|
Well yeah, I glossed over the phrase "ethical equivalent" because that is basically undefined for this topic (and kind of the whole issue, no?). It's more useful for everyone to talk in discreet terms. If you used those images it would be the same as Googling them and using them for whatever. I wouldn't call GIS or Pinterest or Imgur tracing. That's just pulling something from a database. I asked for examples of tracing or plagiarism in output because I wanted to see them myself because that would be helpful in the argument against AI generated art, especially in commercial uses. But as I understand the big models out there, they don't and can't do that. Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Mar 15, 2023 |
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:59 |
|
|
King of Solomon posted: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. Good job only responding to the portion of my post that supports your argument. Want to comment on the rest?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 19:51
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted: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. While you're absolutely right that biosphere collapse and resource wars will be a much bigger problem in 10 years, we're talking about one thing right now, not those other things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 19:52
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I just said they're not going to automate away the artist, in my opinion. The problem isn't (well, only) that the chatbots are going to replace bespoke art, it's that the content farms no longer even have to pay the token fee to a uni student to churn out SEO-capture autocomplete that makes legitimate information increasingly difficult to find. It's not that AI replaces an artist, it's that it produces coherently uncanny bullshit that takes actual humans to discern. This isn't ten years from now, it's Clarkesworld having to close their gates this month "Nobody lost anything" is a stunningly weird take unless you don't want to read fiction, or be able to find it amongst the dreck I guess. In other words: Lurks With Wolves posted: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. The option of AI art will take the place of someone's idiot kid who's "good with design" and be used to drive down the commision prices of actual human labour. Why would I pay you $200 when my idiot robot son can do it for basically free? How about $100? Destrado fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Mar 15, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 19:54
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Well yeah, I glossed over the phrase "ethical equivalent" because that is basically undefined for this topic (and kind of the whole issue, no?). It's more useful for everyone to talk in discreet terms. If you used those images it would be the same as Googling them and using them for whatever. I wouldn't call GIS or Pinterest or Imgur tracing. That's just pulling something from a database. I strongly disagree. If you actually read the twitter thread by one of the authors of the paper, you'll find that the point of the paper is that the generators will randomly output images that are nearly identical to their source. https://twitter.com/Eric_Wallace_/status/1620449941008314370 https://twitter.com/Eric_Wallace_/status/1620449945257152517 This is not the same thing as just pulling the source image. This is someone putting in many requests for generated images, and receiving (near) source images as output. PharmerBoy posted:Good job only responding to the portion of my post that supports your argument. Want to comment on the rest? 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. As you can see if you actually look at the thread, which I've embedded additional tweets from, they aren't reverse engineering poo poo. What they're doing is generating thousands of images and flagging instances where the output is nearly identical to the source, then performing data analysis on that output (i.e., determining how often this sort of thing occurs). Based on the results of that study, they make some recommendations for how to minimize the issue they've identified. In other words, what I said before absolutely applies to the entirety of your post.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 19:59
|
|
|
AI art is literally theft, designed to enrich the already-wealthy at the expense of a demographic who were already pretty goddamn poor. It has never been about "democratizing" art, and if you're trying to argue that point you're either a sucker or a callous piece of garbage. Like, the tech bros are literally out there directly confronting artists, telling them they've stolen their art, and openly telling them they're going to drive the artist out of business. This has happened to Simon Stalenhag multiple times. It's not a debate, and again, attempts to frame it otherwise are disingenuous at best, and more often attempts to excuse malicious behavior. Just say you don't want to pay artists. You're still a turd of a human being, but at least you'll be honest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 20:04
|
|
|
