:yea:
The context of the reddit thread was discussing how to best make money from AI generators btw
Is there even a law against this? Idk... maybe defamation? But that wouldn't count. Maybe revenge porn but it'd really depend on how it was worded, and even then would you be able to do anything if they didn't post it to a public forum?
it's legal but weird to paint or draw what you imagine (or remember, but get over your exes ya losers) somebody would look like nude, I continue to not understand why "using a computer to ____" makes a difference to anyone. I'm sure teens in the 70s were getting a polaroid or yearbook photo of somebody and gluing their face onto some porno mag they found in the woods.
the harm would come if some creep went on to harass somebody, but that's a harassment problem not unique to a slightly more advanced, low-user-skill photoshop.
what fucking part of this chain has "i want" in it? what the fuck are you talking about?
sharing that shit was always the problem anyway, the problem isn't the 'art' regardless of the subjective quality, the pasted headshot getting passed around a school is probably something that actually happened and the behavior that went along with it afterward was probably bad, but those boys would've been shitty to that girl without the woods porn and glue stick.
nothat makes the thing worse not better, but I'm saying that this is something that already happened and it's not materially different just because it's with a computer and there's less of an ableist barrier to being a creep.
the problem remains the person being harassed on the basis of the doctored image, not the existence of the doctored image.
the problem here is still that it's being shared and that people harass the subject.
opposing these actions is also very easy stance to take, and it's more fundamental than the nude images thing that's only a problem because a bunch of dumbasses have hangups about nudity and would pile on a victim instead of supporting them.
I swear to god the AI generator scene can be broken down into
40% NFT bros who were late to the grift and left holding the bag who are desperately trying to rekindle the earlier craze and get some money back
40% coomers frying out their dopamine receptors making increasingly specific anatomically incorrect porn images, with a worrying amount of them being straight up fash
10% Treat enjoyers lovingly spending hours making images about 'What if the Disney Princesses starred in a 1990's cyberpunk film directed by Ridley Scott'
and like 10% people making mockups for their D&D sessions
i have a disability that has progressively effected my hands and everyone keeps hating on me for using ai to fill in the gaps on what i can no longer do (fine brush strokes) :deeper-sadness:
ive made some really baller art with it though
The problem isn't the tool. Like all tools, it's just a tool. It can't do anything on it's own. The problem is that the tool is an economic super-weapon to destroy the entire professional art industry. Commissions? Fine art? Corporate art? Portraits? Concept art? Photo touch-up? Almost every kind of art where a single artist is hired to a produce an artistic work is severely threatened by this.
When the first water and steam powered mills were developed it destroyed the lives of untold thousands of people. The fruit of the industrial revolution was a massive drop in life expectancy and quality of life compounded with new forms of legal and economic impression.
The the automation of "Creative" jobs - copy writing, copy editing, fine art, singing, song writing, animation, dozens of other things currently under threat by "AI" tools, is going to produce a similar, if maybe less drastic, wave of immiseration. Countless disabled artists who rely on commissions and piece work are going to die in the streets because some chucklefuck bazinga nerd found a way to steal the sum total of human creative output and turn it in to a soulless, unthinking machine that produces facsimiles of creativity. Whole industries are going to disappear. It's possible, though unlikely, that entire techniques of artistic expression will be lost as the machine crushes everyone who knew how to apply those techniques.
The finest fabrics in the world were woven by hand before the invention of the steam loom. No cloth of comparable quality can be had in todays world, not for love or money, because the people who knew how to do it were destroyed by the industrial revolution and the techniques were lost.
You can also preclude the need for the artist by learning to draw. What's your point?
You could also just reframe that for literally any job eliminated by a machine.
It's a miserable situation in general. Like... the tool itself is amazing. If the dataset was made out of our collective library of public domain paintings and photographs I still think that would be strong enough to make a powerful image generating dataset. Why scraping deviantart? Why grabbing from artstation?
At the moment, I think it can be used as a tool to make some really cool images, I've used it to make some awesome stuff that I'm actually proud of, but it's hard to do it and feel good about anything considering how it was made and what it will be used for.
