Hahahhahahaah

I do not think stable diffusion and the other AI tools are morally questionable, but I can see why it has artists concerned.

meryle said:
I do not think stable diffusion and the other AI tools are morally questionable, but I can see why it has artists concerned.

brain dumb, explain stable diffusion

mrbigbadbully said:
brain dumb, explain stable diffusion

From my limited understanding Stable Diffusion takes an input image and tries to interpret it into a new output

mrbigbadbully said:
brain dumb, explain stable diffusion

automated art theft. It's genius if you're an asswipe, and horrid if your an artist.

mrbigbadbully said:
brain dumb, explain stable diffusion

Stable Diffusion uses a process of feeding a machine an multiple sets of images with varying levels of static noise. The A.I then will try to recreate the original image from full static. After a lot of data the A.I can create new images from just static noise. This works differently from other A.I's that may just use regular image data. (In no way am I an expert and I am sure this explanation is flawed)

bigjazz said:
automated art theft. It's genius if you're an asswipe, and horrid if your an artist.

I dont see how it's any different then an artist taking inspiration from an artwork to make something totally different.

This anti machine learning sentiment in the art world just seems like another capitalist outrage against the automation of labor, automated labor which ultimately makes the people's lives easier, giving more people access to art catered to their desires which would otherwise have cost an arm and a leg in terms of money, labor, and time drawing and commissioning.

But it's understandable viewing this as an artist living in the capitalist system as these AIs will be in the hands of the wealthy elites running the companies that produce these AI systems, profiting from them, and the artists wont be able to survive competing with these art monopolists, ultimately driving the artist out of buisness, making the carreer of artist even more unrealistic in the society we will soon live in.

geezee676 said:
From my limited understanding Stable Diffusion takes an input image and tries to interpret it into a new output

bigjazz said:
automated art theft. It's genius if you're an asswipe, and horrid if your an artist.

kassy24 said:
Stable Diffusion uses a process of feeding a machine an multiple sets of images with varying levels of static noise. The A.I then will try to recreate the original image from full static. After a lot of data the A.I can create new images from just static noise. This works differently from other A.I's that may just use regular image data. (In no way am I an expert and I am sure this explanation is flawed)

No, no and no. There's a lot of misinformation going around, so let me explain how it actually works.

An AI is fed a set of images, could be hundreds, could be millions, along with contextual data. It then processes those images to quite literally learn from them. Afterwards, those images are discarded — no artwork or images are retained, just the training data it learned off of them.

You may then instruct the AI to generate a new, original piece of artwork using the knowledge it gained, based on the inputs you gave it (the prompt, some settings, and in some cases, an input image). You can do this over and over with the same inputs and a different seed, or the same seed with different inputs, until you get something you like. Most importantly, it does all this without looking at a single image (unless you fed it an input image), using nothing but the inputs and the knowledge it acquired during training.

Yes, it can technically be used for art theft, in the same way that a steak knife can be used as a weapon. That does not mean that it is inherently a tool for art theft, just like a steak knife isn't a tool for murder. If you specifically train it on images made by a single artist, and then use one of those images as the input, then yeah, that's basically art theft — at least from a moral viewpoint. As with a case of stabbing, you should blame the wielder, not the tool.

Otherwise, under normal use (i.e. not curtailed by a malicious user intentionally trying to plagiarize an artist), you will never get anything remotely similar to an existing work of art. The generated image will be 100% original, and no court in the world would find it in violation of copyright.

If you want to be mad at AI-generated images, that's fine. If you want to say there's much less skill involved in making them, that's fine too. If you think most AI-generated artwork looks ugly or uncanny, I totally agree. If you're worried that this will hurt the income of artists — though I personally doubt it — that is also fair.

What's not okay, however, is spreading disinformation about AI-generated art being theft by default. That is entirely false.
The knife isn't the murderer, nor is the AI the plagiarist — the malicious users are solely responsible for their malicious actions. Stop blaming the tools.

The flimbus

bigjazz said:
Ye but with a steak knife, I can cut a steak. All you can do with these ai is fuck over artists.

I know more about neuralnetworks and deeplearning than the average Joe, I promise. I understand how it works. I've heard every argument in its favor.

