Could AI art have come about without theft?

[aociswundumho]

When's the last time you tried that?

Tried what? Most artwork on the internet is protected by copyright, even if it's not labeled that way.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Tried what? Most artwork on the internet is protected by copyright, even if it's not labeled that way.

So you admit AI art is in fact mostly plagiarized?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

If I wanted to recreate the work and style of De Goya's "Third of May" it would first require years of practice and training and then the actual painting process would take hours, if not days or weeks.

So if you were really good at copying styles and it only took you twenty minutes to emulate Goya's and create a piece in the same style, then it would be wrong?

An AI is not creating a replication because it sees artistic value in it, or because it sees it as something worth accomplishing as a demonstration of skill.

Skill is in the eye of the beholder when it comes to subjective things like art. I'm a huge fan of Peter Lik, despite the fact that many other photographers think he's an overhyped and overpriced hack. I like the work he creates. I think he's skilled. That some think you can find a thousand images like his all over Flickr and 500px is irrelevant.

Its doing it because it plagiarized thousands upon thousands of photos and images from across the web, mostly without permission, and then somebody without the will or desire to actually sit down and learn the actual skills that go into painting decided to punch a couple commands into a keyboard.

You sound a lot like what I imagine painters sounded like when photography became widely available.

So the instrument of creation is different. So the source of the imagery is different. So the speed at which it is produced is different. Why do any (or all) of these factors change anything? Why would these factors mean it's not "art?"

From a purely legal perspective there's the obvious issue of plagiarism and the fact that most AI models were trained on data sets that were no colllated with permission.

When does "fair use" become "plagiarism?" The best novels were written using words, phrases, and likely even entire sentences that were used by authors preceding them.

From an ethical perspective its just a reduction of actual value and intent from the artistic process to reward someone who wants to laurels of artistic accomplishment without any actual effort.

This is not unique to AI. See: a banana taped to a wall.

 

[Jredbaron96]

So if you were really good at copying styles and it only took you twenty minutes to emulate Goya's and create a piece in the same style, then it would be wrong?

This doesnt make any sense as an argument because this isnt a feasible scenario.

Skill is in the eye of the beholder when it comes to subjective things like art. I'm a huge fan of Peter Lik, despite the fact that many other photographers think he's an overhyped and overpriced hack. I like the work he creates. I think he's skilled. That some think you can find a thousand images like his all over Flickr and 500px is irrelevant.
You sound a lot like what I imagine painters sounded like when photography became widely available.

So the instrument of creation is different. So the source of the imagery is different. So the speed at which it is produced is different. Why do any (or all) of these factors change anything? Why would these factors mean it's not "art?"

Because art is a creative process.

Intrinsic in your argument is a clear inclination towards viewing this through a commercial lens, viewing art as purely a product, a project that needs to be completed or something that only has value once it is finished.

Art isnt just art because at the end of the day you can say "I painted a bowl of fruit" or "I drew Jessica Rabbit being pounded by a werewolf". Its an expression of human imagination and the process of creativity. The human creativity in AI art ends when you stop typing the prompt.

When does "fair use" become "plagiarism?" The best novels were written using words, phrases, and likely even entire sentences that were used by authors preceding them.

This is an extremely poor usage of the concept of intellectual property and I think you know that. This is not an argument that actually captures how AI creates imagery.

This is not unique to AI. See: a banana taped to a wall.

The fact that people are still talking about it kinda proves the point behind it.

 

[RobertU]

A sidebar: I created two AI images of sleeping women lying in a bed of ice plants. One was an attractive young Hispanic woman, the other an old white woman.
Two or three people thought the attractive woman was a real person. Did I have permission to use her image? Nobody asked about the old woman; apparently her image wasn't of value.

 

[ASHES]

A sidebar: I created two AI images of sleeping women lying in a bed of ice plants. One was an attractive young Hispanic woman, the other an old white woman.
Two or three people thought the attractive woman was a real person. Did I have permission to use her image? Nobody asked about the old woman; apparently her image wasn't of value.

Tell me more about the images of women in beds you create.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

This doesnt make any sense as an argument because this isnt a feasible scenario.

Isn't it? I could grab a cucumber out of the fridge and use masking tape to fasten it to the wall exactly 6 feet above the floor, creating art "in the style of" whatever Mr. Banana's real name is, and I could do it in as much time as it takes to grab a cucumber, a tape measure, and some masking tape from the vegetable, tool, and junk drawers. It's not Goya, but your final comment in your last post sure seems to suggest you consider the taped banana to be art.

Because art is a creative process.

