I'm not going to say much because of my heavy bias I just want to hear from the community.

I think AI art is nice. Nobody can really stop a person of a machine from taking the art you make on the internet. We should respect an artist's wish.
But those wishes are more of a suggestion if anything else.
There's nobody to stop a user from yoinking a person's artstyle if the user decided to study it for a few months. AI Art just does that process faster.

And it's not really stealing the art, it's using it as inspiration to create work in a similar artstyle that the user has. You can't really "copy an artstyle" since nobody really OWNS an artstyle.
Nobody can stop ya from copying Don Bleuths artstyle 1:1.
In the end it's the art YOU made.

AI Art just does the same thing any other artist does which they deny doing. It takes others people's art as
inspiration and turns it into something new. You build up a profile full of references and spit out an amalgamation.

It happens all the time in commissions. A robot just does an artist's job faster and they're scared of that. Thinking it's gonna take their job or something.
But that's never going to happen. AI needs artists to use as a reference base. without the artist, there can be no AI.

Just the same as a commissioner used references made by other artists to show the artist they commissioned exactly what they're looking for but in their artstyle.
A Commissioner may as well be the AI themself. When you show your reference to the artist you commission, you're the AI.

Yeah, I don't think it's a big deal, humans are scared of new things. You cannot stop innovation.
New things must constantly be created to advance the human race & to make BEING HUMAN easier for all of us.
Trust, it only gets better from here. AI improves constantly.
_________________________________________________________________

At the end of the day, artists are always prefered. AI art can only do so much, for now.
You can always support the artist. Becuase their art is REAL!
post #2774070

Current AI art generally looks fairly generic to me. Generally competent, more or less, but not particularly exciting. (If you know how the models work, that's not particularly surprising.)

I don't think AI art is going to destroy "real" art, any more than photography destroyed painting.

closetpossum said:
... A robot just does an artist's job faster and they're scared of that. Thinking it's gonna take their job or something.
But that's never going to happen. AI needs artists to use as a reference base. without the artist, there can be no AI. ...

People who think AI isn't going to take real artists' jobs are crazy. It won't take every job away, there will always be a place for real artists, freelance artists will always be around for people who want the personalised touch or want to hire a real person - but major corporations would be absolutely stupid to not utilize AI instead of hiring actual people because the savings would be fucking crazy.

Why hire an entire team of concept artists for between $56,000 to $100,000 each per year (average in the US) when you can just type "scary video game monster" into an AI prompt and just re-generate it a few times until you find something you like? And line your pockets with higher dividends while you're at it?

People called me crazy when I said assembly lines would be fully automated or outsourced, people called me crazy when I said stores will have more self-service checkouts than cashiers and I don't think I'll be wrong again. Profit is more important than anything. Humans don't matter.

---

Also, we already have thousands of years of art created by humans to "use as a reference base" - all artists could disappear off the face of the Earth tomorrow and that would not stop the advancement of AI art.

I'll only be able to enjoy AI art as real art once the machines are able to feel existential dread.

As long as they are separated on ai-specific websites I will enjoy them, in case sometimes I only want to see human made arts

I dont think AI art will replace freelance artists. But it gets annoying when art sites allows them and gets spammed by it and their entitled users.

I don't like it.

I don't care for it.

Generally, it looks very bland and soulless at best, at worst, it's uncanny and ugly. It's always disappointing to see an image that looks interesting at a glance, or in a thumbnail, and find out it's AI generated, start noticing more and more of the flaws, and know that anything appealing about it is an accident of the algorithm mashing together pixels based off of a slurry of stolen artwork.

The best that can be done with AI generated images, in my opinion, is to use it to inspire art, or maybe for the basis of backgrounds, or for doing something interesting by editing or making a collage out of AI generated elements. If useful for anything, it should be used as an optional tool in the creation of art, not as a way to replace it.

Characters with "default" expressions in boring poses in scenes with boring compositions and most of them look like a crappy photobash

Burn it with fire, rebuild it and burn it again with liquid napalm

Support Artists, hell you can get stuff as cheap as like $10 if you want to be cheap just requires you to look around and advertise you're looking

thesisyphus said:
I'm not going to say much because of my heavy bias I just want to hear from the community.

its totally fine, honestly.

