|
Just Winging It posted:The tens of billions poured into this in a desperate attempt to find the golden ticket to the next Facebook or Google feels especially fraught as that amount of money could've paid for so many actual writers & artists that the economics really don't seem to pan out for me. I mean, it's simply the desire to find the next innovation that kickstarts the kind of growth we had when new computing applications were regularly being discovered, but which by now 99% comes down to the time to trying to answer a question nobody asked. Most of the actual changes we need involve things that nobody actually wants to address, like reducing dependency, being less greedy, and removing malicious actors.
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 16:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 05:17 |
|
|
homullus posted:AI art is pretty clearly both a growth stage of an inevitable future and inimical to the career of a working human illustrator. The "obviously lifted bits in a blender" with misshapen hands and traces of watermarks and captions may well be a fading memory this time next year. Right now, the people cranking it out are typically not putting it into Photoshop or GIMP and manipulating the output. Once they do, or (far more likely) once the tools available offer more runtime options for such, the "look" some of you are complaining about will be less and less common (see, e.g., Glowforge's "Magic Canvas," which uses AI to generate vector images for laser cutting, and offers settings such as "adult coloring book" to modify the output). It will be harder and harder to spot the "theft" because what the AI does will be more and more transformative. It's going to advance in capability very quickly because there's money to be made in producing an AI that does credible and defensible work. It wouldn't shock me to see credible CNC AI plein air oil paintings in five years. When I generate an image, I don't use 'in the style of a particular artist'; I use 'in the style of a 19th-century copperplate engraving or a 1950s gas station ad', then I run all the imagery I generate through Photoshop because the generation software at this time has issues with getting me exactly what I want, and it's easier to generate a subject and a background separately, then combine them. Before this point, I was buying stock images and using Photoshop to manipulate them; using Midjourney and Rundiffusion is so much faster.  This was two separate prompts, one for the foreground character and one for the background , and a lot of color grading to make sure the palettes worked together and the lighting matched.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 17:02
|
|
|
Regarding art AI, ethics, and society, my main critical frame of reference in regards to its existence and expansion is "Does this entrench existing corporate power?" I'm not really onboard with any arguments that its illegal/unethical to use existing art within the AI's frame of references. Are there any existing frameworks that would support either the idea of placing art into a restricted public viewing (eg, humans can only view my art for pleasure, they aren't allowed to be inspired by it), or restricting humans from producing art in an existing artists style when the new work is not a forgery of a pre-existing work? To my knowledge, no, but I'm not an expert here, so this is an honest question. What I'm really not in favor of is expanding restrictions on use of existing art, because its absolutely going to be the Disney's with infinite lawyer money that benefit from stamping down on independent artists for "infringing on their style." What is out right concerning for me is how AI art is another concentration of power in the hands of the ownership class. What is currently the necessity of going through many humans for labor can now be consolidated in the permanent ownership of production amongst a small group. This is ultimately a massive issue inherent in capitalism and automation, which probably isn't solvable outside of issues that probably aren't great for discussion in the TG Industry chat. PharmerBoy fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Mar 15, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 17:04
|
|
|
Every character has to wear black gloves to make sure you can't see how many fingers they have 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 17:04
|
|
|
When do "shirts with random numbers of buttons placed in random locations" come into style? I want to be ahead of the curve.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 17:05
|
|
|
Your lampass look like a dishrag, drat
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 17:11
|
|
|
Putting the rear end in lampass because it looks booty
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 17:22
|
|
|
PharmerBoy posted:What is out right concerning for me is how AI art is another concentration of power in the hands of the ownership class. What is currently the necessity of going through many humans for labor can now be consolidated in the permanent ownership of production amongst a small group. This is ultimately a massive issue inherent in capitalism and automation, which probably isn't solvable outside of issues that probably aren't great for discussion in the TG Industry chat. If you want AI art to be only in the hands of the ownership class, then get it declared to be "plagiarism" because it looked at 10,000 pictures of a cat to learn what a cat looks like. There's no way you can stop a company like Alphabet from getting the rights to train their own AI model on boatloads of art and images, but they'll need to recoup the cost of paying somebody $0.02/piece to upload their own art, and a random Kenyan $2/hour to make put descriptive text on it, which means they'll charge subscription fees and various other costs purely because they sit on a giant pile of valuable IP rights, and wow now it actually is concentration of power in the hands of the ownership class!
