|
homullus posted:Is collage art theft? Collage art has a human person assembling the parts with greater meaning. edit: bad start to this page, sorry
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 07:26 |
|
|
BAD rear end minion memes! posted: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. I've actually used img2img so I know how it works?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 21:58
|
|
|
King of Solomon posted: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. the important thing is that you spread awareness of the issue and got (my) attention on it
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 22:00
|
|
|
Megazver posted:I've actually used img2img so I know how it works? Okay, but what makes you think this is img2img? As far as I can tell from looking at the tweets I shared, it's all artists that are upset that their art was duplicated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 22:01
|
|
|
Arivia posted: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 22:03
|
|
|
jarofpiss posted:the important thing is that you spread awareness of the issue and got (my) attention on it It's not exactly relevant to tradgames per se but one of the hugest uses for AI art so far seems to be "people using it to make big titty anime waifus" so I imagine there's a lot of that to draw on, but also there are people happily attempting to train AI image generators to output work that resembles that of specific artists like Simon Stålenhag who has been vocally outspoken against AI art and who AI art advocates think it's cute to continually harass over it, or the time incredibly talented artist Kim Jung Gi died and some guy rushed to feed his work into an AI model less than a week later.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 22:03
|
|
|
Megazver posted:I've actually used img2img so I know how it works? But is there literally any reason to think that those images were generated by img2img? It seems like a circular argument: AI doesn't plagiarise art directly, and when someone provides examples of AI plagiarising art directly - then, clearly all of that art was generated using img2img from the source images? Even though the tweets those images come from are from artists saying "my art is being used to train AI", not "someone put my art into img2img to generate a similar image".
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 22:06
|
|
|
King of Solomon posted:Okay, but what makes you think this is img2img? As far as I can tell from looking at the tweets I shared, it's all artists that are upset that their art was duplicated. I mean they should be, someone has used a very basic tool on their images to make slightly redraw copies then uploaded it online as their own. You can even see what the people are calling it in the actual Artstation comments for one of these images: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/B36oOA "Someone ran this through an AI and is claiming it as their own, you should probably report it because unfortunately only the copyright holder can do so." But before the AI the frauds just did it with tracing and/or Photoshop, the AI just makes it easier. Hopefully processes develop to detect this kind of theft. (Ironically, it'll probably also be through AI.) EDIT: Let's try a different tack. I'll use the Goth Mikasa image because that's the only one I found online. My apologies for slow edit, SD barely works on my PC. Here's what generates when you actually prompt Midjourney (one of the currently popular AIs) for "GOTH MIKASA, by Zu Yuan Cesar" which if that artwork is actually lurking somewhere in the AI to just be spewed out, is probably the closest thing you can do to make it appear:  It does have a basic idea of what constitutes the artist's style, but doesn't really have an idea about the specific artwork. Same for Stable Diffusion, the open source alternative to MJ that you run on your PC:  Not even close, I don't think SD knows about this artist. On the other hand, here's "hey could you trace this poo poo in img2img with slight variations, thanks buddy".   I don't know what specific model, prompt and denoising that plagiarist used and I don't have the time nor interest to approximate it, but I think you get the idea. I've also tried feeding that image to CLIP Interrogator, which is a tool that basically analyzes an image and outputs the words the AI would describe it as. CI thinks that image is "a drawing of a woman in a black outfit, grunge aesthetic!!! (, ghailan!, lowres, hot pants, art of kryssalian, red clothes, would you let me dress you, god is a woman, character painting, uncropped, wearing fishnets, colored lineart, wearing a cropped top, by Altichiero". Here's what MJ and SD actually produce if you input this:  
Megazver fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Mar 15, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 22:09
|
|
|
BAD rear end minion memes! posted:But is there literally any reason to think that those images were generated by img2img? It seems like a circular argument: AI doesn't plagiarise art directly, and when someone provides examples of AI plagiarising art directly - then, clearly all of that art was generated using img2img from the source images? Even though the tweets those images come from are from artists saying "my art is being used to train AI", not "someone put my art into img2img to generate a similar image". I think this will be a difficult sequence of statements to unravel. "AI art" isn't a monolith, so we can't always make a broad claim about it that applies to all cases. "Plagiarism" is also unfortunately a little vague, we all know what we probably mean by that word but as pointed out, "legitimate" art engages in some degree of this practice so we have to instead tease out where the lines are or should be drawn between OK and fine and cool art "inspired by" other artists, or