Look at the end of the day, this is just a back and forth. I don't care. As far as I am concerned you're wrong. I also noticed you conveniently side-stepped your hypocrisy in being a pirate (I don't for a second believe you've paid in anyway for the games here you've downloaded).
Q1: If the majority of farmers now buy the tractors because they're good enough and a lot cheaper, the farm worker, whose work the tractors are based on will not make that money. Do you think they'll continue working on the farm when that will not earn them money and they have rent to pay?
I didn't sidestep it, I ignored it because it was too stupid to even deserve a reply.
Your argument boils down to: "You are on F95 where some things happen that aren't legal or are questionable, thus you are the same as someone that deliberately uses other people's works to make money off them."
Fare thee well, I notice you chose to leave when I made a very clear parapgraph based argument. Whatever could that mean?
Hello my intrepid friend!
Its an anology. People generally use them to avoid typing walls of text. You dont seem to have a problem with that though.
It's a flawed analogy, though. There is a difference between a technique used to produce a good and techniques used to produce art. In this case, it's not even a technique to produce a good, but designs to create a machine to help you.
Its not copying the code though. Its looking at the code and learning from it. And every company will do that, whatever information is out there can be learned from. Whoever puts information out that has NO RIGHTS in regards to my learning from it.It's a flawed analogy, though. There is a difference between a technique used to produce a good and techniques used to produce art. In this case, it's not even a technique to produce a good, but designs to create a machine to help you.
This becomes painfully obvious if we translate this back into AI art:
Do you believe that someone has the right to simply take the code that is used to train AI art from the coders?
'Cause that's the case you're talking about. (The AI process being the tractor, the machine allowing you to do what you cannot do yourself.)
It falls apart further when you look at actual history.
The farmer doesn't just look at the other farmer doing the farming and bang, can do it too. In fact, they couldn't replicate what one farmer did with a tractor because they couldn't invent a tractor on their own after seeing it.
Now, granted, they could maybe sneak into the other farmer's house and steal the blueprints, or sneak onto his grounds and study the tractor in detail. Both are illegal, though.
In fact - this may come as a surprise to you - but if you studied a tractor and rebuild it based on those studies, you'd get sued.
Tractors, as it so happens, have their designs protected. You'll have to come up with your own way of designing & building a tractor. If you just steal the blueprint, you'll end up in prison.
There's a reason why farmers drive John Deere and others instead of everyone building their own tractor.
So...how did I know that your analogy is so flawed at just a glance, you may wonder?
It's because there's a reason you chose to invent your own analogy instead of making the case on the actual example I gave you.
An example, that, as it happens, remains entirely ignored by you - as if you couldn't make your case in it. (Whereas I can make my case in your example, flawed as it may be)
Gotta love logic.
Ah, so we finally leave the tractors behind? Good good, I don't begrudge you your tractors but the topic is something different, after all.
Wow, not a bad argument my friend. It's actually aimed at the topic we're speaking about, and it actually encompasses the logic you're following - the comparison between the process of an artist learning & applying this knowledge and a machine learning & applying this knowledge. Kudos to you!
No. There is no difference between a person learning and a machine learning. Laws cannot be constructed that would make such a distinction. Tools are tools. Laws only deal with humans. It would also be unenforceable as you would have to prove a person created something or a machine created something. Also you couldn't define anything concretely. Using stable diffusion and writing down your thoughts on a piece of paper are the same thing in principle.Ah, so we finally leave the tractors behind? Good good, I don't begrudge you your tractors but the topic is something different, after all.
Now your argument is a bit threadbare and vague, more like just an opinion shouted in the void...
But no matter! We'll pretend you made a fully valid argument.
The one you could've done from the start and you didn't have to veil behind any analogy:
(We'll pretend this is your argument.)
Wow, not a bad argument my friend. It's actually aimed at the topic we're speaking about, and it actually encompasses the logic you're following - the comparison between the process of an artist learning & applying this knowledge and a machine learning & applying this knowledge. Kudos to you!
The answer's still no though.
That's because there are fundamental differences between those two things.
1. The AI is not you.
This is pretty obvious. But it also means that you, the person benefitting from the product, selling it, making money, etc. is not the person that did the learning. You didn't do the work. You didn't learn a thing. So why would you get to do anything with work you didn't do?
