1 year
Ai images
Letters And Numbers:
If I have neuropathy and can’t draw the way I want to, but can use AI to express myself visually, I might think it’s very democratizing. It’s a tool, which isn’t inherently bad or inherently good. If people are using it to fuck over other people, that’s a human problem with human solutions.
Munchies:
Um ...
What?
This has never been an issue. Tons of artists have been making art for generations with all sorts of medical issues.
brainandlife.org/articles/four-artists-talk-about-how-their-neurologic-conditions-affect-their
There's a famous illustrator, Tom Yendell, who was born without arms. So he paints with his toes. He paints better than I, an able-bodied person, could hope.
There are scores of different ways of making art spanning cultures, centuries, and mediums. And people are trailblazing new stuff all the time. There's always a way to express yourself other than "the computer made it for me."
Letters And Numbers:
100 years ago there wasn’t indoor plumbing most places. This is a new tool. Times change. Something will come along after AI art, too, and people will get upset about it and then things will normalize.
If I have neuropathy and can’t draw the way I want to, but can use AI to express myself visually, I might think it’s very democratizing. It’s a tool, which isn’t inherently bad or inherently good. If people are using it to fuck over other people, that’s a human problem with human solutions.
Munchies:
Um ...
What?
This has never been an issue. Tons of artists have been making art for generations with all sorts of medical issues.
brainandlife.org/articles/four-artists-talk-about-how-their-neurologic-conditions-affect-their
There's a famous illustrator, Tom Yendell, who was born without arms. So he paints with his toes. He paints better than I, an able-bodied person, could hope.
There are scores of different ways of making art spanning cultures, centuries, and mediums. And people are trailblazing new stuff all the time. There's always a way to express yourself other than "the computer made it for me."
Letters And Numbers:
100 years ago there wasn’t indoor plumbing most places. This is a new tool. Times change. Something will come along after AI art, too, and people will get upset about it and then things will normalize.
That's not even what I said. I said that there are plenty of pre-existing mediums to choose from, and people are trailblazing new stuff all the time. In other words, there are ways to make art where you can express yourself without putting prompts into an image generator and hope it spits out something you like.
A new artist or an artist with limitations may not have the ability to make something exactly the way they want it. But at least they have control. They can improve their skills over time or even find new ways of doing something they struggled to do.
You can't do that with AI art. You have very limited control over what it makes. You can play around with the prompt, but it's ultimately up to the machine.
1 year
Ai images
As for number two, it's been scientifically proven that unrealistic, idealized beauty standards warp people's body expectations. It's the same reason why people get mad at the Kardashians for their heavily edited and airbrushed photoshoots. Or how some men feel anxiety about their penis size because they think men should have 10 in penises.
[b]Letters And Numbers:
But that’s hardly a problem exclusive to AI art. Before AI, photoshop was the boogie man for that, and it was still just shorthand for society pushing unrealistic beauty standards. I mean half the time when I make people with AI they look like terrifying monsters with fucked up faces and limbs bending the wrong way.
Munchies:
I mean ... I drew a parallel to Photoshop.
Letters And Numbers:
Do you think the Photoshop software is a bad thing? Or is it just a tool that can be used for good things and for bad things, like any other tool?
I have no idea why you are focusing on this. Two people made a comment. Another person didn't understand it. I explained.
That said, Photoshop isn't inherently theft, unlike AI art. It's gotten so bad that artists - some of whom use Photoshop - are turning to programs like Glaze to prevent art theft.
aimeecozza.com/what-is-glaze-and-how-can-it-help-protect-against-ai-scraping/
1 year
Ai images
As for number two, it's been scientifically proven that unrealistic, idealized beauty standards warp people's body expectations. It's the same reason why people get mad at the Kardashians for their heavily edited and airbrushed photoshoots. Or how some men feel anxiety about their penis size because they think men should have 10 in penises.
[b]Letters And Numbers:
But that’s hardly a problem exclusive to AI art. Before AI, photoshop was the boogie man for that, and it was still just shorthand for society pushing unrealistic beauty standards. I mean half the time when I make people with AI they look like terrifying monsters with fucked up faces and limbs bending the wrong way.
Munchies:
I mean ... I drew a parallel to Photoshop.
Letters And Numbers:
Do you think the Photoshop software is a bad thing? Or is it just a tool that can be used for good things and for bad things, like any other tool?
Munchies:
I have no idea why you are focusing on this. Two people made a comment. Another person didn't understand it. I explained.
