As an artist myself, here are my thoughts... I think the AI for these programs should only use images from Creative Commons and open source materials. If an artist wants to 'donate' images, music, or whatever, there should be a checkbox for the artist to mark for this specific use. That way no one is hurt when that art file is used. -- Also, the individual pieces used to create the AI composite should be listed (references, url, etc.) when the final is downloaded or printed by the user. Then a part of the money (a royalty) or credit can automatically go to the original artist. This could also be done with music, photography, and text as well. But ONLY if the artist opts in certain artwork. Non-permissible artwork is off limits to be used for this purpose.
That would be great, each artist would be paid amounts of up to 0.0002 cents a year. I think they should take the time off from developing the algorithm and focus on developing an incredibly complex royalty tracking and payment system to do just that. Sorry about the sarcasm, but it kind of is like that... it would barely amount to anything for each individual artist, and it would be very complex to make... it may be fair, but it wouldn't rly help anyone.
This is exactly what I was thinking. AI Art isn't gonna stop growing but it should at least compensate with royalties for the art it used and credit it at the bottom when it's downloaded. It's only fair I feel to artists that worked their tails off.
At least it should be an option with references. That way if you would like to contact the illustrator, you would have a way of doing it. Free or cheap advertising through a link to the artist.
The wildest part - the company that collected LAION 5b is non-profit and they were able to collect all the images in the interest of "research" and then publish it to everyone else. But the company behind Stable Diffusion actually provides funds for the "non-profit" company behind LAION 5b, so they are able to collect the images for "research" purposes and later use them for their own profit. I know that Stable Diffusion is open-source, but that's the point - they don't want to make money selling the generator, they will make money by selling other services or taking cuts from the likes of Lensa.
tbh any products made using AI would oversaturate its own market due to the little effort it takes to produce it, so this is detrimental to more than just artists in the long run. Once this becomes fully mainstream anyone using these AI models to make a product would find it's really difficult for their product to stand out in an endless sea of easily generated content even more so than before these AI were released as well as making it easier for people to rip off your designs, for example, if you have a shirt business that uses art, what's going to stop people from ripping off your designs or how are your designs going to stand out in a sea of easily generated content in an already oversaturated market like that, doesn't seem like a particularly beneficial tool for the public in the long run if you ask me, a good way for small business owners to fail actually. . Meanwhile the people really making money of these are the ones who own the AI models. You made some really good points also, this deserves way more views
Thanks so much! Yeah I feel like it's definitely going to be disruptive to artists and small businesses. Just a few years ago, AI wasn't capable of this and now it's a widespread implementation. And you bring up a good point about oversaturation. I think that'll make it more difficult to distinguish what is human created vs. AI generated and if there will be any value in that in the long run.
this massively sucks for the artists. It's like now they have to compete with themselves lol. I've already seen non-artists make money of off others hard work just by typing a prompt and downloading images of these services which all takes 1 second of work. Glad I'm a 3D modeler/animator, I'll hopefully be fine for a while at least.
Yeah I think this fact is what most people forget. Art was taken directly for a purpose unknown to the original owner. It's an IP issue which we already have standard laws on and not really an AI issue.
ACTUALLY,@@xandror, There is a lot more than that to Fair Use. And one of them is not making somethng for sale from someone elses art. In fact, there are so many rules around fair use it would most likely confuse you.
@@DonGiannatti Obviously that's not a rule. I could write an article about the latest modern art for sale at a gallery, show a picture of every single painting, and then sell the article to a magazine who would then sell the magazine to others.
These are Not ''Art''. Art is Human. These are "Items" created out of a mixture of many Stolen Art. Without crediting or paying actual Artists who provided data to create these "Items". So highly unethical. This stupid AI and its "Items" don't even exist without real artists who created Truly, meaningful art and art styles out of their own imaginations and by only referring actual beings, objects. There are no Stolen Artwork Data, Tagged in their heads. You can clearly see that. In their work as well.
