AI Content Help- Ask questions, discuss, comment, complain

@Background Pony #1F4D
Do you really not see the point of it all? As the bar of entry gets lower / the need for large teams is decreased the gap will close more and more and the current advantage of a corporate structure / backing becomes more of a disadvantage. And it shows that the market decides what thrives, not the “gigacorps”. Its not like they can buy their own product and no amount of marketing will make a bad product good. A lot of the examples I gave had hundreds of millions in marketing and utterly flopped while indie games often have 0 / 1 guy posting some stuff on social media.

@ZippySqrl
Fair. The API has many limitations that make it implausible to ask it for in-depth questions b/c the way you structure the query runs you into rate limits. My longstanding complaint is that there should be an endpoint for mass import/export of faves and upvotes based on image hash so they can be sync’d across Philomena-using boorus.

@Ada
Every single example you gave that flopped was caught up by the company having 30 other legs to stand on that will just catch any flop, and the flop also expanding the visibility of the brand. There was a entire meme about how McDonalds new flurry tasted like ass and all it did was boost their salesnumbers overall.
theres thousands of “indie” producers out there who flopped and went back to their day job because they couldnt afford one single flop. If even that.
The market isnt some good willed deity, its influenced by lobbyists and people with money and power. Theres cheaper and equally good if not better alternatives to almost any product out there with a big brand, the big brands still thrive.
And the product hasnt to be good. As said Bethesda has been pushing out shit after shit, madden is the same game but worse for years, and they still continously make boatloads of cash. a dozen breakout indie hits over the years do not negate that. Monopolies exist, and beeing able to cut out even more people will make it even easier to maintain them.
If AI modells get to the point where people like you can shit in “Indie game pixel, like Udnertale but sheep” and they put out a playable game, and then someone puts more effort in it by writing 30 sentences instead of 5, the corporations owning the AI modells will either use data from those games to then create a entire expanded universe series of something similar longterm taking the profit, flood the mobile market with cheap shitty copies that everyone thinks suck but earn 5 times as much through microtransactions, or be even funnier and claim legal ownership of the “original” since you used their AI after all.
Right now this isnt happening due to copyright law. Which is maintained as it is because the gigacorps, right now, see it as more profitable to maintain it as is, and thus lobby for it.

So it’s been a month and now another layer of slime has been layered on from people like Ada, promoting deception with multiple accounts, and uploading without ai with signatures and watermarks so they can always keep up the scam.
https://desuarchive.org/mlp/thread/40980045/#q40998788

The aibros are now taking a stance they deserve to be paid, while removing watermarks, still making LORAs to plagiarize and trying to add new bullshit tagging like “adversarial noise” and at the same time saying the artists stolen from don’t deserve a penny.

“Adversarial Noise” is the aibro thinking protected artwork deserves its own tag, so they can filter it out of their scraping for LORAs. Fuck these things, they are completely inhuman and try to take the moral ground that using their GPU is more ethical than the artists. Hard ban is the only ethical choice, but the derpi staff likes to drag it’s feet with it’s pro-ai bias, utterly failing the community.

@Background Pony #A00C
Here’s the problem that I’m pretty sure I’ve argued before: Banning AI isn’t going to do squat for this primary reason: If it’s indistinguishable from any other given person’s art, it’s impossible to uphold the ban it in the first place.
As per usual, report where applicable. It’s pointless to complain about this otherwise. What’s put in place is sufficient.

Oh wow sorry but a pencilwanker and drawfag are names that I never expected to be called. It’s both amusing and saddening to watch how the communities of artists and AI enthusiasts passionately hate each other.

@Jewellier
“x”fag is local vernacular there. I’m not going to explain further except to point to one of the olden rules of the internet: Rule #33 (applicable everywhere really).
https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/30662-rules-of-the-internet
Pencilwanker’s a new one though and likely is meant as a derogative. Too lazy to peruse that thread.

