anon2016 said:
It's unfortunate that AI generated images disturb you so much.

Honestly, i don't think they are bad and, especially, violates some kind of copyright laws. At least until someone tries to make money of some artist work or claim it as their own work. In my opinion at least.
More important, this is a tool. It's not bad by itself, and should not be prohibited for usage here.
Some fans just love certain art styles, authors... and want something, that authors of the original arts may never do themselfes. Some AI can make their dreams become reality and it's a really, really good thing in my opinion.

The most reasonable in this situation is to make strict rules about such arts. Make them a separate tags so they are not confused with human art-work. And those, who violate such kind of rules, should be restricted for sure.

I hope your opinion, and opinion of another users here, will be more... kind.

Love you all, and thanks for reading all of this.

AI is literally going to kill art. If we jjust let people improve it it'll become indistinguishable from real art and people will now make thousands of $ selling fake art.

I don't think AI art is fine in the slightest and I wish something was done about it.

I wish AI had hit mainstream for like, what's been done with data sifting to identify bird calls, or map out underwater caves. Instead, we got art theft on a massive scale. Cause some asshole decided that having human artists and writers was bad. Coulda put that energy into making it so no one has to do painful or dangerous work ever again, but no.

Personally I prefer if that AI art always keeps that uncanny valley effect where it either is just looking good but you can tell who has been knocked off and that it’s basically a Chinese bootleg toy. I also see AI art that sits in that valley because it is too good. An art style contains distinct imperfections that make things perfect, and AI can’t understand that and thus will overshoot the target.

While I always am happy with more aeromorph art, if I want to enjoy someone’s art style I go to the source, not a well-made but still soulless rip-off. Sadly I can’t afford myself aero art so if I wish to make something depicting my OC until I can, let’s say, have Renthedragon give it that spark…then I‘d take AI art solely as an intermediary until the real good stuff is made. You can’t replace an artist with a program.

This is a whole new level of art-theft.
This makes me extremely uncomfortable as a consumer.
How am I to notice the difference between a piece of art that somebody slaved away at and something that an AI produced based on a few inputs?

This whole thing has made me very angry and very uncomfortable.

I don't see a problem with it as long as it is specified it AI art. You won't stop it, so at least try to control it.

Hey,

I see your passionate about your work, and I love that about your art. But I don't see the need for you ro start a petition to ban AI aeromorph art and for 3 really good reasons:
1) Even if someone took your art and characters as a reference for the AI to produce this, it's not the same as stealing your characters any more than someone making their own copy of your art and using it for drafting or inspiration. As long as no one says these are your characters (which they clearly aren't), and since you don't own the poses your characters are in (which is also different in the AI versions), as long as no one markets to sell them its legally allowed.
2) Would you say that a starting aeromorph artist should quit because they can't draw an aeromorph properly? Your right about the details in the AI art. The wings are detached, and back-pack engines are asymmetric, and I'm pretty sure they both have a 3rd arm. Your art is clearly superior, in terms of details, but that doesn't make the AI art unallowable. Some artists make such mistakes when drawing, and this being an experimental drawing program it's to be expected that it will take time and greater programming refinement to draw something out of the norm, like an aeromorph. Plus, anatomical correctness on any fictional or original character is a little redundant and subjective. Not really something to protest about in my humble opinion.
3) In terms of what "we" want. That is up to the consumer base, and I think you have the market cornered. Your Renthedragon, one of the most, if not the most recognized, aeromorph artist known on the web. You really think your audience and fans are going to flaunt to this new AI generated aeromorph art just because its there? Even if millions of this content is generated by AI, it won't have your art style, your characters models, or your original stories. That's what most aeromorph fans look for and while some may glance at this other stuff, they will always have their reticles locked on the kind of artwork you make. Let the AI dump their waste in mass. You and artist like you will have the high quality stuff people really enjoy. Trust in your fan base!

markaintus said:
Hey,

I see your passionate about your work, and I love that about your art. But I don't see the need for you ro start a petition to ban AI aeromorph art and for 3 really good reasons:
1) Even if someone took your art and characters as a reference for the AI to produce this, it's not the same as stealing your characters any more than someone making their own copy of your art and using it for drafting or inspiration. As long as no one says these are your characters (which they clearly aren't), and since you don't own the poses your characters are in (which is also different in the AI versions), as long as no one markets to sell them its legally allowed.
2) Would you say that a starting aeromorph artist should quit because they can't draw an aeromorph properly? Your right about the details in the AI art. The wings are detached, and back-pack engines are asymmetric, and I'm pretty sure they both have a 3rd arm. Your art is clearly superior, in terms of details, but that doesn't make the AI art unallowable. Some artists make such mistakes when drawing, and this being an experimental drawing program it's to be expected that it will take time and greater programming refinement to draw something out of the norm, like an aeromorph. Plus, anatomical correctness on any fictional or original character is a little redundant and subjective. Not really something to protest about in my humble opinion.
3) In terms of what "we" want. That is up to the consumer base, and I think you have the market cornered. Your Renthedragon, one of the most, if not the most recognized, aeromorph artist known on the web. You really think your audience and fans are going to flaunt to this new AI generated aeromorph art just because its there? Even if millions of this content is generated by AI, it won't have your art style, your characters models, or your original stories. That's what most aeromorph fans look for and while some may glance at this other stuff, they will always have their reticles locked on the kind of artwork you make. Let the AI dump their waste in mass. You and artist like you will have the high quality stuff people really enjoy. Trust in your fan base!

