WotC So it seems D&D has picked a side on the AI art debate.

[Emberashh]

I wasn't joking when I corrected your factually incorrect statement. The source of that training data & eula involved was linked earlier in 124 & 136. Here is a section

Spoiler

If you choose to post content, you give us permission to use it to provide and improve Pinterest. Copies of content shared with others may remain even after you delete the content from your account

Im not sure where you got the impression that I was talking about what seems to be one specific (if unnamed in your post) AI. I was speaking in general and no, not every image AI had entirely ethically sourced content.

Though even with your example, that doesn't prove much of anything given basically no one consciously consents to the TOS' of huge sites like Pinterest, which is a problem you're actually giving evidence to in the section you quoted.

We are inundated with art through most of our lives.

Sure, but that doesn't mean you need to have seen Art before you could make it. Afterall, lost to the sands of time is the singular human (or more accurately, human ancestor, as our cousins had art before we existed) who invented the very concept of art, and could have only taken inspiration from the world around them and, for whatever reason, felt compelled to mimic it in what rudimentary way they could.

So to suggest that only one proto-person had an original thought hundreds of thousands of years ago and everyone else is effectively just a derivative is very demeaning to what artists attempt to do today, and as said earlier (I think, I've had this conversation more than once tbf), it implies a certain amount of contempt for what artists actually do when you speak of it so reductively.

Yes,  culture does influence artists, and its why cultures even today still have a distinctly united style (or styles) amongst their various artistic movements, which is now globalizing via the internet as once isolated movements interact with others across the globe.

But all a person strictly needs to spontaneously make art of some form is merely the impulse to mimic what they see in some form or another, and nature on its own is beatiful enough to inspire this impulse. Its not a coincidence that the first religions were so heavily steeped in natural imagery, and the earliest examples of art that we've found almost always look towards animals, nature, or indeed, the female form.

And ultimately, it has to be brought back to what was being argued. The nonspecific They are arguing that what AI and Artists do are one in the same. That is not true, and bringing the reality of how culture influences art (and vice versa; its not a one way street) is really neither here nor there.

As explained, the first things we made art of were explicitly not art; unless of course you want to go the Creationist route, but then we'd be completely off the rails as far as the topic goes.

 

[tetrasodium]

Im not sure where you got the impression that I was talking about what seems to be one specific (if unnamed in your post) AI. I was speaking in general and no, not every image AI had entirely ethically sourced content.

Though even with your example, that doesn't prove much of anything given basically no one consciously consents to the TOS' of huge sites like Pinterest, which is a problem you're actually giving evidence to in the section you quoted.



Sure, but that doesn't mean you need to have seen Art before you could make it. Afterall, lost to the sands of time is the singular human (or more accurately, human ancestor, as our cousins had art before we existed) who invented the very concept of art, and could have only taken inspiration from the world around them and, for whatever reason, felt compelled to mimic it in what rudimentary way they could.

So to suggest that only one proto-person had an original thought hundreds of thousands of years ago and everyone else is effectively just a derivative is very demeaning to what artists attempt to do today, and as said earlier (I think, I've had this conversation more than once tbf), it implies a certain amount of contempt for what artists actually do when you speak of it so reductively.

Yes,  culture does influence artists, and its why cultures even today still have a distinctly united style (or styles) amongst their various artistic movements, which is now globalizing via the internet as once isolated movements interact with others across the globe.

But all a person strictly needs to spontaneously make art of some form is merely the impulse to mimic what they see in some form or another, and nature on its own is beatiful enough to inspire this impulse. Its not a coincidence that the first religions were so heavily steeped in natural imagery, and the earliest examples of art that we've found almost always look towards animals, nature, or indeed, the female form.

And ultimately, it has to be brought back to what was being argued. The nonspecific They are arguing that what AI and Artists do are one in the same. That is not true, and bringing the reality of how culture influences art (and vice versa; its not a one way street) is really neither here nor there.

As explained, the first things we made art of were explicitly not art; unless of course you want to go the Creationist route, but then we'd be completely off the rails as far as the topic goes.

stable diffusion was named and it's the image generation code used or shared by most of the current gen AI image generation tools. In fact , it even names itself in the section marked "training data" where it starts with the words "Stable Diffusion was trained on ...". By no small coincidence stable diffusion even seems to be what is used by the photoleap tool that started this thread. You were wrong and made a factually incorrect statement.

Trying to find a loophole under the idea that some users might train a new model with a custom built training DB using images they have access to but are not authorized to use is quite the frayed straw clutching.