Like I don't think you're a bad person for using it to generate brushstrokes. I don't think Mr DM making a bunch of generated images for his homebrew campaign is doing something wrong. I don't think Jane DisneyAdult is a bad person for making images of Captain America as a medieval knight either, like whatever, have fun.
But then you get to artists using the AI to generate image backgrounds for their otherwise original images. Or someone compositing a bunch of generations together and selling airdrop shirt prints of it. Like that's still some level of transformative, but when does it become directly exploitational? Should you disclose it if you've used the AI as a pose reference or for a blended texture in a 3D model?
I dunno, it just sucks all around.
If the dataset was made out of our collective library of public domain paintings and photographs I still think that would be strong enough to make a powerful image generating dataset. Why scraping deviantart? Why grabbing from artstation?
I dunno, to me I think thats kinda weird. Am I infringing on someone's rights by remembering someones painting and trying to paint something similar? Collages and minor edits are even protected forms of expression. I could go grab some official nintendo art, make it Mario but with Boobs™️ and that is my art.
Like that’s still some level of transformative, but when does it become directly exploitational? Should you disclose it if you’ve used the AI as a pose reference or for a blended texture in a 3D model?
People do generally list the medium for arts when placed on exhibits. People already just open up pose references in blender, screenshot it, and paint over it so their proportions are right.
There is real concern over NSFW art like this guy is doing. Its pretty reprehensible, just like painting nudes of random people you know or photoshopping their face on another nude body is reprehensible
I just dont like a lot of framing to this. I find what it does very useful and I've been in a depressed rut over losing my ability to do art as a hobby for like 5 years. It still hurts a lot for me to do it but its manageable now, not an incredibly painful process that would take me years to do 1 piece. In a way a lot of the discussion to me feels like a personal attack on my disability.
Am I infringing on someone’s rights by remembering someones painting and trying to paint something similar?
No, because you're a person.
This isn't a person. It's a math problem. A mechanism. It's not meaningfully different from taking a picture, applying a filter to it, and selling it as your own creative work. But in typical "Do not create the Torment Nexus" fashion bazinga techbros have found a way to steal the creative output of all of humanity and produce a dead, sterile facsimile. The potential consequences are horrific. Imagine a world without artists, because all "art" can be sufficiently produced by these machines. No more creativity. No more innovation. Nothing new. Nothing unexpected. Just endless, endless churning of the same parts in to pseudo-random configurations. Long strings of numbers masquerading as creativity.
No more creativity. No more innovation. Nothing new. Nothing unexpected. Just endless, endless churning of the same parts in to pseudo-random configurations. Long strings of numbers masquerading as creativity.
You have a better point with what you said in another comment about the economic side of it, that once it reaches a commercial level it'll massively reduce the demand for particular forms of skilled labor in a way that will hurt a lot of people. Because that's true, and the tech is extremely dangerous for that reason.
The idea that creativity is contained exclusively in the specific technical abilities that will be commercially devalued by the tech is not a good point, however. The threat of AI art is entirely economic (except for the danger of advanced photo/video-editing/mimicking AIs, which are an entirely different sort of threat), because it will still rely on human initiative and guidance. So far as creativity and art goes it doesn't make a difference whether the creative process is the brain working out how to make the hands create a mimicry of an image that it contains inside itself using a brush or stylus, or if the process is the brain working out how describe what it sees to a machine in order to create that mimicry and then applying other technical skills to shape that to more closely match what it wants. I can only assume that as it gets more advanced the ways of providing it inputs will also get more advanced (integrating posing 3d dummies to provide another data point for it to work from, for example), to the point that making it output things that aren't just random slop and hoping it's somewhat close to what one wants becomes a technical skill of its own.
I don't even see it as a threat of losing those technical skills, because there are mountains of texts trying to teach people to translate images in their head into images on paper, outlining training exercises and describing different methods. Although I'm also not as convinced AI will obviate the technical abilities involved in art to the point that it stops being a thing, although it will probably siphon off a huge chunk of would-be illustrators who'll never learn to draw and instead learn how to manipulate the AI and edit its results to get what they want instead.
