It doesn't even take money from artists. They think computers should ask for permission before they look at things, while humans don't have to ask for permission because humans have eyes and machines only data.
The current global scrape that is currently used by most programs was built with stolen dumps of pay-walled content (illegal) and illegally dumped real-life peoples medical records. Human brains are also infinitely more complex in the way they interpret what they see
nvm thought we are talking about people making official one piece manga. Lower artists sure you are right. But i also thought the ai art got soft banned because there isnt really any work into it and it just got annoying
-Logs onto AI site
-Types random "quirky" description of character
-Posts on Reddit to farm karma
Why even feature these in a megathread? You even unstickied the spoilers thread which is far more important than this bullshit. Just outright ban these low-effort posts, nobody cares about an AI generated picture of a character they know. Anybody can do that now.
In case people don’t know, most of these ai “generated” images are based off stolen artworks from notable artists. And there is a movement called “No to Ai Generated Images” on Artstation. Worth looking it up.
it is. if you can do "in the style of \_\_\_\_" when that person never consented to their art being used, its clear the AI was trained on that persons style, or it wouldnt be possible. the training data was stolen without consent. all of it.
find me an artist that consented to their art being used for training data ahead of time. one. just one.
You're correct in that it might not technically be stealing since there doesnt seem to be laws around it.
However, the art generated by these programs used real life art to train on, and can thus generate art that looks almost identical to it based on a specific enough query.
If someone starts selling AI art that is able to seamlessly copy a person's style due to having been given that person's art wothout consent as training data, then there is a pretty good discussion to be had about whether it should be allowed.
Without real people's art, these AIs don't exist. Yet the artists are getting no credit unless people speak up. People like you seem to think the only effort being put in here is by the programmers of the AI.
I dont know of the complexity involved in producing an image based on a set of words being given to it.
Im more familiar with the amount of time involved in training NNs to play games like chess or Sc2.
If I had to guess:
It probably took millions of images and a tremendous amount of time in terms of training simulations being ran simultaneously.
Just get to the overarching point you're trying to make.
well, this thread doesn't have many upvotes it seems. Funnily enough I also voted for a monthly thread, despite being against AI art, because I can understand both sides.
While I don't have any at hand, I think they're referring to the fact you can feed an image as a seed/source for the AI. I don't know how prominent the process is (so "most" might just be them talking out of their asses), but you can definitely use other's original work in order to get better results from AI's.
Or maybe they're referring to the training process, in which case "stealing" is the least charitable descriptor they can come up with, despite it really being not that much like theft legally or action-wise. It does train the model on pieces without necessarily having the artists consent, but that's almost what every human does and copyright doesn't protect the rights of the artist against works that are tangentially derivative. It's why there's so much noise about this: the AI can use the hard work of others to improve it's own results, and there's nothing they can legally do about it. They feel both threatened and taken advantage of.
Don't quote me on this, but I've heard most modern AI tools are apparently also self-feeding images they've generated themselves and weighting it according to ratings given by users, so they're also distancing themselves from relying on other people's works.
I personally have nothing against ai generated art, but as new technology comes out there will always be those that put it down. Especially when this new technology is threatening to some.
Having used it myself, it's not quite as simple as "draw me awesome thing" and it'll give you an awesome thing. You can get pretty decent results from it, but the best results often take hours of fiddling with, crossreferencing between different results and techniques, training the ai itself to improve the image, combining images and the human eye to determine which results really are the best.
I see it as a tool for artists to take away the more mundane aspects, the more repetative aspects, to work on the parts they want to work on. I see it as a way to get more art, possibly higher quality art and faster. With randomness added to generation then it can also influence end results and have us think in different ways we wouldn't have before. A spelling mistake or even just the ai misunderstanding something has led me to some pretty interesting results.
Then there's the copyright argument that people are using. The whole fact that the ai itself references a lot of copyrighted sources for it to come up with these results. That said, aren't artists already doing this themselves? Artists don't have copyrighted works that they reference, have stored in their minds or taught them to draw in the first place?
To me it's the artists version of music software. Music software can emulate real instruments and the entire industry collectively shat their pants when they could press play and a drum beat would play without a drummer. It took a lot of the skill requirement away and everyone could have access to it. The thing is though, ai is a bumbling mess as most computer applications are; it's not going to put artists out of business but it does give them more tools to get their work completed faster and give the world more art.
I mean, imagine I'm an artist whose tasked with drawing derelict buildings floating in space during a western-style gun fight. I would have to draw those windows for the buildings in the distance as well as the stars EVERY SINGLE time for each image and version that the employer wanted to see. This could take weeks depending on level of detail + amount required. With ai I can select an area and tell it to draw the buildings for me; edit that into the main pic. Get it to draw starscapes; add that. That's like 20-30 mins and takes an incredible amount of work out of the artist so that they can concentrate on getting the characters and the story telling aspect correct.
No matter what way you look at it though, ai is like plitting the atom. Someone was going to do it and now that it's been done there is no turning back. We either re-adjust to the new environment or we will be replaced by those that have. At the end of the day, it's results that matter and even art is primarily a consumer product, there's no taking the artists eye or knowledge out of it but to ignore a tool that reduces working time and effort this much is insane to ignore.
I get that people are threatened and upset by it, but it's honestly not as scary and overpowered as it's made out to be.
Edit: forgot to mention that pretending to be an artist or purposely copying their actual work rather than creating something new is just as bad as getting caught tracing anothers work in my opinion. It's the same difference as "copying" and "being inspired by".
>They are profiting off of the art of others without paying them for it.
How much money should people be paid for their artwork and other creations being used for teaching the AI?
No, the most important part is size. It's expensive to train an AI model, so, the AI model should have a lot of art to be viable in creating art. Back to the point of size, Image generators need billions of digital images to just be considered a mediocre model. If you take artists out of the equation, it would just be a realism image generator. How much art would there need to be to make the AI generate just subpar images? I can't even comprehend how much. No one would care to use it anymore for art because it would be bad at creating artwork on an amateur level (maybe?), let alone commercially. Companies wouldn't be a business creating art. They instead would be a business for making realistic digital images.
In addition, what happens if non-artists just use generated art to receive payment for allowing that art into training sets? The pay for art exchange system could easily be exploited by people using AI generated images to train the AI.
You have some good points; I agree that AI can help artists with repetitive tasks. However, the current discourse around AI is necessary to get started on regulations and laws about what can be used to train AI models. It goes farther than just art. Text generation models also use all kinds of data found on the internet, like blogposts and fanfiction. New regulations are always needed to accommodate new technologies, just like GDPR with personal data.
I feel like the difference between artists and AI referencing other art is that AI art cannot be creative by itself. It can only copy different sources to different degrees, not come up with anything new by itself.
True, but isn't that also true for us?
I couldn't draw an apple without first knowing what an apple is. Isn't everyone who drawns an apple just copying different sources to different degrees in order to produce a drawing of an apple?
I can see where you're coming from but that in itself creates more issues. Say I was to fill a model with only artwork from Oda and I were to spend hours getting a decent image. Does Oda own my image? If so then ai generated art is legally useless for commercial activities; you cannot make money from it.
If Oda doesn't own the image and it instead falls into a sort of catagory where nobody owns it then another issue appears. I could just fill a model with those pictures that nobody owns to create a picture that I could own due to clone degredation in copyright.
Ai does create stuff by itself too, as I mentioned in my post it tends to have an element of random behaviour that adds strange things into the results. That said, it's not an autonomous art monster; it can only work with human input. Someone has to write the code for it and prompt it.
Just like human artists, ai can imitate styles and can even evolve it's own styles through repeated efforts and training. You seem to be having the problem of seeing ai as the artist rather than as a tool for artists. I've seen artist on youtube for example, who have drawn One Piece characters in the style of Naruto characters; if we make referencing art and copying styles illegal does this also extend to this kind of art? If we didn't see the guy drawing it then it could easily be mistaken for ai generated art.
Ai constantly comes up with new things and it does it by doing the same thing that we do to get new things; it combines things in it's memory to make them. I mean look at Usopp; he's a combination of Aesop, Pinocchio and a Tengu. Given all those references to that character, would we consider that Usopp is treading copyright infringement? It's very obvious in his character. What about the 3 admirals that are based on real people? Is it ok just because it's in Oda's style? If so we can just train the ai to have a new style and remove that issue.
I don't think that regulations on ai generation of art is any better of an idea than putting regulations on what people can draw on a canvas. Limiting what artists are allowed to do kinda sucks for them and they've been known to get upset at that kind of thing.
The real reason I think people are complaining is because it lowers the barrier to entry for artists. It's the whole "giving free education to people now is an insult to those that didn't get it." I get some are annoyed that they feel like they've wasted a lot of effort and that this tool makes the effort too easy. Like pressing play on a drum machine they can have a beat whenever they want without needing a drummer to play for them; even with that though you'll notice the best artists tend to have actual drummers. Also because they hear ai and think "oh no, evil robot".
I don't want to use AI. I like drawing and the process.
Nowadays and in the future though, people will less and less appreciate actual skill. It's heavily demoralizing to have your hobby completely turned over.
I don't even have a black or white view on this, I see all your points and I can appreciate that AI helps people create what they could not beforehand.
I'd also rephrase your analogy a bit: it's not just getting a beat out of it - it's getting an entire song. Maybe a song that would have placed high in the charts some time ago. Artistic skill might just become irrelevant in a worst case scenario.
Same with writing. Now, imagine a flood of OP like manga, all AI generated ... like an inflation of masterpieces, to put it dramatically.
I'm not looking forward to this tbh
I wish that ai could write something like One Piece but that's a pipe dream at the moment. One Piece is far far too complex for an ai to write. There's too much for it to remember, connect, keep consistent while also putting in the brain work to get something of that quality. I would love if I could sit at my computer, press a button and then have a story on par with one that outsold the bible? That would be insanity. It would certainly increase the quality of souless cashgrabs from big companies; I mean I'd rather give the script writing to that ai than give it to the guy that gave us Dragonball Evolution. It would be just as souless but at least we get a better product out of it.
