|
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 if I feed a million photographs of faces into an algorithm so that it knows what faces look like, and that algorithm goes into devices that aid in reconstructive surgery or something, no image output whatsoever, did I steal them? I think artists' rights to work they create are quite tied to publication and attribution, and my line for theft in a cosmos of justice and light is "copyright infringement," i.e. if the changes to the originals in your AI image, or hand-cut collage, or colorized faces of Marilyn Monroe are sufficiently transformative, congratulations, you've made a new piece of art, morally/ethically/legally. In the real world with significantly less justice and light, very few artists can afford the lawsuit(s) required to test and enforce this line, and so corporations and capital have nearly all the advantages of both the law and illegality. Some places have a "moral right of integrity," which says that since a part of the artist's soul goes into a piece of art, they and their descendants have a say in what happens to it forever, even when somebody else owns the art. Can't colorize old movies, can't edit movies for content or to put commercials in the middle on TV. In Italy, one guy thought his new paintings were great, and his old stuff was bad; the public generally thought the opposite. He successfully sued when an exhibition of his work -- none of it owned by him -- placed his new work alongside his old, thus damaging the integrity of the new pieces contextually. On a much smaller scale, a woman here bought a piece of art unframed, and had the image framed and matted. When she emailed the artist a picture of the framed and matted work, the artist replied "you added two colors to my work." I have a low opinion of the right of integrity.
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 02:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:46 |
|
|
Mordiceius posted:I've come to a point I'm 100% okay with AI art when it comes to personal use. I always thought it was fine for personal use, just like taking any art you want for private personal use is fine. It's when people want to sell it or pass it off as original work that I get a little grossed out. Maybe it's kind of borderline to use for something that you give away for free? Using peoples' art without permission isn't great and the models were trained on peoples' art without permission though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 02:57
|
|
|
What would Walter Benjamin say about the ethics of AI art? Let's ask the AI!  
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 02:59
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:What would Walter Benjamin say about the ethics of AI art? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 03:00
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted: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. We understand how it works, and it sucks poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 03:04
|
|
|
The line of discussion started by gradenko seemed to be operating on the idea that these programs saved all the images they were trained on in their programing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 03:18
|
|
|
PharmerBoy posted:The line of discussion started by gradenko seemed to be operating on the idea that these programs saved all the images they were trained on in their programing. code:
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 03:32
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted: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. Try feeding it the name of a child actress, such as Aubrey Anderson-Emmons (Modern Family). The photos were taken over a period of years, over which her face changed as she grew, so the program tries to average them all and it results in nightmare fuel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 03:36
|
|
|
A polite request - if people can work to bring the conversation back around to something relative to the TG industry, I'd appreciate it. If you'd like other places to discuss the general processing/ethics of AI art, I found two other options: Traditional Games › AI tools for traditional games (please ignore the OP) General Bullshit › AI Art: It is criminal to not post your prompt (this has plenty of general discussion around AI-generated content and how it's used, not just people posting prompts/cool poo poo, despite what the title says) I also tried to find a good thread in SAL, but no luck. Other suggestions welcome, it's a tricky topic to navigate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 04:00
|
|
|
Interpretability analysis is a major (and severely frustrating) area of AI research. Even small models can be inscrutable, much less these massive models like Stable Diffusion or GPT4. To my knowledge, there is no definitive understanding of what these neural-network-based AI art generators are actually doing when you use them. I wouldn't make any speculations as to "ripping up" or "copying real artists" or "originality" or "being transformative" when talking about these models unless there were some powerful developments in interpretability analysis that I'm currently unaware of. I definitely wouldn't talk about AI lacking a "mind" when we neither understand the AI's functioning nor the brain's functioning in the realm of the creation of art. Who the hell even knows what a mind is? Like, physically, not in vague philosophical terms. I could rant on it, but I'll leave it at that our most advanced methods for electrical mapping struggle to capture the functioning of the brains of insects, much less the brains of humans or with simultaneous chemical recordings. And even then, understanding those signals would be lifetimes worth of work. So, given we lack all of that, who's to say that human brains do not generally just chop up pieces of the world we have seen and just paste those pieces together when we create art? Definitely not me. edit: I just saw the post above. I can remove this post if desired. more on topic, I love that I've been able to use Stable Diffusion to make cool art for my players. They have universally loved being able to see cool recreations of the stuff we've handled in game. There has been a surge in great, free tools over the last 10 years for creating incredible maps and art for TTRPGS and I am all here for it. HOMOEROTIC JESUS fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Mar 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 04:05
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted: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. No. I didn't starve my first year out of college because I did freelance art when the Great Recession hit and killed all prospects of steady work. I worked harder for less money than I ever did before or ever have since. This garbage masquerading as art is a concerted and even deliberate effort to prevent people who are and will be just like me from being able to even attempt to make ends meet. It is viscerally disgusting and nakedly exploitive, and should be treated as such. You ostracize people who knowingly harm others, you don't try to argue them around with gentle good humor. Moreover, while I'm earning my probe, I don't think you're able to argue in good faith on the subject based on your other AI-related posts in this forum. I get you have a responsibility to try to keep things civil, while I may not personally agree with that in the present context, but it's pretty crappy to see someone who can mute someone with the click of a button coming down on the exploitive side of this spat. homullus posted: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. Can you describe what art tools are anti-democratic? Is there something particularly esoteric or unavailable about a pack of crayons and a pad of paper? Are earth pigments and a big rock attending meetings I need to know about? Collage is theft if it's taking images that were put out by an artist entirely for promotional, non-commercial use. Clipping a picture out of a magazine and putting it on a matte board is transgressive, but at least that magazine photographer, editor, layout artist, typesetter, printer, distribution team, etc. got paid. With direct and personal access to artists, stealing their poo poo that is expressly not for your commercial use is theft, yes. If Duchamp didn't buy the urinal, but instead broke into a hardware store and walked out without paying for his toilet, that would also be theft. In fact, the part where people are taking things that aren't theirs to make money is the problem! Serf posted:We understand how it works, and it sucks poo poo. It's this thing here!! It ain't hard! E: gently caress, sorry Podima. I posted and didn't refresh. I did the crime, I'll cop to the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 04:05
|
|
|
HOMOEROTIC JESUS posted:who's to say that human brains do not generally just chop up pieces of the world we have seen and just paste those pieces together when we create art? Definitely not me. I'll say it
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 04:08
|
|
|
HOMOEROTIC JESUS posted:Edit: I just saw the post above. I can remove this post if desired. more on topic, I love that I've been able to use Stable Diffusion to make cool art for my players. They have universally loved being able to see cool recreations of the stuff we've handled in game. grassy gnoll posted:E: gently caress, sorry Podima. I posted and didn't refresh. I did the crime, I'll cop to the time. You two are good, it wasn't meant as me slamming the door - just providing a general nudge. Thank you tho! HOMOEROTIC JESUS posted:So, given we lack all of that, who's to say that human brains do not generally just chop up pieces of the world we have seen and just paste those pieces together when we create art? Definitely not me. Please don't reveal the secret to my
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 04:12
|
|
|
Podima posted:
personally I just tear off a deeply personal part of myself and then exaggerate it comical levels.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 04:19
|
|
|
grassy gnoll posted:
There are many reasons why this comes off as offensive FYI
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 04:23
|
|
|
As an actually disabled person who often lacks the ability to draw a straight line could you kindly piss off with the implication that Gnoll is being ableist because they don’t think art as stands is inherently undemocratic before the advent of Machine Learning art.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 04:54
|
|
|
e: Wrong thread, damnit.
CitizenKeen fucked around with this message at 09:31 on Mar 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 05:21
|
|
|
CitizenKeen posted:If you'd like evidence that Thanos needs a nerf: I'm terrible at this game. I've hit 60 once since launch. I started this season at 10. I bought Thanos. I just hit 60. A strong argument against AI art.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 07:01
|
|
|
So of the algorithm was trained only on public domain stuff or things like that would people have a problem with that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 07:46
|
|
|
Megazver posted:If AI was anything like NFTs (useless bullshit designed to milk idiots who wanted to hop into the next post-crypto bubble), the human artists wouldn't already be making GBS threads themselves in terror at how it's about to destroy them. Like, it already works. I crank out random illustrations for my personal use on a daily basis and a lot of them are already better than a lot of art in RPG books I own. Gee, I wonder why professional creatives have a problem with a system that generates fractal derivative iterations on works the owners do not have license to? The eventual legal answer to this is going to rely on what Disney does once someone runs decades of their work (or Marvel work they now own) through it and starts making their own knockoffs in particular styles. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 07:57 on Mar 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 07:54
|
|
|
YggdrasilTM posted:So of the algorithm was trained only on public domain stuff or things like that would people have a problem with that? Not really, no, no more than someone using public domain art without being run through the blender. Stuff trained purely on open source and public domain works would, imo, eliminate a lot of the ethical issues surrounding what is currently a way for the companies in the AI generation business to monetize other peoples' work without permission or compensation. At that point you may still have the "this could be used to put artists out of business" angle to consider, but I feel like if it was purely based on public domain/open source material that the people wanting to use this as artist replacements wouldn't want to do so anymore. The main selling point of these AI art generators isn't "empowering the little guy to make art where previously they could not," it's "now you can have your own Simon Stålenhag on demand without having to pay Simon Stålenhag any money." Take away that incentive, take away an algorithm fed on the backs of professional industry artists and commercial artists with styles that are in-demand, and a lot of the impetus to use it as an automated artist replacement engine goes out the window.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 09:39