They hated him because he spoke the truth

markaintus said:
Hey,

I see your passionate about your work, and I love that about your art. But I don't see the need for you ro start a petition to ban AI aeromorph art and for 3 really good reasons:
1) Even if someone took your art and characters as a reference for the AI to produce this, it's not the same as stealing your characters any more than someone making their own copy of your art and using it for drafting or inspiration. As long as no one says these are your characters (which they clearly aren't), and since you don't own the poses your characters are in (which is also different in the AI versions), as long as no one markets to sell them its legally allowed.
2) Would you say that a starting aeromorph artist should quit because they can't draw an aeromorph properly? Your right about the details in the AI art. The wings are detached, and back-pack engines are asymmetric, and I'm pretty sure they both have a 3rd arm. Your art is clearly superior, in terms of details, but that doesn't make the AI art unallowable. Some artists make such mistakes when drawing, and this being an experimental drawing program it's to be expected that it will take time and greater programming refinement to draw something out of the norm, like an aeromorph. Plus, anatomical correctness on any fictional or original character is a little redundant and subjective. Not really something to protest about in my humble opinion.
3) In terms of what "we" want. That is up to the consumer base, and I think you have the market cornered. Your Renthedragon, one of the most, if not the most recognized, aeromorph artist known on the web. You really think your audience and fans are going to flaunt to this new AI generated aeromorph art just because its there? Even if millions of this content is generated by AI, it won't have your art style, your characters models, or your original stories. That's what most aeromorph fans look for and while some may glance at this other stuff, they will always have their reticles locked on the kind of artwork you make. Let the AI dump their waste in mass. You and artist like you will have the high quality stuff people really enjoy. Trust in your fan base!

I mean, we should just ban AI art in general, that shit just clogs up all the sites it's on - as someone who uses Rule34 to archive art too that site has been clogged to the masses since it's inception it's gotten 158365 images and it drowns out a lot of art on the front page

bansheenorn said:
They hated him because he spoke the truth

I mean, there are two sides of this. First, AI art is a low bar. I'm bad at a number of aspects of art, but I do like making and posting AI art. The problem is that, generally, most people just flood the system with AI porn, and it's often very bad porn, as has been noted. It's deficient in anatomy and form. It is, however, amazing at getting consistent lighting and fine detail.

In a lot of ways it's like Narse porn (sorry Narse, but people should NOT use your dragons as a basis for drawing their own... The anatomy is just straight garbage.). It's "good" but only until you look at it longer than 2 seconds. So, not actually good at all.

I make AI art, though, and it is art, and it's not theft. Every human pose has been assigned in art at every angle somewhere at some point in time. It's like the Simpsons. You just have to accept that someone else did it first, and.move on, and just not give a shit about that. The fact is that I've seen a pose I want to see my character in so many times, and now there's a means to do that.

But it takes work, hours of work even on a single piece, to get a specific character into a piece of AI art, especially furry characters, let alone aeromorphs, which I'm just going to say it, feels heavily like a "troll art species, ala "shitting dick nipples". Or maybe it isn't. But the point is that anyone is allowed to like and draw them even if I think they're dumb and weird. Not to mention to inpaint away all the errors AI art makes, which often requires using a real image editor and brush technique.

The real thing about AI art though is that people are thinking so small and mean about it. That's just "low art". Its "one off". I want to use the throughput and acceleration of AI not just to make one character art, but to make whole AI model LoRAs for making art of specific characters with all their details, as well as additional LoRAs for outfits. Why make A piece of AI art when you can give people the equivalent of a digital infinite ref sheet?

bansheenorn said:
"Waaah waaaah, we can't monopolize the market anymore"

This isn't some mass-manufactured product or natural commodity; there has never been a monopoly on art. The fact that websites like this exist is proof enough of that.

bansheenorn said:
"Waaah waaaah, we can't monopolize the market anymore"

This is all too funny lmao. “Noooo you can’t let AI draw humanoid planes with unusually large asses and boobs noooo!!!!!”

Look at the difference. The AI versions suck and whoever did it obviously used Ren's stuff as a prompt. This is why I will never use images for a prompt. I've gotten better results with text-to-image prompts than any art thieves I've seen.

musicw0lf said:
So can somebody actually explain what the problem is? Like actual points instead of "it's killing art" bullshit?

I have two points.

One: In this case, the fact that the prompt was based on Ren's art is quite clear, so it was literally AI tracing someone else's work. It's not the only example, A_Drunk_Dragon also found other AI images where it was even more painfully obvious. I hope we can agree that tracing someone's art and pass it as your own (wheter real or AI art) is a bad thing.

Two: It's just the fact that AI as for now just cannot handle the task to take an aircraft and translate it into an athro design, at least not so that the result resembles an actual aircraft. Which, I don't know what others think, but I believe is kinda the point of aeromorphs? They are based on real aircraft? (Or fictional, but point is they are based on an existing design.) So sure, you can say who am I to define what an aeromorph is, but I just say, if it's nothing like an actual aircraft... where is the fun in that? I would prefer content with a more clear depiction, that AI cannot do yet. So if people start making more and more AI aeromorphs, the content won't go into a good direction. In my humble opinion.

I hope this makes sense.

havoc63 said:
I have two points.

One: In this case, the fact that the prompt was based on Ren's art is quite clear, so it was literally AI tracing someone else's work. It's not the only example, A_Drunk_Dragon also found other AI images where it was even more painfully obvious. I hope we can agree that tracing someone's art and pass it as your own (wheter real or AI art) is a bad thing.

Two: It's just the fact that AI as for now just cannot handle the task to take an aircraft and translate it into an athro design, at least not so that the result resembles an actual aircraft. Which, I don't know what others think, but I believe is kinda the point of aeromorphs? They are based on real aircraft? (Or fictional, but point is they are based on an existing design.) So sure, you can say who am I to define what an aeromorph is, but I just say, if it's nothing like an actual aircraft... where is the fun in that? I would prefer content with a more clear depiction, that AI cannot do yet. So if people start making more and more AI aeromorphs, the content won't go into a good direction. In my humble opinion.

I hope this makes sense.

Thanks for a quick response.
So if people just tag that the image is AI-generated and whom it is based on, there would be no problems?

musicw0lf said:
Thanks for a quick response.
So if people just tag that the image is AI-generated and whom it is based on, there would be no problems?

