Ai generated content and ethics

[Nobody Cares]

True, AI allows to automate a lot of tedius work that most artist would do, but not enjoy. Should my project ever gather enough traction, I would commission the characters to my artist and try to make the backgrounds myself with AI and my very limited photoshop skills.

 

[Axyal]

Btw good luck with your project!

And, one thing, maybe, you can use, for example that girl, and then try to fix/correct the error done by the AI?
What do you think?
anyway it would be a lot of work, and even if you "repair" for put it as main "art" it's dangerous !

But if you are skilled to repair/hide/fix, why not?
I think there's a lot of possibilities and it's up to you

Good luckl!

 

[Nobody Cares]

I'm a terrible visual artist, but I can perhaps make a siluette of her and come up with a creative solution. We'll see how it goes.

 

[Queen.77]

I'm someone who initially hated ai art but is slowly just being ok with it. Personally I think you should go for it. Obviously, it would be very nice if you did commission an artist but like you said that artist isnt available... and I think its a bit unfair to ask you to willingly handicap yourself when a good alternative is right there.

Can I ask you why you've become more accepting of AI? I just want to see another perspective.

For me, AI generated content isn't acceptable because there are undoubtedly many artists and creators who have had their work stolen and used to help further the algorithms that power AI content generation.

 

[Nobody Cares]

I'll offer my prospective on a related, albeit not identical matter. Ai translators have become really really good, they have replaced a lot of the ordinary work of professional translators and even interpreters. I used to do a lot of freelancing to earn some extra cash and now it's gone. I still need to translate complex texts every now and then and, I admit, using an A.I. authomated a lot of my work, allowing me to do in a few minutes what used to take me several hours.
I believe it could be the same for artists, one day, when it has been properly regulated.

 

[Sleepyguylol]

Can I ask you why you've become more accepting of AI? I just want to see another perspective.

For me, AI generated content isn't acceptable because there are undoubtedly many artists and creators who have had their work stolen and used to help further the algorithms that power AI content generation.

Oh sure. So to TDLR all this, I'm accepting of small time creators using AI to enhance work that they themselves made... I also don't like AI art for the same reason as you do. I'm really not a fan(and never will be) of the fact that artist's works were used to power something that will likely put a lot of them out of work. That animosity is more directed towards the billion dollar companies behind SD/midjourney/etc, who absolutely could've put out a more ethically made model by using copyright free art/working with artists. But when it comes to small time creators who are using it to create games/art for their books/etc, I at least accept it because they're using these as tools to enhance something they themselves created(Unless its all ai generated... then fuck em lol). Now while I do think there should be SOME level of gatekeeping(to keep out the bottom of the barrel stuff), I dont know if its fair to say that people should shell out tons of cash or spend a significant portion of their time learning how to draw/model... especially when theres a free alternative. Currently I'm trying to make a VN and fuck me I spent way too much money getting daz stuff. And having spent some time trying out SD... theres at least some bit of finessing needed to get what you want(although as time goes on that work is getting lessened). Theres probably more I could say on this topic but I'm tired and hopefully what I said is at least coherent and relevant.

 

[Zoonpetist]

In today's day and age, AI has its potential for both good and evil. For the game community, it's worth mentioning that you can use AI for making games and mods. It would be cool if you can use it for vocal translations too.

Here are a few AI programs that you can use for making new vocals, note that most tools are paid:

• You must be registered to see the links
  - technically free to use program, you can even upload voices in Voice Universe (account required). Also useful as a voice changer. Can be regarded as deepfake. Cons are that you might require more accounts or money to train multiple voices. Overall, the voices can be good at certain sentences, therefore quality control is strongly recommended.
• You must be registered to see the links
  - another voice editor. Has a demo version, but if you want to use it for making custom voices, you will need to pay money depending on how long the voices/audio files are. Also has a pro version, which is subscription based.
• You must be registered to see the links
• You must be registered to see the links

Note that the listed tools are not all, as there are more deepfake voice AI tools that you can find. The focus f95 should put for this is translation.

Hopefully the information given will be used to make mods and translations for hentai content we like to hear.

 

[DuniX]

It's at least as ethical as using random porn stars, image packs and Koikatsu for games.

Those who want to use it, will use it, those who endlessly debate on ethics, won't.
It's more of a legal gray area since you are decentralizing who you are stealing from. Can't sue me if they can't prove who is the victim.

The problem with it is Steam is probably going to ban it anyway and I am not sure for how long those AI Sites are going to last as they are getting politically and legally hammered right now, since from my understanding it's not something you can do own your own Computer, at least not with that level of quality.