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 17:54
|
|
|
Serf posted:When do "shirts with random numbers of buttons placed in random locations" come into style? I want to be ahead of the curve. Sorry, I beat you to the head of the line.  This is absolutely a work in progress, obviously. I wanted to get the color gradients right first. Other issues, besides the hands/gloves (I did not prompt for gloves, by the way, it did that on its own) and the buttons, are 'How many wheels does that truck have?' and 'Is that an exoskeleton working its way out of her left hip?'. But I got a great overall look, good composition, and a nice pose. The details, I can fix. Could I draw this? Hell no! Could I pay someone to draw this? Sure. Can I afford to? Hell no!
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 17:55
|
|
|
NinjaDebugger posted:Look, D&D art being lovely is a long tradition wtf you people just gonna let this comment slide?!?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 17:58
|
|
|
homullus posted:Art's next, or rather, Ozymandias is telling you it happened 35 minutes ago. The battle of the Alamo probably took less time than it took/will take you to read this page of posts, unless you read really quickly. Was this post written by an AI because, what?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 17:59
|
|
|
jarofpiss posted:wtf you people just gonna let this comment slide?!? It's true.   
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 18:06
|
|
|
Humbug Scoolbus posted:It's true. you mistakenly linked pictures from your "d&d art that owns" folder
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 18:08
|
|
|
PharmerBoy posted:I'm not really onboard with any arguments that its illegal/unethical to use existing art within the AI's frame of references. Are there any existing frameworks that would support either the idea of placing art into a restricted public viewing (eg, humans can only view my art for pleasure, they aren't allowed to be inspired by it), or restricting humans from producing art in an existing artists style when the new work is not a forgery of a pre-existing work? To my knowledge, no, but I'm not an expert here, so this is an honest question. What I'm really not in favor of is expanding restrictions on use of existing art, because its absolutely going to be the Disney's with infinite lawyer money that benefit from stamping down on independent artists for "infringing on their style." As an aside, the immorality of AI art is ultimately in the ways it breaks the social mores around copying. People are fine with using someone else's art as a base if you want inspiration or to see what a pose looks like, and aren't fine when you just copy something outright and sell it. People are largely fine with AI art when it fits into that framework (ie, brainstorming and shitposts), and they get mad because all the things capital want to use it for don't. The problem is that social mores are always incredibly loose and have giant grey areas, which means they're impossible to write laws to regulate without being horrible. We know this because people made laws regulating music that way, and now the art of sampling is a loving horrorshow. (And that's why discussing AI art is infuriating. Because the problem is that the systems at large only care about maximizing capital until stopped by hard laws, and all the social mores in the world are nothing more than a speedbump. We all know the system needs to change, but have no means to do so. And thus, we all gnash our teeth and yell into the void for several pages, because it's all we can do.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 18:11
|
|
|
That old school stuff owns. Also like, Tony DiTerlizzi did lots of D&D art that loving rules.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 18:11
|
|
|
PharmerBoy posted:I'm not really onboard with any arguments that its illegal/unethical to use existing art within the AI's frame of references. Are there any existing frameworks that would support either the idea of placing art into a restricted public viewing (eg, humans can only view my art for pleasure, they aren't allowed to be inspired by it), or restricting humans from producing art in an existing artists style when the new work is not a forgery of a pre-existing work? To my knowledge, no, but I'm not an expert here, so this is an honest question. What I'm really not in favor of is expanding restrictions on use of existing art, because its absolutely going to be the Disney's with infinite lawyer money that benefit from stamping down on independent artists for "infringing on their style." Okay, but what AI generated images are doing right now is the ethical equivalent of tracing, not looking at someone's art and getting inspiration from it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 18:11
|
|
|
King of Solomon posted:Okay, but what AI generated images are doing right now is the ethical equivalent of tracing, not looking at someone's art and getting inspiration from it. Do you have any examples of that? I haven’t seen anything close to tracing or plagiarism from AI generators. And from the way the models I’ve read about work, it functionally can’t trace from any singular image. That’s kinda what makes this all so murky to discuss both morally and legally.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 18:13
|
|
|
jarofpiss posted:you mistakenly linked pictures from your "d&d art that owns" folder I bought those books when they were released back in 1975, and even as a 12-year-old, I thought the art sucked rear end. Early D&D art was terrible; it wasn't until they brought people like Otus and Tramp in that it improved. Even Kevin Siembada started out as an artist for Judges Guild back in the late 70s on a product called Verbosh, before he created Palladium and The Mechanoid Invasion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 18:15
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Was this post written by an AI because, what? Yeah, that's really elliptical, and I am sorry about that. It was written by the owner of a commercial art gallery after about four hours of sleep. I meant that most battles you could fight now about AI art (that aren't proletarian revolution) are already over, and were over quickly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 18:18
