Support NeoGAF

[GeekyDad]

An interesting conversation to be sure. Been watching this particular guy for the past few weeks in order to familiarize myself with the mechanics of stable diffusion for use in music videos (and have been researching the tech for a good while now). Me, I see it as an evolution of the work process. But I'm merely wanting to use it for personal artistic expression (a backdrop for my music). Many others are trying to make a living as artists.

But evidently, there has now been at least one class-action lawsuit submitted against a list of companies regarding the tech.

 

[Jinzo Prime]

A single lawsuit is not going to stop a revolution.

 

[vpance]

From what I read it's a joke lawsuit that misunderstands the tech.

 

[Doom85]

A single lawsuit is not going to stop a revolution.

George Washington: Okay everyone, so we’re going to cross the river silently which will allow us to-
Soldier (arriving): Sorry to interrupt, sir, but I bear terrible news! Britain has unleashed a secret weapon! The war is over, we’re all doomed!
Washington: Calm yourself, son! What could Britain possibly do that would defeat us in a single stroke?!
Soldier: They’re suing us!
Washington:

 

[GloveSlap]

A lot of the "learn to code" people sure changed their tune.

 

[Mr1999]

A single lawsuit is not going to stop a revolution.

And that's exactly what this is, a technological revolution, this isn't some breakthrough where you go from a ball mouse to a laser, it's much bigger than that and there's no stopping it now, and its happening and most people are still unaware of it happening. AI tech is moving so fast that a week from now the current setup I got is already outdated and something better has come out. It's not just AI as far as images go, its chatgpt, midjjourney, stable diffusion and who knows what else is coming so they better get used to it. Just wait till they get AI trained music.

 

[GladiusFrog]

And that's exactly what this is, a technological revolution, this isn't some breakthrough where you go from a ball mouse to a laser, it's much bigger than that and there's no stopping it now, and its happening and most people are still unaware of it happening. AI tech is moving so fast that a week from now the current setup I got is already outdated and something better has come out. It's not just AI as far as images go, its chatgpt, midjjourney, stable diffusion and who knows what else is coming so they better get used to it. Just wait till they get AI trained music.

Also BlueWillow, its free and i've been playing with it all day.

Machine Learning is moving so fast, we ain't ready for this.

 

[PSYGN]

In a perfect world, the models would be reset and artists would need to give their explicit permission to be part of the model. The ones that do will be given royalties (probably very miniscule to be sustainable) if their art is used. You'd have to have a vetting process so you can't sign up as Picassa with Picasso's works to circumvent it, but it would be impossible for staff to comb through every artwork. In the end, even with opt-in, I think you'll have a similar end product to todays results - people would realize that no work of art is truly original. Even with this opt-in scenario, you'd have "black market" models with popular artists in them. Reputable companies won't use these black market models, but who is going to examine each work of art? Reputable companies will need to show some some kind of receipt that will show their source model and images used if they are sued. Unfortunately I don't know how you can stop this, it's like trying to catch water with a sieve.

 

[Clear]

Can a simulation ever be more authentic than the actual reality?

Sorry, but to me it can't help but be inferior just because of that lack of authenticity, that shortcut.

 

[synchronicity]

The ai cat is out of the bag and gone. It (& humanity as we knew it) is over. Only the beginning.

 

[Represent.]

Hope so. Its a ridiculous concept. Let humans be artists. Stop trying to make everything so fucking easy.

 

[jason10mm]

I hope the AI lawyer is prosecuting the AI artist.

 

[Scotty W]

Can a simulation ever be more authentic than the actual reality?

Sorry, but to me it can't help but be inferior just because of that lack of authenticity, that shortcut.

Artificial was not considered a bad thing for an artist in Shakespeare’s time. The goal of the poet was to creat a pattern excelling nature.

 

[Porcile]

Just make shit better than what AI can make. Oh no, can't make $50 off generic anime art and call it a "commission" anymore boohoo. It's just another process like how talkies killed silent movies or the digital revolution made Kodak essentially obsolete.

 

[Husky]

How can AI art be over when AI generated images weren't even art to begin with

 

[Von Hugh]

How can AI art be over when AI generated images weren't even art to begin with

So only human processed art can be art? Interesting take.