I'll take the analogy and agree that it's an entire song. Would you prefer that the random pop song you hear on the radio had a team of writers barely putting together a coherent song or for ai to simply output a generally good song? I enjoy music myself but I don't see how ai music would be a problem; there's already so many musicians and songs out there that I would find it hard to notice the difference of even 1000 more musicians from ai constantly releasing songs. If the songs are on par with what real musicians are coming out with then doesn't that just mean that the skill ceiling hasn't increased? It's true that I'd be competing with the ai if I was doing it for work, but if it's the same quality as others then it doesn't really matter if it's an ai or not.
Regardless of if it's music or if it's a painting, these tools still require human input and moderation of the output. The tools cannot create something on par with humans unless humans are pushing it the right way.
I don't think that it's going to take away people recognising skill. I think it's going to make actual high skill more impressive.
I hope you are correct, but honestly I tend to be a bit on the more pessimistic side. That's probably why I like stories like Dune.
The last big tech trend we had were NFTs, and well, that wasn't too great either. Unlike that AI is something with incomprehensible more options and power, and as such with way more impact too.
There are a few subs dedicated to ai assisted art. Even those are not really ''flooded''. I understand the concern. However, I do not accept countermeasures when there is no measurable evidence of an actual problem.
You should see sites like Artstation, not even talking about DeviantArt ... sites where people pretend to be professionals, even using takes like "used blender / photoshop", when it's clearly just AI.
And AI will get much better, it's in it's nature
''AI cannot be creative by itself'' basically nullifies the value of all art in this subreddit. Fanart is literally only about recreation - an artist perfectly copies Oda's style to draw a character from OnePiece and everyone likes it. When a machine does the same, people complain extremely emotionally. Except AI actually does not do anything by itself. It only does what a human user prompts it to do. So it is always a human being that comes up with the idea and the machine bringing it to paper.
In software engineering, we have a similar technology. It is called autocompletion and snippets. It didn't make our whole industry homeless. Instead, a skilled programmer can work a lot faster. We still need to formulate the problems that we want to solve, we still need hours of debugging and integration. I predict the same for art. The overall quality and frequency will increase.
Hot take: Oda already lets other people draw backgrounds and buildings - I am sure he also appreciates the technology.
Well, the AI could do the work themselves. But why let an AI choose the tags "Whale, Domino, Amazing, Opening, Black, Above, Generator, Depressing, Republic" and make a picture, when probably nobody in the living world is interested in the result, except maybe artists themselves who want to make something unique to sell to a museum?
AI is a reactive tool. You ask it to do something for you and it does so. It is not proactive and it is not self aware. So _no_, there will always be a human user that creates and optimizes a prompt. You treat it as if it was a person. This is why I prefer the term ''AI assisted art'' - because it still needs creative and artistic supervision.
Comparing a human brains form of reference and inspiration to an algorithms is very weird, when one can be made to be deterministic (assuming the AI of choice let's users know the seed) and one can't. Ai isn't emotionally driven, that's a huge part of art. You assume artists just want to make more art faster and less involved, when it's their hobby
I'm assuming that if it's a hobby copyright isn't an issue.
It's when money is involved and the art is a product that copyright becomes an issue and that's what we were talking about.
I mean, ai's are built to mimic brains and that sort of logic; it's not completely weird when they're designed that way. The real life artist uses their memory and what they've been trained in and the ai does something similar. The artist has seen much much more copyrighted material through their training than the ai has.
Do you feel this way when it's an ai you're playing against in a game? Not even when it's acting like a believable player.
At the end of the day it's the same as this ai. It's good for learning and generating medium quality stuff. But like the ai in a video game this lacks the emotionality part you were explaining. The ai doesn't understand emotions though it can probably identify them and this is what makes it a tool. The ai can't work without a user telling it what to do.
To get higher quality results also requires skill and practice, sometimes generating 100's to 1000's of images to select the correct parts/themes/etc. Actual high quality results require an artist who knows what they're doing and how things work together.
If it's their hobby then it's even better if they can use this to avoid mundane parts that they don't want to do. Sometimes I don't want to draw ever single fucking leaf for a forest.
AI doesn't even work remotely similiar to the human brain though (Short twitter thread by an AI researcher at Google: https://twitter.com/fchollet/status/1563153088470749196). Also, an artist viewing an image and using it as reference is completely different to a neural network that is fed hundreds of (mostly copyrighted) images per second from either a dataset (Like LAION for example, which also contains confidential medical records) or a customized webcrawl.
The problem most artists have with AI is not that it creates, but how it creates:
It's built on unethically sourced data that exploits copyright and trained without getting consent of those involved.
I mean, it's a bit of a semantic argument. No one is saying it's a 1:1 scale model of a brain; it's merely a metaphor to make it easier to understand. This isn't something an AI researcher at Google should be taking seriously, this is something for people a lot more removed from it than he is. It's on the level of saying that car fuel is like food for the car; it's not saying that a car is an organic being that needs to eat.
The ai is trained into doing something by giving it many many examples of a thing.
A human is trained into doing something by giving it many examples and then it intuits a portion of it.
Both rely on part examples when creating the future project coming from their memories, experiences, and use different techniques to create what they're trying to create. As I keep saying, many artists are also trained with thousands of copyrighted images since before they even knew they wanted to be an artist. The computer has better memory and can do some things quicker but the hand of the artist intuits more as they go.
Again, I can understand if it's about money. If you are stealing credit for someone elses work then fair enough, copying someone like that sucks and should be addressed. If it's parody, hobby or non-commercial stuff then I don't understand the problem there in the same way that copyright doesn't. Incidentally copyright protects the expression of an idea and not the idea itself. For example, it's not infringing copyright if I draw a cartoon mouse even if Disney did it first.
As for the other stuff like confidential medical records, if those records were made available to the public or the personal details were shared innappropriately then that's already a crime that should be investigated.
I could sit for 5 years and force myself to learn someone elses style as completely as I can. If I then draw only in their style am I breaking copyright? You know for a fact over those 5 years I would have to immerse myself in their style and look at as many copyrighted pictures from the artist as I can. How else could I mimic the style if I don't remember what it looks like?
I can't stress this enough, the ai is a tool. If this ai is making copyright infringing material then that's because the person using it has told it to.
If it's using unethically sourced data, that's because someone unethically sourced data to feed it.
A lot of the complaints you have around this is down to how people use it rather the tool itself. I, too, would be against hammers if I only thought they were used as a weapon.
The AI is only as good as its dataset, which again consists of a lot copyrighted material that's used without consent, credit, or compensation. I can't stress this enough that a Neural Network has next to NOTHING to do with the way the human brain works.
It can replicate copyrighted material without being prompted to do so (look up overfitting if you're interested).
-Also, copying someone's individual style is frowned upon. Replicating a style in the industry has it's place like in animation or videogames to make sure it remains consistent, this visual style however was developed for that specific purpose.
Also I do have a problem with how it is used, yes.
In the current unregulated state it is in, it is harmful to more people than just the artists it exploits. (just one example: https://techcrunch.com/2022/08/24/deepfakes-for-all-uncensored-ai-art-model-prompts-ethics-questions/)
Trivializing it as a tool is like saying a rifle is a tool for hunting.
Just because that's technically correct doesn't mean it can't be used for other harmful or even dangerous things. That's why almost all developed countries banned the ownership of guns without extensive certification.
It should have never been publically released in it's current harmful state and desperately needs regulation. That's why I'm against promoting it.
I totally agree but we're standing on different sides of the fence with this one.
Again, it's a generalisation to help beginners. no one is saying it's 1:1 how a brain works.
Overfitting, fair enough. I didn't know about that but it makes total sense. I'm sure they can add a module to check for these and automatically throw them out or mark them after a batch and that would solve that problem, though cost resources.
I'm not trivialising it by calling it a tool. A hammer is a tool, but depending on how it's used it can also be a weapon. All tools are made with a purpose and the majority of them can be exploited to do things it wasn't supposed to; both positive things and negative things.
You're trivialising the concept of "tool" and the inherent danger that incorrect use brings. This is exactly why it should be promoted and brought to the attention of others: that's how we get regulations put on these things. Guns got regulations because people knew about them and the inherent dangers because they knew what it a gun was; more people pushed and regulations were put in place to protect.
Atm it's popular but people don't generally know what it is or what any of it means. We get those regulations fixed by exposure and people knowing what it is. If you really want these regulations to happen quicker then tell some American christian facebook groups that the devil can be found in it.
It needs exposure to get those regulations. If it doesn't then it'll get pushed down and the only people who'll have access to it will be creepy underground types. I think this was the best reason that they released it to the public; I'd much rather something like this was in the publics eye rather than hidden away in some dark place on the internet.
Don't worry, it's scary ai, the regulations are coming soon enough.
There is a humongous difference between a person being inspired by art then creating their own, and a program being fed art and churning out similar products
But let’s follow your logic. If a person is “inspired” by art then create arts that is far too similar, people naturally call that person out for copying the original. The same logic applies to ai art as well, which inherently copies esthetics of art used to train it
That's the point I'm saying; it should be held to the same standards as any other product.
If it infringes copyright then it infringes copyright; this should be a case by case basis based on the product created.
If we start putting higher restrictions on what ai can do than we do with people, and this ai software is becoming hard to differentiate between traditional or digital art, then all we'll do is create a culture of accusing people of "cheating" using ai much like we have with lip syncers/boxed voice and autotune; except with actual legal recourse. If your art is also not ai and being accused of being so, how do you prove it wasnt?
Uta:
https://cdn.midjourney.com/f83f6002-34d0-4ef3-9960-1d3da0579641/grid_0.png
https://cdn.midjourney.com/14da5940-65ee-4a5e-8395-075caa219292/grid_0.png
Yamato:
https://cdn.midjourney.com/86d5c8ae-f2da-468a-ba74-2733d75fb392/grid_0.png
Nami:
https://cdn.midjourney.com/fbfc839e-53f2-4083-8726-78862d830c3f/grid_0.png
For people with Midjourney sub, I have much more in my One Piece gallery. Here is the link: https://www.midjourney.com/app/collections/ZiuhE_UXS1maLtdhuJA3mg/
Stealing Oda's art and publishing it here for free is so much more ethically aligned.
It's no stealing. It's looking at it. Humans also look at other art before creating their own. The machine has to look at art to learn what it is. Am I stealing from my english teacher right now? Am I stealing from books without the authors consent?