containing clipped pieces as in collage or (in music) sampling, vs. art that is not OK because it's too close of a copy or not produced by another human or whatever. So as applied to AI art generation programs the word "plagiarism" is again somewhat vague at the edges. I think it's likely that without showing their work, at least some of what's on Twitter is bullshit, because that's a pretty accurate thing to say about Twitter generally. If we would like to prove that a specific AI art program is "just spitting out tracings" it would be good to have better documentation of what the inputs were, how often this happens, etc. And even if we prove that a specific AI art program is doing this, that does not prove that they're all doing this. I also don't think it's especially important, because the current generation of AIs are being constantly upgraded, and the people making them have a clear interest in not getting sued. They're likely to work hard to prevent their programs from spitting out obvious copies of copyrighted works, and if they succeed, that doesn't really change the basic ethical problem: that people's copyrighted works are being copied, stored in privately-owned databases, and used without their permission, sometimes to produce works that mimic their personal style in a way that threatens their ability to sell their work by diluting it and offering cheap knockoffs. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Mar 15, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 22:29
|
|
|
There’s a big difference in AI tools that let you feed them a specific image to plagiarize vs the big models generating images based on prompts. Claiming one is the other or saying it doesn’t matter which is which is not helpful to the position that AI models are ethically or legally wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 22:32
|
|
|
Right, I think that's the key point. There's some sort of continuum between using the "smart sharpen" tool in Photoshop on one end and using DALL-E to create a complete image based on a few words on the other, and somewhere in the middle you have some stuff that is modifying images input into it explicitly by use of algorithms developed from analyzing thousands or millions of other images where the inputs and outputs resemble each other but there's still (possibly illegal or unethically sourced) artworks being used in the background to train the AI. e. like on your phone your camera's ability to put a circle around a face and keep it in focus is based on deep learning algorithms fed millions of pictures of faces, it's a sibling technology. There isn't just one monolithic AI Art thing. If someone says "this was made using AI" with no other details that's actually really uninformative about what was actually done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 22:36
|
|
|
I wonder how much of this would have also been said about photography when it first came about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 22:43
|
|
|
PharmerBoy posted:I wonder how much of this would have also been said about photography when it first came about. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 22:44
|
|
|
PharmerBoy posted:I wonder how much of this would have also been said about photography when it first came about. This isn't really a good way of looking at it because photography has practical applications beyond art (which will probably end up being true of AI art as well). It's also nothing new that hasn't been litigated for decades https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-richard-prince-stole-marlboro-man
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 22:50
|
|
|
PharmerBoy posted:I wonder how much of this would have also been said about photography when it first came about. Apparently this all happened, yes, but I don't have the links to specific articles about this anymore, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 22:50
|
|
|
PharmerBoy posted:I wonder how much of this would have also been said about photography when it first came about. Photography has a lot more applications than just art, though. Documentation springs to mind for instance. Also the argument about whether or not the AI spits out tracings is tedious distraction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 22:51
|
|
|
We've had posts within the last 1-2 hours detailing how what we're discussing as "AI Art" actually exists on a continuum of programs intended for a variety of purposes outside of generating new art.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 22:59
|
|
|
PharmerBoy posted:I wonder how much of this would have also been said about photography when it first came about. This isn't accurate to how photography as an artform, or to the history of photography developed  .edit: less meanspirited
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 23:00
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I also don't think it's especially important, because the current generation of AIs are being constantly upgraded, and the people making them have a clear interest in not getting sued. Worth noting that the study that was pointed to was done by folks at Google and DeepMind - it’s not like the people involved in creating various forms of AI aren’t thinking about these issues and trying to figure out how to improve.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 23:01
|
|
|
Add on instead of edit. For everything else, I think this is the more important point Serf posted:Also the argument about whether or not the AI spits out tracings is tedious distraction. Tracing/copying is going to be something any useful tool for art can do, and will do in the hands of bad actors. The effect of a new tool on human beings, and who has control of that new tool are the more important issues. Which I think is where you're heading with that, or correct me otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 23:02