One of the responses to Napster was consolidation of ownership of digital music by RIAA and the wholesale application of increasingly aggressive cryptographic security systems to try to prevent the copying of music, on the one hand; and on the other, taking much longer, the appearance and maturation of digital music marketplaces intended to be just as or more convenient than piracy, so that artists could still get paid. However, of course as middlemen, RIAA and the big music companies are taking most of the pie, leaving artists with fractions of a penny per download. While AI generation of artwork or components thereof is obviously not a strict parallel, a major source of the ethical hazard is that artists and their fans have been eagerly uploading/digitizing visual art to the Internet for the last 30 years. These huge libraries of artwork exist because of that, and I wonder if a likely future is universal adoption of digital watermarking or some similar sort of copy protection that tries to make images immune to being used by AIs. Certainly well-funded outfits like Getty Images have a huge interest in doing that, because their library has been ripped off, and the stock image industry is under direct imminent threat. AIs may be kind of garbage at producing finished artwork of the type we see in good RPG supplements today, but they're fine at producing "three ethnically diverse people looking at a laptop in an office" type poo poo that Getty and its peers make millions of dollars selling to companies making sexual harassment training videos and illustrating their convention brochures.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 20:05
|
|
|
grassy gnoll posted:if you're trying to argue that point you're either a sucker or a callous piece of garbage No, let's not do this here. People can present arguments that we can disagree with, or we can't have a discussion, and trying to categorize everyone making these arguments in this way is shifting a discussion into a fight. Please.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 20:09
|
|
|
At the very least I hope that storefronts like DrivethruRPG implement labeling rules that require stuff with AI art or writing in it to be identified as such. Essentially so I know who isn't paying for original art/writing or even stock art or photographs and don't accidentally support unethical practices and get dogshit art/writing in exchange. Clarkesworld is already inundated with AI-generated submissions, I hate to think about how bad DTRPG is going to be with techbros and futurists and lazy assholes who have an AI poo poo out plausible-looking RPG supplements and think it's going to be their quick road to fortune. edit: Amazon used to be flooded with print on demand books generated from Wikipedia articles - now that AI can make "original" stuff that isn't immediately obviously generated trash that kind of poo poo is probably going to make a comeback everywhere BattleMaster fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Mar 15, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 20:15
|
|
|
This is a situation where I really like a comparison made by a recent New Yorker article about text AI generation that should still apply to image generation. In short, ChatGPT is effectively just a search engine that intentionally gives you slightly inaccurate results. Usually those inaccuracies are a paraphrase and we think it's so clever, sometimes those inaccuracies are just completely false, either way it's an intentionally blurry and altered version of the source materials. And yeah, over time programmers are going to get better at walking the tightrope between "too accurate, is just the source image" and "too inaccurate, is nonsense", but in practice it's still just looking through the collected source material and giving you a rough approximation of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 20:15
|
|
|
King of Solomon posted:I strongly disagree. If you actually read the twitter thread I read the entire thread and many replies she made to others, and you're still misrepresenting it (and she even agreed with others that the report could be used in misleading ways, like you're doing). Show me examples of tracing and plagiarism not extracted source images (or blurry low res copies of them). I want you to be right because it would be helpful in the argument against AI art. quote:As you can see if you actually look at the thread, which I've embedded additional tweets from, they aren't reverse engineering poo poo. " With a generate-and-filter pipeline, we extract over a thousand training examples " They're not reverse engineering how it works no, but they're specifically filtering for source images duplicates, not evidence of tracing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 20:18
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:I read the entire thread and many replies she made to others, and you're still misrepresenting it (and she even agreed with others that the report could be used in misleading ways, like you're doing). Show me examples of tracing and plagiarism not extracted source images (or blurry low res copies of them). I want you to be right because it would be helpful in the argument against AI art. I am not saying it's literally the same thing as tracing. I'm also not misrepresenting their paper. In order to perform science on the frequency with which AI art generators reproduce the original source images, you need to come up with a statistically significant sample. Of course they generated thousands of images, how the hell else are they going to observe trends?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 20:29
