NeoGAF & ResetERA - The Hilarious N̶e̶v̶e̶r̶e̶n̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ Splintering "Gaming" Forum Circus

[SpaceCow]

I said this in the Stable Diffusion thread, but I'll say it again:

The only people threatened by AI art right now are people who make non-specific art for stuff like clipart and stock images. This isn't actually many artists. AI can make cool art, but it can't really give you EXACTLY what you want. Most of the time, people hire artists with specific needs in mind, and need an artist that can make exactly what they want. This may change in the future, but right now most artists are safe.

I could see an artist being afraid of AI art taking their job ten years from now, because they keep finding ways to make it better. But I don't sympathize with artists who are upset their images were maybe part of the learning material for machine art... the machines just did exactly what human brains do with art: regurgitate things they've seen before.

 

[jallsballs]

people have the right not to have their art scraped and use for ai.

no they dont

 

[Weeby Catto]

no they dont

then maybe you dont have a right to demand privacy too.
If you dont lock your house, your house is basically open for everyone, you can't call it a robbery. This is your point.

 

[WhatInTheActualFuck]

View attachment 4072521
View attachment 4072524
View attachment 4072539

Havent seen a perm for making fun of a mod in awhile
Her argument boils down to "you dont deserve to be able to produce things for free because you didnt spend as much time learning it as me"

I find myself curious - the furry mod uses the term "us" here as if they're a paid/working artist. Is there any evidence for this claim?

 

[AirdropShitposts]

View attachment 4072521
View attachment 4072524
View attachment 4072539

Havent seen a perm for making fun of a mod in awhile
Her argument boils down to "you dont deserve to be able to produce things for free because you didnt spend as much time learning it as me"

Look how utterly stupid she is:

I think she literally imagines you just pop out the "coal mining" chip and stick in a "computer programmer" chip and then all these coal miners join the Fortune 500 tech companies in their communities. It's endlessly funny to me how these totalitarians who whine about the dehumanization of "capitalist reality" only ever view people as cogs in some kind of national/global machine that central planners (always themselves) can dismissively (where do I see that phrase a lot in ban messages...) move around without any concerns (hey there's another of those) for the impact of any of their choices that people are not allowed to disobey.

To quote the rapper Fredrich Hayek:
People aren't chess men you move on a board at your whim
Their dreams and desires ignored
With political incentives, discretion's a joke
Those dials your twisting? Just mirrors and smoke

I find myself curious - the furry mod uses the term "us" here as if they're a paid/working artist. Is there any evidence for this claim?

Starting about a year ago or so she says she's doing contractual work from home on 3D models for some game she's never mentioned the name of.

 

[Weeby Catto]

I said this in the Stable Diffusion thread, but I'll say it again:

The only people threatened by AI art right now are people who make non-specific art for stuff like clipart and stock images. This isn't actually many artists. AI can make cool art, but it can't really give you EXACTLY what you want. Most of the time, people hire artists with specific needs in mind, and need an artist that can make exactly what they want. This may change in the future, but right now most artists are safe.

I could see an artist being afraid of AI art taking their job ten years from now, because they keep finding ways to make it better. But I don't sympathize with artists who are upset their images were maybe part of the learning material for machine art... the machines just did exactly what human brains do with art: regurgitate things they've seen before.

Not really tho, opportunities are lost when you have an art competition and people can just submit ai and win. Why bother then? An 8 year old kid can win anytime.
Though i agree the part where art is not dying. A lot of work in art requires so much more precision, consistency and permutations that ai cannot deliver yet.

The difference is, people don't usually submit a wip for their artwork. It would be the same outrage if it happens in the music industry, and the tech is already there. But most musicians have to "perform", so they can't cheat out of their way.

 

[Mothra1988]

then maybe you dont have a right to demand privacy too.
If you dont lock your house, your house is basically open for everyone, you can't call it a robbery. This is your point.

The real world is ran by legal concepts like fair use, not whether or not something seems fair to you. If you publish your stuff online, is downloading it and keeping it on your hard drive stealing it too?

 

[AnOminous]

Not really tho, opportunities are lost when you have an art competition and people can just submit ai and win. Why bother then? An 8 year old kid can win anytime.

Well, that's cheating. And people have always been able to cheat. The fact someone can cheat with something doesn't mean it's bad. I can run someone over with a car. That doesn't make cars bad.

 

[Girl Named Sandoz]

Well, that's cheating. And people have always been able to cheat. The fact someone can cheat with something doesn't mean it's bad. I can run someone over with a car. That doesn't make cars bad.

in fact, it makes them even more awesome

 

[Kel1 shi1]

people have the right not to have their art scraped and use for ai.

Here's a thought, don't put it online until you've sold it then. What the buyer does with it after that isn't the artists concern.