In AI art, the "creativity" would seem to belong to the person prompting the engine. THey choose the prompts and a product is spit out. You might say that's not "creative," but so also a painter a century ago might say the same thing about taking a photograph. Just as the photographer might respond that image composition and post-processing is creative, so too might an AI "artist" claim that the prompting is creative.

Intrinsic in your argument is a clear inclination towards viewing this through a commercial lens, viewing art as purely a product, a project that needs to be completed or something that only has value once it is finished.

Disagree, hard. I only mentioned Lik being overpriced as a citation of the criticism by others about his works. His price points are irrelevant to me because I'm not in the market to hang stuff in my house that I didn't create. And that's the focus of my works: what do I like and what do I want to create? As to art as a "product," you'll note that I've been using that term to refer only to the output of AI. I think it's an open question as to whether AI art is a "creation" and have been careful to use the word "create" when I'm talking about people-art, saying only that AI art is a product in the sense that it's is produced.

Art isnt just art because at the end of the day you can say "I painted a bowl of fruit" or "I drew Jessica Rabbit being pounded by a werewolf". Its an expression of human imagination and the process of creativity.

I painted a bowl of fruit (in Paint):


I also drew Jessica Rabbit being pounded by a werewolf:


Is the bowl of fruit "art?" Is the pounding "art?" If neither are are, did the bowl of fruit stop being art as soon as it was repurposed as Jessica Rabbit being pounded by a werewolf? I created both, are either "creative?"

The human creativity in AI art ends when you stop typing the prompt.

So?

This is an extremely poor usage of the concept of intellectual property and I think you know that. This is not an argument that actually captures how AI creates imagery.

It's not perfect, but the fair use question is absolutely on point. If a person takes four notes from a selection of songs he likes and stitches them together in a computer program to a five-minute song, is that plagiarism or fair use? That's very close to what AI is doing, and may be even closer to the plagiarism side than AI art.

The fact that people are still talking about it kinda proves the point behind it.

We're still talking about AI output. What does that prove about the argument?

 

[ASHES]

Isn't it? I could grab a cucumber out of the fridge and use masking tape to fasten it to the wall exactly 6 feet above the floor, creating art "in the style of" whatever Mr. Banana's real name is, and I could do it in as much time as it takes to grab a cucumber, a tape measure, and some masking tape from the vegetable, tool, and junk drawers. It's not Goya, but your final comment in your last post sure seems to suggest you consider the taped banana to be art.


In AI art, the "creativity" would seem to belong to the person prompting the engine. THey choose the prompts and a product is spit out. You might say that's not "creative," but so also a painter a century ago might say the same thing about taking a photograph. Just as the photographer might respond that image composition and post-processing is creative, so too might an AI "artist" claim that the prompting is creative.


Disagree, hard. I only mentioned Lik being overpriced as a citation of the criticism by others about his works. His price points are irrelevant to me because I'm not in the market to hang stuff in my house that I didn't create. And that's the focus of my works: what do I like and what do I want to create? As to art as a "product," you'll note that I've been using that term to refer only to the output of AI. I think it's an open question as to whether AI art is a "creation" and have been careful to use the word "create" when I'm talking about people-art, saying only that AI art is a product in the sense that it's is produced.


I painted a bowl of fruit (in Paint):
View attachment 67582926

I also drew Jessica Rabbit being pounded by a werewolf:
View attachment 67582927

Is the bowl of fruit "art?" Is the pounding "art?" If neither are are, did the bowl of fruit stop being art as soon as it was repurposed as Jessica Rabbit being pounded by a werewolf? I created both, are either "creative?"


So?


It's not perfect, but the fair use question is absolutely on point. If a person takes four notes from a selection of songs he likes and stitches them together in a computer program to a five-minute song, is that plagiarism or fair use? That's very close to what AI is doing, and may be even closer to the plagiarism side than AI art.


We're still talking about AI output. What does that prove about the argument?

Both of the images you created in paint in the context of the entire post is art.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Both of the images you created in paint in the context of the entire post is art.

It is the hottest image I've ever created of Jessica Rabbit being pounded by a werewolf...

 

[RobertU]

Tell me more about the images of women in beds you create.

Let me just show you:




In both cases, color was the key factor in my short prompts: In the first pix, purple hair to match the purple flowers, in the second, white hair and white gown to match the white flowers.

 

[ASHES]

Let me just show you:

View attachment 67582928
View attachment 67582929

In both cases, color was the key factor in my short prompts: In the first pix, purple hair to match the purple flowers, in the second, white hair and white gown to match the white flowers.

Thank you very much for sharing.

I realized after I posted how it may be taken. I am glad you didn't take it that way to heart.

I would say the questions arrived the way they did for you is because the first one could more easily be mistaken for a real, living, breathing person making choices. The second one looks both like a dead person in a pose, and like obvious AI.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Isn't it?