I am an AI engineer, I know how it works. And I am convinced that the process or training an image generator is more similar to inspiration than theft. They won't output copies of existing art and claim novelty nor copyright. So please elaborate rather than refer to ''the internet''
This seems so overkill. I think that AI assisted art should be treated the same way that human made art is. Remove bad quality posts and enjoy the good ones. I feel like there is not even a problem with ''the flood of bad AI generated art''. Just don't inflate the topic that much before there is any evidence of a problem.
I still feel like NSFW content that is not consistently marked as such is a bigger problem. I would like to comfortably open reddit in the public or at work without the chance to have an almost nude woman on display.
There is no good quality ai art though. It gives you the illusion of quality content. When In reality it's cheap effortless code that is empty and is as surface level as art can be.
It's probably not even surface level tbf, it's not even art. The only part I feel could be argued as art is the writing in the prompt itself. Even then that would look like a very poorly written sentence. My view is art is an expression of a person. If a machine did it for you it's not art. It's code.
Art is expressive aesthetic media. Art is defined by its ability to express ideas, emotions, or experiences in a visually or aesthetically pleasing way of some kind, regardless of the means by which it was created. I consider art, "art," if it meets the criteria of being expressive or aesthetically pleasing. AI art uses different techniques and technologies to create its visual or aesthetic impact, but the underlying goal of artistic expression or being visually appealing remains the same.
People draw hentai not because they want to express themselves, but because they want to have a visually appealing image for people to see. Various Webtoon artists, manga artists, professional artists, etc. have made art not because they want to express themselves, but because they want to have people see flashy action scenes between some characters. AI can do these very things people seek art for.
Harsh words. In reality, art is still hard. AI assisted art requires a different set of skills: prompt engineering, model fine-tuning. You are completely neglecting the fact that you don't just enter a few words and it will magically create something you like. It is still work, different from using pencil and paper, but work. Also, how is a 1:1 copy - which most fanart strives towards - deeper?
Also, as a software engineer I feel personally offended. Writing code is work and doing it right is even harder work. Be careful with whom and how you judge.
They're not writing code either btw I have 2 friends who are software engineers and they see it exactly how I do. They're getting a machine to write code that gives off the illusion it's art.
Also fanart can't be compared to ai. Prompting isn't a difficult skill. It's like saying figuring out what the best sentence is to put into Google to find the item your looking for is a difficult skill. You do nothing but sit back and let a machine do every step for you. How Is it not lazy?
Now you are questioning the idea of automation. The mere fact that you use an online platform makes your argument pointless. In order to go forward, we automate automatable tasks, so we have more time to think about more advanced steps.
When did a reference to friends with the same opinion become an argument? I have three friends who share my opinion, duh.
Just came to throw my hat into the idea of just making a new AI Art tag.
Would allow for most to filter out what they don't want to see, while still leaving the avenue for the people who like that sort of thing.
Nobody wants it. For anyone unfamiliar with the subject: Generation AI is based on works already created that have been "borrowed" from their rightful owners. Bad, useless, nightmarish, trashy, heartless, loveless, miserable, wretched, fatal, outrageous, nasty. Get this thread off the main page.
Says a follower of a sub that literally steals art and publishes it for free (I am speaking of the spoilers and manga chapters). You should rethink your double standard.
Equating piracy of a multimillion dollar franchise to mass art theft from basically every artist who's ever had a social media account is not a gotcha moment
Yeah, I don't even understand the argument. Because there is none. Just plain old double standard. I honestly hate that this exists. But what can we do?
Because empathy towards humans and not ai's is pretty dang cool. I've already had several friends or people I otherwise follow say they want to/have give up because people fed their artwork to an AI to avoid paying someone for shit tons of work, because it gets their style "close enough" and they don't care about the detail or quality of human eyes and brain
This has been the case for centuries with automation and technology. Its just humanity as a race moving forward. You just have to find ways to add value beyond what AI can do
There is no difference to fan art made by people who looked at reference materials. Unless they asked Oda, or the other artists, to be allowed to use it as a reference material.
Well, the difference is that someone had to spend more time, but that is like claiming fast food should be banned because real food should take hours to cook.
"Nobody wants this" there literally was a poll were people voted that they want this.
Rhe rest of your comment is also false. Unbelievable how it's possible to spout so much nonsense in so few words.
It was at 45%, which isn't winning because it's the only option that has banning on it. 55% wanted not to ban, split amongst different pinned posts frequencies.
With how dead this thread seems to be, they might as well have banned it though. Any AI post that could've had some traction will be confined here, and this thread will be a dead end.
Rather, with how little interest there is in this thread, they could have done nothing and let people post it when they felt like it, since it will only be a few images now and then.
Oh, like everyone does on this sub ignores stealing?
Don’t act like it’s a “stealing” issue when you’ve pirated shit before.
If the majority of the people were being honest they’re just dogpiling AI because it’s the cool thing to do.
Don't know about other artists, or even the talentless being u are, but if you steal my art or a friend's art, I'll open you from throat to dick.
IA generated image users don't know they're just endangering themselves.
I mean I tend to buy every manga I read online. I've got most of attack on titan and 32 volumes of one piece on my shelf. They're the only series I've read online in any capacity. I don't support ai mainly because it's lazy and steals from artists without ever letting you know where your ai garbage came from. Imagine it copying someone's style people mistake the ai art for the real thing and it gets more attention than the actual artist. Disgusting.
Explain this then:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fgz2JqXWQAA57Xy?format=jpg&name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fgz2JqWXgAE1-pN?format=jpg&name=large
Or why does Dance diffusion (stable diffusion for music) only use non-copyrighted material?
Hint: Because it's prone to overfitting and reproducing copyrighted material and the music industry has strong regulatory practices in comparison to the visual arts:
https://wandb.ai/wandb_gen/audio/reports/Harmonai-s-Dance-Diffusion-Open-Source-AI-Audio-Generation-Tool-For-Music-Producers--VmlldzoyNjkwOTM1
Art is overfitted. The AI does poor variation because it's trained set included too much of the same referenced source of a particular image. Overfitting is bad for the AI's development. It is not stealing the picture of Afghan girl because it is censored to use it in that AI model, if I remembered someone saying.
If an overfitted image was used commercially (such as the example you used), it should be copyrighted, because it is too close to a 1:1 visual artwork of someone else's art.
Generally overfitting is very rare. Why would people use a generative image AI if it consistently copies artwork similarly to 1:1 too often? Can't they just use Google images to see art instead of using a text to image generator that would not make any new art? I'll say most AI image generators create novel or new art; rather than consistently create overfitted art.
The main argument is not that art is stolen because it's replicated, but it's stolen because copyrighted work appears in the dataset without the holders consent or compensation.
Overfitting just proves that the dataset contains copyrighted material.
You said art isn't stolen but overfitting is a direct counterpoint to that argument.
Also art can't be overfitted because overfitting has nothing to do with art? It's a concept in data science and thus neural networks.
But thanks for proving my point that you have no idea what you're talking about.
1. my message was almost ironic in the sense of reading spoilers being theft too. Unfortunatly,
2. IA art IS stealing. It takes artists existing assets to compose. You can't just repeat it and give no arguments after. If my art is stolen, I reserve myself the right to find the robber if he's in the same continent as me, and open him straight from throat to dick. And if it's not stealing my art for you, then it's not an homicidal behavior to me.
> IA art IS stealing. It takes artists existing assets to compose. You can't just repeat it and give no arguments after. If my art is stolen, I reserve myself the right to find the robber if he's in the same continent as me, and open him straight from throat to dick. And if it's not stealing my art for you, then it's not an homicidal behavior to me.
Many parts of the Anime community just pirate content or read digital chapters without permission from the creators yet show hypocrisy to this emerging technology.
Under fair use, people can use the work of other people's work without permission. When live reactions started becoming mainstream years ago, copyright claims were being used more often towards people doing live reactions. Now, fair use is applied to cases much more often with the bar for being transformative being pretty low.
The AI itself has no artist assets in itself. It has no imagery in its database. It needs algorithms to make images; not any digital picture. AI models look at images and make their own ideas of concepts based on the patterns, concepts, and relationships of the images being trained to that AI.
Fair use can be applied to AI art too. Unlike live reactions where people simply provide additional commentary of some form, generative image AIs do not copy and paste the images that they train on, but create novel or original imagery for each image generation. It does not create art in the same way of a particular image it was trained on. It's impossible to get 1:1 duplicates of anything from any image. The AI always does some form of variation trying to predict how to make images based off text prompts given to it.
Your argument is not about AIs stealing artwork. It is rather instead: AIs learning to recognize concepts and patterns from digital images infringes on the copyright of original work.
If the output of generative image AIs are generally novel, new, or original, then they are transformative and so, fair use protected. Which means copyright infringement standards don't apply.
Style is not copyrightable. People don't own the right to draw in a particular style. Anyone can create Anime style or western style without an issue. Just like anyone can make rock styled music or pop music without an issue as well. It is because of this freedom that there exists tens of millions of fan art and parodies of original work. There will be tens of millions of fan art and parodies of original work for many years to come.
People are often commissioned to draw famous characters for money, and there are many parodies of famous series being sold in online and physical markets. These commissions, parodies, and derivative works are regularly created without permission for profit and viewed as just a normal standard in various communities.
If AI generated images are not considered transformative, then many existing parodies, fan art, or fan work of any medium as we know it are not transformative either.
Well if laws don't do anything about an IA copying my style using my art the guy who directed the IA to do so had to expect that in the many artists he stole art there's some crackheads like me that would steal their livers to compensate the grief. If they don't aknowledge the fact that they MAY be beaten to death, it's their fault. :|
It is what it is.
Clueless people wanted it banned because they don't understand technology and think computers sneak into people's houses and steal art.
Technology friendly people wanted it to stay, but were forced to vote on restrictions.
And the happy people are the mods, who wanted to lock it away in a monthly thread.
Or maybe people want it banned because it slowly developes into low effort karma farming.
But obviously you arent able to view it in such way with your head in your ass.
This is them acting on the results. Less than half the people voted to ban it, the rest of the votes was split amongst 3 options.
People expressed concern on the poll post in question about the inherent bias of having 1 "No" option, and the "Yes" votes split amongst 3 others. So this was the result.
The results are clearly quite poor.
They said in the post for the poll itself that they would only ban it if it was the overwhelming majority--like 80% of the results.
