Gosh dang it that’s pretty spectacular. If these things could create [funny] comics, I’d probably give up on art.

I love this art work and I love the purple eyeshadow

@LoreJuniper
Those are words, alright. We’ve apparently gone full circle from the argument that “digital art isn’t real art” from 15 years ago, to the argument that if atoms are involved in a creative work, it’s just a “product for consumption.”

@Phemto
A physical product for consumption and use is not the same as a personal creative work by a human mind.
Also it’s not an argument, ai is stealing lol. It takes images from actual artists and uses it to train on the styles, mashing them together and spitting out what is the prompt.

1: People will always value hand crafted stuff. People still buy furniture from craftsmen like my Dad, and metal work from blacksmiths like my uncle, and cloths from tailors and seamstresses. If you’re concerned about artisans, do more of that. I try to.
2: I’m drawing an obvious parallel. The line between “steeling” and “taking inspiration from” is always going to be blurry, and people tend to pull in unrelated information, like where the piece came from. It’s easy to dismiss the idea of ML taking “inspiration” because there’s no consciousness there to be inspired. It’s arguably the same process, however. It’s humbling to think that you don’t have to exist to do something we associate with consciousness. It’s not the first time it’s happened though. Plenty of examples of things that “only a human could do,” turning out to be perfectly doable by a machine that doesn’t even know what it’s doing. The language hasn’t caught up, though.

Before things get too heated, I’m coming from the position of someone who’s been directly impacted by ML creations. My primary source of income has basically disappeared, and isn’t coming back. It drove me to research why. I’ve done a great deal of research into the history of what’s going on here. It’s not new. There’s a reason that there are far fewer furniture makers, blacksmiths, and seamstresses than there used to be. The primary difference this time is that it’s happened so fast. When it happens over decades, people tend not to notice. When it happens over months, the difference is obvious.

I fully believe in supporting artists and artisans, but I also know I’m not going to convince everybody to stop buying clothes off the rack, or shelves from Ikea. Those ships have already sailed. Human labor is expensive, and it would be a “let them eat cake” moment to shame people for that. Yes, this relates to the Art landscape as well, although art, in spite of being thought of as “the basis of human civilization,” is a luxury good. Hand drawn art will probably become a luxury much like hand made furniture.

Don’t blame me for the coming storm. I’m just the weather man. Worse. I’m the schmuck standing on the beach to report on the hurricane. I’m already drenched.

@Phemto
1: yeah obv im exxagerating a bit, but theres a reason people value hand crafted stuff vs factory made. Also why in the world are we using ai to push creatives out of creative spaces. Ai cant be creative, it can only rehash whats put into it
2: Im not talking ab hasbro and fanart, im talking about the ai scraping the artists work.
Theres a reason why fanart has always been in a legal grey area, its because while the company owns the character, the artist owns the actual image and the work they put into it.

The copyright issue is a non-issue. None of the fan art can be copyrighted either. Artists just get too full of themselves when they start talking like they’re the “basis of human civilization.” Art is an important part of being human, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves here. We didn’t discover fire, agriculture, cities, etc because of art.

AS for consent. I only know of one artist who got legal consent from Hasbro to produce their fan art. The situation is more “don’t ask, don’t tell.” You can call it dumb, but that’s just proof you don’t understand the situation. It’s not our IP. If Hasbro wanted to shut fan art down, they’re within their legal right to do so. It’s to their credit that they don’t.

People who don’t understand the situation use words like “dumb af” instead of cogent arguments.

@Phemto
Thats still a whole different argument. Training an ai to produce an image based off existing training data vs “filtering” and remaking every frame of a show would both be not what ai art even does, and wouldnt even work since the ai doesnt know what its looking at, which is especially prevelant in any background part of the image

@Phemto
Yeah thats one of the dumbest takes ive heard. Ai cant create, it can only remix and mishmash existing art.
Saying fanart is technically stolen is also dumb af, derivative and inspirational works is the basis of human civilization and creativity.
Theres a reason that ai “art” cant be copyrighted, no person made it, and its generated based off artists who did not consent to their art being used to train.

@LoreJuniper
There’s a reason I put filter in quotes. At the end of the day, though, a filter is a machine learning algorithm that performs a picture-to-picture manipulation. It’s part of the same technology, just with a much easier job to do, which is why we saw phone filters first.

It’s a filter if you’re turning your face into a dog’s while on a call. What if you’re doing it to someone else’s video without asking? You’re clearly stealing, but it’s still a filter. The technology is one thing, the intent is something else. Also keep in mind that those chat filters had to be trained on SOMETHING.

I put filter in quotes because, yes, I’m aware that this is more than that kind of filter. I was referring to the art style, and how amazing it would be if someone used it, picture-to-picture-style, on their own animation. Whether you call it really a filter at that point is entirely arbitrary.

@LoreJuniper
That’s the artist’s take on it, but the difference between “stealing” and “paying homage” appears to be solely based on whether you like the creator or not. If you read posts about it, JKR was “paying homage” to a bunch of prior work until she came out as a horrible human being, suddenly she was “plagiarizing” and “ripping off.” Nothing about the work itself changed. If you have to know who the creator is before you decide whether it’s “inspired by” or “ripping off,” then you’re not looking at the work anymore and just expressing a dogma.

The ML algos are trained by looking at other people’s work in the same way that humans are. Yes, you can manipulate the algos into duplicating features of someone’s work, but you can also convince a human to do that. There’s an entire industry based on it. “Is capable of,” is not the same as “always does.”

At the end of the day, 90% of what is on this site could legitimately be called “stolen,” because it’s Hasbro’s characters, or OC’s using a design style that Hasbro established. Let’s not throw too many stones, because our house is more windows than wall.

@Saphkey
Not really. It takes alot of stolen art as training data and mashes it together into what the ai gets prompted with. It’s very much not a filter

@LoreJuniper
It’s not entirely wrong to call it a filter.
A filter takes each pixel and modifies it according to some algorithm.
With Stable Diffusion image generating models through img2img, the same principle takes place sort of.
Going through each pixel and modifying it according to an algorithm.

@Phemto
its not a filter, ai remaking an ep would be a completely diff tool

I love this, even if the algo did it’s thing of supermodelified her, lol.

Now imagine an entire episode where each frame is run though this “filter.”

I love how floofy her hair is

Her fetlocks got dipped in gold hell naw

Yep, as with most AI art, it’s beautiful, yet somewhat uncanny and unsettling

the eyeshadow and necklace are a nice touch 👌