Stupid, but interesting take.

 

[AlteredForms]

Just make shit better than what AI can make. Oh no, can't make $50 off generic anime art and call it a "commission" anymore boohoo. It's just another process like how talkies killed silent movies or the digital revolution made Kodak essentially obsolete.

True, but there was actual effort and resources involved. Does an AI have to get off its ass to create this artwork?

 

[Nico_D]

How can AI art be over when AI generated images weren't even art to begin with

Art is anything that has artistic value to any one person. The quality of said art is subjective.

 

[thefool]

This is like trying to stop the wind with your hands.

 

[kondorBonk]

In a perfect world, the models would be reset and artists would need to give their explicit permission to be part of the model. The ones that do will be given royalties (probably very miniscule to be sustainable) if their art is used.

I agree with everything you've written. I think we will see some valid legal cases in the near future that will help shape the technology. We live in a world of copyright law. If the technology to rip assets exist, there will be opportunists making sure they can backtrack the sources for easy gain. Hopefully it creates a system that really fixes itself where "black market" lives in the same world as current stolen assets and is only used in countries with more lax laws.

For those artists that opt-in and gain royalties, fantastic. For those who get their assets stolen in another country. Oh, well. That happens now and while it sucks, nothing you can do.

I also don't really think this is stealing future work opportunities from artists to the degree others may think. If anything it's going to be a really good tool for assisting with concept or perspective and for generating useless out of focus things like certain textures, it'll be a real nice time saver. Photography didn't take away painting, vector didn't take away rasterized. They do open avenues for different art.

 

[Husky]

So only human processed art can be art? Interesting take.

Stupid, but interesting take.

Art is anything that has artistic value to any one person. The quality of said art is subjective.

You can operate under a broader definition of art if you prefer, but as I see it, art is creative expression, and AI is not creatively expressing itself, as it doesn't have the sentience to do so. Nor is a human expressing themself when they offload the task to another person or thing.

 

[poppabk]

You can operate under a broader definition of art if you prefer, but as I see it, art is creative expression, and AI is not creatively expressing itself, as it doesn't have the sentience to do so. Nor is a human expressing themself when they offload the task to another person or thing.

I think we are rapidly reaching the point of asking - 'what does that actually mean?'

 

[ResilientBanana]

I think we are rapidly reaching the point of asking - 'what does that actually mean?'

Right, most creative expression comes from your experiences in the world and creating something with it. Is that not what AI currently does? We’re a product of our own environment as is the AI.

Not to mention, the AI itself is art all on its own.

 

[IntentionalPun]

In a perfect world, the models would be reset and artists would need to give their explicit permission to be part of the model. The ones that do will be given royalties (probably very miniscule to be sustainable) if their art is used. You'd have to have a vetting process so you can't sign up as Picassa with Picasso's works to circumvent it, but it would be impossible for staff to comb through every artwork. In the end, even with opt-in, I think you'll have a similar end product to todays results - people would realize that no work of art is truly original. Even with this opt-in scenario, you'd have "black market" models with popular artists in them. Reputable companies won't use these black market models, but who is going to examine each work of art? Reputable companies will need to show some some kind of receipt that will show their source model and images used if they are sued. Unfortunately I don't know how you can stop this, it's like trying to catch water with a sieve.

They could hire artists willing to mimic someone else's style if they wanted to.

Plenty of artists willing to do that already in art, and it's perfectly legal. You can commission a piece in the style of any artist.

And you can do that by hanging a bunch of that artists art on your wall, or saving it to your hard drive for you to "analyze" and use to help you reproduce the style.

Which is precisely why AI generating things in other people's "Style" is perfectly legal, without them having to commission artists to mimic styles lol But for PR reasons many will probably start doing that, if they aren't already. "No we did not have that person's artwork in our data model, we created our own artwork for the model" is a nice big PR win.

 

[Nico_D]

You can operate under a broader definition of art if you prefer, but as I see it, art is creative expression, and AI is not creatively expressing itself, as it doesn't have the sentience to do so. Nor is a human expressing themself when they offload the task to another person or thing.

Yeah, there's definitely two sides to that: creating art and experiencing it. AI definitely isn't consciously creating art through creative part. But whatever it comes up with can be experienced as art.

