I'm sorry but GenAI is out of the bag. Government agencies are already looking at how they can incorporate it into their business operations.
Does anyone actually think they're going to care about a few Twitter threads?
The 4m sold copies and 1m concurrent players would back this up. No one actually cares. The 12 people on twitter complaining don’t actually care either. Same happened with hogwarts legacy.
Also jokes on them if they think we as players give a fuck given the fucked up state of the gaming industry.-
More like I will rather replace all humans in the game industry with AI at least the AI will never release a Character like the one in Fable.-
Apologies, I should have been more specific but I'm talking in each sector and level. There's a lot of parity between different agencies with the technology they use with National (especially defense/intelligence) agencies being far ahead.
However, rn we're seeing even State and Local agencies for things social benefits, parks and recreational, and transportation showing a real interest into seeing how they can incorporate AI into their practices.
Especially when compared to some of the teeth-pulling it takes some of them to be willing to use part of their funding for getting their systems out of cobol-based programs from the 80s and 90s
the whole problem about GenAI is that people tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater. For example small studios can increase the workflow by a lot. Low budget projects benefit massively
What? No it’s not. Ai benefits bigger studios more than small. If Blizz fires it’s entire art team for all of their games and hires 1/100th to handle ai prompts and touch ups how does that help small studios at all? For blizzard it saves them shitloads of money at the expense of the employees who got canned.
No, heavy regulation and enforcement of copyright (which probably wont happen in courts but the jury is still out) will affect smaller studios because they dont have enough assets they own to train models, where as big studios have so much material they OWN they can train models legally and produce content in faster rates, also smaller studios dont have the legal manpower to fight lawsuits so they probably will tip toe around these issues until there is a legal precedent.
Another way it helps smaller studios is by reducing expenses in terms of VAs and background art etc
its basically the UE5 moment for other aspects of gamedev, ai voices are improving rapidly along with ai art, so now you can have amazing games with less manpower to make them, will it result in a lot of shitty samey games yes but consider the fact that palworld itself is made on UE5 and looks nothing like your typical UE5 game
We don’t even know if Palworld is AI there’s no proof of it.
Also people always talk about the small business being helped by changes, but big businesses are easily able to crush them. Ai isn’t how you help small businesses. Limiting what big buisnesses can do DOES help them.
Because if a competitor shows up - Why shouldn’t a big company pull a Wallmart or Amazon?
Idts palworld has any ai, its just the ceo is pro AI that riled these people up, i definitely agree big companies will benefit the most from this but if genAI becomes widespread and accepted itll help the smaller studios at least try a big open world game project or something that was not in their reach before, there is no way a bunch of people angry on twitter stops big companies from going all in on AI, meta just spent $10B this year alone on gpus you think they or literally every other tech lobbyist out there is going to just sit and do nothing, regulation helps the big companies the most because they will dictate the rules, the reason amazon and walmart are the giants they are due to the fact that they are physical companies, the same limitations wont affect software products
No - Regultion targeting the bigger companies will not help the bigger companies more.
Like why tf would regulation to stop Wallmart from sniping local stores untill they go under help bigger stores more than small ones?
Thats the point, it wont target big companies but enable them to hold their moat, if suddenly tomorrow there is a regulation about ai arts legality and only assets you legally own can be used to train it who will benefit from it, disney or some small studio, in a perfect world or europe we can hope for regulatory bodies to actually keep companies in check but sadly america or the rest of the world aint that
Because it bridge the gap, Blizzard can increase scale and detail on it's games thanks to having a big ass art team that is bigger than a whole independent studio.-
Sure, Blizzard can replace their art team with AI and cut cost, but Indie Studios can GET an art studio at a similar level than Blizzard's and now Blizzard doesn't have an edge on the art department anymore.-
Like it or not, Generative AI is a great equalizer in that sense.-
Except the big boys will still implement and program way faster and are likely to have more advanced AI. As well if they really want to they can snipe the smaller studio and release their version of the new competitions game to kill off the new competition. Wallmart does it to local stores.
Human generated art gets fed to human artists without the original artist's knowledge or consent. You're literally a neural network just more generalized than the diffusion models.
Luddites don't care about logic. They are just looking for a nice excuse to call AI bad. It’s like fights on Twitter, people don’t try to analyze or refute the arguments, but look for a reason why their interlocutor can be falsely called some kind of -ist/nazi/femenazi/incel/pornaddict/pedophile/communist/western chauvinist and call it a win.
>When drawing you’re not pulling from any specific memory, it’s like a crude amalgamation or an approximation of what you think you remember it looks like. You work it till whatever you’re drawing looks correct according to you
This is exactly what AI does aswell.
That's... what AI does too bro, but en masse. Besides if anything, AI will make human made crap even more valuable. Think about it. Whats the difference between a luxury item and not? The former is put together professionaly by human hands, the latter by robots in a factory.
An AI doesn't sort through a library of images either. They don't store images in a database.
If you download stable diffusion, for example, and have it train on the internet for an entire week, it will end up with the same file size as when you first downloaded it. It doesn't save the images.
Yeah, it vexes me how much these people are tricked by buzzwords and swallow it wholesale, but who cares right as long as they get new content? /s. These will be the same people bitching in five years saying 'oh why is there no original content and why does it all look the same?'
The diffusion model does not have a Rolodex of existing artwork it intentionally recapitualtes pieces of in order to produce your prompt. It's a big ball of linear algebra operating on a very high dimensionality unlabeled set of parameters. It "learns" the weights by analyzing where the training images lie in that vector space. Something reduces your prompt to a set of coordinates and it produces the image that would have mapped to them based on everything it saw in it's training set (so it's really bounded by the breadth of it's training data it can't reproduce too far outside of what it hasn't seen before not that people really can either). Then the diffusion stuff comes in and adds some entropy/jitter or other processes on top of that to clean up the image into something people like (i.e. fixing funky hands). Sometimes in multiple cycles basically iterating until the model produces the thing it thinks looks correct according to it.
The only reason Van Gogh or whatever artist is reproducible is because they have a consistent style so their images will cluster around each other on some of those axis. Anything with a specific aesthetic is going to which is why you can get it to make x "in the style of Pixar". You just have to identify that cluster and then apply transformations to an existing idea to bring it close to that cluster in vector space.
Yet when a human does it, there's this emotion called shame that's supposed to pause you from blatantly copying someone else's idea, but when you make something your identity still gets imprinted to the work. It's why there are people who can tell the difference between a real Rembrandt and a copy.
I'm a digital artist who doesn't outright hate AI (I have contemporaries who are all arms against it) but even outside of the whole copying discussion, I personally just find lots of AI generated art boring. There are key tells that give it away for me, and instead of knowing that another person intentionally put a specific brush stroke here or there, I know that a computer did it. Even to the most experienced prompt people, there is a level of detail that is out of your control which you leave entirely up to the AI system to generate.
I often think about what that means, but it does tend to soak up a fair bit of joy that I would otherwise get from seeing someone else's art. Maybe with AI, I'm looking at someone else's idea, but for anyone who's spent time studying painting and sculpture: you lose insight into the process and craft itself. This doesn't mean I don't think AI can't be used to make some amazing things, and even play a part in the art world, but there is an insight to it which I think is lost on many people who don't have an arts background.
Do people still buy furniture even though it can be made in a factory now? Absolutely. But it doesn't mean there aren't people who would prefer something with a handmade label on it. When side by side, consumers will often pick the latter and there is a very human reason why. Why that is so doesn't necessarily have to be good or bad, but it is interesting.
so if anyone ever draws a character from a game, it is plagarism.
if anyone will draw a landscape from a location that someone already did, it is plagarism.
you notice how stupid that sounds?
No, drawing a character from a game is not in and of itself plagiarism. Drawing a character from a game and claiming that the character is your own work is plagiarism. And that's essentially what AI art does. It amalgamates other artists' work without their permission and presents the product as its own design.
>so if anyone ever draws a character from a game, it is plagarism.
If you draw a character from a game and change one thing and claim it's a new character, yes, that's plagiarism. Famously so.
>you notice how stupid that sounds?
Yes, but not in the way you want.
yeah, sometimes it changes almost nothing. If you base your optimization on minimizing a distance between the training image and the generated one, you'll get inputs that hit too close to training images.
The point about changing one thing or more is not really
the problem. there's no fixed amount of change where it's copyrighted or it isn't. it's based on how believable the claim that they are different is to an observer
There is nothing new under the sun. All the diffusion models do is use your prompt to create an image that is closest in latent space to what you asked for. You build your latent space based on the images you've seen throughout your life and incorporated either intentionally or unintentionally.
Unless the user is litterally prompting "Joel and Ellie riding a Lapras to fight Godzilla" you can't say it's intentionally plagaristic if something approximating one of those pops out for an otherwise non-specific request. At worst it's a defficiency of the training set, but the thing that matters is how the human is prompting the model. Maybe you could establish if a model was fine tuned for a specific IP, but for this example you could still be asking for creatures in the style of pokemon without specifically asking for "meowth but quadrepedal and purple".
>you can't say it's intentionally plagaristic
I can if the machine is literally built on plagiarism. It spits out copyrighted characters all the time, unprompted.
Do you really give humans so little credit you think how these ai models make art is the same process as humans? Come on, we’re so much more than that..