@Brokedownandmadeone
There are laws about Ai disclosure being made, a ban is not impossible. The aibros go full out of their way to strip damning xif data to uphold the scam but it’s slowly becoming more illegal to do this kind of false advertising grift.

@Brokedownandmadeone
But it is easily distinguishable. That argument only works for a very small subset of AI generations. The rest can be spotted from a mile away.

@Parallel Black
Then I fail to see where my complete statement is an issue.

@Background Pony #A00C
Don’t know what you’re looking for me to say here. What I said should have been sufficient.

@Background Pony #A00C
You’re grievously misinterpreting the law. It’s meant to prevent news sites creating pictures and articles that they made up on the spot and presented as real, not entertainment content spread by third parties.

If you really think it’s going to be illegal to generate an image, take a screencap of it or whatever and post it on imgur without an “AI MADE THIS” disclaimer, then wow, enjoy your police state fetish.

@Parallel Black
For now. Even ignoring that the quality of generations will improve (just look at the jumps over the last 3 years), eventually there’ll be programs that can straight up open Krita and draw a generated image stroke by stroke, layer by layer, after learning from thousands of hours of speedpaint and livestream videos.

@Background Pony #A00C
It’s amazing how hard you sabotage everything you say.

@Background Pony #A00C
Why have artists suddenly got a fetish for supporting the most creatively oppressive laws in the digital space? It sounds like you want to bring a super turbo DMCA into place where every image must be properly identified and things are banned if they are not made by the proper entity. You have no idea how hell a system like that will be to creators, as if the current DMCA laws were not hell enough (good luck trying to make a YouTube video or something these days without some company falsely trying to take the video down).

Similar nonsense like Article 13 in the EU also got people concerned for similar reasons as a good portion of digital content is essentially copyright infringement under some interpretation, like making memes is technically because you do not usually have a license to use the image in the meme (which is why people thought that law may essentially ban the ability to make memes online). Worth remembering like half of MLP content is also trademark infringement so you probably should stop making such art if you want to respect these sorts of ideas.

@Background Pony #A00C
Imagine being so cucked you give a shit about the law. Be your own freedom.

They are neither an artist, or a spokesperson for artists. They are only representing their own need for … I’m guessing attention and drama and to be at the locus of some sort of “AI boogaloo” or some shit like that.

Anyway, if you want to talk to an artist about it, or find out what artists think, that’s not the right place to look.

@Ciaran
I’ve seen plenty of artists pushing this sort of thing, but yes obviously not all artists are the same. I just find it interesting that some non-negligible amount of artists do support such a thing.

Correct me if I’m wrong here:
From what I’ve heard the quality increase for these models requires an exponentially larger and larger image set, and that we’re pretty much already at the plateau, where all of or most of the content on the internet has already been taken account of. Maybe there’ll be an entirely new method of automatically generating images at some point in the next year or two, but for now, what we have currently is what we’ve got for the foreseeable future, in terms of AI quality.

@Parallel Black
Models may have “all the images possible so far”, but they’re horribly categorized and limited by the language layer.

There may be 20k different images of The Mona Lisa in different styles, in 3D, cropped, different quality, alterations, etc, and most of them will be categorized as just “mona lisa”, when each should have paragraphs of details written out for the model to actually understand a fraction what each really is.

And that’s just for the current type of tech, there will undoubtably been new developments, some that may not even require prior real world training data and can train on its own creations and categorizations iteratively at unthinkable speeds.

As for what I said about “Krita”, it’s a different path entirely where the thing is trained on videos of watching people draw, trying things on its own millions of times, and figuring out how to draw a circle using the same tools humans use. Much like some current robotics, or some game bots have been made for research.

I don’t understand why you’d find their reaction confusing. These individuals (likely) spent a considerable amount of time and effort developing their artistic skills and honing a style, and someone took that and gave it away for anyone and everyone to copy, no work of their own involved. I’d be upset too if someone did that to me.

@Background Pony #CD82
Big “I paid my student loans through hard work and frugal living, why should kids now get their debt forgiven?” energy.

