I heard a bunch of explanations but most of them seem emotional and aggressive, and while I respect that this is an emotional subject, I can’t really understand opinions that boil down to “theft” and are aggressive about it.

while there are plenty of models that were trained on copyrighted material without consent (which is piracy, not theft but close enough when talking about small businesses or individuals) is there an argument against models that were legally trained? And if so, is it something past the saying that AI art is lifeless?

    • makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      I disagree strongly on that argument. I’ve seen many examples of AI generated images that have genuinely made me stop, and shake my head in amazement.

        • Lumidaub@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          The thing, even with human-made art, is that what’s “moving” is highly personal. Maybe accept that their experience is different from yours?

          • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Art is a form of communication, to hear that someone can be moved by expressionless AI slop is kinda like hearing someone had an enlightening conversation with a dog.

            Like sure I can imagine someone can interpret a dog’s barks to mean something, but it’s still a bizarre scenario that says more about the person than it does the art.

            • makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              When you can’t tell if a machine made it, and it moves you personally, then what invisible metric are you defining, and judging it on?

              • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                Same metrics anyone judges art by, what it says to them. This is incredibly context dependent.

                Show me the art and if just showing it to someone is insufficient, explain it to me.

  • Elaine Cortez@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    As an artist who has had her art stolen before for usage in an AI output, being against any and all art theft is the default and perfectly reasonable standpoint for an artist. On some art websites, AI generated images fall under the rule against art theft. This is because AI models scrape artists’ work without their consent, and the output of a prompt is reliant on the amalgamation of the aforementioned scraped artworks. I’ve personally seen some AI images in which the mangled remains of artists’ signatures are still visible.

    The best analogy I can offer to explain why this is theft is that typing in a prompt into an AI image generator is like commissioning an artist to draw something for you, except the artist turns out to be someone who traces people’s art and picks stolen artwork to trace from to match the prompt, and then claiming that it was you who created the image.