AI Art - Pro-AI argument of art not being theft

PROTIP: Press the ← and → keys to navigate the gallery, 'g' to view the gallery, or 'r' to view a random image.

WHY AI ISN'T COPYING ELI 5 AKA STRAIGHT TO THE POINT SIMPLE EXPLANATION OF DIFFUSION MODELS WE TAKE A PICTURE OF A THING, LET'S SAY A DOG, AND WE TELL TO THE COMPUTER: "HEY COMPUTER, PLEASE GRADUALLY TURN THIS PICTURE INTO NOISE, MEMORIZE EVERY STEP WHILE DOING SO" ORIGINAL PIC ORIGINAL PIC OF COMPLETELY RANDOM NOISE WAIT A MINUITE, IT'S NOT THE SAME DOG! STEP 1 ORIGINAL PIC OF COMPLETELY RANDOM NOISE STEP 4 STEP 2 NOW WE TAKE A PICTURE OF ACTUAL RANDOM NOISE AND WE TELL THE COMPUTER: "HEY COMPUTER, PLEASE PLAY THE 'DOG TO NOISE ALGORITHM' BUT REVERSED" PANE STEP 4 Beep-boop ok, done, I'll save this in my memory as "Dog to Noise Algorithm" STEP 3 STEP 3 Yes, because you started from actual random noise. I've learned how to generate a dog from noise. I'm not copypasting anything STEP 3 STEP 2 SO NOW IF WE TEACH THE COMPUTER ABOUT THE COLOR BLACK, AND WE THEN ASK: "HEY COMPUTER, PLEASE PLAY THE 'COLOR BLACK TO NOISE ALGORITHM' BUT REVERSED, AND THE 'DOG TO NOISE' ALGORITHM BUT REVERSED, AT THE SAME TIME" STEP 2 da STEP 4 "I'm an artist, similarly to how I would get paid to give an art lesson, I should be paid if you train an Al with my artworks" STEP 1 TADAAAN! YOU NOW HAVE A COMPLETELY ORIGINAL BLACK DOG! ADDENDUM FEEL FREE TO CROP AWAY THIS PART IF YOU'RE JUST EXPLAINING THE TECH "Yes but AI does it way faster than a human, we should be protected from it, the competition will become unfair" STEP 1 IF YOU ACTUALLY HAD TO TEACH SOMEBODY, YES, BUT THIS IS LIKE LOOKING AT SOMEONE'S FINISHED WORK AND LEARNING. WE ALL DO IT, THAT'S HOW HUMAN BRAIN WORKS. YOU LOOK AT OTHER PEOPLE'S WORK ALL DAY, AND LEARN FROM THEM FOR FREE, THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. YOU PAY AN ARTIST WHEN THEY ORGANIZE A CLASS, NOT WHEN YOU STUDY THEIR WORK AND LEARN THROUGH OBSERVATION. "If AI doesn't copy, why do I see watermarks and signatures in it?" SLOWING DOWN EVOLUTION BECAUSE IT'S UNPLEASANT TO HAVE TO ADAPT ISN'T SOUND LOGIC. THERE'S AN INCREDIBLE POTENTIAL IN THIS TECH FOR ARTISTS WHO ADOPT IT. THEY WILL BE ABLE TO INCREASE THEIR WORKFLOW BY HUNDREDS OF TIMES, SIMILARLY TO HOW E-COMMERCE PUSHED THE BUSINESS THAT LEARNED TO USE IT. LIFE ITSELF IS ABOUT ADAPTATION. LOOK AT HOW TODAY WE NEED MORE ENGINEERS AND LESS FACTORY WORKERS OR FARMERS. WOULD YOU SAY THAT IT MAKES SENSE TO BAN CINEMA BECAUSE BOOK WRITERS HAD TO DIVERSIFY THEIR SKILLSET BECAUSE OF ITS COMPETITION? "I don't care how the technology works, I've seen an AI generated image that is basically identical to an artist's picture. That's plagiarism!" AI ISN'T SENTIENT NOR INTELLIGENT. IF YOU SHOW IT A PAINTING THAT HAS A SIGNATURE ON IT, AND THEN ASK IT TO GENERATE A PAINTING, AI WILL ASSUME THAT THE WEIRD SCRIBBLE THAT HUMANS PUT ON THEM MUST BE PART OF WHAT WE CALL "A PAINTING" AND PUTS IT IN IT. SAME GOES WITH WATERMARKS. 100% YES. IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW SOMETHING HAS BEEN GENERATED, THROUGH AI OR THROUGH HUMAN HANDS, IF YOU PLAGIARIZE YOU PLAGIARIZE, AND YOU PAY THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF IT. SOMETHING INSPIRED BY SOMETHING ELSE IS FINE, BUT IF YOU PROMPT AN AI WORK TO REPRODUCE EXACTLY ANOTHER ARTWORK, AND THEN SELL IT, THAT'S JUST PLAGIARISM AND IT'S THE SAME AS TRYING TO SELL ANY COUNTERFEIT PRODUCT.

View Gallery Random Image

Top Comments

GreenLinzerd

Dec 19, 2022 at 03:15AM EST

"Slowing down evolution because it's unpleasant to have to adapt isn't sound logic."

bruh

This point is literally advocating for artists to start using AI generation themselves or else get left behind. Oh, y'know, never mind if they have a particular unique style or like to put intricate detail into everything or maybe, I dunno, ENJOY THE SATISFACTION OF CREATING A WORK OF ART FROM SCRATCH?

This tells me that the person who made this does not understand artists or why they would be upset about AI. Imagine telling artists "Well if you wanna keep up, you'd better start using the mass-production method yourself!"

Utterly soulless.

+47