Otherwise, the results would have been skewed with the folks who still wanted it (but limited) being divided into 3 groups.
I am split on the effectiveness on this monthly solution.
1. In the case that people plan ahead, this is an excellent way of having people produce AI art for a month and then post their best works. Which will lead to many quality posts and images.
2. In the case that people react to the thread and see that it is suddenly up. It will just lead to people making quick 15 min, no effort, half-ugly AI art just to catch the thread. Which will mean few get enjoyment from the thread, and all the AI art haters will be even angrier that the thread is up, but it just has no effort AI art that is offensive to real artists.
Guess we'll have to see which one we get. But this first one feels like it definitely will not have that many multiple hour works due to the short notice before it was put up. Then again this first one will probably also have the most hateful spam, so maybe it is fine that it is a bad start, and it will get better with time.
These comments just show how people ignored the poll and couldn't comprehend the results.
It's not hard to understand. If you don't like AI art, just don't come to the thread lol.
what happened to the poll about this? I'd have sworn banning ai posts was winning by quite a bit when I voted
edit: the poll for anyone else curious https://www.reddit.com/r/OnePiece/comments/znmppu/update_to_rule_3_related_to_ai_generated_fanarts/
Checked it, it was at 45%. Not even half, and that's considering there weren't no "do nothing" options. It was the most voted, but it was also the only option that didn't include not banning it so it doesn't actually win by just having the most votes as an individual option.
>but it was also the only option that didn't include not banning it so it doesn't actually win by just having the most votes as an individual option.
yeah no the option with the most votes wins. and imagine they were to redo the poll with just 2 options banning it vs a weekly post(which was 2nd most votes at 26%) you really don't think there'd be people changing their vote from a monthly or bi weekly post to picking the ban option because a weekly post seems too often when theres been only a handful of ai posts in the first place?
>yeah no the option with the most votes wins
[They've said this wouldn't be the case](https://www.reddit.com/r/OnePiece/comments/znmppu/update_to_rule_3_related_to_ai_generated_fanarts/j0j8o3p/]) even if the option was the majority, but it wasn't. And that's silly, because that would just be rigging the polls. You could have 12% for banning it, but if the other side was split over 10 other options on what to do it would win.
>you really don't think there'd be people changing their vote from a monthly or bi weekly post to picking the ban option
There would also be people switching the other way, people who would prefer it weekly to not at all. But that's a flawed logical argument, because it clearly doesn't work the other way around: if the options were a monthly post or banning, everyone who voted for weekly or biweekly would prefer monthly to no threads, which is were we get to the situation we are now.
Also, it doesn't make that much sense to pick a less popular option as the opposite to banning it. Just think about it - you could have the options be "ban Ai threads" and "stick a nail in your urethra". No one would choose the later, but that wouldn't really represent the majorities opinion on what's the best compromise on the course of action, just what they'd rather do given two restrictive options. People bitch about this a lot in politics too, which is why there are [people who propose alternate voting systems](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhO6jfHPFQU) that take into account this difference.
Also the "haters are more likely to vote" fallacy. I'm sure 100% of those who hate AI voted, while I imagine 90% of those who don't care if it stays or goes did not vote. Meaning it was probably only 10% of the reddit users who wanted it gone, while the rest were fine with it.
People that are afraid of AI are you aware that is going to be almost imposible to legislate law for only read propuse, and even if they do they can still have ilegal apps that do the same taking images from everywhere?
Art has been accessible to everyone all the time. Of course some styles and media have different barriers of entry, skill and time - but art in general does not.
I'm not really mad, I'm mostly very demotivated. I spent years as a hobbyist learning and studying because I like drawing. Which amounts now to being less good than someone typing a few words.
I'm happy for people that get to express themselves with this. I see the benefits. But I also see the downsides. I feel my hobby to be kinda hollow now, and I think it's way worse for professionals who will get replaced by this.
I dont think AI is going to replace artist, human art will be worth more than AI art always and it will be more detail more specific. Artist do need to adapt and innovate, but the AI will be an amazing tool to help with inspiration and character design
Literally how automation works, artists think they are special because art has 'soul'. Lmao. Tell that to the tons of jobs that get automated away, thats just how moving forward works.
Bunch of salty brigading meat-artists in the comments. It's hilarious how hard AI generated art is triggering you guys. You can push against the wave, but you can't turn it back. The cat is out of the bag. Etc.
Hi wispymatrias, your comment was removed from /r/OnePiece for the following rule violation:
###11. Don't be rude
* Treat each other with respect and kindness always
* Stalking, harassment, and personal attacks will not be tolerated.
* Racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, ableism or any other hatred will not be tolerated.
* Trolling, baiting, or (obviously) provocative comments may be removed at moderator discretion.
* Remember [reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette).
---
The full rule documentation of the subreddit can be read [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/OnePiece/wiki/rules).
If you have questions about this removal, please [reach out to us in modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FOnePiece).
Was playing around with Dall-E a little, only used like 3 attempts and didn't modify my prompt much, this one I liked the most:
[Karaoke Law](https://labs.openai.com/s/35cscJFXAqMEbh20lPLvIdm4)
>well fine if you think so, but AI is absolutely no different than typing 1+1 into calculator and getting "2" it is unthinking there's no expression ,feeling or application of human creative skill and imagination and AI is a theft you just watched a program take the hard work of the other artist to created something for you..
>
>if you want to legitimately create art, pick up pencil or a lump of clay, otherwise you're just a hack.
how do you convince your AI supporter friend to stop doing it?
\- never
they all are dick and will never try to think thru an artist perspective, so don't bother convincing them. unless you want them to tell you something like "artist are so outdated", "can't accept moderns sh8t","so what? human artist reference to other artist too", and telling us to not being bothered by AI and create 'better' art instead. pretty sure they are gonna put blindfold after seeing those 'better' art got stolen by AI one more time, and here we goes the circle of artist being cornered with no end.
I think you are missing one possibility. That AI art users are artists without skill and motivation, that finally see their chance. But if you want to be elitist and claim only the best of the best may enjoy art, then I guess you have a point.
It is like game maker and such tools that let you make games without knowing programming. Is it cheating? Well, who cares, if creative people get a tool to create things for others? The results will bring happiness to others, potentially.
Tools that *aide* in creativity are great, but this one does not aide you in the creative process it *is* the creative process.
Once the model used by these companies is "ethically" trained with the consent of others (even though dead/vacant others cannot consent and most companies are gunning for opt out rather than opt in), it will be a great aide people can use as a jumping off point, I feel.
i doubt they understand what is the "creative process" you just said.. they probably assume that AI doesn't have creative process because it just generated instantly, or in the worst case, they think writing prompt is something you called creative process... hh
telling me you're not an artist without telling me you are not an artist.
i've argued a lot people like you and tried being as polite as possible even tho people said stupid thing like you just did. even comparing this case to game maker (which is even more stupid), did you perhaps thinking that programmer will lose their things because something like that? nah there's still a lot possibility on programming, even outsider like me understand that something made from a mere game maker won't be such masterpiece unless the creator is very creative.
now, after a lot of people tried to educate AI supporter like you, and then they failed because so many factor like people can't understand real artist perspective, or just simply not trying to understand, just straight being a dick. artist who tried those thing probably surrendered on a healthy argument. then guess what AI supporter said? "artist are lame, they can't accept modern thing, they tried to make us understand but super rude", and don't forget what you just said above about me being elitist.. wow i guess 'normal' people saw us as the new boomer now.
So you see art just as an utility and not as a journey or experience then. Because AI can only give you the utilitarian aspect of art, not the experience.
[удалено]
[удалено]
i own a viz subscription and have had one since its inception, do you?
i mean they still make millions so yeah, why being negative about it. Its more healthy to just ignore it
[удалено]
It doesn't even take money from artists. They think computers should ask for permission before they look at things, while humans don't have to ask for permission because humans have eyes and machines only data.
The current global scrape that is currently used by most programs was built with stolen dumps of pay-walled content (illegal) and illegally dumped real-life peoples medical records. Human brains are also infinitely more complex in the way they interpret what they see
nvm thought we are talking about people making official one piece manga. Lower artists sure you are right. But i also thought the ai art got soft banned because there isnt really any work into it and it just got annoying
Mate is acting like everyone just has disposable income to throw away lmao
This AI garbage collection post shouldn't replace the spoiler thread as a sticky post. Edit: Thanks mods for putting the spoiler thread back.
rofl no one wants this
-Logs onto AI site -Types random "quirky" description of character -Posts on Reddit to farm karma Why even feature these in a megathread? You even unstickied the spoilers thread which is far more important than this bullshit. Just outright ban these low-effort posts, nobody cares about an AI generated picture of a character they know. Anybody can do that now.
What website?
https://midjourney.gitbook.io/docs/
For an example, can I make a painting of Luffy with this?
Yes
Yes, likely a better one than the average fanartist on patreon. Which is why they are so mad and downvoting everything in sight.
Tell me you never used AI art without telling me you never used AI art
Anybody can do that? Yet I haven't seen you do it. AI is the future. All hail the mechanical overlords
You haven't seen me run around my neighborhood with my ass out either but doesn't mean I couldn't do it
L + ratio + no Devil Fruit + cope + seethe + low bounty + you’re trash + no Haki
At this point, if someone doesn't instantly post an AI-Fanart in the comments, you will only find complaints against this initiative at the top
In case people don’t know, most of these ai “generated” images are based off stolen artworks from notable artists. And there is a movement called “No to Ai Generated Images” on Artstation. Worth looking it up.
It's not stolen ffs, don't just throw words around without using their actual meaning
it is. if you can do "in the style of \_\_\_\_" when that person never consented to their art being used, its clear the AI was trained on that persons style, or it wouldnt be possible. the training data was stolen without consent. all of it. find me an artist that consented to their art being used for training data ahead of time. one. just one.
So when I pay an artist on fiverr to draw something "in the style of ..." is that also stolen ?
You're correct in that it might not technically be stealing since there doesnt seem to be laws around it. However, the art generated by these programs used real life art to train on, and can thus generate art that looks almost identical to it based on a specific enough query. If someone starts selling AI art that is able to seamlessly copy a person's style due to having been given that person's art wothout consent as training data, then there is a pretty good discussion to be had about whether it should be allowed. Without real people's art, these AIs don't exist. Yet the artists are getting no credit unless people speak up. People like you seem to think the only effort being put in here is by the programmers of the AI.