I may also add that it's a pretty entertaing way to pass the time when you're bored and inspires new OCs to potentionally create.
Playing around with art AIs is like playing around with constant variables that peaks a person's curiousity.

"If I do THIS, when what will it look like? If I add THAT then what will it be next?" You can spend hours playing around with it.
Which in itself is almost like playing a videogame.

Pretty much every possible criticism one could levy towards AI image generation is something that already happens with machine translation, but translators have been dealing with this stuff for decades, and caring strongly about translations is pretty solidly in "weird nerd" territory.

lafcadio said:
Pretty much every possible criticism one could levy towards AI image generation is something that already happens with machine translation, but translators have been dealing with this stuff for decades, and caring strongly about translations is pretty solidly in "weird nerd" territory.

people who do scanlations and stuff with just raw machine translation without even trying to redo the wording to be even vaguely parsable are history's greatest monsters.

The way generative AI works is that it is trained to form correlations between visual patterns and strings of text. Note that this is the only information it has access to and understands. Unlike a human artist, current AI does not have a unique perspective, life experiences, or an understanding of the real world beyond the canvas. Everything that generative AI outputs is a simple regurgitation of the work and perspectives of human artists.

I’m gonna use two cliches as metaphors to illustrate what I mean: a picture is worth a thousand words, and you get out what you put in. When all you put in is a sentence, all the extra detail has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is human artists. The AI just mechanically assembles it for you based on what perspectives and interpretations are most represented in its data set. And, despite the misconception, popularity is not a good substitute for situational relevance.

A human artist always inserts their own perspective, experience, and understanding into their art, whether they intend to or not, leading to work that can be examined and appreciated. On the other hand, AI is literally incapable of any of that, and what it produces offers about as much insight as random numbers. All that while also considering that AI companies are making profit off of AI art, is why I think it’s mostly a parasite of the human imagination, feasting on people’s ideas and shitting out soulless insults to audience’s intelligence.

Now, I’m a believer in a future where artificial beings can make actual art too. I would LOVE to see an AI’s actual perspective on the world. But frankly, we are not there yet and won’t be for a while.

faucet said:
People who think AI isn't going to take real artists' jobs are crazy.

Actors and screenwriters certainly don't think that, given the labor actions recently.

sipothac said:
I'll only be able to enjoy AI art as real art once the machines are able to feel existential dread.

Just so long as they don't turn into Kant, and stay in their cave . And heaven help us if they turn into some of the later philosophers! Imagine one saying "Humanity is dead", ironically, while plenty of humans are being humans. Surviving ain't thriving, nor is it really living, so the sayings go. But it would make said AI insufferable to constantly be stating it.

nuclear_furry said:
The way generative AI works is that it is trained to form correlations between visual patterns and strings of text. Note that this is the only information it has access to and understands. Unlike a human artist, current AI does not have a unique perspective, life experiences, or an understanding of the real world beyond the canvas. Everything that generative AI outputs is a simple regurgitation of the work and perspectives of human artists.

I’m gonna use two cliches as metaphors to illustrate what I mean: a picture is worth a thousand words, and you get out what you put in. When all you put in is a sentence, all the extra detail has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is human artists. The AI just mechanically assembles it for you based on what perspectives and interpretations are most represented in its data set. And, despite the misconception, popularity is not a good substitute for situational relevance.

A human artist always inserts their own perspective, experience, and understanding into their art, whether they intend to or not, leading to work that can be examined and appreciated. On the other hand, AI is literally incapable of any of that, and what it produces offers about as much insight as random numbers. All that while also considering that AI companies are making profit off of AI art, is why I think it’s mostly a parasite of the human imagination, feasting on people’s ideas and shitting out soulless insults to audience’s intelligence.

Now, I’m a believer in a future where artificial beings can make actual art too. I would LOVE to see an AI’s actual perspective on the world. But frankly, we are not there yet and won’t be for a while.

