• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Could AI art have come about without theft?

bomberfox

bomberfox

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2019
Messages
44,067
Reaction score
21,751
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
I rag on AI art a lot mostly because they took a ton of art to train their models without asking any of the original artists but was this even necessary? Im curious.

I personally think it could have been done. Might have taken longer but there was no need to rush this in the first place.
 
Last edited:
bomberfox said:
I rag on AI art a lot mostly because they took a ton of art to train their models without asking any of the original artists but was this even necessary? Im curious.

I personally think it could have been done.
Click to expand...

Listen, I can see how the deck is stacked, and I will not antagonize, demean or otherwise disparage AI.

Instead, I will kneel at its altar.

MAGA.
 
BitterPill said:
Listen, I can see how the deck is stacked, and I will not antagonize, demean or otherwise disparage AI.

Instead, I will kneel at its altar.

MAGA.
Click to expand...
The thing is im not entirely opposed to the concept.
 
NatMorton said:
Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief.

(I wrote that. :whistle:)
Click to expand...

Despite the artist-being-a-cannibal metaphor not really working, that is outstanding.

Every poet certainly is a thief: Kudos.

MAGA.
 
I mean take AI chat bots, people are voluntarily training those things everyday and giving their efforts fully knowing they are training it. Why did AI art have to pull art from people without their permission?
 
bomberfox said:
I rag on AI art a lot mostly because they took a ton of art to train their models without asking any of the original artists but was this even necessary? Im curious.

I personally think it could have been done. Might have taken longer but there was no need to rush this in the first place.
Click to expand...
At first glance I was annoyed by the concept of "training" AI with the paintings, images, lyrics, notes, etc. of other artists, but upon further reflection, I can't help but wonder why this wouldn't apply to any artist who is inspired by the work of another. I'm heavily influenced by the photographic styles of Adams and Lik in my works, but no one's beating down my door demanding royalties. I'm not sure why anyone should be more upset about AI's output of products in the style of Beethoven, Dickens, Monet, or Leibovitz than they would be if a real person created the same pieces.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
At first glance I was annoyed by the concept of "training" AI with the paintings, images, lyrics, notes, etc. of other artists, but upon further reflection, I can't help but wonder why this wouldn't apply to any artist who is inspired by the work of another. I'm heavily influenced by the photographic styles of Adams and Lik in my works, but no one's beating down my door demanding royalties. I'm not sure why anyone should be more upset about AI's output of products in the style of Beethoven, Dickens, Monet, or Leibovitz than they would be if a real person created the same pieces.
Click to expand...

Apparently, Adams and Lik have photographic styles that you ape, and no one is beating down your door demanding royalties.

I am nearly at a loss for words save for this:

That is very sad.​

although that could be very good, Adams and Lik not banging on your door seeking royalties.

MAGA.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
At first glance I was annoyed by the concept of "training" AI with the paintings, images, lyrics, notes, etc. of other artists, but upon further reflection, I can't help but wonder why this wouldn't apply to any artist who is inspired by the work of another. I'm heavily influenced by the photographic styles of Adams and Lik in my works, but no one's beating down my door demanding royalties. I'm not sure why anyone should be more upset about AI's output of products in the style of Beethoven, Dickens, Monet, or Leibovitz than they would be if a real person created the same pieces.
Click to expand...
The difference is art inspired is a process, AI art training is pure automation. Im part of a community of artists who are pretty livid about AI taking their stuff and automating their jobs away. When i try to learn from artists, i use their tutorials that they provide freely.

Theres plenty of artists i imagine these tech bros could have asked to train their models on.
 
BitterPill said:
Apparently, Adams and Lik have photographic styles that you ape, and no one is beating down your door demanding royalties.

I am nearly at a loss for words save for this:

That is very sad.​

although that could be very good, Adams and Lik not banging on your door seeking royalties.

MAGA.
Click to expand...
I'm going to take this as a compliment. But you should know I'm not very good at copying the style of another photographer. They are my favorites, and I'm inspired by their works, but I'm positive I'm not good enough to be considered as "copying" their masterpieces. Honestly, I'm not even trying to copy them, but rather emulate their mastery.
 
bomberfox said:
The difference is art inspired is a process, AI art training is pure automation. Im part of a community of artists who are pretty livid about AI taking their stuff and automating their jobs away.
Click to expand...

I'd wholeheartedly agree with you if I knew AI wasn't watching, so I am afraid you are completely wrong.

MAGA.
 
bomberfox said:
The difference is art inspired is a process, AI art training is pure automation. Im part of a community of artists who are pretty livid about AI taking their stuff and automating their jobs away.
Click to expand...
I get that, and I empathize. But the "automation" spits out a new product, fused from the thousands (millions?) of images the AI has seen before. How is this different from a painter creating a unique landscape from the many photographs he's seen before?
 
Like i understand why human artists are really pissed off by this. Maybe it didnt have to be this way.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
I'm going to take this as a compliment. But you should know I'm not very good at copying the style of another photographer. They are my favorites, and I'm inspired by their works, but I'm positive I'm not good enough to be considered as "copying" their masterpieces. Honestly, I'm not even trying to copy them, but rather emulate their mastery.
Click to expand...
Emulating their mastery is a process. The beef i have is that process is getting automated away. Im glad you learned from it.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
I get that, and I empathize. But the "automation" spits out a new product, fused from the thousands (millions?) of images the AI has seen before. How is this different from a painter creating a unique landscape from the many photographs he's seen before?
Click to expand...
Its the difference between art being a creative process that you learn the craft from and just taking all that to automate without asking anyone and that automation displacing actual artists that learned the craft.

AI is an idea in your head
Art is a process.
 
I dont think so.

I have yet to have anyone explain to me in a reasonably understandable way if AI has had a Eureka moment. Creativity. All AI can do is make amalgamations of others creations.

We don't yet understand where ideas come from within ourselves, yet we think we can code it into something else? That's a lot of hubris, imo.

We are more than the sum of our memories, but AI is just that, and nothing more.
 
bomberfox said:
Emulating their mastery is a process. The beef i have is that process is getting automated away. Im glad you learned from it.
Click to expand...
But why is that process being automated akin to the artists having their work stolen? I am honestly asking as this is an area that I have not spent a lot of time thinking about and do not have fully formed opinions on.

But my first thoughts are the same as Grizzly Adams. If the works are publicly available, I am not seeing anything that inherently makes using an automated process to take inspiration from those works any worse morally than an artist having taken inspiration from them and creating his own work.
 
bomberfox said:
Ferriers didnt have their work stolen taken to do it. Like i get we are taught to not care about workers but come on.
Click to expand...
The intellectual property issues are another matter and an important one. But you said your arist colleagues were mad because AI is "automating their jobs away." If you're right, they're in the same boat as were elevator operators, icemen, and bank tellers.

Technology marches on, and it both creates and destroys jobs along the way.
 
Anagram said:
But why is that process being automated akin to the artists having their work stolen? I am honestly asking as this is an area that I have not spent a lot of time thinking about and do not have fully formed opinions on.

But my first thoughts are the same as Grizzly Adams. If the works are publicly available, I am not seeing anything that inherently makes using an automated process to take inspiration from those works any worse morally than an artist having taken inspiration from them and creating his own work.
Click to expand...
There are copyright issues and workers being displaced because their work is being copied by AI. I understand why a lot of artists are seriously upset.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom