By now most people probably heard about AI art and how it's becoming better at generating "art". But how exactly does it get better? I decided to dig deeper into the restrictions and programming of AI art to find out how it does its job and how it does it so well. Independent and professional artist have been losing jobs over AI art due to it being a cheaper and faster option for both independent artists and big corporations such as Netflix using ai art for a animated short (the dog and the boy) instead of hiring real background artists. But is this enough to shut down ai art? No, it's not. Technology has been unemploying people for years and it's no new thing. Most of the time people would just have to deal with the consequences of advancing technology and look for a new job. Is AI art the same way though. When you just look at the surface and don't actually investigate what it means and how it makes art then you might be one of the people who agree in saying that technology is getting better every day and that people lose their jobs everyday. no big deal. But in all things you have copyright restrictions. With deeper investigation I've uncovered that AI art does not follow these copyright restrictions. Judge beryl Howell made it illegal to copyright any art generated by AI on Friday August 18th 2023. Could your art be under attack by ai art using illegal art techniques by real artists who copyrighted such art techniques? How AI art works is when you feed it information such as a basic picture over and over again eventually it will master generating that picture. So, by people using ai art it is learning from what pictures you are feeding it. So the more you feed it the better it gets and the more it learns. But what happens when somebody feeds it a copyrighted drawing? It learns from it. So it could use that technique that it has learned from this copyrighted drawing to create other drawings using the same technique that is already been copyrighted by real artists. Nothing stops it from stealing your art. The only thing that can stop it is you. will you join the fight to shut down ai art once and for all? Or will your art be nothing more than a profitless hobby.
Well that's the nature of humanity to endlessly grow and make things more effective so it is what it is but AI art will never have the same heart that actual art does
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's life without a little war to spice things up. I am (As drummerboy stated) The master of many faces, The unseen puppeteer, & The unnoticed influence.
I am the Great sage equal to heaven- The monkey king
What's life without a little war to spice things up. I am (As drummerboy stated) The master of many faces, The unseen puppeteer, & The unnoticed influence.
I am the Great sage equal to heaven- The monkey king
What's life without a little war to spice things up. I am (As drummerboy stated) The master of many faces, The unseen puppeteer, & The unnoticed influence.
I am the Great sage equal to heaven- The monkey king
The process by which humans create and are inspired by art is profoundly different from the process by which AI engines create the images. Comparing the two is next to impossible; it’s an “apples to oranges” situation that arises from a profound misunderstanding of how these algorithms work.
The term “visual plagiarism” refers to the taking of someone else's artwork or design and claiming it as one's own. AI art is synthesized from an online repository of millions of images. These two aren’t in any way similar.
You’re saying something, and I’m explaining how it’s objectively wrong.
You should really, really avoid using terms like "objectively wrong" when the term is not applicable. Corvus_konrad is not quite correct on the legal side of things--but I expect they are a layperson and not an expert on the ins and outs of intellectual property law, just as I expect the same is true of you. Considering even experts in intellectual property law do not know what to make of generative AI, I think we can probably avoid using overly-aggressive language when trying to dismiss others.
In reality, we live in a legal Wild West, where the law simply has not caught up to the abilities of AI. There are extremely compelling arguments that AI does violate copyright law; there are extremely compelling arguments that it does not. There are questions about how willfully the violation occurs. There are questions of how the data is collected. There are questions of ownership of the output. There are hundreds of legal questions related to generative AI, and pretty much next to zero actual answers. Until more cases are decided (and there are a couple big ones right now, including a class action containing George R.R. Martin, John Grisham, and other authors), or more governments weigh in on the subject with laws or regulations, there is simply no "objectively right" or "objectively wrong" answer on AI's position under the law. I would advise you to avoid such terminology in this kind of conversation--not only does it come off as a little aggressive, it makes it look like you do not quite understand the complex legal issues you are trying to talk about.
You should really, really avoid using terms like "objectively wrong" when the term is not applicable. Corvus_konrad is not quite correct on the legal side of things--but I expect they are a layperson and not an expert on the ins and outs of intellectual property law, just as I expect the same is true of you. Considering even experts in intellectual property law do not know what to make of generative AI, I think we can probably avoid using overly-aggressive language when trying to dismiss others.
In reality, we live in a legal Wild West, where the law simply has not caught up to the abilities of AI. There are extremely compelling arguments that AI does violate copyright law; there are extremely compelling arguments that it does not. There are questions about how willfully the violation occurs. There are questions of how the data is collected. There are questions of ownership of the output. There are hundreds of legal questions related to generative AI, and pretty much next to zero actual answers. Until more cases are decided (and there are a couple big ones right now, including a class action containing George R.R. Martin, John Grisham, and other authors), or more governments weigh in on the subject with laws or regulations, there is simply no "objectively right" or "objectively wrong" answer on AI's position under the law. I would advise you to avoid such terminology in this kind of conversation--not only does it come off as a little aggressive, it makes it look like you do not quite understand the complex legal issues you are trying to talk about.
That’s a good point, and I’ll edit the post to clarify and reduce its intended aggression. I used the word “objectively” in reference to Konrad’s attempt to equate visual plagiarism, a real crime, to the process of creating AI art.
I have the same mind set except for ai art if an actual person use the method the AI art uses it would be a crime (plagiarism).
This is not visual plagiarism. And because it’s provably false, I used the term “objectively wrong.” I wasn’t responding to his overall argument, and I wasn’t really talking about AI at all.
Anyways. Post edited. Thanks for pointing that out.
You should really, really avoid using terms like "objectively wrong" when the term is not applicable. Corvus_konrad is not quite correct on the legal side of things--but I expect they are a layperson and not an expert on the ins and outs of intellectual property law, just as I expect the same is true of you. Considering even experts in intellectual property law do not know what to make of generative AI, I think we can probably avoid using overly-aggressive language when trying to dismiss others.
In reality, we live in a legal Wild West, where the law simply has not caught up to the abilities of AI. There are extremely compelling arguments that AI does violate copyright law; there are extremely compelling arguments that it does not. There are questions about how willfully the violation occurs. There are questions of how the data is collected. There are questions of ownership of the output. There are hundreds of legal questions related to generative AI, and pretty much next to zero actual answers. Until more cases are decided (and there are a couple big ones right now, including a class action containing George R.R. Martin, John Grisham, and other authors), or more governments weigh in on the subject with laws or regulations, there is simply no "objectively right" or "objectively wrong" answer on AI's position under the law. I would advise you to avoid such terminology in this kind of conversation--not only does it come off as a little aggressive, it makes it look like you do not quite understand the complex legal issues you are trying to talk about.
That’s a good point, and I’ll edit the post to clarify and reduce its intended aggression. I used the word “objectively” in reference to Konrad’s attempt to equate visual plagiarism, a real crime, to the process of creating AI art.
I have the same mind set except for ai art if an actual person use the method the AI art uses it would be a crime (plagiarism).
This is not visual plagiarism. And because it’s provably false, I used the term “objectively wrong.” I wasn’t responding to his overall argument, and I wasn’t really talking about AI at all.
Anyways. Post edited. Thanks for pointing that out.
Visual plagiarism is not the right words to begin with - this is a bit of a blind leading the blind situation where two laypeople are arguing about the legal meaning of a term… which does not really have a legal meaning. What you are discussing is criminal copyright violations - willful theft of another’s intellectual property in a manner which violates a criminal law. This is what I presume both you and the other user meant, though your terminology is not really accurate.
Once again, we are in the Wild West. What is or is not criminal is just as unclear as any other aspect of generative AI. Right now, it does not look like anyone is criminally going after AI creators for willful and criminal IP violations… but that could change. I do not think it is necessarily as strong of a case as a civil lawsuit for copyright infringement, but that does not mean criminal prosecution is outside the realm of possibility.
It is a pretty fascinating situation, one of the few in law where there really are no great answers. Having been involved in crypto litigation right when that was starting out, and having seen what a disaster (often older, not technically literate) judges were when addressing that legally simpler tech, I do not envy the attorneys presently working in the AI field.
