Skip Navigation
196 @lemmy.blahaj.zone
WillStealYourUsername @lemmy.blahaj.zone

How do you all feel about AI generated art? (rule)

So a recent post garnered some comments and reports for being AI art. In light of this we should all have a little conversation about how AI generated images should be handled in the future.

I think we all agree that AI images that are "garbage" or don't add anything should be removed, but clearly some feel very strongly that all AI art should always be removed.

It should be noted that the rules as written and as agreed on by the community does not blanket ban AI, it merely says AI art should be avoided, while many other rules say no this or that instead.

Things to discuss:

  • Does it matter if an image is AI? Does it always matter?
  • What about images that are AI generated, but have been modified by a human?
  • What about images where it's hard to say for certain that it is generated? Me and the other mods did not agree on whether the recent image was AI f.ex which makes it hard to make a decision on whether or not to remove it.
  • It can be stressful to artists to be accused of having used AI. If we are too militant on weeding out AI art it could be harmful as there will no doubt be some false positives.
  • Should AI posts require being tagged in the title? (and of course be required to be of a certain level of quality)

I think a lot of us mods feel that AI should be allowed so long as it is not low quality and serves some purpose (being entertaining f.ex), and that the community should not be flooded with AI. What are your thoughts?

Edit: Thank you all for your input! Most of the others are sleeping right now I think, so nothing is likely gonna happen until later today.

You're viewing a single thread.

92 comments

  • All AI art is trained on the work of real artists who didn't give consent for these programs to copy their work.

    If society thought people copying parts of other artists work was stealing before AI we should treat AI art as stealing because it copys parts of artists work.

    • I think framing copyright piracy as a moral panic is sleazy and wrong, just as I believe that anti-piracy campaigns which seek to scare and demonize people who pirate music or movies are wrong. I cannot support this rhetoric in good faith, this is the modern day equivalent of "think of the children" for enforcing fake ownership of something that can't be really owned.

      • its a flawed description of the issue i agree. put it another way. if i search an image database using keywords and skim until i find exactly what i want. then post that image as my own. have i created something? thats all generated images are. existing images, progromatically mushed together without real intent. i dont really take issue with the use of tools within programs like photoshop. that becomes a question of intent sometimes sure, but you're still typically putting in effort and making decisions during the process. yes generative 'ai' is cool tech. the same way LLMs incorporating conversational manipulations of psychics is fascinating. or how the mechanics of magic tricks can be as interesting as the trick. but magic still isnt real and im still not having an actual conversation with my computer.

        • I'm not really arguing against that, or trying to say that AI is any less or more creative. I'm saying that the moral panic of "copyright infringement" AKA "art theft" is stupid to me because it's based on the made up idea that people own the physical analog of an idea the same way I can own a laptop or a car. Piracy isn't stealing, and it never has been. Piracy's moral panic is based on the idea of me not buying something because I was able to pirate it. Here's the thing though. I'm not going to buy it anyway, if you think I will you don't know me.

          Someone could say that I'm bad because I used AI to generate my pfp, but I wouldn't have commissioned an artist to draw it for me. I would've just taken it for free somewhere else whether it was a legal source like freely licensed or a screen-rip from an anime. If there wasn't anywhere else I just wouldn't have a pfp. Piracy isn't stealing, the amount of pirates who would buy anyway is lower than any anti-piracy advocates would like you to believe. And I do believe the same is true here for the most part.

          There's muddyness when it comes to commercial AI and I don't like big tech commercial AI since they are sleazy and scamming people, but also because they will happily cut us all off and make us pay. I do not think OpenAI or Ahthropic are good companies or doing good things for our world. I just don't believe the standard Anti-AI rhetoric that it's bad because of copyright infringement. I've pirated movies in the past, even when it was shitty and low quality. This isn't much different to me, yeah it's not as good as the real thing, I don't deny that. Same with AI, AI images are like those pirated movies, lower quality, maybe shaky, real art is something else.

          • thats where you lose me. when we're talking about the blanket statement that all generative ai is theft when opensource solution exist, i agree with you. there is nuance here, generative ai in an opensource context is fine. whatever i think of it's value doesnt matter.

            but ignoring all nuance around copyright or calling this a moral panic while claiming some kind of moral high ground on privacy loses the plot. it's an uncalled for detour in an otherwise good argument. not all internet piracy is bad, not all internet piracy is advocating freedom of inforormation. just like you cant steal food, you cant steal from the rich. sure a debate could be had about pirating a marvel movie or taylor swifts next album takes money somewhere along the whole supply chain and evtually hurts a person somehow. but now we're talking about an entire system here and also fuck'em. but thats not the free flow of information. if i put something from behind a paywall onto sci-hub. yeah some company could use some ip in there to make money. they were going to act morally bankrupt anyway. piracy and free flow of information right?
            now as most scientists will just give you their work, then give you extra stuff because they're excited you're interested. if they say "please dont let this one section out, i thought you'd like it but its what i pay my bills from". and i still post that section. i've stolen their labor like a good capitalist. if a diy band kickstarters their ablum saying it'll be free after they make enough to eat. and i post that on a torrent site day one. just a pirate and an asshole who stole their labor. generative ai overwhelmingly uses content from small copyright holders who cant afford it, while providing a profit vehicle for copyright holders who can afford not to care. in this context the copyright is the only tool available to those small artists to protect their labor and ability to eat.

            make your pfp with gen ai using freely offered data, cool glad you found an activity that gives you joy. do it using pirated data, cool glad you found an activity that gives you joy but theres no moral high ground there.