The things you can do with that type of math... imitating existing art styles is just the Killer App to get a lot of people interested. The truth is that you can do stuff that has nothing to do with such things.

nuclear_furry said:
The AI just mechanically assembles it for you based on what perspectives and interpretations are most represented in its data set.

Yeah, it's one step below a technically proficient artist who has nothing to say.

The whole "AI" term is kind of mostly PR bullshitting that I'd like if people turned away from. The technical term "machine learning" (ML) is actually accurate. It observably can learn, but that's all.
Gonna have to at minimum incorporate a whole load of other types of inputs before we get anything like intelligence.

https://e6ai.net/posts?tags=order%3Ascore

savageorange said:
Yeah, it's one step below a technically proficient artist who has nothing to say.

The whole "AI" term is kind of mostly PR bullshitting that I'd like if people turned away from. The technical term "machine learning" (ML) is actually accurate. It observably can learn, but that's all.
Gonna have to at minimum incorporate a whole load of other types of inputs before we get anything like intelligence.

One example I saw, looked more like the concept of a 'brush' in Photoshop et al, where it saw where to 'aim' based on the existing image. Conformal mutations I guess. Yeah, keeping it on an AI site makes sense. It would just sooooooo flood with Me Toos.

It's fine for memes, fucking around and other non-commercial purposes.
For commercial uses, AI shouldn't be trained on art without consent from the artists.

I hate that AI art has started shitting up art websites.
There's already so much art that it's difficult to stand out, the last thing both artists and viewers need is a jackass drowning out humans with hundreds of AI images.

Art becomes a lot less interesting when you lose the human element. Regardless of technical quality or ideas.
Also the style is generally boring.

Based on the things I've seen them say, I think heavy users of AI art (emphasis on heavy. Not saying everyone who makes/likes AI art) as well as "higher up" people like business men and tech bros hate creatives.
Or they just want to exploit the hell out of it.

lance_armstrong said:
https://e6ai.net/posts?tags=order%3Ascore

THAT'S A THING! HOLY SHIIIIIIT!!!

It's not that it's all bad by default. I just hate the way AI art has clogged pixiv. I hear DA also allows it but I never browse there
I also disagree to being allowed to claim AI art, and especially to profiting off it

When someone replicates Data from Star Trek and he starts painting, then I may change my mind on the subject.

maplebytes said:
Generally, it looks very bland and soulless at best, at worst, it's uncanny and ugly.

I've been wondering:
How much of this inherent to image-generating AIs?
And how much is caused by the training images, or the prompts?

If a "training image selection genius" and a "prompt writing genius" got together, could they create interesting art?

My opinion is that, in general, people are way too harsh on it as a concept.

The way copyright law seems to be determining it right now (at least in the United States and Japan), it seems to be in the same legally-dark-grey area as YTP: as long as you aren't profiting from it, or claiming that you alone are responsible for its creation, no harm, no foul. But if you do start trying to make a career out of it, that's when there's going to be problems.

(I like how e6AI compromises on the "are people who generate it artists" debate by tagging them as "directors" rather than "artists". I think that's fair.)

I also find the tools useful in other ways.
For instance, when I'm sketching something that I plan to turn into a full image later, I often put my own sketch through img2img to get a "second opinion" and see how it interprets things I may not have noticed, like if I'd carelessly gotten my proportions wrong, or if it has suggestions to make the pose a bit better. I don't use the AI output as the sketch; I take a good look at it and redraw whatever details I agree may be an improvement.
It's also useful for generating reference images for things that don't have references, or for brainstorming ideas in general.

mantikor said:
I've been wondering:
How much of this inherent to image-generating AIs?
And how much is caused by the training images, or the prompts?

If a "training image selection genius" and a "prompt writing genius" got together, could they create interesting art?