Imagine
Don't have to the machine will do that for me :fidel-cool:
Saying the human mind and an algorithm designed to emulate art are equivalent is whats actually anti-materialist here. A soul does not have to be real in order for human beings to be materially different from code on a silicon wafer and the fact that this needs pointed out is sad.
Your understanding of materialism is flawed if you think an organ as immensely complex as the human brain is not "special".
Thought does not exist independent from matter. That is a very basic principle of materialism...
As far as the machine does it, it literally learns how to make things by picking out the image from noise patterns based on the chance that picking out specific bits will make it match the prompt... It learns this by practicing on a dataset that has had noise patterns put on it. That's pretty much the machine equivalent to doing a master study on a piece of art.
No, because you’re a person.
This isn’t a person. It’s a math problem. A mechanism.
The human body is nothing but a biological mechanism that we control. Ultimately, the program requires input to do anything. Left to its own devices, it will not spit out art much the same way as a pencil won't draw anything byself, nor will the arm that holds it do anything without being told to, and much the se for a camera. I don't get how one form of input can be separated from another as valid through anything but arbitrary distinction.
The human body is not just a mechanism to house our brain, it literally is us. Even if we ignore the flawed premise that "we" solely exist within our brain (and not the culmination of all our organs working in tandem to create a whole individual), our nerves extend into literally every part of our body anyway. Your brain is connected to the rest of you in a way that cannot be replicated by an algorithm.
Yeah of course it's not as simple as the brain piloting a meat costume. A lot goes into human consciousness but for the purposes of rendering art, we do that in a literal mechanical fashion. We control ourselves and move our body in a specific way that creates an outcome. Does it really matter whether that's moving our arm to draw, or typing out text?
Your brain is connected to the rest of you in a way that cannot be replicated by an algorithm.
The point I'm trying to make here isn't that there is literally no difference between our bodies and a computer, but that the difference ultimately doesn't matter when considering what we're using them for. The only thing that's changing is the degree of abstraction from the human, which again I don't see how we can arrive at a meaningful limit or distinction between what is and is not acceptable in a non-arbitrary fashion.
Does it really matter whether that’s moving our arm to draw, or typing out text?
Yes. The act of creating art is as much a part of the art itself as the finished product. Just as the art is affected by the medium you make it with, the way in which it is created affects the end product. Yes, inputting words into the tool is a form of creativity but its materially not the same as directly drawing/painting/writing a piece yourself
I dunno, to me I think thats kinda weird. Am I infringing on someone’s rights by remembering someones painting and trying to paint something similar? Collages and minor edits are even protected forms of expression. I could go grab some official nintendo art, make it Mario but with Boobs™️ and that is my art.
I'm mostly just talking about the nature of transformative works and profiting from them. Like if you went to deviantart and painted over someone's picture in a way that obvious that you did/not transformative enough and posted it on deviantart without their permission, that's generally considered bad form, and on some art sites it's even outright against the rules. Then you take it one step forward and you try to sell it off of redbubble. That's not Nintendo you're trying to extract profit from, it's kawaiimewmew93 from deviantart.
But you could still take kawaiimewmew93's image and paint over it but you change it so much that even the artist themself wouldn't recognize the picture. That's a transformative work, that's generally considered fair.
When you look at Stable Diffusion. you can see countless kawaiimewmew93s in the dataset. Their images have all been used and broken down into mathematical equations via algorithms that "learn" by recreating their images over and over out of noise fields. The only reason you can't pick out the individual artists (most of the time) is because they're drowned out by even MORE artists turned into math equations.
I think in a world without capitalism that would still be considered bad form, to some extent, just because of the lack of crediting. In this world, people using all this unpaid labor that the datasets are built off of is what makes things so complicated and unfair. And I do think you can use these for transformative works in a way that IS fair, hence my examples.
The datasets used in Ai generators are all taken from uncredited artists and photographers, many of which want their images removed from the datasets. Some datasets are even specifically trained on ~30-50 images from a single artist specifically to generate images that look like they were produced by that specific artist.
Using a tool that cannot function without those datasets in order to profit from unpaid and uncredited labor is exploitational to me.