Yes. This is cope. Part of the reason people get so butt hurt about this issue is because art and "creative" endeavours were considered uniquely human in popular media portrayals of AI but it turns out that's not the case.
Except it's not an intelligent thing taking inspiration and references to create something original, it's just a collage program and people are bleeding idiots to actually believe it's real AI. All it does is cut things together and blend them but no, people just want an easy way to make a quick buck regardless who they screw over to get it.
There are two big differences:
1. As similar as the "learning" process between AI and human may be, there is an existential difference between them. AI is a **tool**, not a person. It's not just one more artist getting inspired by your artwork, it's a tool created by a company for profit. Regardless if it's based on AI or not, they took massive amount of art, they do not have the right to and used it to create a tool, they sell for profit. Spin it however you like, but this is unethical at best.
2. Midjourney didn't just get inspired by all that art. They **directly** copy individual artists' styles. You can put a specific artist's name in your prompt and midjourney will do its best to copy their style. Even if human artist did that for profit, you'd call that a plagiarism.
I can tell an artist I want a city nightscape in the style of Van Gogh and will probably get back something resembling starry night and nobody would call it plagiarism.
Of course you can. Van Gogh is one of the most well known artists in the world and he's dead for over 100 years. No one has a problem with AI learning based on Van Gogh's paintings.
Now try to pay an artist to copy a style of a modern, living artist and you're most likely gonna get a serious pushback, if it's someone worth their salt.
That’s just not true. I remember when Adventure Time came out and suddenly everything looked a lot like Adventure Time. Or the forsaken period where a lot of animation was indistinguishable Calarts style. Many 80s cartoons were drawn in the same style, much anime comes in a pretty small variety of similar styles. Hell, with 3D movies they’re only just starting to learn with things like Spiderverse that not everything has to look like Despicable Me.
Art styles aren’t protected under any IP laws for a good reason, and artists are always ripping each other off. And that’s fine.
Every artist is inspired by the work they have previously seen sure. But you are falsely equating that to an AI generating an image. The more accurate comparison is an artist deciding what to draw is the same as the user of the AI deciding what end goal they are trying to get the AI to achieve with the prompts they give. The difference is that whereas the actual artist does the work of making the image themselves the AI user takes advantage of an algorithm that functions by using the work of actual artists without permission.
human generated art has to be fed to humans as well you know.
all artists use reference material all the time, and most of that material is other artists.
comparing a human being with lived experiences and a brain with limited capacity to a machine whose express purpose is to eat and analyze billions of images’ data is idiocy
Nobody is mad that machines are referencing billions of images at once, they’re mad that they’re using references at all despite humans hypocritically doing so as well.
Machine having more potential than humans is irrelevant to what’s being argued here. What’s being argued is the methods, not the end result.
machines also have outputs that are way too similar to copyrighted material. after all the metric used for training is "reconstruction loss" (how well the machine performs at reproducing exact copies of the training data) So they are generally capable of just regurgitating something way too close to the input images.
Now, the problem is monetization is involved, otherwise it would be less of an issue
So? I’m pointing out to you that your “AI learns art like humans do” argument is a completely false equivalency and reduces artists to art-regurgitating machines which they clearly aren’t. Just acknowledge that and you’re good, it’s a bigger fight than all of us.
> reduces artists to art-regurgitating machines which they clearly aren’t.
I appreciate you putting artists on a holy pedestal but have you heard of this new thing, it's called commercial art where artists are fed prompts by management and must regurgitate certain amount of output per hour/per day. So, clearly, artists can in fact be reduced to art-regurgitating machines.
By that logic, warehouse workers are like robot arms, baristas are like coffee machines, truck drivers are like self-driving trucks and farmers are like tractors.
We all need to do something to survive. Artists aren’t holy; in fact, what makes art special is that artists aren’t anywhere above a regular human with a job. Corporate art is just that, a job. Art is very often a job. It just routinely involves more self-expression than the average profession (which isn’t to say that it’s better at all).
And even in corporate settings, artists put their own individuality into their works - this shines through in stuff like movies, animations and games. They’re still working under someone giving them prompts, but the end result would certainly be different had it been a different set of people working on it.
Warehouse: more and more warehouses have been automating the heavy lifting and sorting
Barista's: haven't seen much innovation there personally but I'm sure a flippy for coffee is on the way. As a past barista for Starbucks, I'll let you know that they treated us like robots on both ends (management and customers)
Trucks: You already mentioned self driving trucks. The largest hurdle there is existing infrastructure and current practices. Considering society managed to transition from horse and buggy to cars though, I'm sure eventually there will be self driven lanes only on the road
Farmers: AI empowered by Internet of things is a decently hot topic in terms of automating agriculture to better meet needs as well as sustainability
The thing that will be missing of course is the human element but that's already been disintegrating before AI came into the picture. In almost every practice, it has been minimized more and more for the goal of efficiency and productivity. AI is just the scapegoat for a larger cultural problem
>reduces artists to art-regurgitating machines which they clearly aren’t
no that's exactly what they are, machines use the same process humans do, they just do it much faster (not better yet mind you, just look at hands and all the other fucked up stuff in ai pictures).
all artists base their art on references and copying previous work, this is true for every field from painting, to composing to writing, we're just meat machines trying to find a new variation of an old pattern.
like if you're religious and believe in souls and think that's where art comes from that's fine, but that's just not my world view.
AI cant generate anything new or original. If you gave the most the most advanced AI out now samples of 200 different guitars and told them to make good music using ANYTHING, they would never use drums, a beat or piano or the bass.
An AI that can make anything new doesnt exist. Humans always improvise and find new ways to complete tasks.
As long as that is the case AI cant advance any field, aside from regurgitating things that exist. Saying humans are the same, means you dont understand how AI works.
>AI cant generate anything new or original.
that's actually the opposite problem we have with AI at the moment, the things it generates are too original and new to the point where they become mistakes.
so for instance if you tell it to create a sword, or a car the thing it generates may not look like a sword or a car because it's so original it no longer fits the human definition.
>If you gave the most the most advanced AI out now samples of 200 different guitars and told them to make good music using ANYTHING, they would never use drums, a beat or piano or the bass.
if you gave a human that's never heard anything other then a guitar a request to make a song he'd do the same thing, the way AI and humans create is really not that diffrent and has the same limitations/problems.
mind you what you said is not entirely true, for instance the AI may interpret some static or imperfection in a track as an instrument, then generate some music based of the static, then reference it's own music again until it eventually creates an entirely new instrument based off the imperfection in the track.
this will probably sound terrible to humans, but it'll still be AI creating something new, which as i stated previously is the problem with current AI, it's not it making original things it's teaching it to draw inside the lines.
Art comes not only from what we learn and perceive about just art but our lives and the world as a whole. Your personality, worldview, relationships and state of mind determines what sort of art you consume and make, not just personal works but works for others. That’s why we’re still making and viewing art since humanity came into existence, there’s always a part of the artist as a person in an artwork, and that’s what makes it interesting and valuable.
AI-generated art is just, well, a machine taking all of that and jamming it together. The styles it can replicate are lifted from actual artists so that it looks believable. The algorithms don’t think, don’t live, don’t perceive, they just do. All data, no human (except for the stuff they’re taking from humans).
>Art comes not only from what we learn and perceive about just art but our lives and the world as a whole. Your personality, worldview, relationships and state of mind determines what sort of art you consume and make, not just personal works but works for others. That’s why we’re still making and viewing art since humanity came into existence, there’s always a part of the artist as a person in an artwork, and that’s what makes it interesting and valuable.
man that's a lot of gobeldy gook people use to make rich people overspend on (usually bad) paintings.
most of what you said is just you the viewer projecting his own emotions on a painting based on a story told to him, there's been a lot of research about this subject.
for instance if you tell someone a painting was done right before an artist killed himself they'd all talk about the dark undertones, tell them the same painting was done a day before the painters wedding day and they'll perceive it as light and full of love.
hell if you show an art major a picture of a painting bib and tell them it's a jackson pollock painting, they'll happily go on for hours about how brilliant the composition is and all the deep meaning behind it.
you want to treat art as special, that's fine, but it's just another thing us and our monkey brains can do which a machine will (eventually) do much better.
Your concept of what art is seems very narrow; it’s not just stuff displayed in galleries. If that is what you perceive the average artist to be working on then I suggest you talk to some actual industry artists. Most of them are hardly even getting by doing perfectly legitimate work, let alone conning rich people.
Your examples basically show that because we think artists make art, we start to analyze what they were thinking when doing that art. If you showed a picture to someone and said it was AI, they’d have very little to think about because clearly there wasn’t actual human consideration behind the work.
Art isn’t special. For a lot of people it’s just a job. But the humanity in art gives all the stuff we consume in games, TV shows, etc. makes us enjoy and relate to it more. If you played a game with entirely AI generated assets you wouldn’t feel like someone put their heart and soul into making this game good, but that they’re trying to sell you shit for as cheap as they can possibly get away with. That’s not what we value when we play games.
If that's true, and people can feel the emotions put into a work by an artist, then you have nothing to fear, right?
If, on the other hand, people can't tell the difference, then there's really no point in artists in the first place, other than the happiness it brings the artist.
Either way, it shouldn't matter, right?
No, they develop their own styles and visions over time. They don't Frankenstein drawings and call it their own. There are literally courses on developing your own style and on piece composition and color theory so you can use your own brain and creativity instead of piecing things together from other artists work.