I think art needs a degree of intentionality that is difficult for generative AI to immitate, the main reason that most AI generated content is so bland and soulless is because a lot of the people producing it don't really have a good understanding of what good art really looks like. I think at the current stage you need to do more than just write a good prompt and use good training data to create something truly interesting, but who knows how the technology will develop.

glyme said:
It's not that it's all bad by default. I just hate the way AI art has clogged pixiv. I hear DA also allows it but I never browse there
I also disagree to being allowed to claim AI art, and especially to profiting off it

When someone replicates Data from Star Trek and he starts painting, then I may change my mind on the subject.

Interestingly, there's already precedents and standards for that sort of thing, if I understand it right. The phone book cases, right?

glyme said:
It's not that it's all bad by default. I just hate the way AI art has clogged pixiv. I hear DA also allows it but I never browse there
I also disagree to being allowed to claim AI art, and especially to profiting off it

When someone replicates Data from Star Trek and he starts painting, then I may change my mind on the subject.

You think Pixiv is bad

Try Rule 34 xxx (where I archive art too) AI has completely demolished proper art conservation

fuyu_graycen said:
You think Pixiv is bad

Try Rule 34 xxx (where I archive art too) AI has completely demolished proper art conservation

you can filter out AI, if you have an account there, you can also blacklist it.

fuyu_graycen said:
You think Pixiv is bad

Pixiv at the least puts an "AI Generated" directly bellow the image. would prefer a better indicator, but it's something.

I find it stupid that there are people opening up patron accounts for uncensored ai generated art, and I find it even stupider that there are people who are dumb enough to spend hundreds of dollars to see them.

neepokra said:
I find it stupid that there are people opening up patron accounts for uncensored ai generated art, and I find it even stupider that there are people who are dumb enough to spend hundreds of dollars to see them.

Yeah... I'm normally on the "AI is fine" side, but things like this happening are what make me question my position there. That's just playing dirty.

junn0u said:
AI is cool amazing technology but its art is boring! also... its not art if a soul didnt make it in my opinion

You didn't see a pic you liked yet.

Also, a lot of the best AI art out right now is manually touched up, or had a human bean draw some of it.

Honestly, like tracing, I use AI generated images as a tool, since I don't thumbnail sketch that much.
It's a nice tool for artists who are more into traditional art.
What I don't like is that they're claiming and bragging that it's theirs.

In opposition to what a lot of people think, I don't think AI art will become the new norm. Handmade art has a charm to it that AI can't replicate. If you look at the results of programs like Midjourney, DALL-E, Novel, etc. it all looks so manufactured and without any soul.

So yeah, I'm not worried about furry porn being overtaken by robots.

closetpossum said:
you can filter out AI, if you have an account there, you can also blacklist it.

Oh I do, but it has Blacklist Boxes where the art is so now the front page is like 70% Blacklist Boxes XD

closetpossum said:
I may also add that it's a pretty entertaing way to pass the time when you're bored and inspires new OCs to potentionally create.
Playing around with art AIs is like playing around with constant variables that peaks a person's curiousity.

"If I do THIS, when what will it look like? If I add THAT then what will it be next?" You can spend hours playing around with it.
Which in itself is almost like playing a videogame.

That was done befor AI you know. It was the act of obsering others art and the free sketching. It was drawing on your own internal artists eye and then doing the dawing yourself. Which also increases your practice and skill. AI takes that process from you. You let AI give you the rough outline rather than creating it yourself from your minds eye.
Like any new product in capitalism, it offers to make things easier, create a need that may not have existed. Humans dont NEED those things. We had wonderful lives before without some of our products. Ad thee is a reason why not to have them. They often are very damaging for the environment, social life, and longterm sustainability. Right now the only thing that controls human advancement is profit and power. Not overall human happiness or ensuring we will survive the next 1000 years. Can you see any future for us in that outside of sectarian violence, resource competition, environmental disaste, and social isolationism?

regei said:
Good if you're bored and lazy and just want a quick soulless fap and move on with your day, not that great if you want anything more out of it. You quickly realize it all feels same-y in a way that art by real artists doesn't, even if they use the same style a lot.