It would be less of a problem, wouldn't say no problem. I still don't like AI as an art tool (this opinion of mine wouldn't change), but yes, at least crediting the artist(s) of the image(s) the AI was based on would be nice.

My second point would be still standing but that's a more subjective thought.

havoc63 said:
It would be less of a problem, wouldn't say no problem. I still don't like AI as an art tool (this opinion of mine wouldn't change), but yes, at least crediting the artist(s) of the image(s) the AI was based on would be nice.

My second point would be still standing but that's a more subjective thought.

Well, imo AI will be a tool to make things easier for everyone, even those who can't draw. It's like every other industry revolution we've had, where a minority got screwed but the majority got the benefit. But you have your opinion and I have mine. We'll see how things go in the near future.

musicw0lf said:
Well, imo AI will be a tool to make things easier for everyone, even those who can't draw. It's like every other industry revolution we've had, where a minority got screwed but the majority got the benefit. But you have your opinion and I have mine. We'll see how things go in the near future.

Problem is, AI as it is, isn't a tool. It's a software designed to plagiarize and copy from artists. Not only have many of it's users proven that, but even the ones that made the software and those that market it as such. AI has potential to become a tool. But that sadly won't have until much later, however there's been a few court hearings and legal action being taken against ai.

As a side note, everyone can draw, everyone can have take time out of their day to learn how to draw. AI isn't gonna help non-artists, and if anyone thinks they'll become artists because of it, they're sorely mistaken.

celeste_shamrock said:
One, you don't own aeromorphs. Two, you have no exclusivity to render them in any fashion. Three, hand doodlers like you are being given your notice like buggy whip makers, and ice-box manufacturers; your time is coming to an end and art will soon be an expression EVERYONE can partake in.

Everyone can and has been able to partake in art, AI won't change that, all ai is doing is taking the work and dedication artists have put into this skill for years and just spatting shit back at their faces.

Also you understand that for AI to exist, Artists need to also exist, right? It's leechware for a reason

celeste_shamrock said:
One, you don't own aeromorphs. Two, you have no exclusivity to render them in any fashion. Three, hand doodlers like you are being given your notice like buggy whip makers, and ice-box manufacturers; your time is coming to an end and art will soon be an expression EVERYONE can partake in.

do you not realise that ai art dies the second artists stop producing, when ai art starts scanning ai art that is literally gg for that system, it effectively gets brain cancer.

Its sad honestly how limited the technology is, incapable of innovation, only regurgitation, kinda like "ai artists".

ect0plasm1c said:
do you not realise that ai art dies the second artists stop producing, when ai art starts scanning ai art that is literally gg for that system, it effectively gets brain cancer.

Its sad honestly how limited the technology is, incapable of innovation, only regurgitation, kinda like "ai artists".

This isn't true at all, and is one of the reasons people who have never used, designed, or any other such thing should not make claims.

I have gotten poses and outfits that I have only extremely rarely seen in art out of SD.

Further, this is more about "distribution coverage". There is rare but important information that is embedded in the base model.

You can absolutely use AI art to train AI art, but you can't just take the dataset; it needs curation. This is not because "brain cancer" but rather because AI tends to make bizarre mistakes and if you feed those back in, it magnifies the issue.

You absolutely can AND SHOULD train AI on it's own interactions, but only after filtering those interactions for high quality output. Ai can often also do the filtration and curation task, but that's really the issue.

Unless you want to believe that Stable Diffusion has a lot of examples of children wearing diapers under shortalls with tail windows.

As long as the data going in is not pushed in at the expense of crowding outlier data off the network, and without crowding in unannotated mistakes you can feed as much AI generated material in as you like. In fact this is how you teach the AI negative prompts.

ect0plasm1c said:
do you not realise that ai art dies the second artists stop producing, when ai art starts scanning ai art that is literally gg for that system, it effectively gets brain cancer.

Its sad honestly how limited the technology is, incapable of innovation, only regurgitation, kinda like "ai artists".

You do realize that this is just a lie that you've been fed, ya? The problem with training an AI on AI outputs is the common failure to curate those outputs to maintain "distribution".

Just like a human artist, if you train one AI while telling it what it does wrong and another you just accept whatever they produce and say ,"yeah, more of that" you are, in BOTH cases just feeding it's bad habits!

It's absolutely capable of innovation, too; the reality is that you fail to understand what innovation is on a mathematical level. And yes, it's definable mathematically. Innovation is just taking a model, (an AI model works), adding chaos, and seeing if the result is better or worse. That's just a gradient descent algorithm and Backpropagation. It innovates new ways of satisfying the requirements of the training algorithm. That's how it learns and what learning is and why we call it "machine learning".

Just like you, the AI regurgitates what it learned when asked to perform, and produces artifacts that can then be used to identify and improve on bad outputs.

yodadubdub said:
AI is literally going to kill art. If we jjust let people improve it it'll become indistinguishable from real art and people will now make thousands of $ selling fake art.

I don't think AI art is fine in the slightest and I wish something was done about it.

I kinda do agree with that. I like AI art, don’t get me wrong and I’m all for it, but saying it’s gonna kill art is kinda a stretch. Ai can sure just generate high quality art, but no one’s gonna judge you for putting pencil on paper and just doodling or drawing away. And ain’t no one gonna say shit cuz, ay man, you do you, and how you wanna do it.

insane what a computer just generates outta thin air tho, but AI has gotta so insanely scary. There are AI covers of people/characters, like SpongeBob, Krabs, Jschlatt, etc., singing songs, or having full on conversations. Ai can just write an essay for you and even site credible sources.

Want code but don’t know how to format it? AI.
Want to write a story but don’t know an exact topic? AI can suggest some.