I think the confusion is that AI is not really a photo-bashing application. Depending on how you train it, it can generate original images. But, it initially needs data to learn. And with that data, it’s finds a way to mathematically define a pattern or relationship. And then, it can present an entirely new piece of data. So it’s not necessarily piecing together original images from artists. Rather, it’s forming an algorithm that best represents an artist’s body of work so it can generate a new piece that closely resembles it. However, I do agree that an AI wouldn’t be able to output certain pieces if it didn’t have the work of certain artists to train on. And again, if the artist didn’t consent to their work being used in this way is where ethics are questioned. And data collection is the primary thing we as humans have control over when it comes to AI. It would be nice if everyone thought altruistically about art. Unfortunately, I don’t think companies value what is considered art when it comes to monetization.
@@heatherjustcreate Humans starting from the origins to now didn't, don't have those "Artist Art Data Collections" within them to create what they did. And there are many other reasons too for those to be just "Items".
Humans created the software programs to make art, it's still art just like how electronic music is still music even tho no physical instruments were played.
What I think is it should be free with no transactions at all or compensate the artists that agree to having learning data lifted from their art. Or we all pirate the programs... I see no difference between cracking and pirating stable diffusion and an art ai pirating an artist's profile especially when it comes to monetary value
Stable Diffusion is free and open-source, you'll be essentially pirating air... The only thing related to piracy would be stealing some company's closed-source model. (*cough cough* Novel *cough* AI *cough* leak *cough*) I am actually fine with what happened, because people got to try a fun model out, just like it was supposed to be with normal SD
I see the Data that the AI needs to generate images as concept art for a director making a movie. Or doodles for an artist before they make the actual traditional hand made artworks... Only faster. I don't see it as bad or good. Just neutral I guess. Heck I still have Leonardo de Vincis or Salvador Dalis artworks stored in my brain/memories.
I agree, I don't think AI is something to be feared. If anything, it's pretty amazing and can definitely be beneficial, depending on its usage. However, just because it is an exciting and rapidly developing technology, I don't think that shouldn't take away from the fact that it doesn't work without data. And if that data was given freely, is it right for some of its generative implementations to be acceptable? It's kind of like that saying, "the end doesn't justify the means", but in the case of AI, most people are saying the end does. It's used as a way to dismiss arguments around copyright and data ownership.
That was a remarkably fair summary of the situation. However I would like to point out that we DO know what's inside the black box, at least for Stable Diffusion, because it's open source. It doesn't make any sense to most people, any more than the engine inside your car makes sense to folks that aren't mechanics, but it isn't a black box. Also, the updated SD2 model with a better and more ethical data sourcing has already been released.
Thanks for watching! Also, just to clarify, the term black box is an actual AI term that refers to the algorithms used to determine the relationships within data. It's not referring to the actual data, but the mathematical methods the AI uses to produce a result. This doesn't just apply to generative forms of AI, but the nature of how it analyzes.
Evolution is an essential part of life, arts like music and painting are constantly evolving with new technologies, and the knowledge required to develop them comes from now obselete or less efficient ways of doing things. AI is showing us an easier, faster, cheaper and precise way to create new art, yes it's based on existing pieces, but at the end is creating something fundamentally new. You cannot draw a cat if you've never seen one. Therefore, you cannot create art without knowing how it looks like. At the end, even if the art-style is similar to that of a particular artist, you cannot possibly steal something that they didn't create. Great video, love your tuts but this one was really interesting.
And where did the artist get the ideas and framework for their art pieces? From artists of the past. Nothing is original or new. Everything is built on the back of the past. Its just that AI is able to pull from all different sources at a quicker speed than a human can. I do think there should be some rules though where you have to state that it's ai that's done it. Unless you have taken from the AI and transformed it in such a way and to such a degree that it then becomes your own piece of art.