I listed a bunch of varying examples because they're all transformative in some way but still uses that exploitational tool. I'm not saying they're all exploitational, just that because of the nature of the tool that it feels difficult for me to discern where a line can be drawn.
You shouldn't care about ip when its a multi-trillion dollar media conglomerate hoarding a thousand characters and stories.
But when a person who makes art for a living can have the products of their labor and skill taken by a machine and churned out into millions of mass produced images, it can ruin their lively hood.
Ai doesnt trawl disney films to make its art, it collects data from art sites where individual artists post their personal work.
This isn't about IP. This is stealing someone's soul and distilling it in to a machine so you can steal not just a single piece of work, but all of their skill and artistry and potential, forever. This is a crime the likes of which has not previously existed.
No. They have your skill and artistry and potential. And they can exploit them as much as they want, in whatever way they want, for eternity, for free.
Why would anyone hire you? Why would anyone pay you for your labor? They don't need you anymore. They've stolen all the things that made you special. You're redundant now. They've found a way to reduce labor costs to 0, permanently.
We all knew that eventually the techbros would use automation to replace labor entirely, then massacre everyone they didn't need until all that is left in the world is machines and the tiny handful of hyper-capitalists who control them. This is just one more step towards that future.
All of the problems with AI are problems with capital. Capital controls all the AI. AI is now the means of production and we don't own it.
If artists didn't need to create to survive this wouldn't be a problem. But they do, so it is.
I will edit it to remove the term. It was a poor choice of words on my part. Thank you for calling me out.
meh. we should all be in favor of eroding IP laws anyway I find it really hard to care about this one except for the specific cases of corporations using these tools instead of paying workers.
for my unskilled self and that disabled commenter these are great and fuck your copyright.
Cool. Hold on to that thought when disabled artists start dying because a techbro with a math problem stole their entire creative output and destroyed their only source of income in the process.
work-a-day artists are oppressed proles just like the rest of us and their jobs getting usurped and destroyed by capital has little to do with the specific "muh IP rights" people are doing when this topic comes up, and I guess I don't care what kind of labor these folks are doing, they're getting exploited the whether they're doing art as a profession or any uncreative labor.
Marx failed to consider the ability to rob workers of their future labor and creative potential by basically creating a digital clone of them and making it work for 10,000 years.
:agony-deep:
I don't think you're doing anything wrong. AI-generated media is now reality, regardless of what we think about it. From that perspective, I don't even see realistic harm in an individual using Stable Diffusion commercially, undisclosed. Any competition you'd create for authors of media in the SD dataset would be a drop in the highly detailed, AI-generated ocean
You're not nudifying unsuspecting people for their stalkers, so no worries on that part
As for artistic purity, I consider cave painting the only Real form of Art. Everything else is plebian
and like 10% people making mockups for their D&D sessions
:side-eye-1: :side-eye-2:
Not a condemnation tbh. If corporations are about to go ham/are going ham with this evil technology us plebs should be able to get some fun out of it.
spoiler
Personally I enjoy making fantasy creature cryptid photography
I like playing around with it as a toy, but jfc the community is sad and scary
The community as a whole is so fucking hostile towards regular digital and traditional artists, it's fucked up lol
Ai Techbros: lol artists think they matter anymore, nothing they do is special, cope seethe and mald
Stable Diffusion 2.0: We removed data from a lot of living artists in our new model [1]
AI Techbros: NOOOOOOO YOU'VE RUINED IT, YOU'VE TAKEN THE SOUL OUT OF IT, IT'S UNUSABLE NOW!!!
[1] Not actually, the images are still in the dataset, they're just not linked to the artists' names, so they're still benefiting uncredited from the artists' labor but now it's more downlow and less likely to bring bad press
Actually, this change wasn't even intentional. It was an indirect result of switching to a different CLIP model (the part that helps convert words to something the model knows) that doesn't have as much in it but is open source.