 

[OmegaSupreme]

 

[UnNamed]

I wonder if it is possible to avoid art and text stolen from AI blocking meta and spiders on your website.

 

[GeekyDad]

You can operate under a broader definition of art if you prefer, but as I see it, art is creative expression, and AI is not creatively expressing itself, as it doesn't have the sentience to do so. Nor is a human expressing themself when they offload the task to another person or thing.

Hmm...maybe...maybe not.

I think that's the issue at hand here. Right now, it seems fairly subjective, to me at least, anyway.

AI not being sentient...hmm? Well, it doesn't have a nervous system. And perhaps that's the main thing that is offending people. But the whole idea of actual AI seems to have always been based on non-feeling (from our perception) creations thinking for themselves. It seems obvious we're not quite there yet, but true AI not being sentient?

But what does seem fairly evident already is that this technology is, in fact, expressing itself. Like us, who have been programmed by nature, it is expressing itself based on what we've programmed it with. That's a pretty big-ass, clunky pill to swallow, I know -- and please don't think I'm all for this -- but it is what it is. I'm just kinda feeling it out like everyone else, I guess. But like I said in the original post, I'm already trying to make use of it because it appeals to me on a very practical basis. I am working middle class, currently on leave, don't want to dip into savings to spend my spare time (so I don't lose what's left of my mind) nurturing creativity I have inside me (music).

One last point: I said "from our perception" regarding non-feeling creatures. I know that I have several material things I've kept with me throughout the years, and I take very good care of them. In turn, they've lasted a long time in terms of their service to me. Whether or not I would call that feeling, well, maybe that's an insane notion to even say out loud. But... polishing the body of my guitar every now and again, keeping a damp sponge in the case with it, so the wood doesn't dry. This seems to be feeding life to it. So, I'm just sayin'... Folks take care of plants that feed them oxygen, and on and on.

 

[Husky]

AI not being sentient...hmm? Well, it doesn't have a nervous system. And perhaps that's the main thing that is offending people. But the whole idea of actual AI seems to have always been based on non-feeling (from our perception) creations thinking for themselves. It seems obvious we're not quite there yet, but true AI not being sentient?

Right, it's not that I think AI can't ever be sentient. If we reach the point where AI can be considered some sort of people, I'd agree that it can create art. But I'd prefer not to get to that point, ya know, I'm an AI bigot.

I also think that AI could be used to help one create their own art. Imagine if you could pull open a game engine and ask its AI to give you a tree, or a barrel, or a raft, and each time it gives you a unique asset to work with. The artist might not be responsible for the creation of each building block, but they are responsible for building with those blocks. And then eventually maybe we'll create our own holodeck stories with the same ease as a Star Trek character or something.

 

[Tumle]

You can operate under a broader definition of art if you prefer, but as I see it, art is creative expression, and AI is not creatively expressing itself, as it doesn't have the sentience to do so. Nor is a human expressing themself when they offload the task to another person or thing.

a human still needs to type in what they want the AI to do.. by your logic photography can't be art.

 

[Hugare]

Good luck with that

 

[GeekyDad]

...I also think that AI could be used to help one create their own art. Imagine if you could pull open a game engine and ask its AI to give you a tree, or a barrel, or a raft, and each time it gives you a unique asset to work with. The artist might not be responsible for the creation of each building block, but they are responsible for building with those blocks. ...

Well, that's kinda what -- actually exactly what -- stable diffusion offers. Now, I believe (and think eventually it will be required later on the future) that the creators of those "blocks" should be given their due compensation -- royalties, credits, etc.

 

[64bitmodels]

Hope so. Its a ridiculous concept. Let humans be artists. Stop trying to make everything so fucking easy.

you can still draw if you want to

 

[FeralEcho]

It's kinda hilarious.It's like watching a kid fighting the air thinking he's gonna win eventually.

Honestly I've seen better art and designs from AI in the past half year than In the entire gaming landscape for the past 10 years.Artists should be the ones getting sued for such imaginative crap for the past decade.

 

[64bitmodels]

But I'd prefer not to get to that point, ya know, I'm an AI bigot.

nah man fuck that. Give AI all the sentience in the world. I need my Curly Brace robot girlfriend

 

[Represent.]

you can still draw if you want to

not for money.

