It's wild how AI fanboys insist that their algorithm machine is capable of understanding, and thinks like a real human brain... And they were NFTbros not that long ago. They're just admitting that they're dumber than the bots, if not bots themselves. Pity your prediction is accurate. I have but one "like" to give, and condolences, commiseration, and sympathy.
I'm not an AI bro by any means, in fact, as an artist, it kinda fucking terrifies me and I'm not sure I've even fully quantified why. But I keep seeing this assertion that AI can't and won't ever be able to replicate human creativity, and that baffles me. If it couldn't, we'd have nothing to worry about. But the thing about us is, we're really not that special, or interesting. Brains are just organic machines tied together by algorithms, and pretty predictable ones at that. This idea that we are somehow special, and that our levels of awareness can never be replicated is insane. We are not special. You are not special. I am not special. That's the part to worry about. We were given this perfect idea of individuality and uniqueness as children and it shaped so much our our perception of humanity, but it's just wrong. Animal species keep finding new ways to surprise us with how self aware they are and how many of our patterns we can find in them. If we want to get ahead of this whole thing and set the important boundaries before shit goes down, we need to approach the argument as it is. If we keep lying to ourselves about us being way more unique than we actually are, we're gonna mysticism our way into ignoring the problem until it's already out of control, and then even the smart people who SHOULD have known better will be going, "How didn't we see this coming?!" If we WERE unique in the way we think we are, marketing wouldn't have the stranglehold on us that it currently does. Evidently, we're pretty fucking predictable, and the idea that a machine exclusively designed to recognise and replicate patterns won't be able to take advantage of that is, quite frankly, stupid. For pete's sake, we've been learning for the last decade that your gut bacteria has more of a say on your personality than your actual brain does, how the fuck are we individualistic again? The only reason art speaks to us in the first place is because of how we relate to eachother, THAT'S what matters here. The day deep learning (which is what we're actually talking about here) is able to roam completely free over art with no restriction is the day art as we know it ceases to mean anything, because then the artist won't exist. If we want ANY control over that at all, we have to acknowledge that art is special because we are not.
@@themindfulmoron3790 it’s pretty self explanatory, especially after just watching this short: ai can’t make art without first learning from art. The type of art ai is limited to creating is based on the human created art that it was fed. I’m not sure why you think it’s stupid to understand that they can’t just create something from nothing.
@@DannyboyO1Do you actually understand what stealing means? Because that is not stealing. Then you should be accused of stealing for everything you created just because you had to be inspired from something already existing
Adobe's AI is trained off of their (roughly 200 million) licensed stock images. I think they're the only major company I know that has fully paid for their training data.
This is mostly because the legal system has not yet gotten around to figuring out whether Thor's take is the correct take. If Thor is right, then the other models will mostly disappear from commercial use. Probably it won't be worth going after every random copy of Stable Diffusion floating around, but in theory they might be considered illegal to possess. If Thor is wrong (in a legal sense, not an ethical sense), then Adobe's product likely fades into the background once the litigation is over, because it will be difficult to offer at a competitive price point. Reasons Thor could be (legally) wrong: * Training might be fair use. * If the final output image is not substantially similar to any of the training data, then it probably does not infringe on any of the training data. If that happens often enough, with a large enough set of possible prompts, the AI may be ruled to have "substantial non-infringing uses" and be allowed, as the Betamax (similar to VHS) was. * Usually, when you sue someone for making a derivative work, you claim that they copied from a single work, or a small number of works. It is unprecedented to claim that somebody created a derivative work of billions of images at once, and it is not obvious that the legal system is even prepared to evaluate a claim like that in the first place. The normal test is to look at the original and the allegedly infringing work side-by-side, but you can't do that with billions of alleged originals. If this cannot be litigated as a class action, then it may be impractical to litigate at all. No comment on ethics, that's hard to figure out when the legalities are still up in the air.
Yeah, legally the problem with Thor's take (which I think is excellent ethically) is that the copyright system up to now has exclusively focused on the publication side of the issue, not the consumption side. The law itself only says you cannot PUBLISH works that you don't have rights to. For example, despite the scary FBI warning at the beginning of movies, nobody has ever been fined or faced prison for downloading a pirated movie and watching it. What has happened is people have been fined, faced prison time, and been successfully sued for millions of dollars for DISTRIBUTING pirated software, via bittorrent seeding or now defunct services that let you P2P share files like Kazaa and Limewire and Napster. Now you may say "but they are distributing the art". No, they are not. AI art is about as transformative as you can possibly get. It's basically like an artist making up new art based on their experience. I don't see how the AI companies could possibly lose a fair use argument. IMO the artists barely have standing to bring a case. I think Thor's position is an excellent solution to the AI art problem, I'm just not sure it's legally necessary. It would be smart for these companies to enact it though, because it would likely prevent the legal battles that are sure to come over the next few decades.
@@NYKevin100using art for training data is very likely protected as transformative use we already have laws for this we dont rly need a extra legislature for AI
Except he's wrong. There won't be "licensing" because there can't be. Web Comic Artist Sarah Andersen already tried to sue because her art "might" have been used to train and she could get something that looked like her work when she asked the tool to make something that looked like her work, but the judge threw it out, as they should have.
@@tf5pZ9H5vcAdBp100% this. The training data is on the scale of millions of pieces of art that is turned into a latent space, together with all the other art. It's impossible (or let's say highly improbable I.e. there's an infinitesimal chance) to generate even a single one of the original art pieces used to train the network. Something that uses very small pieces of millions of pieces of art is not subject to licensing fees. It's fair use, as it should be. I can look at a Picasso painting and create my own that has a similar style and theme, and is heavily inspired by it. It's still neither a derivative of the original art, nor is it in any form copyright or IP infringement.
@@tf5pZ9H5vcAdBp You haven't actually explained anything here. You say there can't be licensing because one case didn't prevail? that doesn't mean you can't implement licensing. They key is what makes up the training data. What he's saying is you find that out, and if you're part of it as an artist, you're entitled to payment for the license to use it. Just because right now, these companies don't keep track of what they're training the AI on, doesn't mean they can't. And just because one case fails because they can't prove said AI was trained on their work, doesn't mean when companies are asked to keep track of training data, you cannot then prove your work was used in it. Pass a law that says AI generative companies must document their training data and suddenly licensing is very real.
@@tf5pZ9H5vcAdBp he just said that if the artist was paid by the license then it is fine, but he didn't say anything about how it is implemented or the legalities of it, to me it sounds more like his opinion on how it should be for it to be morally acceptable.
No, Thor is absolutely right. This is basic economics. If you pay for the flour to make your bakery goods for you to sell, it's all fine because you paid the person who grew the wheat. If you stole it all to make your bakery goods and you profit off that, then that indeed is a problem.
I don't know if you've kept up but unfortunately this isn't the case for all models of art AI. Unfortunately this problem won't start eating at it's own tail and corrupt itself into being unviable.
it gets even harder when you get into the artist tags that can be used on stable diffusion. there is a set of tags that lets you use "by_artist", to make your generated work look like that of a specific artist. You can also take those tags and mix&match them to make a "new" style, which winds up being a combo of 2 or more artists. i've seen some pics that have 7 or 8 different artist names, all at once (by_artist1, by_artist2, by_artist3, by_artist4).
@bigboyepic8598 Damn that's surprising, with all the different remixes out there, especially edm, I'm surprised they all pay for licensing. Maybe it's not as expensive as I'm thinking though.
another thing: AI art will never have copyright for a couple of reasons. 1) already established conventions that non human produced works dont have copyright. 2) if they did have copyright, you'd legalise copyright farms. Wave after wave of bots. Bots to make prompts with slight variations. Bot to make art from the prompt. Bot that then scrapes the internet for images. Bot that compares the scraped images with its database. Bot that then writes a copyright violation notice. If you thought youtube copyright content ID was bad, imagine how much worse itll get
@@user-lh7mt7zo7l reffering to the utter abuse of copyright nowadays did you know it was originally around 20-30 years.. we will never own the works we saw as kids in our lifetime. people will just keep abusing it.
@@_Tzer It'd be cool if copyright was 30 years again because you'd actually live to see original IPs go into the public domain and see what the public can do with it.
personally I think it's wrong to even call it art, they are AI generated images. The entire point of art is that it communicates something, and conflating that with slop that cant even recreate the most basic methodology actively hurts our ability to communicate and understand eachother
Thank you, Thor. As an artist, it really warms me that you're teaching these stuffs to everyone. This is exactly what us artists meant when AI art is considered stealing.
Hey man, I'm also an artist who started drawing on paper a year ago and I dream to one day being able to become a professional digital artist in maybe 4-5-whatever it takes years. Do you think I'll be able to do so considering ai art? This is something that worries me a lot
My question is. The training data basically uses as much or all that is online, so how does a licensing process work when accounting for all that without exorbitant prices? Like is there a flat licensing that goes to the ai company and is divided up so that the training data comprising of 10 percent one art style which consists of 30 unique artists, does that mean of the total cost each artist gets a 1/30th of 1/10th?
The only issue I see is that Disney will use old art for training but those artists signed contracts without the concept of AI art even existing, so they likely would've asked for more money for the license
True but that creates a grey area. Is Disney morally held to not use the art because back when the deal was signed the idea of AI was science fiction and not reality? Or are they free to use it because they were given permission to by the artist at the time? Why should they not be able to use an art they paid for? Edit: another analogy would be owning an antique, I sell you an old watch thinking it isn't worth much, I hand it to you for say £300. You are then able to auction it off for £30,000, are you obligated to give me more money? Even though I happily sold you that watch for less than it was worth because I was ignorant of it's true value? Hindsight is 20/20, you can't hold anyone to the standard of "well if they had that same offer today" because by that logic no deal or contract could be valid after the day or even moment that it was signed.
Buddy, the data set of AI is in the billions, a single group of artists aren't being singled out, that's not how AI works on the level you all want to fix this at. Most of the cases have come from individuals using the tools with additional layers of training on specific artists, that's not the fault of the tool used, but the person who used it in that way
You could say the same about anything else related to AI. Ask GPT how to do something like change your oil, and it'll tell you. Do the mechanics that it learned from deserve compensation?
@@ch4z_bucks i have an idea for a solution, but effective it would prove i have no clue. it's a simple one though, if an artists works are to be used as training data for commercial AI works, then the licensing agreement would need to be renegotiated to a price that the artist agrees is fair (or if they've passed, then negotiate with their family). i think the main problem i might see with that solution would be if a late artists family gets greedy and asks for a ridiculous amount, or if they get selfish and deny the use of the works as a whole. imho though, the chance of that personal greed being the problem is much better than the chance of it being corporate greed
PS: just check the effect of AI in the videogame space. Not a big problem for indipendent indie studios, even a blessing for them as could allow them to compete with big studios. But for big studios.... cut people or be cut of of market. We see the effect in the layoff
Tbh, AI art generation isn’t that bad, it’s *COMMERCIAL* AI art (e.g. used for advertisements and thumbnails) that is the issue. Which is why I prefer the status quo (ai generated art not being able to be copyrighted)
Honestly that’s the NUMBER ONE issue I have with Ai Art, most if not all of them don’t even pay or ask artists permission to use their works to create these ai things.
@shrekkek9396 that's the problem though. It's not inspired. It rips bits and pieces out and changes them up, which is far and away different from making it from scratch.
for those who don't know, there are different AI systems: - midjourney: charges money for their service and did not ask for permission/payed artists - adobe firefly: used their own stockimage library - stable diffusion: is open source/free and did not compensate artists - DALL-E 3: is free to use on Bing and designed to block living artist names in the prompt. It also offers an opt out for creators for future models
@@Storse Why? Every piece of art was influence by artists that came before. If Blizzard can make Warcraft without having to get permission from Gamesworkshop to copy paste Warhammer, then this ship has long since sailed.
@@Storse I agree that it should have been opt in. It could have been great. Imagine a site where they would then showcase everyone who opted in kinda like a CC licence attribution where they have to credit everyone involved. And I will always think that artists could have benefited from this by training their own official styles loras and selling/licensing them.
Stable diffusion is just the AI software itself without any training data at all. You have to train your own model and feed it to the program. I'm sure some online services don't care but whether or not a training model is ethically sourced is entirely up to the individual.
@@XT873 too many people don't understand this. I love the idea of using LLMs for example, but first I am going to figure out how to train them on my own data for specific use cases rather than steal something from online to take the shortcut of someone else's hard work. AI isn't bad, people using this tool in a bad way are bad.
I personally think copyright law should be renewed because of AI. An AI sees art, it tries to replicate the style using the training data. For human artists, we get inspired by art by visiting museums, learning art on textbooks, or nowadays, on websites. They are intrinsically the same. If we have a black box office, one side takes art and another side outputs art, does it violate copyright laws if we don't know if an AI or a human is in the room? I think unless an AI regurgitates its training data, akin to a human replicating another's art piece and claiming those are original, AI art does not infringe on copyright.
Exactly, 100% this. The idea that an AI creating a distinct work is somehow theft makes not sense. If they are literally just reproducing the same work, then I could agree, but that's not what's happening. Personally I think people are just mad because they want to gatekeep art. They don't want us mere peasants able to bring our imaginations to life without paying them 5,000 dollars per pixel.
Hbomberguy summarized this the best when he said AI makes art by complicated stealing, because they NEVER pay the original artists for the training material.
@@esdrot1375Have you actually searched in-depth for a source relating to this issue? If you really care about the moral implications you should probably do some digging by yourself. Asking someone or *something* else to do tasks that require *human thought* can produce *poor results* and is generally *not a sustainable method of completing abstract tasks otherwise done by humans* , like the management and critical analysis of information or *art* . There’s a point here somewhere.
Many are claiming it's fair use and whether you agree with that morally or not, they might be right on the letter of the law. You're probably going to have to change the law if you want to go after these people, but you're going to have to be very, very careful about how to structure that new law to not completely remove the concept of fair use entirely. That can have seriously bad implications and unintended consequences.
Yeah did they license the Mona Lisa? No but they definitely have made imitations of it that I’ve seen. Or would they be able to just have people make rough copies essentially with small differences and train with that?
Its also clear to see that ai art is starting to eat itself. Theres so many ai art generators that keep making the same mistakes, the same angles and shots and the patternn recognition kicks in and its painful to see. As i tend to say Art is only appreciated by Artist but to earn money it must be sold to the crowd that dont respect it
The very big problem is, the ones doing the unethical thing makes money, and this money doesn't need to come from the crowd. You (the AI dev) just need to sell them to very rich people, these people often tend to invest on new tech stuff because "its the future" and it has the possibility of exploding in popularity, and this is exactly what the most famous AIs are adverteised as.