Why not do that with free sketching and improving your art skill? Why not do that the old way of searching artists galleries and giving hardworking people your views while u fap? This way youve deprived yourself of your own personal skill growth and deprived artists of favs and fans. Most of all since AI only gives u what u want to see, you never discover new ideas

lendrimujina said:
Yeah... I'm normally on the "AI is fine" side, but things like this happening are what make me question my position there. That's just playing dirty.

Yes its the burning edge of the traumatic issue that AI deprives artists of their only meager income.

regei said:
I do that, I don't browse AI art but I admit it's way better than chatgpt, now that is actual brainrot.

I think the objective now is to turn every form of human interaction into a commodity that they can make money off of.

AI is basically tracing with even less effort.

Its more on the negative side for a number of reasons id say.
One: it heavily reliant on other peoples honest effort as a fuel for creation
Two: As a tool people arent very creative with their prompts so it appears more as a novelty.
And the main kicker: It will trivialize artist's efforts for improvement of the craft by using their sample size and stop funding them as soon as they have enough data to recreate their style.

I personally enjoy the novelty of prompt writing and ai interpretations

I mess with AI art quite a lot. The problem it's solving for me is that I like looking at my sona, and there just isn't nearly enough art of my sona. Commissioning artists is nice, I do it occasionally, but you can only afford so much of the time of competent specialists working personally for you. Learning to draw is on the table, but my starting point after a lifetime of having no interest in art is "oh god how do I even get my hand to do the motion for this stroke".

If I manage to put together something I'm happy with, I usually post it on an AI art discord server or two. Usually the time it takes to get there is between half an hour and a few hours.

When I buy commissions, I discuss whether I can use them to train my finetune exactly as much as I discuss whether I can give them to other artists as references, i.e. not at all. I just do it.

Main thing I've learned: My sona's head shape is a bit weird, and I originally just told artists to all do their own take on it, because I wasn't sure *exactly* how I wanted it to be. But now that I've worked with my finetune for a while, pushing it with different poses, editing the results, and feeding them back in for new training rounds for the finetune, I've ended up with a pretty solid idea. It's compatible with the original ref, just the perspective makes it hard to interpret. I guess I'll eventually get a new, clearer ref.

lance_armstrong said:
https://e6ai.net/posts?tags=order%3Ascore

my life changed drastically

zermelane said:
I mess with AI art quite a lot. The problem it's solving for me is that I like looking at my sona, and there just isn't nearly enough art of my sona. Commissioning artists is nice, I do it occasionally, but you can only afford so much of the time of competent specialists working personally for you. Learning to draw is on the table, but my starting point after a lifetime of having no interest in art is "oh god how do I even get my hand to do the motion for this stroke".

You can draw, dude. Everybody starts from "oh god how do I even get my hand to do the motion for this stroke." I believe in you :)
It's a lot more fun and rewarding than AI.

It seems to be largely limited to one art style, which is its main limitation. It might just be my bias towards ferals speaking, but I think it works way better for ferals. Something is usually off about facial expressions on anthros--they seem soulless somehow.

Ai is worse at drawing hands and feet then humans.

https://e6ai.net/posts/7529

wolfmanfur said:
Ai is worse at drawing hands and feet then humans.

https://e6ai.net/posts?tags=order%3Ascore+feet

I am in a more "wait and see" kind of stance right now. My problem with AI art comes with how much of it tends to look the same and with how the original artist who drew the pics used to train said AI is never credited. Sure, the "art" is nice, but I would like to know what it is based off.

GIVE ME THE SAUCE

Also, sometimes the closer you look at it, the more things seem to look...off.

Not an opinion on the images themselves, but I can’t help but feel slightly annoyed whenever someone says “AI art.” Art is, by definition, made by a person, so a computer-generated image can’t be called art. Otherwise, the random scattering of clouds in the sky would have to be called art, too. Pretty, yes, but not art.

scaliespe said:
Not an opinion on the images themselves, but I can’t help but feel slightly annoyed whenever someone says “AI art.” Art is, by definition, made by a person, so a computer-generated image can’t be called art. Otherwise, the random scattering of clouds in the sky would have to be called art, too. Pretty, yes, but not art.

That's why I call it "AI generated images" and not "AI art".

