AI art in compos
category: general [glöplog]
Quote:
so like modern sound engineering (autotune and alike) destroyed the singing profession
It did?! AFAIK you cannot use autotune to make a shitty singer sound perfect. Because human voices don't sound so good after to harsh pitch-shifting.
Quote:
Just a thought... so like modern sound engineering (autotune and alike) destroyed the singing profession
Lol,I love when people Just Post all their idiot thoughts.
Quote:
Lol,I love when people Just Post all their idiot thoughts.
Oh right, I see the word "idiot" is "in" in this thread. Point taken.
Quote:
Just a thought... so like modern sound engineering (autotune and alike) destroyed the singing profession, AI has a big chance to destroy gfx artist profession.
If you quote the phrase complete, just as I just did, perhaps you will notice the irony implied.
The rise of AI has no more opportunity to destroy the graphic industry than the sampler, the synthesizer or the autotune have to destroy the music.
Quote:
so like modern sound engineering (autotune and alike) destroyed the singing profession, AI has a big chance to destroy gfx artist profession
Wow, and i thought vocaloid was the bane of the singer profession. How clueless of me...
@introspec
Thank you for clarifying your previous statements :) There have been an abundance of analogies in the argumentation in this thread and while they can sometimes help illustrate complex questions they sometimes feels a bit far fetched. Like in this case; if an anti-vaxer is successful in spreading their beliefs people die, if an anti-AI person is successful it might slow the adoption and make a hardly noticeable mark in someone's bottom line.
Quote:
@El Topo:
I absolutely agree with you that anyone is entitled to have an opinion about social implications of any new technology, AI or not AI. However, I do find it very annoying when people try to support their opinions by making statements that are demonstrably false.
For example, I can understand some of the motivation of anti-vaxers in general, but I have very little sympathy for those of them who propagate misinformation that grossly exaggerates side effects of vaccines. The reason for this is very simple, once our opinions become disconnected from the objective reality, there remains nothing that can be discussed constructively, as we end up just sharing the differences in our systems of beliefs.
Very similarly, I have used the word "idiot" on the page 3 of this thread in a very specific context and applied it to a particular person from twitter, who repeatedly made statements that are manifestly incorrect and absolutely misleading, and whose misinformation campaign pretty much created the first wave of hype against generative AI on twitter. My "sorry not sorry" attitude, although you presented it as a sign of arrogance, was actually to do with the fact that I do believe that person to be grossly unclever, from my observations of his interactions on twitter. Hence, my "sorry" did not refer to him, it referred to everyone else in this thread and showed that I do, in fact, recognize a certain level of escalation that results from using such language.
I also explained what was misleading about this person statements earlier in this very thread. However, people keep repeating very similar claims (e.g. the claim that AI produce collages of works used for training). This does make me want to make snarky remarks, true. I am sorry about that. Will try my best to reduce the number of such remarks even further.
Thank you for clarifying your previous statements :) There have been an abundance of analogies in the argumentation in this thread and while they can sometimes help illustrate complex questions they sometimes feels a bit far fetched. Like in this case; if an anti-vaxer is successful in spreading their beliefs people die, if an anti-AI person is successful it might slow the adoption and make a hardly noticeable mark in someone's bottom line.
Quote:
i disagree. your creativity and imagination is also using references but the source is just obscured as you're unaware of it. that discussion can go philosophical fast, but let's illustrate it by an example: if you draw a dragon out of your baffling imagination, you know what a dragon is right? that's not your imagination, that's a construct from other sources of information what dragons look like (and they don't even exist!).
but now that it's evidently done by an algorithm, you can isolate that process and say 'that's bad!' while it isn't.
You just repeated where we beg to differ. :D
Still the artist doesn't do a simple collage like AI, no matter how granular this might be. And since the human mind isn't a kind of copy-machine and the human perception is often proved to be quite unable to re-imagine real copies and even differs from human to human, this is just a false assumption.
