Visual artists fight back against AI companies for repurposing their work::Three visual artists are suing artificial intelligence image-generators to protect their copyrights and careers.

  • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m talking from a perspective of understanding how machine learning networks work.

    They cannot make something new. By nature, they can only mimic.

    The randomness they use to combine different pieces of work, is not creativeness. It’s brute force. It’s doing the math a million times until it looks right.

    Humans fundamentally do not work that way. When an engineer sees a design, and thinks “I can improve that” they are doing so because they understand the mechanism.

    Modern AIs do not understand anything. They brute force their way to valid output, and in some cases, like with code, science, or an engineering problem, there might be one single best solution, which an AI can find faster than a human.

    But art, DOES NOT HAVE a single correct “solution”.

    • lunarul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      AI is supposed to work with human input. AI is a tool for the artist, not a replacement of the artist. The human artist is the one calling the shots, deciding when the final result is good or when it needs improvement.

      • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Absolutely.

        Yet a lot of people are sharpening their knives in preparation to cut the artist out of the process.

        • lunarul@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          And the difference in results is clearly different. There are people who replaced artists with Photoshop, there are people who replaced artists with AI, and each new tool with firther empower people to try things on their own. If those results are good enough for them then they probably wouldn’t have paid for a good artist anyway.

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They cannot make something new. By nature, they can only mimic.

      Explain it to me from a mathematical point of view. How can I know based on the structure of GANs or Transformers that they, by nature, can only mimic? Please explain it mathematically, since you’re referring to their nature.

      The randomness they use to combine different pieces of work, is not creativeness. It’s brute force. It’s doing the math a million times until it looks right.

      This betrays a lack of understanding on your part. What is the difference between creativeness and brute force? The rate of acceptable navigations in the latent space. Transformers and GANs do not brute force in any capacity. Where do you get the idea that they generate millions of variations until they get it right?

      Humans fundamentally do not work that way. When an engineer sees a design, and thinks “I can improve that” they are doing so because they understand the mechanism.

      Define understanding for me. AI can, for example, automatically optimise algorithms (it’s a fascinating field, finding a more efficient implementation without changing results). This should be impossible if you’re correct. Why does it work? Why can they optimise without understanding, and why can’t this be used in other areas?

      Modern AIs do not understand anything. They brute force their way to valid output, and in some cases, like with code, science, or an engineering problem, there might be one single best solution, which an AI can find faster than a human.

      Again, define understanding. They provably build internal models depending on the task you’re training. How is that not a form of understanding?

      But art, DOES NOT HAVE a single correct “solution”.

      Then it seems great that an AI doesn’t always give the same result for the same input, no?

      • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The brute forcing doesn’t happen when you generate the art. It happens when you train the model.

        You fiddle with the numbers until it produces only results that “look right”. That doesn’t make it not brute forcing.

        Human inspiration and creativity meanwhile is an intuitive process. And we understand why 2+2 is four.

        Writing a piece of code that takes two values and sums them, does not mean the code comprehends math.

        In the same way, training a model to generate sound or visuals, does not mean it understands the human experience.

        As for current models generating different result for the same prompt… no. They don’t. They generate variations, but the same prompt won’t get you Dalí in one iteration, then Monet in the next.

        • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The brute forcing doesn’t happen when you generate the art. It happens when you train the model.

          So it’s the same as a human - they also generate art until they get something that “looks right” during training. How is it different when an AI does it?

          But you’ll have to explain where this brute forcing happens. What are the inputs and outputs of the process? Because the NN doesn’t generate all possible outputs until the correct one is found, which is what brute forcing is. Maybe you could argue that GANs are kinda doing this, but it’s still a very much directed process, which is entirely different from real brute forcing.

          Human inspiration and creativity meanwhile is an intuitive process. And we understand why 2+2 is four.

          You’re using more words without defining them.

          Writing a piece of code that takes two values and sums them, does not mean the code comprehends math.

          But we’re not writing code to generate art. We’re writing code to train a model to generate art. As I’ve already mentioned, NNs provably can build an accurate model of whatever you’re training - how is this not a form of comprehension?

          In the same way, training a model to generate sound or visuals, does not mean it understands the human experience.

          Please prove you need to understand the human experience to be able to generate meaningful art.