The change they did that was intentional, that people complained about, was filtering the dataset for NSFW imagery. Which is a good thing (even if people are going to finetune it back in anyways). But they did it extremely aggressively by flagging anything with a LAION-NSFW score >0.1. You are supposed to use that for >0.99, which covers nearly all NSFW content, beneath that and it's almost all false positives. 0.1 filtered 6% of the dataset, and from my experiences it just doesn't generate pictures of people as well as I remember it doing (all of my Stalin photos look wrong on 2.0) so it may be affecting that. Last I heard they acknowledged that doing >0.1 was a mistake and are doing 0.99 for future models.
Where do the "I stole the labor of every human artist in history to produce a machine that I can use to economically destroy artist as a profession" people fit?
Men will literally rely on a machine to "nudify" images - which can easily ruin someone's life - instead of just using their imagination.
edit: don't use your imagination for underage nudity, just kys :tito-laugh:
Yo that's creepy af. Basically revenge porn without needing to be sent said nudes in the first place
And a terrible bonus: it doesn't even have to be that convincing if you know the person making the call wants them gone
I don't know who else is making this argument, but I do think it is a reasonable thing to expect this trend to continue regardless of specific technological developments.
This is completely consistent with a historical material analysis. Imagine thinking you'd prevent porn by erasing Photoshop and Windows Media Player from existence. Heck the first porn video? You'd have to go back right to the creation of video itself.
The internet would have developed regardless. Artists would have found ways to promote the sexual tendencies of the prevaling culture regardless.
Of course it doesn't mean fighting for moral beliefs is wrong either. It goes without saying it is ok to fight for the world we believe in. We can make a difference here and there sometimes. But at the same time we have to be realistic about the outcomes.
Unfortunately imo the left discourse over AI art will be completely ineffectual. The real way to regulate it doesn't even begin to tackle the real problem. Legislation over plagiariazing copyrighted content? Sure it will help the artists so it is a good thing, but it wont stop the tech.
You can make it illegal all you want, someone will make a github project, worst case scenario a MEGA or torrent link and share the program anyway. It doesn't matter how many liberal institutions and how many laws are passed against it. And you know from a PR/corporate standpoint it is never going to be as toxic as child porn or as threatening as copyright law given AI will be a benefit to capitalists. So the chances of it ever getting banned are near zero.
You mention deepfakes as a problem and yet Hollywood already adopted it and profited from it, it is one of the best examples of modern tech adoption, going from niche YT videos to extreme mainstream use in a few years. How can you ever hope of fighting this now? It is all going to be moral outrage into a vacuum.
I picture it like that Blizzard shit take "dont you guys have phones" when trying to defend a mobile game. This time it would be a Hollywood executive, you ask him "you know deepfakes are used for illegal porn right" and he will answer "but don't you guys want to see young Harrison Ford as Han Solo again?"
Unless we go fight the real source of the problem it is pretty clear this wont change anything. You can even try and win a few battles e.g stop plagiarizing from artists, but it wont stop the trend or the tech.
weird how this topic immediately makes people abandon materialism completely and jump straight to idealism and emotional reasoning
i merely pointed out the idealistic nature of your arguments, because I can tell from looking elsewhere that making a whole case to you is pointless -- you literally just got done saying that you don't care if there's no way to stop or even mitigate the technology from being used. There is literally nothing else to do but dunk on you.
This isn't the first topic where people are like this, and I am sure it will not be the last, so why shouldn't I be efficient about it? Very strange how every topic where people behave like this is linked to sex in some way, though.
nah there's a lot of rape and blackmail etc, cuckolding is at the core about shame and jealousy not the violence and racism that freaks incorporate into it.
i guess but you can jerk off to your own shame without jerking off about rape or racist caricatures and stereotypes of black men.
Lock this guy up
This is extremely dangerous, sick behaviour. Sexual predator stuff. Anyone doing this poses a danger to thousands of women everywhere.
I wish this surprised me
:epsteingelion::surprised-pika::epsteingelion:
Yeah idk what it is about ai art that gets "communists" loving copyright and "materialists" talking about souls
Commissioning individual artists has always been a bourgeois thing. This is about locking proles out of cultural mass production and locking them out entirely.