TL;DR, Ai is cool, don’t think it’s gonna replace art, but it’s gotten scary good at things,

the_cum_demon said:
I kinda do agree with that. I like AI art, don’t get me wrong and I’m all for it, but saying it’s gonna kill art is kinda a stretch. Ai can sure just generate high quality art, but no one’s gonna judge you for putting pencil on paper and just doodling or drawing away. And ain’t no one gonna say shit cuz, ay man, you do you, and how you wanna do it.

insane what a computer just generates outta thin air tho, but AI has gotta so insanely scary. There are AI covers of people/characters, like SpongeBob, Krabs, Jschlatt, etc., singing songs, or having full on conversations. Ai can just write an essay for you and even site credible sources.

Want code but don’t know how to format it? AI.
Want to write a story but don’t know an exact topic? AI can suggest some.

TL;DR, Ai is cool, don’t think it’s gonna replace art, but it’s gotten scary good at things,

You might think AI is cool, but it really isn't. And it definitely won't kill art, but it is very much hurting it and the community as a whole, it's a parasite that feeds off of it. It doesn't generate anything out of thin air, it needs existing things to do basically anything, and it got those things by stealing them, essentially built on theft.

The covers you mentioned? It needs voice samples. And Voice actors have shown their frustation with it multiple times, they don't want their voice and/or likeness stolen.

Conversations? They stole millions and billions of existing conversations, a lot of them private, things it shouldn't have access to. That being a reason for some of the lawsuits against ai corps, because that is a misuse and invasion of privacy.

Essays? It stole from thousands of people's essays, some of them being academic only(Which means they're even more protected by law), All of them being protected by copyright, and illegal to misuse it, this being another reason for lawsuits

Stories and those topics? Stole from thousands of other stories, from books to fanfics and much more. Many authors have shown their frustration with it, from large to independent, authors don't want their works to be fed into an AI, there's even a whole Writer's Strike going on rn.

And now, art. Billions of images(Almost all of them being copyrighted) have been scrapped off the internet and used to train AI. Artists are obviously hating this and fighting against it, they don't want their work being fed into a machine that literally just spats shit back at them. And to make it worse Some People curate the artwork that goes into it, thus choosing whom to steal from.

So AI is very much terrible, and those that defend it can't even find good reasons for it. Just don't support AI, support Real Artists.

Fekuff said:

the_cum_demon said:
I kinda do agree with that. I like AI art, don’t get me wrong and I’m all for it, but saying it’s gonna kill art is kinda a stretch. Ai can sure just generate high quality art, but no one’s gonna judge you for putting pencil on paper and just doodling or drawing away. And ain’t no one gonna say shit cuz, ay man, you do you, and how you wanna do it.

insane what a computer just generates outta thin air tho, but AI has gotta so insanely scary. There are AI covers of people/characters, like SpongeBob, Krabs, Jschlatt, etc., singing songs, or having full on conversations. Ai can just write an essay for you and even site credible sources.

Want code but don’t know how to format it? AI.
Want to write a story but don’t know an exact topic? AI can suggest some.

TL

I very sorry but your airplane porn is not worth that much 😔

uraniumtheprotogen said:
I very sorry but your airplane porn is not worth that much 😔

Touch yourself and go to sleep, troll.

yodadubdub said:
AI is literally going to kill art. If we jjust let people improve it it'll become indistinguishable from real art and people will now make thousands of $ selling fake art.

I don't think AI art is fine in the slightest and I wish something was done about it.

There is no such thing as fake art

There are pixels on a page and whether people like them or not.

And there is copyright but you don't own copyright on eg the brush strokes or typical color patterns or line widths or textures. You only have copyright on the completed piece.

The fact that you can ask an AI to generate something that looks passingly similar to something someone has made from scratch is no different than commissioning someone to do art in a particular style for private use. And in fact, if you go to any art museum, you will see students on benches sketching what they see. This is how all artists, and AI, learn.

Despite all of this there are specific steps by AI companies to limit the media going into said AI. It's only really after the fact that people are training LORA on specific artists. Which is to say if you hire an artist who is trained explicitly on classical fine art from hundreds of years ago, they are still going to be good enough to give you what you want, since the skills are transferrable and the artist has eyes and a brain.

And in this case it looks like they trained the LORA very poorly. It can reproduce specific images, in the same way that Photoshop can modify images. But that is not really the point. The point is to generate new things using concepts from the original. Concepts which are not ownable under current legal systems.

Pen ward doesn't "own" all cartoons with noodle arms. The works by Titmouse studio are universally recognizable as that style, but they don't own that style. Stop pretending that AI is theft.

anaileron said:
There is no such thing as fake art

There are pixels on a page and whether people like them or not.

And there is copyright but you don't own copyright on eg the brush strokes or typical color patterns or line widths or textures. You only have copyright on the completed piece.

The fact that you can ask an AI to generate something that looks passingly similar to something someone has made from scratch is no different than commissioning someone to do art in a particular style for private use. And in fact, if you go to any art museum, you will see students on benches sketching what they see. This is how all artists, and AI, learn.

Despite all of this there are specific steps by AI companies to limit the media going into said AI. It's only really after the fact that people are training LORA on specific artists. Which is to say if you hire an artist who is trained explicitly on classical fine art from hundreds of years ago, they are still going to be good enough to give you what you want, since the skills are transferrable and the artist has eyes and a brain.

And in this case it looks like they trained the LORA very poorly. It can reproduce specific images, in the same way that Photoshop can modify images. But that is not really the point. The point is to generate new things using concepts from the original. Concepts which are not ownable under current legal systems.

Pen ward doesn't "own" all cartoons with noodle arms. The works by Titmouse studio are universally recognizable as that style, but they don't own that style. Stop pretending that AI is theft.

Let's address your points, because you seem to be twisting the words and logic here to fit your narrative, without really knowing what you're saying.

"..And there is copyright but you don't own copyright on eg the brush strokes or typical color patterns or line widths or textures. You only have copyright on the completed piece."