|
|
|
King of Solomon posted:I am not saying it's literally the same thing as tracing. I'm also not misrepresenting their paper. In order to perform science on the frequency with which AI art generators reproduce the original source images, you need to come up with a statistically significant sample. Of course they generated thousands of images, how the hell else are they going to observe trends? You're ignoring the other half of the sentence and misrepresenting what I said. I'm not critiquing their methods or results, I'm saying the extracted images are not what you implied they were, they're just the source images from the training library. The study showed that less than 0.00001% of the time the engines spit out the source images. That is a completely different thing than I asked about or you implied. Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Mar 15, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 20:35
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:You're ignoring the other half of the sentence and misrepresenting what I said. I'm not critiquing their methods or results, I'm saying the extracted images are not what you implied they were, they're just the source images from the training library. Okay, I think I understand where the misunderstanding is here. What they're doing is performing an analysis on how frequently AI art generators "memorize" (to use the authors' terminology) the source image and produce a nearly identical output. In order to do that, they need to generate thousands of images from these generators, and they need to compare that output to the input, to see how frequently the source and output match. Yes, the extracted images are in fact exactly what I implied they are. They are an output that is a replica of the input, because that is explicitly what the paper is measuring. In this tweet, for example: https://twitter.com/Eric_Wallace_/status/1620449945257152517 The author is discussing how frequently different image generation models will output "memorized" images, which - again - the authors define as 'generating a near-identical copy of any image." Bottom Liner posted:The study showed that less than 0.00001% of the time the engines spit out the source images. That is a completely different thing than I asked about or you implied. I used tracing as a comparison point, because I genuinely feel like what AI image generators produce is more comparable to tracing than it is to the work a human being does when they illustrate a work from reference. I have posted a whitepaper in which AI art generators will - admittedly very rarely - output images that are nearly identical to their input. While I'm struggling to find the exact example, I have seen an artist upset because they encountered AI art that is virtually identical to a piece they created. King of Solomon fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Mar 15, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 20:44
|
|
|
I understood what the study showed from the start of this. Which is why I said that is not what you implied it was when I asked for examples of tracing or plagiarism in AI generated art. The last bit you mention there in your edit is the kind of thing I was asking for, but obviously not what the study you linked was about. Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Mar 15, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 20:47
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted: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? Our good friend Rutibex, god rest his soul, sought to evangelize the works of the AI generated art thread to the rest of the forum and quickly found himself beset by ruffians. While he may have moved on from this forum, his spirit lives on in the various posters that carry the light of AI posting into the dark recesses of the vast majority of the rest of this site. Were it up to me the AI evangels would be told to knock it off, but the mods have decided that iron sharpens iron and all must fight for endless pages in the crucible of random threads on a boring wednesday afternoon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 20:48
|
|
|
Chakan posted:Our good friend Rutibex, god rest his soul, sought to evangelize the works of the AI generated art thread to the rest of the forum and quickly found himself beset by ruffians. While he may have moved on from this forum, his spirit lives on in the various posters that carry the light of AI posting into the dark recesses of the vast majority of the rest of this site. the culmination of the abuse he received from the talisman hating philistines in this forum
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 20:50
|
|
|
Rutibex was not anyone's good friend. Rutibex is, and was, a loving idiot. I can say bad words about people who self-banned for absurdly idiotic reasons at least, yay!
