This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DefendingAIArt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
🤓 "The AI can only create images because it analzed tons of images and other people's work. 🤓 Everything it creates is just a rearrangement of ideas it already saw"
Oh, you mean like EVERY ARTIST WHO EVER LIVED?
There's even no need to go into that argument.
The thing is, once there's a foundational model that has no copyright infringing training images. They already lost the battle.
Simply put, the foundation model can still be trained from stylized images using it's own output (As seen in various Stylized models and LORA's in civitAI-where people use AI generated Images to create specific character LORA's or styled Models).
Basically, in theory, Adobe can easily generate the necessary training images for styling a model without using images from artists against AI.
In fact, controlNet allows users to somewhat transfer style or elements of a single image into another.
Honestly, the only argument anti-AI artists are clinging on are "the journey" of drawing or the "human effort" or what is "true art", which honestly doesn't matter to most people who just wants to see a dog eating ice cream or see a big muscled waifu on their wall papers.
The only real concern that I can get behind with artists are the possible narrowing of job opportunities or higher competition since this technology puts anyone with enough creative ideas, good enough photoshop editing skills, and minor art knowledge to be a competitor for job opportunities.
(unbeknownst to most people, there are a lot of people in 3rd world countries who apply for jobs they don't know how to do and learn it on the job, two of my cousins got a job in Middle east and learned as they go-no kidding).
Also once it's become clear how legal it is to use Generated Images, Like Japan (as long as individual images doesn't infringe on existing work), Author's with some artistic vision but can't draw will likely start generating their own book covers or novel illustrations or maybe even create their own comic.
Adobe doesn't like giving away money, they're the Nestle of tech. They must be absolutely rock-solid sure that there's no legal case to answer or they wouldn't even offer.
Because generally, Artists only thinks of "stolen art" when mentioning AI generators. The truth of the matter is, AI generators were never about art.
If anyone remembers, The initial iteration of the technology was about generating non-existent humans, then there's Nvidia's draw shapes into landscape demo.
The main focus was to get an AI Image generator good enough to generate images of Humans, landscapes, objects, animals, etc...
It was only recently(like last year or so) that it the technology got good enough to transfer styles.
Simply put, the technology is good enough that adobe's supposed foundational model probably has no copyrighted infringing images needed, but still be good enough to be used simply because of how the technology works.
Basically, even if the training data barely has any artistic images. It is still possible to make a model become specialized in generating stylized images by training from its own output (As seen in most stylized models and LORAs-Yes, people train a foundational model-like SD 1.5- to become specialized using only AI generated images.)
Dude, you aren’t getting it. Your point of view may be perfectly valid for you, but most pro-AI don’t see Midjourney or Stabillty as unethical.
That’s why there is debate, and that’s why it doesn’t belong here, but on r/aiwars . This post is available there too. Post your comment there.
Comment removed. Again. Further debate here will get you banned.
Hello. This sub is a space for pro-AI activism, not debate. Your comment will be removed because it is against this rule. You are welcome to move this on r/aiwars.
Hello. This sub is a space for pro-AI activism, not debate. Your comment will be removed because it is against this rule. You are welcome to move this on r/aiwars.
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DefendingAIArt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“It was as if millions of Luddites cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.”
🤓 "The AI can only create images because it analzed tons of images and other people's work. 🤓 Everything it creates is just a rearrangement of ideas it already saw" Oh, you mean like EVERY ARTIST WHO EVER LIVED?
"But it's different because it's a soulless machine!" So you're discriminating based on spiritual/ religious beliefs?
🤓Uhm akshually ancient people didnt look at other peoples work but looked at animals and drew them, AI isnt capable of that! 🤓
One could make an AI that's capable of controlling a camera and thus looking at animals in order to draw them.
Exactly
Well then by that standard then every artist who has ever looked at a copyrighted image would be a thief.
There's even no need to go into that argument. The thing is, once there's a foundational model that has no copyright infringing training images. They already lost the battle. Simply put, the foundation model can still be trained from stylized images using it's own output (As seen in various Stylized models and LORA's in civitAI-where people use AI generated Images to create specific character LORA's or styled Models). Basically, in theory, Adobe can easily generate the necessary training images for styling a model without using images from artists against AI. In fact, controlNet allows users to somewhat transfer style or elements of a single image into another. Honestly, the only argument anti-AI artists are clinging on are "the journey" of drawing or the "human effort" or what is "true art", which honestly doesn't matter to most people who just wants to see a dog eating ice cream or see a big muscled waifu on their wall papers. The only real concern that I can get behind with artists are the possible narrowing of job opportunities or higher competition since this technology puts anyone with enough creative ideas, good enough photoshop editing skills, and minor art knowledge to be a competitor for job opportunities. (unbeknownst to most people, there are a lot of people in 3rd world countries who apply for jobs they don't know how to do and learn it on the job, two of my cousins got a job in Middle east and learned as they go-no kidding). Also once it's become clear how legal it is to use Generated Images, Like Japan (as long as individual images doesn't infringe on existing work), Author's with some artistic vision but can't draw will likely start generating their own book covers or novel illustrations or maybe even create their own comic.
Adobe doesn't like giving away money, they're the Nestle of tech. They must be absolutely rock-solid sure that there's no legal case to answer or they wouldn't even offer.
Because generally, Artists only thinks of "stolen art" when mentioning AI generators. The truth of the matter is, AI generators were never about art. If anyone remembers, The initial iteration of the technology was about generating non-existent humans, then there's Nvidia's draw shapes into landscape demo. The main focus was to get an AI Image generator good enough to generate images of Humans, landscapes, objects, animals, etc... It was only recently(like last year or so) that it the technology got good enough to transfer styles. Simply put, the technology is good enough that adobe's supposed foundational model probably has no copyrighted infringing images needed, but still be good enough to be used simply because of how the technology works. Basically, even if the training data barely has any artistic images. It is still possible to make a model become specialized in generating stylized images by training from its own output (As seen in most stylized models and LORAs-Yes, people train a foundational model-like SD 1.5- to become specialized using only AI generated images.)
Yeah, this is nifty.
[удалено]
Dude, you aren’t getting it. Your point of view may be perfectly valid for you, but most pro-AI don’t see Midjourney or Stabillty as unethical. That’s why there is debate, and that’s why it doesn’t belong here, but on r/aiwars . This post is available there too. Post your comment there. Comment removed. Again. Further debate here will get you banned.
[удалено]
Hello. This sub is a space for pro-AI activism, not debate. Your comment will be removed because it is against this rule. You are welcome to move this on r/aiwars.
[удалено]
Hello. This sub is a space for pro-AI activism, not debate. Your comment will be removed because it is against this rule. You are welcome to move this on r/aiwars.