Consolidated AI Thread: A Discussion For Everything AI

Game Development Writing and Content
186

Edit : In response to @Phenrex

Summary

Fixed Phenrex name and also sorry as I said I’m tired and probably missed that you were being playful when you said nonsense as there is some Ai art program (if I remember) that don’t use art from artstist but it’s really nonsense you have to put together. So I really thought you managed to make that ai art with those as nothing surprise me anymore XD As for what you said about my first post I’m sorry I wasn’t more clear I did see your artwork and this was what I was talking about when I said that as long as you’re not hurting anyone, then it’s a valid tool, and the art made from it is just as transformative and worthy as if you didn’t use the Ai.

Your kimono pattern is a good example of how Ai art could be use without hurting anyone ! I myself would really like an Ai tool trained on only opensource images I could use for inspiration or patterns. The potential is endless and that’s why I haven’t given up on this technology yet. It genuinely could be something great.

I hope the future will be as kind for artists as what you describe. As by what I know about those companies they will do everything they can to eliminate the artists out of the process and make it so a client can get the perfect art they want, first try without any need for edit or human intervention. Which will completely erase the need for digital artist if this were to happen. I really hope it will get to be a help rather then a headache or worse NFT 2.0 for every creative out there.

Euh Sorry I tried to read and reread what you wrote but I don’t really get your point, I understand where you are coming from and feeling the way you do.
But there was no need to come like that against Phenrex. This behavior come off as antagonistic and does not help the discussion.

Phenrex questions were all valids interrogation we should have. Right now Ai company want for it to be a replacement but there is no denying the technology potential as a tool and help. And if it end up being one like a brush, and people want to use it. Then what’s the problem ?

If an artist or someone want to feed the Ai the art that they themselve made, or opensource images to make something else. What’s the problem ? It’s their choice, they are conscious of what they are doing and they hurt no one.

Edit : Corrected it wasn’t pure nonsense like I thought so the ethic of it depend on if the images were opensource or made by Phenrex.

Phenrex say in their post that they made something out of nonsense. Nonsense. Not another artist work. There is nothing wrong with that. How would that be exploiting artists if they either agreed and gave consent (opensource) or where not involved at all (nonsense) ?

If you see Ai Art as something bad to use as a tool. No problem, that’s valid. But that is suggestive and personal and not something that everyone have to agree with. Like you said plenty of artists would be glad to willingly feed their art to an ai either for personal use or part of a contract. That in itself is a personal choice. And if Ai start to be made ethically and all the problems with stealings and data laundering are solved then there is nothing inherently bad with using it. It can be a tool like every other if used and handled properly. A different one from a brush, but still something artist can use if they wish to make art.

6 Likes
187

Thank you for the offer, I already discussed this topic at length in the Ai art thread and it was informative but also really tiring. So I currently don’t have the energy to make long post about it again. You can all see my response and opinion about it here though. My sources are also there but I can link them to you again if you want. AI Generated Art: A Discussion In Art Ethics - #93 by Asterya1

TLDR :
Ai art company engage in data laundering by making themselves pass as non profit to be able to use copyrighted images but then using said data to train the Ai they intend to use to make money. They didn’t notify, ask permission or pay any of the artists before using their works. So sadly they are indeed stealing works and by extend so is the Ai. Which is even more insulting if you think about how dependent Ai is on artists yet is use to replace them. What’s more if you look at their music Ai (many company also have one) there they only take clearly opensource materials, showing a blatant double standard and proving that they are capable of being ethical but don’t care. Because the visual art don’t have the protection music have they feel free to exploit it.

I sincerely hope all of you will give the Ai thread a chance as this problem may become bigger in the future. (I don’t wanna say NFT but it unfortunately have that potential)

Now onto the update yeah ! Will post my opinion later and sorry author if I ruined the mood. Art is something important for me and I think if you are counting on using Ai art in the final product it would be good to check the thread I talked about first. Just so you can make up your own opinion on if it’s worth using or not.

4 Likes
188

Sorry I only saw your message once I posted the first one. I be blunt. This isn’t a good reason at all.

You don’t get a pass for stealing a luxury from someone poor because you are also poor. Mind you, I don’t mean that as an insult. It’s simply that art isn’t required like food, water, shelter and so on. Even more in COG or writing in general. It’s a plus that is nice to have but we can do without as what’s count is the writing.

Edit : Forgot to add that by companies I meant the one that don’t reveal where the images they use to train their Ai come from and it isn’t explicitly said and proved all is opensource.
Edit 2 : I’m not against the use of Ai tool at all, they can be done ethically and I see no inherent problem with using them. But this is something that need to be researched as most of the popular program are in on the data laundering and stealing. Sorry if I wasn’t clear in my earlier post.

