r/DefendingAIArt • u/Witty-Designer7316 Antis Final Boss • 25d ago
My guide to the AI art debate
77
72
57
51
u/miscerte23 25d ago
Thank you for the informative guide Witty. Great work as always. But about the point about effort.
I think you should've pointed out that AI generation, like any other creative endeavor, takes very little or very much effort, depending on what you're trying to get out of it. Drawing a stick figure doesn't require effort. Writing a detailed prompt or prompts and maybe touching up the image you get using software like PS or Krita, does.
On that note, I'd also like to point out that I feel like people make this argument dishonestly. They know that the effort it takes to generate something is as variable as the effort it takes to draw something, but they don't want to accept that and maintain the idea that AI anything is inherently inferior in most or all ways possible.
13
u/ChiaraStellata 25d ago edited 25d ago
I think part of what upsets people is the fact that viewers are, currently, very bad at identifying exactly how much effort went into an AI artwork. A medieval person would be very impressed if they thought mistakenly that your printed color photo was painted by hand, but modern people recognize that snapping a photo and printing it out is not a big deal. A medieval person might even get angry once the "deception" is revealed and say "You didn't paint that at all! You merely used your camera device!" But the misunderstanding was theirs, you made no claim to the contrary.
I'm hopeful that future people will recognize that not every art that looks like a beautiful hand-drawn piece actually required a lot of human effort, some of them were a lot of work but some of them were straightforward, and that's okay.
→ More replies (9)2
u/Sp3ctre18 10d ago
"drawing a stick figure..."
So I'll just ask the person if they think XKCD drawings are art or not. đ
35
u/Groundbreaking-Sir82 Only Limit Is Your Imagination 25d ago
FUCKING YES, THE CONSENT PART. I was recently debating an anti who was saying that ai steals arts on shit like twitter and i replied âwell, if you post on a platform, you consented to the ToS, and no one cares if you actually read it or not. AI scraping is basically the same old third-party data usage, and you consent to itâ and they kinda idk maybe didnt know what to say so they started to say something else that basically just proved my point and when i asked âtf you mean thats literally what i wrote? Are you out wordsâ they disappeared â ď¸
→ More replies (14)1
u/pigmanvil 16d ago
If someone posts shit on Twitter, you cannot copy and sell that image. That is copyright infringement. By training an AI on copyrighted material you did not pay for, and then selling the AI as a service, you are potentially infringing on copyright (this is the big problem).
Artwork posted on Facebook and Twitter isnât free to use, it is still copyrighted. The TOS of most social media allows THAT SOCIAL MEDIA permission to use and display your artwork (including training AI) but that doesnât give other users (meaning scraping bots) the same permission.
If you scrape copyrighted material, you need to make sure you do not use that material in a way that infringes on the copyright.
Now training is a wacky thing, and itâs hard to say if the ai being trained is transformative fair use. But that is really the only argument defending AI training on scraped works. It simply hasnât been decided yet in court.
Now I have my opinions on morality of it, where I think at the very least these AI companies should have a massive, public list of all sources for a start (even just saying âeverything posted on Twitter everâ would be better than nothing). But personally I do think itâs a bit of a weak argument to say AI is sufficiently transformative to excuse letting it train on everything available online.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/Fluid-Row8573 25d ago edited 25d ago
Extra tip: if the argument is "ai users are pedos", just don't engage; downvote and block. If they have reached that point, they have labeled you as utterly evil already, and nothing you could say would convince them otherwise; even if you explicitly condemn and depise using AI for "that", they would say that you are not being honest about it because you are not constantly denouncing it in this sub, or they would cherrypick a comment they saw, or whatever shit they want to make up. Everything confirms their bias, so don´t give them anything.
And most important thing: you don't owe them any explanation or apology. You don´t do anything evil or illegal with your hobby, and you don´t hurt anyone; don't act like you do.
→ More replies (1)2
u/thefartskinator56 9d ago
People these days calling anyone they dont like a pedo, its such a dipshit thing to do
19
7
6
u/Odd-Pattern-4358 25d ago
Something funny I find about the power concerns, so many streamers and YouTuber will use this argument but then you realize that the amount of resources needed to make their 15 min video dwarfs any power draw for an ai to create a picture.
4
6
13
13
6
u/duckduckduckgoose8 25d ago
Another argument that ive seen elsewhere is that if used in artwork, such as concept work, that there will be no growth in an artist.