The fact is, it was invented to replace artists. Ironically, it can't exist without them. We're in interesting times.

bigjazz said:
Art isn't labor. Art isn't poking divots into plastic doodads for 10 hours a day. Art is not arduous, heartless industry.

Art is inherent to humans. We need it to survive, we need to make it to thrive. Automating it is not the priority of anyone who's ever made art.

Efforts to replace artists with algorithms should be better focused on actual issues.

That's a lot of blanket statements. I don't think you really do understand as much as you let on.

What artist has ever been "fucked over" by this? Whose audience suddenly decided to switch from high-quality commissions to broken, low-quality AI generated content? If they didn't care about quality, they'd wouldn't be spending hundreds on commissions in the first place. Did they all suddenly drop everything to learn how to use the AI and then put days of work in creating a decent-looking piece? Not likely. Obviously, people are still going to commission artists.

These weren't built to replace artists. Ironically, your next sentence immediately proves that. It's a tool to help artists, just like digital painting programs with all their brushes, filters and other features. AI is just another tool, albeit a much more advance one. It's definitely not replacing humans anytime soon, nor was that ever the intent.

"Art is not arduous, heartless industry."
... How do we break the news to them?

bigjazz said:
One requires time, effort and a detailed skill base. The other requires the press of a button. It's not the same.

Good-looking AI art isn't made with the push of a button. That's step 1 of 500+. Well-made AI artwork does require time, effort and skill. Admittedly not as much, in the same way that painting on a canvas requires much more time, effort and skill than painting digitally. Are you going to cancel digital artists next?

Here's what actually goes into making a decent-quality piece of AI art: https://i.imgur.com/0hRMsVQ.png

This was made by someone with both art and AI expertise, so pardon me if I give their opinion and first-hand experience more credibility than yours.

bigjazz said:
One requires time, effort and a detailed skill base. The other requires the press of a button. It's not the same.

I dont understand what speed has to do with it.

bigjazz said:
automated art theft. It's genius if you're an asswipe, and horrid if your an artist.

It is not art theft. It is simply an AI using what it has learned and observed and then applying it in new ways. If that is art theft, then anyone who learned to draw by observing other people's art is theft as well.

This person just proved they have no idea what they are talking about. They probably read some biased rant and now think they are informed about it.

bigjazz said:
One requires time, effort and a detailed skill base. The other requires the press of a button. It's not the same.

You think it requires just a press of a button to get good results? XD

Go try it. It is far from that simple.

Besides, even if it *was* that simple. It would still be art. What matters is the results, not the method.

For anyone who wants to say AI art is "low quality" go look at AIBooru.online

The art there is on par with a lot of artist, I understand why they are concerned.

meryle said:
I do not think stable diffusion and the other AI tools are morally questionable, but I can see why it has artists concerned.

Wow, way to downvote a milquetoast take to oblivion.

AI art genie is out of the bottle and it's not going back in. Pandora's box is now open and there's nothing to be done about it. All the downvotes in the world will not change this fact

I think there is still a place for human art. I don't think it's going anywhere either. Much as the horse drivers raged at the internal combustion engine, so too will fear dominate this conversation until AI art is so mainstream and ubiquitous that it gets regarded as commonplace. I will still continue to comission human artists (and pay good money) when I want a well done piece to exacting, complex specifications. However, if I wanna make a potrait for a D&D character, or some throwaway character on FList... well that option is now open as well.

Humans make art to express themselves and because they have something to say. That is never going away, so "AI" art will never outright replace artists completely. (By the way, I hate that term "AI" in this context, because the technology is so far from actual "intelligence". It makes it sound like it's much more complex and profound than it actually is.)

I get that people may be scared about it becoming a threat to their jobs, but unless the AI achieves actual sentience and can truly be called intelligent, I don't see that happening. And whenever we actually reach that point, we'll have much more pressing issues to consider first.

Today's machine learning can only make shallow copies of what's been done before. It can't bring in any new perspectives and other experiences from the outside world. Again, for that you need a fully sentient being, actually living a life outside of art. You can't type in "What's it like being an AI" and get a genuine answer back.

Inca_Inti said:

bigjazz said:
automated art theft. It's genius if you're an asswipe, and horrid if your an artist.

I dont see how it's any different then an artist taking inspiration from an artwork to make something totally different.

Use of ailenation, the artist isint making something totaly different, the machine is, this doesnt require skill