As I said there is damnable proof that Ai art program were made with stolen arts. You can enter an artist name and have it copy it style. But that artist wasn’t asked permission first or compensated and many didn’t want their art to be use like that. Which is their right as they made it, and yet the Ai is stealing not only that but also their clients.

Right now using it is equal to you walking up to an artist and telling them
“I love your work and I know you put everything you had in it. That you had to work years and years and endure everyone telling you to just get a real job. And you did it. You are my favorite artist and I love your work so much I want one for myself…But I’m too poor to commission you so I will go to that guy that imitate your work, devalue it, make you lose future clients and opportunities, cause you distress as you too are poor and can’t do anything about it, and make you want to give up being an artist because now you know that I don’t care. As long as I can get a pretty thing, I’m glad that other can exploit you.”

3 Likes
189

The author seemed to have use Ai art to make the panda so I just said I hoped Ai art would not be used in the final game for the reasons I cited before. It has to do with the game.

Using most Ai Art company right now is hurting artists. So it’s not something I feel comfortable supporting. And if I buy a COG game with Ai art in it from those companies, that is giving them influence and indirectly money.

I apologize as I didn’t want to derail the thread but I made a comment (which I didn’t think would get so much or any attention if I am honest. I just wanted to know the author stance on it.) and then someone else made a comment about my comment and so on. But now that it’s out we should wait for the author response and close the subject as quickly as possible after.

1 Like
190

I really didn’t want to get into it, but it appears like I have no choice now :sweat_smile:

Look, I’m someone as removed from art/drawing as one can possibly be, so my opinion on this is far from objective. But I don’t believe there is anything inherently wrong with AI art.
In order to get a good AI Image you need to iterate a lot. Like hundreds, thousands times of a lot. Then you need to usually photoshop/edit as well if you want a decent output.
I guess the problem comes from ai generators using existing images for their algorithms, but isn’t it the same as artists using other works as inspiration/trying to copy the style? If the resulting image is made up of thousands of others and completely different from all of them, is it actually stealing? If it was edited afterwards as well, is it still someone else’s?
To be honest, discussing this seems pretty pointless (or maybe it’s just me who don’t like to argue about stuff). AI art will move forward, whether we like it or not, and as of right now it seems to be way too underdeveloped to actually replace artists (if it ever could do so at all, since art is more than just shapes and colors, it’s about the meaning put into an image - something the AI can’t do).

About AI art in the game I did use it for RO portraits, though more as a fun gimmick than anything else. Whether or not it’d be in the final version, I can’t say. Most likely not, as it’s nowhere good enough, but I won’t promise anything.

Hope my answer didn’t put you off too much lmao, but I’d appreciate it if we closed this now;)

21 Likes
191

AI doesn’t even do that. Diffusion doesn’t work by copy pasting a bunch of different picture, it start with blank static basically and the AI make its own thing from there. It literally couldn’t directly insert one of the pictures it’s been trained with even if it wanted.

14 Likes
192

It can seem similar but there is a huge difference. Ai isn’t human and thus can imitate an artist style perfectly the first time if fed enough of it works. A human will never be able to do that if they have just started drawing. You need to be a good artist in your own right to be able to replicate someone else style well. And that take years for a human but not the Ai. The problem is that Ai company had no right using those thousands of images to do anything in the first place. Many were copyrighted and the rest of the artists were never warned or asked if they wanted their art used. None of them all were paid for their work but are now feeling the effects as they are losing their clients that go to the Ai. All of that because their work was stolen and fed to a program without them being able to do anything.

Neither do I ! The technology in itself is amazing. I wish that one day there will be an Ai made ethically that I will be able to use.
My problem as I have said is that many of the most popular Ai company are commiting massive art theft and copyright infringement but don’t suffer much consequence yet because they make themselve pass as non-profit to avoid legal repercussion. Their are not trusthworthy at all as for music they clearly use only opensource. Which mean that they know what they are doing and decided they could exploit artists because their industry is less prone to sueing or action compared to musician that have big label protection.

For now. I follow the art community closely and many artists are already feeling the effects. Ai art may need a lot of retouch but because it’s free people prefer it rather then engage an artist. Except many have no problem feeding a specific artist work into an Ai without their consent to get a piece for free. So if we are already at that point then I don’t doubt that Ai will soon catch up. It is already replacing artists, the fact we are having that discussion is proof that Ai art can be use for a product. And it may never completely be able to imitate human art but it doesn’t matter. Many of the job Ai art is use for, character portrait, landscape, concept iteration ect. Those were the main thing that allowed many smaller artists to make a living. If all of that dissappear then it will be near impossible to live off art. Meaning many will be forced to leave and that will impoverish us all creatively.

Thank you for your honesty. I’m sorry the subject have come to this but I think it’s something important to know for people. This is the last post I will make about it including my response to Dragomer under.