 

[nemiroff]

I didn't watch the video yet, but the technology itself (ML isn't inherently infringing) can't be sued per se, there has to be more context to this. Especially the core of Stable Diffusion as the users can use their own data to train the AI without having to download the processed models.

Considering that we humans are also very much an "AI" who train ourselves from everything we see and experience through life (is it infringing to walk into an art gallery and get inspired to paint something..?) to create art I can't see many logical and fair ways out of this other than to accept that AI is here to stay.

 

[Wildebeest]

Their mistake. Lawbot 3000 works for pennies and can launch 5000 valid countersuits a second against them.

 

[64bitmodels]

Honestly I've seen better art and designs from AI in the past half year than In the entire gaming landscape for the past 10 years.

then you've been looking in the wrong damn places. or you're possibly blind. i can't imagine anyone actually saying this in a world where HFW, Elden Ring, Xenoblade 3, Stray and others exist.

 

[Tumle]

Well, that's kinda what -- actually exactly what -- stable diffusion offers. Now, I believe (and think eventually it will be required later on the future) that the creators of those "blocks" should be given their due compensation -- royalties, credits, etc.

But the artist which the ai is trained on does not have any copyright or royalties claims on the art done by the ai.. none of there art is copied into the model, it only learned from there pictures what different art styles look like, it’s not a collage program, like they try and make it out to be..
I’m pretty sure they don’t them selves pay royalties to the copyrighted pictures they learned to draw from..
The whole class action lawsuit is a joke build up on misconstrued ideas, that the art community is trying to get people to believe.
They have no idea on how the tech works at all..
The funniest thing about it all, is that a group of people that in all other instances would be thought of as progressive are so conservative when it comes to something that affects them economically, because they can’t sell there furry porn to lonely nerds anymore.. just shows how up there own asses they are

and they really don’t want to win the lawsuit because it opens up a whole other dilemma where established artist can sue people for using something that looks like there “style”.. so they will be even more screwed when trying to sell there tentacle porn, that could be confused with the drawing style of WLOP

 

[GeekyDad]

But the artist which the ai is trained on does not have any copyright or royalties claims on the art done by the ai.. none of there art is copied into the model, it only learned from there pictures...

True enough. In a sense, it's taken inspiration from the pictures it's seen. And that's what human artists do.

Again, I think this whole thing has to do with the fear of AI. That's a valid fear in my book. Hopefully, the whole thing...works out for the better.

 

[Jinzo Prime]

This is going to be a legal nightmare, and I feel terrible for artists, but if we try to ban AI only those at the top will get to use it. Its better for everyone to keep it publicly accessible.

 

[64bitmodels]

This is going to be a legal nightmare, and I feel terrible for artists, but if we try to ban AI only those at the top will get to use it. Its better for everyone to keep it publicly accessible.

i mean those at the top are already controlling it, Many AI models are being made by companies like Google and Microsoft.
it's one of the many reasons why i'm not too fond of the current state of AI art, or at least the idea of typing a prompt into a website. You can't create everything you want when you have to abide by a terms of service and that kind of takes away the spontaneity of AI art when the idea you suddenly came up with to enter into a prompt is not allowed by their standards.... and also another part of the freedoms of regular art, you can create absolutely everything with no corpo overlooking to see if what you made is advertiser friendly or not.
It's already happening with Stable Diffusion where people aren't allowed to make NSFW artwork (which is taking away a HUGE boon for AI as now you can't literally create all the porn you'd want on a whim LOL)

 

[Haint]

This is going to be a legal nightmare, and I feel terrible for artists, but if we try to ban AI only those at the top will get to use it. Its better for everyone to keep it publicly accessible.

This always was (and still is) all but guaranteed, regardless of the presence or outcome of any legal proceedings. Every single player in the AI field (not just art) have already self censored their products, big corporations have already invested 10's of billions into the "third party" players, and every big corporation refused to even release their "first party" AI's cause they were deemed racist, bigoted, or could be used for porn. Make no mistake, your handful tech overlords will have total and absolute control of AI. Plebs will only be allowed access to the AI equivalent of Notepad and Windows 3.1 Paint by comparison. Corporations are cheering on (if not funding) these lawsuits cause they want to have to buy permissions and pay artists royalties. They know that barrier will kill any upstart competitors before they even have 1 line of an algorithm.