@@AshHardman2011 but there is a diffrence between taking inspiration and puting your own twist which what artist are doing and what ai does that is preety much like tracing, plus another artist cant exactly copy someone else style, there will allways be something diffrent, something subtle that you cant put your finger on, but ai can create exact copy. Ai art can be fine if it was trained by data of artist that concented to this
Yeah I share your sentiments that technological evolution is inevitable. Especially in art, we're always going to have new tools just like we had photoshop when digital art was just coming into fruition. And I think AI is definitely a part of that. And already it’s being implemented in a lot of programs in the visual art space. I do think the discussion revolves specifically around AI generated art and the fact that it requires data to do anything. It’s just like you mentioned, you can’t draw something you’ve never seen. So, if it’s never been given imagery of a cat, it can’t generate one. The question is if it’s right to provide imagery of cats that’s copyrighted or without the consent of the original owners. And this decision lies in the humans collecting the data to train it, not the AI. You can make the argument that it’s free to look at art now on the internet and use it for inspiration. But an AI wouldn’t process that art like a human would do, rather in a way that’s more mathematically efficient and beyond our understanding. And it’ll form an exact formula to create more pieces based on what it was trained on. Although these pieces would technically be new, the artist’s work was still used to train it. And I think the area becomes gray if the artist didn't consent to that. It is possible to have models trained on open source and public domain data. However, the outputs aren’t so great since it’s only good as what it’s been trained on. It’s known that the quality of the training data does affect an AI’s output quality.
Yeah I think as long as the artist gave consent, it's fine and if anything, pretty cool. The conversation is definitely around data ownership, not the AI itself. However, that output from an AI model is the other gray area. We don’t know exactly what’s happening exactly during an AI’s training process. But we do know it's forming comparisons and relationships between lines, edges, etc. and representing it mathematically. Therefore, the output from an AI model will never be an exact replica to an existing artwork or the training data. It’ll be a result of what the AI believes it the most optimized based on what it was given. So, it’ll generate something similar to what it's seen before, but will not incorporate any of it directly in its output, although it might contain elements that resemble it (like watermarks).
Did you see what happened on the /r/art subreddit on reddit? A mod removed a persons art saying it looked AI.... The artist said he could show him the files it was made with... The mod suggested he find a different style..... I for 1 welcome our new AI overlords.
Don't start with that shit. This is why internet is what it is, a free space for every one. Freedom comes with a price and this is why you should not ask any government for internet regulations.
The laws of the land are made to ensure that YOU and YOUR family members are not exploited. The government should make laws where necessary otherwise society, on or offline, falls apart. If you're scared of corrupt laws affecting everyone's fun on the internet, look no further than your nose; the masses are as corrupt as the law makers- maybe even more corrupt. Napster had no right to share peoples music through P2P sharing bullshit, yet the masses whose lives had been enhanced by music for years, supported Napster and clearly didn't give a shit about how it affected hard working and struggling musicians. That's quite a lot of ingratitude. This AI art issue is the same thing all over again; a combination of ignorant and greedy fans who think artists should slave for them, so they can enjoy free art.
if an artist feels threatened by an algorithm, if they can't produce something better than what a machine can, they should probably quit being an artist. Also, these models are trained with billions of images, removing the data from artists who complain wouldn't even put a dent in it's ability to produce output. this discussion is pretty pointless.
I think there’s 2 points being said here. The issue brought up in the video doesn’t revolve around AI itself. It’s here to stay and will be something we’ll need to adapt to, regardless of how we feel or think about it. So it’s not about feeling “threatened” by AI. The main point revolves around generated art and data, which is curated by humans. Yes, AI models require an extensive amount of data to work, but if some of them weren’t sourced ethically, should they be included? And yes, removing training data from those artists wouldn’t affect the generative model at all. Not because of the large volume of images but for 2 reasons. 1) The model would still produce something regardless of how small or large the dataset is and 2) Because the model has already been trained. I don’t want to be dismissive about it since data ownership and consent in any other context is pretty serious. But, I think it’s definitely polarizing because of the lack of knowledge and understanding around the technology.