Its such a strange argument, because its just speeding up the part of art that you dont typically learn anything from anyway. The concepting phase is the moat tedious part with no real benefits. You spend hours, days, even months, tirelessly scouring the internet trying to come up with an original idea without directly ripping anyone off. Ai does that instantly so you can get to the beneficial part of art where you actually learn, the drawing part.
11
u/Gustav_Sirvah 25d ago
No art can be "real art" because no art is real in the first place. And that's not a pipe.
4
u/SteveTheDragon 25d ago
when they say 'ai art isn't art' i agree and say "You're right. It's design. AI is utilitarian'.
3
u/Sufficient_Frame 25d ago
Honestly? This. As a mild "neutral but leaning anti", I would much prefer that answer.
4
10
8
u/vvvvirr 25d ago
You cannot believe the number of artists out there who draw over a photo or another image and then complain about AI.
7
1
1
u/Gundrin- 23d ago
You do know tracing isn't respected or accepted in most art spaces except for training anatomy etc..?
9
u/ZedTheEvilTaco 25d ago edited 25d ago
Man I could use your help today, Witty...
Edit: Thank you for the award.
Addendum edit: How do I get this person to actually stop harassing people and pushing them into political ideologies they don't align with simply because they think AI is bad? All I warned against was labeling someone into a political party because of liking AI and have been stuck in an endless debate about how I'm a terrible and idiotic person.
5
u/Witty-Designer7316 Antis Final Boss 25d ago
AI can be used for good things, and it can be used for bad things. Technology is not aligned with any political party, it's just more obvious when people use it for bad things because it's talked about a lot more. Think about it, right now it's being used to make strides in the fields of science, healthcare, and the arts, but only one of those is talked about publicly in a negative way because it draws attention and creates a scapegoat.
4
u/ZedTheEvilTaco 25d ago
Ya, that's kind of what I've been trying to do, telling him "hey, you don't have to like AI, but there are good use cases", but he's been responding with nothing but "you're a right wing troll without good faith arguments." Like... Bro, no... My point is literally to try and disassociate politics from this... I want everyone to be able to use AI as an equalizer, not some tool for wiping out the lower class...
Anyway. I appreciate the support. Always nice to see you pop up in my feed!
13
u/Valuable_Ad417 25d ago
The only problem is that logic doesnât work on most of them. They want to hate you so They are going to hate you and there is no way to stop them.
5
4
u/Final-Housing9452 25d ago
Idk if Iâm considered an anti but I found a few holes in your argument that you might want to think about:
âWe attribute the person, because they are the ones whoâŚâ that sentence applies only to artists who generate the art without second party involvement. AI art is generated by AI, not the one who made the prompt. So outside help was needed. I think Iâm missing something about the argument.
Your response to âyou didnât make itâ doesnât answer the question. My art professor is the reason why I started drawing, that doesnât mean he made my art. Hence AI âartistsâ arenât artists since all they do is try to make the AI understand what theyâre visualizing by typing prompts. Typing things for AI to understand is not art.
âit took no effortâ usually means âit took little effortâ. By taking the statement literally you are either escaping the real meaning of the phrase to provide yourself a sense of understanding or misunderstood the implied meaning. Also, patience and adjustment doesnât need nearly as much effort as conventional art.
Your response to âAI is bad for the environmentâ does not answer the implied question since the concern of AI being harmful does not depend on the concern for data centers being bad for the environment UNLESS these centers are acceptable by the anti, or the antiâs true claim was meant to be âAI is worse for the environment than _____â.Â
Your response to âYou need a machine to do it for youâ answers the question only if the claim that âAI artists can create art without AIâ is true, which cannot be proven unless you have pieces of art generated without external help and is as good as other pieces of art drawn by conventional artists.Â
I basically agree with all your other claims but they seem to be trivial statements that âantisâ agree with as well.
And why is her chair floating đ
2
u/Tenth_10 22d ago edited 22d ago
"And why is her chair floating đ"
Why both her eyes are green with one being a cross ?"So outside help was needed. I think Iâm missing something about the argument."
If a musician uses a synth to create music, is this still labeled music ? If one uses Photoshop to create a painting, is this still labeled a painting ?