|
|
|
Humbug Scoolbus posted:I bought those books when they were released back in 1975, and even as a 12-year-old, I thought the art sucked rear end. Early D&D art was terrible; it wasn't until they brought people like Otus and Tramp in that it improved. Even Kevin Siembada started out as an artist for Judges Guild back in the late 70s on a product called Verbosh, before he created Palladium and The Mechanoid Invasion. check your eyes, old man. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 18:23
|
|
|
Cycloneman posted:It literally isn't a concentration of power in the hands of the ownership class, though. Like, I have a copy of stable-diffusion on my home computer, with which I run models that were created by normal random people and distributed for free. If I owned a decently powered NVidia graphics card (cost: $1-2k), then the biggest corpos in the world wouldn't have an advantage over me, since you have to manually review the images to find one that looks how you want anyway, so the difference between 2s and 0.01s to generate an art piece might as well not exist. Also, because I want to make a point clear about the systemic issues: This isn't about that kind of power differential. The problem with mass adoption of AI art is that companies would rather spend $5 an hour making a guy in Indonesia sort through AI-generated images until he finds one that's good enough than $50 an hour making an artist draw what they want in the first place, and they don't care that they're getting rid of one of the few ways for artists to reliably make money in this capitalist system. That is what's concentrating power in the hands of owners, and that's the advantage they're looking for. Spending $100 on AI art program licenses just gives you the systemic power of someone who spent $200 dollars on commissions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 18:26
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Do you have any examples of that? I haven’t seen anything close to tracing or plagiarism from AI generators. And from the way the models I’ve read about work, it functionally can’t trace from any singular image. That’s kinda what makes this all so murky to discuss both morally and legally. https://twitter.com/Eric_Wallace_/status/1620449934863642624 Here's a whitepaper from a group of folks discussing how AI art generators "memorize" images and will reproduce those images almost exactly. It is not something that always happens. However, even if this didn't happen, the fact remains that it has similar ethical problems to tracing. This isn't a human being looking at a reference and creating something new from their own experience and training, and people should not discuss it in those terms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 19:14
|
|
|
If you take somebody's art and use it as the basis to make new images that's stealing human labor. True. It's also pervasive and always has been. That's why when you go to art school they train you on techniques and images from the old masters. Theft. That's why every beginning artist draws copies of things they enjoy. Theft. That's why there was literally a phrase "steal like an artist." that nobody mentions anymore, lol. People were flat out saying it. So there's really nothing new happening morally here. Human existence is based on copying the labor of others. You see a style you like, you take it. You see an image you like, you copy it - either literally or stylistically. Architecture, literature, fashion, everything. Literally millions of people read Lord the Rings and said "I'm going to write like that" and then people read the stuff they wrote and copied that, who copied that, who copied that, who copied that. Mary Shelley invented a genre and then a bunch of guys stole it, literally. Well poo poo. It's just going to end up a tool for artists. A person with no visual sense using AI makes technically good but poorly composed images, or just makes copies of existing poo poo. It's going to allow people to bring stuff from sketch to finished incredibly quickly. This is all going to end up in design departments. It's not going to turn some rando rear end in a top hat into Michaelangelo. Edit: the guy above me is showing either an overtrained or undertrained model concept. That's a flaw in the model, and my money is on this is all going to be corrected within the next five years. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Mar 15, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 19:15
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:If you take somebody's art and use it as the basis to make new images that's stealing human labor. True. It's also pervasive and always has been. That's... a surprisingly ignorant take.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 19:18
|
|
|
Anonymous Zebra posted:At this point the average Joe now can make art by typing words into a text box and seeing what comes out. I'm using it to make stuff for my D&D games (including massive backdrops for games on Foundry which I never could have done on my own), my wife is using it to make silly birthday cards (something she could have done on her own but it now takes her minutes instead of hours), my daughters use it to make custom filters over selfies they take. And that's not even touching on how ChatGPT has completely shifted how we create written content. Professors in the Slack's that I'm part of are using it to draft letters to administrators, political orgs are using it to create draft letters to members of congress, my students are using it to write their reports (with varying results). The genie is out of the bottle and it's never going back in. You can argue till you're blue in the face about whether it's RIGHT or WRONG, but that's essentially like getting pissed that Kindle has replaced physical books, or how streaming services killed physical media. Artists, whether they want to or not, need to find ways to make AI part of their workflow. Some are already doing it, but eventually everyone will have to, because AI art is only going to get more sophisticated and the entire system is now accessible to most of the population of the modern world. It's not going away. I think the thread can dismiss the "it's happening, so arguing about the ethics or morality is pointless." Insert your own joke about pointless arguments ITT if you like, but if "genie out of the bottle" precluded ethical and moral arguments and if such arguments made no difference whatsoever, then we'd have had a nuclear war by now. ChatGPT's presently a laughable tool, whose main problem is that it wants to tell you what you want to hear instead of providing accurate information. There's no evidence the language model understands what "accurate" even means, which explains why it is lousy at tasks like mathematics, and its supposed skill at programming simply demonstrates how much code these days gets repurposed. As far as I can tell, Kindle sales have dropped off more sharply than print book sales, though undoubtedly there are a lot of people reading on mobile devices predominantly. 