could argue that way, AI can actually "steal art". But that is then on the user, not the AI, a software. You don't ban computers because people commit crimes with them either. Disney wouldn't be able to blame Adobe because I use photoshop to create unlicensed Mickey Mouse cartoons.
Multimodal models when done right will be actually able to copy and modify art you give them - you could argue that way, AI can actually "steal art". But that is then on the user, not the AI, a software. You don't ban computers because people commit crimes with them either. Disney wouldn't be able to blame Adobe because I use photoshop to create unlicensed Mickey Mouse cartoons.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2018
They do believe the lie, though I blame this on willing ignorance because of 'block and stay safe' culture.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
Frying the output tends to happen if you try to run it with SD1.5 parameters. Lowering the CFG and setting emphasis mode to No norm usually keeps it under control.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2018
Not my main topic at all, but interesting paper about "protecting" images against being used for AI.
tl;dr: It can be bypassed with relatively little effort.
Github of the code.
tl;dr: It can be bypassed with relatively little effort.
Github of the code.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2021
"the chocolate chip has impossible shine therefore it isn't good nor is it art"
Have you seen chocolate chips in commericals, you tranny?
Guaranteed if I look through their media tab I'm going to find shit that belongs in the SJW art thread.
Edit: shocker. They're out of a job.
Should've chose a better paying major and read the fine print
Have you seen chocolate chips in commericals, you tranny?
Guaranteed if I look through their media tab I'm going to find shit that belongs in the SJW art thread.
Edit: shocker. They're out of a job.
Should've chose a better paying major and read the fine print
YumeNoHero
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2021
I don't know about you but my failing eyesight can still see Glaze's artifacts on both 2 small sized images while AI is still able to bypass it. What a joke it is.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2024
I like to say the artists rambling about AI also tend to be complete scumbags who are usually only doing art for 2 reasons: attention and money. Attention as a ton of them put watermarks and "DO NOT REPOST" disclaimers somewhere on their profiles/the art itself, so they effectively encourage their NPC enjoyers to draw attention to the original source, and also to get any like-minded retards to tell you "You didn't appreciate the artist's rights!" Ironically, this also feeds into Money, as many of them also have Patreons and overzealous pricing for their shitty artwork: either that its degenerate bullshit (most common scenario, usually furries do this) or actual shitty artwork. At that point I would rather draw the thing I want myself.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2014
Like I said, artists can be very fanatical about copyright -- at least or especially American ones. When an "orphan works" change to copyright was proposed, there was what was called the "gathering of the tribes" of artists who protested that. The salt from a large number of artists if copyright was outright ended would be quite a circus to behold (there'd still be good art made for fun though).
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2024
Artists are one of the most arrogant, self-important groups I've ever had the displeasure of interacting with.
My friends and I decided to spend some time playing homebrew DnD, so in preparation I spent hours writing the story, thinking about all the different ways their choices can impact it, then using Wonderdraft to draw up a map of the area they would explore through 4 sessions. I came up with a few monsters and characters and, being as bad as I am at drawing, wanted to illustrate them. A commission would've cost me too much for a 4 session shits-and-giggles-fest, so I decided to turn to AI. My friends didn't mind - in fact, we laughed about how an elf druid looked like James Franco. It was fun, it was not for profit - fully within the ethical guidelines these morons came up with.
Then an acquintance of ours, an art teacher, who learned about this berated me for "being lazy" and "being tightfisted". Despite paying for Wonderdraft and spending hours being meticulously autistic about every choice any character of any alignment would make in given situations.
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2018
How about just currating the content you put online instead of uploading your entire gallery of every trash image. Heck, as a photographer I'd be considered a hack if I posted 3000 photos when only #288 is the one I want to showcase. What these artists aren't realizing is AI needs data inputed to learn your unique style, stop feeding it with your vanity posts of an 8 hour passion project.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2014
American art teachers can be very anal with "what counts as art", which can be demoralizing to any who just want to have fun with it.
yep
(Hopefully there are at least a few artists who aren't REE-ing egotistical elitist copyright fanatics.)
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2018
It kinda looks like back in the day, if you had a TV with less than ideal reception. These people are completely delusional.
Currently, there's a slew of image-gen models coming out of China. They're quite good. Alone the fact that the pictures are "protected" might give western AI people pause, but I have no doubts the chinese have no qualms about using bypass technology like this to get more training data. If there will be a lot of regulation in regards to AI in the west, all that will mean is that China will overtake the west in the field and we will become all dependant on/at the mercy of chinese AI technology. A scenario I'd personally like to avoid. Lately at least western governments (or at least the parts that haven't been bought off by foreign interests) seem to slowly come to the realization that globalism hasn't quite worked out the way they imagined and these countries are basically at war with us, so, hey, maybe.
I'd feel more sorry for any other group. It's not only impossible to feel sorry for artists, seeing them flail and whine is also quite funny.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2024
Funny thing is, she wasn't American. I live in Hungary, she's Hungarian too, but she pretty much learned everything from consuming American media so I'm not surprised at all at her being anal about this.
It's especially funny to me that she does other stuff as well (mainly book covers, if I remember correctly) and because of that, she makes double what I make from my job, yet I'm the tight-fisted and greedy one. Bear in mind, the minimum wage here is 500 dollars per month, and successful artists can make many times that, approximately in the league of an American middle class household, which can land you in the upper echelons of society here. Especially if your clients are Western furries, who can afford to spend thousands of dollars on a whim. Now, I don't have evidence of her drawing furry porn as well, but her general appearance does suggest that she lives above her means as a humble teacher.
Now that I think about it, their narrative of Neo-Colonialism can be applied to their attitude towards AI art as well: I can't afford an artist who makes Western money, I can't afford to spend dozens of hours of my limited free time learning and practicing drawing just so I could spend a couple dozen more hours on a single illustration, so them demanding that I readjust my life just so I wouldn't have to use a free software to create some images for my friends is very Western-normative, Eurocentric (because Eastern Europe is not Europe, apparently) and racist and sexist too. Somehow.
I like writing and worldbuilding, considering that I've been working on a fantasy book for years now, but I would never get mad at someone for using AI to generate names and places for their projects. Even if I was a professional writer, I wouldn't see it as a threat. If anything, I would see it as a huge step forward, since AI-made stuff will saturate the market and make authentic, well-thought-out, well-made works even more valuable than they already are. Those who can't find a niche and aren't talented enough to make it big will have to get another job - such is their fate in every other workplace.
Artists can't understand this, because they're so inept in the Art of Economic Warfare™ that they can't figure out how to save their jobs without banning the competition. Seriously, if AI art is your competition, you're the bottom of the barrel and you deserve to lose your "job" as an "artist".