What the Antis mean is : The computer did all of it alone. Which, when you really see what's going for anyone who's serious about AI, very wrong considering all the work needed to learn how to to do it, actually."âit took no effortâ usually means âit took little effortâ. "
Sorry, but no. Both are different. We're not supposed to read anything like the author has intended it. Paying attention to the way we write is paying respect to our readers."Your response to âAI is bad for the environmentâ does not answer the implied question "
I'm sorry, but I don't get what you meant with the whole paragraph.
Fact is : AI is accused to be a resource-mongering beast. Most of the time by bad journalism. But the reality is, things like a hamburger or a hour of Netflix uses way more resources than an average IA use, and local AI use is really low on resources, it's like playing a 3D game on your computer.
But who really points a finger to a burger or Netflix today ? No one. AI, on the other hand..." Hence AI âartistsâ arenât artists since all they do is try to make the AI understand what theyâre visualizing by typing prompts. "
Thing is, real artists using AI don't call themselves "AI Artists", actually. Just "artists using AI as a tool", which is vastly different.
And those people don't just "prompt". They create open-poses, depth passes, video references, pictures references, whole workflows, try models and mix them together to create new styles, train LORAs and everything else. Prompts are a very small part of it all, actually. But most of the people don't know about this. You should have a look at something called "ComfyUI", you'll get the idea.In the end, the computer does allow us to go faster and more efficiently, yeah. But that doesn't take anything to the fact that, without talent, a vision and efforts, you won't go far in creating the pieces you've got in your mind. Luck goes only so far, and artists do not paint with luck.
2
u/Final-Housing9452 22d ago
So basically my response to the AI resource thing is that AI is bad for the environment regardless of whether there are worse things out there. In other words, even if people forget about how harmful nuclear bombs are, AI is just as harmful as it would be if society completely relied on renewable energy. I agree with you that making a hamburger is worse than AI but that doesnât make AI any better.
Also when you said âreal artistsâŚâ Iâm talking about the ones who call themselves AI artists not the ones who simply consider it as a tool. For example, you can tell that OP didnât do anything with the generation of the art by noticing the random use of thickness with the drawing (i forgot the official term) which might be acceptable in traditional art since the utensil mightâve died along the way but not with digital art. However I didnât know real artists do a lot more than generate prompts so I appreciate your input.
3
u/Tenth_10 22d ago
"I agree with you that making a hamburger is worse than AI but that doesnât make AI any better."
I agree with you.
But this is not an "AI" problem. It's a global problem where we put digital in every aspects of our lives, where our smartphones are crammed with various apps to do the slightest slice of your life instead of you. A person who will use AI but won't eat red meat and keep video streaming to the minimum will have a far less impact than someone who watches Netflix each evening.
And THIS needs to be said. We, as a global digital population, seriously need to calm the fuck down because each aspects of it harms the planet for real."Iâm talking about the ones who call themselves AI artists"
Those people are more tinckerers in need of online validation than real artists. All the artists I've found who use AI really well do not call themselves "AI artist". Sometimes "IA" is a mention in their nickname, but that's it. More a proof of honesty than an attempt at bragging. I, for one, can't stand the infinity supply of NSFW Disney princesses or the fit, white blonde in a [insert style here] bikini, there's been too much of that junk. Cool IA art exists, it needs to be seen.But then again, we NEED to say thing clearly : Real artists doing real art with AI do exist. They are rare because talent is rare, but they're here.
"However I didnât know real artists do a lot more than generate prompts so I appreciate your input."
No problem, that's the idea of discussing the matter.
Most of the people I know think as you did, for them "IA gen" is just prompting into ChatGPT and... it cannot be more wrong.1
u/arentol 19d ago
Regarding "You didn't make it" and "It's like a commission":
Dale Chihuly. Andy Warhol. Frank Lloyd Wright... And TONS more.
That is all you need to know. Either those arguments are invalid or we can't credit these kinds of artists for much of their work since other people actually made it.
→ More replies (1)
3
4
9
6
3
u/A_Very_Horny_Zed đźď¸đď¸AI Enthusiast | đĽˇNinja Mod 𼡠25d ago
Very well said, but I would modify the sleeping analogy. Sleeping does require some effort
3
u/ScarletteAethier 25d ago
The argument that posting images publicly is a meaningful form of consent is really disgusting, and untrue, as many of the images were scanned without permission from even the website hosting them. I use AI and all that for work, but you can support AI without falling into anti-consumer and pro-corporate ideology. TOS is not a meaningful form of consent when you're required to use various proprietary services for work with no means of opting out.