            • I'm only describing it as moral panic because in the vast majority of the argument people have talking about copyright and "Art theft" they are framing their position as a moral high ground. I really don't think there is one either. People are going to do what they do. They can use freely available creative commons materials, or they can pirate the good stuff. One isn't better than the others.

              Ultimately when it comes to an AI like OpenAI, I couldn't care less if they source and license the data responsibly, use Free to use material, or engage in piracy. They can fuck themselves any way they do it. Because an AI company like that is going to screw us over in the long run. No matter how nice they play.

              Your argument about pirating indie music or games does seem to be a common one, and I would agree if it weren't for one big part. Most pirates do buy when they can. I certainly do. There are things I pirate I would never buy and there are even things I would never pirate. But games I pirated and liked, especially indie games I've bought. Music and Art is a trickier subject because people these days mostly stream and view online, though if we're going to compare to art commission I would argue that a person who would commission a piece of art would probably still do it, but on the flip side someone who wouldn't, just wouldn't. Regardless if AI is available to do it or not.

      • It's ultimately trying to justify passing off the work of others as their own by obfiscating the way in which it's done.

        It's not worth creating your own art if an AI is just going to rip your style and take credit the second you post it.

        I often find the people who make excuses for AI art theft have never taken the days to make a piece of art that you upload to a community just to see others passing off your work as their own.

        It's been proven the artists used in the training data can be identified by the art the AI generates. As well as with generted text. It doesn't copy pixel for pixel or word for word, but it copys identifiable techniques and prose.

        I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it if every artist agreed for their works to be used, but these bots just scraped the open internet and took everything they could find and that's the training data.

        • It’s not worth creating your own art if an AI is just going to rip your style and take credit the second you post it.

          This is almost verbatim the same argument they use against piracy saying if people can pirate "no one buys any disks from the store" - DP (Don't copy that Floppy). And it's wrong. I use AI the same way I use piracy, and I do appreciate real art. Which is why I say that the anti-AI arguments I see floating around are bullshit, you don't know people who use it, you're regurgitating ideas and talking points that don't apply evenly to all people, just like anti-piracy propaganda does.

          I'm not taking credit for it, maybe some people do, but it's a strawman argument to say everyone does. I see AI generation as another form of piracy.

          I wouldn’t have as much of a problem with it if every artist agreed for their works to be used, but these bots just scraped the open internet and took everything they could find and that’s the training data.

          Like I said, same thing as piracy. The arguments against piracy fall onto deaf ears, and I don't respect them. Because Copyright, especially broken long copyright like what the US has is killing our culture. I don't respect it and will not honor it. People who make a moral panic about forms of piracy are basically screaming "Think of the children" as far as I'm concerned.

          • This is almost verbatim the same argument they use against piracy saying if people can pirate "no one buys any disks from the store"

            Do you understand the different conext of wanting something to be profitable vs wanting people to know you made the thing you worked to create?

            This is i think a core separation on the issue, and speaks to how little empathy the AI shovelers have for the tools they use trained on the hard work of real human beings.

            I'm not taking credit for it, maybe some people do, but it's a strawman argument to say everyone does.

            So who are these people crediting when the image they asked to be generated is using art that isn't credited?

            People who make a moral panic about forms of piracy are basically screaming "Think of the children" as far as I'm concerned.

            Spoken like someone who hasn't created art great enough that they want their name on it.

            • Spoken like someone who hasn’t created art great enough that they want their name on it.

              Willing to bet that you along with the majority of the morally outraged people on this subject who are whining haven't either. They're usually at it for the same reasons people who whine about piracy do what they do and simp for IP holders, because they've seen others do it.

              So who are these people crediting when the image they asked to be generated is using art that isn’t credited?

              They aren't crediting anyone or taking credit, same as pirating content. Just like how we don't go out of our way to give credit to the people who pirated the content or the people who made the film.

              copys identifiable techniques and prose.

              I am not going to even indulge the idea of this of owning style or technique, I've seen some really toxic ideas around trying to own style, traits, or even a fictional species and this is downright petty, and one of the most extreme forms of gatekeeping in that space yet. It's also so low that it's not even protected by copyright but even if it were I'd respect it less than I do more concrete forms of intellectual property (which I don't respect either).

92 comments