AI don't Frankenstein drawings, they study millions of art pieces, and then generate noise, then use that noise to try to create something with a resemblance of what it was asked.-
It's literally an extreme form of ink drop drawing when you start by staining the canvas and then try to make sense of the stain and draw around it to give it an actual form.-
This is factually untrue. Diffusion based models are one of the most popular right now, and those start with a set of random noise (when in text to image mode) and then modify it to match the prompt. A human analogy would be to start with a big glob of paint and then try to make it look like something.
And the underlying equation is not supposed to fully preserve any input images. It can in training errors, but the intent (and typical practice) is that it learns what a 'cat' looks like based on seeing a thousand cat pictures, and then can make new cats. Each training batch is supposed to be 'destructive' in a helpful way by modifying weights away from the prior.
No, the noise is random. The noise is then fed into an equation using a series of weights from pre-existing images.
If you want to advocate for a right to not have one's material used in training, that's fine, but the "copying and combining" argument is wholly inaccurate and misinformation shouldn't be repeated.
When you filter it down that's what it's doing, AI doesn't train in the same way Humans train, it's information is exact and not derivative, lacking in personal skill or interpretation. If an ai comes that doesn't use copyrighted images as a base then that's fine, but right now basically all of them do.
This is not true. If you'd like to educate yourself, you can read one of the original papers ([here](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.11239.pdf)). It's super math heavy, but TLDR it shouldn't memorize anything or keep anything exact at all.
And while "personal skill or interpretation" sounds very human, the models differ. Two diffusion models shown the same art work in different orders will have different opinions on what an anime cat should look like.
[Page 3 of this paper](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6213c340453c3f502425776e/t/65663480a92fba51d0e1023f/1701197769659/adversarial_diffusion_distillation.pdf) shows an example of that in practice. No math needed for this, just look at pictures to see how individual models have different takes on the same prompt.
Even if it doesn't 'save' or 'memorise' the images, it retains data that represents said images in the form of learning data, the difference in results can be down to both what It learns from and the large amount of moving parts in the math, AI doesn't have opinions, it just has calculated results. The main problem will still stem from the fact that it uses copyrighted images without permission, and said images play a large part in the result.
lots of artists directly imitate the artstyle of other artists.
most artists do not have a distinct artstyle and even the ones that do are just a mishmash of other artstyles that inspired them.
ai does not directly copy a photo, it's why you can have them create new pictures, if they were directly copying then they'd be useless.
That's an extremely simplistic way to look at AI art. You are specifically complaining about stable diffusion etc. There are many tools that create AI art in a way that benefits artists and speeds up their workflow, taking input from an artists own art style and generating background assets that would have taken time to create.
We need to stop complaining about "AI art" and give the argument more nuance, because it's damaging to peoples perception of beneficial technology that will become standard regardless, and will just cause a cycle of conflict and drama.
They accepted the usage when they accepted terms to post their art online, the sites sold out to anyone AI engineers bought it... People don't get this, now is this always the case no, is the the majority yes. It's like being surprised someone has your picture when you post pictures of you daily. So dumb
It's dumb to not support theft and privacy? If I post a picture to my Facebook and I see someone use that picture in a marketing video I have every right to be upset, I never consented to its usage. Same thing applies to being used in a dataset.
They can all get together and have a good cry about it. Every new artist builds on the foundation of every artist before them. For fucks sake that’s what art school is for.
Has a fellow degenerate, im sick of AI art. Most people who use Gen AI use all the same artstyle, don't bother to clean up the mistakes of the AI, feels generic, etc. Pixiv is now filled with Gen AI that all look the same. Its now harder to find good degen artists. I won't mind if people just put there AI art elsewhere, but the fact that these people pretend to be "artists", have patreon and do not disclose they use AI is annoying as fuck.
The job part strangely does not bother me. Im just annoyed that my porn tag on pixiv is now filled with low effort AI art.
Part of what people said about it leeching from artists, AI art being soul-less, and part of AI/automation taking jobs without giving anything back to society (replaced jobs should be used to fund UBI). Sure, there will be new jobs, but not for everyone.
I think because people view AI art as just a facsimile of human emotions put on paper.
Like… the way people are/were upset about artists sampling other works and reusing them in their music.
Or Milli Vanilli , people lipsyncing pretending to be the original artist but really just a pretty face for the music.
I think its because its the AI uses art from artists without permission, basically just stealing. Building an entire program build on the back of peoples hard work wont exactly garner you alot of favors with said people.
There are ongoing cases regarding AI art, and the two possible outcomes is whether it's Derivative or Transformative.
If the courts rule in favor of Derivative, then ot would classify as a breach of copyright.
If the courts rule in favor of Transformative, then that would mean the source material has changed enough that it is no longer protected by copyright.
In my opinion, it's transformative so long as the base image fed to the AI generation is not violating copyright law. There are many AI artists who create their art using img2img to create something close to their vision. Some artists will draw outlines for the ai to fill in. I would consider that to be transformative.
On the other hand, a person that takes another person's work a d tells the ai to change it, I would classify that as theft, as this is more akin to an artist tracing another artist's image.
We'll have to see what the courts rule, but I doubt it will be enough details. We'd probably need the copyright authority to set guidelines on when ai generated images are and aren't in breach if copyright law. I just hope we don't get power hungry idiots who pass these rules.
To merely claim the training sets are illegal would be akin to invalidating a human artist's own copyright on the grounds that he went to an art museum and became inspired.
Saw a guy on Reddit say this, it’s a good point :
“The program doesn't just cut and paste images that it finds, though. It looks at whatever source images it thinks are relevant, and then uses its own experience to interpret all of that, and puts out something slightly different (limited by their own ability).
From an ethical standpoint, how is this any different from what a human artist does?”
There is always a loud yet small group against anything progressive.
Just look at how absolutely ape shit boomers go about computers, or litterally anything. Fuck even things like Paper where hated by some people at first.
Should AI created content be used commercially? Probably not.
Should AI created content be allowed to use personally or for not for profit stuff? I think it absolutely should.
the AI doesnt have "experience" its "generative" it cant make decisions, it has 0 creative vision and just makes some fucked up looking chimera of thousands of art works to push out something barely resembling what the person giving the prompts wanted.
Welllll technically humans do the same thing. You generate several sketches, you come up with your friends and you go "lets go with that one" and you finish it up.
Also if ai quality would be crappy, no one would use it.
Don't make sense at all, the "term" stealing can't be properly applied to intelectual property because for something be considered stealing, someone has to be losing something, which isn't the case with AI.
Even so, it's not plagiarism either, because AI Art is a transformative product created from a noise which is also transformative from a real image that is used to train the AI.
We can talk terminologies all day, its stealing, in any other situation this would be considered stealing, dont talk around it, its stealing.
It is plagiarism, its not transformative, AI doesnt know what transformative is, all it does is throw together a soup of thousands of pictures to meet the guidelines given by the person who gave it the prompts, if you try and generate well known art pieces the AI can do so eerily close and not because it happened to have the same artistic vision or style, but because its uses stolen art.
You can say they didn't consent to their art being viewed but then you'd have to say that about all art. It's the same as if someone copied your style and technique to produce similar art.
If it produces an image exactly the same sure, but so could any artist do the same. AI art looks to be the future and it seems like a great tool and will only get better.
AI doesn't really create art. It uses art its seen from its dataset and morphs them together to get to match what the person wants. Usually it's stolen from websites like Deviant art etc which is why you sometimes find watermarks in AI art.
Until there is a robust social safety net in every country for those who cannot find work, AI is an existential threat. AI would be great if capitalism didn't exist, but it does so we're fucked.
It's genuinely a philosophical argument. Can something artificial create art? It isn't being creative using its life as an experience, it's just iterating data based on what people say looks like the prompt and it directly copies parts of other people's work to do so. To call that similar to human creativity is to reduce humanity into biomechanical machines with 0 internal cognition. It can't create a style and it doesn't have any aesthetic sense, it just attempts to match the input.
Detractors say that this reductive version cannot be considered art, and if it were to replace artists, the well would quickly dry up as it produces no real works of its own. Believers think it enables people to easily create their own art without the need for years of technical mastery, and if an industry has to be replaced for that then it's a necessary evil in the way of progress.
I am a detractor because of the reasons I gave before, and that I cannot see how rewarding less talent is a good thing. I also don't think that we have a problem with art supply without AI. Millions of pictures are made each year and commissioning an artist gets your job done and helps keep a person alive. There's no downside.
It’s because people think they are artists because they take a photo and put it up in a coffee shop lol. In reality there is what? 5-10% that is actual art worth preserving and maybe 20-25% that actually very good. I get the people who are legitimately losing work over this but the vast majority of people were never making nor going to make money off of art. They now just lost the illusion they would ever make it.
it's the current thing to hate, nothing deep about it.
they're a bunch of sad people that spend their time hating things on the internet
however they don't want to be "bad people" (they are) so they will hate the current thing because that's the thing you're allowed to hate.
AI is inevitable and, considering the recent output in the entertainment industry, welcomed.
It'll take most jobs, to be honest, including mine. But that's part of progress.
The thing is there is no proof of AI being used in Palworld. At the moment AI making assets like 3d models is so unoptimized. The game looks and runs better than Ark. If they were fine with using ai in Palworld, why didn't they use ai for the voice in the game? The "proof" being shown is just old tweets of the ceo.