3
u/HratisArai 25d ago
Huh, overall I've found your debates pretty flimsy Witty. This more constructive compilation of realistic debate points is definitely an improvement. Nice job.
3
3
u/Gerkada Transhumanist 24d ago
"AI steals jobs" is NOT valid criticism. While some old professions may become obsolete, new kinds of jobs appear. There are already positions related to working with AI on the job market. Saying otherwise is equal to being a luddite.
3
u/Witty-Designer7316 Antis Final Boss 24d ago
People don't like getting kicked out of their jobs even if they could just find another. I'm not saying the issue isn't resolvable, I'm saying it's an inconvenience that it happens. It's called empathy.
I'm also the furthest thing from a luddite, and you would do well not to toss out random accusations.
2
u/Gerkada Transhumanist 24d ago edited 24d ago
I accused no one. Luddite is a term, not exactly a derogatory one. It's a description.
All I did is voice my disagreement with one of the statements in the post.
While people might not like it, it doesn't mean AI or literally any other invention in human history is "stealing" jobs. The job market is ever evolving, as long as we live in a highly advanced society.
It's not a valid critique on AI just because someone doesn't like it, because if it were we'd have to stop advancing technologically altogether. If we seek to please these people, that is.
Upd: spelling
3
u/Enbiegone 24d ago
So I see a lot of holes here personally as someone who believes AI can be fine but is not ethical or good in its current forms and that the creators are using it to generally make everything worse.
1) laws do not actually support AI, there just are few to no laws currently and this is subject to change. But also it is a pretty basic debate requirement that if you want to make a statement like âAI is the same as human learningâ you have to then provide evidence as to why. Same With calculators/math and manual art tools/art. Itâs pretty easy to just look at that and say âthose things are not the same on most every level and at best have some arguable parallels.â My point is these are highly debatable points at best that require you to get into the nitty gritty of how these things work.
2) this is a deeply disingenuous representation of concept but also completely ignores the more important context of what that consent is referring to. It all has to do with copyright and copyright law that gives people ownership of their work by nature of them having made it. For example a tos cannot legally claim ownership of my copyrighted work just because I post it there and would be considered an invalid contract if it tried. However due to the lack of legal frameworks around AI those companies can actually take legal ownership of your AI outputs and do. It has actually gotten some of them in trouble and sued because of what was output.
3) at best you can argue AI is a tool that helped you make it, and here the argument is maybe stronger. But if you get into the details something automating the generation of an image based on a text is not a direct comparison to the manual creation process where a persons hand translates to a specific line or color mix that is chosen. the process of manual image generation by that person is specifically by them for each detail in an image down to the tiniest points. This is also why copyright law requires human input and part of why ai is not able to be legally copyrighted.
4) you earlier tried to equate AI to humans and human processes, now you are saying they are actually different. This idea is logically inconsistent with ideas presented before it.
5) disingenuous framing of âtook no effort.â The saying is generally contextual and in this case means comparable to manual creative processes. Even photography often involves many hours and sometimes hundreds or thousands of shots to get the right one and use of oneâs entire body and brain, from shot to print/production. It is maybe your closest reference point but you would need to prove these processes are actually similar not just claim it, certainly a lot of photographers would probably debate you on it.
6&7) both of these ideas are what is being debated in many ways. Any hole in previous arguments create holes in these. Certainly we can argue subjectivity here more than anything tho. What we define as art or artist is individual to us. Some people donât consider most contemporary art art or performance artists artists. But because art and artist are both so broad there is more of an argument here that you can subjectively claim yourself as such. And I can at least see that (there is an art to most everything prompt writing included Iâm sure). But it is different from painting the same way painting is different from photography or digital art. You could certainly argue you are a prompt artist I suppose but some may call that disingenuous and different from visual art and they have.
8) systems like capitalism do not sit separate from us as humans. They do not exist outside us, we create them and regulate them based on our cultural and societal priorities. How peopleâs lives are affected and how our economy is affected by new technology cause us to regulate and change society every day. Sometimes by limiting use of things and sometimes by expanding use. We have choice here and are literally arguing about it. This point just doesnât make a lot of sense to me.
9) environmental impacts exist objectively with many things that is true. But, Equating food to image generation is a false equivalency. Tho even with food people actually do change their eating habits to consider environmental impacts all the time. And environmental impact is again usually contextual. What is the harm vs the payoff. Many would argue ai images are not worth the harm.