Tbh I would be fine with a system where artists could voluntatily submit a peice of work, with the authority to redact it within a few months. If they could negotiate prices on their own terms and retain rights over their work, then it would be a more fair system
@mcbean1 the artwork is still data going into the system, each peice can be tagged and accredited to an individual artist. For as long as the system is drawing inspiration from their work and the data spawned from it, the artist should be compensated
@@Danno-95 But that's the thing, AI art doesn't keep a copy of the art, it legitimately learns what the art comprises of (like humans) and replicates that. For example to draw a smiley face the AI art learns that you need 2 dots and a curved line, that all, you can now have your original smiley face art back because the AI program has learnt (like a human) how to replicate that without the original anymore
I 100% agree with this sentiment as an artist. If we WERE paid for the use of our “training data”, then everything would be fine (there would still be a debate about how dystopian the art scene could be), but at least artists would still have a job and be able to work. Unfortunately, it’s incredibly difficult to enforce this system, quadruply difficult to enforce this system AFTER everything that’s already happened and how much the technology has progressed.
Here is the question though - What do you think would be fair price for use of your training data? Because its rather unique situation. Your art will not be showed anywhere by the person who buys them for training purposes, your pictures will not be replicated, only dismantled into algorithm. So I would find it unfair if the price for such use of your art would be the same as lets say some magazine buying it to use in their product. But I have no idea what would be fair price. Especialy if some of the largest models are using dozens of thousands of pictures. Also the moment this would happen, where AI would be using only works that were paid for, it would once more screw with the "who owns copyright for AI Art". Right now it more or less came into answer of "no one, since AI is doing whatever it wants" but if AI is not learning from pictures, but only using them to such degree that it can not be fair use, that it is not just "inspiration", that it must be paid for license, that would mean that AI art produced from such model would be owned by someone no?
@@ChronicSkooma For viewing? Sure! For using in your own product? Not if you don't have the license to! The thing with NFTs was that in most situations, people were paying moronic prices for what was essentially a receipt. Sometimes, purchasing the NFT didn't even give you a license for the art. This is a different situation.
Is your argument that users of AI art should have to contribute to the art used in the training data? Or that users of the AI should have to pay for the art used in the AI's training data? If either, I tend to disagree. The consumer of the AI shouldnt need that type of knowledge to use the AI. I feel it is incumbent on the creators of the AI to pay anyone whose content is used for training data.
@@jayhammond6047 That last sentence is the true W here, the ML generator owners and creators owe it to any content they use to train their data to credit and disclose their sources, or it is indistinguishable from theft.
@@ChronicSkooma This analogy falls apart the moment you think for more than a single moment. People who bought NFTs, didnt buy images, they bought receipt papers, with a transaction of the image written on them. Its the same as if I buy a loaf of bread, then i sell the receipt to someone. They now own the written paper, But i still own the loaf of bread. That is how NFTs work. the NFT Owners never owned the images, They owned the written paper with the transaction history.
This is like saying that if a painter paints a building, the painter should pay the owners of buildings because "buildings should exist to make the paintings of them"
Tbf, no human can compete against AI when it's about concept art. All they can do is learn to use it better than other people. It can produce concept arts 100s of times faster than humans, and since it's "just concept art" it means that the usual ai imperfections that would take time to fix are not important. Plus, some companies, to avoid this legal issue, actually do it well and only use art they own. I know my father works at Ubisoft, and they have at their disposition an ai art generator that was trained using art from Ubisoft (like previous concept arts) or that they own. There's a lot to consider here, though it will always be sad to see people lose their job
@@dimfre4kske67if the schlop is decent enough to meet minimum viable product requirements and cheaper than their professor then yes absolutely they would. Yall act like businesses make rational, long term decisions when all businesses do is look at what would make more money by the end of the current hour
@@nya_akitsuI think thats the case now, but as for anything that is new, and has nothing within the confinment of law. They will create a law to help the people bitching and moaning about it.
The issue is that until laws are made to actually make stealing artwork for training illegal, companies will ALWAYS take the cheapest option. It’s also why AI for things like voice acting and writing is so concerning as well. Data is stolen and then sold while pushing the human creators out.
There is also the issue that there are uses of AI trained on art. It could be used for generation, but also classification (recognizing art style etc), creating image descriptions, reverse image search. In all of these cases the images are used to update model weights so technically it's not much different from collecting statistical data about images. It's difficult to create a law that balances artists interests and technology advancement opportunity
This has been my take from day one. I work as a freelance concept artist. Its an industry where you adapt to new tools or you fall behind and other people step in to take your opportunities. The problem isn't Ai as a tool it's the fact that people are stealing reference/training data without permission.
I don't disagree with your opinions, but current copyright laws do not adequately protect such use of artistic works. I recommend petitioning lawmakers to change copyright laws if it is important to you and your livelihood.
Except the images aren't being stored by the AI. The AI is looking at the image, adding more and more noise and taking it down to just noise, then learning how to go from the noise back to the original art. When someone goes to make an image, the AI starts with images of random noise. It then combines that noise based on it's learning, into what the person asked for. The art is never stored by the AI. The art was never stolen, it's no different than a college art professor showing a class of people art from an artist and having them draw something similar. And many of the AIs learned by using images posted to websites that included in the Terms of Service a provision that allowed those images to be used by the host. Facebook, Instagram, etc all have these clauses. So most of these artists agreed to have their art used for AI training, they just didn't bother to read the terms of service or understand what it was being used for.
@@Jaradis Even if it's true that the images aren't "stored" by the AI, the fact remains that the art is being used to train said AI. If that leads to commercial works being produced by that AI, then that artist's art is still "being used", which means doing so without the artist's consent is by definition "using their art without consent" - i.e. art theft. The problem isn't even necessarily that art IS being stolen, it's just that laws are not catching up to technological advancements fast enough, which means a lot of artists are at risk of having their art used without consent to train direct competition with their business. If every single image used to train an AI was obtained with consent, there's no moral issue. The problem is you can't enforce that very well, which leads to abuse. AI itself isn't the problem. It's the lack of regulation.
@@jallybwan3767you should be more concerned about the websites and companies licensing the images out more than the AI, in reality most of the training comes from second parties licensing, mainly stock photos
The problem is that it's practically impossible to ensure all the terrabytes of images used to train are actually licensed. And while not legally applicable, I think that Art that is publicly available in places like Twitter, DeviantArt, etc. should only be used if you have received permission to do so, which NONE of the companies have for all the stuff they used.
Part of why those people don’t fully get that is because art when humans make it is considered subjective and original. When a person creates a work of art, it was generated by their mind, but similar to with an AI’s generation the inspiration had to come from somewhere. Everything from the art style to the content of the artwork could have been inspired by someone else’s previous work to some degree, but when a human does it they don’t need to license the sources of inspiration, especially because it’s difficult to say exactly what inspired it and impossible to prove one way or the other. The fact that human creativity doesn’t require licensing out “training data” may be why this concept can be hard for some people to understand. The only real difference is that the AI art is done by a computer, which we (as a species, maybe not the average person) are able to understand how it generates the images. We are able to directly trace the inspiration for the new work to direct reference from the original work, and because of that we need to give credit to the original piece of art.
You forget the fact that it wasn't created from nothing but it was created replicating others art to train the artists hand and taste and after that taking inspiration from others art. That is exactly what the AI is doing but somehow is not fair because it is not human doing it and it could do it much faster than a human.
@@anthonycannet1305 That is actually not true. Most AI art produced would be impossible to trace back it's inspirations. Unless you count pointing at a database of 5B images as tracing it's inspiration. Even in human art, if we trace back the inspiration, a license is never expected unless the work is considered infringement.
ai art wouldn't be that big of a deal if a) like you said the art wasn't stolen for the training data, and b) certain people stopped trying to push it as a way to replace artists and cut costs
Basically Stealing art and selling it=bad Borrowing art and allowing others to have fun with it for free=acceptable Buying art and selling art made from existing bought art=acceptable
fun fact, Facebook is literally using everyones photos they post and facebook doesnt have to pay a cent for their AI to create art from your photos lol
@@ZombieLincoln666yes, that’s all these platforms but for some reason people act as if the AI itself is the one responsible and not the companies licensing out or using their own consumer base for such a thing
@@doctorgrubious7725 you're using them as a free image hosting storage service and you expect them to do that out of the goodness of their hearts? you oh sweet summer child nothing is free.
@grubious7725 not all, multiple PAID platforms are allowing the use their data, like in adobe, you upload your images to sell to other users but you still own the image, people are using ai to take images from that repository, change it with ai and reupload the image with the name of the original artist and sell it, and adobe isnt doing nothing, because they are making more money out of their creators being stolen
this is basically my opinion, excluding the other half which is that AI cannot produce "art", no matter how involved the prompt, and it's simply due to the process at which the images are made.
I only partially agree. If I was an artist and I was told my work was going to be used for something that would prevent me from getting more work, I would have written the license differently.
If I, as an artist, go to an art museum and view other works of art that I do not own a license for, then go create new art that is inspired and influenced by what I have seen, is that not very nearly the same thing?
Would you say, that creative process is just mix-matching what you experienced before? I think, that there is a also a value in the process, creativity and personality of the author.
Not really, you have your own inherent bias and skills. There's a translation layer. And you interpolate. The outcome is never 1:1, unless you commit to tracing art.
The AI is not reproducing anything 1:1 either. If you look back at art history, you can see that it builds off of itself. Some artists had innovations, but most just react to what they see other artists doing. It *is* different with AI, but I think that it is a complex problem to solve morally and legally. I don’t think you can just say that licenses are required retroactively. The AI is not copying anything outright. It is just using them to create a mathematical prediction of what a user would expect based on a prompt. It’s very close to what happens in a real brain if I were to go to an artist and commission a painting with the same prompt. If I said, “I want an abstract painting using the colors green and black in the style of Jackson Pollock and Mondrian”, then an artist creates something original, how is that any different?
It’s very different though. Sampling is a problem because the recordings themselves were being used, and that infringes on copyright. There is no law against recreating images for personal training use. This is actually a method artists use to learn how to make art. The only issue is AI is incredibly good at reproducing the piece of art. And they can do it for vast amounts of images, in short spaces of time. But the original image is not being used in any way, it’s just being reproduced by the AI, which is perfectly legal.
@@TheMAU5SoundsLikThis Oh, you misunderstand. I'm just comparing them in a way to say that they both use pre-existing media to make new media. While I do prefer to support artists, I regularly use AI image generators. I'd also agree with the idea that the AI "learns" to draw in ways very similar to how humans learn to draw. Artists just don't want to admit that they don't need another artist's permission to recreate their art and alter it into something new. Most of them also don't care about things being illegal, like using a pre-existing IP to "inspire" their own art while not asking or paying the IP holder to use it. Fanart in most cases is technically illegal. Jobs have been slowly getting replaced by machines and AI for quite a while now, but artists haven't cared up until it started to affect them. Notably, as someone who uses AI image generators quite a lot, I wouldn't say they are really that good at making something specific, at least not yet, so I'd say they still have job security for the moment.
@@Maxwell_TwistSampling is done by a person with a vision. AI "learns" by constantly getting told how to interpret data and "creates" by getting told what to do with all that data that the programmers have taken. The only thing it does is approximate results to the data they've received, guided by humans every step of the way. Humans brains aren't just a black box that sees what already exists and mushes it together perfectly, we set our own rewards, we reason, we decide if we want to make art or not, we learn from our own data, we figure out how to do stuff. AI cannot even learn from AI without making worse results each time.
I have an artist friend that very specifically makes people agree not to feed their art into any AI database. Personal. Commercial. Anything they make they do not want an AI
This is the base model of AI art. The newer models are using larger learning branches that are fed more holistic data sets instead of being trained on artworks they can be trained on the components of artwork which obfuscates the IP arguments.
One thing that can be done I guess is to hook the AI up to a camera and place it in any setting then start streaming. Turn the video data into images then into training data which you feed into the AI. I wonder what kind of images it will generate if the AI is fed training data from these environments: zoo and polluted city.
This is what I mean by ethical A.I. use and creation yet many are against A.I. in any form and don't even care about licensed training. This has been building for decades and we have all helped to make it in one form or another. "Is this a bus" tests, spell checkers, predictive auto-fill, and more. Heck, decades ago we had primitive "photo mergers" that did similar with key points on 2 images to get a new image altogether.
Genuine question, how would you know if companies use your art in their training data without someone from the company saying they did? Same thing with licensed code on Git Hub. How would you know without being the ones who have access to that information?
Unfortunately you sort of can't, so far as I know as someone who studied neural networks (which generative AIs are). Even if you personally have access to see the AI's code, weights and structure, it's like trying to figure out if the number 3 was used in a sum that adds up to 10 billion. It's mathematically not a reversible function because an enormous number of inputs *could* have made the weights for the network, but only one set of inputs actually did. As for how we find out about specific cases, I have to imagine it's because someone found some information from the company either through someone with a big mouth or the company just not being careful enough. Personally, I'm against most common uses of generative AI, just in case my reply gave the opposite impression.
There *are* several "well, duh" ways. First of all, if the AI responds to your name as a prompt, and produces art in your style as a result, with any unique stylings you've taken on . . . it necessarily has to have been fed your art, and not only that, but in connection to your name. If you have any unique idioms, and those show up in *any* output of an AI, then there's . . . a chance . . . the AI was trained on your art. Idioms that more clearly show intent, and have not been copied by anyone else (yet), increase that chance. While true that it's non-zero, having a neural network randomly copy someone else's artstyle without any inputs related to it has "won the lottery" or "struck by lighting 7 times" type odds. If, with a fairly minimal prompt, you can get an AI to produce a close copy of your image, including details that AI is usually bad at, such as text, or small details in transition between textures, then the AI must have been fed that image. If anyone was honestly training generative AI, it would be very difficult to find examples of any of these, (esp. the first one), so they wouldn't be useful detection methods. Even if you were to train it on stolen art slyly, you wouldn't see many collisions. Instead, prompt jockeys generally kinda rely heavily on these things being true.
With how strict rights ownership rules are and how seriously they are taken I'm so surprised that companies using stolen data to train their models isn't in the legal spotlight right now
I think this is a really good way to look at AI art, but unfortunately the majority of people using AI to generate art- that is, laypeople or non-artists utilizing commercial systems like Davinci or DALL-E- Care more about the service they’re getting than they do about the ethical collection of training data. On top of that, the existence of AI art as it is now is poised to damage the market for traditional artists, especially in the freelance sector. Beyond that (and I think this is something that people are not thinking about yet) it’s going to result in an artistic environment that is almost entirely homogenous. We’re already starting to see it in how most generated art is similar to Disney or a small handful of artists who produce really clean, polished work. Imperfection and experimentation is going to wither because young artists are not going to see imperfection and experimentation glorified - only the smooth, polished results that the training data produces. I’m saying this is someone who teaches young professional artists (university level), and as a professional artist myself; I really think we’re going to see artistic exploration atrophy in the next five years, and then a counterculture wave of messy, grungy, humanistic work.
Makes sense. When the world becomes overrun with one form of art the counter naturally comes in and becomes something of a refresh. Take a look at superhero movies, DC had it's goofy comic book movie days in the 90s then after Nolan's batman trilogy succeeded so well it now has a darker grittier tone across most of its works. Marvel which for years has been pretty kid friendly, in my opinion led to the success of Deadpool and shows like the boys because people craved a more adult orientated superhero film/TV show. You get culture, then counterculture then the counter culture becomes the main and is eventually taken back by something else.
I don't think it'll be homogenous, but otherwise dead on. In the short term it's unlikely to produce new styles, just result in a flood of stuff mimicking established styles. But absolutely the generation after next will swing the other way. I'm even more concerned about video & film. People seem to think all you need are a bunch of scenes stitched together. And it isn't helped by the history of YT videos with narration over stock video & images. Like, how many people actually know about the 180 rule or J-cuts? We're going to have a flood of trash with no efficient way to sort through it save for other algorithms. And we're already producing faster than we can make server space for it all. I'm not looking forward to the next decade of democratized media (which isn't to say I preferred the old with corporate gate-kept model either).
Well people caring more about results than ethical ramifications has been around far longer than AI art We've been progressing faster with technology than our monkey brains are equipped or willing to handle the responsibility Honestly it might be nearing Filter time for humanity
it's an artistic renaissance that enables a dramatic increase in number of artists and you're just rationalizing your fear of being displaced by technology.
I actually think the opposite is true. With how homogenous AI art looks, I think anyone who can create actual art that doesn't mimic these homogenous artstyles will be highly sought after.
The only purpose of AI art is to automate the creative process. Whether or not it was trained on art unpaid for, to me, is irrelevant. All it tells corporations is that artists do not need to be hired, actually, and they can just use this “tool” to cut out the middleman.
I can't agree with you. It's the equivalent of saying, "drawing tablets should be illegal because it allows corporations to cut out the middle man (paper sellers)." The issue becomes less of one of fairness and more with the fact that you don't want to lose customers.
@@f.b.i6889 AI art generators and drawing tablets are wildly different. A tablet is a tool used by artists for the explicit purpose of creating their art from nothing to something. Their labor is fulfilled by actually making a drawing. A generator does NOT make anything, and is NOT an expression from a human. You did not make anything by clicking a button.
forest for the trees. Why do we care if a company cuts out the middleman? Its because they starve right? Why are they starving, why is it they have to starve or put their passion out for profit?
@@its_connor I'm not pro AI. But I think you missed the point: they argumented that paper sellers would be jobless because of drawing tablets usage, just as artists would be jobless because of AI usage. They both make a product and are being replaced by something. But this comparation isn't equivalent, since paper sellers make paper, and drawing tablets are made by drawing tablets sellers, they're both different products, even if they compete. Now AI is a product that generates subproducts for you, and artists are workers that makes a product for you. They aren't equivalent. Artists are losing job because of a product, not because other workers are making other stuff that compete like pencils & paper and digital pens & tablets.
The fun thing , at least in the EU, dunno how it looks in the US, is that ai generated pictures can't be copyrighted since this only applies to human-made stuff. Think it's the same with music.
If you post pictures online and people use them as a reference to draw new pictures, you do not have to pay the artist who's picture you saw, studied, or mimicked, in order to sell the art you created.
People get called out if they literly 'copy' something. Thats what Ai is doing, maybe on a larger scale, but I dont see what ai is doing as 'transformative'.
@@skihames1813 except that's literally NOT how AI art works. Not a single pixel is ever copied. Each peice of art is entirely new and unique. It does not copy and paste anything.
@@skihames1813 i think calling AI art NOT transformative is a VERY dangerous thing to say. 99.99% of the time, i definitely could not tell you if an image an AI generated is an exact copy of something, or is heavily copying something else in a very superficial way. what hallmarks are you going by to say that it isnt transformative? because if your definition is not specific enough, than 99% of all art on the internet could also end up being non-transformative as well, which is not good for anyone.
If a child observes different styles of art and learns to incorporate, recreate or mimic those styles into new artwork, do the same "copyright" laws apply? Imo they don't and AI is similar.
AI art is also at best consumerist slop that further cements our society as a technocracy. Plus, even if artists do get paid a license, the generators can then make an infinite amount of art based on that artist. It only becomes remotely fair if each artist is paid a royalty every time the generator is used.
Even if they start laws now to stop AI from taking artist's art, it's unenforceable. If it's illegal, AI art will just simply be another form of piracy, and piracy is still going strong today for all forms of media and it can't be stopped now.
The majority of AI art was trained on stuff that was scrapped by search engines and programs and now that they have that data those in control of the AI can mass produce art at such a large volume that normal artists are having trouble competing.
There's a few things to consider with this argument, first, in order to be out competed by AI, that means either you lack quality, or timeliness, if someone wants quality, they're either use AI to make a basic visual concept, just like 3d models, then hire an actual artist to make it look good. If the person wants it quickly, then that will either come at the cost of quality, or the artist will have to rush its completion, which usually loses quality anyway. So, in one case, AI was a tool that better explained what the person actually wanted without 50 different references, and the other was something that would've been needlessly expensive. That goes into the third point, if you want both speed and quality, by using AI for the base, then having an actual artist clean it up would be effective for both cases. Then there's one last thing that has to be said, some people, like me for instance, just prefer human art because there's a larger variation in styles. So unless I'm trying to make a reference using AI, I won't be using it at all, and I rarely save it, but what I do save, is almost always because it would make a good reference for a project I'd might want done when I can afford it.
@que56b AI art is able to potentially produce in three hours or less better quality and almost as close to what a human can for a fraction of the cost and for a fraction of the time invested. However you will absolutely receive a more customized and better overall experience and product from almost any human regardless of actually skill level. AIs have been able to outperform humans for years now in almost all cases however, it is a winning some things but loosing others. Actual production value doesn't mean that it will be the most popular or least expensive solution or even what the majority of people will use. I'll use operating systems as a perfect example of this and list them in the order from highest quality to lowest quality along side the average price last time I checked Linux 0.00, Orical 300.00, Orion 200.00, windows 25.00 to 500.00, Android 0.00, current Apple OS 150.00 to 15000.00, older Apple OS 150.00 to 300.00, Mac OS 25.00 to 150.00. Everything I just listed is in that list in order from most utility to least utility meaning most user capabilities to least. This list isn't exhaustive but it helps to illustrate how someone can easily think that because they paid for it or paid more for it than it's better but it also illustrates that sometimes paying for something is more likely because of it being ingrained or quicker than simply attempting to do it correctly or in the best way possible. I personally think that the maximum number of years before we have complete AI ART replacement of normal artists is ten years but we probably won't have more than five before it makes the majority of the human art nearly if not completely worthless or so impractical to pay for that Noone is going to be using it on a regular basis.
@@Selendeki Oh, I should've clarified which side I'm on :v AI won't ask for a living wage or insurance, so companies choose the garbage it spews over actual, human art. Those generated images will never have that spark of humanity that every artist adds to their work, and will never be considered true art
The fact that people in the comments are trying to humanize the Ai algorithm and saying its the same as a human creating art is just indicative of how little those people understand the process of creating art. Not a jab, but its scary how people just care about the ends rather than caring about the means. Shits grim
Not a jab, but a computer could make your art faster and cheaper. So yes, why would we care about the means if we get the same result more efficiently?
@@DG-kr8ptAnd factories in China can produce clothes faster and cheaper, but that doesn't make these clothes better than those made by people putting actual love into their craft, does it?
Why should "understanding how art is made" be a requirement when nobody on the hardline anti-AI front knows how neural networks function and still repeat the same "literal copy pasting" nonsense, almost akways including the "literal(ly)" as well?
@@ZenoDovahkiin Because, unlike AI generated images, writing, etc. the process of creating art is just as important- sometimes even more so- than the finished product.
Exactly that. Most art in the internet use a creative common licence. You are allowed to use the art pivately and show it to others. You are NOT allowed to change parts of the art to make new art. The AI does exactly that, it uses part of the art to create new art. Sometimes you don't know where the original arts end and another begings, but that does not change the fact, that you used such an original art and changed it. Sometimes the AI even makes 1:1 copies of said original art, which is proof that "training" violates that common creative licence. That licence also forbids you from making money with that art, which AI artists also often violate...
This is why a lot of models have licenses against using them for commercial purposes, and use invisible watermarks to identify the model used so that infringement of that license is easier to detect. It's not perfect, but we're in the Wild West here, there's time to figure this stuff out, and model developers are further on the side of protecting artists than a lot of people realize
absolutly agree, using ai to create comercial works without paying artist is bad, however using ai to create something that will be enjoyed by others for free is OK,
why? if it's free to look at then it's fine to use it as inspiration for original work. Copying and inspiration are completely different things. If an artist were to look at a piece of art then you think they should pay that artist every time they create any original work themselves after seeing that piece of art? Everything a person sees becomes part of their 'inspiration'.
Part of the problem is kinda this is viewed through the lens of drawing. Photography is an artform in and of itself, and people really don't seem to take issue with copyrighted photographs being used in sampling data. And photos have this wonderful problem these days of being used for deepfakes and easy bullying of people with shit like "revenge porn", even easier than photoshopping it yourself. Also people are leaning on AI tech to simplify work that absolutely should not be simplified. Strictly in terms of ethics, if the stuff is licensed or otherwise permitted to be sampled, I dont have much problem. I think the way the stuff is being *applied* though is just further evidence of the enshittification of the internet, media, and the world on the whole.
Agreed about application of the tools. IMO there's a difference between including a piece of artwork in a general training data set for something like stable diffusion vs using a technique that allows for copying styles directly.
@@hresvelgr7193 Ive seen some good and bad use of AI. Its useful for touchups, and has its uses in translating stuff like comics and manga which often require graphic edits for stuff that's on a strict deadline. It's useful for isolating tracks in music, something Ive seen many youtube creators use to make better videos for analysis. Not all use for AI in the world of art is bad. But its value is as a tool. A tool does not create, hands do. "Art" *generated* by tools is a buncha hogwash.
But people will still think it's okay to steal art because "it's on the internet, so now anyone can use it" Personally, if they wanted to license my art i would have to ask a gross amount of money because it's like giving away what makes your art yours
There's definitely a legality thing, but a lot of people that feel strongly about art and artists themselves feel there's also a moral lacking in how ai is being utilized and where it's being implemented. That can't be grounded in facts though, so people brush it under the rug. Do we really want a future where people are just pumping out prompts for a status quo to churn out the most bucks? It's already doing a ton of damage, and not just to the theoretical ideal of humanoty. It's doing real physical damage
I think it’s much more nuanced than that, unfortunately. The problem is that OpenAI buys image datasets from 3rd parties, which buy datasets from social media companies, which are legally allowed to sell anonymized user images for the use of training AI models. Part of Instagram’s Terms of Agreement is that they are allowed to package your uploads into a dataset that they can sell to others for this exact purpose. Copyright technically doesn’t apply here, the law says you can train on copyrighted material so long as the output is “transformative in nature”.
True, but they were allowed to steal artists works long before A.I. came into the picture. People who want to protect artists should be going after the companies with these abusive terms of service, not focusing on the A.I. part. You can't outlaw an entire concept and technology, but if we aim for better platforms and contracts we may actually accomplish something!
I think one of the biggest problems in the current discourse around AI art is that people think of "AI art" as some monolithic thing, when the reality is that there are multiple different approaches to AI artwork, and even for a given system there are completely different ways to use the AI.
@@oompalumpus699CEASE. and here is why "AI" currently is good at delivering solutions that "look" plausible. While being utterly completely WRONG. If you want collapsing buildings, this is how you get them. Keep. Them. Out. Of. Critical infrastructure and buildings. Please. For the love of everything holy. I know enough about ML and engineering. DON'T.
@@theaureliasys6362 How many subjects have you claimed expertise on so far? Aren't you just a regular super-polymath who just happens to spend a lot of time commenting.
100%- AI is a cool technology. When it first came out I honestly thought it could be a fun tool. I assumed the training data would be protected by copyright but it feels like its constantly being ignored. Like, 'Hey, look, we have this AI made thing! No human involvement' rather then 'We used this artists style, they are getting royalties'
Counterpoint: free use laws. The ai is by nature, transformative. This means that AI art programs don’t need to pay for a license. Additionally, art that inspires other artists is essentially training data for people. Imagine if you are inspired by an artist, you draw something, post it online, and cite the original artist as your inspiration, only for that artist to then copyright strike your art because you don’t have the license for their art.
Yeah, this guy clearly is not particularly informed about what has been deemed transformative by US courts in the past. AI training is far more transformative than Authors Guild v. Google. Google was sued for placing snippets of digitized books into search results, but the courts called is transformative. There is a less than 1% chance these courts will examine how AI is trained and rule it less transformative than that!
Every artist hones their craft. They practice. They study the human form... but they don't do that in a complete bubble. They study past works from great artists of the past as well as their peers. No art can be said to be a completely original idea or work. But that doesn't mean every piece of art produced - by man or machine - needs to pay tribute to those whose shoulders they are standing on every time they create something.
But when people build upon those foundations laid by earlier artists, they do pay tribute in a way by also contributing themselves into work. AI can't contribute itself, it has nothing original to add. All it can do is collate this data into a finished piece that resembles the sum of it's training data
@@Lowraith Sure. Show me an AI that can make art without any training data. Oh, I'm sorry, that doesn't exist? Then, pray tell, if an AI cannot generate without existing data, then how can they possibly add anything new or original?
@@SharpForceTrauma Shifting the Goal Post. I'll entertain your flawed argument. Name a modern artist who creates art without any training data (natural studies, studies of other artists' works, etc). Can't? That'd be a double-standard you've got. Finally, look up "emergent properties". To get back to the topic from this little tangent, though, you made an assertion that generated art cannot contribute something new to the field. Back up your assertion with supporting evidence. "No YOU prove that I'm NOT wrong" is not a valid response.
@@Lowraith Yes. All modern artists build upon foundations and fundamentals created by prior artists. But even in doing so, they will *always* add something unique, in their style or technique, or limitations posed by their skill level or certain fundamentals they have not fully mastered. Otherwise, they would simply be tracing and plagiarizing. An AI cannot hope to achieve this. It will always print a "perfect" combination of all of it's data. There is no human element. It is simply recycling.
@pwn3dg4m3r right. Because those artists worked to create something by their own hands that is different from the inspiration. AI is not "inspired" by art. It is fed art and then trained to mimic it as closely as possible. If you think you've created something after typing in a prompt, you haven't. You've stolen and profited from the work of others without putting in any effort yourself.
@darbywalker1 that's exactly what art students are taught to do, learn from past artist and create new art from those teachings. It shows how little you know about AI, AI does not recreate, it use what it was taught to create something new in the vein of what it has learned. Sorry AI is going to take your job and make you useless but that's your fault 😆 🤣 😂 😹. Bye bye useless person.
@@pwn3dg4m3rAI does not “learn” it works within set parameters and outputs an amalgamation of what its parameters consider “art”. Humans apply their own styles, emotions, experiences and worldviews into their art. Learning the basics by studying others is not the same as feeding data into a program that is incapable of deeper intuition or application of its own style. Humans are not machines, learning is more than just gorging on data.
It's crazy how people don't understand that by this logic any artist who has ever taken any inspiration from another artwork is "stealing". In order to use this logic you must apply different rules to humans and computers, which I think is quite stupid. We shouldn't be using convoluted protectionism to pretend humans still have value in fields where they're clearly surpassed by AI, instead we should let AI work for us. And finally this is inevitable, even if your government tries to keep AI down by creating laws like this, nothing is stopping other countries from using AI to do exactly the same thing, meaning you're just putting your country at a massive disadvantage
@lgr7193 New technology that wouldn't exist without the artists and only exist to exclude the artist from the revenue stream. Stop coping, that's all this is. Build a machine that can actually draw like a person, rather than one that steals more efficiently than any person could, how about that?
Only other problem I see with it is that it has no limitations on how much it can produce. It can make 100s of artwork in a day which means any "commission" pieces would be extremely cheap and could completely destroy any art market/economics etc... also the artists should be paid some percentage of commission even after a license is purchased
Artists can set up their own AI and use their own work as training data and produce new commissions this way. There is nothing being taken away from artists by giving them new tools.
It would depend on the prices youre paying for the licencing. Everytime you make and sell a new piece you have to pay percentage. And let me tell you taking into account how much training data you need for anything usable you wont have the money to do 100s of comissions and be comercially viable for your own upkeep. Especially if they drop in price and then it just reverts back to normal artist comissions
Then be a better artist. With time we have abandoned old methods and tools, industries have widened and tightened in an endless cycle. If you aren’t willing to use these new tools and develop new techniques to elevate yourself, or are simply unable to compete with the evolving market, that’s your problem because the world moves on whether you eat today or starve tomorrow. Just the way it is. Adapt or die.
@@Zadamanim This would never work. And would utterly defeat the point of then being an artist. Your popularity would also tank because as we've all seen, AI art visually doesnt look as good as real art. Real artists have a constantly developing art style which youre never gonns replicate in AI
Artist: posts on twitter Twitter: sells its content for ai use to Microsoft Ai gets its pictures Artist doesnt get anything since twitter can just say hey by posting here you consent
The problem is that adobe is now actively acquiring a license on your work that you cannot reject. If it is made on their hardware (ie creative cloud online) they obtain a license for training.
There is no stealing from the artists. In copyright, stealing is making and selling a copy (or almost a copy) of a creative work. Making a model is not producing a copy or almost a copy of a creative work. If that model produces almost a copy and it is sold - you must pay, it is your duty to ensure that whatever you draw with whatever tool doesn't break someone's copyright. Tool has nothing to do with it.
For people that don't understand. Take Midjourney for example, no licenses have been brought forward by them since their lists got leaked and they have stolen from people who's work would still be covered by their trade mark even though they are dead as it still is not in the public domain now Say how Mickey mouse just became public domain and both Walt Disney and Ub Iwerks have been dead since 1966 and 1971. AI generative company could put him in their with no license from Disney directly.
@@apollo4294 I understand there's a different element because of using basically unauthorized training sets but you can look up what people were saying its super similar. People were like artists out of work and people are just going to take pictures of other people's work and pass it as their own.
What you are describing is "plagiarism," not theft That's the problem with this whole AI-art debacle because folks aren't stealing, but *some* folks *might* be plagiarising Theft and plagiarism has to be treated differently because you have to deal with them differently, especially when it is a question of whether one even can plagiarise artworks
when artist create art, most of the time he looking at many references in process, watching commercial and any other type of art and then create his "unique" art. Is he stealing? is this a problem? no and no. this is how it works. And surprise - AI do exact same thing. but somehow people saying it's different.
Ai is a program. It would be like including a trademarked image in a painting (copying the file itself into the work) rather than making a picture legally distinct using your own skill and imagination
Legally difficult. You could argue any artist could look at art for training. If someone learns to paint like a certain painter and sells his own art in their style it’s just training material.
The problem with this is (imo), Big companies that alredy own a lot of Licenses can train their ai for free, where a small company wil have to secure a a lot of those licences an other way. That means mega corps, like Disney, can make extremely wel trained ai that can out compeat any other ai trade by individuals/small companys.
The thing is, people are using AI art specifically to skip out on paying artists. They have no respect for artists and will do anything to avoid paying them.
This is a point I wish Id see more. Less a point and more a fact. All the people who scream "AI good free art" are all the people who share the AI art around as if they "created" it and get upset when called out for it. Fact of the matter is you just dont wanna pay artist what they deserve, end of story
@@JuliaStrydom-eg7lh I mean honestly yeah, if I can get a product created to my satisfaction for free instead of it costing me money then I'd prefer to do it. Luckily AI art can't really capture what makes art feel HUMAN yet, but if it ever can then artists might be in a really shit position.
@@caleb163 Respectfully, I dont think its a good view to have. While I respect your opinion, it just doesnt make a lot of sense to *not* pay an artist to do something for you, that you yourself cannot. Its in the same light as paying a plumber to come work on your pipes because you cant. Difference is the plumber doesnt have an AI threatening their livelihood. And I for one hope AI never gets to the point of where its indistinguishable. Artists are already screwed enough as it is, but once AI gets even better, I feel artists are just going to quit all together since theres no point anymore
@@JuliaStrydom-eg7lhtbh Caleb has the right idea and that’s the direction the world is going, whether you like it or not morals and ethics don’t move dollars. They can influence them to a degree but the want of the consumer will always win. So what do we do? Well we don’t try to stop it, that’s pointless and it will stampede over you. But you can guide it and make common sense legislation and business practices to use it safely and as ethically as possible.
That’s the nature of convenience, people throw out ethical considerations in order to use the more simple/convenient/inexpensive alternative (especially in cases like this where it’s not easy to see the harm it causes if you aren’t directly impacted by it), the best we can do is demand ethically sourced data and for AI art to be labeled as such when used or sold so that it doesn’t pollute the marketplace for human art, I don’t think AI art (or even AI in general) is inherently bad, but like all advancements it will have and is having a multitude of positive and negative consequences (intentional or otherwise) and we should try to mitigate those negative consequences as much as possible
@@mearthhito it would be bad. It’s just from a business standpoint paying several times the amount of money for AI art than regular art makes no sense. I’m not defending the mentality. I’m just explaining it.
@@frenchfriedbagel7035 That should be part of their business calculus. If paying the artists whose work went into the "AI" is prohibitively expensive, then hire a human artist instead.
Biggest thing about ai art is how it affects artists. Simply because that art they get for free they could get from either pre made art from artists, which you either pay for or is free. If it is free atleast that artists work is shared and appreciated. If the art is requested and paid for or gifted by the artist. That is still shared passion and profit for the artist. Most ai are trained on free art online. Thats why they usually get hands wrong because most hand drawing tutorials are owned or licenced.
we have never had a “correct” or rather “fair” way of compensating artists at scale. It’s all just a hodgepodge of glued together laws and blended into copyrights and license’s gobbledegook.
"20 years ago when music piracy was everywhere companies claimed it was the end of creativity and art, all while filing law suits against culprits. Now that it's companies stealing art from normal people, it's know as "the future"." -my uncle (seriously, it's a good point)
Music piracy was (and is) unauthorized duplication. The counterpoint to "You wouldn't steal a car" was "yes, but what if my neighbor showed me their new car they'd bought and offered to burn me a copy?"
The point I was trying to get across is that now it's big companies authorising a type of piracy it's supposed to be just fine when it's still harming normal artists
Yes. Inspirational work that is equal parts the prior image as well as your own take and abilities. But these machines cannot contribute originality. All they can do is resemble prior works.
@@SharpForceTrauma equal take? But almost all artist use a blend of inspirations from other artist or styles. Very uncommon for a completely original concepts.
@@reese4077 Even if they use those foundations laid by prior artists, they are not simply mimicking and copying that. They are combing that into pieces that incorporate those foundations with their own style, and they made it using their own work. AI merely facilitates a mimicry of existing works. If you wish to use AI generation to provide neutral references that sample from many different artists, that's an entirely different ball game from merely taking that data, generating something, and boldly claiming that *you* made it, because you did not add anything beyond dictating your idea to a computer. It is no different from making a request to an artist.
The problem I see, is something where a company who aggregates a ton of art work, like Instagram, or Deviantart. Those companies say "Hey guess what, we own your art when you put your art on our platform." then they sell that art to someone one else, like a company creating an AI to look at the art.
I agree, that the artist should get money for their art if it's used to train an AI just like they have to be payed if someone wants to copy their work. Copyright was invented to enforce paying artists if you want to copy their work. But, as far as I know, no country has created laws to enforce paying artists if their art is used for training. So companies will just not pay the artist and no one can force them to pay anything.
By the way, even if they have to pay the artists, there is a lot of art under public domain, because the artist died long ago. So they can still use that art to train the models without paying, like today anyone can copy that are. But in difference to copying it, AI can adapt it, so it fits more modern use cases.
Guys it’s called inspiration, we human use it all the time. The ai got “inspired” because I am 100% sure we can also become inspired by none free art. But sell our inspired art for money. Legally.
Fun fact the GPTs were trained on task data. Which is people being paid slave labour rates to do mind crushingly mundane work So in essence modern “AI” was built on slave labour
this comment section is going to be a ride when this comes out.
Yep it just came out
It's wild how AI fanboys insist that their algorithm machine is capable of understanding, and thinks like a real human brain...
And they were NFTbros not that long ago. They're just admitting that they're dumber than the bots, if not bots themselves.
Pity your prediction is accurate. I have but one "like" to give, and condolences, commiseration, and sympathy.
I'm not an AI bro by any means, in fact, as an artist, it kinda fucking terrifies me and I'm not sure I've even fully quantified why. But I keep seeing this assertion that AI can't and won't ever be able to replicate human creativity, and that baffles me. If it couldn't, we'd have nothing to worry about. But the thing about us is, we're really not that special, or interesting. Brains are just organic machines tied together by algorithms, and pretty predictable ones at that. This idea that we are somehow special, and that our levels of awareness can never be replicated is insane.
We are not special. You are not special. I am not special. That's the part to worry about. We were given this perfect idea of individuality and uniqueness as children and it shaped so much our our perception of humanity, but it's just wrong. Animal species keep finding new ways to surprise us with how self aware they are and how many of our patterns we can find in them. If we want to get ahead of this whole thing and set the important boundaries before shit goes down, we need to approach the argument as it is. If we keep lying to ourselves about us being way more unique than we actually are, we're gonna mysticism our way into ignoring the problem until it's already out of control, and then even the smart people who SHOULD have known better will be going, "How didn't we see this coming?!"
If we WERE unique in the way we think we are, marketing wouldn't have the stranglehold on us that it currently does. Evidently, we're pretty fucking predictable, and the idea that a machine exclusively designed to recognise and replicate patterns won't be able to take advantage of that is, quite frankly, stupid. For pete's sake, we've been learning for the last decade that your gut bacteria has more of a say on your personality than your actual brain does, how the fuck are we individualistic again? The only reason art speaks to us in the first place is because of how we relate to eachother, THAT'S what matters here. The day deep learning (which is what we're actually talking about here) is able to roam completely free over art with no restriction is the day art as we know it ceases to mean anything, because then the artist won't exist. If we want ANY control over that at all, we have to acknowledge that art is special because we are not.
@@themindfulmoron3790 it’s pretty self explanatory, especially after just watching this short: ai can’t make art without first learning from art. The type of art ai is limited to creating is based on the human created art that it was fed. I’m not sure why you think it’s stupid to understand that they can’t just create something from nothing.
@@DannyboyO1Do you actually understand what stealing means? Because that is not stealing. Then you should be accused of stealing for everything you created just because you had to be inspired from something already existing
Me when AI steals art: 😡
Me when AI makes wizards invade an Arby’s: 😃
E
WE GONNA ROCK DOWN TO ELECTRIC AVENUE
That wasent ai generated right?
The only ethical use of AI art.
"Relinquish thy meats, muggles! Or face my UNIMAGINABLE POWER!!"
this dude just loves drawing boxes in paint
guy in youtube comment section finds about flow charts
Man in RUclips comment section complains about a visualization of the video after watching Neil deGrasse Tyson talking above subway surfers gameplay
I'm here for it
@@igobyvax this dude just loves drawing flow charts in paint
@@EeveeRealSenpaiit just works, so don't change it.
Adobe's AI is trained off of their (roughly 200 million) licensed stock images. I think they're the only major company I know that has fully paid for their training data.
This is mostly because the legal system has not yet gotten around to figuring out whether Thor's take is the correct take. If Thor is right, then the other models will mostly disappear from commercial use. Probably it won't be worth going after every random copy of Stable Diffusion floating around, but in theory they might be considered illegal to possess.
If Thor is wrong (in a legal sense, not an ethical sense), then Adobe's product likely fades into the background once the litigation is over, because it will be difficult to offer at a competitive price point.
Reasons Thor could be (legally) wrong:
* Training might be fair use.
* If the final output image is not substantially similar to any of the training data, then it probably does not infringe on any of the training data. If that happens often enough, with a large enough set of possible prompts, the AI may be ruled to have "substantial non-infringing uses" and be allowed, as the Betamax (similar to VHS) was.
* Usually, when you sue someone for making a derivative work, you claim that they copied from a single work, or a small number of works. It is unprecedented to claim that somebody created a derivative work of billions of images at once, and it is not obvious that the legal system is even prepared to evaluate a claim like that in the first place. The normal test is to look at the original and the allegedly infringing work side-by-side, but you can't do that with billions of alleged originals. If this cannot be litigated as a class action, then it may be impractical to litigate at all.
No comment on ethics, that's hard to figure out when the legalities are still up in the air.
Yeah, legally the problem with Thor's take (which I think is excellent ethically) is that the copyright system up to now has exclusively focused on the publication side of the issue, not the consumption side. The law itself only says you cannot PUBLISH works that you don't have rights to.
For example, despite the scary FBI warning at the beginning of movies, nobody has ever been fined or faced prison for downloading a pirated movie and watching it. What has happened is people have been fined, faced prison time, and been successfully sued for millions of dollars for DISTRIBUTING pirated software, via bittorrent seeding or now defunct services that let you P2P share files like Kazaa and Limewire and Napster.
Now you may say "but they are distributing the art". No, they are not. AI art is about as transformative as you can possibly get. It's basically like an artist making up new art based on their experience. I don't see how the AI companies could possibly lose a fair use argument. IMO the artists barely have standing to bring a case.
I think Thor's position is an excellent solution to the AI art problem, I'm just not sure it's legally necessary. It would be smart for these companies to enact it though, because it would likely prevent the legal battles that are sure to come over the next few decades.
@@NYKevin100using art for training data is very likely protected as transformative use we already have laws for this we dont rly need a extra legislature for AI
Shutterstock also does the same thing.
It's opt out though which is still dishonest and underhanded.
one of my fav things about this channel is how he can phrase/explain nuanced topics in a way thats easy to digest and understand.
Except he's wrong. There won't be "licensing" because there can't be. Web Comic Artist Sarah Andersen already tried to sue because her art "might" have been used to train and she could get something that looked like her work when she asked the tool to make something that looked like her work, but the judge threw it out, as they should have.
@@tf5pZ9H5vcAdBp100% this. The training data is on the scale of millions of pieces of art that is turned into a latent space, together with all the other art. It's impossible (or let's say highly improbable I.e. there's an infinitesimal chance) to generate even a single one of the original art pieces used to train the network. Something that uses very small pieces of millions of pieces of art is not subject to licensing fees. It's fair use, as it should be. I can look at a Picasso painting and create my own that has a similar style and theme, and is heavily inspired by it. It's still neither a derivative of the original art, nor is it in any form copyright or IP infringement.
@@tf5pZ9H5vcAdBp judges judge on law, not if something is right or wrong. Laws will have to be put in place
@@tf5pZ9H5vcAdBp You haven't actually explained anything here. You say there can't be licensing because one case didn't prevail? that doesn't mean you can't implement licensing.
They key is what makes up the training data. What he's saying is you find that out, and if you're part of it as an artist, you're entitled to payment for the license to use it.
Just because right now, these companies don't keep track of what they're training the AI on, doesn't mean they can't. And just because one case fails because they can't prove said AI was trained on their work, doesn't mean when companies are asked to keep track of training data, you cannot then prove your work was used in it.
Pass a law that says AI generative companies must document their training data and suddenly licensing is very real.
@@tf5pZ9H5vcAdBp he just said that if the artist was paid by the license then it is fine, but he didn't say anything about how it is implemented or the legalities of it, to me it sounds more like his opinion on how it should be for it to be morally acceptable.
Just for clarification, midjourney train its AI off of 1600+ artists (that we know of). They're currently getting sued to high hell because of it.
i'd love to see how prosecution can prove a certain artist's art was used in the training.
they can't prove anything.
@@usernameemail It's in the AI training data registry.
@@GuciomIf that was the case I would imagine every business would have had their models pulled but none I have seen have taken their websites down.
Losers artists cannot defeat AI
@@Seas1s It's new tech that many people buy into. No one has common sense on how it's actually used.
No, Thor is absolutely right. This is basic economics. If you pay for the flour to make your bakery goods for you to sell, it's all fine because you paid the person who grew the wheat. If you stole it all to make your bakery goods and you profit off that, then that indeed is a problem.
Now adobe demands free license to your work
and then AI starts training off of other AI generated art and it makes inbred art
I don't know if you've kept up but unfortunately this isn't the case for all models of art AI. Unfortunately this problem won't start eating at it's own tail and corrupt itself into being unviable.
I think it's already happening. I seem to be the only person not on the AI art bandwagon.
@@ghengilharwhat are you talking about lmao
@@gnat4999 got a hearing problem, pal?
@tonygallagher6997 no other bro got a sight problem tho, acting like there's not a trillion people who hate ai lmao
Unfortunately for artists, this is extremely difficult to enforce. If someone wants to keep their training data a secret, they can.
it gets even harder when you get into the artist tags that can be used on stable diffusion.
there is a set of tags that lets you use "by_artist", to make your generated work look like that of a specific artist.
You can also take those tags and mix&match them to make a "new" style, which winds up being a combo of 2 or more artists.
i've seen some pics that have 7 or 8 different artist names, all at once (by_artist1, by_artist2, by_artist3, by_artist4).
@@Thejigholeman yeah artists names have crazy weight, better than some loras lol
Don't music artists freely make remixes of other people's songs?
@@nkxseal8398no, they pay royalties. If they don’t they can face law suits.
@bigboyepic8598 Damn that's surprising, with all the different remixes out there, especially edm, I'm surprised they all pay for licensing. Maybe it's not as expensive as I'm thinking though.
another thing:
AI art will never have copyright for a couple of reasons.
1) already established conventions that non human produced works dont have copyright.
2) if they did have copyright, you'd legalise copyright farms. Wave after wave of bots. Bots to make prompts with slight variations. Bot to make art from the prompt. Bot that then scrapes the internet for images. Bot that compares the scraped images with its database. Bot that then writes a copyright violation notice.
If you thought youtube copyright content ID was bad, imagine how much worse itll get
until its completely automatic and nothing new can be made
@@_Tzer You can make something new from preexisting works you do realise that right? lol thats how the human brain works.
@@user-lh7mt7zo7l reffering to the utter abuse of copyright nowadays did you know it was originally around 20-30 years.. we will never own the works we saw as kids in our lifetime. people will just keep abusing it.
@@_Tzer It'd be cool if copyright was 30 years again because you'd actually live to see original IPs go into the public domain and see what the public can do with it.
the whole thing with copyright entering public domain not within our lifetimes just serves to benefit monopolies
personally I think it's wrong to even call it art, they are AI generated images. The entire point of art is that it communicates something, and conflating that with slop that cant even recreate the most basic methodology actively hurts our ability to communicate and understand eachother
Thank you, Thor.
As an artist, it really warms me that you're teaching these stuffs to everyone.
This is exactly what us artists meant when AI art is considered stealing.
Boohoo Ai art is better than digital art”art”
Hey man, I'm also an artist who started drawing on paper a year ago and I dream to one day being able to become a professional digital artist in maybe 4-5-whatever it takes years. Do you think I'll be able to do so considering ai art? This is something that worries me a lot
Are you going to apologise to everyone you have ever referenced for stealing their art?
@@Goodboigaminit's literally not better though? It's worse in every way except price
My question is. The training data basically uses as much or all that is online, so how does a licensing process work when accounting for all that without exorbitant prices?
Like is there a flat licensing that goes to the ai company and is divided up so that the training data comprising of 10 percent one art style which consists of 30 unique artists, does that mean of the total cost each artist gets a 1/30th of 1/10th?
The only issue I see is that Disney will use old art for training but those artists signed contracts without the concept of AI art even existing, so they likely would've asked for more money for the license
True but that creates a grey area.
Is Disney morally held to not use the art because back when the deal was signed the idea of AI was science fiction and not reality?
Or are they free to use it because they were given permission to by the artist at the time? Why should they not be able to use an art they paid for?
Edit: another analogy would be owning an antique, I sell you an old watch thinking it isn't worth much, I hand it to you for say £300. You are then able to auction it off for £30,000, are you obligated to give me more money? Even though I happily sold you that watch for less than it was worth because I was ignorant of it's true value? Hindsight is 20/20, you can't hold anyone to the standard of "well if they had that same offer today" because by that logic no deal or contract could be valid after the day or even moment that it was signed.
Buddy, the data set of AI is in the billions, a single group of artists aren't being singled out, that's not how AI works on the level you all want to fix this at.
Most of the cases have come from individuals using the tools with additional layers of training on specific artists, that's not the fault of the tool used, but the person who used it in that way
You could say the same about anything else related to AI. Ask GPT how to do something like change your oil, and it'll tell you. Do the mechanics that it learned from deserve compensation?
@@ch4z_bucks i have an idea for a solution, but effective it would prove i have no clue. it's a simple one though, if an artists works are to be used as training data for commercial AI works, then the licensing agreement would need to be renegotiated to a price that the artist agrees is fair (or if they've passed, then negotiate with their family). i think the main problem i might see with that solution would be if a late artists family gets greedy and asks for a ridiculous amount, or if they get selfish and deny the use of the works as a whole. imho though, the chance of that personal greed being the problem is much better than the chance of it being corporate greed
I would like if Disney used the training data from their hand drawn animation movies
PS: just check the effect of AI in the videogame space. Not a big problem for indipendent indie studios, even a blessing for them as could allow them to compete with big studios. But for big studios.... cut people or be cut of of market. We see the effect in the layoff
Tbh, AI art generation isn’t that bad, it’s *COMMERCIAL* AI art (e.g. used for advertisements and thumbnails) that is the issue. Which is why I prefer the status quo (ai generated art not being able to be copyrighted)
Honestly that’s the NUMBER ONE issue I have with Ai Art, most if not all of them don’t even pay or ask artists permission to use their works to create these ai things.
You don't need asking to copy someone's style or to be inspired by someone's idea.
Well then good thing Adobe's firefly exists.
@@shrekkek9396found the clueless one who thinks everything thats posted online is free to be stolen
@shrekkek9396 that's the problem though. It's not inspired. It rips bits and pieces out and changes them up, which is far and away different from making it from scratch.
@@dylannecros3636 This is the definition of inspiration. You shred and glue what you saw and something new comes out.
for those who don't know, there are different AI systems:
- midjourney: charges money for their service and did not ask for permission/payed artists
- adobe firefly: used their own stockimage library
- stable diffusion: is open source/free and did not compensate artists
- DALL-E 3: is free to use on Bing and designed to block living artist names in the prompt. It also offers an opt out for creators for future models
It should be opt in from the start, opt ut is already too late.
@@Storse Why? Every piece of art was influence by artists that came before. If Blizzard can make Warcraft without having to get permission from Gamesworkshop to copy paste Warhammer, then this ship has long since sailed.
@@Storse I agree that it should have been opt in. It could have been great. Imagine a site where they would then showcase everyone who opted in kinda like a CC licence attribution where they have to credit everyone involved.
And I will always think that artists could have benefited from this by training their own official styles loras and selling/licensing them.
Stable diffusion is just the AI software itself without any training data at all. You have to train your own model and feed it to the program. I'm sure some online services don't care but whether or not a training model is ethically sourced is entirely up to the individual.
@@XT873 too many people don't understand this. I love the idea of using LLMs for example, but first I am going to figure out how to train them on my own data for specific use cases rather than steal something from online to take the shortcut of someone else's hard work. AI isn't bad, people using this tool in a bad way are bad.
I personally think copyright law should be renewed because of AI. An AI sees art, it tries to replicate the style using the training data. For human artists, we get inspired by art by visiting museums, learning art on textbooks, or nowadays, on websites. They are intrinsically the same.
If we have a black box office, one side takes art and another side outputs art, does it violate copyright laws if we don't know if an AI or a human is in the room?
I think unless an AI regurgitates its training data, akin to a human replicating another's art piece and claiming those are original, AI art does not infringe on copyright.
If you completely regurgitate art, that's even only a crime depending on where you are. In some places IP theft isn't even a thing.
Exactly, 100% this. The idea that an AI creating a distinct work is somehow theft makes not sense. If they are literally just reproducing the same work, then I could agree, but that's not what's happening. Personally I think people are just mad because they want to gatekeep art. They don't want us mere peasants able to bring our imaginations to life without paying them 5,000 dollars per pixel.
Hbomberguy summarized this the best when he said AI makes art by complicated stealing, because they NEVER pay the original artists for the training material.
Funnily enough theyre not being paid, and these companies are pretty much daring anyone to meet them in court over it.
Back it up with source and main culprits.
I will avoid them. If not, I see no reason to stop using a good tool.
@@esdrot1375 Midjourney is a big one, just google "Midjourney admits stealing" and there's a billion articles on it.
@@esdrot1375Have you actually searched in-depth for a source relating to this issue?
If you really care about the moral implications you should probably do some digging by yourself.
Asking someone or *something* else to do tasks that require *human thought* can produce *poor results* and is generally *not a sustainable method of completing abstract tasks otherwise done by humans* , like the management and critical analysis of information or *art* . There’s a point here somewhere.
Many are claiming it's fair use and whether you agree with that morally or not, they might be right on the letter of the law. You're probably going to have to change the law if you want to go after these people, but you're going to have to be very, very careful about how to structure that new law to not completely remove the concept of fair use entirely. That can have seriously bad implications and unintended consequences.
@@sorrowmg278When you make a claim the burden of truth is on you, not the person asking for a source.
I doubt AI companies will ever license the art they train on. It would be prohibitively expensive given how large of a dataset they need.
They won't. And if they ever do, it will be pennies. Not worth the hassle.
Yeah did they license the Mona Lisa? No but they definitely have made imitations of it that I’ve seen. Or would they be able to just have people make rough copies essentially with small differences and train with that?
If they can't afford to pay for art, then they can't afford to train AI.
"ai companies" what does this mean
Some of you might wanna examine the US Copyright Law. I'm pretty sure there is a clause there about a work being made by a human...
Its also clear to see that ai art is starting to eat itself. Theres so many ai art generators that keep making the same mistakes, the same angles and shots and the patternn recognition kicks in and its painful to see.
As i tend to say
Art is only appreciated by Artist but to earn money it must be sold to the crowd that dont respect it
The very big problem is, the ones doing the unethical thing makes money, and this money doesn't need to come from the crowd. You (the AI dev) just need to sell them to very rich people, these people often tend to invest on new tech stuff because "its the future" and it has the possibility of exploding in popularity, and this is exactly what the most famous AIs are adverteised as.
Tbh I would be fine with a system where artists could voluntatily submit a peice of work, with the authority to redact it within a few months. If they could negotiate prices on their own terms and retain rights over their work, then it would be a more fair system
that wont work because once the system learns, what do they owe the artist?
@mcbean1 the artwork is still data going into the system, each peice can be tagged and accredited to an individual artist. For as long as the system is drawing inspiration from their work and the data spawned from it, the artist should be compensated
@@Danno-95 But that's the thing, AI art doesn't keep a copy of the art, it legitimately learns what the art comprises of (like humans) and replicates that. For example to draw a smiley face the AI art learns that you need 2 dots and a curved line, that all, you can now have your original smiley face art back because the AI program has learnt (like a human) how to replicate that without the original anymore
I 100% agree with this sentiment as an artist. If we WERE paid for the use of our “training data”, then everything would be fine (there would still be a debate about how dystopian the art scene could be), but at least artists would still have a job and be able to work. Unfortunately, it’s incredibly difficult to enforce this system, quadruply difficult to enforce this system AFTER everything that’s already happened and how much the technology has progressed.
Here is the question though - What do you think would be fair price for use of your training data?
Because its rather unique situation. Your art will not be showed anywhere by the person who buys them for training purposes, your pictures will not be replicated, only dismantled into algorithm.
So I would find it unfair if the price for such use of your art would be the same as lets say some magazine buying it to use in their product.
But I have no idea what would be fair price. Especialy if some of the largest models are using dozens of thousands of pictures.
Also the moment this would happen, where AI would be using only works that were paid for, it would once more screw with the "who owns copyright for AI Art". Right now it more or less came into answer of "no one, since AI is doing whatever it wants" but if AI is not learning from pictures, but only using them to such degree that it can not be fair use, that it is not just "inspiration", that it must be paid for license, that would mean that AI art produced from such model would be owned by someone no?
Now do AI generated code
How about if a novice artist were to take inspiration from your art or study it to better themselves, would they have to pay you as well?
@PDilling are you seriously comparing blatant content theft to art study?
@@PDillingai is not a person stop pretending it is
The main problem (to my knowledge) is most people using AI art don’t license or commission art for said training data.
Sounds like the new nft complaints. If its on the clear web and I can right click it, its mine now.
@@ChronicSkooma For viewing? Sure! For using in your own product? Not if you don't have the license to!
The thing with NFTs was that in most situations, people were paying moronic prices for what was essentially a receipt. Sometimes, purchasing the NFT didn't even give you a license for the art. This is a different situation.
Is your argument that users of AI art should have to contribute to the art used in the training data? Or that users of the AI should have to pay for the art used in the AI's training data? If either, I tend to disagree. The consumer of the AI shouldnt need that type of knowledge to use the AI. I feel it is incumbent on the creators of the AI to pay anyone whose content is used for training data.
@@jayhammond6047 That last sentence is the true W here, the ML generator owners and creators owe it to any content they use to train their data to credit and disclose their sources, or it is indistinguishable from theft.
@@ChronicSkooma This analogy falls apart the moment you think for more than a single moment.
People who bought NFTs, didnt buy images, they bought receipt papers, with a transaction of the image written on them.
Its the same as if I buy a loaf of bread, then i sell the receipt to someone. They now own the written paper, But i still own the loaf of bread. That is how NFTs work. the NFT Owners never owned the images, They owned the written paper with the transaction history.
Ultimately we should stop calling it "ai" since its using premade art to compile a "new" image
This is like saying that if a painter paints a building, the painter should pay the owners of buildings because "buildings should exist to make the paintings of them"
THANK YOU. Unfortunately a company still fired my professor who worked at concept art for years to instead pursue AI shlop.
If the AI created "shlop" your professor would not have been fired.
Tbf, no human can compete against AI when it's about concept art. All they can do is learn to use it better than other people. It can produce concept arts 100s of times faster than humans, and since it's "just concept art" it means that the usual ai imperfections that would take time to fix are not important. Plus, some companies, to avoid this legal issue, actually do it well and only use art they own. I know my father works at Ubisoft, and they have at their disposition an ai art generator that was trained using art from Ubisoft (like previous concept arts) or that they own. There's a lot to consider here, though it will always be sad to see people lose their job
I believe that AI created art does not have copyright. So people could take the concept art created by it, and use it however they like.
@@dimfre4kske67if the schlop is decent enough to meet minimum viable product requirements and cheaper than their professor then yes absolutely they would. Yall act like businesses make rational, long term decisions when all businesses do is look at what would make more money by the end of the current hour
@@nya_akitsuI think thats the case now, but as for anything that is new, and has nothing within the confinment of law. They will create a law to help the people bitching and moaning about it.
The issue is that until laws are made to actually make stealing artwork for training illegal, companies will ALWAYS take the cheapest option.
It’s also why AI for things like voice acting and writing is so concerning as well. Data is stolen and then sold while pushing the human creators out.
The humans that made that art learned by looking at other art and did not pay them for their training. It's no different.
There is also the issue that there are uses of AI trained on art. It could be used for generation, but also classification (recognizing art style etc), creating image descriptions, reverse image search. In all of these cases the images are used to update model weights so technically it's not much different from collecting statistical data about images. It's difficult to create a law that balances artists interests and technology advancement opportunity
And since they won't identify who they stole from, it should be a noncommercial tool with public access
This has been my take from day one. I work as a freelance concept artist. Its an industry where you adapt to new tools or you fall behind and other people step in to take your opportunities. The problem isn't Ai as a tool it's the fact that people are stealing reference/training data without permission.
I don't disagree with your opinions, but current copyright laws do not adequately protect such use of artistic works. I recommend petitioning lawmakers to change copyright laws if it is important to you and your livelihood.
They're deleting the original data?
Except the images aren't being stored by the AI. The AI is looking at the image, adding more and more noise and taking it down to just noise, then learning how to go from the noise back to the original art. When someone goes to make an image, the AI starts with images of random noise. It then combines that noise based on it's learning, into what the person asked for. The art is never stored by the AI.
The art was never stolen, it's no different than a college art professor showing a class of people art from an artist and having them draw something similar.
And many of the AIs learned by using images posted to websites that included in the Terms of Service a provision that allowed those images to be used by the host. Facebook, Instagram, etc all have these clauses. So most of these artists agreed to have their art used for AI training, they just didn't bother to read the terms of service or understand what it was being used for.
@@Jaradis Even if it's true that the images aren't "stored" by the AI, the fact remains that the art is being used to train said AI. If that leads to commercial works being produced by that AI, then that artist's art is still "being used", which means doing so without the artist's consent is by definition "using their art without consent" - i.e. art theft.
The problem isn't even necessarily that art IS being stolen, it's just that laws are not catching up to technological advancements fast enough, which means a lot of artists are at risk of having their art used without consent to train direct competition with their business. If every single image used to train an AI was obtained with consent, there's no moral issue. The problem is you can't enforce that very well, which leads to abuse. AI itself isn't the problem. It's the lack of regulation.
@@jallybwan3767you should be more concerned about the websites and companies licensing the images out more than the AI, in reality most of the training comes from second parties licensing, mainly stock photos
I’m glad you’re around. Keep doing what you’re doing man
Don't forget you have the 1000 Indians
The problem is that it's practically impossible to ensure all the terrabytes of images used to train are actually licensed. And while not legally applicable, I think that Art that is publicly available in places like Twitter, DeviantArt, etc. should only be used if you have received permission to do so, which NONE of the companies have for all the stuff they used.
Congrats on the Streamer Award Thor, you earned it big guy!
It really is shocking how many people don't get that.
Part of why those people don’t fully get that is because art when humans make it is considered subjective and original. When a person creates a work of art, it was generated by their mind, but similar to with an AI’s generation the inspiration had to come from somewhere. Everything from the art style to the content of the artwork could have been inspired by someone else’s previous work to some degree, but when a human does it they don’t need to license the sources of inspiration, especially because it’s difficult to say exactly what inspired it and impossible to prove one way or the other.
The fact that human creativity doesn’t require licensing out “training data” may be why this concept can be hard for some people to understand. The only real difference is that the AI art is done by a computer, which we (as a species, maybe not the average person) are able to understand how it generates the images. We are able to directly trace the inspiration for the new work to direct reference from the original work, and because of that we need to give credit to the original piece of art.
@@anthonycannet1305 someone who understands
@@anthonycannet1305Well said.
You forget the fact that it wasn't created from nothing but it was created replicating others art to train the artists hand and taste and after that taking inspiration from others art.
That is exactly what the AI is doing but somehow is not fair because it is not human doing it and it could do it much faster than a human.
@@anthonycannet1305 That is actually not true. Most AI art produced would be impossible to trace back it's inspirations.
Unless you count pointing at a database of 5B images as tracing it's inspiration.
Even in human art, if we trace back the inspiration, a license is never expected unless the work is considered infringement.
ai art wouldn't be that big of a deal if a) like you said the art wasn't stolen for the training data, and b) certain people stopped trying to push it as a way to replace artists and cut costs
The problem is that *MOST* AI art generators *AREN'T* paying artists for the licensing at all.
Basically
Stealing art and selling it=bad
Borrowing art and allowing others to have fun with it for free=acceptable
Buying art and selling art made from existing bought art=acceptable
fun fact, Facebook is literally using everyones photos they post and facebook doesnt have to pay a cent for their AI to create art from your photos lol
Did you read their terms of service? I’m pretty sure anything you post on their platform they basically own
@@ZombieLincoln666yes, that’s all these platforms but for some reason people act as if the AI itself is the one responsible and not the companies licensing out or using their own consumer base for such a thing
@@doctorgrubious7725 you're using them as a free image hosting storage service and you expect them to do that out of the goodness of their hearts? you oh sweet summer child nothing is free.
@grubious7725 not all, multiple PAID platforms are allowing the use their data, like in adobe, you upload your images to sell to other users but you still own the image, people are using ai to take images from that repository, change it with ai and reupload the image with the name of the original artist and sell it, and adobe isnt doing nothing, because they are making more money out of their creators being stolen
facebook has a license, and "paid", but the paid $0 lol
this is basically my opinion, excluding the other half which is that AI cannot produce "art", no matter how involved the prompt, and it's simply due to the process at which the images are made.
I only partially agree. If I was an artist and I was told my work was going to be used for something that would prevent me from getting more work, I would have written the license differently.
If I, as an artist, go to an art museum and view other works of art that I do not own a license for, then go create new art that is inspired and influenced by what I have seen, is that not very nearly the same thing?
Would you say, that creative process is just mix-matching what you experienced before?
I think, that there is a also a value in the process, creativity and personality of the author.
Not really, you have your own inherent bias and skills. There's a translation layer. And you interpolate.
The outcome is never 1:1, unless you commit to tracing art.
The AI is not reproducing anything 1:1 either. If you look back at art history, you can see that it builds off of itself. Some artists had innovations, but most just react to what they see other artists doing.
It *is* different with AI, but I think that it is a complex problem to solve morally and legally. I don’t think you can just say that licenses are required retroactively. The AI is not copying anything outright. It is just using them to create a mathematical prediction of what a user would expect based on a prompt. It’s very close to what happens in a real brain if I were to go to an artist and commission a painting with the same prompt. If I said, “I want an abstract painting using the colors green and black in the style of Jackson Pollock and Mondrian”, then an artist creates something original, how is that any different?
Sampling went through this like 50 years ago. lol
and it isn't all that different.
It’s very different though. Sampling is a problem because the recordings themselves were being used, and that infringes on copyright.
There is no law against recreating images for personal training use. This is actually a method artists use to learn how to make art.
The only issue is AI is incredibly good at reproducing the piece of art. And they can do it for vast amounts of images, in short spaces of time.
But the original image is not being used in any way, it’s just being reproduced by the AI, which is perfectly legal.
@@TheMAU5SoundsLikThis Oh, you misunderstand. I'm just comparing them in a way to say that they both use pre-existing media to make new media.
While I do prefer to support artists, I regularly use AI image generators. I'd also agree with the idea that the AI "learns" to draw in ways very similar to how humans learn to draw. Artists just don't want to admit that they don't need another artist's permission to recreate their art and alter it into something new. Most of them also don't care about things being illegal, like using a pre-existing IP to "inspire" their own art while not asking or paying the IP holder to use it. Fanart in most cases is technically illegal.
Jobs have been slowly getting replaced by machines and AI for quite a while now, but artists haven't cared up until it started to affect them.
Notably, as someone who uses AI image generators quite a lot, I wouldn't say they are really that good at making something specific, at least not yet, so I'd say they still have job security for the moment.
@@Maxwell_TwistSampling is done by a person with a vision. AI "learns" by constantly getting told how to interpret data and "creates" by getting told what to do with all that data that the programmers have taken. The only thing it does is approximate results to the data they've received, guided by humans every step of the way. Humans brains aren't just a black box that sees what already exists and mushes it together perfectly, we set our own rewards, we reason, we decide if we want to make art or not, we learn from our own data, we figure out how to do stuff. AI cannot even learn from AI without making worse results each time.
@Sodium_Slug
Now - take a look at "artists" that are generating Modern "Art" - and try to repeat your own sentence with a straight face. ^_^
I have an artist friend that very specifically makes people agree not to feed their art into any AI database.
Personal. Commercial. Anything they make they do not want an AI
I've generated AI art and it had a patreon logo on it. Absolute clown world we live in.
This is the base model of AI art. The newer models are using larger learning branches that are fed more holistic data sets instead of being trained on artworks they can be trained on the components of artwork which obfuscates the IP arguments.
One thing that can be done I guess is to hook the AI up to a camera and place it in any setting then start streaming.
Turn the video data into images then into training data which you feed into the AI.
I wonder what kind of images it will generate if the AI is fed training data from these environments: zoo and polluted city.
Still doesn’t tho
This is what I mean by ethical A.I. use and creation yet many are against A.I. in any form and don't even care about licensed training.
This has been building for decades and we have all helped to make it in one form or another. "Is this a bus" tests, spell checkers, predictive auto-fill, and more. Heck, decades ago we had primitive "photo mergers" that did similar with key points on 2 images to get a new image altogether.
Genuine question, how would you know if companies use your art in their training data without someone from the company saying they did? Same thing with licensed code on Git Hub. How would you know without being the ones who have access to that information?
Unfortunately you sort of can't, so far as I know as someone who studied neural networks (which generative AIs are). Even if you personally have access to see the AI's code, weights and structure, it's like trying to figure out if the number 3 was used in a sum that adds up to 10 billion.
It's mathematically not a reversible function because an enormous number of inputs *could* have made the weights for the network, but only one set of inputs actually did. As for how we find out about specific cases, I have to imagine it's because someone found some information from the company either through someone with a big mouth or the company just not being careful enough.
Personally, I'm against most common uses of generative AI, just in case my reply gave the opposite impression.
There *are* several "well, duh" ways.
First of all, if the AI responds to your name as a prompt, and produces art in your style as a result, with any unique stylings you've taken on . . . it necessarily has to have been fed your art, and not only that, but in connection to your name.