That said, Photoshop isn't inherently theft, unlike AI art. It's gotten so bad that artists - some of whom use Photoshop - are turning to programs like Glaze to prevent art theft.
aimeecozza.com/what-is-glaze-and-how-can-it-help-protect-against-ai-scraping/
I’m focusing on the important stuff, if you want a real answer. There are a lot of legitimate questions about an emerging technology that will probably take years to be settled. But I’m not smart enough to say that I’m the final judge on what’s artistic self expression or not. It’s subjective and always will be, in my mind. I think 3 Feet High and Rising was art before the samples cleared. It’s nice that it got worked out, it’s a shame it took 35 years for everyone involved, the album was always art. Is that a 1:1 parallel? No, but arguments about fair use and freedom of expression are as old as time.
1 year
Ai images
Munchies:
That said, Photoshop isn't inherently theft, unlike AI art. It's gotten so bad that artists - some of whom use Photoshop - are turning to programs like Glaze to prevent art theft.
I didn’t say anything about Photoshop being theft. You should reread the conversation. You were talking about artificial beauty standards and I said that Photoshop gets used interchangeably with airbrush when you’re talking about how pictures (mostly of women) online and in magazines are doctored. Which is not the software’s fault, it’s the magazine editor, etc. it’s a human problem, the software is just software. A paintbrush is just a paintbrush. They’re tools.
1 year
Ai images
Munchies:
That said, Photoshop isn't inherently theft, unlike AI art. It's gotten so bad that artists - some of whom use Photoshop - are turning to programs like Glaze to prevent art theft.
Letters And Numbers:
I didn’t say anything about Photoshop being theft. You should reread the conversation. You were talking about artificial beauty standards and I said that Photoshop gets used interchangeably with airbrush when you’re talking about how pictures (mostly of women) online and in magazines are doctored. Which is not the software’s fault, it’s the magazine editor, etc. it’s a human problem, the software is just software. A paintbrush is just a paintbrush. They’re tools.
Earlier in the conversation, people, including myself, said that AI art is theft. This is why I brought it up, and why I am making the distinction.
The theft is baked into the software's programming. To talk about AI art without the theft is to paint an incomplete picture. The only way for the software to work is by scraping data - mostly without consent. The program cannot exist without it.
This is different from airbrushing (which isn't inherently Photoshop, but for the sake of arguement, we'll say that it is). The software isn't inherently one thing or another. It's a tool that humans control to achieve whatever outcome they want.
1 year
Ai images
Munchies:
That said, Photoshop isn't inherently theft, unlike AI art. It's gotten so bad that artists - some of whom use Photoshop - are turning to programs like Glaze to prevent art theft.
Letters And Numbers:
I didn’t say anything about Photoshop being theft. You should reread the conversation. You were talking about artificial beauty standards and I said that Photoshop gets used interchangeably with airbrush when you’re talking about how pictures (mostly of women) online and in magazines are doctored. Which is not the software’s fault, it’s the magazine editor, etc. it’s a human problem, the software is just software. A paintbrush is just a paintbrush. They’re tools.
Munchies:
Earlier in the conversation, people, including myself, said that AI art is theft. This is why I brought it up, and why I am making the distinction.
The theft is baked into the software's programming. To talk about AI art without the theft is to paint an incomplete picture. The only way for the software to work is by scraping data - mostly without consent. The program cannot exist without it.
This is different from airbrushing (which isn't inherently Photoshop, but for the sake of arguement, we'll say that it is). The software isn't inherently one thing or another. It's a tool that humans control to achieve whatever outcome they want.
AI art software is 2 years old, commercially, right? If there was AI software that only scraped Getty images, for example, and had a license to do that, it would not be theft (really copyright infringement or violations of fair use statutes), correct? The fact that it doesn’t currently work this way today doesn’t mean that’s not where it’s headed. Cars in 1910 didn’t have seatbelts. They all do now, and it’s because people were damaged and standards were set. Fair use is probably the most immediate problem with AI, but also the easiest to solve. But it’s a real problem! And the current Supreme Court is very on the side of the original copyright holder as seen in the Prince/Warhol case this year. Only Kagen and Roberts dissented. There’s a 1st amendment case on the other side, too, though. If scraping scans of magazines to get images for AI is theft (it’s not, legally, it might be copyright infringement or violations of fair use statutes), so is the the kid in her bedroom cutting up magazines to make a collage. It’s just a different application, but I don’t get my blood pressure up about people making collages, even with very famous images. I don’t get upset about samples in hip hop. If the record company wants to pay to clear them, that’s great, but ultimately as the listener, I kinda don’t care about a 2 second sample. I think it’s transforming the sample into something new. I don’t think a bar band should have to pay Creedence Clearwater Revival every time they play a cover of Proud Mary. But if they’re going to commercially release an album of cover songs they probably need the mechanical rights to do so. I think Negativland is great and they made art and I don’t care that they pissed off U2’s publishing company. But they’re complicated questions. I think, at least. It’s a good discussion here, sincerely!