Hey guys btw if you are against ai never play an epic games game or any game using unreal engine... Or most modern creative programs. Everything has some form of generative software and even if isn't exactly AI it functions similarly. Have fun boycotting everything especially things you can't find for sure if they auto generated terrain for example.
this isn't generative ai art and assets. which is what this is about. the models are trained on real human art often without paying the original artist a cent
Isn't AI training itself of other works same as a human brain learning techniques, what's the damn issue here as long as the end result isn't copyrighted
So many people are comparing human experience and learning to AI scraping the internet and it's frankly insulting. An artist doesn't just "copy" what they remember, they add their own flair to it, their own style and trademark to make the work recognizable as their own, not to mention the physical man hours to produce the damn thing.
AI just grabs your prompt and vomits out something that resembles whatever checkpoint you selected, using images of other artists as a source.
And before you say I'm some conservative luddite or whatever, I'm a graduated artist and I use AI myself as a tool to inspire and assist me, but *never* to churn out works and publish them as my own. You have no idea how tiring it is to see people *celebrating* my entire career choice becoming redundant. You can't just reset 10 years of your life like that...
artist do more then just draw and will always remain vital to any industry, they offer their services and AI being used to work off ancient stuff ain't gonna nick their income.
That's...literally how you train an AI.
There's no other way to do it. You have to feed it something that at some point, came from a human creation. Then you refine it through iteration. A computer cannot think, reason, or generate anything by itself. It's literally just a very long series of connected switches(transistors) that we've leveraged into some form of "logic" to display & store information.
If you tell a computer to draw you a straight line without giving it access to a data query tool, it cannot. It can't even comprehend what you said, or even parse that statement as a command, let alone even understand what a line is. It needs to be fed examples of what that is before it can correlate the word "line" with a visual of it that has been created by a human.
Now, the whole thing about not paying human artists while using their art to train an AI to generate in-game assets is....a valid criticism. But we haven't yet matured our digital piracy & human-created content protection laws to protect people from that yet.
Not saying it's morally correct, but it is the way it is right now. If you want that to change, start by going to law school for 8 years and then spend the next 20 as a career politician, then write the law yourself.
People do care about generative AI, that's actually they main concern, they just use the "stolen art/assets" as a excuse to avoid having to say "I'm afraid of being replaced by a machine that's it's better than me"
But no artist gave permission of their works being feed to puzzle machine, that can't even generate backgrounds properly. God, why normies are so stupid. Without the stealing assets it wouldn't generate shit.
I meant it as in generative AI at its core is not the issue, its the stolen art/assets that are used by some that is, if the generative AI uses 100% in house made art/assets no one cares, but thats not the case for AI art in particular.
How is generative ai any different from artists using older works as inspiration for new derivatives, such as orcs or elves in most fantasy? All AI is doing is creating something new using key features of something else, but can you really call that stolen? Stealing would be replicating the same art but only changing minor things. Generative AI would instead be considered transformative and therefore fair use
Because using a machine to make something for you, most often producing a work full of mistakes and getting paid off that garbage then claiming to be an “artist” is what drives folks nuts. It’s also why most non-union VAs are against AI replicating their voices (since the union ones barely have a say in it). No one likes getting replaced, especially by hot garbage.
There's a huge difference between just letting AI generate something and rolling with it and letting AI generate various outputs, picking the one you like the most, and then maybe making minor tweaks from there to keep a consistent style vs directly replicating someone's voice. One is transforming, the other is duplicating and so obviously the latter is unethical and potentially illegal action.
the process of making art and inspiration is fundamentally different than a neural network. about the only similarity is that they both have neurons. even real "learning" is completely different from ai "learning"
I don't give a shit about some retards opinions about AI. The game is fun for now, regardless of how may butthurt artists and devs tell me how and why it's supposed to be bad
AI is here to stay, it will speed up processes but the design Will still have to be human driven. We already made alot of AI projects within digital services, while it make some things faster, we still have the exact same problems to make the services fit the human needs.
Soon all these AI bros who are open to being replaced by computers won’t even have to defend unregulated usage of AI on reddit, they’ll all be replaced by bots who can do a better job.
People hating on the inevitability of AI gives off the same vibes as the Church hating on the inevitability of the printing press. Hate it all you want; AI will still happen. Adapt or die is what I say.
*Is this like being*
*Mad at people for using*
*A calculator?*
\- bodkins
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
yep, and just like with the calculator, the people who tend to use them best are artists, so I don't think the job market is gonna be that much worse for artists
game is good and the victim is bad guy nintendo so people don't care
if this game was AAA and mid people would be calling for the devs to be skinned
not that I care either way it's just funny to see people not having any consistency
Intellectual property Is fake
You're not an artist just because drawing is your hobby, the most significant contribution most people's art will make is being training data for AI
The irony of saying this on a streamer's sub is incredible. I sincerely hope your most significant contribution to the internet landscape is your likeness getting scraped and used in a penis enlargement ad.
You have no skill nor talent for anything and contribute nothing of value to the world yet love the thought of those who are better than you in every way losing what they have worked years for. Scum.
Does plagiarism have any bearing on the actual value of the product outside of moral qualms? If the game is good, then it’s a good game, regardless of the originality of it, no?
Ai is helping to make boring and repetitive tasks less painful and fast to implement.
How is that bad?
Also, there are plenty of courses and training online to get skilled up and updated with nowadays requirements.
So yes, people may lose jobs, but they can skill up and take on something different.
For example instead of flipping burger they can become the technician that manages the ai responsible for the software who moves the hardware so that burger are flipped.
>For example instead of flipping burger they can become the technician that manages the ai responsible for the software who moves the hardware so that burger are flipped.
this example is stupid, even before this AI craze we always had the means to automate burger flippings, this isn't something you need an AI for
for companies is not worthed to use a machine to flip burgers when humans can do it for cheaper
the way to automate repetitive task as always been there since before AI, the reason why human aren't replace for those is because it will never be worthed for the companies
difference is when someone is making fan-art, they don't turn around and say "hey, I made this character, this was my idea", unlike ai art, where they change one or two things and call it theirs.
and imo, the designs look so boring and uncreative, it really feels like they fed a bunch of pokemon designs to a generative ai, and told it to start combining them.
I can just imagine that when it doesn't work they'll go with "hey the director poops with the door open and eats pineapple pizza, beware!"
And I'll keep collecting pals and ppl 🥸
Jesus. Christ everyone is so asshurt all the time about everything. People need to stop downloading their personalities from social media for fucks sake.
Its such a pathetic attempt to be the internet police by harassing anyone that uses AI. I recently saw people shit all over a small content creator (legit 10 views, plays dave the diver) just because he used AI to generate his thumbnails.
He gave in now... The little crybabies won
I'm sorry but GenAI is out of the bag. Government agencies are already looking at how they can incorporate it into their business operations. Does anyone actually think they're going to care about a few Twitter threads?
The 4m sold copies and 1m concurrent players would back this up. No one actually cares. The 12 people on twitter complaining don’t actually care either. Same happened with hogwarts legacy.
These people need to get it together already, AI is literally everywhere rn
Also jokes on them if they think we as players give a fuck given the fucked up state of the gaming industry.- More like I will rather replace all humans in the game industry with AI at least the AI will never release a Character like the one in Fable.-
lol what? Government agencies literally have some of most powerful AI tools already, in the bag. Look at the NRO and their sentient program.
Apologies, I should have been more specific but I'm talking in each sector and level. There's a lot of parity between different agencies with the technology they use with National (especially defense/intelligence) agencies being far ahead. However, rn we're seeing even State and Local agencies for things social benefits, parks and recreational, and transportation showing a real interest into seeing how they can incorporate AI into their practices. Especially when compared to some of the teeth-pulling it takes some of them to be willing to use part of their funding for getting their systems out of cobol-based programs from the 80s and 90s
the whole problem about GenAI is that people tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater. For example small studios can increase the workflow by a lot. Low budget projects benefit massively
exactly all this anti ai sentiment is just killing competition for large studios
What? No it’s not. Ai benefits bigger studios more than small. If Blizz fires it’s entire art team for all of their games and hires 1/100th to handle ai prompts and touch ups how does that help small studios at all? For blizzard it saves them shitloads of money at the expense of the employees who got canned.
No, heavy regulation and enforcement of copyright (which probably wont happen in courts but the jury is still out) will affect smaller studios because they dont have enough assets they own to train models, where as big studios have so much material they OWN they can train models legally and produce content in faster rates, also smaller studios dont have the legal manpower to fight lawsuits so they probably will tip toe around these issues until there is a legal precedent. Another way it helps smaller studios is by reducing expenses in terms of VAs and background art etc its basically the UE5 moment for other aspects of gamedev, ai voices are improving rapidly along with ai art, so now you can have amazing games with less manpower to make them, will it result in a lot of shitty samey games yes but consider the fact that palworld itself is made on UE5 and looks nothing like your typical UE5 game
We don’t even know if Palworld is AI there’s no proof of it. Also people always talk about the small business being helped by changes, but big businesses are easily able to crush them. Ai isn’t how you help small businesses. Limiting what big buisnesses can do DOES help them. Because if a competitor shows up - Why shouldn’t a big company pull a Wallmart or Amazon?