The problem isn't how threatened certain artists feel, the issue is the exploitation of the entire art community. The discussion isn't pointless. If I use your property without permission and the value of the property drops consequently, I need to make amends. I don't get to say "what's done is done, discussing is pointless."
@@kevandram Great video. Thanks for touching a number of important facts. This isn't about how hurt anybody's feelings are. It's about fair use vs copyright theft.
@@kevandram It seems to be "here to stay", but you never know, it wouldn't be the first time technological progress gets hampered by stuff like these. Don't get me wrong, the video raised quite a lot of important points, it's just that I can't help rolling my eyes at copyright topics in general since I think those are invalid points. I don't think that's what ethics are supposed to be based on. Everything we create is built on top of something else, so allowing people to copyright anything makes no sense to me. I think the quicker we dismiss these points, the better.
@@edumazieri I think this response is a bit misguided. AI has already been in use for many years in the form of machine learning. It's what streaming services use for recommendations, social networks use for targeting demographics, computer vision, etc. Your argument on "technological progress getting hampered" by "stuff" is irrelevant because it's already being implemented. For some reason, people think AI only came into existence with generation which is the most controversial form of it right now. The rest of your points are your own ideals which I'm not going to argue. Data ownership/consent is something we already have strict fundamental laws on and for AI training, specifically with the intent to generate, I don't see why those don't apply.
As an artist myself, here are my thoughts... I think the AI for these programs should only use images from Creative Commons and open source materials. If an artist wants to 'donate' images, music, or whatever, there should be a checkbox for the artist to mark for this specific use. That way no one is hurt when that art file is used. -- Also, the individual pieces used to create the AI composite should be listed (references, url, etc.) when the final is downloaded or printed by the user. Then a part of the money (a royalty) or credit can automatically go to the original artist. This could also be done with music, photography, and text as well. But ONLY if the artist opts in certain artwork. Non-permissible artwork is off limits to be used for this purpose.
That would be great, each artist would be paid amounts of up to 0.0002 cents a year. I think they should take the time off from developing the algorithm and focus on developing an incredibly complex royalty tracking and payment system to do just that.
Sorry about the sarcasm, but it kind of is like that... it would barely amount to anything for each individual artist, and it would be very complex to make... it may be fair, but it wouldn't rly help anyone.
This is exactly what I was thinking. AI Art isn't gonna stop growing but it should at least compensate with royalties for the art it used and credit it at the bottom when it's downloaded. It's only fair I feel to artists that worked their tails off.
At least it should be an option with references. That way if you would like to contact the illustrator, you would have a way of doing it. Free or cheap advertising through a link to the artist.
The wildest part - the company that collected LAION 5b is non-profit and they were able to collect all the images in the interest of "research" and then publish it to everyone else.
But the company behind Stable Diffusion actually provides funds for the "non-profit" company behind LAION 5b, so they are able to collect the images for "research" purposes and later use them for their own profit. I know that Stable Diffusion is open-source, but that's the point - they don't want to make money selling the generator, they will make money by selling other services or taking cuts from the likes of Lensa.
Yeah that realization is wild. It definitely seems like a misuse of the data that was intended for research only.
It's just not safe to post personal ideas and digital works online anymore
I can see how it's discouraging, but don't let it stop you from creating!
tbh any products made using AI would oversaturate its own market due to the little effort it takes to produce it, so this is detrimental to more than just artists in the long run. Once this becomes fully mainstream anyone using these AI models to make a product would find it's really difficult for their product to stand out in an endless sea of easily generated content even more so than before these AI were released as well as making it easier for people to rip off your designs, for example, if you have a shirt business that uses art, what's going to stop people from ripping off your designs or how are your designs going to stand out in a sea of easily generated content in an already oversaturated market like that, doesn't seem like a particularly beneficial tool for the public in the long run if you ask me, a good way for small business owners to fail actually. . Meanwhile the people really making money of these are the ones who own the AI models. You made some really good points also, this deserves way more views
Thanks so much! Yeah I feel like it's definitely going to be disruptive to artists and small businesses. Just a few years ago, AI wasn't capable of this and now it's a widespread implementation. And you bring up a good point about oversaturation. I think that'll make it more difficult to distinguish what is human created vs. AI generated and if there will be any value in that in the long run.