          As for current models generating different result for the same prompt… no. They don’t. They generate variations, but the same prompt won’t get you Dalí in one iteration, then Monet in the next.

          Of course they can, depending on your prompt and temperature.

          • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You are drawing parallels where I don’t think there are any, and are asking me to prove things I consider self-evident.

            I’m no longer interested in elaborating, and I don’t think you’d understand me if I did.

            • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              This is what it always comes down to - you have this fuzzy feeling that AI art is not real art, but the deeper you dig, the harder it gets to draw a real distinction. This is because your arguments aren’t rooted in actual definitions, so instead of clearly explaining the difference between A and B, you handwave it away due to C, which you also don’t explain.

              I once held positions similar to yours, but after analysing the topic much much deeper I arrived at my current positions. I can clearly answer all the questions I posed to you. You should consider whether you not being able to means anything regarding your own position.

              • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I am able to answer your questions for myself. I have lost interest in doing so for you.

                • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  But can you do so from the ground up, without handwaving towards the next unexplained reason? That’s what you’ve done here so far.

                  • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Yes.

                    I once held a view similar to the one you present now. I would consider my current opinion further advanced, like you do yours.

                    You ask for elaboration and verbal definitions, I’ve been concise because I do not wish to spend time on this.

                    It is clear we cannot proceed further without me doing so. I have decided I won’t.

    • BURN@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve tried to explain this to a lot of people on here and they just don’t seem to get it. Art fundamentally relies on human experience for meaning. AI does not replicate that.

      Seems like people on this platform are very engineering focused, and many aren’t artists themselves and see it as a pure commodity instead of a reflection of the artist.

      • Peanut@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        artist here. nobody is thinking about AI as a tool being used… by artists.

        the pareidolia aspect of diffusion specifically does a great job of mimicking the way artists conceptualize an image. it’s not 1 to 1, but to say the models are stealing from the data they were trained on is definitely as silly as claiming an artist was stealing every time they admired or incorporated aspects of other people’s art into their own.

        i’m also all for opensource and publicly available models. if independent artists lose that tool, they will be competing with large corps who can buy all the data they need, and hold exclusive proprietary models while independent artists get nothing.

        ultimately this tech is leading to a holo-deck style of creation, where you can define you vision through direction and language rather than through hands that you’ve already destroyed practicing linework for decades. or through hunting down the right place for a photograph. or having a beach not wash your sandcastle away with the tide.

        there are many aspects to art and creation. A.I. is one more avenue, and it’s a good one. as long as we don’t make it impossible to use without subscribing to the landlords of art tools.

        • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I absolutely approve of AI tools as a way for artists to empower themselves. Because there is human input.

          The “best” AI art I’ve seen is the type posted by people who were already drawing before, and are using it as a tool to realise their vision. But that’s the crux of the issue, in these pieces a human conceived the them, the tools used to realize them, don’t matter.

          But a lot of people are presenting AI as a something that replaces the whole person of an artist. Not a new brush for them to wield in creatively intelligent ways.

          • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I absolutely approve of AI tools as a way for artists to empower themselves. Because there is human input.

            Why does that “fix it” for you? Earlier you stated that AI cannot create anything new by its very nature. Why does the status of the output change if an artist uses it? Why is it art when an artist does it, but not if a non-artist does it?

            • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m not talking about “artists” who fiddle with prompts until they got something pretty and then treat the result as a finished piece.

              I’m talking about people generate a nose, a hand, a set of abs, a piece of clothing, a texture for a set of clothing, and then combine these with their “traditional” digital art skills.

              They are using the AI like a brush, not a printer.

              • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                And why is only that “art”? Why is it not art when I use in-painting to generate individual parts of the image? Where is the magical border where it turns from not-art to art?

                • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The magical border is whether it originated in a human mind. What tools were used to get it out and into world don’t matter.

                  A lot of AI content out there right now, isn’t the result of that process. The AI generated something the artist liked, rather than the artist bending the AI into realising what they could already see in their mind.

          • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I often see the sentiment that AI art is only valid when it is created by people who were already drawing before. It’s a pernicious notion I don’t agree with at all. I think this is the birth of a new and exciting form of expression that can and should be explored by anyone, regardless of any experience or skill level.