You didn't study anything, you didn't process techniques or gain insights, you didn't apply them craftily or creatively in new ways, you didn't even produce the result. The AI did - not you the guy making the money.
An artist does work. They study the techniques of artists, often for years. They have to come up with ways to apply the insights gained - often in new ways that create new techniques. And then they have to skillfully apply them with the craft they honed over years in many and many hours of work. Their labor, their fruits.
Your labor...does not yield fruits.
2. Studying & observing is a skill.
Every artist knows that. You can look at a painting and see what's there, but you don't understand why. Or how the effect was created. To what purpose.
Artists spend a lot of time trying to hone their perception, to understand the relationship between things.
When an artist learns new skills, it is their work, too. The result of a lifetime of honing their perception and looking for meaning and understanding - from composition to technical skill.
You...don't do any of that. A generator does - in some fashion - do that for you. But neither you nor the generator are actually really learning anything.
If either of you is asked: Why did you draw it this way?
The artist can answer.
You and the AI? Answer only in silence.
3. Learning & improving is a process that involves creativity.
The artist is not merely exploring someone elses work, but is also attempting to improve through a confrontation with the question of what art is and how it works. An AI does not. There is no foundation of "self-experience", of the AI learning to draw on its own. It merely siphons off of the work of others, it does not mingle it with its own inventions & practices. The AI cannot do what hasn't been done before, because it does not know how.
An artist, on the other hand, always looks for the creative application of old techniques in new ways to create something fresh and new.
4. Art uses human existance as basis.
The lived reality. A human draws on their own experience and uses it as the lens that materializes their work. Their art is based on their own interpretation of that experience. An AI does not base any of its work on their own interpretation of their existence. An AI does not start drawing and then chooses to study & learn from other people's work. It only takes patterns from other people's work because it has nothing to start with. They simply create a distorted reflection of other people's interpretation of their existence through the shallow copy they create. Not their own.
Thus every artist, in their work, even if technically similar to someone elses, incorporates themselves as a quality to the work.
An AI cannot incorporate itself in the work. It does not know how. It can only mimic others.
5. A human's art is independent in its existence.
Brush, canvas, photoshop. Whatever. They can sit down and do art. You can't. And neither can the AI.
If there was no basis that the AI can train on, then there's nothing you or the AI could do.
In fact, if all artists would stop doing art tomorrow, and all we have is AI art being generated, then art would stagnate. There would be no new inventions, no new styles or techniques, nothing new creative being done. Because neither you nor the AI is doing something creative, nor are you drawing on your skills. You're siphoning off others work. And if they stop working? All you can do is repeat the stuff you've stolen. You can't make anything new of your own.
An artists art exists because the artist exists and wishes to do art.
Your AI art exists because other people make art, which makes up for your inability to do so.
Conclusion:
Studying the art of others over thousands of hours and incorporating them partially in your own or drawing on it
for inspiration in experimenting & inventing new combinations is not the same as pressing the button on
a generator.
What staggering surprise! Who would've thought?!
I hope that shows you a few of the small differences between an artist learning & applying the learned art in new art, and an AI art "learning" how to mimic other people's art.
You didn't refute a single point I made. Instead you took points I already refuted earlier? What kind of a plan is that?
Yes they can. In fact, they not only can, but will have to, because unless they find a way, AI art cannot be copyright protected.
Are you, in a forum where literally everyone can tell AI art by sight, literally claiming people wouldn't be able to tell someone created something via AI art?
Please for the mother of god and all that is holy in the world, stop trying to use comparisons or analogies.
That awfully reads like: the water should be so muddled, all the artists I rip off should have a hard way to find out I did it?
You just sound angry because I'm confronting you with simple counter arguments you cannot refute. You just keep angrily saying how I must be wrong, you must be right, and then you go and try to do the whole name calling in the hopes I'll start that stuff to.
Nope.
I totally agree. You're clearly a master in copy/paste rules you believe are enough to rule the case out... And as I sourced an article about this in another post in this topic which clearly shows that the reality for all of you is "nobody knows how it would be ruled in court"
oh yes very sensible instead of using existing copyright laws lets do a bunch of insane shit because of your feelings.You didn't refute a single point I made. Instead you took points I already refuted earlier? What kind of a plan is that?