If I was an artist I would feel so Pale and Gloomy inside seeing this app
🤖
this massively sucks for the artists. It's like now they have to compete with themselves lol. I've already seen non-artists make money of off others hard work just by typing a prompt and downloading images of these services which all takes 1 second of work. Glad I'm a 3D modeler/animator, I'll hopefully be fine for a while at least.
Gray area?
They stole the art from the artist. At THAT point, it was IP theft.
Yeah I think this fact is what most people forget. Art was taken directly for a purpose unknown to the original owner. It's an IP issue which we already have standard laws on and not really an AI issue.
@@kevandram Correct. I don't care about the output, it is the input that matters to me
It's perfectly legal to take one persons art and make something totally different with it. It's called fair use.
ACTUALLY,@@xandror, There is a lot more than that to Fair Use.
And one of them is not making somethng for sale from someone elses art.
In fact, there are so many rules around fair use it would most likely confuse you.
@@DonGiannatti Obviously that's not a rule. I could write an article about the latest modern art for sale at a gallery, show a picture of every single painting, and then sell the article to a magazine who would then sell the magazine to others.
These are Not ''Art''. Art is Human. These are "Items" created out of a mixture of many Stolen Art. Without crediting or paying actual Artists who provided data to create these "Items". So highly unethical. This stupid AI and its "Items" don't even exist without real artists who created Truly, meaningful art and art styles out of their own imaginations and by only referring actual beings, objects. There are no Stolen Artwork Data, Tagged in their heads. You can clearly see that. In their work as well.
So if an artist willingly provides their art to an AI and gets compensated, and the AI creates art from their data, would that then be considered art?
I think the confusion is that AI is not really a photo-bashing application. Depending on how you train it, it can generate original images. But, it initially needs data to learn. And with that data, it’s finds a way to mathematically define a pattern or relationship. And then, it can present an entirely new piece of data. So it’s not necessarily piecing together original images from artists. Rather, it’s forming an algorithm that best represents an artist’s body of work so it can generate a new piece that closely resembles it.
However, I do agree that an AI wouldn’t be able to output certain pieces if it didn’t have the work of certain artists to train on. And again, if the artist didn’t consent to their work being used in this way is where ethics are questioned. And data collection is the primary thing we as humans have control over when it comes to AI. It would be nice if everyone thought altruistically about art. Unfortunately, I don’t think companies value what is considered art when it comes to monetization.
@@heatherjustcreate Humans starting from the origins to now didn't, don't have those "Artist Art Data Collections" within them to create what they did. And there are many other reasons too for those to be just "Items".
Humans created the software programs to make art, it's still art just like how electronic music is still music even tho no physical instruments were played.
@@taofallenstar6419 You're confusing software programmes with AI.
AI ALWAYS replicates a piece you made! Get it right! It otherwise would have NOTHING to work from!
What I think is it should be free with no transactions at all or compensate the artists that agree to having learning data lifted from their art. Or we all pirate the programs... I see no difference between cracking and pirating stable diffusion and an art ai pirating an artist's profile especially when it comes to monetary value
Stable Diffusion is free and open-source, you'll be essentially pirating air...
The only thing related to piracy would be stealing some company's closed-source model. (*cough cough* Novel *cough* AI *cough* leak *cough*)
I am actually fine with what happened, because people got to try a fun model out, just like it was supposed to be with normal SD
@Reverse NovelAI's is exceptionally good at generating nsfw stuff... And anime in general too
Very useful, thank you blogger for sharing, our company is doing similar things
This was a great explanation! 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 Also, I liked the art you made with AI.
Thanks so much!!