            Generative art allows more people to communicate with others in ways they couldn’t before, and to inspire and be inspired by others. The stuff people post online isn’t just a matter of pressing a button and getting a random result. It requires creativity, curiosity, experimentation, and refinement. It also requires learning how to use new skills they may not have had to effectively use new tools that are rapidly evolving and improving to express themselves. Generative art is not a passive process, but an active one, where human artists get a chance to create something unique and meaningful.

            Remember: It costs nothing to encourage an artist, and the potential benefits are staggering. A pat on the back to an artist now could one day result in your favorite film, or the cartoon you love to get stoned watching, or the song that saves your life. Discourage an artist, you get absolutely nothing in return, ever.

            ― Kevin Smith, Tough Shit: Life Advice from a Fat, Lazy Slob Who Did Good

            I believe that generative art, warts and all, is a vital new form of art that is shaking things up, challenging preconceptions, and getting people angry - just like art should. And if you see someone post some malformed monstrosity somewhere, cut them some slack, they’re just learning.

      • treefrog
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        No bodies, no social circles. No joy. No suffering.

        This is where art comes from. AI can make ‘something new’ out of inputs. The same way a toaster can make toast when you feed it bread. But neither the toaster nor the AI create art.

        Because neither one can connect with or communicate what it’s like to be a human being. And neither is being shaped socially by other human beings.

        • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t need to know the background of a piece of art to know it’s art. I’ve seen AI generated pieces that touch me, and I’ve seen “real art” that I do not consider art. How can this be if you’re right?

          The obvious answer is that art isn’t defined by who created it or how it was created, but instead it’s defined by the interpretation of whoever views it. An artist using generative AI to make something great is no less art than if they used a brush and canvas, and a non-artist doing the same doesn’t suddenly make it “not art”.

          • treefrog
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            My point was within the context of the argument saying that it’s okay for copyrighted art to be fed to an ai without the artists permission because ai learns like people do and is essentially doing what people do to each other.

            But AI don’t participate in culture and they’re not embodied entities. So they don’t have the relational capacity to get art, as I understand it. And therefore they don’t learn art in the same way people do, because they’re not touched by art the way people are.

            It’s fine for ai to be used to make art. But to feed ai copyrighted art so the style can be mimicked, automated, and profited from… that feels a lot more like theft to me then if I went to the art museum and tried to ape a Picasso.

            • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              AI don’t participate in culture, but the people who make them do, and fair use protects their right to reverse engineering, indexing, and other forms of analysis that create new knowledge about works or bodies of works. These models consist only of original analysis of the training data in comparison with one another, which were selected by their creators based on their learned experiences and preferences.

              These are tools made by humans for humans to use, we are in control of the input and the output. Every time you see generative AI output, it’s because someone out there made the decision to share. Restricting these models is restricting the rights of the people that use and train them. Mega-corporations will have their own models, no matter the price. What we say and do here will only affect our ability to catch up and stay competitive.

              I recommend reading this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF if you haven’t already. The EFF is a digital rights group who most recently won a historic case: border guards now need a warrant to search your phone. I’d like to hear your thoughts.

              • treefrog
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Alright, the article convinced me of the legal argument.

                Morally and ethically I think my main issue is knowing that for profit corporations will be putting many of my flesh and blood favorite artists out of work without any sort of compensation.

                Really we just need UBI. I think the issue is less about plagiarism and more about livelihood for most people worried about it.

                • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Capitalism trained us to see anything we do as a way to amass wealth. As more things approach post-scarcity, it’s going to drive more people to enforce artificial scarcity to keep prices up, like jewelers do with diamonds.

                  It’s not all downsides. There are plenty of free and open source generative models that anyone can use. Ordinary people have new ways to express themselves creatively, learn new things, and entertain themselves, and improve their lives. We’re already connecting with each other in ways we couldn’t before, and inspiring one another to get out and start creating.

              • treefrog
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’ll read the links.

                Personally, I don’t have an issue with people copyrighting things they use an AI to make. I’ll let you know if my opinion changes on fair use of already copyrighted work being used to make (commercial) AI.

      • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s so wierd to see artistic expression reduced to an engineering problem.

        Yeah, you can generate images and sounds, but claiming that’s art is like claiming a thousand monkeys could write the works of Shakespeare. Yes, its possible, but what enables it is randomness. Not creativity.

        And in that process, you created a lot more of something else, aside from the works of Shakespeare.