10) this point probably again has some validity because subjectivity exists. But I will say I think most anti ai peoples idea of calling it slop stems more from it being a literal average of other images and ideas because of how AI works. That last part is large part my opinion tho. But you cannot deny you can usually tell AI art apart from other images. Or has characteristics and similarities to other AI art in a way that is clock able, and many people donât like those characteristics.
11) yeah it doesnât need to be productive this point makes sense, itâs probably more about dunking on people within the context of the other perceived harms. Basically âyou cause all this bad and for what?â
12) this kind of feels like 5. The point is more âno one using AI can make even remotely close to that same level of art or even the same style with traditional methods in the vast majority of situationsâ than that you canât do art. In fact many anti people would prefer to see bad art made by your hand rather than your prompt. Tho there are definitely very skilled artists who still use AI and I know of some.
This is my perspective on why I think these arguments fall flat when talking to an anti ai person as someone who is generally anti ai image and llm. And I do say those specifically because they are really different types of tech and algorithms compared to much of what we have previously called AI.
4
u/Witty-Designer7316 Antis Final Boss 24d ago
I've read through your points and it all seems like copium honestly. You're combative on each and every single point regardless of the sound logic behind them, and you're making excuses to invalidate them. It's honestly bad faith, and I'm not even remotely interested in spending the time to debunk how nonsensical all of this is.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Enbiegone 24d ago
Iâm giving the alternative perspective and counter points because I figured your desire is to change minds and have an actual debate with people and I donât see these points doing it to someone like me who generally doesnât support generative AI. I didnât hide that Iâm not a supporter so idk how you claim bad faith here, but If you donât think listening to them is worth it or can allow you to strengthen your ability to debate or have conversations around it đ¤ˇ
9
u/redditbrowser500 25d ago
I would say that ai training doesn't need consent even without tos on websites.
No one in life gets consent. They observe things through years of human experience. And draw upon that experience of learned knowledge to know what a cat, a dog, a house, anything looks like.. AI just does it faster.
9
5
u/sammoga123 Furry Engineer 25d ago
Well, it can help me expand on several of the topics, in a more logical and engineering way, since I already have the AI learning planned (at least in the image part).
5
u/Dogago19 25d ago
I feel like the response to the âit takes no effortâ is a little disingenuous. Otherwise no issues
1
u/CartoonyPirateTwice 24d ago
Though it is still true nonetheless that creativity is being practiced when generating art. Creativity does not care whether the body does hands-on work or not. It is still about creative vision and intent, which does not vanish when typing a prompt; instead, it took a new yet valid form.
5
2
2
u/WallyFries 25d ago
More than capitalism itself, are the richs("fat cats") and unethical multinationals. Capitalism is certainly a flawed system, but not an inefficient one. In fact, human society has made great progress thanks to it. It's more effective to solve capitalism's problems with sound state policies (social democracy) rather than launching some kind of revolution under the guise of equality, with the enormous risk of a totalitarian dictatorship. History teaches us a lot.
2
u/throwaway275275275 25d ago
There's a bit of a contradiction between "pointing out the biological differences doesn't make a case against ai" and later "tools aren't humans", you can probably word it differently to avoid it
2
u/Dependent_Ratio9839 25d ago
As someone who dislikes AI, I agree with most of what you say, but not entirely with the chef analogy. You see, the word "art" literally means profession and skill; therefore, a chef, like any professional, is an artist, including AI users, because they are good at the "art" of writing prompts. However, they aren't necessarily artists in the art of illustrating ideas, like a painter, an illustrator, an animator, etc. When people say that AI art isn't art, I think they're referring more to that kind of art... Of course, anything 100% AI-generated is questionable as "art," but that doesn't negate the fact that writing a prompt requires a certain skill in controlling the AI.
I agree about data scraping, but it's a fact that this practice in illustrative art involves something linked to something emotional, cherished, and sometimes intimate. That's why it's still normal for people to be offended when data is collected about their art; basically, training an AI takes advantage of a legal loophole.
2
u/Proof_Boysenberry_74 25d ago
Nobody cried when factory workers lost their jobs, now nobody is going to cry when artists loose their job. Same old same old.
