alex and hazel created by lonnyk
Viewing sample resized to 26% of original (view original) Loading...
Description

Was a little frustrated when I found out the AIs I've been messing around with don't understand giving a character an udder

  • Comments
  • This post actually inspired me to train a cursed LoRA for slapping udders on everything

  • Reply
  • |
  • 4
  • lonnyk said:
    I don't know about the other e6 artists you scraped this from, but I personally do not consent to my art being used to train models/LoRAs.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be cynical here, but boycoting the technology is useless. It's there to stay, people aren't going to be stopped regardless of how many artists demand to ban it since all it takes to train a model is to load images – just as much processing as a human requires to see it via web-browser, really. While some people will treat artists' consent with respect others won't – and there's nothing stopping them except for their sense of justice. In other words, you gotta cope with it.
    I appreciate the artists' effort and I understand that it wouldn't be possible without them to get such a brilliant tool in our hands, but the AI just gives too much freedom. What I mean is, could you imagine paying money for someone to draw a cucumber penis/slap udders on a car just for shits and giggles? In a timespan of drawing a single image one can now create multiple frames and make an animation (e.g. through Blender), pushing furry art to a new level – isn't this an advance? Artists can use the tool to speed up their sketching/colouring process, why push it away? We should embrace the new *free* technology and what I'm seeing instead is a group of people trying to ban something just because they might end up getting a bit less money – as if AI can replace real art completely, which is not a real threat.
    I'm not trying to offend anyone, just kinda tired of everyone on e6 being so much of anti-AI luddites.

  • Reply
  • |
  • 9
  • nelepus said:
    Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be cynical here, but boycoting the technology is useless. It's there to stay, people aren't going to be stopped regardless of how many artists demand to ban it since all it takes to train a model is to load images – just as much processing as a human requires to see it via web-browser, really. While some people will treat artists' consent with respect others won't – and there's nothing stopping them except for their sense of justice. In other words, you gotta cope with it.
    I appreciate the artists' effort and I understand that it wouldn't be possible without them to get such a brilliant tool in our hands, but the AI just gives too much freedom. What I mean is, could you imagine paying money for someone to draw a cucumber penis/slap udders on a car just for shits and giggles? In a timespan of drawing a single image one can now create multiple frames and make an animation (e.g. through Blender), pushing furry art to a new level – isn't this an advance? Artists can use the tool to speed up their sketching/colouring process, why push it away? We should embrace the new *free* technology and what I'm seeing instead is a group of people trying to ban something just because they might end up getting a bit less money – as if AI can replace real art completely, which is not a real threat.
    I'm not trying to offend anyone, just kinda tired of everyone on e6 being so much of anti-AI luddites.

    You are the one who has to cope with it because you need to respect the artist's wishes. If they don't give you their consent, you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

    Edit: Typo error fix.

    Updated

  • Reply
  • |
  • -7
  • gaian-commander said:
    You are the one who has to cope with it because you need to respect the artist's wishes. If they don't give you their consent, you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

    Edit: Typo error fix.

    But that's exactly what I'm trying to convey here: I don't. Yes, it would be polite and honest of me to do so – but if somebody ignores it and trains their model despite the artist's not giving consent it puts them at major advantage in the AI field without pretty much any restrictions applied: most users of the said model wouldn't give a thought about ethics and false morale of "art theft". As long as there's a download button or a screenshot option on my device, nothing prevents me or anyone else from saving the image. The only thing that might keep someone from using images as training data is a pinky swear to respect the artist's will.
    What I'm trying to say is you can't fight it and you can't rely on people behaving themselves and not using someone's images as training data – someone will do it anyways and it makes no difference whether a group of people refrained from it due to the artist's will or not. Judge me or them all you want – it's no use. There are even people who are going so crazy about it that they try to promote pixelating/pixel-shifting the image as a technique to "prevent stealing" – which renders their images to incomprehesible abomination as a result.
    I don't remember artists boycoting Adobe Photoshop because you can use it to copy their characters or parts of their images. It would be ridiculous if someone tried to ban Maya/Blender because it can interpolate 60 frames per second faster than an artist would draw them in photorealistic level of detail. And all of a sudden people are rioting against AI – just because youtube/twitter hysteria repeats "AI bad, chatGPT is the skynet" over and over solely for hype reasons.