Yes they can. In fact, they not only can, but will have to, because unless they find a way, AI art cannot be copyright protected.
That means that there is no situation where you can use it without giving free leave to someone else just using your work.
Companies won't like not being able to use AI art due to no copyright protection. So they'll want to have that. Thus a legal way has to be found.
Copied:
View attachment 2578313
Of course laws can be made around what processes are used to create something and how they're to be used responsible and legally. What do you think all the regulations are?
And the idea of "laws existing only between people" is actually self-destructive for you.
From the point of view of a law that only respects people, it would ask:
How much work did person x do and what right should they hold of their work as a result?
And then they'd look at you and ask the same question.
And you're like "I didn't do anything but press this button but the AI did..."
They don't care what they AI did. They care about what you did.
And you? Just pressed a button.
Set and Match.
Are you, in a forum where literally everyone can tell AI art by sight, literally claiming people wouldn't be able to tell someone created something via AI art?
That's like saying: No one will ever discover that I took these images from someone else from the internet. It's not like someone will create some algorithm that can reverse search images...wait?!
Yeah. Your argument literally is: AI art is so amazing and no one will ever be able to tell I secretly did it...except for all the people that can spot it by eye and everyone who'll use an AI art generation detector AI that analyzes the structure of an image for AI generation.
Please for the mother of god and all that is holy in the world, stop trying to use comparisons or analogies.
It's just...not your thing.
That awfully reads like: the water should be so muddled, all the artists I rip off should have a hard way to find out I did it?
That's...not exactly a very good or reasonable or world consistent "way", as you put it.
And your "way" ignores reality and the thing called companies, who will want to put a stop to people using their assets in AI asset generation.
Copied:
View attachment 2578327
You just sound angry because I'm confronting you with simple counter arguments you cannot refute. You just keep angrily saying how I must be wrong, you must be right, and then you go and try to do the whole name calling in the hopes I'll start that stuff to.
But I won't.
You're my best friend.
My evening amusement.
Nope.
In fact, that's one of the ways I see it likely to be implemented. Artists doing partial patterns, having the AI trained on them, then repeat them. Like using stamps in photoshop, except intelligently.
It's probable that we'll see stuff like auto gradients, color corrections, light & shadow overlays, color highlights, as part of new tools for artists.
Production wise there will probably be ways for artists to use key images to generate in-between animation frames for their images, making animation easier, or using AI processes to generate changes of poses based on existing images. (Transferring clothing from character A to B, slightly turning a character, changing the character pose & recalculating how the clothing would hang, etc. etc.)
There's probably a lot of exciting tools in the future. It might get intregrated into existing software like photoshop - or find its way into entirely new programs.
The only thing that's morally wrong is if you're literally not putting in any real work yourself and you're just clicking a button while benefitting of other people's work.
Honestly I don't care about morality, so these last few pages of discussion are irrelevant to me.
Her art looks nothing like nintendo characters... You sound like those people that say "every anime character looks the same to me".
Not even sure what I'm supposed to reply to that vitriol?
Are you for real?
That's pretty much how I see it playing out too, in a sort of best-case scenario. Custom-tuned AI programs that assist in various pipelines, typically focusing on the more mundane and tedious aspects like, as you say, inbetweens or small tweaks.
Yeah, I think with how things have played out so far, strict output from a generative model will remain un-copyrightable. There needs to be some level of human involvement, but how much is a question that will probably be answered in court long before any actual legislation gets passed. In the US, at least.
Because you probably don't browse enough art to even notice the differences in artstyle, especially if your goto example is "nintendo".
Again I don't care about morality, I just care about what can do the job without looking like you created a game with stolen assets (inconsistent artwork all around that makes it look like you are playing different games every time a new character shows up or changes position).
Ok. I don't browse enough but you browse and you know ... YOU ARE THE EXPERT
I was talking about her artwork style not the characters... Just because she drew one image with nintendo character doesn't mean she copied the lines from other EXISTING images... If she did, then it wouldn't be her artwork anymore.
Come on her drawing is sharing a lot of the style you find in the originals. And not only that but she uses brand protected material.Nintendo's characters are protected. And if you think that you were smart by saying that nintendo wasn't the artist... Of course, it's a company... Disney sued China for their version "Autobots" who looks similar to "Cars"... But Disney is not the artist...