Selling your labor to bourgeois pigs (the only people that can afford to pay) so that you can eat makes you a prole. Working at a production house makes you a prole. It's like getting mad at an Uber driver.
I don't understand why you're upset that some fields have better working conditions than others when the collective struggle is to improve work conditions for everyone, and the conditions of production artists are already mostly sweatshops in the third world to begin with.
The users don't matter here
You must destroy AI because eventually it will probably replace doctors for 99% of daily functions and that 1% a new function of being completely devoid of compassion and experiencing no trauma from denying people care (total insurance company surveillance) and having no qualms with slowly pushing medically assisted euthanasia onto
welfare and disability queens, as described by tech brosunproductive surplus members of societyYou can already see how AI management at Amazon warehouses and Uber treat people
Anything that previously required a human face can be replaced with an algorithm with an infinite capacity to immiserate you beyond everything you've already experienced.
If you've ever been on welfare or disability you can imagine the nightmare of having an AI case worker
I want to get art for as little as possible and they want to be paid as much as possible.
Any labor is worth what it's worth, obviously considering intensity of work and training required. I don't understand how you can be mad at this.
An hour of your work is worth an equivalent hour of another worker's work.
It's not a sound analysis because
A: You can apply that observation to literally every worker that negotiates pay (waiters' tips, Uber tips, plumber, all craftsmen and tradesmen)
And
B: Pointless because it's anti worker and anti solidarity, dead end. Your interests working in presumably the core are still improved by the hyper exploitation of the periphery, your conditions worsening would still be bad
Creative and fulfilling labor is still labor, protecting and making that available to as many people as possible should be the goal.
they can’t imagine being priced out of art commissioning or already having to suffer the indignity of working a normal job that isn’t producing art.
Your opinions are deranged. The whole project of communism is to enable people to work whatever job they want.
Liberal
For every artist that's employed there's a thousand people that abandoned their dream of working as one and now you're celebrating the immiseration of every single artist that actually has to sell their labor to survive.
Great work, you realize trust fund artists aren't going anywhere because of AI? They'll be the only ones left
:amerikkka-clap:
celebrating is the enormously increased accessibility of art creation.
At the cost of foreclosing art creation as a profession to every prole. Crab bucket mentality.
You should be crying for yourself when every last piece of escapism is bougie liberals jacking themselves off with every Netflix series already being about "the help" homewrecking rich lib families and stealing their houses and every video game gets closer and closer to being "housing encampment demolition simulator".
This is choking out any left influence from the cultural sphere and I can't believe your posts about the crumbs you're getting in return being worth it.
The bourgeoise will dominate AI art too because they don't need to be paid to do it. And on a second note it's not about IP when AI is literally about robbing workers of their means of production and ensuring they'll never be paid for their labor again.
AI automation is stealing labor hours before they haven't even had the opportunity to work them. Robbing people of past and future labor. This isn't IP rent-seeking for work they have already done. It's an attempt to steal all the work they will ever do across all fields requiring human creation and creativity.
Manmade horrors beyond the comprehension of every Soviet painter, writer, composer, musician or anyone else that records human life.
You can use it for whatever you want but it doesn't change the fact that capitalists are absorbing the life's work of human beings into dead capital.
The skills required to be able to compete and build upon AI generated art is going to be beyond most people born into working class backgrounds. The number of jobs this will eliminate will ensure only the top performing artists (nepotism and networking notwithstanding) will be able to find and retain stable employment.
A shrinking field generally means it will be progressively whittled down to only elites and the children of elites will be able to significantly participate and contribute.
It's the floor falling out from the supermajority of junior and lower performing workers here, combined with capital being able to literally absorb workers' unique abilities into dead capital and render their future labor worthless on the market.
This kind of automation has never been seen before, being able to render even products of human self-expression, solidarity and compassion infinitely replicable and therefore worthless and not worthy of compensation in market terms is horrific when as you mentioned proles are already mostly locked out of cultural means of production.
The shared interests of workers still leave their marks on mass culture, even sometimes explicitly with movies like Parasite etc, I just can't imagine the long term implications this kind of Pandora's box (total death of creative fields as a livable career for proles) will have for cultural reproduction decades down the line especially when considering how evil Americans already are, and how evil American culture already is. It's a tightening of contradictions.