If you have any unique idioms, and those show up in *any* output of an AI, then there's . . . a chance . . . the AI was trained on your art. Idioms that more clearly show intent, and have not been copied by anyone else (yet), increase that chance. While true that it's non-zero, having a neural network randomly copy someone else's artstyle without any inputs related to it has "won the lottery" or "struck by lighting 7 times" type odds.
If, with a fairly minimal prompt, you can get an AI to produce a close copy of your image, including details that AI is usually bad at, such as text, or small details in transition between textures, then the AI must have been fed that image.
If anyone was honestly training generative AI, it would be very difficult to find examples of any of these, (esp. the first one), so they wouldn't be useful detection methods. Even if you were to train it on stolen art slyly, you wouldn't see many collisions.
Instead, prompt jockeys generally kinda rely heavily on these things being true.
With how strict rights ownership rules are and how seriously they are taken I'm so surprised that companies using stolen data to train their models isn't in the legal spotlight right now
I think this is a really good way to look at AI art, but unfortunately the majority of people using AI to generate art- that is, laypeople or non-artists utilizing commercial systems like Davinci or DALL-E- Care more about the service they’re getting than they do about the ethical collection of training data. On top of that, the existence of AI art as it is now is poised to damage the market for traditional artists, especially in the freelance sector.
Beyond that (and I think this is something that people are not thinking about yet) it’s going to result in an artistic environment that is almost entirely homogenous. We’re already starting to see it in how most generated art is similar to Disney or a small handful of artists who produce really clean, polished work. Imperfection and experimentation is going to wither because young artists are not going to see imperfection and experimentation glorified - only the smooth, polished results that the training data produces.
I’m saying this is someone who teaches young professional artists (university level), and as a professional artist myself; I really think we’re going to see artistic exploration atrophy in the next five years, and then a counterculture wave of messy, grungy, humanistic work.
Makes sense. When the world becomes overrun with one form of art the counter naturally comes in and becomes something of a refresh. Take a look at superhero movies, DC had it's goofy comic book movie days in the 90s then after Nolan's batman trilogy succeeded so well it now has a darker grittier tone across most of its works. Marvel which for years has been pretty kid friendly, in my opinion led to the success of Deadpool and shows like the boys because people craved a more adult orientated superhero film/TV show.
You get culture, then counterculture then the counter culture becomes the main and is eventually taken back by something else.
I don't think it'll be homogenous, but otherwise dead on. In the short term it's unlikely to produce new styles, just result in a flood of stuff mimicking established styles. But absolutely the generation after next will swing the other way.
I'm even more concerned about video & film. People seem to think all you need are a bunch of scenes stitched together. And it isn't helped by the history of YT videos with narration over stock video & images. Like, how many people actually know about the 180 rule or J-cuts? We're going to have a flood of trash with no efficient way to sort through it save for other algorithms. And we're already producing faster than we can make server space for it all. I'm not looking forward to the next decade of democratized media (which isn't to say I preferred the old with corporate gate-kept model either).
Well people caring more about results than ethical ramifications has been around far longer than AI art
We've been progressing faster with technology than our monkey brains are equipped or willing to handle the responsibility
Honestly it might be nearing Filter time for humanity
it's an artistic renaissance that enables a dramatic increase in number of artists and you're just rationalizing your fear of being displaced by technology.
I actually think the opposite is true. With how homogenous AI art looks, I think anyone who can create actual art that doesn't mimic these homogenous artstyles will be highly sought after.
The only purpose of AI art is to automate the creative process. Whether or not it was trained on art unpaid for, to me, is irrelevant. All it tells corporations is that artists do not need to be hired, actually, and they can just use this “tool” to cut out the middleman.
I can't agree with you. It's the equivalent of saying, "drawing tablets should be illegal because it allows corporations to cut out the middle man (paper sellers)." The issue becomes less of one of fairness and more with the fact that you don't want to lose customers.
@@f.b.i6889 AI art generators and drawing tablets are wildly different. A tablet is a tool used by artists for the explicit purpose of creating their art from nothing to something. Their labor is fulfilled by actually making a drawing. A generator does NOT make anything, and is NOT an expression from a human. You did not make anything by clicking a button.
forest for the trees. Why do we care if a company cuts out the middleman? Its because they starve right? Why are they starving, why is it they have to starve or put their passion out for profit?
@@its_connor I'm not pro AI. But I think you missed the point:
they argumented that paper sellers would be jobless because of drawing tablets usage, just as artists would be jobless because of AI usage.
They both make a product and are being replaced by something.
But this comparation isn't equivalent, since paper sellers make paper, and drawing tablets are made by drawing tablets sellers, they're both different products, even if they compete. Now AI is a product that generates subproducts for you, and artists are workers that makes a product for you. They aren't equivalent. Artists are losing job because of a product, not because other workers are making other stuff that compete like pencils & paper and digital pens & tablets.
The fun thing , at least in the EU, dunno how it looks in the US, is that ai generated pictures can't be copyrighted since this only applies to human-made stuff. Think it's the same with music.
If you post pictures online and people use them as a reference to draw new pictures, you do not have to pay the artist who's picture you saw, studied, or mimicked, in order to sell the art you created.
so AI is equivalent to a conscious human?
you are so close, make the leap.
@@Reiman33yes lol. Why do you seem to think this is a slam dunk? It's literally irrelevant.
People get called out if they literly 'copy' something. Thats what Ai is doing, maybe on a larger scale, but I dont see what ai is doing as 'transformative'.
@@skihames1813 except that's literally NOT how AI art works. Not a single pixel is ever copied. Each peice of art is entirely new and unique. It does not copy and paste anything.
@@skihames1813 i think calling AI art NOT transformative is a VERY dangerous thing to say. 99.99% of the time, i definitely could not tell you if an image an AI generated is an exact copy of something, or is heavily copying something else in a very superficial way. what hallmarks are you going by to say that it isnt transformative? because if your definition is not specific enough, than 99% of all art on the internet could also end up being non-transformative as well, which is not good for anyone.
If a child observes different styles of art and learns to incorporate, recreate or mimic those styles into new artwork, do the same "copyright" laws apply? Imo they don't and AI is similar.
disagree. Children are not tools. Not even remotely similar on that basis alone.
AI art is also at best consumerist slop that further cements our society as a technocracy. Plus, even if artists do get paid a license, the generators can then make an infinite amount of art based on that artist. It only becomes remotely fair if each artist is paid a royalty every time the generator is used.
Even if they start laws now to stop AI from taking artist's art, it's unenforceable.
If it's illegal, AI art will just simply be another form of piracy, and piracy is still going strong today for all forms of media and it can't be stopped now.
That's kinda funny to think about pirating ai for ai art
The majority of AI art was trained on stuff that was scrapped by search engines and programs and now that they have that data those in control of the AI can mass produce art at such a large volume that normal artists are having trouble competing.
There's a few things to consider with this argument, first, in order to be out competed by AI, that means either you lack quality, or timeliness, if someone wants quality, they're either use AI to make a basic visual concept, just like 3d models, then hire an actual artist to make it look good. If the person wants it quickly, then that will either come at the cost of quality, or the artist will have to rush its completion, which usually loses quality anyway. So, in one case, AI was a tool that better explained what the person actually wanted without 50 different references, and the other was something that would've been needlessly expensive. That goes into the third point, if you want both speed and quality, by using AI for the base, then having an actual artist clean it up would be effective for both cases. Then there's one last thing that has to be said, some people, like me for instance, just prefer human art because there's a larger variation in styles. So unless I'm trying to make a reference using AI, I won't be using it at all, and I rarely save it, but what I do save, is almost always because it would make a good reference for a project I'd might want done when I can afford it.
@que56b AI art is able to potentially produce in three hours or less better quality and almost as close to what a human can for a fraction of the cost and for a fraction of the time invested. However you will absolutely receive a more customized and better overall experience and product from almost any human regardless of actually skill level. AIs have been able to outperform humans for years now in almost all cases however, it is a winning some things but loosing others. Actual production value doesn't mean that it will be the most popular or least expensive solution or even what the majority of people will use.
I'll use operating systems as a perfect example of this and list them in the order from highest quality to lowest quality along side the average price last time I checked Linux 0.00, Orical 300.00, Orion 200.00, windows 25.00 to 500.00, Android 0.00, current Apple OS 150.00 to 15000.00, older Apple OS 150.00 to 300.00, Mac OS 25.00 to 150.00.
Everything I just listed is in that list in order from most utility to least utility meaning most user capabilities to least. This list isn't exhaustive but it helps to illustrate how someone can easily think that because they paid for it or paid more for it than it's better but it also illustrates that sometimes paying for something is more likely because of it being ingrained or quicker than simply attempting to do it correctly or in the best way possible. I personally think that the maximum number of years before we have complete AI ART replacement of normal artists is ten years but we probably won't have more than five before it makes the majority of the human art nearly if not completely worthless or so impractical to pay for that Noone is going to be using it on a regular basis.
@@que56b AI doesn't ask for minimum wage
You still need artists because the output of the AI engines is unusable crap
@@Selendeki Oh, I should've clarified which side I'm on :v
AI won't ask for a living wage or insurance, so companies choose the garbage it spews over actual, human art.
Those generated images will never have that spark of humanity that every artist adds to their work, and will never be considered true art
The fact that people in the comments are trying to humanize the Ai algorithm and saying its the same as a human creating art is just indicative of how little those people understand the process of creating art. Not a jab, but its scary how people just care about the ends rather than caring about the means. Shits grim
Not a jab, but a computer could make your art faster and cheaper. So yes, why would we care about the means if we get the same result more efficiently?
@@DG-kr8ptAnd factories in China can produce clothes faster and cheaper, but that doesn't make these clothes better than those made by people putting actual love into their craft, does it?
Why should "understanding how art is made" be a requirement when nobody on the hardline anti-AI front knows how neural networks function and still repeat the same "literal copy pasting" nonsense, almost akways including the "literal(ly)" as well?
@@ZenoDovahkiin Because, unlike AI generated images, writing, etc. the process of creating art is just as important- sometimes even more so- than the finished product.
A seamstress laments the invention of the sewing machine.
Exactly that. Most art in the internet use a creative common licence. You are allowed to use the art pivately and show it to others. You are NOT allowed to change parts of the art to make new art.
The AI does exactly that, it uses part of the art to create new art. Sometimes you don't know where the original arts end and another begings, but that does not change the fact, that you used such an original art and changed it. Sometimes the AI even makes 1:1 copies of said original art, which is proof that "training" violates that common creative licence.
That licence also forbids you from making money with that art, which AI artists also often violate...
This is why a lot of models have licenses against using them for commercial purposes, and use invisible watermarks to identify the model used so that infringement of that license is easier to detect. It's not perfect, but we're in the Wild West here, there's time to figure this stuff out, and model developers are further on the side of protecting artists than a lot of people realize
absolutly agree, using ai to create comercial works without paying artist is bad, however using ai to create something that will be enjoyed by others for free is OK,
why? if it's free to look at then it's fine to use it as inspiration for original work. Copying and inspiration are completely different things.
If an artist were to look at a piece of art then you think they should pay that artist every time they create any original work themselves after seeing that piece of art? Everything a person sees becomes part of their 'inspiration'.
Part of the problem is kinda this is viewed through the lens of drawing.
Photography is an artform in and of itself, and people really don't seem to take issue with copyrighted photographs being used in sampling data. And photos have this wonderful problem these days of being used for deepfakes and easy bullying of people with shit like "revenge porn", even easier than photoshopping it yourself.
Also people are leaning on AI tech to simplify work that absolutely should not be simplified.
Strictly in terms of ethics, if the stuff is licensed or otherwise permitted to be sampled, I dont have much problem. I think the way the stuff is being *applied* though is just further evidence of the enshittification of the internet, media, and the world on the whole.
Every industry is going to be effected by AI sooner or later. Why should artists be any different?
Agreed about application of the tools. IMO there's a difference between including a piece of artwork in a general training data set for something like stable diffusion vs using a technique that allows for copying styles directly.
@@hresvelgr7193 It should be exclusively the domain of anyone or anything capable of genuine complex thought.
@@hresvelgr7193 Ive seen some good and bad use of AI. Its useful for touchups, and has its uses in translating stuff like comics and manga which often require graphic edits for stuff that's on a strict deadline. It's useful for isolating tracks in music, something Ive seen many youtube creators use to make better videos for analysis. Not all use for AI in the world of art is bad. But its value is as a tool. A tool does not create, hands do. "Art" *generated* by tools is a buncha hogwash.
@@bmac4And yet AI can create and is being used to do so. You can say art generated by tools is a bunch of hogwash but it’s part of our world now.
But people will still think it's okay to steal art because "it's on the internet, so now anyone can use it"
Personally, if they wanted to license my art i would have to ask a gross amount of money because it's like giving away what makes your art yours
There's definitely a legality thing, but a lot of people that feel strongly about art and artists themselves feel there's also a moral lacking in how ai is being utilized and where it's being implemented. That can't be grounded in facts though, so people brush it under the rug. Do we really want a future where people are just pumping out prompts for a status quo to churn out the most bucks? It's already doing a ton of damage, and not just to the theoretical ideal of humanoty. It's doing real physical damage
I think it’s much more nuanced than that, unfortunately. The problem is that OpenAI buys image datasets from 3rd parties, which buy datasets from social media companies, which are legally allowed to sell anonymized user images for the use of training AI models.
Part of Instagram’s Terms of Agreement is that they are allowed to package your uploads into a dataset that they can sell to others for this exact purpose. Copyright technically doesn’t apply here, the law says you can train on copyrighted material so long as the output is “transformative in nature”.
True, but they were allowed to steal artists works long before A.I. came into the picture. People who want to protect artists should be going after the companies with these abusive terms of service, not focusing on the A.I. part. You can't outlaw an entire concept and technology, but if we aim for better platforms and contracts we may actually accomplish something!
I think one of the biggest problems in the current discourse around AI art is that people think of "AI art" as some monolithic thing, when the reality is that there are multiple different approaches to AI artwork, and even for a given system there are completely different ways to use the AI.
The only thing I'm interested in about AI art is its application in engineering.
Prompt > Image > Blueprint > 3d model > Solid object.
Especially procedural and evolved art which date back to the 80s
@@oompalumpus699CEASE. and here is why
"AI" currently is good at delivering solutions that "look" plausible.
While being utterly completely WRONG.
If you want collapsing buildings, this is how you get them. Keep. Them. Out. Of. Critical infrastructure and buildings.
Please. For the love of everything holy. I know enough about ML and engineering. DON'T.
There is no discourse.
There's raving lunatics, there's people whose definition make fanart theft, and there's normal people.
@@theaureliasys6362 How many subjects have you claimed expertise on so far? Aren't you just a regular super-polymath who just happens to spend a lot of time commenting.