Machine learning occurs by training on something, this case being on images, it has been well documented and said at this point, it's trained by literally copying the image(s) it's fed. That is copyright infringement, and misuse. Or in other words you don't seem to understand, Theft. It's also proven that AI uses those same stolen images on it's generation, so artists, in fact, own those "brush strokes or typical color patterns or line widths or textures.".

"The fact that you can ask an AI to generate something that looks passingly similar to something someone has made from scratch is no different than commissioning someone to do art in a particular style for private use. And in fact, if you go to any art museum, you will see students on benches sketching what they see. This is how all artists, and AI, learn."

Humans and AI are fundamentally different, as said before, AI copies and uses images in it's generation. Humans are different in a lot of factors, even if a human tries to copy things they'll add their own bit originality to it, because we, Humans, have creative cognition, if you ask an artist to do something in the style of x, they'll do their best to do it but they'll inevitably add their own flair to it, even those students that sketch on the museum add their own little touches to the pieces they're referencing. AI doesn't do that, AI uses the artwork it was fed, artwork of artists to do anything, and it won't ever add anything original to the piece, because touches like those those will always belong to an actual artist(s) it stole from.

Despite all of this there are specific steps by AI companies to limit the media going into said AI. It's only really after the fact that people are training LORA on specific artists. Which is to say if you hire an artist who is trained explicitly on classical fine art from hundreds of years ago, they are still going to be good enough to give you what you want, since the skills are transferrable and the artist has eyes and a brain.

And in this case it looks like they trained the LORA very poorly. It can reproduce specific images, in the same way that Photoshop can modify images. But that is not really the point. The point is to generate new things using concepts from the original. Concepts which are not ownable under current legal systems.

You've just proven that you don't know what you're talking about. You're comparing LORAs, something that is made to copy someone's specific style, to an artist who tackles a gigantic genre of art with varying styles within it. That analogy and the rest of your LORA talk makes no sense.
LORAs are one of the biggest proofs that AI steals from artists, not only are they trained to generate images in a specific artist's style, they're very clear on the images they use for training, aka the work that specific artist made, artworks the artists' very much own, not concepts, entire artworks.

Stop pretending that AI is theft.

It very much is, how about you stop pretending it isn't, all you're doing here is mumbling nonsense without even knowing what AI is or does.

Can the pointless bickering about AI art cease please? The only thing that'll change is that artist that heavily detest AI art will most likely start withholding their own art from public viewing, and people with little to no real artistic talent will just be further ostracized from creating art, to the point where those that use AI art as a base to draw over, or even use as inspiration for a real art piece will be hammered down on.

Ironically, this will do more to "kill art" than any algorithm possibly could.

carnivore4lyf said:
Can the pointless bickering about AI art cease please? The only thing that'll change is that artist that heavily detest AI art will most likely start withholding their own art from public viewing, and people with little to no real artistic talent will just be further ostracized from creating art, to the point where those that use AI art as a base to draw over, or even use as inspiration for a real art piece will be hammered down on.

Ironically, this will do more to "kill art" than any algorithm possibly could.

A lot of AI Pictures on things like Etsy that people are using to scam people into buying are already too good, they get the Anatomy of the hands and the amount of fingers correct most of the time, almost indistinguishable from a person's art on some pieces. They also get eyes correct now. It's enough to trick buyers 70-80% of the time.
It's terrible :(
My artist friends and even S/O can't get any commissions cause people are paying up to or over 100$ for slop that they don't know is AI Generated.

I don't care if people who use AI Generated things for inspiration are disliked for doing it, AI "Art" in general needs to stop. People are basically losing their jobs over it as we speak and it's being used for horrible scams.

fekuff said:
Problem is, AI as it is, isn't a tool. It's a software designed to plagiarize and copy from artists. Not only have many of it's users proven that, but even the ones that made the software and those that market it as such. AI has potential to become a tool. But that sadly won't have until much later, however there's been a few court hearings and legal action being taken against ai.

As a side note, everyone can draw, everyone can have take time out of their day to learn how to draw. AI isn't gonna help non-artists, and if anyone thinks they'll become artists because of it, they're sorely mistaken.

Sorry for late reply. You seemed to misunderstand me. Even the thing you described is a tool, you seems to only have a problem with a "stealing" part. You know why? Because you can find on what image generated one is inspired or based on. You think humans create arts from nothing? No, they collect information from environment and use their brain to process it into new information, that's how brain works and thats exactly what we tell AI to do. The only REAL problem is that we program AI to directly atm, we try to add more randomness but still. Also i most cases it's generic image generator, so it makes a lot more mistakes in detailed stuff, but that is solved with specific model for given task. You try to separate AI from human thinking despire the fact that we build AI on out knowledge of our brain, we literally try to create digital copy of human brain.

Also about 'everybody can draw' nonsense. Can you draw on a level similar to AI images (talking about the ones that looks like paintings)? It's the same as telling everybody can be a programmer or a doctor, yes you can, but someone will be much better with same effort. AI doesn't teach you to draw (yet), it skips to result, yeah, but why would I spend countless hours to draw something for myself if I can just generate it?

P.S. I have no problem with humans drawing as a way to express themself, no matter how much AI evolves this will still be a thing, the only change would be other people opinion on this, because it won't be so unique anymore and I don't see a problem here.

fekuff said:
You might think AI is cool, but it really isn't. And it definitely won't kill art, but it is very much hurting it and the community as a whole, it's a parasite that feeds off of it. It doesn't generate anything out of thin air, it needs existing things to do basically anything, and it got those things by stealing them, essentially built on theft.

The covers you mentioned? It needs voice samples. And Voice actors have shown their frustation with it multiple times, they don't want their voice and/or likeness stolen.

Conversations? They stole millions and billions of existing conversations, a lot of them private, things it shouldn't have access to. That being a reason for some of the lawsuits against ai corps, because that is a misuse and invasion of privacy.