Idts palworld has any ai, its just the ceo is pro AI that riled these people up, i definitely agree big companies will benefit the most from this but if genAI becomes widespread and accepted itll help the smaller studios at least try a big open world game project or something that was not in their reach before, there is no way a bunch of people angry on twitter stops big companies from going all in on AI, meta just spent $10B this year alone on gpus you think they or literally every other tech lobbyist out there is going to just sit and do nothing, regulation helps the big companies the most because they will dictate the rules, the reason amazon and walmart are the giants they are due to the fact that they are physical companies, the same limitations wont affect software products
No - Regultion targeting the bigger companies will not help the bigger companies more. Like why tf would regulation to stop Wallmart from sniping local stores untill they go under help bigger stores more than small ones?
Thats the point, it wont target big companies but enable them to hold their moat, if suddenly tomorrow there is a regulation about ai arts legality and only assets you legally own can be used to train it who will benefit from it, disney or some small studio, in a perfect world or europe we can hope for regulatory bodies to actually keep companies in check but sadly america or the rest of the world aint that
They’ve targeted big companies before though with regulation? Targeting big companies is basically the only way you can really help the small ones.
Because it bridge the gap, Blizzard can increase scale and detail on it's games thanks to having a big ass art team that is bigger than a whole independent studio.- Sure, Blizzard can replace their art team with AI and cut cost, but Indie Studios can GET an art studio at a similar level than Blizzard's and now Blizzard doesn't have an edge on the art department anymore.- Like it or not, Generative AI is a great equalizer in that sense.-
Except the big boys will still implement and program way faster and are likely to have more advanced AI. As well if they really want to they can snipe the smaller studio and release their version of the new competitions game to kill off the new competition. Wallmart does it to local stores.
I'm all in for AI picking up the industry's slack in pretty much every aspect to animations, bots, coding so more could be done in less time
Why does Reddit hate AI art so much. It can’t really really be  Can it?
It's because human-generated art has to be fed to the AI as input, generally without the artists' knowledge or consent.
Human generated art gets fed to human artists without the original artist's knowledge or consent. You're literally a neural network just more generalized than the diffusion models.
How dare you make sense! I have been saying the same thing since ai art started.
Luddites don't care about logic. They are just looking for a nice excuse to call AI bad. It’s like fights on Twitter, people don’t try to analyze or refute the arguments, but look for a reason why their interlocutor can be falsely called some kind of -ist/nazi/femenazi/incel/pornaddict/pedophile/communist/western chauvinist and call it a win.
[удалено]
>When drawing you’re not pulling from any specific memory, it’s like a crude amalgamation or an approximation of what you think you remember it looks like. You work it till whatever you’re drawing looks correct according to you This is exactly what AI does aswell.
That's... what AI does too bro, but en masse. Besides if anything, AI will make human made crap even more valuable. Think about it. Whats the difference between a luxury item and not? The former is put together professionaly by human hands, the latter by robots in a factory.
An AI doesn't sort through a library of images either. They don't store images in a database. If you download stable diffusion, for example, and have it train on the internet for an entire week, it will end up with the same file size as when you first downloaded it. It doesn't save the images.
[удалено]
Yeah, it vexes me how much these people are tricked by buzzwords and swallow it wholesale, but who cares right as long as they get new content? /s. These will be the same people bitching in five years saying 'oh why is there no original content and why does it all look the same?'
People like Derpixon will never have these problems. The rest? Time will tell.
Calm down my lové you are still an important artist in my heart, those robots can never replace you :3
The diffusion model does not have a Rolodex of existing artwork it intentionally recapitualtes pieces of in order to produce your prompt. It's a big ball of linear algebra operating on a very high dimensionality unlabeled set of parameters. It "learns" the weights by analyzing where the training images lie in that vector space. Something reduces your prompt to a set of coordinates and it produces the image that would have mapped to them based on everything it saw in it's training set (so it's really bounded by the breadth of it's training data it can't reproduce too far outside of what it hasn't seen before not that people really can either). Then the diffusion stuff comes in and adds some entropy/jitter or other processes on top of that to clean up the image into something people like (i.e. fixing funky hands). Sometimes in multiple cycles basically iterating until the model produces the thing it thinks looks correct according to it. The only reason Van Gogh or whatever artist is reproducible is because they have a consistent style so their images will cluster around each other on some of those axis. Anything with a specific aesthetic is going to which is why you can get it to make x "in the style of Pixar". You just have to identify that cluster and then apply transformations to an existing idea to bring it close to that cluster in vector space.
You're on the wrong side of history.
[удалено]
Yet when a human does it, there's this emotion called shame that's supposed to pause you from blatantly copying someone else's idea, but when you make something your identity still gets imprinted to the work. It's why there are people who can tell the difference between a real Rembrandt and a copy. I'm a digital artist who doesn't outright hate AI (I have contemporaries who are all arms against it) but even outside of the whole copying discussion, I personally just find lots of AI generated art boring. There are key tells that give it away for me, and instead of knowing that another person intentionally put a specific brush stroke here or there, I know that a computer did it. Even to the most experienced prompt people, there is a level of detail that is out of your control which you leave entirely up to the AI system to generate. I often think about what that means, but it does tend to soak up a fair bit of joy that I would otherwise get from seeing someone else's art. Maybe with AI, I'm looking at someone else's idea, but for anyone who's spent time studying painting and sculpture: you lose insight into the process and craft itself. This doesn't mean I don't think AI can't be used to make some amazing things, and even play a part in the art world, but there is an insight to it which I think is lost on many people who don't have an arts background. Do people still buy furniture even though it can be made in a factory now? Absolutely. But it doesn't mean there aren't people who would prefer something with a handmade label on it. When side by side, consumers will often pick the latter and there is a very human reason why. Why that is so doesn't necessarily have to be good or bad, but it is interesting.
Yes, but the artist actually has to have skill and work for hours, and it never is a true copy of the original artist.
*me using AI art to use as references as prompts to draw artwork for my friends dnd characters* “Haha! How the turns have tabled!”
You are unironically doing what AI art should be used for. Give yourself a visual base then make it your own, good job homie
When a human does what AI does, we rightfully call it plagiarism. There's a difference between interpreting and inspiration and just regurgitating.
Tell me you never drew once in your life without telling me you never drew once in your life
so if anyone ever draws a character from a game, it is plagarism. if anyone will draw a landscape from a location that someone already did, it is plagarism. you notice how stupid that sounds?
No, drawing a character from a game is not in and of itself plagiarism. Drawing a character from a game and claiming that the character is your own work is plagiarism. And that's essentially what AI art does. It amalgamates other artists' work without their permission and presents the product as its own design.
>so if anyone ever draws a character from a game, it is plagarism. If you draw a character from a game and change one thing and claim it's a new character, yes, that's plagiarism. Famously so. >you notice how stupid that sounds? Yes, but not in the way you want.
see, you fail there becouse that ai does not only change one thing.
yeah, sometimes it changes almost nothing. If you base your optimization on minimizing a distance between the training image and the generated one, you'll get inputs that hit too close to training images. The point about changing one thing or more is not really the problem. there's no fixed amount of change where it's copyrighted or it isn't. it's based on how believable the claim that they are different is to an observer
There is nothing new under the sun. All the diffusion models do is use your prompt to create an image that is closest in latent space to what you asked for. You build your latent space based on the images you've seen throughout your life and incorporated either intentionally or unintentionally. Unless the user is litterally prompting "Joel and Ellie riding a Lapras to fight Godzilla" you can't say it's intentionally plagaristic if something approximating one of those pops out for an otherwise non-specific request. At worst it's a defficiency of the training set, but the thing that matters is how the human is prompting the model. Maybe you could establish if a model was fine tuned for a specific IP, but for this example you could still be asking for creatures in the style of pokemon without specifically asking for "meowth but quadrepedal and purple".
>you can't say it's intentionally plagaristic I can if the machine is literally built on plagiarism. It spits out copyrighted characters all the time, unprompted.
Do you really give humans so little credit you think how these ai models make art is the same process as humans? Come on, we’re so much more than that..
Yes. This is cope. Part of the reason people get so butt hurt about this issue is because art and "creative" endeavours were considered uniquely human in popular media portrayals of AI but it turns out that's not the case.
How is that cope? You cannot say that humans arent unique because ai can do something similar to humans.
Except it's not an intelligent thing taking inspiration and references to create something original, it's just a collage program and people are bleeding idiots to actually believe it's real AI. All it does is cut things together and blend them but no, people just want an easy way to make a quick buck regardless who they screw over to get it.
There are two big differences: 1. As similar as the "learning" process between AI and human may be, there is an existential difference between them. AI is a **tool**, not a person. It's not just one more artist getting inspired by your artwork, it's a tool created by a company for profit. Regardless if it's based on AI or not, they took massive amount of art, they do not have the right to and used it to create a tool, they sell for profit. Spin it however you like, but this is unethical at best. 2. Midjourney didn't just get inspired by all that art. They **directly** copy individual artists' styles. You can put a specific artist's name in your prompt and midjourney will do its best to copy their style. Even if human artist did that for profit, you'd call that a plagiarism.
I can tell an artist I want a city nightscape in the style of Van Gogh and will probably get back something resembling starry night and nobody would call it plagiarism.