|
|
|
Ominous Jazz posted:Collage art has a human person assembling the parts with greater meaning. I get what you're going for, but that's probably not the right answer on its own, because * artists are not conscious of all, or sometimes any of the greater meanings created by their work, and need not have that consciousness for their work to be art * artists often create or allow nonrandom but unpredictable outside nonhuman input into their work (e.g. aleatory music or woodfired pottery) * artists who create exact copies, or who literally insert the work of others into their own without sufficiently transforming it into something else (i.e. a very simplistic collage), are guilty of copyright infringement, which is theft
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 23:12
|
|
|
Serf posted:Also the argument about whether or not the AI spits out tracings is tedious distraction. Mistakes were made. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 23:19
|
|
|
PharmerBoy posted:Tracing/copying is going to be something any useful tool for art can do, and will do in the hands of bad actors. The effect of a new tool on human beings, and who has control of that new tool are the more important issues. Which I think is where you're heading with that, or correct me otherwise. This is my general thinking, yes. Technology is (largely) neutral, the application is what matters. I don't see a way that, under capitalism, the art remixers don't get used to further immiserate people. You can't put the cat back in the bottle, the poo poo is out there, and what happens next is inevitable. You can't even regulate it, because capital will erode that as it has with every other regulation and limit put on it by bourgeois democracy. If it can be used to make a buck, it will be. It is happening regardless, but I don't have to like it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 23:26
|
|
|
If you feed someone's art into an algorithm, when they didn't want it to be, how is that not theft Trying to establish that the AI outputs any one specific image seems almost irrelevant
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 23:52
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:If you feed someone's art into an algorithm, when they didn't want it to be, how is that not theft Legally? It’s not even copyright infringement (while this isn’t completely certain, it’s unlikely to wind up being treated that way based on existing text/data mining treatment), much less theft.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 23:53
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:If you feed someone's art into an algorithm, when they didn't want it to be, how is that not theft Irrelevant to what? The ethics? The legality? The output is what matters for both, IMO.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 00:08
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:If you feed someone's art into an algorithm, when they didn't want it to be, how is that not theft Is it theft for a human to look at someone's art and iterate off of it? If it is (or should be), can you describe how this system protects independent artists while avoiding abuse by media conglomerates?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 00:11
|
|
|
the AI programs aren't humans and aren't learning because they do not have a mind. So the question "is it theft for a human to look at someone's art and iterate" is irrelevant. The AI is a machine that reconstitutes images from a slurry of other images. If the AI' s developer wants your image for the slurry, they should have to pay for the privilege. In much the same way that I can make a video game just like vampire survivors if I want to for for free, but I cannot put a full copy of the game vampire survivors inside of a game I've made for free.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 00:26
|
|
|
Are you saying the generated pieces have the entirety of the source pieces in them? Has anyone made a way to reverse search for artifacts or anything to check if images are from any of the big AI models? Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Mar 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 00:27
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:the AI programs aren't humans and aren't learning because they do not have a mind. So the question "is it theft for a human to look at someone's art and iterate" is irrelevant. The AI is a machine that reconstitutes images from a slurry of other images. If the AI' s developer wants your image for the slurry, they should have to pay for the privilege. In much the same way that I can make a video game just like vampire survivors if I want to for for free, but I cannot put a full copy of the game vampire survivors inside of a game I've made for free. I agree.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 00:36
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:the AI programs aren't humans and aren't learning because they do not have a mind. So the question "is it theft for a human to look at someone's art and iterate" is irrelevant. The AI is a machine that reconstitutes images from a slurry of other images. If the AI' s developer wants your image for the slurry, they should have to pay for the privilege. In much the same way that I can make a video game just like vampire survivors if I want to for for free, but I cannot put a full copy of the game vampire survivors inside of a game I've made for free. This hits the nail on the head, and "slurry of images" is a fantastic turn of phrase.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 01:51
|
|
|