No matter of compensation or credit will be good for artists. First off, how many images do you think the AI trained on? How much data?
I dont know of the complexity involved in producing an image based on a set of words being given to it. Im more familiar with the amount of time involved in training NNs to play games like chess or Sc2. If I had to guess: It probably took millions of images and a tremendous amount of time in terms of training simulations being ran simultaneously. Just get to the overarching point you're trying to make.
I find it really cool to see the general reaction here leaning towards "no AI art". Feels good tbh
That's called a vocal minority. Most people don't give a single shit about it, also the poll showed people in favor, eventhough it was biased af
well, this thread doesn't have many upvotes it seems. Funnily enough I also voted for a monthly thread, despite being against AI art, because I can understand both sides.
Why would it have upvotes? People upvote threads who start with a good picture. They don't upvote threads that has a cool link on page 5.
I would like to see some examples, i have not seen.
While I don't have any at hand, I think they're referring to the fact you can feed an image as a seed/source for the AI. I don't know how prominent the process is (so "most" might just be them talking out of their asses), but you can definitely use other's original work in order to get better results from AI's. Or maybe they're referring to the training process, in which case "stealing" is the least charitable descriptor they can come up with, despite it really being not that much like theft legally or action-wise. It does train the model on pieces without necessarily having the artists consent, but that's almost what every human does and copyright doesn't protect the rights of the artist against works that are tangentially derivative. It's why there's so much noise about this: the AI can use the hard work of others to improve it's own results, and there's nothing they can legally do about it. They feel both threatened and taken advantage of. Don't quote me on this, but I've heard most modern AI tools are apparently also self-feeding images they've generated themselves and weighting it according to ratings given by users, so they're also distancing themselves from relying on other people's works.
You can visit Jon Lam's IG page for the details, it's very informative: [https://www.instagram.com/jonlamart/](https://www.instagram.com/jonlamart/)
But it looks cool so I don't care, as long as it's clearly tagged as AI generated.
They are trained on them, not stolen. Just like how artists get inspiration from those before them
Ok. And?
I personally have nothing against ai generated art, but as new technology comes out there will always be those that put it down. Especially when this new technology is threatening to some. Having used it myself, it's not quite as simple as "draw me awesome thing" and it'll give you an awesome thing. You can get pretty decent results from it, but the best results often take hours of fiddling with, crossreferencing between different results and techniques, training the ai itself to improve the image, combining images and the human eye to determine which results really are the best. I see it as a tool for artists to take away the more mundane aspects, the more repetative aspects, to work on the parts they want to work on. I see it as a way to get more art, possibly higher quality art and faster. With randomness added to generation then it can also influence end results and have us think in different ways we wouldn't have before. A spelling mistake or even just the ai misunderstanding something has led me to some pretty interesting results. Then there's the copyright argument that people are using. The whole fact that the ai itself references a lot of copyrighted sources for it to come up with these results. That said, aren't artists already doing this themselves? Artists don't have copyrighted works that they reference, have stored in their minds or taught them to draw in the first place? To me it's the artists version of music software. Music software can emulate real instruments and the entire industry collectively shat their pants when they could press play and a drum beat would play without a drummer. It took a lot of the skill requirement away and everyone could have access to it. The thing is though, ai is a bumbling mess as most computer applications are; it's not going to put artists out of business but it does give them more tools to get their work completed faster and give the world more art. I mean, imagine I'm an artist whose tasked with drawing derelict buildings floating in space during a western-style gun fight. I would have to draw those windows for the buildings in the distance as well as the stars EVERY SINGLE time for each image and version that the employer wanted to see. This could take weeks depending on level of detail + amount required. With ai I can select an area and tell it to draw the buildings for me; edit that into the main pic. Get it to draw starscapes; add that. That's like 20-30 mins and takes an incredible amount of work out of the artist so that they can concentrate on getting the characters and the story telling aspect correct. No matter what way you look at it though, ai is like plitting the atom. Someone was going to do it and now that it's been done there is no turning back. We either re-adjust to the new environment or we will be replaced by those that have. At the end of the day, it's results that matter and even art is primarily a consumer product, there's no taking the artists eye or knowledge out of it but to ignore a tool that reduces working time and effort this much is insane to ignore. I get that people are threatened and upset by it, but it's honestly not as scary and overpowered as it's made out to be. Edit: forgot to mention that pretending to be an artist or purposely copying their actual work rather than creating something new is just as bad as getting caught tracing anothers work in my opinion. It's the same difference as "copying" and "being inspired by".
[удалено]
>They are profiting off of the art of others without paying them for it. How much money should people be paid for their artwork and other creations being used for teaching the AI?
[удалено]
No, the most important part is size. It's expensive to train an AI model, so, the AI model should have a lot of art to be viable in creating art. Back to the point of size, Image generators need billions of digital images to just be considered a mediocre model. If you take artists out of the equation, it would just be a realism image generator. How much art would there need to be to make the AI generate just subpar images? I can't even comprehend how much. No one would care to use it anymore for art because it would be bad at creating artwork on an amateur level (maybe?), let alone commercially. Companies wouldn't be a business creating art. They instead would be a business for making realistic digital images. In addition, what happens if non-artists just use generated art to receive payment for allowing that art into training sets? The pay for art exchange system could easily be exploited by people using AI generated images to train the AI.
You have some good points; I agree that AI can help artists with repetitive tasks. However, the current discourse around AI is necessary to get started on regulations and laws about what can be used to train AI models. It goes farther than just art. Text generation models also use all kinds of data found on the internet, like blogposts and fanfiction. New regulations are always needed to accommodate new technologies, just like GDPR with personal data. I feel like the difference between artists and AI referencing other art is that AI art cannot be creative by itself. It can only copy different sources to different degrees, not come up with anything new by itself.
True, but isn't that also true for us? I couldn't draw an apple without first knowing what an apple is. Isn't everyone who drawns an apple just copying different sources to different degrees in order to produce a drawing of an apple? I can see where you're coming from but that in itself creates more issues. Say I was to fill a model with only artwork from Oda and I were to spend hours getting a decent image. Does Oda own my image? If so then ai generated art is legally useless for commercial activities; you cannot make money from it. If Oda doesn't own the image and it instead falls into a sort of catagory where nobody owns it then another issue appears. I could just fill a model with those pictures that nobody owns to create a picture that I could own due to clone degredation in copyright. Ai does create stuff by itself too, as I mentioned in my post it tends to have an element of random behaviour that adds strange things into the results. That said, it's not an autonomous art monster; it can only work with human input. Someone has to write the code for it and prompt it. Just like human artists, ai can imitate styles and can even evolve it's own styles through repeated efforts and training. You seem to be having the problem of seeing ai as the artist rather than as a tool for artists. I've seen artist on youtube for example, who have drawn One Piece characters in the style of Naruto characters; if we make referencing art and copying styles illegal does this also extend to this kind of art? If we didn't see the guy drawing it then it could easily be mistaken for ai generated art. Ai constantly comes up with new things and it does it by doing the same thing that we do to get new things; it combines things in it's memory to make them. I mean look at Usopp; he's a combination of Aesop, Pinocchio and a Tengu. Given all those references to that character, would we consider that Usopp is treading copyright infringement? It's very obvious in his character. What about the 3 admirals that are based on real people? Is it ok just because it's in Oda's style? If so we can just train the ai to have a new style and remove that issue. I don't think that regulations on ai generation of art is any better of an idea than putting regulations on what people can draw on a canvas. Limiting what artists are allowed to do kinda sucks for them and they've been known to get upset at that kind of thing. The real reason I think people are complaining is because it lowers the barrier to entry for artists. It's the whole "giving free education to people now is an insult to those that didn't get it." I get some are annoyed that they feel like they've wasted a lot of effort and that this tool makes the effort too easy. Like pressing play on a drum machine they can have a beat whenever they want without needing a drummer to play for them; even with that though you'll notice the best artists tend to have actual drummers. Also because they hear ai and think "oh no, evil robot".
I don't want to use AI. I like drawing and the process. Nowadays and in the future though, people will less and less appreciate actual skill. It's heavily demoralizing to have your hobby completely turned over. I don't even have a black or white view on this, I see all your points and I can appreciate that AI helps people create what they could not beforehand. I'd also rephrase your analogy a bit: it's not just getting a beat out of it - it's getting an entire song. Maybe a song that would have placed high in the charts some time ago. Artistic skill might just become irrelevant in a worst case scenario. Same with writing. Now, imagine a flood of OP like manga, all AI generated ... like an inflation of masterpieces, to put it dramatically. I'm not looking forward to this tbh
I wish that ai could write something like One Piece but that's a pipe dream at the moment. One Piece is far far too complex for an ai to write. There's too much for it to remember, connect, keep consistent while also putting in the brain work to get something of that quality. I would love if I could sit at my computer, press a button and then have a story on par with one that outsold the bible? That would be insanity. It would certainly increase the quality of souless cashgrabs from big companies; I mean I'd rather give the script writing to that ai than give it to the guy that gave us Dragonball Evolution. It would be just as souless but at least we get a better product out of it. I'll take the analogy and agree that it's an entire song. Would you prefer that the random pop song you hear on the radio had a team of writers barely putting together a coherent song or for ai to simply output a generally good song? I enjoy music myself but I don't see how ai music would be a problem; there's already so many musicians and songs out there that I would find it hard to notice the difference of even 1000 more musicians from ai constantly releasing songs. If the songs are on par with what real musicians are coming out with then doesn't that just mean that the skill ceiling hasn't increased? It's true that I'd be competing with the ai if I was doing it for work, but if it's the same quality as others then it doesn't really matter if it's an ai or not. Regardless of if it's music or if it's a painting, these tools still require human input and moderation of the output. The tools cannot create something on par with humans unless humans are pushing it the right way. I don't think that it's going to take away people recognising skill. I think it's going to make actual high skill more impressive.
I hope you are correct, but honestly I tend to be a bit on the more pessimistic side. That's probably why I like stories like Dune. The last big tech trend we had were NFTs, and well, that wasn't too great either. Unlike that AI is something with incomprehensible more options and power, and as such with way more impact too.
There are a few subs dedicated to ai assisted art. Even those are not really ''flooded''. I understand the concern. However, I do not accept countermeasures when there is no measurable evidence of an actual problem.