It need a picture. That’s the thing. In order to put that noise and it ending up making sense it need something. And so far that something is stolen art and uncurated pictures. Which is why I have a problem with the dataset. Not the technology in itself or what it do. Those artists didn’t want their pictures used in any way to train the Ai but the company did it anyway. That’s theft. There is no if or but. Many artists have already asked Ai companies to stop using their arts but they don’t listen. So they are stealing in order to make their Ai work. Period. It’s the artist that make the art, they have all the right to decide what they want to do with it. And Ai company refuse to respect that. Which is ironic as their Ai own everything to artists and yet they continue to disrespect them and trample on their right to their own creation. If you want to discuss Ai art more in deep I welcome you to the thread for it.

For everyone interested here is some link to how diffusion model work and the data laundering that those companies engage in. :

Imagen release info that explains how the data set it is trained on is “uncurated” and contains “a wide range of inappropriate content including pornographic imagery, racist slurs, and harmful social stereotypes.” This is another page you should do a ctrl-f search for “artist” on: https://imagen.research.google/

California Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo writes OSTP urging investigation into unsafe AI release models, namely Stable Diffusion: Eshoo Urges NSA & OSTP to Address Unsafe AI Practices | Congresswoman Anna Eshoo

A great article summarizing the data laundering techniques of AI companies: AI Data Laundering: How Academic and Nonprofit Researchers Shield Tech Companies from Accountability - Waxy.org

A good semi-technical explanation of how diffusion models like Stable Diffusion work: How AI Image Generators Work (Stable Diffusion / Dall-E) - Computerphile - YouTube

The best non-technical explanation I’ve seen on how diffusion models work: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRHrUyDM/

(Now the subject is close. If you want to say something do it in the Ai thread, as I won’t be responding per the author wish.)

4 Likes
193

I moved a bunch of posts here from another thread; I apologize if that leads to some repeated content here, but it was better than the other thread being derailed.

3 Likes
194

Thank you for your hard work! :blush:

2 Likes
195

Hello. I found a nice video that is an overview of the current conflict about AI art. The author is rather neutral and try to understand where both side are coming from. It corrected some of my infos about copyright and fair use and I thanks it for that. A good one to send to people that don’t know where to start about the AI debate. (Warning : it doesn’t explain in detail how the AI work. I direct you to the other links I posted)

Youtuber name : KnowsBestNever

3 Likes
196

all i know is that when they find out writing ai exists, we’re gonna understand the drawing artists’ anger better.

3 Likes
197

In unrelated news:

1 Like
198

Class action suit being filed in California against Midjourney, Stablity Ai and Deviant Art. So will see where this goes — hopefully in favour of the artists filing

7 Likes
199

As an artist:

  1. I’d only accept that if it was talked about before starting the commission. I think morally, as a customer you are to tell the artist if their product is gonna be used for publishing, advertising, etc and well, legally you cant make money from someone else’s work (unless its public domain, and even then CREDIT THE ORIGINAL ARTIST!!!) if you haven’t agreed to terms and conditions (at least where i live) since it would be considered a form of plagiarism.

  2. Absolutely. This could have an impact with your customer base, add to that its very disrespectful to the years dedicated to our craft for its fruits to be used/distorted into something else without your clear permission/remuneration. (I think it would be interesting if ai owners contacted artists to commission batches of art that can THEN be used for seeds, etc. if only ppl had contacted the artists first… and they should be credited always.)

  3. Personally, it would depend on how the art would be used, for what and if I would receive monetary compensation. (I wonder how ai users would feel if their ai generated images were used themselves as seeds without their consent/credit)

  4. Depends on case by case. If I trust the customer, if i want the piece to be altered into something completely different to its original intent, etc. I dont care about what artists want to apply in their rules, I care more about ai users ASKING first and accepting what the artist chooses.

  5. Maybe, if its a project i enjoy and I knew/trusted the writer I’d allow them. If not i’d either charge more or simply not take the commission.

TLDR; ask the artist before commissioning them. if both parties accept to the terms’/rules, then perfect. if not, leave. And always credit (unless the artist asks otherwise which i doubt)

2 Likes
200

Hey, it’s not impossible. I’ve wanted on occasion for my name to not be mentioned.

1 Like
201

it is less likely tho. but understandable

203

Additional happenings in legal waters:

Getty images suing Stability AI for theft

Artstation backtracking ToS because Getty lawsuit is happening (like this was coinciding during the time the lawsuit was announced)

Mid Journey’s terms of service being scrutinized because what is that wording following someone who published a book using AI

2 Likes
204

I’m not the biggest fan of AI art, but I think I speak for everyone when I say fuck Getty. The world would be a much better place without them.

1 Like
205

Let them fight.

206

As an artist, I really appreciate you took the time and effort to learn and gain a new perspective.
I’d like to offer you a portrait of choice for free, whether an oc or your sister.

7 Likes