1 year
Ai images
X_Larsson:
I am NOT a big proponent of AI technology implementations, but if we all agree it is a tool, and it seems we do, then consider this:
You focus on the "learnìng" process, where the software is tought to identify image critical elements. How is that different from how a traditional artist analyses, works and learns from the masters?
You look, create, review (edit?), make learnings and create again.
To me, it is also similar to taking photos and doing picture processing, chemically or digitally.
These current, human artists OBVIOUSLY learn by looking at the wealth of existing pictures around us, without paying anything extra. The AI does the same, but faster. Like the sewing machine or 3D printer is faster than manual labor.
In my opinion, it seems AI doing generic pictures, and doing fictional, non existing characters, we should be good, from a theft perspective.
Futuristic landscapes, or from different planets, or from space etc, with people, animals, and objects that are new to us, we are not infringing on anybody's specific work.
I am NOT a big proponent of AI technology implementations, but if we all agree it is a tool, and it seems we do, then consider this:
You focus on the "learnìng" process, where the software is tought to identify image critical elements. How is that different from how a traditional artist analyses, works and learns from the masters?
You look, create, review (edit?), make learnings and create again.
To me, it is also similar to taking photos and doing picture processing, chemically or digitally.
These current, human artists OBVIOUSLY learn by looking at the wealth of existing pictures around us, without paying anything extra. The AI does the same, but faster. Like the sewing machine or 3D printer is faster than manual labor.
In my opinion, it seems AI doing generic pictures, and doing fictional, non existing characters, we should be good, from a theft perspective.
Futuristic landscapes, or from different planets, or from space etc, with people, animals, and objects that are new to us, we are not infringing on anybody's specific work.
Oh, if only that's what was happening. Alas, it is not.
You should read the links I posted.
1 year
Ai images
Munchies:
That said, Photoshop isn't inherently theft, unlike AI art. It's gotten so bad that artists - some of whom use Photoshop - are turning to programs like Glaze to prevent art theft.
Letters And Numbers:
I didn’t say anything about Photoshop being theft. You should reread the conversation. You were talking about artificial beauty standards and I said that Photoshop gets used interchangeably with airbrush when you’re talking about how pictures (mostly of women) online and in magazines are doctored. Which is not the software’s fault, it’s the magazine editor, etc. it’s a human problem, the software is just software. A paintbrush is just a paintbrush. They’re tools.
Munchies:
Earlier in the conversation, people, including myself, said that AI art is theft. This is why I brought it up, and why I am making the distinction.
The theft is baked into the software's programming. To talk about AI art without the theft is to paint an incomplete picture. The only way for the software to work is by scraping data - mostly without consent. The program cannot exist without it.
This is different from airbrushing (which isn't inherently Photoshop, but for the sake of arguement, we'll say that it is). The software isn't inherently one thing or another. It's a tool that humans control to achieve whatever outcome they want.
Letters And Numbers:
AI art software is 2 years old, commercially, right? If there was AI software that only scraped Getty images, for example, and had a license to do that, it would not be theft (really copyright infringement or violations of fair use statutes), correct? The fact that it doesn’t currently work this way today doesn’t mean that’s not where it’s headed. Cars in 1910 didn’t have seatbelts. They all do now, and it’s because people were damaged and standards were set. Fair use is probably the most immediate problem with AI, but also the easiest to solve. But it’s a real problem! And the current Supreme Court is very on the side of the original copyright holder as seen in the Prince/Warhol case this year. Only Kagen and Roberts dissented. There’s a 1st amendment case on the other side, too, though. If scraping scans of magazines to get images for AI is theft (it’s not, legally, it might be copyright infringement or violations of fair use statutes), so is the the kid in her bedroom cutting up magazines to make a collage. It’s just a different application, but I don’t get my blood pressure up about people making collages, even with very famous images. I don’t get upset about samples in hip hop. If the record company wants to pay to clear them, that’s great, but ultimately as the listener, I kinda don’t care about a 2 second sample. I think it’s transforming the sample into something new. I don’t think a bar band should have to pay Creedence Clearwater Revival every time they play a cover of Proud Mary. But if they’re going to commercially release an album of cover songs they probably need the mechanical rights to do so. I think Negativland is great and they made art and I don’t care that they pissed off U2’s publishing company. But they’re complicated questions. I think, at least. It’s a good discussion here, sincerely!