No, it isn’t.

You could call taping a cucumber to the wall art if you wanted, though given what you’re saying it sounds more like an exercise in cynicism.

In AI art, the "creativity" would seem to belong to the person prompting the engine. THey choose the prompts and a product is spit out. You might say that's not "creative," but so also a painter a century ago might say the same thing about taking a photograph. Just as the photographer might respond that image composition and post-processing is creative, so too might an AI "artist" claim that the prompting is creative.

But that’s not equivalent at all. Photography didn’t replace paintings and it was never expected to emulate it. While you may believe it so, the actual reaction to photography from the art community was pretty mild, since photography was viewed in a pretty distinct light from painting in terms of subject.

Disagree, hard. I only mentioned Lik being overpriced as a citation of the criticism by others about his works. His price points are irrelevant to me because I'm not in the market to hang stuff in my house that I didn't create. And that's the focus of my works: what do I like and what do I want to create? As to art as a "product," you'll note that I've been using that term to refer only to the output of AI. I think it's an open question as to whether AI art is a "creation" and have been careful to use the word "create" when I'm talking about people-art, saying only that AI art is a product in the sense that it's is produced.

So, you agree that art is an actual creative process.

And you know what, I agree that writing a prompt can be seen as a form of art if we lump it under “writing”. But that’s where it stops, because that’s where the human element ends.

The creation process for AI art is a million monkeys writing Shakespeare brute force approach to image replication and generation.

I also drew Jessica Rabbit being pounded by a werewolf:
View attachment 67582927

Hot.

Is the bowl of fruit "art?" Is the pounding "art?" If neither are are, did the bowl of fruit stop being art as soon as it was repurposed as Jessica Rabbit being pounded by a werewolf? I created both, are either "creative”?

I would say it is an actual example of creativity.

So?

It's not perfect, but the fair use question is absolutely on point. If a person takes four notes from a selection of songs he likes and stitches them together in a computer program to a five-minute song, is that plagiarism or fair use? That's very close to what AI is doing, and may be even closer to the plagiarism side than AI art.

There are currently AI models whose explicit purpose was to be trained on a particular artists style and then is to replicate their style to create images in their style in minutes. Do you really think this is similar to someone learning to paint over the course of years and then applying different techniques they learned to create their own artwork?

We're still talking about AI output. What does that prove about the argument?

What do you think the purpose was behind taping a banana to a wall was?

 

[RobertU]

Thank you very much for sharing.

I realized after I posted how it may be taken. I am glad you didn't take it that way to heart.

I would say the questions arrived the way they did for you is because the first one could more easily be mistaken for a real, living, breathing person making choices. The second one looks both like a dead person in a pose, and like obvious AI.

If you saw a picture of Taylor Swift for the very first time, you might think the image was AI-generated. I always thought her beauty was very generic; an example of a “typical” young, attractive white woman with no distinctive features.

 

[ASHES]

If you saw a picture of Taylor Swift for the very first time, you might think the image was AI-generated. I always thought her beauty was very generic; an example of a “typical” young, attractive white woman with no distinctive features.

A 20'teens Avril Lavigne.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

So you admit AI art is in fact mostly plagiarized?

I still enjoy seeing the mashed signature of the original artist whose work has been reused for an AI output. That always answers the "theft" question quire neatly.

I suppose it also helps answer the difference between a human doing this (they wouldn't unless stupid) and an AI.

 

[bomberfox]

It's still properly licensed.

Let's say you're an artist, and I'm an artist. Your art has a particular style.

I create some artwork that somewhat mimics your style, and in the metadata describing the artwork, I note among other things that it is "in the style of @Infinite Chaos". I then license that art to Adobe as an input for model training.

Did I break any laws or steal anything from you? On paper, no. Did Adobe? On paper, no. Are you salty about it? Of course. But did Adobe do anything wrong? It's hard to argue that they did.

Now, one element of responsible AI development is the appropriate filtering of training data. In my own case we have teams that work on all sorts of content filters to identify and block training data with personal identities, trademarked terms and so forth because it's the right thing to do and even in our licensed sets we sometimes see these things. However it's not an easy task. Take a trademark. What might be a trademark in one country could be a regular spoken term in another. If you're training a multi-lingual model, you can see how this alone presents a huge problem.

I absolutely do think some companies are basically stealing any art or other material they can find to train models, but others are definitely working hard to be above board. The challenge is that even those trying to be above board about these things have to deal with some really complicated data challenges.

I agree this is the right thing to do.

 

[RobertU]

The "AI stealing art" complaint has echoes of the "white people stealing Black music" grievance; that is, Black people "own" the genres of jazz and rock and roll.