Do you actually think artists using AI tools just type shit into the input and output decent art? It's still just a new, stronger digital tool. Many previous tools have been demonized, claiming they trivialize the work and people who used them were called hacks and lazy. Over time they get normalized.

And as far as training data being considered stealing IP, I don't buy it. I don't think anyone who's actually looked into what the training process is and understands it properly would either. For IP concerns, the output should be the only meaningful measure. It's just as shitty to copy art manually as it is to copy it with AI. Just because an AI used an art piece in training doesn't mean it infringed until someone tries to use it to copy it. Which, agreed, is a super shitty thing to do. But again, it's a tool, how it's used is more important than how it's made.

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lmao, I’ve used AI image generation, you’re not going to be able to convince me any skill was involved in what I made. The fact some people type a lot more and keep throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks doesn’t make it art or anything they’ve done with their own skill. The fact none of them can control what they’re making every time the sauce updates is proof of that.

If it’s so obviously not IP violating to train with it then I’m sure it’ll be totally fine if they train them without using artists’ work without permission, since it totally wasn’t relying on those IP violating images. Yet for some reason they fight this tooth and nail. 🤔

[–] ClamDrinker@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Except they totally could. But a data source of such size of material where everyone opted in to use for AI explicitly does not exist. The reason they fight it is in part also because training such models isn't exactly free. The hardware that it's done on costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and must run for long periods. You would not just do that for the funsies unless you have to. And considering the data by all means seems to be collected in legal ways, they have cause to fight such cases.

It's a bit weird to use that as an argument to begin with since a party that knows they are at fault usually settles rather than fight on and incur more costs. It's almost as if they don't agree with your assertion that they needed permission, and that those imagines were IP violating 🤔

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago

Oh no it costs money to use the art stealing machine to make uncopyrightable trash? 🥺

[–] EndlessApollo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

"But a data source of such size of material where everyone opted in to use for AI explicitly does not exist. "

Dang I wonder why 🤔🤔🤔🤔

[–] ClamDrinker@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Because AI wasn't a big thing before 2020, and no such permission in obtained material has been legally necessary so far (lawsuits are pending of course). If something has no incentive to exist it will not be created. There's plenty of ethical justifications why no such permission is needed as well.

[–] EndlessApollo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh cool, you think art theft is ethically justified as long as it's a robot doing it

[–] ClamDrinker@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Oh cool, you think misrepresenting and overly simplifying other people's points of view and an accurate representation of how certain copyright laws work (even when that's an inconvenient truth) is ethically justified as long as I can tell my anti AI homies that I stood up for them by 'dunking' on a person arguing in good faith for them to fight the right battles, and not cling to false ideas which will lead them to suffer more in the long term and turn people who would support them against them by spouting easily disputed lies.

But sure, go ahead! I'm sure you'll change so many minds by immediately disregarding everything they say by putting them in a box of "thiefs" because they said something that didn't fit very specifically within your "Guidebook to hating anything related to AI".

Now back to a serious discussion if you're up for it. Creative freedom is built on the notion that ideas are the property of nobody, it is a requirement since every artist in existence has derived their work from the work of others. It's not even controversial, using your definition of stealing means all artists 'steal' from each other all the time, and nobody cares. But because a robot does it (despite that robot being in 100% control of the artist using it), it's suddenly the most outrageous thing.

I know for sure my ideas have been 'stolen' from my publicized works, but I understand I had no sole right to that idea to begin with. I can't copyright it. And if a 'thief' used those ideas in a transformative manner rather than create something that tries to recreate what I made (which would be actual infringement), they have every right to as without that right literally nobody would be allowed to make anything since everything we make is inspired by something that we don't hold a copyright over. Most of the people actually producing stuff that will be displayed publicly so other people will experience and pull it apart to learn from understand we have no right to those ideas to begin with, except in how we applied those ideas in a specific work.

[–] EndlessApollo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Think of how much actual art you could've made in the time it took you to shill for the thing that's stealing art and fucking over creatives and using personal data to spy on people

[–] ClamDrinker@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Oh yeah, shame on me, spending a part of my day 'shilling' for myself and my friends and colleagues. And 'shilling' for a better future for us all by dissuading people from weaponizing bad arguments and misunderstandings to defend themselves, because that will not help them one bit. The latter part of you sentence is such utter nonsense that I don't even need to respond to that.