I've explained the situation in detail and included sources. I am not sure if you read my sources, or there's something I am not explaining well. But the things you are talking about aren't comparable to what I am talking about.
The AI art programs are not just scraping from big publications or magazines. They are also scraping from smaller creators. I'm talking about people who make art for a living or side hustle. In fact, programs like Glaze were made specifically for these people in mind. (It's in the article.)
And if you think it's okay for these programs to scrape their hard work for the software to have data, then I have nothing more to say to you.
1 year
Ai images
Munchies:
That said, Photoshop isn't inherently theft, unlike AI art. It's gotten so bad that artists - some of whom use Photoshop - are turning to programs like Glaze to prevent art theft.
Letters And Numbers:
I didn’t say anything about Photoshop being theft. You should reread the conversation. You were talking about artificial beauty standards and I said that Photoshop gets used interchangeably with airbrush when you’re talking about how pictures (mostly of women) online and in magazines are doctored. Which is not the software’s fault, it’s the magazine editor, etc. it’s a human problem, the software is just software. A paintbrush is just a paintbrush. They’re tools.
Munchies:
Earlier in the conversation, people, including myself, said that AI art is theft. This is why I brought it up, and why I am making the distinction.
The theft is baked into the software's programming. To talk about AI art without the theft is to paint an incomplete picture. The only way for the software to work is by scraping data - mostly without consent. The program cannot exist without it.
This is different from airbrushing (which isn't inherently Photoshop, but for the sake of arguement, we'll say that it is). The software isn't inherently one thing or another. It's a tool that humans control to achieve whatever outcome they want.
Letters And Numbers:
AI art software is 2 years old, commercially, right? If there was AI software that only scraped Getty images, for example, and had a license to do that, it would not be theft (really copyright infringement or violations of fair use statutes), correct? The fact that it doesn’t currently work this way today doesn’t mean that’s not where it’s headed. Cars in 1910 didn’t have seatbelts. They all do now, and it’s because people were damaged and standards were set. Fair use is probably the most immediate problem with AI, but also the easiest to solve. But it’s a real problem! And the current Supreme Court is very on the side of the original copyright holder as seen in the Prince/Warhol case this year. Only Kagen and Roberts dissented. There’s a 1st amendment case on the other side, too, though. If scraping scans of magazines to get images for AI is theft (it’s not, legally, it might be copyright infringement or violations of fair use statutes), so is the the kid in her bedroom cutting up magazines to make a collage. It’s just a different application, but I don’t get my blood pressure up about people making collages, even with very famous images. I don’t get upset about samples in hip hop. If the record company wants to pay to clear them, that’s great, but ultimately as the listener, I kinda don’t care about a 2 second sample. I think it’s transforming the sample into something new. I don’t think a bar band should have to pay Creedence Clearwater Revival every time they play a cover of Proud Mary. But if they’re going to commercially release an album of cover songs they probably need the mechanical rights to do so. I think Negativland is great and they made art and I don’t care that they pissed off U2’s publishing company. But they’re complicated questions. I think, at least. It’s a good discussion here, sincerely!
Munchies:
I've explained the situation in detail and included sources. I am not sure if you read my sources, or there's something I am not explaining well. But the things you are talking about aren't comparable to what I am talking about.
The AI art programs are not just scraping from big publications or magazines. They are also scraping from smaller creators. I'm talking about people who make art for a living or side hustle. In fact, programs like Glaze were made specifically for these people in mind. (It's in the article.)
And if you think it's okay for these programs to scrape their hard work for the software to have data, then I have nothing more to say to you.
I think we mostly agree, actually (and I said as much on the first page of this thread). I don’t think AI scraping will work the same way at all in 5 or 10 years. We’re in an adjustment period. In a year Amazon went from having no policy about AI content to a very weak policy, and I expect by next year they will have a much more robust policy. That’s just one example but it’s all happening very fast.
I do think it raises interesting questions about fair use the same way collages or sampling or prints of Campbell’s Soup cans do. I expect AI cases to hit the Supreme Court within a couple of years. They will be interesting to follow.
1 year