You clearly seem to set an algorithm at the same level than a mind coupled with creativity and skill. You make your life easy by thinking that the process, as you call it, is still the same. Sorry to say, but that's just silly. It's not.
You also think that when a human is drawing a face he is always doing a copy of something he has seen before, but in reality he just most of the time sticks to basic things that define the object like "a face has eyes, a nose and a mouth" and not a direct image he refers to or granular parts he copies, like AI does by now.
But I guess this is simply a view of someone who's not active as an artist, making his life easy in this discussion.
I sometimes wonder if we are going to that direction and more people are using AI for art and forgotten how to paint, at some point much later in time others will go back to retro pixeling like an inversion of the previous established trend. Similarly to how the retro homebrew coding and gaming seems to be more popular (in it's small fringe communities though) nowadays, like a come back to the roots. If doing art with AI steals something from the creative process, and later some people feel pointless and want to try something from the past, it might have it's ups and then downs.
Painting is a skill that requires talent. I think that there will always be people who paint themselves instead of using AI. It can be compared to the mastering of musical instruments. While instruments can be easily emulated by computers and you can create music with computers that sounds as if played by a whole ensemble, there are still many people who learn to play instruments, and some of them become masters of their trade.
makes u think
Quote:
But I guess this is simply a view of someone who's not active as an artist, making his life easy in this discussion.
RAWR, sister!
He's correct. The distinction between who are the people advocating for it vs. against it seems pretty clear.
oh, because of all the yous in the paragraphs before it, i read it as a personal jab... but yeah, as a generalisation i agree :)
Also,
2022:
2012:
and so on...
2022:
Quote:
We’ve filed a lawsuit challenging Stable Diffusion, a 21st-century collage tool that violates the rights of artists.
2012:
Quote:
We’ve filed a lawsuit challenging YouTube, a 21st-century video platform that violates the rights of artists.
and so on...
Defiance: mmyeah, it's not exactly the same though, is it?
Youtube is a platform where you can upload video - sometimes it's content that you shouldn't be uploading, but mostly it is just stuff people created themselves. It's generally speaking not legally dubious.
Midjourney is a for-profit tool that generates imagery or video out of raw material that they scraped from the internet without any information or consent; millions of human-created art pieces that have been run through a grinder. Literally everything that comes out of Midjourney is legally dubious.
correct me if I'm wrong.
Youtube is a platform where you can upload video - sometimes it's content that you shouldn't be uploading, but mostly it is just stuff people created themselves. It's generally speaking not legally dubious.
Midjourney is a for-profit tool that generates imagery or video out of raw material that they scraped from the internet without any information or consent; millions of human-created art pieces that have been run through a grinder. Literally everything that comes out of Midjourney is legally dubious.
correct me if I'm wrong.
Quote:
2012:
Quote:We’ve filed a lawsuit challenging YouTube, a 21st-century video platform that violates the rights of artists.
Source? Or are you just making things up?
Oh God, how is any of that even remotely relevant?
How it isn't? Gema represents artists (64.000 according to the article) which claimed their rights were violated by YouTube. They filled a lawsuit which YouTube lost. It was all over the news back in the days. With any new technology that is being introduced there are always going to be skepticals and people reacting to it. It is mostly a matter of adaptation.
Sigh.
If you mean "all modern technology post-2010 is deployed into the wild without regard to, and often in direct opposition to, the people who produce the content that fuels it" then I don't necessarily disagree, but it's worth mentioning that as Farfar was saying, Youtube did have copyright rules from the getgo and they just sucked at policing the violations (until stuff like ContentID came along), while image synthesizers themselves actively _started off_ with violating copyright by including everything in their starting dataset without any sort of filtering or care - which, by the way, they will now try to push on to you as the user. (FWIW IANAL but that doesn't seem legally enforceable.)