Essays? It stole from thousands of people's essays, some of them being academic only(Which means they're even more protected by law), All of them being protected by copyright, and illegal to misuse it, this being another reason for lawsuits

Stories and those topics? Stole from thousands of other stories, from books to fanfics and much more. Many authors have shown their frustration with it, from large to independent, authors don't want their works to be fed into an AI, there's even a whole Writer's Strike going on rn.

And now, art. Billions of images(Almost all of them being copyrighted) have been scrapped off the internet and used to train AI. Artists are obviously hating this and fighting against it, they don't want their work being fed into a machine that literally just spats shit back at them. And to make it worse Some People curate the artwork that goes into it, thus choosing whom to steal from.

So AI is very much terrible, and those that defend it can't even find good reasons for it. Just don't support AI, support Real Artists.

So basically just learning on human material as we do?

musicw0lf said:
Sorry for late reply. You seemed to misunderstand me. Even the thing you described is a tool, you seems to only have a problem with a "stealing" part. You know why? Because you can find on what image generated one is inspired or based on. You think humans create arts from nothing? No, they collect information from environment and use their brain to process it into new information, that's how brain works and thats exactly what we tell AI to do. The only REAL problem is that we program AI to directly atm, we try to add more randomness but still. Also i most cases it's generic image generator, so it makes a lot more mistakes in detailed stuff, but that is solved with specific model for given task. You try to separate AI from human thinking despire the fact that we build AI on out knowledge of our brain, we literally try to create digital copy of human brain.

Also about 'everybody can draw' nonsense. Can you draw on a level similar to AI images (talking about the ones that looks like paintings)? It's the same as telling everybody can be a programmer or a doctor, yes you can, but someone will be much better with same effort. AI doesn't teach you to draw (yet), it skips to result, yeah, but why would I spend countless hours to draw something for myself if I can just generate it?

P.S. I have no problem with humans drawing as a way to express themself, no matter how much AI evolves this will still be a thing, the only change would be other people opinion on this, because it won't be so unique anymore and I don't see a problem here.

So basically just learning on human material as we do?

Dw about the late reply, take your time. We're all busy nowadays.

Anyways, you seem to not really know what these "AI"s really are, despite what their name, they actually have no intelligence at all, they can't think, and comparing AI to humans is complete nonsense, a way a human learns is fundamentally different compared to AI, AI doesn't take or get inspiration, interpret or learn, or anything a person does to learn from pieces, they can only copy what it's fed, everything it generates comes from someone else. Humans have not created any real artificial intelligence yet. We are not the same as AI.

As for the tool part, like i said, it isn't a tool, no other well accepted tool uses the stolen work of others to function, it's a machine made to copy artists, and ofc mine and many others' problem is the stealing, no one wants their work stolen and misused for whatever reason.

And for the last point, are you trying compare me, a single person, to a machine with billions of stolen artworks from artists who are heights better than i am? Just because i can't compare to a plagiarism machine doesn't mean anything, it doesn't make it okay nor validates it. Also if people followed that logic, no one would bother getting better at anything, since there would always be someone who's better than them. And for the very last point, you'd rather willingly hurt the community by having a machine that steals thousands if not millions of work with no accreditation, consent, compensation or even knowledge from the artist whatsoever for the sake of what exactly..? Even if it is for yourself, you're still actively choosing to steal.

Listen, I don't even like aeromorph art.. but if you guys know whats good for you, you will leave e621 (torch your galleries) and take all your art with you to a safe place where it cannot be easily scraped by smooth-brains. The writing is on the wall. These guys arent going to stop. as evidence by the comments. they will start training stable diffusion directly on your names next.

In my opinion, the shared use and editing of AI images on all websites or applications is not justified. Which is why I agree with the community on all points and facts, including the top description/announcement by the artist havoc63.
Before using an artist's drawing, ask him or her first!!!
I know this all too well.

fekuff said:
[...] AI doesn't take or get inspiration, interpret or learn, or anything a person does to learn from pieces, they can only copy what it's fed, everything it generates comes from someone else.

The machine learning model does learn and interpret based on its training data. Stable Diffusion is not "copying", it's not a compression algorithm, it attempts to denoise an image based on its interpretation of a token description. It shows high level understanding of concepts it maps to tokens, such as being able to shade materials accurately to match the other elements in the scene, and drawing reflections and refraction.

It's essentially certain that in the future models succeeding stable diffusion will be demonstrably better at interpreting concepts into artwork than any human being.

fekuff said:
Humans have not created any real artificial intelligence yet. We are not the same as AI.

This does not matter, because something that can eventually match human level at a given task is indistinguishable from a human in a given task, you do not need AGI for this.

fekuff said:
As for the tool part, like i said, it isn't a tool, no other well accepted tool uses the stolen work of others to function, it's a machine made to copy artists, and ofc mine and many others' problem is the stealing, no one wants their work stolen and misused for whatever reason.

And for the last point, are you trying compare me, a single person, to a machine with billions of stolen artworks from artists who are heights better than i am? Just because i can't compare to a plagiarism machine doesn't mean anything, it doesn't make it okay nor validates it. Also if people followed that logic, no one would bother getting better at anything, since there would always be someone who's better than them. And for the very last point, you'd rather willingly hurt the community by having a machine that steals thousands if not millions of work with no accreditation, consent, compensation or even knowledge from the artist whatsoever for the sake of what exactly..? Even if it is for yourself, you're still actively choosing to steal.

We do not consider other software tools that create results by observing publicly accessible but privately owned data to be copyright infringement, so long as it does not then include that data. For example, analytics applications can crawl copyrighted content, but the analytics they produce do not infringe the copyright of the content they crawled.