  • Reply
  • |
  • 3
  • At least reply and tell me where I'm wrong instead of silently downvoting me, cowards

  • Reply
  • |
  • 0
  • lonnyk said:
    I personally do not consent to my art being used to train models/LoRAs.

    Do you consent to your art being used as artistic reference?
    1. If you don't consent to that, it doesn't matter anyway since people can and will simply do that.
    2. If you do consent to that, that would be self-contradictory.

    Your work is being exploited for the creation of another work in both cases, but you only consent to one of both cases (assuming option 2).
    Ethics and legality don't matter. You're just preferring the "familiar" way to exploit the works of others over the "scary, unfamiliar" way to exploit the works of others.

    I understand that automation can be scary. However, to put NeLepus' response more politely, there is nothing you as an artist can do but attempt to live with the presence of artificial intelligence, as we all have to. Could be ethically/legally right, could be ethically/legally wrong, doesn't matter. Best thing we can do is benefit from what artificial intelligence can provide us, instead of living in fear of it.

    If I were a (commercial, hard working) artist, I'd just be grateful that such a model like NeLepus' "cow udders" model isn't replicating my art style directly. But that's just me.

    Donovan DMC said (via e621 ticket system, NeLepus' userpage):
    Harassing artists...

    There was nothing harassing about NeLepus' response.

    Donovan DMC said (via e621 ticket system, NeLepus' userpage):
    ...and defending using their works in a way they explicitly forbid is what you're doing wrong.

    Please see points above regarding works used as artistic reference.

  • Reply
  • |
  • 3
  • lonnyk said:
    I don't know about the other e6 artists you scraped this from, but I personally do not consent to my art being used to train models/LoRAs.

    Rest easy. I don't think your art will be used to train models/LoRAs, bud.

  • Reply
  • |
  • 0
  • big_chungus_on_ps5 said:
    Do you consent to your art being used as artistic reference?
    1. If you don't consent to that, it doesn't matter anyway since people can and will simply do that.
    2. If you do consent to that, that would be self-contradictory.

    I agree with the rest of your comment but this part sounds like a false dichotomy to me.

    “You either consent to all possible exploitation of your work or no exploitation at all

    Different artists will have a different opinion on how much of it ok and how much crosses the line

  • Reply
  • |
  • 1
  • insulindianphasmid said:
    I agree with the rest of your comment but this part sounds like a false dichotomy to me.

    “You either consent to all possible exploitation of your work or no exploitation at all

    Different artists will have a different opinion on how much of it ok and how much crosses the line

    Fair point. IMO, AI model training vs. training one's own mind are pretty damn close to each other. One crossing the line while the other doesn't still comes off as picky/selective; a matter of comfort, not of ethics or legality. I see what you mean though, it's not necessarily a logical contradiction.

  • Reply
  • |
  • 0
  • Jeez, that's a lot of anger from me simply saying I don't like my art being used for this stuff

    nelepus said:
    Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be cynical here, but boycoting the technology is useless.

    I am aware my statement was futile, as since the technology has been released it's here to stay.

    nelepus said:
    I don't remember artists boycoting Adobe Photoshop because you can use it to copy their characters or parts of their images.

    That's because for works being used commercially, the images being put into a Photoshop composition are almost always sourced from artists/models/photographers that have consented to and are being compensated for their works being used.

    big_chungus_on_ps5 said:
    Do you consent to your art being used as artistic reference?
    1. If you don't consent to that, it doesn't matter anyway since people can and will simply do that.
    2. If you do consent to that, that would be self-contradictory.

