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

[VHawkwinter]

*You have yet to say you're using one of those boutique, university models built entirely off of public domain works. If you are I'd be rather impressed.

Are any of those publicly available yet? I looked this up yesterday and only came across public diffusion, which is not yet available. Neat though.

Law and reality don't always align. I am the creator, even if the law doesn't recognize it.

What is the logical justification for that? Are you doing a digital paint-over overhaul at some point? Is it some kind of elaborate comfyUI setup where you're providing character reference sheets and posing dummies and assembling a composition via graphs and the diffusion model is essentially a rendered filter? Are you generating many images and then assembling components from them in an image editor like a collage?

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, but we don’t see him crediting Microsoft or Dell when all he did was tell the computer to copy the numbers from his excel file to his personally created PowerPoint.

Someone mentioned a bit earlier that what I'm suggesting is the same as directing a computer to do something. That's a fantastic analogy, but it doesn't accomplish what he thought it would.

What am I talking about with a ton of direct written instructions to the AI to accomplish my vision is the same as a programmer writing lines of code to direct the computer to accomplish his vision. Nobody would argue that the program written by the programmer consisting of many lines of written instructions to the computer isn't the programmer's creation. Yet most here want to argue that the many lines of written instructions by me to the AI to accomplish my vision isn't my creation.

 

[Maxperson]

What is the logical justification for that? Are you doing a digital paint-over overhaul at some point? Is it some kind of elaborate comfyUI setup where you're providing character reference sheets and posing dummies and assembling a composition via graphs and the diffusion model is essentially a rendered filter? Are you generating many images and then assembling components from them in an image editor like a collage?

See my above post. Plus, as I've said multiple times, now, things cannot create. Any new picture made by me and an AI tool must be my creation, because it cannot be the AI's.

 

[Brendan Byrd]

It's even worse than that. The AI is a tool.....a thing. Things cannot create, therefore if I and the tool make something new, there can be no creator other than me.

IMHO
If it is a tool (a position I agree with) the creator/provider of the tool should not be incorporating “stolen” goods into the tool.

If a toolmaker “cheaps-out” on the “materials” used to make the tool, which then breaks, the artist that invested in the tool may have been cheated (in time, creative effort, money, etc.).

ETA: a tool that adds IP uncertainty to the end product is “not your friend”.

 

[VHawkwinter]

Look up the Jungle Speed lawsuit. EU case.

Cant seem to find it with a quick search. Looks like I'll have to dig.

 

[BenjaminPey]

See my above post. Plus, as I've said multiple times, now, things cannot create. Any new picture made by me and an AI tool must be my creation, because it cannot be the AI's.

You're making a complete distinction between to produce and to create, a disputable premise, for starter. Nature creates stuff all the time, for instance, it's what it does.
But fine, ok, Nature produces and doesn't create because to create is "to conceive a design", in your mind.
In this case, their was a lot of design in the training data, and in the algorithm. Designs in which you have taken no part.
The fact that all these previous designs are so merged now that we can't link them to one specific name or origenator doesn't make all the previous designs involved magically disappear. It just obfuscates them.

 

[aramis erak]

Cant seem to find it with a quick search. Looks like I'll have to dig.

Was heavily discussed on boardgamegeek.com

 

[FrogReaver]

IMHO
If it is a tool (a position I agree with) the creator/provider of the tool should not be incorporating “stolen” goods into the tool.

Agreed though unlike theft of physical goods, theft of intellectual property is often much less clear cut on what constitutes theft vs acceptable use.

ETA: a tool that adds IP uncertainty to the end product is “not your friend”.

1. Depends on your application.
2. That uncertainty itself depends on yet to be settled legal precedents and possibly future laws.

 

[VHawkwinter]

Nobody would argue that the program written by the programmer consisting of many lines of written instructions to the computer isn't the programmer's creation. Yet most here want to argue that the many lines of written instructions by me to the AI to accomplish my vision isn't my creation.

So you're arguing you're programming art-such that the machine is in essence, running your code. I can kindof see that. When Stable Diffusion first came out I experimented with it a bunch on my videocard and I was doing things like changing the prompts at different steps of a single image generation, and I experimented with controlling it from scripts and specifying the initial noise seeds and such: it could get kindof like coding. Less control over the output than coding though, unless you're feeding the first image back in, masking out specific regions, etc. Then it was more controlled.

I think game map editors may be a better analogy here. Like how DOTA started out as a WC3 map, and they owned the copyright and made DOTA2 as a standalone game because they made it with Blizzards mapmaking tool and the tool didn't have a condition to seize their copyrights like they added to the remake. (It still used the wc3 game mechanics and engine and whatnot).

I dunno.

Maybe in some future case they'll show how involves they were and it wasn't just "prompt and accept what you get", and the courts will acknowledge it being tool use. I suppose we shall see.

 

[VHawkwinter]

Was heavily discussed on boardgamegeek.com

Noted. Thanks.