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

[Maxperson]

If the work contains AI-made parts and human-made parts, then the AI-made parts are, well, made by the AI, hence derivative, and the other is made by the human and potentially creative. I don't see any merit in this reasoning.

Now if the AI-made part is now inexistent, it begs the question: in what precise way does the AI was useful in the process? What are we talking about, here? Please be as detailed as possible, because discussing all this in the abstract leads to confusion.

To consider that the AI is simply a tool akin to a ruler that you just use as a guide for your hand, for instance, is simply untrue. AI doesn't work like that. It's not helping you making the thing, it makes the thing, and you don't even know how or with what. You just see the end result. So, unless you directing the AI for every pixels there is (at which point, frankly, just make the dam thing yourself), there will still be unaccounted-for pixels, pixels that was produced and placed there by the AI without you willing it. Pixels you didn't create.

It does help you make the thing as a tool that allows you to achieve your vision when you don't have the talent to draw it yourself. An automated tool moving at the direction of the creator is still just a tool to help the creator achieve his goal.

AI is useful in the process for providing a base to go off of. The end result will be the artists vision, not the original picture.

As for your argument that unaccounted for pixels somehow make it not the artists creation, that's a load of bupkis. That's like saying that because the painter doesn't see every small bit of the paint he uses and doesn't specify where every molecule of paint goes, that his painting isn't art.

What matters isn't every single pixel, but whether or not the final picture is close enough to the original picture that you can still see the original piece of art there.

 

[Maxperson]

Something new is not being created by the human. The ‘something’ is not new, and also it’s not created and it’s also not by the human. The only correct bit of that phrase is the word “something”. “New”, “created”, and “human” do not belong there.

But we’ve been over this a hundred times already. This is definitely the just repeat things over and over until people die of boredom thread!

If you believe that, you aren't understanding what I am saying, because the final result of what I am describing is 1) a picture that is not like the original, and 2) isn't the result of a prompt or prompts to AI to go fetch images.

It's purely the vision of the artist who has changed the picture through direction, not prompts to get images, into his vision. That's creation. That's a new picture that AI didn't "decide" to make.

 

[BenjaminPey]

So, still abstractions without any precise process, then? And we should somehow see all this makes you the creator of a work obviously made by an AI?

 

[Maxperson]

All I read was abstractions like "I change it so that it's totally changed", but maybe I missed some posts.

My second post in the thread described a portion of the process. Enough that you could apply it to the other parts of the picture to understand what I am saying.

 

[BenjaminPey]

No. You said:

2) You can ask the AI for some sort of framework, say a female elf with a sword and bow. Then, since that's not exactly what you want, you proceed to make changes to that base to achieve your vision. You ask the AI to make the eyes larger and it does. They you tell it that it didn't make them big enough, and it makes them bigger, but too big. So you have it make it slightly smaller. Then you adjust the eye color to the shade you want, maybe tweaking the shape. You move on to the hair color, until it's the shade you want. Adjust the shape and length of the hair, perhaps dropping a bit of a curl across the forehead. And on and on until your vision of the artwork has been achieved. That's not AI art. It's human art.

This process is "I'm writing a lot of prompts" and "this AI image is cool, let's make it slightly different!" The result will be majorly influenced by whatever AI you use and the data used to train it, hence derivative. And a derivative elf woman doesn't become a work of art because you changed her eye color, then the color of her skin before adding a derivative bunny on her left shoulder.

 

[Maxperson]

No. You said:



This process is "I'm writing a lot of prompts"

That's false. There are no prompts. There is DIRECTION to alter the picture AS I CHOOSE. A prompt is just, "Hey AI, go out and find me X."

and "this AI image is cool, let's make it slightly different!" The result will be majorly influenced by whatever AI you use and the data used to train it, hence derivative.

No it won't. Why? Because my vision is what will be the result. If the AI is influenced by something other than me, the result will not be my vision and I will direct it to change the picture until it is my vision. There will be no derivative, because the result will be exactly as I envision it.

It also will not be slightly different. If you apply changes to virtually every aspect of the picture, it will look very different at the end.

And a derivative elf woman doesn't become a work of art because you changed her eye color, then the color of her skin before adding a derivative bunny on her left shoulder.

Good thing I didn't say that, then. I said continue to apply changes to all the rest of the picture, and you deliberately stopped at the little bit I described. Good job! You win the internet!

 

[FrogReaver]

So, still abstractions without any precise process, then? And we should somehow see all this makes you the creator of a work obviously made by an AI?

I asked what precise details you wanted from the process description you didn’t provide them.

 

[BenjaminPey]

That's false. There are no prompts. There is DIRECTION to alter the picture AS I CHOOSE. A prompt is just, "Hey AI, go out and find me X."

I don't see any meaningful distinction between "prompts" and "direction", sorry. All I can see in what you're describing is a cascade of derivative work.

If this "vision" you have is so perfectly detailed in your head, and you're just using an AI to make it pixel-perfect, then your use of the AI is pretty much a point-for-point drawing and the AI part was useless, and very much NOT a good tool for that. Congratulations, you've just made your first digital drawing with added complexity for not using an Illustrator-like software instead of this clunky AI which force you to describe in words all the necessary steps instead of just doing it directly on screen.

I asked what precise details you wanted from the process description you didn’t provide them.

I'd say the burden of the proof is on those who claim such a process exists.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't see any meaningful distinction between "prompts" and "direction", sorry. All I can see in what you're describing is a cascade of derivative work.

What I am talking about is the same as computer programming. I am directing the AI tool through many, many, MANY lines of language to produce an image that is my vision. A computer programmer directs the computer tool through, many, many, MANY lines of language to produce an image that is his vision. The only real difference is that AI is a tool that can understand English, so I can use that language instead of a computer language.

If this "vision" you have is so perfectly detailed in your head, and you're just using an AI to make it pixel-perfect, then your use of the AI is pretty much a point-for-point drawing and the AI part was useless

Wrong. I have no talent to create a good base image to work from. I can't draw for diddly. I would need AI to do that. What I would need is something that can understand what I am saying and produce the images that I am telling it to in the detail I want it to.

 

[BenjaminPey]

So you need a work to derive, then.