 

[Emberashh]

stable diffusion was named and it's the image generation code used or shared by most of the current gen AI image generation tools. In fact , it even names itself in the section marked "training data" where it starts with the words "Stable Diffusion was trained on ...". By no small coincidence stable diffusion even seems to be what is used by the photoleap tool that started this thread. You were wrong and made a factually incorrect statement.

Trying to find a loophole under the idea that some users might train a new model with a custom built training DB using images they have access to but are not authorized to use is quite the frayed straw clutching.

Or I never once commented on the AI that is the subject of this thread and chimed in to talk about the more general topic of AI and the Arts.

I know its the internet and winning is important to some, but Im directly telling you with explicit language what I was talking about. Ignoring that to try and hammer me with a "You were wrong" when, at best, there was a miscommunication, is just not the way.

In other words, let it go. If you want to discuss what I was talking about, then lets discuss it. Otherwise, let it go.

 

[tetrasodium]

Or I never once commented on the AI that is the subject of this thread and chimed in to talk about the more general topic of AI and the Arts.

I know its the internet and winning is important to some, but Im directly telling you with explicit language what I was talking about. Ignoring that to try and hammer me with a "You were wrong" when, at best, there was a miscommunication, is just not the way.

In other words, let it go. If you want to discuss what I was talking about, then lets discuss it. Otherwise, let it go.

So your concern is that someone might use something in a way they should not. How could anyone possibly find agreement or disagreement with such a solid foundation for discission. As to the "general topic" of AI image generation, that's pretty much 100% stable diffusion or something grew out of

 

[Charlaquin]

Consent was given by the artists. It wasn't a simple google search used to generate the training image data.

Consent was not given. They’re generally trained on image hosting sites like DeviantArt.

 

[Charlaquin]

I wasn't joking when I corrected your factually incorrect statement. The source of that training data & eula involved was linked earlier in 124 & 136. Here is a section

Spoiler

If you choose to post content, you give us permission to use it to provide and improve Pinterest. Copies of content shared with others may remain even after you delete the content from your account

“Improve Pinterest” is not synonymous with “train Dall-E” (or whatever other algorithm).

 

[Emberashh]

So your concern is that someone might use something in a way they should not. How could anyone possibly find agreement or disagreement with such a solid foundation for discission. As to the "general topic" of AI image generation, that's pretty much 100% stable diffusion or something grew out of

Can you, and will you, please directly agree with the statement that art should only be utilized in AIs with the express and conscious consent by their artists?

Everything you're saying at this point is just demonstrating an extreme bias against the concerns of artists, so please, demonstrate that you actually acknowledge these concerns as legitimate.

If you won't, or if you're just going to continue to deflect to hammering me over something I was never even talking about, then you're only admitting to that bias.

 

[Emberashh]

“Improve Pinterest” is not synonymous with “train Dall-E” (or whatever other algorithm).

Exactly. And even if it did, expecting the average person to read through a mile long PDF of legalese to find that section is ridiculous.

Heck, in America especially the average person isn't even at the reading level necessary to read that much for sustained period, much less understand it.

This bootstrap logic that people should have known about this particular section of Pinterests TOS is disgustingly cynical.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I mean, there isn’t like, an individual artist that could be credited with having provided the basis for this image that Dall-E then edited. Dall-E was probably “trained” on an enormous database of works from various artists, few to none of whom ever agreed to have their works used in that way, or were even asked. When you told Dall-E to make an image of a medieval knight riding a giant snake up a pyramid (or whatever), it looked through that database for what elements of those works its programming predicted would best match your prompt, and then generated an image imitating those elements.

Yeah I’m not convinced artists have any reasonable expectation of being asked or compensated in order for their art to be used to teach a tool how to perform its purpose.

I agree with your broader socio-economic concerns, but I refuse to pretend that automation technologies are the “evil” here.

I can’t really get into what the culprit actually is without breaking forum rules, but I’m also sure I don’t need to.

 

[Emberashh]

Yeah I’m not convinced artists have any reasonable expectation of being asked or compensated in order for their art to be used to teach a tool how to perform its purpose.

Do you agree with the concept of intellectual property, and do you believe that any "creator", be they scientist, engineer, artist, or what have you, has any right to their own works?

Thats the whole thing about this logic you're using, and I doubt you're applying it equally to everywhere it should apply.

Particularly because even if you were, then that implies something about your beliefs that should, in turn, still place distinctly against what these AIs are doing and being developed for.

In other words, theres some cognitive dissonance that you're engaging in there.

Not to get too overtly political, but this is a recurring trend Ive seen with people going out of their way to defend AIs is that they tend to co-opt very far leftist ideas about intellectual property whilst not applying it evenly across all kinds of IP; just selectively against art in particular.