Original art x A.I retouched art: an honest discussion

[desmosome]

Do you really intend to switch the topic every time you answer ?

The question is not how they are trained, but what database(s), among the hundred that exist, they are using to be trained. And the problem is not the AI, nor their training, but some among the major databases, that aren't free and don't care about copyright and privacy.

To this must be added the concerns regarding some other databases, like Amazon's ones by example. When you know that, asking for their data, individuals can receive private conversations (that legally shouldn't even have been recorded) from others people than them, you have reasons to wonder how many of the conversations you had in from of your Alexa are among the tons of audio data offered, either publicly or commercially, for AI training.
And, no, the problem is not that AIs are using your rants against your stupid boss to learn, but that they have the possibility to do it, and that globally peoples don't care because "it's just some AIs".
Do you really believe that it's innocently that companies like Amazon, who own among the most important databases for AI training, are slowly but surely invading your privacy ? In a lot of US counties/towns, Amazon is sharing ring footage with the police force, do you really believe that AIs are not training by looking at your daughter being fingered goodbye by her date of the night ? The single fact that those footage exist is a problem, and now that you can subscribe to "in house delivery" they also have a camera inside your home...

As you said, AIs have the right to mine data because it's not different to what humans are doing... And next thing you'll know, humans will have the right to mine private data, because it's not different to what AIs are doing.
Not because the law is reversible, but because databases are not automatically processed. There's humans that hear the audios, watch the videos, read the texts, in order to describe them. It's only after that mandatory step that the data are added to the database, and that, days or years, later an AI will train, watching a video it will know as featuring a teenage girl being fingered late at night, and processing it accordingly.
And since those humans have the right to do so, why other humans wouldn't have it ?


I also note that you didn't cared to address the opposite problem raised by the use of AIs.
The fact that there's a big hole regarding who own the property over AI generated content is far to be insignificant, especially in the adult gaming scene. If it's not your property, then it's either in public domain and anyone can use it or, worse it happen to be the property of the AI and its creators/owner(s). Then, at anytime they can decide that you have to stop your game and remove all existing copy ; like they can decide to ask for royalties.

Woah... way to go there. I didn't switch topics. I directly addressed your statement that there are other AIs, which I interpreted to mean other art AIs. You know, since we are trying to stay on topic and all. It was you that quoted one line out of my post multiple times now and went on some tangent. This last one about Alexa and Ring being especially rich since it directly follows your accusation that I was changing topics.

And if I were to continue the conversation that you drove into a tangent?

Web crawlers that indexes publicly available content that anyone can access is different than companies using private and sensitive information like candid videos and voice recordings that the users never intended to release to the public. And this is getting into privacy concerns which is switching topics from the copyright debate that was the focus of the discussion about art AI repositories.

 

[ZephyrCloack]

OP just do whatever you want to do, if by now you aren't aware of the perks of actually creating something original you might want to learn a bit more on licensing and patents and all that related stuff.
I could even mention the shit-storm that happened with "Breeding Season".
Also this forum users might go strong on piracy, yet it also intends to be a place where devs can/may share with future devs tips while the community tests these projects in their alpha/beta status which in itself sometimes can be a bad experience to say the least.
While some users in their machines never experience issues others do, be it thanks to just being in a different machine, a better trained eye or a more experienced user, regardless bugs can be found and reported or perhaps they might know a solution on how to prevent a certain glitch from happening.
(though this might not be the best environment since devs and users intermingle this is the forum intention while we crack shit up and make/share mods)

Having in mind the original query those are two distinct art-styles and the enhance isn't an enhance when it changed the images into something other than the intended content to be enhanced.

In the original art, there aren't structural mistakes, sure there is room for improvement still there isn't an unintended three legged lizard on those, so besides a arguably better line work and shading i don't see any issues with that art-style.

In the AI "enhance" some images lost their original concept and more than 1 or 2 pertinent details were altered.
Even in the best examples which are the Goth girl and the Bimbo blond there are more than 1 detail that were altered.

Let's not go into retouching cause the OG art can be retouched as well, yet there seems to be no intention to do so, unless it's in favor of AI-art. (something you could provide in a separate dlc just a thought)

Spoiler: Now this ain't a discussion that belongs here.

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.