AI art bans are going to ruin small 3rd party creators

[Maxperson]

Yes, and the US Copyright Office agrees.

Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Part 2: Copyrightability

(footnotes removed)

See also Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence

First, government can make mistakes. Second, that's a bit more than a year old and AI has come a long way in the last year. Third, reading through what they said, it seems like they're talking about general prompts like, "give me an elf riding a horse and shooting a bow." That's general enough to yield many different pictures. Fine tuning isn't that general these days. AI could already have overcome that ruling of theirs, as they acknowledge within that ruling by saying that one day AI could overcome their objections.

 

[tetrasodium]

Are you equating procedural generation with LLMs? Why?

Did the rest of the partially quoted post you omitted hit too close to the inconvenient nail for you?

Are you going to make us laugh by claiming a non native English speaker using chat gpt to assist with translating an adventure they put out as AI assisted wouldn't be swarmed by the anti ai horde? How about the same question for a free adventure choosing to use relevant AI art when I've had people shriek at me for simply using an AI image of a dragon dropping a rock for illustrative purposes of a point in a discussion on here? No.. we both know that the exact same result would happen in all of those cases

Do you really think it would take a long time to find an AI that could generate a dungeon when stuff like this exists? I've even seen reporting on more advanced evolutions of that kinda thing with mech warrior style mechs traversing a river bed jungle being generated on the fly by AI. Building textual a dungeon with an llm would be trivial in the extreme.

 

[Umbran]

How is this ANY different than if I look at a piece of art and use that for my inspiration to paint something similar, but different?

You are a human being. The machine is not.

Perhaps you would like to be treated as we treat machines? I am sure there are people who want to treat you like a machine, with no more rights than a toaster.

The results of arguing that there's not much difference between us and machines does not inevitably lead to things being better for us.

 

[tetrasodium]

This is not true. AI is still using it's database of stolen artwork to do what you want. All option 2 is doing is "instead of basing my image on Frank Frazetta's database, you want larger eyes so I'll make that image using Hayao Miyazaki's database for the eye part."

That's a bit of a simplification, but it gets the point across. Nothing AI does is a creation of something new. It's all based on a database of existing material taken from artists, no matter how many prompts you give it.

Name five well known artists who came from Plato's cave. Alternately how about a single artist who meets that bar and has zero exposure to the set of others to be inspired by.

 

[Milieu]

First, government can make mistakes.

Sure, anyone can be wrong, and I didn't say otherwise, but this is a thoroughly researched paper produced by career public servants with expertise in copyright, after extensive public comment. "They might be wrong" is too trivial an argument to dismiss it. And even if they are wrong, those AI-generated images you spent hours crafting the perfect prompt for are still public domain, until Congress or the courts say otherwise.

Second, that's a bit more than a year old and AI has come a long way in the last year.

Not that long a way.

Third, reading through what they said, it seems like they're talking about general prompts like, "give me an elf riding a horse and shooting a bow." That's general enough to yield many different pictures. Fine tuning isn't that general these days.

Nope.

The following image, which the Office generated by entering a prompt into a popular commercially available AI system [Gemini], illustrates this point:
Prompt:
professional photo, bespectacled cat in a robe reading the Sunday newspaper and smoking a pipe, foggy, wet, stormy, 70mm, cinematic, highly detailed wood, cinematic lighting, intricate, sharp focus, medium shot, (centered image composition), (professionally color graded), ((bright soft diffused light)), volumetric fog, hdr 4k, 8k, realistic
Output:

This prompt describes the subject matter of the desired output, the setting for the scene, the style of the image, and placement of the main subject. The resulting image reflects some of these instructions (e.g., a bespectacled cat smoking a pipe), but not others (e.g., a highly detailed wood environment). Where no instructions were provided, the AI system filled in the gaps.
For instance, the prompt does not specify the cat’s breed or coloring, size, pose, any attributes of its facial features or expression, or what clothes, if any, it should wear beneath the robe. Nothing in the prompt indicates that the newspaper should be held by an incongruous human hand.

 

[tetrasodium]

Sure, anyone can be wrong, and I didn't say otherwise, but this is a thoroughly researched paper produced by career public servants with expertise in copyright, after extensive public comment. "They might be wrong" is too trivial an argument to dismiss it. And even if they are wrong, those AI-generated images you spent hours crafting the perfect prompt for are still public domain, until Congress or the courts say otherwise.

Not that long a way.

Nope.

Your splitting that hair mighty fine there.

Use AI in Photoshop to Streamline Your Workflow.

Explore features powered by generative AI in Adobe Photoshop to make tricky edits and unique designs in a few clicks using simple text prompts.

www.adobe.com

 

[Sacrosanct]

Did the rest of the partially quoted post you omitted hit too close to the inconvenient nail for you?

Are you going to make us laugh by claiming a non native English speaker using chat gpt to assist with translating an adventure they put out as AI assisted wouldn't be swarmed by the anti ai horde? How about the same question for a free adventure choosing to use relevant AI art when I've had people shriek at me for simply using an AI image of a dragon dropping a rock for illustrative purposes of a point in a discussion on here? No.. we both know that the exact same result would happen in all of those cases

Name five well known artists who came from Plato's cave. Alternately how about a single artist who meets that bar and has zero exposure to the set of others to be inspired by.

I don't know what your question has to do with my post, but based on the bolded parts above, I'm not going to respond to you anyway. Not if you're going to insist on characterizing people who disagree with you like that. Too much hostility for me to spend time on. Have a good day.

 

[Umbran]

Oh wait, you're wrong.

Oh wait, you're wrong.

Oh wait, you're wrong.

Oh wait, you're wrong.

Oh wait, still wrong.

Mod Note:
Look at that for a moment. Is that how you want to be treated?
No?
Then don't do it to other people, at least on this site. Thanks.

 

[Maxperson]

You are a human being. The machine is not.

Perhaps you would like to be treated as we treat machines? I am sure there are people who want to treat you like a machine, with no more rights than a toaster.

The results of arguing that there's not much difference between us and machines does not inevitably lead to things being better for us.

A machine is just a more complex tool. Paintbrushes are tools. Canvas is a tool. It's all just us and tools.

 

[Maxperson]

Nope.

Right. That's a general, if complex prompt and not fine tuning. Two different things. What they show is not what I am talking about.