The whole stealing argument is an emotionally charged, lazy distraction anyway. If a model that was trained on only data from voluntary authors was released, you'd still be angry about it, since the only part that bothers people is that it may be able to perform a human's job.

v01d said:
The machine learning model does learn and interpret based on its training data. Stable Diffusion is not "copying", it's not a compression algorithm, it attempts to denoise an image based on its interpretation of a token description. It shows high level understanding of concepts it maps to tokens, such as being able to shade materials accurately to match the other elements in the scene, and drawing reflections and refraction.

It's essentially certain that in the future models succeeding stable diffusion will be demonstrably better at interpreting concepts into artwork than any human being.

This does not matter, because something that can eventually match human level at a given task is indistinguishable from a human in a given task, you do not need AGI for this.

You're really over-complicating that explanation. What you really mean to say is: "Stable Diffusion is trained by copying images with words/tags attached to them, which is then used in later relevant generation.". I'll repeat myself, the AI doesn't learn or interpret anything, it doesn't know anything, and specially doesn't know anything about art. The only reason it "knows" how to shade stuff is because of the unbelievably large amount of images it has on the database, which it takes from during it's generation. The only reason it can do anything at all is because it copies from billions of other people's work, it needs them to even exist.

Just because the parasite can reach a human level, does not excuse it or make it any less bad. Much the contrary, if it became indistinguishable it'd just make everything worse, specially since there's no way to tell them apart from human work, this was created with no problems to solve, and all is doing is hurting the art community. If this wasn't a problem, artists from all around wouldn't be fighting against it.

v01d said:
We do not consider other software tools that create results by observing publicly accessible but privately owned data to be copyright infringement, so long as it does not then include that data. For example, analytics applications can crawl copyrighted content, but the analytics they produce do not infringe the copyright of the content they crawled.

The whole stealing argument is an emotionally charged, lazy distraction anyway. If a model that was trained on only data from voluntary authors was released, you'd still be angry about it, since the only part that bothers people is that it may be able to perform a human's job.

That's the thing tho, the databases have and distribute that same copyrighted data/material. And everything an AI generates also includes that copyrighted material into the outputs, that is copyrighted infringement. And also comparing analytics to AI generation is a complete nonsense.

it's been proven countless times that it steals/copies from other pieces, one occasion in particular being how there were so many images from gettyimages in its database that the AI just copied the watermark into its generations. Not only that, the fact that it can generate imagery with copyrighted properties and characters also just gives it further proof that it does steal from copyrighted material.

I can assure you that if an AI was built ethically, with the training data was owned by those people and everyone involved consented to their work being in it and they were also properly compensated, i would not have any problems with it. I was excited over Adobe Firefly for that same reason, but after it released, and everything was just exposed to be a lie, how they used the Creative Cloud to train the AI, how they didn't pay the stock images contributors, and how everything that is input into their program(with no opt-out) is used for training, and everything else about it.

Ratio

yodadubdub said:
AI is literally going to kill art. If we jjust let people improve it it'll become indistinguishable from real art and people will now make thousands of $ selling fake art.

I don't think AI art is fine in the slightest and I wish something was done about it.

I think it's fine as a reference model. I'd use it to see how my idea would look in vague terms. But if I do art, it's going to be first to last stroke my own effort, the AI is going to be a digital version of the little wooden dummy.

It's certainly bad that some use AI to steal the author's style or something like that. HOWEVER, those who write about the fact that any picture generated using Ai is theft, you are real clowns. As noted above, such people will be angry even if you pay artists to create special images for Ai work, you will still merge, it's a pity.

I'll tell you a secret, with such flawed logic, just redrawing, copying a style, a character with his own style, and so on, simply put, everything that is not considered theft, in your logic WILL be theft. And instead of the normal rules to limit or prevent real theft (copying patron content, or to earn money by copying the style of the author), we see this clowning with a call to ban something.

AI Art defenders are legitimately braindead and this comment section only proves it. Its asinine that anyone defends this garbage, you guys are akin to indian tech support scammers. If you have no skill, no talent, and no ambition to actually get better in a skill then that's your fault. Its pathetic to continuously see this lazy, instant gratification, "everything should be free and be able to be done by everyone" nonsense spewed by them. You shouldn't be praised for being lazy and having no skills. Its that simple.

Want art? Pay for it like everyone else or A better idea instead, use that time you wasted stealing art from actual artists to pick a pencil up and learn how to draw yourself. Mindblowing revelation, right? Im not an artist, more then likely never will be. But im disgusted by how this has become just so widely accepted by so many people when if it replaced any other aspect of your daily life, you'd be pissed. Youtubers, entertainers, musicians, Writers, podcasters, etc. Everyone would be in an uproar if an AI replaced one of them, so why is it so different for artists? Your taking money away from people trying to make a honest living. Its gross, grow up. Not everything is handed to you in life, stop being childish.

Not going to return to this thread. So please don't respond to me specifically, I wont see it. My stances on the matter wouldn't change anyway. I've seen the damage AI art has done, actively watching it, its evident and obvious. Just wanted to say something cause i'm over pretending that AI artists aren't thieves. They are. plain and simple.

copperalloy said:
This is all too funny lmao. “Noooo you can’t let AI draw humanoid planes with unusually large asses and boobs noooo!!!!!”

You obviously don't understand the magnitude of the situation if this is your response. They made this picture because what's going on with AI at the moment has to do with much more than it being able to make pictures of anthropomorphic planes. It has to do with the fact that AI can make pictures of practically anything, and it'll be to the point where the art that AI can make will overshadow art made by actual artists. And as you can see here, AI can do a pretty good job of replicating an actual artist's style, and that's obviously not a good thing.

copperalloy said:
This is all too funny lmao. “Noooo you can’t let AI draw humanoid planes with unusually large asses and boobs noooo!!!!!”