 

[Almighty Space Duck]

While the arguments "ai art will kill art jobs" is very hyperbolic, people have the right not to have their art scraped and use for ai. There are plenty of ai art that have the artist's signature leftovers.

What are you on about? If someone posts something publicly then it is fair game. I don’t see any difference between AI scraping publicly posted images and resident autists collating publicly available data for an doxx.

 

[Weeby Catto]

What are you on about? If someone posts something publicly then it is fair game. I don’t see any difference between AI scraping publicly posted images and resident autists collating publicly available data for an doxx.

That's an autistic idea, just because it's online, doesn't mean it's free real estate. Your point is saying if things are online, then things deserved to get whatever done to them.
If websites are online then then it's a fair game for anyone to hack, if music is online then it's a fair game for anyone to pirate?

Same like another retard who says as long as it's bought, it's no longer a concern for the artists. Pretty much a piracy ideology. Buying a game doesn't mean you get to pirate it and sell it, same goes for music etc.

Which is why there are rights. Oh you want to change and sell the game? You have to buy the entire rights to the game, not just the game itself.

Maybe if your face or your family's is ever posted on fb, insta or wherever, then it's a fair game for them to be pasted and sold on a sex doll.

 

[Kel1 shi1]

Same like another retard who says as long as it's bought, it's no longer a concern for the artists. Pretty much a piracy ideology. Buying a game doesn't mean you get to pirate it and sell it, same goes for music etc.

Copyright, IP and transformative use laws still apply. Don't worry I'm sure you'll be able to keep your commissioned furry art porn artist in business.

Only retards pay for porn.

 

[Weeby Catto]

Well, that's cheating. And people have always been able to cheat. The fact someone can cheat with something doesn't mean it's bad. I can run someone over with a car. That doesn't make cars bad.

A totally unrelated argument.

Even taking your point, isn't that why there's a case to make ai separate from human made art?
No one made the case that ai is inherently bad, it's bad because it scrapes and used to make instantaneous artworks and flood the gallery, while these "ai artist" try to claim the rights to their artwork.

Can you use ai to make, or help making your artwork? certainly.

Is your cars made from parts stolen from other automakers? Pretty sure it's not.

Copyright, IP and transformative use laws still apply. Don't worry I'm sure you'll be able to keep your commissioned furry art porn artist in business.

Only retards pay for porn.

When retards have no valid arguments, they made up fantasies about other ppl in their own head to stroke their dick sized ego.

 

[Kel1 shi1]

When retards have no valid arguments, they made up fantasies about other ppl in their own head to stroke their dick sized ego.

Nobody argues and spergs out like you are when they don't have an undisclosed vested interest in the subject and play the "Principle" card. Cut to the chase and disclose or STFU.

 

[metroid_fetish]

I would buy a sex doll with my face on it, btw.

 

[Almighty Space Duck]

I would buy a sex doll with my face on it, btw.

I’d pirate it for the extra excitement.

 

[Human Institute Director]

A totally unrelated argument.

Even taking your point, isn't that why there's a case to make ai separate from human made art?
No one made the case that ai is inherently bad, it's bad because it scrapes and used to make instantaneous artworks and flood the gallery, while these "ai artist" try to claim the rights to their artwork.

Can you use ai to make, or help making your artwork? certainly.

Is your cars made from parts stolen from other automakers? Pretty sure it's not.

There's a case to be made that it's not different from artists learning from other drawings. The AI doesn't need to mash together pieces of multiple drawings at runtime - it runs offline, without needing to look at other people's stuff once it learned.

Obviously it's kind of a grey area. Not just ethically, but also judicially. There will be a lot to discuss about datasets and consent to feed the AI. I don't think they'll be able to really stop it though, there are probably already enough datasets that could be considered open even if they write laws on this issue. Besides, how are you going to check what an AI learned from? What's stopping the AI owner to give you a curated dataset without the "problematic" data and tell you that's what he trained it with? So in that sense I don't think this will be stopped by laws.

On the other hand it's important that we keep Art and art separated. I don't care if furries use a machine to churn out their shit or if they pay someone else, but Art is a vehicle for soul expression and human intent should drive it. AI can deal with the consoomer shit but I don't want it to creep into the passion projects.

 

[AnOminous]

That's an autistic idea, just because it's online, doesn't mean it's free real estate. Your point is saying if things are online, then things deserved to get whatever done to them.

If it's online that means I have legal access to it, I'm not just stealing it, and I'm entirely entitled to make transformative fair use of it.

A totally unrelated argument.

No it isn't, it's literally the law. Something with "substantial noninfringing uses" doesn't get outlawed simply because it can be used for something illegal. Sony v. Universal (the "Betamax case").

 

[Shard]

Parody and transformative art are still legal right?

Yeah, exactly. It’s taken from other stuff, but it’s so far removed from the original that it becomes it’s own thing.