It's also really not great that now workers lose almost all their leverage in these fields and quite literally can no longer withhold their labor.
Whenever this giddy response to "workers of whatever field or pursuit you don't like being crushed" is snuffed or reeducated out of humanity.
What is it about easy access to replicating the products of peoples labor without having to pay them that makes "communists" so quick to defend the further immiseration of their fellow proles, just so they can have more treats?
:curious-marx:
Your treats,
eat shit lol. i don't care about the media entertainment this will create and fuck you for assuming I would've even watched that crap. I am holier than thou.
Why are you so hostile to critiques of this tech using the product of other peoples labor without compensating them?
From a... idk... personal dignity perspective? this is a violation of another person's dignity. You're turning them in to an object to be consumed without their knowledge or consent. It's dehumanizing. I'd argue it constitutes a form of social violence.
From a harm perspective we've been talking about the potential for deepfake videos to be used for nefarious purposes for years. Someone could produce one of these fake pictures are use it to blackmail a victim. They could release it in a public venue and use it to destroy someone's reputation. You might be able to call this making blackmail material and use blackmail laws.
Regardless of what we call it or how we do it, this is clearly a new category of criminal behavior that existing laws, and arguably morals, has never seriously accounted for. Producing not just images, but images indistinguishable from real photographs, has never been practical before. It required experts, specialist tools, and a great deal of time.
It is, and the hostility in every single one of your comments in this post confirms that it is. You may not like artists for whatever reason but they're workers just like we are and their labor deserves to be properly compensated.
the deserve fair comp but that doesn't mean you turn around and defend liberal ideas about intellectual property
it's not about the treats I don't care about the damn treats i'm too busy making my own stuff for free to care about entertainment media products i'm not gonna watch. if you're gonna accuse me of something at least make it credible.
i’m too busy making my own stuff for free
Thats the treats part. The ai generated images are the cheap treats made at the expense of artists.
i'm not making ai art lmfao.
I *am * sing pre-made art assets but those were included in a retail software product and the artists who made these textures and animations were exploited in the boring old fashioned way of work for-hire long before this ai stuff popped up as a commercially viable product. oh and i don't owe those guys anything ya lib.
keep making shit up about me though it's funny.
I dont understand why you are defending ai art taking other peoples art without compensation or permission
"Intellectual property (IP) is a category of property that includes intangible creations of the human intellect."
The actual pictures themselves are not Intellectual Property, they are the material products of labor. Is this a bit? This isnt hard to understand.
it's all digital copies of stuff. there's no theft occurring, the only violation is within a liberal framework of intellectual property laws.
copying isn't theft. is this a bit? This isn't hard to understand.
And no one is "defending IP". Learn the difference between owning the concept of a character/story and owning the actual art you make. A painting is not IP, it is a material creation that should be owned by its creator. AI isnt "stealing" ideas from people, its taking the data from actual art itself.
Its like if I traced someone elses drawing and sold it as my own.
no it's like if you traced one line each out of millions of paintings and put them together with a computer.
Im also pro taking whatever you want from billion dollar corporations
Im not ok with taking anything from proles
Im done arguing this with you. Rationalize using other peoples work however you want, I do not care about your actions.
The way Ligma and Catgirl are maligning others as "not communist" or "not materialist" enough for just being wary of and critiquing this technology... it feels very personal lol
E: Add Redbolshevik in there too
Even ignoring the personal attachment... its just a weirdly wrong analysis of the situation.
The whole calling artists petty bourgeois and equating protecting their livelihoods to worshiping "IP law", it really reminds me of the patsoc line about baristas not being real proles.
we do that all the time without harming anyone.
Bringing it into the real world is probably worse, the culture of doing that to begin with even just in people's imaginations probably wasn't great for society either.
this still sounds like the problem is some of the things people do with the doctored image but not all of the things they do with it.
like, we all agree writing fanfic about real celebrities is fucken weird and gross, but i don't think there's any harm in the adam/jamie weirdos or whatever... until you start sending it to the actual people or posting it in public somewhere they'd see it and people bother them about it... and the problem there is everything after the art, not the art itself.