100%- AI is a cool technology. When it first came out I honestly thought it could be a fun tool.
I assumed the training data would be protected by copyright but it feels like its constantly being ignored. Like, 'Hey, look, we have this AI made thing! No human involvement' rather then 'We used this artists style, they are getting royalties'
Counterpoint: free use laws. The ai is by nature, transformative. This means that AI art programs don’t need to pay for a license. Additionally, art that inspires other artists is essentially training data for people. Imagine if you are inspired by an artist, you draw something, post it online, and cite the original artist as your inspiration, only for that artist to then copyright strike your art because you don’t have the license for their art.
Yeah, this guy clearly is not particularly informed about what has been deemed transformative by US courts in the past. AI training is far more transformative than Authors Guild v. Google. Google was sued for placing snippets of digitized books into search results, but the courts called is transformative. There is a less than 1% chance these courts will examine how AI is trained and rule it less transformative than that!
Every artist hones their craft. They practice. They study the human form... but they don't do that in a complete bubble. They study past works from great artists of the past as well as their peers. No art can be said to be a completely original idea or work. But that doesn't mean every piece of art produced - by man or machine - needs to pay tribute to those whose shoulders they are standing on every time they create something.
But when people build upon those foundations laid by earlier artists, they do pay tribute in a way by also contributing themselves into work.
AI can't contribute itself, it has nothing original to add. All it can do is collate this data into a finished piece that resembles the sum of it's training data
@@SharpForceTrauma
That's a nice little assertion you've got there. Now, provide the evidence that generative art can't be novel or unique.
@@Lowraith Sure. Show me an AI that can make art without any training data.
Oh, I'm sorry, that doesn't exist?
Then, pray tell, if an AI cannot generate without existing data, then how can they possibly add anything new or original?
@@SharpForceTrauma
Shifting the Goal Post.
I'll entertain your flawed argument. Name a modern artist who creates art without any training data (natural studies, studies of other artists' works, etc). Can't? That'd be a double-standard you've got.
Finally, look up "emergent properties".
To get back to the topic from this little tangent, though, you made an assertion that generated art cannot contribute something new to the field. Back up your assertion with supporting evidence. "No YOU prove that I'm NOT wrong" is not a valid response.
@@Lowraith Yes. All modern artists build upon foundations and fundamentals created by prior artists. But even in doing so, they will *always* add something unique, in their style or technique, or limitations posed by their skill level or certain fundamentals they have not fully mastered. Otherwise, they would simply be tracing and plagiarizing.
An AI cannot hope to achieve this. It will always print a "perfect" combination of all of it's data. There is no human element.
It is simply recycling.
Will this be the format for the cursed quests? 😅
Yes, you must pay an artist a license fee and then generate an AI image to make a potato with Thor’s face on it
It's wild to me how much pishback there is when anyone asks "hey shouldn't you be paying for the training data u use to create these models?"
So whenever an artist is inspired by another's work they should have to pay the original artist.
Sorry but that's not how it works.
@pwn3dg4m3r right. Because those artists worked to create something by their own hands that is different from the inspiration. AI is not "inspired" by art. It is fed art and then trained to mimic it as closely as possible. If you think you've created something after typing in a prompt, you haven't. You've stolen and profited from the work of others without putting in any effort yourself.
@darbywalker1 that's exactly what art students are taught to do, learn from past artist and create new art from those teachings.
It shows how little you know about AI, AI does not recreate, it use what it was taught to create something new in the vein of what it has learned.
Sorry AI is going to take your job and make you useless but that's your fault 😆 🤣 😂 😹. Bye bye useless person.
@@pwn3dg4m3rAI does not “learn” it works within set parameters and outputs an amalgamation of what its parameters consider “art”.
Humans apply their own styles, emotions, experiences and worldviews into their art.
Learning the basics by studying others is not the same as feeding data into a program that is incapable of deeper intuition or application of its own style.
Humans are not machines, learning is more than just gorging on data.
That and, ai generated art will never be copyrightable. It is inherently public domain unless it already infringes on existing human produced artwork.
It's crazy how people don't understand that by this logic any artist who has ever taken any inspiration from another artwork is "stealing".
In order to use this logic you must apply different rules to humans and computers, which I think is quite stupid. We shouldn't be using convoluted protectionism to pretend humans still have value in fields where they're clearly surpassed by AI, instead we should let AI work for us.
And finally this is inevitable, even if your government tries to keep AI down by creating laws like this, nothing is stopping other countries from using AI to do exactly the same thing, meaning you're just putting your country at a massive disadvantage
Business/finance/tech bros: but it’s faster and I don’t have to pay artists so my bank account goes brrrrrr
Artists when they have to adapt to new technology, just like everybody else:
@@hresvelgr7193 thanks for proving my point 👌🏼
@@hresvelgr7193 thanks for proving my point 👌🏼
@@hresvelgr7193 thanks for proving my point 👌🏼
@lgr7193 New technology that wouldn't exist without the artists and only exist to exclude the artist from the revenue stream.
Stop coping, that's all this is.
Build a machine that can actually draw like a person, rather than one that steals more efficiently than any person could, how about that?
Didn't the Supreme Court already rule that using art and books to train ai is considered transformative and therefore falls under fair use?
based. the only problem is to even be able to tell if something being used in some particular model (basically a black box)
Only other problem I see with it is that it has no limitations on how much it can produce. It can make 100s of artwork in a day which means any "commission" pieces would be extremely cheap and could completely destroy any art market/economics etc... also the artists should be paid some percentage of commission even after a license is purchased
Artists can set up their own AI and use their own work as training data and produce new commissions this way. There is nothing being taken away from artists by giving them new tools.
It would depend on the prices youre paying for the licencing. Everytime you make and sell a new piece you have to pay percentage. And let me tell you taking into account how much training data you need for anything usable you wont have the money to do 100s of comissions and be comercially viable for your own upkeep. Especially if they drop in price and then it just reverts back to normal artist comissions
Then be a better artist. With time we have abandoned old methods and tools, industries have widened and tightened in an endless cycle. If you aren’t willing to use these new tools and develop new techniques to elevate yourself, or are simply unable to compete with the evolving market, that’s your problem because the world moves on whether you eat today or starve tomorrow. Just the way it is. Adapt or die.
@@Zadamanim This would never work. And would utterly defeat the point of then being an artist. Your popularity would also tank because as we've all seen, AI art visually doesnt look as good as real art. Real artists have a constantly developing art style which youre never gonns replicate in AI
The license is payment, don’t be greedy. Just charge more for the license.
Artist: posts on twitter
Twitter: sells its content for ai use to Microsoft
Ai gets its pictures
Artist doesnt get anything since twitter can just say hey by posting here you consent
The problem is that adobe is now actively acquiring a license on your work that you cannot reject. If it is made on their hardware (ie creative cloud online) they obtain a license for training.
There is no stealing from the artists. In copyright, stealing is making and selling a copy (or almost a copy) of a creative work.
Making a model is not producing a copy or almost a copy of a creative work.
If that model produces almost a copy and it is sold - you must pay, it is your duty to ensure that whatever you draw with whatever tool doesn't break someone's copyright. Tool has nothing to do with it.
For people that don't understand. Take Midjourney for example, no licenses have been brought forward by them since their lists got leaked and they have stolen from people who's work would still be covered by their trade mark even though they are dead as it still is not in the public domain now
Say how Mickey mouse just became public domain and both Walt Disney and Ub Iwerks have been dead since 1966 and 1971. AI generative company could put him in their with no license from Disney directly.
It do feel like 1900s when artists were complaining about photography.
Yeah but the difference is that people were photographing beautiful scenes. Not other people’s art which is what ai seems to be doing.
@@apollo4294 I understand there's a different element because of using basically unauthorized training sets but you can look up what people were saying its super similar. People were like artists out of work and people are just going to take pictures of other people's work and pass it as their own.
Most ai art isnt supposed to be used in a commercial setting.
in the wise words of rick "You can copyright a piece of art, but you can't copyright an art style. Unless it's a 1 to 1 copy, it's not stealing"
What you are describing is "plagiarism," not theft
That's the problem with this whole AI-art debacle because folks aren't stealing, but *some* folks *might* be plagiarising
Theft and plagiarism has to be treated differently because you have to deal with them differently, especially when it is a question of whether one even can plagiarise artworks
when artist create art, most of the time he looking at many references in process, watching commercial and any other type of art and then create his "unique" art. Is he stealing? is this a problem? no and no. this is how it works. And surprise - AI do exact same thing. but somehow people saying it's different.
Ai is a program. It would be like including a trademarked image in a painting (copying the file itself into the work) rather than making a picture legally distinct using your own skill and imagination
Legally difficult. You could argue any artist could look at art for training. If someone learns to paint like a certain painter and sells his own art in their style it’s just training material.
The problem with this is (imo),
Big companies that alredy own a lot of Licenses can train their ai for free, where a small company wil have to secure a a lot of those licences an other way.
That means mega corps, like Disney, can make extremely wel trained ai that can out compeat any other ai trade by individuals/small companys.
The thing is, people are using AI art specifically to skip out on paying artists. They have no respect for artists and will do anything to avoid paying them.
This is a point I wish Id see more. Less a point and more a fact.
All the people who scream "AI good free art" are all the people who share the AI art around as if they "created" it and get upset when called out for it. Fact of the matter is you just dont wanna pay artist what they deserve, end of story
@@JuliaStrydom-eg7lh I mean honestly yeah, if I can get a product created to my satisfaction for free instead of it costing me money then I'd prefer to do it. Luckily AI art can't really capture what makes art feel HUMAN yet, but if it ever can then artists might be in a really shit position.
@@caleb163 Respectfully, I dont think its a good view to have. While I respect your opinion, it just doesnt make a lot of sense to *not* pay an artist to do something for you, that you yourself cannot. Its in the same light as paying a plumber to come work on your pipes because you cant. Difference is the plumber doesnt have an AI threatening their livelihood.
And I for one hope AI never gets to the point of where its indistinguishable. Artists are already screwed enough as it is, but once AI gets even better, I feel artists are just going to quit all together since theres no point anymore
@@JuliaStrydom-eg7lhtbh Caleb has the right idea and that’s the direction the world is going, whether you like it or not morals and ethics don’t move dollars. They can influence them to a degree but the want of the consumer will always win.
So what do we do? Well we don’t try to stop it, that’s pointless and it will stampede over you. But you can guide it and make common sense legislation and business practices to use it safely and as ethically as possible.
That’s the nature of convenience, people throw out ethical considerations in order to use the more simple/convenient/inexpensive alternative (especially in cases like this where it’s not easy to see the harm it causes if you aren’t directly impacted by it), the best we can do is demand ethically sourced data and for AI art to be labeled as such when used or sold so that it doesn’t pollute the marketplace for human art, I don’t think AI art (or even AI in general) is inherently bad, but like all advancements it will have and is having a multitude of positive and negative consequences (intentional or otherwise) and we should try to mitigate those negative consequences as much as possible
The problem is that system requires you to pay multiple artists for a single piece of AI art.
And companies would not want to do that.
So what you're saying is it'd be more effective for them to hire a person instead of ai if that became the norm? And this would be bad... how?
@@mearthhito it would be bad. It’s just from a business standpoint paying several times the amount of money for AI art than regular art makes no sense.
I’m not defending the mentality. I’m just explaining it.
@@frenchfriedbagel7035 That should be part of their business calculus. If paying the artists whose work went into the "AI" is prohibitively expensive, then hire a human artist instead.
And also they can get the AI art by instead paying people pennies to create reinforcement learning datasets or by autonomously labelling photographs.
That’s not how licensing works.
Biggest thing about ai art is how it affects artists. Simply because that art they get for free they could get from either pre made art from artists, which you either pay for or is free. If it is free atleast that artists work is shared and appreciated.
If the art is requested and paid for or gifted by the artist. That is still shared passion and profit for the artist.
Most ai are trained on free art online. Thats why they usually get hands wrong because most hand drawing tutorials are owned or licenced.
we have never had a “correct” or rather “fair” way of compensating artists at scale. It’s all just a hodgepodge of glued together laws and blended into copyrights and license’s gobbledegook.
"20 years ago when music piracy was everywhere companies claimed it was the end of creativity and art, all while filing law suits against culprits. Now that it's companies stealing art from normal people, it's know as "the future"."
-my uncle (seriously, it's a good point)
Music piracy was (and is) unauthorized duplication. The counterpoint to "You wouldn't steal a car" was "yes, but what if my neighbor showed me their new car they'd bought and offered to burn me a copy?"
Sampling exists tho. And look where we are
The point I was trying to get across is that now it's big companies authorising a type of piracy it's supposed to be just fine when it's still harming normal artists
It’s not a good point, you can’t just group all companies into a monolith. There are companies that represent artists and companies that do AI.
Only disagreement would be, if I witnessed an art work I saw online, my brain used that as "training data" and makes inspirational work from it.
Yes. Inspirational work that is equal parts the prior image as well as your own take and abilities.
But these machines cannot contribute originality. All they can do is resemble prior works.
@@SharpForceTrauma equal take? But almost all artist use a blend of inspirations from other artist or styles. Very uncommon for a completely original concepts.
@@reese4077 Even if they use those foundations laid by prior artists, they are not simply mimicking and copying that. They are combing that into pieces that incorporate those foundations with their own style, and they made it using their own work.
AI merely facilitates a mimicry of existing works. If you wish to use AI generation to provide neutral references that sample from many different artists, that's an entirely different ball game from merely taking that data, generating something, and boldly claiming that *you* made it, because you did not add anything beyond dictating your idea to a computer. It is no different from making a request to an artist.
The problem I see, is something where a company who aggregates a ton of art work, like Instagram, or Deviantart. Those companies say "Hey guess what, we own your art when you put your art on our platform." then they sell that art to someone one else, like a company creating an AI to look at the art.
I agree, that the artist should get money for their art if it's used to train an AI just like they have to be payed if someone wants to copy their work. Copyright was invented to enforce paying artists if you want to copy their work. But, as far as I know, no country has created laws to enforce paying artists if their art is used for training. So companies will just not pay the artist and no one can force them to pay anything.
By the way, even if they have to pay the artists, there is a lot of art under public domain, because the artist died long ago. So they can still use that art to train the models without paying, like today anyone can copy that are. But in difference to copying it, AI can adapt it, so it fits more modern use cases.
Guys it’s called inspiration, we human use it all the time. The ai got “inspired” because I am 100% sure we can also become inspired by none free art. But sell our inspired art for money. Legally.
Fun fact the GPTs were trained on task data. Which is people being paid slave labour rates to do mind crushingly mundane work
So in essence modern “AI” was built on slave labour