 

[GranTurboAutismo]

Relevant

You must be registered to see the links

 

[Nobody Cares]

Relevant

You must be registered to see the links

Well this has taken an unexpected turn.

 

[Xill]

I agree. I don't think it will ever truly replace an actual artist, much like a text generator can hardly replace a real writer. Still, its a lot better than what I would accomplish on my own, I believe with a bit of photoshopping it would get the job done.
Question is, should I?

Did you come to this conclusion only after seeing what it can do in the span of a single year? You haven't seen anything yet.

This technology isn't even in its infancy stage yet.

 

[Nobody Cares]

Did you come to this conclusion only after seeing what it can do in the span of a single year? You haven't seen anything yet.

This technology isn't even in its infancy stage yet.

True, but I am releasing my game shortly and I need a cover in relatively short time^^

 

[lemonfreak]

I'm an impatient talent-less hack with a broad imagination and an itchy trigger finger so naturally I love AI. With a better understanding of how it works paired with patience and inpainting it's used for phenomenal pieces. Saying it's unethical to use is to me like saying you won't use your car because there are hard working delivery drivers out there trying to earn a living. Sure you could, but if you already own a car and the cost in comparable or better than the holdup is a matter of what you think you owe a driver, or is this case, an artist, that you dont think you'd appreciate yourself.

Hope that helps and good luck!

My preffered argument comes from music. I play guitar. When I play a G chord (E3, A2. e3) I tend to add a B3 as one of the first songs I learnt to play was Wonderwall and that is what Noel plays in that song

Am I stealing from Oasis if I write a song using that that version of the G chord? No and similarly I'm not stealing from them if I write a song using Em7 (A2D2B3e3), G (E3A2B3e3), Dsus4 (G2B3e3) and Cadd9 (A3D2B3e3)

There is however a line that can be crossed as illustrated here

 

[Nobody Cares]

My preffered argument comes from music. I play guitar. When I play a G chord (E3, A2. e3) I tend to add a B3 as one of the first songs I learnt to play was Wonderwall and that is what Noel plays in that song

Am I stealing from Oasis if I write a song using that that version of the G chord? No and similarly I'm not stealing from them if I write a song using Em7 (A2D2B3e3), G (E3A2B3e3), Dsus4 (G2B3e3) and Cadd9 (A3D2B3e3)

There is however a line that can be crossed as illustrated here

I suppose not, but if you fed all Oasis songs to an AI so that it may compose and play a Oasislike song on the fly, then selling a this service online without ever giving Oasis a single dyme?

 

[anne O'nymous]

With a better understanding of how it works paired with patience and inpainting it's used for phenomenal pieces.

Are you saying that you know better than those who create those AIs ? Because them don't understand how they works. They aren't named black boxes without reasons.

Saying it's unethical to use is to me like saying you won't use your car because there are hard working delivery drivers out there trying to earn a living.

It's not why it's unethical. To keep your comparison, an AI would be you traveling by jumping from the back seat of a delivery drivers to the back seat of another one, until you reach your destination. And of course this for free.

Am I stealing from Oasis if I write a song using that that version of the G chord? No and similarly I'm not stealing from them if I write a song using Em7 (A2D2B3e3), G (E3A2B3e3), Dsus4 (G2B3e3) and Cadd9 (A3D2B3e3)

Once again it's not what AIs are doing. In your example, an AI would be someone who don't know shit about music, and who would study all Oasis songs in order to find their similarities. Then for each chord he would put the one that come the most often at this particular instant. If most songs starts by G, his song will starts with G. If most G in the first 10 seconds are followed by Cadd9, he will put Cadd9 after it. And so on until he reach the average length of their songs.
It would be something unique, but in the same time pure plagiarism. And like an AI isn't Picasso, difficult to say that it's in fact a tribute.

Is it stealing ? Not explicitly, but it's still ethically questionable.
When Milli Vanilli were uncovered, it was seen as a scandal, even if in fact they've been forced to do so and could have perfectly be the singers. Why should it be otherwise if all the songs you supposedly composed are just an arranged carbon copy of Oasis ones, especially if you (in my example) wouldn't be able to do it by yourself ?

 

[Bimer1]

If you still want to give AI a shot, I can gladly paint over the AI generated picture, to remove some inconsistencies.

 

[MissFortune]

Did you come to this conclusion only after seeing what it can do in the span of a single year? You haven't seen anything yet.

This technology isn't even in its infancy stage yet.

And have you seen how many lawsuits have popped up over the span of a month? That's just the beginning.

 

[Bimer1]

And have you seen how many lawsuits have popped up over the span of a month? That's just the beginning.