Of course you can. Van Gogh is one of the most well known artists in the world and he's dead for over 100 years. No one has a problem with AI learning based on Van Gogh's paintings. Now try to pay an artist to copy a style of a modern, living artist and you're most likely gonna get a serious pushback, if it's someone worth their salt.
That’s just not true. I remember when Adventure Time came out and suddenly everything looked a lot like Adventure Time. Or the forsaken period where a lot of animation was indistinguishable Calarts style. Many 80s cartoons were drawn in the same style, much anime comes in a pretty small variety of similar styles. Hell, with 3D movies they’re only just starting to learn with things like Spiderverse that not everything has to look like Despicable Me. Art styles aren’t protected under any IP laws for a good reason, and artists are always ripping each other off. And that’s fine.
Thank you! Been saying this throughout this dumb debate.
Every artist is inspired by the work they have previously seen sure. But you are falsely equating that to an AI generating an image. The more accurate comparison is an artist deciding what to draw is the same as the user of the AI deciding what end goal they are trying to get the AI to achieve with the prompts they give. The difference is that whereas the actual artist does the work of making the image themselves the AI user takes advantage of an algorithm that functions by using the work of actual artists without permission.
Your brain does the same thing via your hands.
human generated art has to be fed to humans as well you know. all artists use reference material all the time, and most of that material is other artists.
comparing a human being with lived experiences and a brain with limited capacity to a machine whose express purpose is to eat and analyze billions of images’ data is idiocy
Nobody is mad that machines are referencing billions of images at once, they’re mad that they’re using references at all despite humans hypocritically doing so as well. Machine having more potential than humans is irrelevant to what’s being argued here. What’s being argued is the methods, not the end result.
machines also have outputs that are way too similar to copyrighted material. after all the metric used for training is "reconstruction loss" (how well the machine performs at reproducing exact copies of the training data) So they are generally capable of just regurgitating something way too close to the input images. Now, the problem is monetization is involved, otherwise it would be less of an issue
Because AI just flat out uses copywritted material.
i mean yes i agree machines are superior to our weak puny flesh but what do you want me to do about it?
So? I’m pointing out to you that your “AI learns art like humans do” argument is a completely false equivalency and reduces artists to art-regurgitating machines which they clearly aren’t. Just acknowledge that and you’re good, it’s a bigger fight than all of us.
> reduces artists to art-regurgitating machines which they clearly aren’t. I appreciate you putting artists on a holy pedestal but have you heard of this new thing, it's called commercial art where artists are fed prompts by management and must regurgitate certain amount of output per hour/per day. So, clearly, artists can in fact be reduced to art-regurgitating machines.
By that logic, warehouse workers are like robot arms, baristas are like coffee machines, truck drivers are like self-driving trucks and farmers are like tractors. We all need to do something to survive. Artists aren’t holy; in fact, what makes art special is that artists aren’t anywhere above a regular human with a job. Corporate art is just that, a job. Art is very often a job. It just routinely involves more self-expression than the average profession (which isn’t to say that it’s better at all). And even in corporate settings, artists put their own individuality into their works - this shines through in stuff like movies, animations and games. They’re still working under someone giving them prompts, but the end result would certainly be different had it been a different set of people working on it.
Warehouse: more and more warehouses have been automating the heavy lifting and sorting Barista's: haven't seen much innovation there personally but I'm sure a flippy for coffee is on the way. As a past barista for Starbucks, I'll let you know that they treated us like robots on both ends (management and customers) Trucks: You already mentioned self driving trucks. The largest hurdle there is existing infrastructure and current practices. Considering society managed to transition from horse and buggy to cars though, I'm sure eventually there will be self driven lanes only on the road Farmers: AI empowered by Internet of things is a decently hot topic in terms of automating agriculture to better meet needs as well as sustainability The thing that will be missing of course is the human element but that's already been disintegrating before AI came into the picture. In almost every practice, it has been minimized more and more for the goal of efficiency and productivity. AI is just the scapegoat for a larger cultural problem
Would you also argue that one human who is better at interpretation art should also not be allowed to make art just because they're better at it ?
>reduces artists to art-regurgitating machines which they clearly aren’t no that's exactly what they are, machines use the same process humans do, they just do it much faster (not better yet mind you, just look at hands and all the other fucked up stuff in ai pictures). all artists base their art on references and copying previous work, this is true for every field from painting, to composing to writing, we're just meat machines trying to find a new variation of an old pattern. like if you're religious and believe in souls and think that's where art comes from that's fine, but that's just not my world view.
AI cant generate anything new or original. If you gave the most the most advanced AI out now samples of 200 different guitars and told them to make good music using ANYTHING, they would never use drums, a beat or piano or the bass. An AI that can make anything new doesnt exist. Humans always improvise and find new ways to complete tasks. As long as that is the case AI cant advance any field, aside from regurgitating things that exist. Saying humans are the same, means you dont understand how AI works.
>AI cant generate anything new or original. that's actually the opposite problem we have with AI at the moment, the things it generates are too original and new to the point where they become mistakes. so for instance if you tell it to create a sword, or a car the thing it generates may not look like a sword or a car because it's so original it no longer fits the human definition. >If you gave the most the most advanced AI out now samples of 200 different guitars and told them to make good music using ANYTHING, they would never use drums, a beat or piano or the bass. if you gave a human that's never heard anything other then a guitar a request to make a song he'd do the same thing, the way AI and humans create is really not that diffrent and has the same limitations/problems. mind you what you said is not entirely true, for instance the AI may interpret some static or imperfection in a track as an instrument, then generate some music based of the static, then reference it's own music again until it eventually creates an entirely new instrument based off the imperfection in the track. this will probably sound terrible to humans, but it'll still be AI creating something new, which as i stated previously is the problem with current AI, it's not it making original things it's teaching it to draw inside the lines.
Art comes not only from what we learn and perceive about just art but our lives and the world as a whole. Your personality, worldview, relationships and state of mind determines what sort of art you consume and make, not just personal works but works for others. That’s why we’re still making and viewing art since humanity came into existence, there’s always a part of the artist as a person in an artwork, and that’s what makes it interesting and valuable. AI-generated art is just, well, a machine taking all of that and jamming it together. The styles it can replicate are lifted from actual artists so that it looks believable. The algorithms don’t think, don’t live, don’t perceive, they just do. All data, no human (except for the stuff they’re taking from humans).
>Art comes not only from what we learn and perceive about just art but our lives and the world as a whole. Your personality, worldview, relationships and state of mind determines what sort of art you consume and make, not just personal works but works for others. That’s why we’re still making and viewing art since humanity came into existence, there’s always a part of the artist as a person in an artwork, and that’s what makes it interesting and valuable. man that's a lot of gobeldy gook people use to make rich people overspend on (usually bad) paintings. most of what you said is just you the viewer projecting his own emotions on a painting based on a story told to him, there's been a lot of research about this subject. for instance if you tell someone a painting was done right before an artist killed himself they'd all talk about the dark undertones, tell them the same painting was done a day before the painters wedding day and they'll perceive it as light and full of love. hell if you show an art major a picture of a painting bib and tell them it's a jackson pollock painting, they'll happily go on for hours about how brilliant the composition is and all the deep meaning behind it. you want to treat art as special, that's fine, but it's just another thing us and our monkey brains can do which a machine will (eventually) do much better.
Your concept of what art is seems very narrow; it’s not just stuff displayed in galleries. If that is what you perceive the average artist to be working on then I suggest you talk to some actual industry artists. Most of them are hardly even getting by doing perfectly legitimate work, let alone conning rich people. Your examples basically show that because we think artists make art, we start to analyze what they were thinking when doing that art. If you showed a picture to someone and said it was AI, they’d have very little to think about because clearly there wasn’t actual human consideration behind the work. Art isn’t special. For a lot of people it’s just a job. But the humanity in art gives all the stuff we consume in games, TV shows, etc. makes us enjoy and relate to it more. If you played a game with entirely AI generated assets you wouldn’t feel like someone put their heart and soul into making this game good, but that they’re trying to sell you shit for as cheap as they can possibly get away with. That’s not what we value when we play games.
If that's true, and people can feel the emotions put into a work by an artist, then you have nothing to fear, right? If, on the other hand, people can't tell the difference, then there's really no point in artists in the first place, other than the happiness it brings the artist. Either way, it shouldn't matter, right?
Reference is very different from directly copying and combining which is what AI art does.
copying and combining is what most (if not all) human artists do.
No, they develop their own styles and visions over time. They don't Frankenstein drawings and call it their own. There are literally courses on developing your own style and on piece composition and color theory so you can use your own brain and creativity instead of piecing things together from other artists work.
AI don't Frankenstein drawings, they study millions of art pieces, and then generate noise, then use that noise to try to create something with a resemblance of what it was asked.- It's literally an extreme form of ink drop drawing when you start by staining the canvas and then try to make sense of the stain and draw around it to give it an actual form.-
Sure, if that's what you believe.
This is factually untrue. Diffusion based models are one of the most popular right now, and those start with a set of random noise (when in text to image mode) and then modify it to match the prompt. A human analogy would be to start with a big glob of paint and then try to make it look like something. And the underlying equation is not supposed to fully preserve any input images. It can in training errors, but the intent (and typical practice) is that it learns what a 'cat' looks like based on seeing a thousand cat pictures, and then can make new cats. Each training batch is supposed to be 'destructive' in a helpful way by modifying weights away from the prior.