A lot of the content for AI generated images for furry porn that I've seen so far feels very insular at the moment so I don't particularly like a lot of the work so far. There's a lack of interesting direction and it sort of reminds me of how the wish fulfillment isekai genre is. Very repetitive, very boring.

I think the main issue with a lot of ai works is that there's a disconnect between the artists and a lot of people pushing for it. I disagree heavily that artists are afraid of change or AI, I think they're more afraid of where the conversation has been going for the last year.

The reason why I say this is because AI has been used in animation before 2020 in anime for in betweens. Its seen use in the industry, and animators seem to have taken to a liking to it. There was no uproar about it or artists on twitter throwing a fit.

With the conversation for AI generative software it always felt like the conversation was focused more on replacing artists than artists using AI as a tool.

scaliespe said:
Art is, by definition, made by a person

This is an incredibly bad take. Paint simply thrown on a canvas was a valid artform for a while (maybe still is? I don't keep up with the "art scene"). Is that any less art? Keep in mind that it is physics creating the art, with very little human input.

Similarly AI is a tool. The human has to put in the inputs and ultimately is the one who chooses what to keep and what to scrap, at least for now. In that regard, it's no less of an artform than the paint-thrown-on-a-canvas art.

I think this hullabaloo around AI art is rather silly, because again it is a tool. I suppose it's no different than any other technological advance though. We should all still be riding around on horses after all. Or perhaps just walking on our own two feet.

moonbase-boi said:
Kind of neutral. depends if you could do better than the AI and post it back.
post #2555614 post #3377494
post #2555614 post #3377494
Images like this for example.

poodlewolfy123 said:
This is an incredibly bad take. Paint simply thrown on a canvas was a valid artform for a while (maybe still is? I don't keep up with the "art scene"). Is that any less art? Keep in mind that it is physics creating the art, with very little human input.

Similarly AI is a tool. The human has to put in the inputs and ultimately is the one who chooses what to keep and what to scrap, at least for now. In that regard, it's no less of an artform than the paint-thrown-on-a-canvas art.

I think this hullabaloo around AI art is rather silly, because again it is a tool. I suppose it's no different than any other technological advance though. We should all still be riding around on horses after all. Or perhaps just walking on our own two feet.

This "tool" is Leechware whose Base Model came to existence because it operates on the assumption that "if its on the internet then its up for grabs" and a massive slap to the face of artists who took the time an effort to work on their craft just for someone else to fine tune a Model/LORA on a specific artist by scraping their artworks and feeding it into an algorithm without the artists consent.

Had this tech been developed on public domain images alone then it wouldn't have caused such a divide in the community and would actual be an artists tool instead of a cheap and downright dickish attempt to replace them.

Right now it's rather crap, but if AI develops to the point where it can make real characters and narratives it could be interesting.

I don't really give a damn about the ethical implications of AI. If it makes good material it makes good material.

piff said:
Had this tech been developed on X alone then it wouldn't have caused such a divide in the community and would actually be a tool instead of a cheap and downright dickish attempt to replace Y.

The same could be said for cars replacing the horse-and-buggy, Radios and community news, newspapers and radio, television and newspapers, streaming and television ... perhaps you can see where I'm going?

Like it or not it exists. Whether or not it is used ethically can be debated, but it cannot be debated that it is in fact a tool.

poodlewolfy123 said:
The same could be said for cars replacing the horse-and-buggy, Radios and community news, newspapers and radio, television and newspapers, streaming and television ... perhaps you can see where I'm going?

Like it or not it exists. Whether or not it is used ethically can be debated, but it cannot be debated that it is in fact a tool.

The problem is the mass copyright infringement that occurred to get it into the state it's in. It scraped all across the web, irrespective of any license the images had that they trained on. As the comment you quoted indicates, it's not the fact that it exists, but the means used to make it. If they had just stuck to public domain images, or images that were expressly free to use in that manner (or if they paid the appropriate license fees to the artists whose work they wanted to use), there would be less of a problem. It doesn't help that a number of products and services are now also trying to add in clauses (without making it obvious, or providing an easy to find opt-out method) giving them the right to use the work you make with their stuff for their own AI training (which incidentally also suggests that the current models were built in a legally dubious manner; they wouldn't need to add the clause if they could just train on the work without any prior agreement).

poodlewolfy123 said:
The same could be said for cars replacing the horse-and-buggy, Radios and community news, newspapers and radio, television and newspapers, streaming and television ... perhaps you can see where I'm going?