This wont stop technology and progression. Even if it gets banned in one country, in another its not. The images can already be indistinguishable from human only created art, so how do you even know, if someone used AI, unless the person who used it, says so?
The genie is out of the bottle, and no matter how many lawsuits and bans, you cannot put it back. You better adapt as fast as possible, or get left behind, like the horse, which initially powered the industrial revolution, before its made irrelevant by the machines, that were invented.

 

[MissFortune]

This wont stop technology and progression. Even if it gets banned in one country, in another its not.

Never said it would. But have you ever heard the saying, "When America sneezes, the world catches the cold" or something of that nature? Exactly. China's already requiring watermarks on all AI generated art. Most of Asia follows America's own copyright laws. Europe is basically going to copy anything the US does. Russia is basically non-existent in the US currently (via nearly all monetary support platforms).

That's why those lawsuits are important. Could change the entire landscape of AI, even if pro-AI users want to refuse that idea.

The images can already be indistinguishable from human only created art, so how do you even know, if someone used AI, unless the person who used it, says so?

Anyone who says AI art is indistinguishable from human art is full of it. The difference is clear as day. As for 'knowing', there's just as many people working on AI tracking software as there are generators, as one gets better, so does the other.

Datasets. All the stuff being illegally scraped (from kiddy porn to medical documents to copyrighted artwork) from the internet. It's all being stored somewhere, and most of them are pretty easy to track down. What do you think happens when all of the websites that art is being stolen from (Artstation, Pintrest, DA, etc.) start blocking them or when the artists start opting out? It starts running out of training material really quick. That's the hilarious part about pro-AI snobs. They talk about how great it is, but refuse to acknowledge how quickly it falls apart without all of the stolen artwork it's using.

The genie is out of its lamp, and no matter how many lawsuits and bans, you cannot put it back.

What genie? It's no secret how AI generators work. Take away it's training sources and they can't do much. I mean, have you seen the stuff done with public domain-based datasets? Stuff is A1 dogshit.

You better adapt as fast as possible, or get left behind, like the horse, which initially powered the industrial revolution, before its made irrelevant by the machines, that were invented.

This is such a lazy bullet point that people just love to harp on. We're going to completely disregard ethical boundaries, plagiarism, copyright infringement, and a laundry list of other shit for "eVoLuTiOn!!11!!1!". That's like me saying 'it's just another fad for lazy, talentless scrubs to use as a crutch to make a quick buck from.'. But that's not true, either.

It's another tool for people accent their work. Just like Photoshop. But it's a dead-end, legally and artistically, until the artist's being stolen from are correctly and rightfully compensated for their work.

 

[Bimer1]

Anyone who says AI art is indistinguishable from human art is full of it. The difference is clear as day. As for 'knowing', there's just as many people working on AI tracking software as there are generators, as one gets better, so does the other.

Anyone saying the opposite is full of it. There are already incidents, where human art gets disapproved of, because it looks to much like an AI did it.

Edit: Also, we wouldnt have this conversation, if AI is nowhere near the level of human art. Its only a problem for alot of people, when its gets so sophisticated, that it potentially makes the job of a lot of shortsighted and stubborn people obsolete.

Datasets. All the stuff being illegally scraped (from kiddy porn to medical documents to copyrighted artwork) from the internet. It's all being stored somewhere, and most of them are pretty easy to track down. What do you think happens when all of the websites that art is being stolen from (Artstation, Pintrest, DA, etc.) start blocking them or when the artists start opting out? It starts running out of training material really quick. That's the hilarious part about pro-AI snobs. They talk about how great it is, but refuse to acknowledge how quickly it falls apart without all of the stolen artwork it's using.

What genie? It's no secret how AI generators work. Take away it's training sources and they can't do much. I mean, have you seen the stuff done with public domain-based datasets? Stuff is A1 dogshit.

This is such a lazy argument. We're going to completely disregard ethical boundaries, plagiarism, copyright infringement, and a laundry list of other shit for "eVoLuTiOn!!11!!1!". That's like me saying 'it's just another fad for lazy, talentless scrubs to use as a crutch to make a quick buck from.'. But that's not true, either.

It's another tool for people accent their work. Just like Photoshop. But it's a dead-end, legally and artistically, until the artist's being stolen from are correctly and rightfully compensated for their work.

That's pretty much saying, every artist, that learned from another by copying and studying another artist work (thats pretty much everyone), should be responsible in the same way. You can change "AI" in your sentences with "human" and it would be pretty much the same, because all what we humans do is to copy (and in some cases improve) on what other humans do or did before. You take away all the training sources from a human, and we will be back to cave paintings from 50.000 years ago.

The only difference between the human and the AI here is, that the AI can do it much much faster with much much more data.