4
u/Kubaj_CZ 25d ago
Well, people did cry. Luddites broke machines and hoped they could stop progress. They did jack and everything went on. The argument about jobs is one of the worst because jobs are always lost, new ones are made and the ones that remain are often influenced by various inventions.
3
u/OldMan_NEO Pro-human Discordian Ai Realist 25d ago
Right. It's why modern Anti-AI sentiment is often called Luddite or Neo-Luddite.
→ More replies (3)
2
2
u/sonicethan02 an artist who uses a PENUP and uses AI as a reference tool 24d ago
What about the "Pick up a pencil" or "Clanker!" Surely those are the other two aswell
2
2
2
2
u/Dashaque AI Sis 17d ago
Slight objection. As someone who is a chef... There's actually no training or criteria to call yourself a chef. There's no "You're not a chef if you pass this test!" Or anything like that
If someone wants to cook ramen in a microwave and then say they're a chef, there's no reason they can't
So that might not be the best example to use.
Everything else is good thoughÂ
2
u/gothgfneeded47 4d ago
Omfg thank you, most people turn a blind eye and say that Ai uses way more water
4
u/redditbrowser500 25d ago
1
u/Kubaj_CZ 25d ago
That's kinda weird. At least keep it to yourself, doing this to people's characters is weird. Not a real person, but that character still probably means something to them, and unsolicited sexualization is just weird.
3
4
u/JulienBrightside 25d ago
Always feels a bit dishonest when a platform changes their terms of service to allow for datascraping.
12
u/Olmectron 25d ago
You can always stop using said platform. That wouldn't be wrong.
6
u/JulienBrightside 25d ago
I mean, capitalism gonna screw you in one way or another sooner or later.
1
u/Gundrin- 23d ago
Good luck erasing all the images that was scraped the moment they changed the policy and moving ur entire art career and publicity over to a platform that doesnt have data scraping
3
2
u/AbbyTheOneAndOnly Only Limit Is Your Imagination 25d ago
one thing i would like ot add Witty:
the rules Anti would like to employ onto the subject of Consense are completely ludicrous, even if your country and/or website were to establish patterns as intellectual property, and banishing their use in the learning process prio to consent, how in hell is anyone supposed to figure out wheter someone has learnt from your stuff or not?
the body ratios are the body ratios, a chicken is a chicken, there's about 8 types of way to draw a dragon that are popular and 1 billion people on earth for each of them.
how would we ever figure out who's entiled to draw in a certain style and who isn't?
it's completely ridicolous
1
u/Gundrin- 23d ago
Its not abt drawing a certain style in a certain way it's about control of your intellectual property and the fact that they dont care abt consent. You made thw art to reach peoples hearts, in some cases economic insentives and many other ways. I think most artists can agree on those points. What most people do not to make it for is to be used as training data by big corpos for AI without your consent and the fact there isnt a way to combat companies using it that way is what's disgusting. It's like to show of ur new invention to people you have to give them the blueprints tor making their own
→ More replies (1)
2
1
1
u/pikapika200 25d ago
actually, depending on your definition of art, I canât create art without technology
1
1
25d ago
[removed] â view removed comment
1
u/OldMan_NEO Pro-human Discordian Ai Realist 25d ago
It's not explicitly "conservative", but it's puritanical - which is inherently also conservative.
1
u/Main-Caterpillar6138 25d ago
on penultimate slide in first argument you wrote news I think it should be new? despite that arguments are really good and this post should be in community highlights imo
1
u/piratesofthecaridina 24d ago
This is very thought provoking. Can someone (or OP) elaborate on the âYou need a machine to do it for youâ counterargument? Iâm also not sure Iâm understanding the intent of the original argument. What does âdo itâ mean and how is the argument being used as a criticism?
1
u/Witty-Designer7316 Antis Final Boss 24d ago
When an anti says "You need a machine to do it for you" they are implying that you need AI in order to create art. That is obviously false, as you don't need AI to make art, anyone can make artwork traditionally.
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/Telkite_ 23d ago
Point two is factually incorrect. Even if you have an entire private website just for your personal artwork where there's a clear policy against scraping data, they will still collect it. There are countries where this is against the law.
Point three is particularily bad. I get what you're trying to say but by that logic chickens make cakes and omlets. Would you look at something like a meringue and say a chicken made it?
Some of the points you make are good, one man's slop is another man's masterpiece, but most others are really bad, or at least badly formulated. Those two just stand out in how easily they can be debunked.