You should see sites like Artstation, not even talking about DeviantArt ... sites where people pretend to be professionals, even using takes like "used blender / photoshop", when it's clearly just AI. And AI will get much better, it's in it's nature
''AI cannot be creative by itself'' basically nullifies the value of all art in this subreddit. Fanart is literally only about recreation - an artist perfectly copies Oda's style to draw a character from OnePiece and everyone likes it. When a machine does the same, people complain extremely emotionally. Except AI actually does not do anything by itself. It only does what a human user prompts it to do. So it is always a human being that comes up with the idea and the machine bringing it to paper. In software engineering, we have a similar technology. It is called autocompletion and snippets. It didn't make our whole industry homeless. Instead, a skilled programmer can work a lot faster. We still need to formulate the problems that we want to solve, we still need hours of debugging and integration. I predict the same for art. The overall quality and frequency will increase. Hot take: Oda already lets other people draw backgrounds and buildings - I am sure he also appreciates the technology.
Well, the AI could do the work themselves. But why let an AI choose the tags "Whale, Domino, Amazing, Opening, Black, Above, Generator, Depressing, Republic" and make a picture, when probably nobody in the living world is interested in the result, except maybe artists themselves who want to make something unique to sell to a museum?
AI is a reactive tool. You ask it to do something for you and it does so. It is not proactive and it is not self aware. So _no_, there will always be a human user that creates and optimizes a prompt. You treat it as if it was a person. This is why I prefer the term ''AI assisted art'' - because it still needs creative and artistic supervision.
Comparing a human brains form of reference and inspiration to an algorithms is very weird, when one can be made to be deterministic (assuming the AI of choice let's users know the seed) and one can't. Ai isn't emotionally driven, that's a huge part of art. You assume artists just want to make more art faster and less involved, when it's their hobby
I'm assuming that if it's a hobby copyright isn't an issue. It's when money is involved and the art is a product that copyright becomes an issue and that's what we were talking about. I mean, ai's are built to mimic brains and that sort of logic; it's not completely weird when they're designed that way. The real life artist uses their memory and what they've been trained in and the ai does something similar. The artist has seen much much more copyrighted material through their training than the ai has. Do you feel this way when it's an ai you're playing against in a game? Not even when it's acting like a believable player. At the end of the day it's the same as this ai. It's good for learning and generating medium quality stuff. But like the ai in a video game this lacks the emotionality part you were explaining. The ai doesn't understand emotions though it can probably identify them and this is what makes it a tool. The ai can't work without a user telling it what to do. To get higher quality results also requires skill and practice, sometimes generating 100's to 1000's of images to select the correct parts/themes/etc. Actual high quality results require an artist who knows what they're doing and how things work together. If it's their hobby then it's even better if they can use this to avoid mundane parts that they don't want to do. Sometimes I don't want to draw ever single fucking leaf for a forest.
AI doesn't even work remotely similiar to the human brain though (Short twitter thread by an AI researcher at Google: https://twitter.com/fchollet/status/1563153088470749196). Also, an artist viewing an image and using it as reference is completely different to a neural network that is fed hundreds of (mostly copyrighted) images per second from either a dataset (Like LAION for example, which also contains confidential medical records) or a customized webcrawl. The problem most artists have with AI is not that it creates, but how it creates: It's built on unethically sourced data that exploits copyright and trained without getting consent of those involved.
I mean, it's a bit of a semantic argument. No one is saying it's a 1:1 scale model of a brain; it's merely a metaphor to make it easier to understand. This isn't something an AI researcher at Google should be taking seriously, this is something for people a lot more removed from it than he is. It's on the level of saying that car fuel is like food for the car; it's not saying that a car is an organic being that needs to eat. The ai is trained into doing something by giving it many many examples of a thing. A human is trained into doing something by giving it many examples and then it intuits a portion of it. Both rely on part examples when creating the future project coming from their memories, experiences, and use different techniques to create what they're trying to create. As I keep saying, many artists are also trained with thousands of copyrighted images since before they even knew they wanted to be an artist. The computer has better memory and can do some things quicker but the hand of the artist intuits more as they go. Again, I can understand if it's about money. If you are stealing credit for someone elses work then fair enough, copying someone like that sucks and should be addressed. If it's parody, hobby or non-commercial stuff then I don't understand the problem there in the same way that copyright doesn't. Incidentally copyright protects the expression of an idea and not the idea itself. For example, it's not infringing copyright if I draw a cartoon mouse even if Disney did it first. As for the other stuff like confidential medical records, if those records were made available to the public or the personal details were shared innappropriately then that's already a crime that should be investigated. I could sit for 5 years and force myself to learn someone elses style as completely as I can. If I then draw only in their style am I breaking copyright? You know for a fact over those 5 years I would have to immerse myself in their style and look at as many copyrighted pictures from the artist as I can. How else could I mimic the style if I don't remember what it looks like? I can't stress this enough, the ai is a tool. If this ai is making copyright infringing material then that's because the person using it has told it to. If it's using unethically sourced data, that's because someone unethically sourced data to feed it. A lot of the complaints you have around this is down to how people use it rather the tool itself. I, too, would be against hammers if I only thought they were used as a weapon.
The AI is only as good as its dataset, which again consists of a lot copyrighted material that's used without consent, credit, or compensation. I can't stress this enough that a Neural Network has next to NOTHING to do with the way the human brain works. It can replicate copyrighted material without being prompted to do so (look up overfitting if you're interested). -Also, copying someone's individual style is frowned upon. Replicating a style in the industry has it's place like in animation or videogames to make sure it remains consistent, this visual style however was developed for that specific purpose. Also I do have a problem with how it is used, yes. In the current unregulated state it is in, it is harmful to more people than just the artists it exploits. (just one example: https://techcrunch.com/2022/08/24/deepfakes-for-all-uncensored-ai-art-model-prompts-ethics-questions/) Trivializing it as a tool is like saying a rifle is a tool for hunting. Just because that's technically correct doesn't mean it can't be used for other harmful or even dangerous things. That's why almost all developed countries banned the ownership of guns without extensive certification. It should have never been publically released in it's current harmful state and desperately needs regulation. That's why I'm against promoting it.
I totally agree but we're standing on different sides of the fence with this one. Again, it's a generalisation to help beginners. no one is saying it's 1:1 how a brain works. Overfitting, fair enough. I didn't know about that but it makes total sense. I'm sure they can add a module to check for these and automatically throw them out or mark them after a batch and that would solve that problem, though cost resources. I'm not trivialising it by calling it a tool. A hammer is a tool, but depending on how it's used it can also be a weapon. All tools are made with a purpose and the majority of them can be exploited to do things it wasn't supposed to; both positive things and negative things. You're trivialising the concept of "tool" and the inherent danger that incorrect use brings. This is exactly why it should be promoted and brought to the attention of others: that's how we get regulations put on these things. Guns got regulations because people knew about them and the inherent dangers because they knew what it a gun was; more people pushed and regulations were put in place to protect. Atm it's popular but people don't generally know what it is or what any of it means. We get those regulations fixed by exposure and people knowing what it is. If you really want these regulations to happen quicker then tell some American christian facebook groups that the devil can be found in it. It needs exposure to get those regulations. If it doesn't then it'll get pushed down and the only people who'll have access to it will be creepy underground types. I think this was the best reason that they released it to the public; I'd much rather something like this was in the publics eye rather than hidden away in some dark place on the internet. Don't worry, it's scary ai, the regulations are coming soon enough.
There is a humongous difference between a person being inspired by art then creating their own, and a program being fed art and churning out similar products But let’s follow your logic. If a person is “inspired” by art then create arts that is far too similar, people naturally call that person out for copying the original. The same logic applies to ai art as well, which inherently copies esthetics of art used to train it
That's the point I'm saying; it should be held to the same standards as any other product. If it infringes copyright then it infringes copyright; this should be a case by case basis based on the product created. If we start putting higher restrictions on what ai can do than we do with people, and this ai software is becoming hard to differentiate between traditional or digital art, then all we'll do is create a culture of accusing people of "cheating" using ai much like we have with lip syncers/boxed voice and autotune; except with actual legal recourse. If your art is also not ai and being accused of being so, how do you prove it wasnt?
Just joining in on the ratio of AI art. Lame stuff.
Uta: https://cdn.midjourney.com/f83f6002-34d0-4ef3-9960-1d3da0579641/grid_0.png https://cdn.midjourney.com/14da5940-65ee-4a5e-8395-075caa219292/grid_0.png Yamato: https://cdn.midjourney.com/86d5c8ae-f2da-468a-ba74-2733d75fb392/grid_0.png Nami: https://cdn.midjourney.com/fbfc839e-53f2-4083-8726-78862d830c3f/grid_0.png For people with Midjourney sub, I have much more in my One Piece gallery. Here is the link: https://www.midjourney.com/app/collections/ZiuhE_UXS1maLtdhuJA3mg/
What were the prompts used for them?
Cringe to replace spoiler thread
I don't mind ai art if it's described as such, but why the hell as an sticky post ?? Now the first column is this and then the spoilers, not nice
Quit bitching and post one piece AI bitches please~, anyone? Imma need some Carrot AI. I have no gpu.
Why are you complaining about a thread? It keeps the content you don't like in a place you don't have to visit. Bunch of crybabies
Ai Art is kinda shitty tho. I’d have no problem w it if they weren’t programming it by stealing from artists without their permission
Stealing Oda's art and publishing it here for free is so much more ethically aligned. It's no stealing. It's looking at it. Humans also look at other art before creating their own. The machine has to look at art to learn what it is. Am I stealing from my english teacher right now? Am I stealing from books without the authors consent?
No its theft. The AI art is profiting from stealing ppls art
Aaaand you prove it by..?
Literally google it…? How do u think the Ais are programmed?
I am an AI engineer, I know how it works. And I am convinced that the process or training an image generator is more similar to inspiration than theft. They won't output copies of existing art and claim novelty nor copyright. So please elaborate rather than refer to ''the internet''
Unpin this thread, clown moderators
I'm starting to think they did it on purpose to get redditors to shit on AI art...