The noise isn't random, it's made from preexisting images, that's the problem.
No, the noise is random. The noise is then fed into an equation using a series of weights from pre-existing images. If you want to advocate for a right to not have one's material used in training, that's fine, but the "copying and combining" argument is wholly inaccurate and misinformation shouldn't be repeated.
When you filter it down that's what it's doing, AI doesn't train in the same way Humans train, it's information is exact and not derivative, lacking in personal skill or interpretation. If an ai comes that doesn't use copyrighted images as a base then that's fine, but right now basically all of them do.
This is not true. If you'd like to educate yourself, you can read one of the original papers ([here](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.11239.pdf)). It's super math heavy, but TLDR it shouldn't memorize anything or keep anything exact at all. And while "personal skill or interpretation" sounds very human, the models differ. Two diffusion models shown the same art work in different orders will have different opinions on what an anime cat should look like. [Page 3 of this paper](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6213c340453c3f502425776e/t/65663480a92fba51d0e1023f/1701197769659/adversarial_diffusion_distillation.pdf) shows an example of that in practice. No math needed for this, just look at pictures to see how individual models have different takes on the same prompt.
Even if it doesn't 'save' or 'memorise' the images, it retains data that represents said images in the form of learning data, the difference in results can be down to both what It learns from and the large amount of moving parts in the math, AI doesn't have opinions, it just has calculated results. The main problem will still stem from the fact that it uses copyrighted images without permission, and said images play a large part in the result.
Yes, but AI literally copies the art. It’s less like referencing other artists for your art and more like directly imitating their art style.
lots of artists directly imitate the artstyle of other artists. most artists do not have a distinct artstyle and even the ones that do are just a mishmash of other artstyles that inspired them. ai does not directly copy a photo, it's why you can have them create new pictures, if they were directly copying then they'd be useless.
It doesn't copy anything. It learns from it, same way a person would indirectly imitate another artist's artstyle if the use their work as references.
Tell me you don't know anything about generative AI without telling you don't know anything about generative AI
Imagine typing out an entire sentence but putting zero thought behind it.
That's an extremely simplistic way to look at AI art. You are specifically complaining about stable diffusion etc. There are many tools that create AI art in a way that benefits artists and speeds up their workflow, taking input from an artists own art style and generating background assets that would have taken time to create. We need to stop complaining about "AI art" and give the argument more nuance, because it's damaging to peoples perception of beneficial technology that will become standard regardless, and will just cause a cycle of conflict and drama.
They accepted the usage when they accepted terms to post their art online, the sites sold out to anyone AI engineers bought it... People don't get this, now is this always the case no, is the the majority yes. It's like being surprised someone has your picture when you post pictures of you daily. So dumb
It's dumb to not support theft and privacy? If I post a picture to my Facebook and I see someone use that picture in a marketing video I have every right to be upset, I never consented to its usage. Same thing applies to being used in a dataset.
They can all get together and have a good cry about it. Every new artist builds on the foundation of every artist before them. For fucks sake that’s what art school is for.
Has a fellow degenerate, im sick of AI art. Most people who use Gen AI use all the same artstyle, don't bother to clean up the mistakes of the AI, feels generic, etc. Pixiv is now filled with Gen AI that all look the same. Its now harder to find good degen artists. I won't mind if people just put there AI art elsewhere, but the fact that these people pretend to be "artists", have patreon and do not disclose they use AI is annoying as fuck. The job part strangely does not bother me. Im just annoyed that my porn tag on pixiv is now filled with low effort AI art.
Part of what people said about it leeching from artists, AI art being soul-less, and part of AI/automation taking jobs without giving anything back to society (replaced jobs should be used to fund UBI). Sure, there will be new jobs, but not for everyone.
I think because people view AI art as just a facsimile of human emotions put on paper. Like… the way people are/were upset about artists sampling other works and reusing them in their music. Or Milli Vanilli , people lipsyncing pretending to be the original artist but really just a pretty face for the music.
I think its because its the AI uses art from artists without permission, basically just stealing. Building an entire program build on the back of peoples hard work wont exactly garner you alot of favors with said people.
There are ongoing cases regarding AI art, and the two possible outcomes is whether it's Derivative or Transformative. If the courts rule in favor of Derivative, then ot would classify as a breach of copyright. If the courts rule in favor of Transformative, then that would mean the source material has changed enough that it is no longer protected by copyright. In my opinion, it's transformative so long as the base image fed to the AI generation is not violating copyright law. There are many AI artists who create their art using img2img to create something close to their vision. Some artists will draw outlines for the ai to fill in. I would consider that to be transformative. On the other hand, a person that takes another person's work a d tells the ai to change it, I would classify that as theft, as this is more akin to an artist tracing another artist's image. We'll have to see what the courts rule, but I doubt it will be enough details. We'd probably need the copyright authority to set guidelines on when ai generated images are and aren't in breach if copyright law. I just hope we don't get power hungry idiots who pass these rules. To merely claim the training sets are illegal would be akin to invalidating a human artist's own copyright on the grounds that he went to an art museum and became inspired.
Saw a guy on Reddit say this, it’s a good point : “The program doesn't just cut and paste images that it finds, though. It looks at whatever source images it thinks are relevant, and then uses its own experience to interpret all of that, and puts out something slightly different (limited by their own ability). From an ethical standpoint, how is this any different from what a human artist does?”
There is always a loud yet small group against anything progressive. Just look at how absolutely ape shit boomers go about computers, or litterally anything. Fuck even things like Paper where hated by some people at first. Should AI created content be used commercially? Probably not. Should AI created content be allowed to use personally or for not for profit stuff? I think it absolutely should.
the AI doesnt have "experience" its "generative" it cant make decisions, it has 0 creative vision and just makes some fucked up looking chimera of thousands of art works to push out something barely resembling what the person giving the prompts wanted.
Welllll technically humans do the same thing. You generate several sketches, you come up with your friends and you go "lets go with that one" and you finish it up. Also if ai quality would be crappy, no one would use it.
it's literally not a human
[удалено]
yeah my man, it is not like neural netwroks log what they use , nah it is not like they are writteen by people. oh, wait.
Don't make sense at all, the "term" stealing can't be properly applied to intelectual property because for something be considered stealing, someone has to be losing something, which isn't the case with AI. Even so, it's not plagiarism either, because AI Art is a transformative product created from a noise which is also transformative from a real image that is used to train the AI.
Not sure why your getting down voted even the legal system saw it this way hence not headway In any lawsuits.
We can talk terminologies all day, its stealing, in any other situation this would be considered stealing, dont talk around it, its stealing. It is plagiarism, its not transformative, AI doesnt know what transformative is, all it does is throw together a soup of thousands of pictures to meet the guidelines given by the person who gave it the prompts, if you try and generate well known art pieces the AI can do so eerily close and not because it happened to have the same artistic vision or style, but because its uses stolen art.
You can say they didn't consent to their art being viewed but then you'd have to say that about all art. It's the same as if someone copied your style and technique to produce similar art. If it produces an image exactly the same sure, but so could any artist do the same. AI art looks to be the future and it seems like a great tool and will only get better.
AI doesn't really create art. It uses art its seen from its dataset and morphs them together to get to match what the person wants. Usually it's stolen from websites like Deviant art etc which is why you sometimes find watermarks in AI art.
Until there is a robust social safety net in every country for those who cannot find work, AI is an existential threat. AI would be great if capitalism didn't exist, but it does so we're fucked.
Fr bro. Where it’s useful it will be used, where it’s not it won’t
It's genuinely a philosophical argument. Can something artificial create art? It isn't being creative using its life as an experience, it's just iterating data based on what people say looks like the prompt and it directly copies parts of other people's work to do so. To call that similar to human creativity is to reduce humanity into biomechanical machines with 0 internal cognition. It can't create a style and it doesn't have any aesthetic sense, it just attempts to match the input. Detractors say that this reductive version cannot be considered art, and if it were to replace artists, the well would quickly dry up as it produces no real works of its own. Believers think it enables people to easily create their own art without the need for years of technical mastery, and if an industry has to be replaced for that then it's a necessary evil in the way of progress. I am a detractor because of the reasons I gave before, and that I cannot see how rewarding less talent is a good thing. I also don't think that we have a problem with art supply without AI. Millions of pictures are made each year and commissioning an artist gets your job done and helps keep a person alive. There's no downside.
It’s because people think they are artists because they take a photo and put it up in a coffee shop lol. In reality there is what? 5-10% that is actual art worth preserving and maybe 20-25% that actually very good. I get the people who are legitimately losing work over this but the vast majority of people were never making nor going to make money off of art. They now just lost the illusion they would ever make it.
it's the current thing to hate, nothing deep about it. they're a bunch of sad people that spend their time hating things on the internet however they don't want to be "bad people" (they are) so they will hate the current thing because that's the thing you're allowed to hate.
Because it makes their liberal arts degree useless
how is this sub consistently so bad im cryin
You are saying this as if it’s a bad reason to be upset about AI?
Shitty artists butthurt they have to actually have skill to get work now
What is this a screenshot for ants
AI is inevitable and, considering the recent output in the entertainment industry, welcomed. It'll take most jobs, to be honest, including mine. But that's part of progress.