If I draw a picture, or paint it, or do something where its kinda obvious that the picture wasn't "real." "Real" as in, a person who exists was doing the thing that I made a picture of.
Now, if we use AI to deepfake a nude, and it turns out well enough that its really, REALLY, hard to see that the nude is totally fabricated this can be used to get people fired, accused of pedophilia, adultery, etc. By the time that anybody with the know-how can verify that the image is a fabricated deepfake, that person's reputation/career/or even life could be ended. Teachers in grade school in the USA have been fired for soft core/hard core porn photos/movies they were in when well before they started a teaching career.
Because an AI thing could easily be mistaken for a real nude, and drawings cannot.
The way I see it, the problem is more with distributing fictional (or real, ofc) sexually-explicit media of a real person without their consent.
It's creepy as hell to make it for yourself - don't. But that's not exactly a moral problem so much as a deeply unhealthy approach to relationships. Meanwhile, I'd consider it wrong to, say, read your erotic friendfiction out loud in the school cafeteria.
Would that be altered if you only did this because Tammy threatened to do it and you got bad advice from your mom? Yes. Yes it would.
I disagree. It is a moral problem. It's immoral to literally objectify someone like this, turn them in to an object. It might not cause direct harm to the individual, but the widespread acceptance of this ties directly in to how normative sexual violence is. A society that normalizes this is a society that is making itself comfortable with completely, utterly dehumanizing someone and turning them in to a sex object with no concern at all for that person as a human being.
It might not rise to the point of being called a crime, but this is horrifyingly socially corrosive. This directly increases our alienation and isolation from each other. You can get sexual gratification from someone without ever learning their name, without them ever knowing, by putting them in a machine that strips their clothes off and exposes them to you.
To put it another way; Is being a peeping tom immoral? Is spying on someone while they're naked and have a reasonable expectation of privacy immoral? Is looking at someone's nudes when they did not share them with you immoral?
And if it is, then how does this meaningfully differ?
Is spying on a naked person only a crime if you are caught and it causes them distress? Or is it a crime even if they never know? Is it wrong to put a camera in someone's bathroom, even if they never suspect?
Well for the very last point, you're directly violating their privacy - observing them rather than creating a fictional depiction of them. It's worse, but that doesn't make it okay to create the fictional media. To repeat myself, that's not okay. Don't do it.
It's just not in any way an interaction with another person. The distinction between moral and practical rules is meaningless to me outside of interactions, so I'll leave it at "It's bad; don't do it."
that is weird and why should the AI nude feel more wrong than the actual human creep doing it?
I forgot who wrote this but they were writing about dehumanization in it's final form and how you won't even GET to be a victim. Like it's a minor privilege to have victimhood because a victim is a human. Which the "breakthrough" in AI deepfakes will be the ability to violate without creating victims. Probably why it feels so unseemly because we are sensing something dehumanizing.
rewritting this to be clearer:
ai art defenders just want their free treats and dont care about the artists who have their labor exploited to make it.
coomers are so stupid. We've already discussed morality in the comments but they're paying $15 for ten cents of compute lmao
Am I incredibly naive in thinking that after this thing proliferates (a grim thought in itself), the revenge part in revenge porn will become wholly ineffectual (as in the career/reputation consequences, not the emotional trauma caused by being subjected to it).
You would have no way of knowing if an alleged nude photo of a person wouldn't have just been generated by whomever the Lt. Barclay equivalent at their workplace was
In like 200 years when the only people left alive are people that have lived under the normalization of revenge porn
Until then this will just be used to manufacture reasons to fire workers in any position anywhere in the world
Yeah almost every editor with the skills required to create convincing fake revenge porn has thus far refused to do so but now you can do it with an app
:soypoint-2: :stalin-gun-1: :stalin-gun-2:
For people that don't immediately get the TNG reference, TL;DR he was introduced as a character that was so sociably inept he created
sexualfantasies that included his real crewmates in the holodeck.The whole sex in the holodeck topic is quite an old debate too.