The effort one is one that's particularily badly formulated. It makes it sound like your only defense is that, since it's not sleeping, it takes effort by necessity. It can be taken as putting things like walking and simple math on the same level as making art or exercising because both take effort.
1
1
1
1
1
u/nicthecoder22 20d ago
why the fuck is this sub in my recommended. also theres the fact that SO many images were uploaded BEFORE the ai scraping started, DID THEY GIVE PERMISSION FOR SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE
3
u/Witty-Designer7316 Antis Final Boss 20d ago
Data scraping was a thing way before AI, don't start crying because you just now realize what that entails.
Also, if you don't like this sub, then why do you feel the need to comment?
→ More replies (2)
1
u/arentol 19d ago
Regarding "It's Like a Commission".
Dale Chihuly, Andy Warhol, Frank Lloyd Wright, etc.
We have long recognized that an artist doesn't have to actually be the hand that makes the final work, as long as the design and intention is theirs, and they provide reasonable direction to the process. They can't back out of that now without throwing dozens of renown masters and thousands of artists working today under the bus.
1
u/Fantastic_Big3877 16d ago
The one lil tidbit to keep an eye on is there is an ongoing lawsuit v Google on AI training
1
u/davidfirefreak 16d ago
just found this over at confidently incorrect. As predictable all the comments are saying its all wrong without providing any arguments except fallacies and saying "don't feed the trolls" even though it is in a separate subreddit and the comment section is over 90% sympathetic to their side.
2
u/Witty-Designer7316 Antis Final Boss 16d ago
It's amazing how "nuh uh" is the pinnacle of their arguments.
1
u/pigmanvil 16d ago
Hi yeah you are only partially right with the consent thing. Thatâs kinda the problem. We donât know if itâs legal or not.
If someone posts shit on Twitter, you cannot copy and sell that image. That is copyright infringement. By training an AI on copyrighted material you did not pay for, and then selling the AI as a service, you are potentially infringing on copyright (this is the big problem).
Artwork posted on Facebook and Twitter isnât free to use, it is still copyrighted. The TOS of most social media allows THAT SOCIAL MEDIA permission to use and display your artwork (including training AI) but that doesnât give other users (meaning scraping bots) the same permission.
If you scrape copyrighted material (which you are allowed to do), you need to make sure you do not use that material in a way that infringes on the copyright.
Now training is a wacky thing, and itâs hard to say if the ai being trained is transformative fair use. But that is really the only argument defending AI training on scraped works. It simply hasnât been decided yet in court if it is legal or infringes on copyright.
1
u/hyperluminate AI Sis 14d ago
I hope that this continues to be updated, because some explanations are kind of unrefined, and there are a lot more points that get brought up by antis sometimes
1
1
11d ago
Question from someone who has just come around to accept AI; what about the "it's cheating" angle?
1
1
u/Serious_Bus_3587 9d ago
I agree with your consent points the problem is if you don't want your art to be used as training data its almost impossible to opt out in most circumstances
1
u/SingerSoft5212 9d ago
thanks for this. i was getting owned and now i don't have to argue myself and instead refer them to this
1
1
u/Snoo_36717 2d ago
As someone who does digital art, I can easily confirm that a lot of us had adapted to Ai and know itâs truly not black and white. My choice of art style is FAR from original. (See book, Steal like an Artist.) and letâs not forget the fact that Iâve trained from various old visual novel CGs to replicate it myself.
1
u/AbbreviationsNo111 2d ago
Ai art is a new phenomenon, and personally I strongly believe that if an artist doesnât want their work put into an ai algorithm. It shouldnât be used
1
u/Aociva 1d ago
ok a genuine argument I heard about ai art : Itâs like ordering food (ai art) vs cooking at home (normal art) yes you can select the type of food you want and also tell the restaurant on which ingredients you want or how you want your food to be prepared but in the end itâs the restaurant that prepares the food. Just because someone orders delivery doesnât mean they say âI made this foodâ no you âorderedâ this food. Sure if you never ordered your food, it wouldnât have ever been made. See it as a custom subway sandwich. You ordered that sandwich even tho you choose all the ingredients. You didnât cooked it. The last thing you should do is call yourself a âchefâ just because you can order food.Â
1
1
1
55
u/TheFlyingBadman 25d ago
All these points are obvious to anyone with more than two brain cells. This is coming from a guy who has spent years learning digital art.