 

[GeekyDad]

This is going to be a legal nightmare, and I feel terrible for artists, but if we try to ban AI only those at the top will get to use it. Its better for everyone to keep it publicly accessible.

Hadn't really thought of it from that perspective.

This always was (and still is) all but guaranteed, regardless of the presence or outcome of any legal proceedings. Every single player in the AI field (not just art) have already self censored their products, big corporations have already invested 10's of billions into the "third party" players, and every big corporation refused to even release their "first party" AI's cause they were deemed racist, bigoted, or could be used for porn. Make no mistake, your handful tech overlords will have total and absolute control of AI. Plebs will only be allowed access to the AI equivalent of Notepad and Windows 3.1 Paint by comparison. Corporations are cheering on (if not funding) these lawsuits cause they want to have to buy permissions and pay artists royalties. They know that barrier will kill any upstart competitors before they even have 1 line of an algorithm.

Well, either way, there will be big software publishers owning the market, and probably soon. I'm sure they're already in meetings discussing plans to recruit the guys and gals creating these interfaces. Their interests will be to create smoother, easier-to-use, approachable software they can sell like Photoshop, etc.

 

[Tumle]

It's already happening with Stable Diffusion where people aren't allowed to make NSFW artwork (which is taking away a HUGE boon for AI as now you can't literally create all the porn you'd want on a whim LOL)

that is not true.. its true that they restricted there newest model, but anyone can take that model and reinstate NSFW into the learning algorithm and many have. you can then download those models if you don't know how to make them yourself.
the good thing about Stable diffusion is its open source and can be run locally.

And I don't know why it's bad for artists, they have a new tool there can speed up there productivity. they are happy learning photoshop, why is it so bad for them, to learn how to type in the correct prompt structure, to get a concept to work from, to make there art?

 

[GeekyDad]

...And I don't know why it's bad for artists, they have a new tool there can speed up there productivity. they are happy learning photoshop, why is it so bad for them, to learn how to type in the correct prompt structure, to get a concept to work from, to make [their] art?

Man, that seems like an easy answer. I think it's a lot more complex than that. I know that it's very difficult for me to not be involved with work. I'm just not the kind of person who does well sitting back and watching. Don't get me wrong, I lavish the moments when shit comes together finally...after all the insane frustrating hours of trying to make something happen.

But I can tell you from two long stints of being on leave of absence, it hurts me. After a month or so, I start going into this dark place.

That being said, thankfully, I've made adjustments. I'm working on creative things at home while I wait. And I think, like it or not -- as most of us have been saying -- human artists will likely end up doing the same. But minimizing one's contribution to a meaningful process slowly kills someone from the inside out. Perspective is key here, I think.

 

[Melon Husk]

The end? No - perhaps the end of the beginning.

 

[64bitmodels]

that is not true.. its true that they restricted there newest model, but anyone can take that model and reinstate NSFW into the learning algorithm and many have. you can then download those models if you don't know how to make them yourself.
the good thing about Stable diffusion is its open source and can be run locally.

Hmm, in thar case ig it's fine. Still though my point is that you shouldn't have to do stuff like this just to use AI art, it should be entirely free from the getgo

 

[Tumle]

Man, that seems like an easy answer. I think it's a lot more complex than that. I know that it's very difficult for me to not be involved with work. I'm just not the kind of person who does well sitting back and watching. Don't get me wrong, I lavish the moments when shit comes together finally...after all the insane frustrating hours of trying to make something happen.

But I can tell you from two long stints of being on leave of absence, it hurts me. After a month or so, I start going into this dark place.

That being said, thankfully, I've made adjustments. I'm working on creative things at home while I wait. And I think, like it or not -- as most of us have been saying -- human artists will likely end up doing the same. But minimizing one's contribution to a meaningful process slowly kills someone from the inside out. Perspective is key here, I think.

yea but maybe you have a concept you want to try out, so instead of spending to much time to try it out and find out it doesn't work, you could test it out first before jumping in to it