I also apologize for any misused wording. I was simply trying to express my personal opinion on AI art and have no intention of offending anybody. We all have freedom of speech and I respect nothic2seehere for for exercising that right. I do think we all had some valid points to make. But this is truly new terrain for everybody and nobody truly knows how to deal with it. I don't doubt I am wrong on many points. I am not a professional when it comes to law related situations. I'm purely going off of quick research on Google and personal opinion. This truly is a unwinnable argument. Again no hard feelings. 😁
By now most people probably heard about AI art and how it's becoming better at generating "art". But how exactly does it get better? I decided to dig deeper into the restrictions and programming of AI art to find out how it does its job and how it does it so well. Independent and professional artist have been losing jobs over AI art due to it being a cheaper and faster option for both independent artists and big corporations such as Netflix using ai art for a animated short (the dog and the boy) instead of hiring real background artists. But is this enough to shut down ai art? No, it's not. Technology has been unemploying people for years and it's no new thing. Most of the time people would just have to deal with the consequences of advancing technology and look for a new job. Is AI art the same way though. When you just look at the surface and don't actually investigate what it means and how it makes art then you might be one of the people who agree in saying that technology is getting better every day and that people lose their jobs everyday. no big deal. But in all things you have copyright restrictions. With deeper investigation I've uncovered that AI art does not follow these copyright restrictions. Judge beryl Howell made it illegal to copyright any art generated by AI on Friday August 18th 2023. Could your art be under attack by ai art using illegal art techniques by real artists who copyrighted such art techniques? How AI art works is when you feed it information such as a basic picture over and over again eventually it will master generating that picture. So, by people using ai art it is learning from what pictures you are feeding it. So the more you feed it the better it gets and the more it learns. But what happens when somebody feeds it a copyrighted drawing? It learns from it. So it could use that technique that it has learned from this copyrighted drawing to create other drawings using the same technique that is already been copyrighted by real artists. Nothing stops it from stealing your art. The only thing that can stop it is you. will you join the fight to shut down ai art once and for all? Or will your art be nothing more than a profitless hobby.
Well that's the nature of humanity to endlessly grow and make things more effective so it is what it is but AI art will never have the same heart that actual art does
What's life without a little war to spice things up. I am (As drummerboy stated) The master of many faces, The unseen puppeteer, & The unnoticed influence.
I am the Great sage equal to heaven- The monkey king
Etiam im librum scribo
I have the same mind set except for ai art if a actual person use the method the AI art uses it would be a crime (plagiarism).
Plagiarism isn’t a crime.
This is what happens when you let a nothic onto the forums. Longtime mapmaker and forever GM.
Resident map-fiend. Writer, storyteller, worldbuilder. Lover of music & food; hater of elves & numbers. Threads I enjoy:
The Bloody Barnacle | The Spider Guild | The Wonderful Roleplay Guild | Anything BUT the OGL 2.0 | The Tower of Lore | The Universe Smorgasbord | The Afterglow
It's not a crime but it is frowned upon
What's life without a little war to spice things up. I am (As drummerboy stated) The master of many faces, The unseen puppeteer, & The unnoticed influence.
I am the Great sage equal to heaven- The monkey king
Etiam im librum scribo
It's called visual plagiarism and can result in jail time or in heavy fine.
theft?
What's life without a little war to spice things up. I am (As drummerboy stated) The master of many faces, The unseen puppeteer, & The unnoticed influence.
I am the Great sage equal to heaven- The monkey king
Etiam im librum scribo
The process by which humans create and are inspired by art is profoundly different from the process by which AI engines create the images. Comparing the two is next to impossible; it’s an “apples to oranges” situation that arises from a profound misunderstanding of how these algorithms work.
The term “visual plagiarism” refers to the taking of someone else's artwork or design and claiming it as one's own. AI art is synthesized from an online repository of millions of images. These two aren’t in any way similar.
This is what happens when you let a nothic onto the forums. Longtime mapmaker and forever GM.
Resident map-fiend. Writer, storyteller, worldbuilder. Lover of music & food; hater of elves & numbers. Threads I enjoy:
The Bloody Barnacle | The Spider Guild | The Wonderful Roleplay Guild | Anything BUT the OGL 2.0 | The Tower of Lore | The Universe Smorgasbord | The Afterglow
I'm not here to cause beef. We're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Why would there be beef?