But do you know what the sad thing about you is, Alloy? The fact that I could go on for paragraphs upon paragraphs about this to you, and you still would see all this as nothing but a joke. Because that's all everything is to miserable little people like you: A joke. And I don't have time to waste on people who see serious shit like this as that. Then again, how could you possibly take it seriously when you're obviously not an artist? How could you, some idiot on e621 who doesn't make or do anything at all, possibly understand? And there are countless people on this website and others just like you, who don't understand anything and would rather joke about it and laugh. And that right there is one of the biggest reasons this shit has gotten as huge as it's become.

I agree with NaraZoroark: I'm over pretending that AI artists aren't thieves. And I'm also over people like you, Alloy, that would allow this shit to keep happening because it's nothing to you but a fucking joke.

One Got Ass, One Is Ass

yodadubdub said:
AI is literally going to kill art. If we jjust let people improve it it'll become indistinguishable from real art and people will now make thousands of $ selling fake art.

I don't think AI art is fine in the slightest and I wish something was done about it.

Ai art will never get over real artists just by construction and meaning. Think how many famous painting are crazy going on deep concepts, structures, contrasts and all. Ai art make beatutiful by minimal meaning, we make beautiful by details.

v01d said:
The machine learning model does learn and interpret based on its training data. Stable Diffusion is not "copying", it's not a compression algorithm, it attempts to denoise an image based on its interpretation of a token description. It shows high level understanding of concepts it maps to tokens, such as being able to shade materials accurately to match the other elements in the scene, and drawing reflections and refraction.

It's essentially certain that in the future models succeeding stable diffusion will be demonstrably better at interpreting concepts into artwork than any human being.

This does not matter, because something that can eventually match human level at a given task is indistinguishable from a human in a given task, you do not need AGI for this.

We do not consider other software tools that create results by observing publicly accessible but privately owned data to be copyright infringement, so long as it does not then include that data. For example, analytics applications can crawl copyrighted content, but the analytics they produce do not infringe the copyright of the content they crawled.

The whole stealing argument is an emotionally charged, lazy distraction anyway. If a model that was trained on only data from voluntary authors was released, you'd still be angry about it, since the only part that bothers people is that it may be able to perform a human's job.

Based.

musicw0lf said:
Based.

i also think stealing is good, but can we steal from rich people instead of poor people?

yodadubdub said:
AI is literally going to kill art. If we jjust let people improve it it'll become indistinguishable from real art and people will now make thousands of $ selling fake art.

I don't think AI art is fine in the slightest and I wish something was done about it.

All I hear from this is that you want to monopolize the market. News flash, tits, you can't.

You can argue all day about if AI art is theft or not. The big thing that’s going to happen is this: AI art will be fed examples and has continued to be fed examples and text and descriptions so forth. Also, what is going to happen will probably be that Real artist like Ren here, might go Patron Exclusive only…. And then some people will pay and still take that art to AI.

What should people do? Well, good question. Answers can vary and have vary: “protest Ai art” “Allow Ai art” “don’t use AI art” “use AI art”. Well. In several people’s opinions it still the same as ‘tracing over someone else’s art and recoloring/slight edits and claiming as my art’. To some, and yes to some people it’s seen as “whatever, even irl artist copy some famous artists art to learn. Deal with it”. I see both sides.

What really sucks? Mostly the dramma between/about AI art, and then the scams. Yes, people have fallen for people posing as artist and then spending maybe 5-10 minutes typing and honing in to make ‘good’ artwork and saying ‘look what I did’. I see people also going: “I want more Art/imagery of my Sona’s….. instead of paying I can just send in images of previous art of my character, send lengthy descriptions and BOOM new ‘art’ of my Sona doing what I wanted”

Similarities: AI art is like the ‘All Electric Cars” debate. Some people are all “Only EVs” and some people are “No EVs”. It’s also like Voter I’d and Covid Vaccination proof (I ain’t going into details but we all know “some people want one of them or both, and the other side don’t” )

What do I think about irl artists? I don’t see this as a monopoly..I seee this as some people having hobbies as artwork…and some people it’s their life hood and jobs…Look at ‘Self Checkout’s for example. Most retail stores managed to downsize staff by not having dedicated checkout workers except for 1 or two people monitoring 5 self check out devices. Look Tesla trying to do self driving trucks and cars… if it goes hugely successful and trucking companies buy those trucks…look at the Thousands of truck drivers out of a job… Look at Uber and Lift experimenting with Self driving cars. Heck, look at the Idea of Amazon using Drones to replace delivery drivers. Heck even factories for YEARS have had robotic machines manufacturing automobiles over human work because it’s faster…and more efficient and cheaper than human error/injury/pay wages. A guy in new York had his own car wash business and ended up buying automatic car washes and firing all his staff. He made a statement those machines cover their own price almost weekly.

What’s going to REALLY happen:? A heck of a question…my answer: more debates and dramma. Now for IRL use….I can only say, but nothing will change unless AI Art programs close down. Or…..multiply.

TL; DR Ai art will grow no matter what, artists will do what they can, people WILL use Real workers and Ai artist… you can’t please everyone…sorry for the lengthy post. But just letting everyone know this isn’t the first of it’s type of issues to arrive of Artificial Intelligence doing this…..

People who claim that AI is “theft” are poorly informed about the principles of operation of this very AI. The fact is that the AI is actually trained on the data set, which is a learning process. The second fact is that using copyright images to train AI models is legal.

At the same time, images generated by a neural network are not subject to copyright. It seems to me, from a moral point of view, making money from generating images is not ethical precisely because the generated image does not belong to anyone. Well, personally, I think that demanding money for a generated image is not fair, the maximum that can be given for this is a couple of cents for the electricity spent by the GPU.

IMHO this is a tool that artists themselves can use to simplify their workflow, instead of declaring war on technology.

I myself sometimes draw in Clip Studio, and even AI features have appeared there - you can colorize a sketch by pressing a button, or you can scan a pose from an image and import it into СS as a 3D model.

Humanity is left poorer for the existence of this technology, but "progress" must go on.

Nerds