If you want an actual analogy, imagine if Youtube would've started with Youtube itself pirating music off torrents, and uploading it to the site, and then arguing that it's your fault for listening to it and you should be sued. That's an incredibly important distinction here - image synthesizers could've asked artists for opt-in contribution of their work to the dataset, but they didn't.
If you mean "all modern technology post-2010 is deployed into the wild without regard to, and often in direct opposition to, the people who produce the content that fuels it" then I don't necessarily disagree, but it's worth mentioning that as Farfar was saying, Youtube did have copyright rules from the getgo and they just sucked at policing the violations (until stuff like ContentID came along), while image synthesizers themselves actively _started off_ with violating copyright by including everything in their starting dataset without any sort of filtering or care - which, by the way, they will now try to push on to you as the user. (FWIW IANAL but that doesn't seem legally enforceable.)
If you want an actual analogy, imagine if Youtube would've started with Youtube itself pirating music off torrents, and uploading it to the site, and then arguing that it's your fault for listening to it and you should be sued. That's an incredibly important distinction here - image synthesizers could've asked artists for opt-in contribution of their work to the dataset, but they didn't.
(Probably should've said post-2006 I guess. Doesn't matter.)
Also worth mentioning they're being a lot more cautious about music composition synthesizers - wonder why?
Also worth mentioning they're being a lot more cautious about music composition synthesizers - wonder why?
We do not disagree. Of course, it's not the exact carbon copy same case, but in both cases we have a new technology that gets introduced, copyright violation claims (and also actual copyright violation), and then measures taken to tackle it. (I think image gens are at this stage right now.) Stable Diffusion also has a, so to speak license, with terms on how to use the images but they don't seem to take it very seriously like YouTube with their terms back in 2012.
Reading all the Pros and Cons opinions,
and I'm a little confused here.
So it would be like :
What if a profit corporation with a massive database of commercial and non comercial music songs, uses a trapestry on zillions of samples from that songs, and you just type in 5 hastags and the duration of the track, and using neuronal netwroks, machine learning or any other AI means, and in a matter of 30 seconds, the system join all that samples into a final song.
Then you , as an user of that platform : A) sell that song as your work to a client and earn money, or B) win a prize in a music competition.
The corporation charges you 11$ monthly, as an upgraded user, with a 500 songs limits per month.
The debate in this thread is in the ethicallity issues on the B) case. isn't it?
Perphaps the jury members of that party, don't give a shit about all this and they just give away the first place to that guy's song generateed with AI.
In my opinion, perhaps we as digital artists, must have the ethics and responsability to not use that kind of tools,
If we're using AI tools , then were's the point in the demoscene?
Then another debate refusing my opinion: "the demotools: should be avoided by coders then!!!". ok. and the thing goes on ad infnitum.
and I'm a little confused here.
So it would be like :
What if a profit corporation with a massive database of commercial and non comercial music songs, uses a trapestry on zillions of samples from that songs, and you just type in 5 hastags and the duration of the track, and using neuronal netwroks, machine learning or any other AI means, and in a matter of 30 seconds, the system join all that samples into a final song.
Then you , as an user of that platform : A) sell that song as your work to a client and earn money, or B) win a prize in a music competition.
The corporation charges you 11$ monthly, as an upgraded user, with a 500 songs limits per month.
The debate in this thread is in the ethicallity issues on the B) case. isn't it?
Perphaps the jury members of that party, don't give a shit about all this and they just give away the first place to that guy's song generateed with AI.
In my opinion, perhaps we as digital artists, must have the ethics and responsability to not use that kind of tools,
If we're using AI tools , then were's the point in the demoscene?
Then another debate refusing my opinion: "the demotools: should be avoided by coders then!!!". ok. and the thing goes on ad infnitum.
It all depends if the entry is cool. If someone makes a good use of AI, why not? If it's low-effort "type prompt and done", then of course it's lame and should be disqualified. IMHO the creator should be completely transparent about what it is, like with Unreal Engine demos...and most likely it should be a separate category, e.g. wild.