I see the Data that the AI needs to generate images as concept art for a director making a movie. Or doodles for an artist before they make the actual traditional hand made artworks... Only faster. I don't see it as bad or good. Just neutral I guess. Heck I still have Leonardo de Vincis or Salvador Dalis artworks stored in my brain/memories.
I agree, I don't think AI is something to be feared. If anything, it's pretty amazing and can definitely be beneficial, depending on its usage. However, just because it is an exciting and rapidly developing technology, I don't think that shouldn't take away from the fact that it doesn't work without data. And if that data was given freely, is it right for some of its generative implementations to be acceptable? It's kind of like that saying, "the end doesn't justify the means", but in the case of AI, most people are saying the end does. It's used as a way to dismiss arguments around copyright and data ownership.
That was a remarkably fair summary of the situation. However I would like to point out that we DO know what's inside the black box, at least for Stable Diffusion, because it's open source. It doesn't make any sense to most people, any more than the engine inside your car makes sense to folks that aren't mechanics, but it isn't a black box. Also, the updated SD2 model with a better and more ethical data sourcing has already been released.
Thanks for watching! Also, just to clarify, the term black box is an actual AI term that refers to the algorithms used to determine the relationships within data. It's not referring to the actual data, but the mathematical methods the AI uses to produce a result. This doesn't just apply to generative forms of AI, but the nature of how it analyzes.
You are absolutly RIGHT !
Evolution is an essential part of life, arts like music and painting are constantly evolving with new technologies, and the knowledge required to develop them comes from now obselete or less efficient ways of doing things.
AI is showing us an easier, faster, cheaper and precise way to create new art, yes it's based on existing pieces, but at the end is creating something fundamentally new.
You cannot draw a cat if you've never seen one. Therefore, you cannot create art without knowing how it looks like.
At the end, even if the art-style is similar to that of a particular artist, you cannot possibly steal something that they didn't create.
Great video, love your tuts but this one was really interesting.
its based on existing pieces (that were used without artists concent to train ai that literally threatens their livelihood and copyright)
And where did the artist get the ideas and framework for their art pieces? From artists of the past. Nothing is original or new. Everything is built on the back of the past.
Its just that AI is able to pull from all different sources at a quicker speed than a human can.
I do think there should be some rules though where you have to state that it's ai that's done it. Unless you have taken from the AI and transformed it in such a way and to such a degree that it then becomes your own piece of art.
@@AshHardman2011 but there is a diffrence between taking inspiration and puting your own twist which what artist are doing and what ai does that is preety much like tracing, plus another artist cant exactly copy someone else style, there will allways be something diffrent, something subtle that you cant put your finger on, but ai can create exact copy.
Ai art can be fine if it was trained by data of artist that concented to this
Yeah I share your sentiments that technological evolution is inevitable. Especially in art, we're always going to have new tools just like we had photoshop when digital art was just coming into fruition. And I think AI is definitely a part of that. And already it’s being implemented in a lot of programs in the visual art space.
I do think the discussion revolves specifically around AI generated art and the fact that it requires data to do anything. It’s just like you mentioned, you can’t draw something you’ve never seen. So, if it’s never been given imagery of a cat, it can’t generate one. The question is if it’s right to provide imagery of cats that’s copyrighted or without the consent of the original owners. And this decision lies in the humans collecting the data to train it, not the AI.
You can make the argument that it’s free to look at art now on the internet and use it for inspiration. But an AI wouldn’t process that art like a human would do, rather in a way that’s more mathematically efficient and beyond our understanding. And it’ll form an exact formula to create more pieces based on what it was trained on. Although these pieces would technically be new, the artist’s work was still used to train it. And I think the area becomes gray if the artist didn't consent to that.
It is possible to have models trained on open source and public domain data. However, the outputs aren’t so great since it’s only good as what it’s been trained on. It’s known that the quality of the training data does affect an AI’s output quality.