Like it or not it exists. Whether or not it is used ethically can be debated, but it cannot be debated that it is in fact a tool.

Oh don't get me wrong, the tech has great uses and potential but my point is had it been developed not through the massive scraping of any and all data regardless of a persons consent just because "its on the internet" but rather on data such as Public Domain Images and willing contributors then the tool would have been in far better light amongst the art community. @Watsit's reply pretty much covered my sentiment on the matter.

watsit said:
The problem is the mass copyright infringement that occurred to get it into the state it's in.

piff said:
Oh don't get me wrong, the tech has great uses and potential but my point is had it been developed not through the massive scraping of any and all data regardless of a persons consent just because "its on the internet" but rather on data such as Public Domain Images and willing contributors then the tool would have been in far better light amongst the art community. @Watsit's reply pretty much covered my sentiment on the matter.

Right. As I said the ethics can be debated, but not the fact it is a tool.

Though I'd like to point out that I doubt many if any artists, until now, would have cared that their art was shared, modified, referenced, etc by another person irrespective of license. Many artists don't even put a license which technically makes their art "All Rights Reserved", at least in the USA. Are artists going to start enforcing this by suing people? Because they haven't up to now as far as I am aware.

poodlewolfy123 said:
Though I'd like to point out that I doubt many if any artists, until now, would have cared that their art was shared, modified, referenced, etc by another person irrespective of license. Many artists don't even put a license which technically makes their art "All Rights Reserved", at least in the USA.

This is a contradictory view. If many artists don't put a license with their art, making it All Rights Reserved (i.e. a user can't do anything with it aside from any exemptions provided by the law), that would suggest many artists do care of their art being shared, modified, referenced, etc by another person. If they didn't care, they'd put a permissive license on it. Which incidentally, one of the more popular license artists tend to use is non-derivative, non-commercial use, which these training models are most definitely providing a commercial advantage.

poodlewolfy123 said:
Are artists going to start enforcing this by suing people? Because they haven't up to now as far as I am aware.

https://fortune.com/2023/08/31/artists-lawsuit-artificial-intelligence-companies-copyright/
https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/27/the-current-legal-cases-against-generative-ai-are-just-the-beginning/
https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/6/23587393/ai-art-copyright-lawsuit-getty-images-stable-diffusion

watsit said:
This is a contradictory view.

Not necessarily. You get All Rights Reserved whether you want it or not. It's the default position in the USA anyway. Some people don't even know that you get it by default only further compounding the issue. Also, there is basically nothing you can do with a product whose rights have been reserved without explicit permission from the rights holder. So what about downloading? Are they going to sue people for downloading their art? Because not only is that their right as the rights holder, but to be consistant they'd have to. If people downloading their art to use in AI, when a license was never specified nor did they object to it in other instances, was not okay then other people downloading their art, for any reason whatsoever, must also not be okay without their express permission. You can assume that it's okay because they never kicked up a stink, but not only does the law not generally care about assumptions, but this whole AI business raises a lot of legal questions internet users have been taking for granted for years.

Keep in mind all of this assumes you live in the USA. My knowledge of legal affairs in other countries is questionable.

But this is all from a legal standpoint. I want to be clear that, at least as it stands, the ethics of using content others created without their permission and after were told to stop is, at best, extremely questionable and, at worse, makes you a terrible human being.

watsit said:
https://fortune.com/2023/08/31/artists-lawsuit-artificial-intelligence-companies-copyright/
https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/27/the-current-legal-cases-against-generative-ai-are-just-the-beginning/
https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/6/23587393/ai-art-copyright-lawsuit-getty-images-stable-diffusion

Don't be obtuse. I meant furry artists and I think you knew that. Besides, a few things:
1. A few lawsuits does not a trend make
2. What about previously? Why is it only now an issue?

poodlewolfy123 said:
Also, there is basically nothing you can do with a product whose rights have been reserved without explicit permission from the rights holder.