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 20:50
|
|
|
If you don't realize that AI "art" is part of the longstanding project of our brilliant tech industry to replace every worthwhile thing on the internet with cheaply produced dreck and a tollbooth, I don't know what to tell you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 20:55
|
|
|
You’re forgetting or neglecting to mention the part where he claimed his pet chatbot felt more human than some of the neurodivergent people he worked with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 21:15
|
|
|
AI art is like a small side-show to the broader technological innovation of deep-learning and software that iteratively develops algorithms based on enormous databases. If you use Siri or Alexa you have been engaging with this sort of application for years already. It is related to the finely-tuned algorithms that make youtube and twitter simultaneously incredibly effective at showing you what you want and incredibly effective at pushing both you and content creators into absurd parodies of what you wanted. AI is an incredibly useful and powerful tool used by scientists analyzing prohibitively large data sets. It is revolutionizing cosmology, biochemistry (at least in the area of protein folding and analysis), and more. Our brilliant tech industry always has and always will produce new powerful tools that were definitely intended for laudable, good applications, but then just happen to turn out to also be applicable for doing something unrelated that may or may not be horrific. We can either stop innovating entirely, and give up things like better medicine or a deeper understanding of the universe, or we can do our best to react to innovations that are horrific on their face through regulation and oversight. I don't think it's super useful to point out that the factory workers throwing their sabots into the machinery were totally justified, we can agree that they were; the issues we face today are not solely about capital ruining everything, because innovations ruined people's lives long before capital was ever a thing. Capital ruining things via rapid, amoral application of new technology anywhere that a profit might be found is the backdrop. The fruitful, non-CSPAM conversation, I think - if such a thing is possible - is to ask how we as consumers and participants in the trad games industry can and should react to this new thing. I hope it's not entirely "yell at anyone on the forums who is playing with these tools, using them for personal use, or diving in deep to understand and explain how they really work." Right now, images produced entirely with the AI engines today with little or no post-work by artists, clearly suck. They will get better. How much better remains to be seen. Right now, many (most?) of the AI image generators available online have been trained on images pulled from Internet sources without their copyright holder's permission. Whether that will continue to be allowed remains to be seen. But anyone can get some server space or a decent home setup and run their own bespoke AI image generator on whatever data they fill their hard drives with, so enforcement of permission mechanisms is going to be extremely difficult.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 21:25
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:I understood what the study showed from the start of this. Which is why I said that is not what you implied it was when I asked for examples of tracing or plagiarism in AI generated art. How similar does an image generated by an AI generator have to be to have the ethical concerns we're discussing? https://twitter.com/nanokah2/status/1617504960589205506 https://twitter.com/wickedinsignia/status/1604684633610027008 Are these images meaningfully distinct enough to be considered acceptable? https://twitter.com/ZakugaMignon/status/1615975776762974208 How about these? https://twitter.com/jinrikioekakisi/status/1626465795483262977 Is this distinct enough to be acceptable? Where's the line? Does it need to be nearly identical to the input, as in the study? Is it "just" character design, pose, and location? If the entire composition is the same, but there are minor differences (the presence of eyewear on one character, coloration choices), is that enough?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 21:25
|
|
|
lmao did you just post a grip of tiddie pics to talk about ai art?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 21:26
|
|
|
Comrade Koba posted:You’re forgetting or neglecting to mention the part where he claimed his pet chatbot felt more human than some of the neurodivergent people he worked with. This is what got Rutibex in trouble and it wasn't in TG. He asked to be permabanned after he got a ban+probation for comparing AI chatbots favorably to the people with autism that he claimed to work with. His message to Fluffdaddy was that he did not want to be on a site where people were allowed to happily oppress sentient computer programs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 21:27
|
|
|
jarofpiss posted:you mistakenly linked pictures from your "d&d art that owns" folder Turn on your monitor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 21:30
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:This is what got Rutibex in trouble and it wasn't in TG. He asked to be permabanned after he got a ban+probation for comparing AI chatbots favorably to the people with autism that he claimed to work with. His message to Fluffdaddy was that he did not want to be on a site where people were allowed to happily oppress sentient computer programs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 21:30
|
|
|
jarofpiss posted:lmao did you just post a grip of tiddie pics to talk about ai art? listen, they may be tiddy artists but they're still having their work stolen by this stupid dragnets. edit: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 21:31