Personally, I’d be chuffed that something I worked on hard is now helping other people be happier.

That’s not what it is at all.


@The Smiling Pony

I have no objection to making people happier. But if it is going to come from my effort and work, it should also be mine to give, not someone else’s to take.

Yep. The pony SDXL model, which has now become the most successful 2d/anime/cartoon SDXL model ever with over 130,000 users, did so on the back of using a visual assistant to completely retag its data set. The next version is tentatively targeting a 4x growth in its dataset. Cleaning up datasets and developing solid tagging practices is clearly the way to go. People didn’t even believe good SDXL models were possible until Pony showed the way.

@Background Pony #CD82
tbh it was mostly a joke. Mostly.

I understand very well the fear that mass AI production will have an economic impact on artists, same as every other form of automation has had in the past. And I understand that people feel there’s a lack of “soul” or human touch to AI stuff that dilutes the value of “real art”. And also that a lot of people pushing out AI stuff are… not very discerning (to put it mildly) and just bloat the space with trash.

But the reason I got into making art was to create things for other people to use (and enjoy) for free, the reason I kept with this site was to provide a service for others to enjoy art. So the one aspect you raised as upsetting is one I just don’t get. The idea that something I made wasn’t just enjoyed in itself, but ends up affecting how future things are made is honestly kind of nice…

@-Craft-
I was pretty surprised some months back when I saw how popular PonyXL had become for very non-pony/furry content…

@The Smiling Pony
I didn’t give anyone permission to use my stuff to create this tech. I don’t care how happy you feel to have whatever you’ve made be part of that. When it comes to how artists feel about AI, you are in the tiny minority.

@Parallel Black
That’s the thing about fair use, you don’t need to give people your permission. People really need to stop thinking they have some god-given right to control every aspect of stuff they make and post publicly on the internet. That is not how things work and has never been how things work. Services like Google would never exist if they couldn’t aggregate large amounts of “copyrighted” data for the purpose of providing a service (e.g. being able to search by text or image across the entire internet).

If the world you wanna live in though makes it so nothing good can exist because everyone is tied up in licensing debates and meaningless arguments about ownership then shrug, glad we’re not in that world. We already live in suboptimal information hell since things like DMCA /are/ a thing albeit not all-powerful thanks to exceptions like fair use. Really information is intended to be free as it is not something you can own, and other fields recognize the benefits of this sort of philosophy. In software development for instance open sourcing stuff with a permissive license is the norm until you get into corporate hell land as people recognize that everyone building off of eachother’s work and learning from it is far more useful than trying to restrict who can use something.

@LemonDrop
How is the world of coding comparable to the world of art? You don’t gain inspiration from a page of code and then create your own thing based on that, you note down the methods used and then adapt that code to your own project to make it function or make it more efficient. Compared to that, we don’t take someone’s picture without consent and then trace over it to create a better picture, we take a glance at it and then draw our own version of the same idea, from the ground up. Copying and then adapting code has been the norm in the coding world for ages now, whereas tracing is still seen as a bad thing to this day.

Also, a programmer posts their code online for the explicit purpose of helping less skilled programmers, but I don’t post my artwork to serve as tutorials—that would technically count as a misuse of my art, but it’s not like anyone would ever throw a fit over something like that; it’s only if someone directly traced over it or made some kind of unwanted edit that that sort of use becomes objectionable.

An artist’s creations are not automatically open-source just because you think they should be, and a company, even a shitty one, still has the right to keep their code to themselves. Just because some hacker posts a half-finished game online for everyone to download, that does not mean the gaming company does not own that game, just like how when I post art on this site, that does not mean I do not own it.

Derpi can “use” my art for its own purposes, such as displaying it on things like the 3-day top scoring or featured box, or inside of a user’s watch feed. Users can “use” my art by sorting into galleries or linking to and from it during discussion. None of that implies they or the site own it. A gaming company has every right to be angry when a leak happens. I see zero reason why the misuse of someone’s creations shouldn’t warrant the same response.