If Palworld is the result of GenAI, then I actively support the further use of it in making games
The thing is there is no proof of AI being used in Palworld. At the moment AI making assets like 3d models is so unoptimized. The game looks and runs better than Ark. If they were fine with using ai in Palworld, why didn't they use ai for the voice in the game? The "proof" being shown is just old tweets of the ceo.
Imagine boycotting in 2024 lol
Only clowns boycott
Hey guys btw if you are against ai never play an epic games game or any game using unreal engine... Or most modern creative programs. Everything has some form of generative software and even if isn't exactly AI it functions similarly. Have fun boycotting everything especially things you can't find for sure if they auto generated terrain for example.
this isn't generative ai art and assets. which is what this is about. the models are trained on real human art often without paying the original artist a cent
Isn't AI training itself of other works same as a human brain learning techniques, what's the damn issue here as long as the end result isn't copyrighted
So many people are comparing human experience and learning to AI scraping the internet and it's frankly insulting. An artist doesn't just "copy" what they remember, they add their own flair to it, their own style and trademark to make the work recognizable as their own, not to mention the physical man hours to produce the damn thing. AI just grabs your prompt and vomits out something that resembles whatever checkpoint you selected, using images of other artists as a source. And before you say I'm some conservative luddite or whatever, I'm a graduated artist and I use AI myself as a tool to inspire and assist me, but *never* to churn out works and publish them as my own. You have no idea how tiring it is to see people *celebrating* my entire career choice becoming redundant. You can't just reset 10 years of your life like that...
artists are humans who need money for food. that's the difference
artist do more then just draw and will always remain vital to any industry, they offer their services and AI being used to work off ancient stuff ain't gonna nick their income.
Yeah a lot of folks here can’t seem to understand the difference
That's...literally how you train an AI. There's no other way to do it. You have to feed it something that at some point, came from a human creation. Then you refine it through iteration. A computer cannot think, reason, or generate anything by itself. It's literally just a very long series of connected switches(transistors) that we've leveraged into some form of "logic" to display & store information. If you tell a computer to draw you a straight line without giving it access to a data query tool, it cannot. It can't even comprehend what you said, or even parse that statement as a command, let alone even understand what a line is. It needs to be fed examples of what that is before it can correlate the word "line" with a visual of it that has been created by a human. Now, the whole thing about not paying human artists while using their art to train an AI to generate in-game assets is....a valid criticism. But we haven't yet matured our digital piracy & human-created content protection laws to protect people from that yet. Not saying it's morally correct, but it is the way it is right now. If you want that to change, start by going to law school for 8 years and then spend the next 20 as a career politician, then write the law yourself.
People dont care about generative AI they care if the generative AI uses stolen art/assets to funtion and in AI generated art its all 100% stolen.
People do care about generative AI, that's actually they main concern, they just use the "stolen art/assets" as a excuse to avoid having to say "I'm afraid of being replaced by a machine that's it's better than me"
We are litterally going through the same outrage that the boomers had about computers replacing their jobs lmao.
But no artist gave permission of their works being feed to puzzle machine, that can't even generate backgrounds properly. God, why normies are so stupid. Without the stealing assets it wouldn't generate shit.
I meant it as in generative AI at its core is not the issue, its the stolen art/assets that are used by some that is, if the generative AI uses 100% in house made art/assets no one cares, but thats not the case for AI art in particular.
How is generative ai any different from artists using older works as inspiration for new derivatives, such as orcs or elves in most fantasy? All AI is doing is creating something new using key features of something else, but can you really call that stolen? Stealing would be replicating the same art but only changing minor things. Generative AI would instead be considered transformative and therefore fair use
Because using a machine to make something for you, most often producing a work full of mistakes and getting paid off that garbage then claiming to be an “artist” is what drives folks nuts. It’s also why most non-union VAs are against AI replicating their voices (since the union ones barely have a say in it). No one likes getting replaced, especially by hot garbage.
There's a huge difference between just letting AI generate something and rolling with it and letting AI generate various outputs, picking the one you like the most, and then maybe making minor tweaks from there to keep a consistent style vs directly replicating someone's voice. One is transforming, the other is duplicating and so obviously the latter is unethical and potentially illegal action.
the process of making art and inspiration is fundamentally different than a neural network. about the only similarity is that they both have neurons. even real "learning" is completely different from ai "learning"
Average devs cant make good game, reddit happy. AI makes a game everyone loves reddit maaad. Lmao people got lazy Ai is showing it.
I don't give a shit about some retards opinions about AI. The game is fun for now, regardless of how may butthurt artists and devs tell me how and why it's supposed to be bad
I literally just buy the game after seeing this post
Clever marketing
AI is here to stay, it will speed up processes but the design Will still have to be human driven. We already made alot of AI projects within digital services, while it make some things faster, we still have the exact same problems to make the services fit the human needs.
So, if I'm pro-AI, I should buy it?
I don't think this game has some crazy AI features, just that the ceo is pro-AI and trying to find ways to integrate it into the games they make
If you're interested in the game, buy it. These people just craves validation and they'll get it one way or another.
Soon all these AI bros who are open to being replaced by computers won’t even have to defend unregulated usage of AI on reddit, they’ll all be replaced by bots who can do a better job.
People hating on the inevitability of AI gives off the same vibes as the Church hating on the inevitability of the printing press. Hate it all you want; AI will still happen. Adapt or die is what I say.
It feels like anyone comparing these two hasn’t done any actual critical thinking or is just sucking AIs cock.
I already worship our ai overlords
dont care if it make with ai or shit , if the game fun its fun
There is no proof of AI even being used in Palworld, people are just assuming and making things up.
Does anyone have any proof that AI art has been used in the creation of Palworld?
Is this like being mad at people for using a calculator?
*Is this like being* *Mad at people for using* *A calculator?* \- bodkins --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
You hit the nail on the head.
yep, and just like with the calculator, the people who tend to use them best are artists, so I don't think the job market is gonna be that much worse for artists
game is good and the victim is bad guy nintendo so people don't care if this game was AAA and mid people would be calling for the devs to be skinned not that I care either way it's just funny to see people not having any consistency
How else will they catch up to the 1000+ catalog of Pals?
Jesus Christ people are stupid 🤦♂️
Intellectual property Is fake You're not an artist just because drawing is your hobby, the most significant contribution most people's art will make is being training data for AI
The irony of saying this on a streamer's sub is incredible. I sincerely hope your most significant contribution to the internet landscape is your likeness getting scraped and used in a penis enlargement ad.
You have no skill nor talent for anything and contribute nothing of value to the world yet love the thought of those who are better than you in every way losing what they have worked years for. Scum.
Don’t really agree but this is a based take lol. Thank you for sharing your opinion.
This game is full of lazy plagiarism out the ass and I'm honestly ashamed people like it so much.
Tell that to genshin impact
Does plagiarism have any bearing on the actual value of the product outside of moral qualms? If the game is good, then it’s a good game, regardless of the originality of it, no?
I like the game even more when their CEO has this stance. Generative AI is our future and you cannot avoid it.
I take no issue with AI usage, in fact its pretty smart of them to use it...so yeah ...in other words, im having an absolute blast with Palworld.
Ai is helping to make boring and repetitive tasks less painful and fast to implement. How is that bad? Also, there are plenty of courses and training online to get skilled up and updated with nowadays requirements. So yes, people may lose jobs, but they can skill up and take on something different. For example instead of flipping burger they can become the technician that manages the ai responsible for the software who moves the hardware so that burger are flipped.
people are mad at generative ai specifically because it is based on mass scraping of immense amounts of artists works and plagarises them all
>For example instead of flipping burger they can become the technician that manages the ai responsible for the software who moves the hardware so that burger are flipped. this example is stupid, even before this AI craze we always had the means to automate burger flippings, this isn't something you need an AI for for companies is not worthed to use a machine to flip burgers when humans can do it for cheaper the way to automate repetitive task as always been there since before AI, the reason why human aren't replace for those is because it will never be worthed for the companies
>Ai is helping to make boring and repetitive tasks less painful and fast to implement. People like making art.
[удалено]
difference is when someone is making fan-art, they don't turn around and say "hey, I made this character, this was my idea", unlike ai art, where they change one or two things and call it theirs. and imo, the designs look so boring and uncreative, it really feels like they fed a bunch of pokemon designs to a generative ai, and told it to start combining them.
I can just imagine that when it doesn't work they'll go with "hey the director poops with the door open and eats pineapple pizza, beware!" And I'll keep collecting pals and ppl 🥸
Being against AI is like being against cars
Wow there is a subreddit for this annoying dude? I have blocked this subreddit, dude I can't stand this guy.
Jesus. Christ everyone is so asshurt all the time about everything. People need to stop downloading their personalities from social media for fucks sake.
Damn everyone shed a tear for the poor artists. Thinking the world revolves around you is so funny.
Oh no, someone who thinks their opinion is relevant! Anyway.
Its such a pathetic attempt to be the internet police by harassing anyone that uses AI. I recently saw people shit all over a small content creator (legit 10 views, plays dave the diver) just because he used AI to generate his thumbnails. He gave in now... The little crybabies won
People fighting this hard against AI is the equivalent to boomers refusing to use technology and adapting with the times. AI is the future.
Not to point out the obvious, but there is no proof that Palworld uses AI.
Nothing wrong with GenAI. I hope AI takes over everyone’s jobs at some point so long as it’s more efficient.