I've come to a point I'm 100% okay with AI art when it comes to personal use. Here's what I mean - if I'm running a D&D campaign, I need to set up a map, come up with monster tokens, whatever. In the past, that's going to involve a bunch of google image searches and saving images. If I can just generate some images via AI to use in my campaigns that will perfectly fit what I'm looking for, that's going to save me a gently caress ton of time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 01:55
|
|
|
FishFood posted:This hits the nail on the head, and "slurry of images" is a fantastic turn of phrase. It really doesn’t though because plenty of VS clones are all over Steam because they mix things up enough to not be legally a problem. Both visually and mechanically. It’s more of an example of why AI art is hard to police than anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 01:59
|
|
|
FishFood posted:This hits the nail on the head, and "slurry of images" is a fantastic turn of phrase. "They do not have a mind" is an awkward philosophical argument that's old in AI. There is no way to know that any human other than yourself is thinking, and no way for you to prove to anyone else that you are - so how would we ever know if a computer was? The paper on exact reconstructions of input images is very interesting though - that definitely adds a lot of concern.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 02:01
|
|
|
hyphz posted:"They do not have a mind" is an awkward philosophical argument that's old in AI. There is no way to know that any human other than yourself is thinking, and no way for you to prove to anyone else that you are - so how would we ever know if a computer was? Yeah I remember when that guy at google had an existential freakout because one of their chatbots too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 02:04
|
|
|
hyphz posted:"They do not have a mind" is an awkward philosophical argument that's old in AI. There is no way to know that any human other than yourself is thinking, and no way for you to prove to anyone else that you are - so how would we ever know if a computer was? For the love of god, do not bring solipsism into this discussion. We don't need that nonsense. Bottom Liner posted:It really doesn’t though because plenty of VS clones are all over Steam because they mix things up enough to not be legally a problem. Both visually and mechanically. It’s more of an example of why AI art is hard to police than anything. No, it's not the same thing at all. A machine that simply grinds up human creativity and spits out a lovely remix isn't even close to even the most blatant ripoff job done by humans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 02:05
|
|
|
If someone had created a sapient AI it would be much bigger news and they definitely wouldn't be charging people fifteen cents a pop to ask it for "big boobie anime titties big naked big titties big curvy big".
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 02:08
|
|
|
hyphz posted:"They do not have a mind" is an awkward philosophical argument that's old in AI. There is no way to know that any human other than yourself is thinking, and no way for you to prove to anyone else that you are - so how would we ever know if a computer was? You can know with absolute certainty* whether a given piece of art is used by an AI, regardless of how you might classify the generation of its output as "thinking" or not. * granting that the innards of the algorithm is available to be viewed, but attempting to keep it private is not an issue of how the AI operates
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 02:09
|
|
|
Serf posted:
Yes that is my point lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 02:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 07:26 |
|
|
I don't know if it's relevant, but as far as I understand it most or all current AI art generators are not literally cutting up images and assembling them, like a collage. They're analyzing millions of images to find patterns that can be associated with each other and with textual clues on the pages the images came from (e.g., metadata) in order to create giant databases of algorithms. So if you want a banana, it doesn't go cut out five random pictures of bananas and glue them together, it finds "banana" in its database and pulls up a mathematical algorithm that outputs a graphic segment that is substantially similar to an identifiable segment from thousands of pictures that had bananas in them. In order to not just get some sort of "average banana" the algorithm has to have some "choices" which are more or less randomly made - like, exactly how yellow, what orientation, peeled or unpeeled. Additionally, in order to compose a full image, it may have to select a light source and create shadows, decide whether to present a table or a plate, etc. and again it's working from training that taught it what are typical elements and what algorithms result in drawing those elements. Plus yet more logic for fitting elements together. This is why you get poo poo like mangled hands - the algorithm doesn't actually know how many fingers there should be because photos or paintings or illustrations of hands might show all, some, or none of the fingers, and in different positions, and the algorithms also may not just do "hand" they may be trying to do "palm" and "knuckle" and objects held in the hand, breaking down elements into smaller chunks that are randomly assembled. The reason I'm not sure if this is relevant is because if you feel that running data analysis on your artwork in order to contribute and affect algorithms without your permission is a form of theft, well, I can't say you're wrong, that's a judgement call. But if you think there is a difference between "literally chopping up and re-using your work" and "analyzing your work, in order to emulate your style, compositional choices, etc." then it's important to understand that the art AIs are doing more of the second than the first, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 02:49
|
|