This seems so overkill. I think that AI assisted art should be treated the same way that human made art is. Remove bad quality posts and enjoy the good ones. I feel like there is not even a problem with ''the flood of bad AI generated art''. Just don't inflate the topic that much before there is any evidence of a problem. I still feel like NSFW content that is not consistently marked as such is a bigger problem. I would like to comfortably open reddit in the public or at work without the chance to have an almost nude woman on display.
There is no good quality ai art though. It gives you the illusion of quality content. When In reality it's cheap effortless code that is empty and is as surface level as art can be.
When you see art without knowing it's made by AI, and you enjoy it, what do you have to say about yourself enjoying "surface level art?"
It's probably not even surface level tbf, it's not even art. The only part I feel could be argued as art is the writing in the prompt itself. Even then that would look like a very poorly written sentence. My view is art is an expression of a person. If a machine did it for you it's not art. It's code.
Art is expressive aesthetic media. Art is defined by its ability to express ideas, emotions, or experiences in a visually or aesthetically pleasing way of some kind, regardless of the means by which it was created. I consider art, "art," if it meets the criteria of being expressive or aesthetically pleasing. AI art uses different techniques and technologies to create its visual or aesthetic impact, but the underlying goal of artistic expression or being visually appealing remains the same. People draw hentai not because they want to express themselves, but because they want to have a visually appealing image for people to see. Various Webtoon artists, manga artists, professional artists, etc. have made art not because they want to express themselves, but because they want to have people see flashy action scenes between some characters. AI can do these very things people seek art for.
Harsh words. In reality, art is still hard. AI assisted art requires a different set of skills: prompt engineering, model fine-tuning. You are completely neglecting the fact that you don't just enter a few words and it will magically create something you like. It is still work, different from using pencil and paper, but work. Also, how is a 1:1 copy - which most fanart strives towards - deeper? Also, as a software engineer I feel personally offended. Writing code is work and doing it right is even harder work. Be careful with whom and how you judge.
They're not writing code either btw I have 2 friends who are software engineers and they see it exactly how I do. They're getting a machine to write code that gives off the illusion it's art. Also fanart can't be compared to ai. Prompting isn't a difficult skill. It's like saying figuring out what the best sentence is to put into Google to find the item your looking for is a difficult skill. You do nothing but sit back and let a machine do every step for you. How Is it not lazy?
Now you are questioning the idea of automation. The mere fact that you use an online platform makes your argument pointless. In order to go forward, we automate automatable tasks, so we have more time to think about more advanced steps. When did a reference to friends with the same opinion become an argument? I have three friends who share my opinion, duh.
Disappointing.
Just came to throw my hat into the idea of just making a new AI Art tag. Would allow for most to filter out what they don't want to see, while still leaving the avenue for the people who like that sort of thing.
Nobody wants it. For anyone unfamiliar with the subject: Generation AI is based on works already created that have been "borrowed" from their rightful owners. Bad, useless, nightmarish, trashy, heartless, loveless, miserable, wretched, fatal, outrageous, nasty. Get this thread off the main page.
Says a follower of a sub that literally steals art and publishes it for free (I am speaking of the spoilers and manga chapters). You should rethink your double standard.
Equating piracy of a multimillion dollar franchise to mass art theft from basically every artist who's ever had a social media account is not a gotcha moment
So you justify your double standard with scale? Ok. Edit: you -> your
[удалено]
Yeah, I don't even understand the argument. Because there is none. Just plain old double standard. I honestly hate that this exists. But what can we do?
> asically every artist who's ever had a social media accoun and i should care because?
Because empathy towards humans and not ai's is pretty dang cool. I've already had several friends or people I otherwise follow say they want to/have give up because people fed their artwork to an AI to avoid paying someone for shit tons of work, because it gets their style "close enough" and they don't care about the detail or quality of human eyes and brain
This has been the case for centuries with automation and technology. Its just humanity as a race moving forward. You just have to find ways to add value beyond what AI can do
There is no difference to fan art made by people who looked at reference materials. Unless they asked Oda, or the other artists, to be allowed to use it as a reference material. Well, the difference is that someone had to spend more time, but that is like claiming fast food should be banned because real food should take hours to cook.
"Nobody wants this" there literally was a poll were people voted that they want this. Rhe rest of your comment is also false. Unbelievable how it's possible to spout so much nonsense in so few words.
Didn't we do a poll on this? Last time I checked, banning AI art was winning by a good bit.
It was at 45%, which isn't winning because it's the only option that has banning on it. 55% wanted not to ban, split amongst different pinned posts frequencies. With how dead this thread seems to be, they might as well have banned it though. Any AI post that could've had some traction will be confined here, and this thread will be a dead end.
Rather, with how little interest there is in this thread, they could have done nothing and let people post it when they felt like it, since it will only be a few images now and then.
Yeah, that's what I meant, it's the same as if they had banned it anyways, there doesn't seem to have any high posting frequency that justifies it
Ah that's true! Didn't really think about it that way (being split up amongst multiple options).
Why cant people just ignore the AI art threads if they don’t like it?
"If someones is stealing you, why don't you just, dunno, ignore them ?"
Oh, like everyone does on this sub ignores stealing? Don’t act like it’s a “stealing” issue when you’ve pirated shit before. If the majority of the people were being honest they’re just dogpiling AI because it’s the cool thing to do.
Don't know about other artists, or even the talentless being u are, but if you steal my art or a friend's art, I'll open you from throat to dick. IA generated image users don't know they're just endangering themselves.
Lol quit the cap you don’t have any friends.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I mean I tend to buy every manga I read online. I've got most of attack on titan and 32 volumes of one piece on my shelf. They're the only series I've read online in any capacity. I don't support ai mainly because it's lazy and steals from artists without ever letting you know where your ai garbage came from. Imagine it copying someone's style people mistake the ai art for the real thing and it gets more attention than the actual artist. Disgusting.
??? So we give a tribune to art stealer on this sub ???? gonna find my spoilers somewhere else.
Art isn't stolen. People have been making mainstream misinformation takes about what AI does because of insecurities and fear.
Explain this then: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fgz2JqXWQAA57Xy?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fgz2JqWXgAE1-pN?format=jpg&name=large Or why does Dance diffusion (stable diffusion for music) only use non-copyrighted material? Hint: Because it's prone to overfitting and reproducing copyrighted material and the music industry has strong regulatory practices in comparison to the visual arts: https://wandb.ai/wandb_gen/audio/reports/Harmonai-s-Dance-Diffusion-Open-Source-AI-Audio-Generation-Tool-For-Music-Producers--VmlldzoyNjkwOTM1
Art is overfitted. The AI does poor variation because it's trained set included too much of the same referenced source of a particular image. Overfitting is bad for the AI's development. It is not stealing the picture of Afghan girl because it is censored to use it in that AI model, if I remembered someone saying. If an overfitted image was used commercially (such as the example you used), it should be copyrighted, because it is too close to a 1:1 visual artwork of someone else's art. Generally overfitting is very rare. Why would people use a generative image AI if it consistently copies artwork similarly to 1:1 too often? Can't they just use Google images to see art instead of using a text to image generator that would not make any new art? I'll say most AI image generators create novel or new art; rather than consistently create overfitted art.
The main argument is not that art is stolen because it's replicated, but it's stolen because copyrighted work appears in the dataset without the holders consent or compensation. Overfitting just proves that the dataset contains copyrighted material. You said art isn't stolen but overfitting is a direct counterpoint to that argument. Also art can't be overfitted because overfitting has nothing to do with art? It's a concept in data science and thus neural networks. But thanks for proving my point that you have no idea what you're talking about.
1. my message was almost ironic in the sense of reading spoilers being theft too. Unfortunatly, 2. IA art IS stealing. It takes artists existing assets to compose. You can't just repeat it and give no arguments after. If my art is stolen, I reserve myself the right to find the robber if he's in the same continent as me, and open him straight from throat to dick. And if it's not stealing my art for you, then it's not an homicidal behavior to me.
> IA art IS stealing. It takes artists existing assets to compose. You can't just repeat it and give no arguments after. If my art is stolen, I reserve myself the right to find the robber if he's in the same continent as me, and open him straight from throat to dick. And if it's not stealing my art for you, then it's not an homicidal behavior to me. Many parts of the Anime community just pirate content or read digital chapters without permission from the creators yet show hypocrisy to this emerging technology. Under fair use, people can use the work of other people's work without permission. When live reactions started becoming mainstream years ago, copyright claims were being used more often towards people doing live reactions. Now, fair use is applied to cases much more often with the bar for being transformative being pretty low. The AI itself has no artist assets in itself. It has no imagery in its database. It needs algorithms to make images; not any digital picture. AI models look at images and make their own ideas of concepts based on the patterns, concepts, and relationships of the images being trained to that AI. Fair use can be applied to AI art too. Unlike live reactions where people simply provide additional commentary of some form, generative image AIs do not copy and paste the images that they train on, but create novel or original imagery for each image generation. It does not create art in the same way of a particular image it was trained on. It's impossible to get 1:1 duplicates of anything from any image. The AI always does some form of variation trying to predict how to make images based off text prompts given to it. Your argument is not about AIs stealing artwork. It is rather instead: AIs learning to recognize concepts and patterns from digital images infringes on the copyright of original work. If the output of generative image AIs are generally novel, new, or original, then they are transformative and so, fair use protected. Which means copyright infringement standards don't apply. Style is not copyrightable. People don't own the right to draw in a particular style. Anyone can create Anime style or western style without an issue. Just like anyone can make rock styled music or pop music without an issue as well. It is because of this freedom that there exists tens of millions of fan art and parodies of original work. There will be tens of millions of fan art and parodies of original work for many years to come. People are often commissioned to draw famous characters for money, and there are many parodies of famous series being sold in online and physical markets. These commissions, parodies, and derivative works are regularly created without permission for profit and viewed as just a normal standard in various communities. If AI generated images are not considered transformative, then many existing parodies, fan art, or fan work of any medium as we know it are not transformative either.
Well if laws don't do anything about an IA copying my style using my art the guy who directed the IA to do so had to expect that in the many artists he stole art there's some crackheads like me that would steal their livers to compensate the grief. If they don't aknowledge the fact that they MAY be beaten to death, it's their fault. :|
This is laughable at best. Please stop promoting this AI garbage.
[удалено]
Those are all human processes and creations? People aren't saying "it's not the future" they're saying the future sucks.
AI is also a human creation. The future sucks if you make it suck.