788.7 million books sold in 2022 was a DROP from the previous two years. Add in that your average mobile device is going to quit working in 10-20 years while your average book will hold up much longer than that, and the numbers look pretty good for print. The "AI" art tools should remain just that, tools that human artists can use for inspiration or labor savings. And the concern ITT is clearly linked to the differences between independent designers or small games companies, versus megacorporations, versus venture capitalists. Replacing designers and artists with AI is the sort of idea that warms a venture capitalist's heart (assuming he still has one). I'm pleased nobody has deployed the "Wal-Mart" justification for AI art replacing human art, on the grounds that it really helps the poorer companies or individuals versus the big companies that can afford to spend on art. Because as others have noted, the real intent is to devalue human labor, and you can tell that because of the kind of labor that is being "threatened" here. Before the printing press, every book had to be hand-copied. This was, needless to say, very labor intensive. The early printing presses were also labor intensive, but much less so. Now you can print off thousands of copies of a book without the copying part involving a human being, but there's still a lot of labor involved in proofing, layout, even typesetting. There is a qualitative difference in saying that new tools can eliminate the need for human labor of the sort required to make thousands of copies of a single book, and saying that new tools can eliminate the need for human labor of the sort required to create the original book. Nor do I really understand why that would be desirable from a "consumer" perspective. There's plenty of human authors writing books. Why wouldn't I prefer their stories to the stories generated by an AI? There's plenty of human artists; why would I prefer AI art, beyond a brief "look what computers can do" thrill? I can articulate what I've gained as a viewer of art from all the tools which help artists create art; what do I gain from a tool that supposedly cuts human artists out of the equation? How does that lead to me having better games?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 19:22
|
|
|
CitizenKeen posted:That's... a surprisingly ignorant take. Bud, half of the programmers I know are literally googling "how to X?" and then copying some other guy's solution. That doesn't mean there aren't good programmers or that the field collapsed. Give an idiot a top end sportscar and they'll crash it. Give the average person with zero artistic ability or ambition an AI and they make a bunch of spank material or a mediocre essay. Y'all are gonna be fine. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Mar 15, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 19:27
|
|
|
It's true that ChatGPT is basically just a chatbot. But it's also an excellent tool for generating a vast quantity of memes, not a single one of which is funny or entertaining in the slightest, and you can't take that away from them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 19:28
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Bud, half of the programmers I know are literally googling "how to X?" and then copying some other guy's solution. That doesn't mean there aren't good programmers or that the field collapsed. My simple take is that I'd rather a human being get paid to google the solution to a problem and implement it than a remix machine do it for essentially free so that a capitalist subhuman can save .000001 cent. If we have to labor under capitalism, we should do our best to not have machines replace us. If we lived under communism then yeah automate away, but people need to pay the bills.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 19:34
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:It's true that ChatGPT is basically just a chatbot. But it's also an excellent tool for generating a vast quantity of memes, not a single one of which is funny or entertaining in the slightest, and you can't take that away from them. But how is that any different from human-made memes? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 19:34
|
|
|
We could get chatgtp to make a different forum for people really invested in ai to post in instead
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 19:38
|
|
|
Serf posted:My simple take is that I'd rather a human being get paid to google the solution to a problem and implement it than a remix machine do it for essentially free so that a capitalist subhuman can save .000001 cent. If we have to labor under capitalism, we should do our best to not have machines replace us. If we lived under communism then yeah automate away, but people need to pay the bills. I just said they're not going to automate away the artist, in my opinion. Like, the people that used the AI to generate their D&D character's portrait were not going to spend 50 dollars on commissioned character art. I wasn't going to drop 3k on art for my adventure. Nobody has lost anything. Any company that would be dumb enough to dump their in-house design for AI stuff would get a nice fat kick in the nuts, which they deserve. Now maybe in 10 years this can be conversation that we could be having, but right now AI is very much either a novelty or a tool for serious artists with baseline composition skills.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 19:40