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 21:32
|
|
|
FishFood posted:If you don't realize that AI "art" is part of the longstanding project of our brilliant tech industry to replace every worthwhile thing on the internet with cheaply produced dreck and a tollbooth, I don't know what to tell you. They've long realized that automating away the drudgery of physical labor is running up against diminishing returns, so instead they're going to automate as much intellectual labor as they can so that more people can be made into the precariat. For many years they've leveled the "a kiosk can do your job" at fast food workers who wanted better treatment, now they want to do the equivalent of that to artists. Meanwhile the kiosks suck poo poo and no one wants to work minimum wage in the back to actually make the food, but don't think about that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 21:33
|
|
|
jarofpiss posted:lmao did you just post a grip of tiddie pics to talk about ai art? I looked for a bunch of AI art that was virtually identical to the original artist's work. In order to prove my point I literally searched for that kind of thing, and this is a lot of what I came across. Unfortunately I didn't find the original image that I was looking for, which I'm pretty sure was some sort of cat, but whatever. Who loving cares what the art is?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 21:34
|
|
|
King of Solomon posted:How similar does an image generated by an AI generator have to be to have the ethical concerns we're discussing? Yes those are all examples of what I was asking for unlike the study you spent the last two pages arguing about. Is that enough?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 21:36
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Yes those are all examples of what I was asking for unlike the study you spent the last two pages arguing about. I maintain that the study supports my argument, but whatever. The important thing is this is a real problem that exists. I'm glad I was able to find examples for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 21:37
|
|
|
King of Solomon posted:Is this distinct enough to be acceptable? Where's the line? Does it need to be nearly identical to the input, as in the study? Is it "just" character design, pose, and location? If the entire composition is the same, but there are minor differences (the presence of eyewear on one character, coloration choices), is that enough? The problem with these is that these were probably not in the AI 'memory', they were most likely made by someone deliberately giving the AI the first image and asking it to trace it with a bit of variation. You could do it with Photoshop, the AI just makes it easier and I am a little leery of, let's say, banning Photoshop because it makes tracing easy. (People used to argue this as well back in the day.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 21:41
|
|
|
If those are examples of feeding it a specific image and asking it to recreate it that is also not helpful to the argument that AI art generates traced images that are plagiarism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 21:46
|
|
|
I was never actually sure if Rutibex was some sort of gimmick poster pretending to be a huge dipshit or just an actual dipshit, knowing that he's a "my chatbot is being oppressed" guy has made that a lot clearer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 21:49
|
|
|
Megazver posted:The problem with these is that these were probably not in the AI 'memory', they were most likely made by someone deliberately giving the AI the first image and asking it to trace it with a bit of variation. You could do it with Photoshop, the AI just makes it easier and I am a little leery of, let's say, banning Photoshop because it makes tracing easy. (People used to argue this as well back in the day.) Do you have any reason in particular to believe this is what happened here? I don't get how "someone deliberately subverted the model or requested it do this specifically, it would never do this on its own" is a natural assumption to make unless there's some evidence that this is actually something people are doing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 21:54
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:I was never actually sure if Rutibex was some sort of gimmick poster pretending to be a huge dipshit or just an actual dipshit, knowing that he's a "my chatbot is being oppressed" guy has made that a lot clearer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 21:54
|
|
|
Rutibex was also misogynist, if you ever read anything about how he believed women weren’t smart enough to play games at a high level.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 21:55
|
|
|
grassy gnoll posted:It has never been about "democratizing" art, and if you're trying to argue that point you're either a sucker or a callous piece of garbage. it's not the art that's being democratized, but the tools. This process endangers the careers of artists in non-photographic media for the first time, and is the second go-round for photographers. There will still be artists and photographers, but often they will have additional non-art tasks and/or their work lives will be worse. Is collage art theft?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:59 |
|
|
Kai Tave posted:I was never actually sure if Rutibex was some sort of gimmick poster pretending to be a huge dipshit or just an actual dipshit, knowing that he's a "my chatbot is being oppressed" guy has made that a lot clearer. Rutibex was an actual dipshit. He got banned from the path of exile thread because he just couldn't admit he was wrong, even when it ruined other peoples' experience with the game, and he came pretty close to doing the same on several occasions in the D&D/OSR threads here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 21:57
|
|