Setting aside the usual arguments on the anti- and pro-AI art debate and the nature of creativity itself, perhaps the negative reaction that the Redditor encountered is part of a sea change in opinion among many people that think corporate AI platforms are exploitive and extractive in nature because their datasets rely on copyrighted material without the original artists’ permission. And that’s without getting into AI’s negative drag on the environment.

  • drislands@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    7 months ago

    Agreed. Consider this absolutely batshit take from the reddit post linked in the article.

    Your art looks pretty good, so most people wouldn’t be able to tell it’s AI unless you told them it’s AI.

    Generally it’s always best to just lie and tell everyone you made it yourself, just to avoid all the toxic people that hate AI, because not having to read hateful comments from people like that is reason enough to lie. Don’t need to provide any evidence or go into details, just tell everyone you made it yourself and ignore anyone that question it.

    Your art”. I’m sure clicking the “regenerate” button on mid journey for 5 hours took lots of work. It’s hard not to feel real hate for these people.

    • Keith@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      I mean I agree that AI is stolen because of its basis and all, but the 5 hours weren’t just hitting regenerate, they were likely consisting of changing extensive parameters and such. Have you seen the insanely long prompts people write that are only half comprehensible?

      Whether the stuff is art is questionable, effort did go in though

      • drislands@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        That’s fair. I’ll admit I’ve not done it myself, I’ve only seen folks talking about it – and of the people I personally know that have done it, the activity has been described as clicking regenerate until you like the results.

        • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yeah I’m pretty against AI art as a replacement for human art, and for it’s job destroying potential, but I have friends who play around with local models, and their setup reminds me visual programming, where you move blocks of logic around.

          • GreyBeard@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            7 months ago

            That’s probably ComfyUI, one of the more popular open source tools. You are right, it is visual programming. Mixing text, reference images, and a lot of other items into models to output images. I can easily see someone spending hours to get a single image out of it, but then it becomes a bit of a reusable pipeline. It’s a cool tool, and, if as someone else in this comment chain said that art is a study of choice, then the output is arguably art. I’m not sure I’d go that far with it, but I have a hard time calling my programming art as well, although it meets most of the definitions of it, and is certainly a creative act.

    • MB420GFY@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      7 months ago

      you’re all hung up on ownership. IP is completely a result of capitalism. no one would care who used their images if we weren’t all struggling to survive in a post scarcity world. the problem isn’t AI, it’s the people that own this shit and insist that the world cling to these outdated ideas of ownership. I use AI in my art all the time. I’m an artist with 40 years of experience. I have no problem with it.

      Quit bitching about AI and start dismantling capitalism (by any means necessary).

      • Womble@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        One of the saddest things I’ve seen on Lemmy is that while people here generally have sensible left wing opinions on things (the tankies aside), as soon as AI is brought up in any context most of the users seem to transform in to pearl clutching petite bourgeoisie.

          • Womble@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            The bit where people all of a sudden become obsessed with owning intellectual property and generating passive income from it (royalties) and value people being able to monetise cultural artefacts rather than allow them to contribute to the common good.

            • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              The people “obsessed” with it are, by and large, independent and industry artists who are already struggling financially and most are definitely not making any money from royalties. They very often post their art in public spaces where they are free to view, or in Pateron for a few bucks a month. Certainly the outcry is against all of those public (but still copyrighted) works that were used to train models.

              • Womble@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                The people “obsessed” with it are, by and large, independent and industry artists

                I’m not sure that’s true unless Lemmy has an incredibly strange community of whom a significant proportion are tech focused professional artists. But regardless the point I’m making is more about the mindset where people become vociferous defenders of an unjust system that benefits large corporations because they are fighting for the few scraps that they get out of it, rather than considering alternatives.

                • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  I get my impressions from outside Lemmy as well, mostly sites with a large concentration of artists (ArtStation, Tumblr, DeviantArt) and personal friends who work in the industry. I also moonlight as an artist, though not yet good enough to worry about losing income from it.

                  Also, what is the unjust system you’re referencing? People aren’t advocating for Disney level copyright protection, but these are living artists with brand new works being collected for training with no say in the matter. Most certainly they are not on the same side as corporations, which are embracing AI art wholeheartedly despite the disputed status of copyright laws surrounding it.

                  • Womble@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    7 months ago

                    People aren’t advocating for Disney level copyright protection

                    No they aren’t, they are arguing for making copyright even stronger than the system created by Disney, where not even distributing copies of a work lands you falling foul of the rights of property holders.

                    Generally the position that I’ve seen being advocated is taking copyrighted works, distilling that information (the plagiarism machine etc) and then using that to create new works would be violating the property rights of people who made the original works, despite a copy of them never being distributed. That is a massive expansion of IP rights that you not only have rights to the original work but also to derivative works.

                    Most certainly they are not on the same side as corporations, which are embracing AI art wholeheartedly despite the disputed status of copyright laws surrounding it.

                    “Corporations” are not a monolith on this, what Disney or a publishing house wants is not aligned with what an upstart AI company wants. Which means that change from the property holder centric system is possible for the first time in a century or more as there are powerful interests lining up both for and against it rather than being puerly on the side of the status quo.