Yeah I think as long as the artist gave consent, it's fine and if anything, pretty cool. The conversation is definitely around data ownership, not the AI itself. However, that output from an AI model is the other gray area. We don’t know exactly what’s happening exactly during an AI’s training process. But we do know it's forming comparisons and relationships between lines, edges, etc. and representing it mathematically. Therefore, the output from an AI model will never be an exact replica to an existing artwork or the training data. It’ll be a result of what the AI believes it the most optimized based on what it was given. So, it’ll generate something similar to what it's seen before, but will not incorporate any of it directly in its output, although it might contain elements that resemble it (like watermarks).
Did you see what happened on the /r/art subreddit on reddit? A mod removed a persons art saying it looked AI.... The artist said he could show him the files it was made with... The mod suggested he find a different style..... I for 1 welcome our new AI overlords.
Yep! I heard about that. Crazy times we're living in!
Don't start with that shit. This is why internet is what it is, a free space for every one. Freedom comes with a price and this is why you should not ask any government for internet regulations.
The laws of the land are made to ensure that YOU and YOUR family members are not exploited. The government should make laws where necessary otherwise society, on or offline, falls apart. If you're scared of corrupt laws affecting everyone's fun on the internet, look no further than your nose; the masses are as corrupt as the law makers- maybe even more corrupt. Napster had no right to share peoples music through P2P sharing bullshit, yet the masses whose lives had been enhanced by music for years, supported Napster and clearly didn't give a shit about how it affected hard working and struggling musicians. That's quite a lot of ingratitude. This AI art issue is the same thing all over again; a combination of ignorant and greedy fans who think artists should slave for them, so they can enjoy free art.
Yeah I'm not sure everyone shares the same sentiment about the internet.
if an artist feels threatened by an algorithm, if they can't produce something better than what a machine can, they should probably quit being an artist. Also, these models are trained with billions of images, removing the data from artists who complain wouldn't even put a dent in it's ability to produce output. this discussion is pretty pointless.
I think there’s 2 points being said here. The issue brought up in the video doesn’t revolve around AI itself. It’s here to stay and will be something we’ll need to adapt to, regardless of how we feel or think about it. So it’s not about feeling “threatened” by AI. The main point revolves around generated art and data, which is curated by humans. Yes, AI models require an extensive amount of data to work, but if some of them weren’t sourced ethically, should they be included?
And yes, removing training data from those artists wouldn’t affect the generative model at all. Not because of the large volume of images but for 2 reasons. 1) The model would still produce something regardless of how small or large the dataset is and 2) Because the model has already been trained. I don’t want to be dismissive about it since data ownership and consent in any other context is pretty serious. But, I think it’s definitely polarizing because of the lack of knowledge and understanding around the technology.
The problem isn't how threatened certain artists feel, the issue is the exploitation of the entire art community.
The discussion isn't pointless. If I use your property without permission and the value of the property drops consequently, I need to make amends. I don't get to say "what's done is done, discussing is pointless."
@@kevandram Great video. Thanks for touching a number of important facts. This isn't about how hurt anybody's feelings are. It's about fair use vs copyright theft.
@@kevandram It seems to be "here to stay", but you never know, it wouldn't be the first time technological progress gets hampered by stuff like these.
Don't get me wrong, the video raised quite a lot of important points, it's just that I can't help rolling my eyes at copyright topics in general since I think those are invalid points. I don't think that's what ethics are supposed to be based on. Everything we create is built on top of something else, so allowing people to copyright anything makes no sense to me.
I think the quicker we dismiss these points, the better.
@@edumazieri I think this response is a bit misguided. AI has already been in use for many years in the form of machine learning. It's what streaming services use for recommendations, social networks use for targeting demographics, computer vision, etc. Your argument on "technological progress getting hampered" by "stuff" is irrelevant because it's already being implemented. For some reason, people think AI only came into existence with generation which is the most controversial form of it right now. The rest of your points are your own ideals which I'm not going to argue. Data ownership/consent is something we already have strict fundamental laws on and for AI training, specifically with the intent to generate, I don't see why those don't apply.