There is fair use, which defines what a person can freely do w.r.t. copyright without needing permission from the rights holder. It is a limited set of freedoms, yes (and a lot of people like to overstate what it allows), but they do exist.

poodlewolfy123 said:
So what about downloading? Are they going to sue people for downloading their art?

They can and sometimes do. But given the time and expense to go after someone through the court system, it's not always beneficial to do so, if they're even aware of it (and artists, furry artists especially, tend to be low on available time and money for that kind of thing). It's more cost effective to go after the leakers and distributors, the enablers, when possible, rather than the individual downloaders (but as I said, they can and sometimes do that too).

poodlewolfy123 said:
Don't be obtuse. I meant furry artists and I think you knew that. Besides, a few things:
1. A few lawsuits does not a trend make
2. What about previously? Why is it only now an issue?

Because now is the time when things like Stable Diffusion are becoming more widely known. You can't go after something you aren't aware of, and these things take time after becoming aware. A company is going to be more cautious with risk vs reward of a lawsuit, and class action lawsuits take time to get a large enough class of affected people together. Jumping on it by yourself too early is a good way to lose, and one of the worst things to happen would be bad precedent from hasty lawsuits.

watsit said:
Because now is the time when things like Stable Diffusion are becoming more widely known. You can't go after something you aren't aware of, and these things take time after becoming aware. A company is going to be more cautious with risk vs reward of a lawsuit, and class action lawsuits take time to get a large enough class of affected people together. Jumping on it by yourself too early is a good way to lose, and one of the worst things to happen would be bad precedent from hasty lawsuits.

I suppose I meant other analogous situations, like sharing someone's art locally instead of directing them to the webpage of the artist for example. There are some high-profile furry artists who have kicked up a stink about it in the past, but they are relatively few and far between. I don't know any personally, but there are high-profile artists out there who are extremely permissive in what they allow you to do with their art, and at least to the best of my knowledge do not post rights either on the pictures themselves or on any of their public-facing accounts.

I'd prefer not to belabor the issue though, since it's secondary to my original point which I think can be safely said we agree on.

Personally I think it grabs too much attention from the artists who actually made shit. I don't like seeing some AI pic of Diane Foxington while a genuine artist is drawing every week to boost up their patreon

I don’t like AI art, but I do think it’s fine for concepts and whatnot. personally, i’d rather see something that took passion than some algorithm.

I've always been neutral toward AI-generated art. I personally wouldn't call anyone who can only make art by using AI art generators Artists and those who use it tend to have a massive problem spamming everything they generate regardless of quality on art sites and it is annoying as hell. People who know what they're doing can make some pretty impressive art and I definitely see it making a huge impact in art in the future. Personally, if a person uses it to make generated pics because of disabilities preventing them from drawing, memes, help to complete their own work and is freely sharing them online then go for it, but when they start selling it or paywalling it especially when it trained off real artist works then that's a it's a problem.

For me, just like others stated (and honestly might be the main gripe for most folks), I don’t like AI art for the simple fact that it needs to scrape from others’ work to create something "new" and AI "artists" are trying to profit from it.

I’ve seen AI "artists" try to compare it to baking a cake, where you mix in ingredients that you didn’t make yourself, then put it in the oven and boom, a whole cake fresh-out-the-oven. But that’s a false equivalency. It’s more like taking slices of different pre-made cakes without permission and then using the Cakeanator 5000 to mush it all together to make a “new” cake. The cake looks off, you didn’t make the cake from scratch, yet you’re selling that jumbled mess of a cake for $50 and telling customers "Don’t worry, it will look better in the future as technology progresses."

With that said, I’m not against AI entitely. I use AI in my daily workday as it does help make the work easier. It’s just specifically AI “art” I have a bone to pick with.

https://e6ai.net/posts/9266