|
|
|
homullus posted:if I feed a million photographs of faces into an algorithm so that it knows what faces look like, and that algorithm goes into devices that aid in reconstructive surgery or something, no image output whatsoever, did I steal them? in the EU? yes in the US? no
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 10:05
|
|
|
Yeah, a big part of the artist backlash is also specifically that sites like Deviantart are selling their userbase' art to these machines with opt-out by default, and I've a feeling it's deliberately very difficult to opt out. People aren't using it to make new or interesting things, just paper-thin knockoffs and slight remixes of what's already there- and you can't use it to actually make something new that doesn't have enough precedent for the algorithm to draw from. You're seriously just better off paying a few bucks to commission an artist, there's already ridiculously robust infrastructure for that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 10:05
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Yeah, a big part of the artist backlash is also specifically that sites like Deviantart are selling their userbase' art to these machines with opt-out by default, and I've a feeling it's deliberately very difficult to opt out. Not just a feeling; virtually every site for artists has had to be browbeaten into not automatically opting every user of their site in to having their work scraped for the grinder, assuming they even capitulated in the first place. This is why there were protests on sites like ArtStation until the management started deleting peoples' "no AI" posts and made it clear that they stand on the side of exploitation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 10:24
|
|
|
So has anyone heard anything about ORC in the last month or so?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 15:15
|
|
|
One last item of interest regarding AI as I move off the topic: There are ongoing recent lawsuits against Stable Diffusion and similarly placed organizations. One by a collection of artists artists, one by Getty Images. The arguments, as presented in the articles, are pretty much a more eloquent rehashing of everything that's already been in this topic, so I won't get into them. Something for people to keep an eye on, however.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 15:51
|
|
|
No matter whether you are pro or anti AI art, we should all be able to agree on one thing: gently caress Getty Images.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 18:11
|
|
|
Definitely a case of “let them fight”
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 18:17
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Definitely a case of “let them fight” All the way to trial, so that artists can have some idea of what legal leverage they have (if any). If the parties settle, they cost each other less money and nobody's rights are clarified. TG-wise, I would pay for access to a generative art AI that was trained on 100% opt-in licensed fantasy, sci-fi, and comic art, and could produce the images in different styles and techniques. I don't have the connections to make that a reality, and it would absolutely be a multi-person job to launch it. I am surprised someone with less caution and a grease gun hasn't Kickstarted it yet, in good faith or otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 18:40
|
|
|
Never kickstart where you need third parties and can’t aggressively negotiate the price. Otherwise you have to go to an artist/factory/etc that knows exactly what your budget is (they can see the Kickstarter result) and has you over a barrel from the beginning because what can you do without them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 18:51
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:No matter whether you are pro or anti AI art, we should all be able to agree on one thing: gently caress Getty Images.  | | | V V V Humbug Scoolbus fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Mar 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 19:06
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:No matter whether you are pro or anti AI art, we should all be able to agree on one thing: gently caress Pinterest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 19:10
|
|
|
Is there a way to block pinterist results from your Google? That would make things so much easier E: THANK YOU! moths fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Mar 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 19:57
|
|
|
moths posted:Is there a way to block pinterist results from your Google? That would make things so much easier https://westsideelectronics.com/how-to-remove-exclude-any-site-from-your-google-searches-permanently/ I did this and it vastly improved image search
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 20:01
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:https://westsideelectronics.com/how-to-remove-exclude-any-site-from-your-google-searches-permanently/ oh my god thank you
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 20:10
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:https://westsideelectronics.com/how-to-remove-exclude-any-site-from-your-google-searches-permanently/
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 20:12
|
|
|
Thanlis posted:So has anyone heard anything about ORC in the last month or so? As of last week they were hoping to put out a draft "in a few weeks". https://twitter.com/paizo/status/1633581414842265600 Hoping it's further along that Kobold Press got with Black Flag.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 20:14
|
|
|
moths posted:Is there a way to block pinterist results from your Google? That would make things so much easier I use https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/unpinterested/gefaihkenmchjmcpcbpdijpoknfjpbfe?hl=en
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 21:21
|
|
|
I love the name of that plugin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:46 |
|
|
Lamuella posted:As of last week they were hoping to put out a draft "in a few weeks". Reasonable. That initial timeline was kind of brutal. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 23:40
|
|