You’re saying something, and I’m explaining how I think it’s wrong.
Okay, that does sound a little like beef, but still. It’s nothing personal.
I agree that the advancement of AI is overall detrimental to our society, I just think the way you’re expressing that opinion is a bit odd.
This is what happens when you let a nothic onto the forums. Longtime mapmaker and forever GM.
Resident map-fiend. Writer, storyteller, worldbuilder. Lover of music & food; hater of elves & numbers. Threads I enjoy:
The Bloody Barnacle | The Spider Guild | The Wonderful Roleplay Guild | Anything BUT the OGL 2.0 | The Tower of Lore | The Universe Smorgasbord | The Afterglow
I have nothing wrong with ai art as long as it has the proper restrictions, and I'm sure there are algorithms that have those necessary restrictions.
You should really, really avoid using terms like "objectively wrong" when the term is not applicable. Corvus_konrad is not quite correct on the legal side of things--but I expect they are a layperson and not an expert on the ins and outs of intellectual property law, just as I expect the same is true of you. Considering even experts in intellectual property law do not know what to make of generative AI, I think we can probably avoid using overly-aggressive language when trying to dismiss others.
In reality, we live in a legal Wild West, where the law simply has not caught up to the abilities of AI. There are extremely compelling arguments that AI does violate copyright law; there are extremely compelling arguments that it does not. There are questions about how willfully the violation occurs. There are questions of how the data is collected. There are questions of ownership of the output. There are hundreds of legal questions related to generative AI, and pretty much next to zero actual answers. Until more cases are decided (and there are a couple big ones right now, including a class action containing George R.R. Martin, John Grisham, and other authors), or more governments weigh in on the subject with laws or regulations, there is simply no "objectively right" or "objectively wrong" answer on AI's position under the law. I would advise you to avoid such terminology in this kind of conversation--not only does it come off as a little aggressive, it makes it look like you do not quite understand the complex legal issues you are trying to talk about.
That’s a good point, and I’ll edit the post to clarify and reduce its intended aggression. I used the word “objectively” in reference to Konrad’s attempt to equate visual plagiarism, a real crime, to the process of creating AI art.
This is not visual plagiarism. And because it’s provably false, I used the term “objectively wrong.” I wasn’t responding to his overall argument, and I wasn’t really talking about AI at all.
Anyways. Post edited. Thanks for pointing that out.
This is what happens when you let a nothic onto the forums. Longtime mapmaker and forever GM.
Resident map-fiend. Writer, storyteller, worldbuilder. Lover of music & food; hater of elves & numbers. Threads I enjoy:
The Bloody Barnacle | The Spider Guild | The Wonderful Roleplay Guild | Anything BUT the OGL 2.0 | The Tower of Lore | The Universe Smorgasbord | The Afterglow
Visual plagiarism is not the right words to begin with - this is a bit of a blind leading the blind situation where two laypeople are arguing about the legal meaning of a term… which does not really have a legal meaning. What you are discussing is criminal copyright violations - willful theft of another’s intellectual property in a manner which violates a criminal law. This is what I presume both you and the other user meant, though your terminology is not really accurate.
Once again, we are in the Wild West. What is or is not criminal is just as unclear as any other aspect of generative AI. Right now, it does not look like anyone is criminally going after AI creators for willful and criminal IP violations… but that could change. I do not think it is necessarily as strong of a case as a civil lawsuit for copyright infringement, but that does not mean criminal prosecution is outside the realm of possibility.
It is a pretty fascinating situation, one of the few in law where there really are no great answers. Having been involved in crypto litigation right when that was starting out, and having seen what a disaster (often older, not technically literate) judges were when addressing that legally simpler tech, I do not envy the attorneys presently working in the AI field.
I also apologize for any misused wording. I was simply trying to express my personal opinion on AI art and have no intention of offending anybody. We all have freedom of speech and I respect nothic2seehere for for exercising that right. I do think we all had some valid points to make. But this is truly new terrain for everybody and nobody truly knows how to deal with it. I don't doubt I am wrong on many points. I am not a professional when it comes to law related situations. I'm purely going off of quick research on Google and personal opinion. This truly is a unwinnable argument. Again no hard feelings. 😁