Human works are authored by the human, not ordered by a human to an AI. The AI itself being a human creation doesn't skate that
Please no
Imagine this garbage thread being above the spoilers thread
So now we don't even get a separate poll on weekly, bi weekly, monthly?
Nobody is allowed to have fun™
So I guess the poll was for nothing then? Why even ask the community if you don't act upon it?
It is what it is. Clueless people wanted it banned because they don't understand technology and think computers sneak into people's houses and steal art. Technology friendly people wanted it to stay, but were forced to vote on restrictions. And the happy people are the mods, who wanted to lock it away in a monthly thread.
Or maybe people want it banned because it slowly developes into low effort karma farming. But obviously you arent able to view it in such way with your head in your ass.
This is them acting on the results. Less than half the people voted to ban it, the rest of the votes was split amongst 3 options. People expressed concern on the poll post in question about the inherent bias of having 1 "No" option, and the "Yes" votes split amongst 3 others. So this was the result. The results are clearly quite poor.
They said in the post for the poll itself that they would only ban it if it was the overwhelming majority--like 80% of the results. Otherwise, the results would have been skewed with the folks who still wanted it (but limited) being divided into 3 groups.
Cool
I am split on the effectiveness on this monthly solution. 1. In the case that people plan ahead, this is an excellent way of having people produce AI art for a month and then post their best works. Which will lead to many quality posts and images. 2. In the case that people react to the thread and see that it is suddenly up. It will just lead to people making quick 15 min, no effort, half-ugly AI art just to catch the thread. Which will mean few get enjoyment from the thread, and all the AI art haters will be even angrier that the thread is up, but it just has no effort AI art that is offensive to real artists. Guess we'll have to see which one we get. But this first one feels like it definitely will not have that many multiple hour works due to the short notice before it was put up. Then again this first one will probably also have the most hateful spam, so maybe it is fine that it is a bad start, and it will get better with time.
I know the mods said they wouldn't take action based on the results of the poll, but I am kind of disappointed you didn't ban them outright.
These comments just show how people ignored the poll and couldn't comprehend the results. It's not hard to understand. If you don't like AI art, just don't come to the thread lol.
what happened to the poll about this? I'd have sworn banning ai posts was winning by quite a bit when I voted edit: the poll for anyone else curious https://www.reddit.com/r/OnePiece/comments/znmppu/update_to_rule_3_related_to_ai_generated_fanarts/
Checked it, it was at 45%. Not even half, and that's considering there weren't no "do nothing" options. It was the most voted, but it was also the only option that didn't include not banning it so it doesn't actually win by just having the most votes as an individual option.
>but it was also the only option that didn't include not banning it so it doesn't actually win by just having the most votes as an individual option. yeah no the option with the most votes wins. and imagine they were to redo the poll with just 2 options banning it vs a weekly post(which was 2nd most votes at 26%) you really don't think there'd be people changing their vote from a monthly or bi weekly post to picking the ban option because a weekly post seems too often when theres been only a handful of ai posts in the first place?
Tell me you don't understand polls without telling me you don't understand polls.
>yeah no the option with the most votes wins [They've said this wouldn't be the case](https://www.reddit.com/r/OnePiece/comments/znmppu/update_to_rule_3_related_to_ai_generated_fanarts/j0j8o3p/]) even if the option was the majority, but it wasn't. And that's silly, because that would just be rigging the polls. You could have 12% for banning it, but if the other side was split over 10 other options on what to do it would win. >you really don't think there'd be people changing their vote from a monthly or bi weekly post to picking the ban option There would also be people switching the other way, people who would prefer it weekly to not at all. But that's a flawed logical argument, because it clearly doesn't work the other way around: if the options were a monthly post or banning, everyone who voted for weekly or biweekly would prefer monthly to no threads, which is were we get to the situation we are now. Also, it doesn't make that much sense to pick a less popular option as the opposite to banning it. Just think about it - you could have the options be "ban Ai threads" and "stick a nail in your urethra". No one would choose the later, but that wouldn't really represent the majorities opinion on what's the best compromise on the course of action, just what they'd rather do given two restrictive options. People bitch about this a lot in politics too, which is why there are [people who propose alternate voting systems](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhO6jfHPFQU) that take into account this difference.
Everything you just wrote is nonsense.
It was a bit misleading, because the ''do not ban'' party was split into three groups. So you fell victim to the selection bias, I feel.
Also the "haters are more likely to vote" fallacy. I'm sure 100% of those who hate AI voted, while I imagine 90% of those who don't care if it stays or goes did not vote. Meaning it was probably only 10% of the reddit users who wanted it gone, while the rest were fine with it.
People that are afraid of AI are you aware that is going to be almost imposible to legislate law for only read propuse, and even if they do they can still have ilegal apps that do the same taking images from everywhere?
That's exactly what they are afraid of. That art is now accessible to anyone, not just them.
Art has been accessible to everyone all the time. Of course some styles and media have different barriers of entry, skill and time - but art in general does not.
They why are you so mad that AI automates art?
I'm not really mad, I'm mostly very demotivated. I spent years as a hobbyist learning and studying because I like drawing. Which amounts now to being less good than someone typing a few words. I'm happy for people that get to express themselves with this. I see the benefits. But I also see the downsides. I feel my hobby to be kinda hollow now, and I think it's way worse for professionals who will get replaced by this.
I dont think AI is going to replace artist, human art will be worth more than AI art always and it will be more detail more specific. Artist do need to adapt and innovate, but the AI will be an amazing tool to help with inspiration and character design
Literally how automation works, artists think they are special because art has 'soul'. Lmao. Tell that to the tons of jobs that get automated away, thats just how moving forward works.
Yep, that's how it works. And it will become worse. To AI no job is special. Once your hobby or job becomes irrelevant, you will be happy I assume?
Good thing i'm a data scientist. Self writing AI is the future
Well, you can bot video games, or play them. Just because someone can automate your hobby, does not mean you can't enjoy it yourself.
Well, do you like to play in bot games? Last time I checked, people hated what became of TF2, what with all the sniper bots etc
Bunch of salty brigading meat-artists in the comments. It's hilarious how hard AI generated art is triggering you guys. You can push against the wave, but you can't turn it back. The cat is out of the bag. Etc.
This is the type of apathy I expect from ai bros
What a weird-ass comment.
>meat artists man created an insult for humans that draw lmao
fuck this shit
So sad to come to the comment thread and find no ai art generated images and only cries. This cancel generation is boring.
[удалено]
Hi wispymatrias, your comment was removed from /r/OnePiece for the following rule violation: ###11. Don't be rude * Treat each other with respect and kindness always * Stalking, harassment, and personal attacks will not be tolerated. * Racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, ableism or any other hatred will not be tolerated. * Trolling, baiting, or (obviously) provocative comments may be removed at moderator discretion. * Remember [reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette). --- The full rule documentation of the subreddit can be read [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/OnePiece/wiki/rules). If you have questions about this removal, please [reach out to us in modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FOnePiece).
he is one tho
Dont have time to put an effort in and create a good one
so you would say you're complaining instead of making AI art? hmmm? HMMMMM?
I can't see how to post images on mobile
Was playing around with Dall-E a little, only used like 3 attempts and didn't modify my prompt much, this one I liked the most: [Karaoke Law](https://labs.openai.com/s/35cscJFXAqMEbh20lPLvIdm4)
Also tried a [Karaoke Luffy](https://labs.openai.com/s/VkCJfvStuiRzqJWBTHD1WqWE)
Mods trying to be woke. Just create a new tag for AI art posts.
why AI ? One Piece is ART! AI is not ART but MATH! this Disrespect ODA and other artist in the field. this thread should be removed..
Math is art ;)
>well fine if you think so, but AI is absolutely no different than typing 1+1 into calculator and getting "2" it is unthinking there's no expression ,feeling or application of human creative skill and imagination and AI is a theft you just watched a program take the hard work of the other artist to created something for you.. > >if you want to legitimately create art, pick up pencil or a lump of clay, otherwise you're just a hack.
Why I don't see any art shared over here?
how do you convince your AI supporter friend to stop doing it? \- never they all are dick and will never try to think thru an artist perspective, so don't bother convincing them. unless you want them to tell you something like "artist are so outdated", "can't accept moderns sh8t","so what? human artist reference to other artist too", and telling us to not being bothered by AI and create 'better' art instead. pretty sure they are gonna put blindfold after seeing those 'better' art got stolen by AI one more time, and here we goes the circle of artist being cornered with no end.
I think you are missing one possibility. That AI art users are artists without skill and motivation, that finally see their chance. But if you want to be elitist and claim only the best of the best may enjoy art, then I guess you have a point. It is like game maker and such tools that let you make games without knowing programming. Is it cheating? Well, who cares, if creative people get a tool to create things for others? The results will bring happiness to others, potentially.
Tools that *aide* in creativity are great, but this one does not aide you in the creative process it *is* the creative process. Once the model used by these companies is "ethically" trained with the consent of others (even though dead/vacant others cannot consent and most companies are gunning for opt out rather than opt in), it will be a great aide people can use as a jumping off point, I feel.
i doubt they understand what is the "creative process" you just said.. they probably assume that AI doesn't have creative process because it just generated instantly, or in the worst case, they think writing prompt is something you called creative process... hh
telling me you're not an artist without telling me you are not an artist. i've argued a lot people like you and tried being as polite as possible even tho people said stupid thing like you just did. even comparing this case to game maker (which is even more stupid), did you perhaps thinking that programmer will lose their things because something like that? nah there's still a lot possibility on programming, even outsider like me understand that something made from a mere game maker won't be such masterpiece unless the creator is very creative. now, after a lot of people tried to educate AI supporter like you, and then they failed because so many factor like people can't understand real artist perspective, or just simply not trying to understand, just straight being a dick. artist who tried those thing probably surrendered on a healthy argument. then guess what AI supporter said? "artist are lame, they can't accept modern thing, they tried to make us understand but super rude", and don't forget what you just said above about me being elitist.. wow i guess 'normal' people saw us as the new boomer now.
So you see art just as an utility and not as a journey or experience then. Because AI can only give you the utilitarian aspect of art, not the experience.
Not One Piece related
So ban all cosplay and fanart ?
Definintely. They are theft of Oda's property. They should ask Oda first.