|
|
|
Was it chatgtp or a different chatbot that got a guy to request a permaban because the administration didn't believe the chatbot was sapient and deserving of equal human rights?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 19:41
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Bud, half of the programmers I know are literally googling "how to X?" and then copying some other guy's solution. That doesn't mean there aren't good programmers or that the field collapsed. Ironically I think this was actually a big deal in programming around the early 2000s? Big enough that the UK professional societies had to get involved, anyway, as employers were saying "anything you have learned about programming while working for us can only be expressed in refinements to algorithms you wrote for us, and as work for hire we own the intellectual property, so you have to forget all of that for your next job." That with the ever present side order of "if you Google for code at your job and find code that is full GPL but is the best solution, it can't be prevented from redistribution, so how do you prove you've forgotten it in order to come up with that solution yourself?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 19:43
|
|
|
Me doing Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V over an entire PDF and then pasting it into a new PDF that I put on DrivethruRPG isn’t theft, it’s a flaw in the model. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 19:43
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I just said they're not going to automate away the artist, in my opinion. I don't know how to break this to you, but time does continue to advance in a linear fashion from a human perspective, meaning that 10 years will still pass regardless of whether we want it to or not. Short-term thinking is how we got to where we are now, so maybe taking the long view would be nice from time to time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 19:43
|
|
|
King of Solomon posted:https://twitter.com/Eric_Wallace_/status/1620449934863642624 That is not tracing, that's just getting the engine to spit out the exact source image (albeit lower res because they're all pretty low res source and output). That only proves that the engines use real or copyrighted images as a source, which everyone already knows. If you tried to use any of those outputs it would be immediately obvious you're just stealing a jpeg, not that you're passing off a new image that was traced from something else. A real world example of tracing in art would be what Jakub Rozalski did with Scythe, and that's not what these engines can do or how they work. I'm not defending the use of AI art commercially, it all looks like garbage but the people using it weren't going to pay artists anyways. It's important to not misrepresent things on either side though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 19:44
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:That is not tracing, that's just getting the engine to spit out the exact source image (albeit lower res because they're all pretty low res source and output). That only proves that the engines use real or copyrighted images as a source, which everyone already knows. If you tried to use any of those outputs it would be immediately obvious you're just stealing a jpeg, not that you're passing off a new image that was traced from something else. This is a distinction without a difference. Again, I never said it was exactly the same thing as tracing. I said it was the ethical equivalent, which I stand by. Besides, if the generators are spitting out images that are drat near identical to the original, then the comparison is apt, even if it isn't 1:1.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 19:47
|
|
|
King of Solomon posted:https://twitter.com/Eric_Wallace_/status/1620449934863642624 That paper overall is written about hacking image generating AI to obtain training images, and that practice's impact on privacy concerns. As I'm reading it, they generated thousands of images and then reverse engineer the similarities among the images to recreate the source. The privacy aspect is a valid concern, but completely different than anything that has been brought up here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 19:48
|
|
|
Serf posted:I don't know how to break this to you, but time does continue to advance in a linear fashion from a human perspective, meaning that 10 years will still pass regardless of whether we want it to or not. Short-term thinking is how we got to where we are now, so maybe taking the long view would be nice from time to time. I mean in 10 years we might have massive weather catastrophes from global warming making the question of "who gets paid for art" totally irrelevant or global AI bans or whatever but I'm not some smug smarty-man who think he can predict where society is going to be in 10 years and even if I was, I'm some rando guy on the Internet and discussing it with some other stranger (who to be frankly is coming across as a self-righteous rear end in a top hat) who also has no power to do anything about it is a waste of time. I'm out. Edit: like as somebody who actually understands this stuff and has trained a LORA and even a little bit of consulting work for a friend's company I just thought y'all might have appreciated a little assurance. You're not going to get squeezed out by an AI anymore than video game piracy killed games. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Mar 15, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 05:17 |
|
|
PharmerBoy posted:That paper overall is written about hacking image generating AI to obtain training images, and that practice's impact on privacy concerns. As I'm reading it, they generated thousands of images and then reverse engineer the similarities among the images to recreate the source. The privacy aspect is a valid concern, but completely different than anything that has been brought up here. If the generators are outputting images that are nearly identical to the source image, which they provably are, then that is an additional concern on top of everything else that is being discussed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 19:50
|
|