    This presumes that I equate AI generated images to referenced images, which I do not. Having worked in AI for years and knowing the algorithms used for image generation, I would equate it more to traced images. Having that in mind as the comparison I and several other artists have, you'll see how odd it may seem that people are furious that artists are upset over people tracing their works and passing it off as their own work.

    big_chungus_on_ps5 said:
    IMO, AI model training vs. training one's own mind are pretty damn close to each other.

    From my experience, it isn't. It can be best shown how different they are by knowing how models and references are used once trained. An artist will break down the reference and see how specific parts of the image are done. An AI model will open hundreds of canvases, throw noise at each canvas, and choose the canvas that looks the most like the reference. This is iterated upon many times until an image is created.

    Edited a tad for wording and cuz I posted before finishing

    Updated

  • Reply
  • |
  • 1
  • big_chungus_on_ps5 said:
    There was nothing harassing about NeLepus' response.

    Essentially responding "fuck you, cope with it" and outright saying that he doesn't respect the artist's wishes after training an AI using their art isn't harassing, how?

    Updated

  • Reply
  • |
  • 0
  • lonnyk said:
    The images being put into a Photoshop composition are almost always sourced from artists/models/photographers that have consented to and are being compensated for their works being used.

    How do you know that? Maybe a majority don't credit original sources, but most people don't know/care?

    lonnyk said:
    This presumes that I equate AI generated images to referenced images, which I do not. Having worked in AI for years and knowing the algorithms used for image generation, I would equate it more to traced images. Having that in mind as the comparison I and several other artists have, you'll see how odd it may seem that people are furious that artists are upset over people tracing their works and passing it off as their own work.

    Tracing with extra steps, I suppose. It's a fair point. Although, tracing over something has been transformative in many cases. Taking shortcuts is also common in hand-drawn professional concept art.

    An AI model will open hundreds of canvases, throw noise at each canvas, and choose the canvas that looks the most like the reference. This is iterated upon many times until an image is created.

    Your understanding of generative AI is incorrect. It sounds like you're describing a misremembered version of how to train a model, whose process is not involved in how to generate a picture from one.
    For someone who "[has] worked in AI for years and [knows] the algorithms used for image generation", I wouldn't think you'd get it so wrong. Here's a full explanation.

    AI models do not store the original images in them at all. For every concept contained within a model, the dataset images are averaged into how that concept should look; individual pictures are not being considered in the generation process. A good example is NeLepus' cow udders model; you cannot use it to recreate the artstyles contained within the dataset, as it was trained to focus on the cow udders and ignore everything else. Even if there are enough images to depict an artstyle, it will be trained to learn how the style looks in general, but not "remembering" the original pictures.

    Besides, no matter how many pictures you put in a model's dataset, the filesize of a model does not change at all. How does it "store pictures" despite not changing? That's like saying typing in a Microsoft Word doc costs paper and ink because it makes documents; of course writing a document uses paper and ink, why wouldn't it?

    Considering all this, I'll rephrase my take on generative AI to be like "Artist A" copying the style of "Artist B", but not tracing over Artist B's art. In order for A to copy B's style appropriately, Artist A still needs to practice. An AI model would learn and then reproduce a style in much the same way.

    werideatdawn said:
    Essentially responding "fuck you, cope with it" [...] isn't harassing, how?

    It was rudely put, but the point is fair. It's okay to be furious or angry about it, but that isn't going to do any good for their mental health. I see "cope" as synonymous for "finding acceptance with it", though I think the internet has tainted the use of that word a bit. He also did not say "fuck you"; your interpretation of his message(s) is rather extreme.

    werideatdawn said:
    [...] outright saying he doesn't respect the artist's wishes after training an AI using their art isn't harassing, how?

    If you post something you believe to be completely harmless, but someone comes along and tells you that you need to take it down because it offends them, would you?
    I'm not saying you should see AI as "harmless", but I'd like to help you see how it's not harassing; NeLepus believes it is harmless. I do not see anything harassing about it unless you're looking at his message(s) through a specifically anti-AI lens.

    Updated

  • Reply
  • |
  • 1