D&D General DMs Guild and DriveThruRPG ban AI written works, requires labels for AI generated art

[Maxperson]

But you can tell the computer to remember what it learned from what specific copyrighted work and therefore compensate the copyright holder for their contribution to the finished commercial product.

But why? If I don't have to compensate them it if I learn from looking at such a work, and I doubt there are many artists out there without influence(learning) from at least some such works, why would it make a difference if AI learns that way?

 

[Reynard]

But why? If I don't have to compensate them it if I learn from looking at such a work, and I doubt there are many artists out there without influence(learning) from at least some such works, why would it make a difference if AI learns that way?

Because the "AI" isn't a person. It is a machine intended to generate profit, and integral to that machine is intellectual property owned by other entities. You wouldn't be allowed to reverse engineer an iPhone and sell it, because it is full of intellectual property owned by other entities. The number of patents in that thing is analogous to the number of copyrights in the dataset.

We absolutely cannot, as a society, treat corporations like we treat people in this regard. Midjourney is not some guy who learned to draw by imitating other artists. It's an algorithm intended to generate profit.

 

[Oligopsony]

What is there to master about it? Coming up with better descriptions of the art you want it to make? That’s not a skill set with a very high ceiling.

Hic rhodus, hic salta; if you think it’s so easy then go spit out something great (no, really.) People say the same thing about prose writing, photography, and modern art, because they can imagine doing the basic physical action; if people started out with perfect manual dexterity then they’d think traditional painting was easy (it still wouldn’t be, there are many other skills involved.)

With eg StableDiffusion as a medium taking it seriously involves promptcraft (which you already noted), selection of many drafts (which is time-intensive and mostly requires the ability to see what works in a composition), and of course knowing what you want to create in the first place. Knowing the tools themselves, art history, the tools of all other visual media (you can throw in “volumetric lighting” because that’s what many other people do, or you can learn what it means and develop an intuition about when it would be helpful), color theory, anatomy, and so on are all things that contribute to the skill ceiling. One very weird guy, FlyingFoxDemon, is behind almost all of the viral AI-assisted videos that have come out so far, even though he’s far from the only hobbyist with access to high-end GPU.

And even as the technology improves, it’s never going to be able to work without human quality control, because it’s fundamentally not capable of judgment.

Obviously you don’t mean this in the way that I do, but this is a good summary of my major claim here - that SD and the like are media in which humans work.

(“Fundamentally” I would actually say is false, human brains are physical objects, but once machines can really do every part of the workflow we have much bigger worries than anything to do with the art industry.)

 

[Reynard]

Hic rhodus, hic salta; if you think it’s so easy then go spit out something great (no, really.) People say the same thing about prose writing, photography, and modern art, because they can imagine doing the basic physical action; if people started out with perfect manual dexterity then they’d think traditional painting was easy (it still wouldn’t be, there are many other skills involved.)

With eg StableDiffusion as a medium taking it seriously involves promptcraft (which you already noted), selection of many drafts (which is time-intensive and mostly requires the ability to see what works in a composition), and of course knowing what you want to create in the first place. Knowing the tools themselves, art history, the tools of all other visual media (you can throw in “volumetric lighting” because that’s what many other people do, or you can learn what it means and develop an intuition about when it would be helpful), color theory, anatomy, and so on are all things that contribute to the skill ceiling. One very weird guy, FlyingFoxDemon, is behind almost all of the viral AI-assisted videos that have come out so far, even though he’s far from the only hobbyist with access to high-end GPU.


Obviously you don’t mean this in the way that I do, but this is a good summary of my major claim here - that SD and the like are media in which humans work.

(“Fundamentally” I would actually say is false, human brains are physical objects, but once machines can really do every part of the workflow we have much bigger worries than anything to do with the art industry.)

There is definitely an art to getting great results from Midjourney, and in my experience the people that are best at it art in fact artists.

 

[Maxperson]

Because the "AI" isn't a person. It is a machine intended to generate profit, and integral to that machine is intellectual property owned by other entities. You wouldn't be allowed to reverse engineer an iPhone and sell it, because it is full of intellectual property owned by other entities. The number of patents in that thing is analogous to the number of copyrights in the dataset.

I'm a biological machine that intends to make a profit, though. You need some reason other than "AI" to want to charge users of AI for doing the exact same thing that I can do without being charged.

We absolutely cannot, as a society, treat corporations like we treat people in this regard. Midjourney is not some guy who learned to draw by imitating other artists. It's an algorithm intended to generate profit.

We're talking about a tool that anyone can use.

If I can use a tool(paintbrush) and another tool(pain) to make better art on a canvas than I could with a crayon, why can't I use a tool(AI) and another tool(AI) to make better art on the internet than I could with a drawing program? It's still just me using tools to make better art one way than I could another make it another way.

 

[Sacrosanct]

When it comes to visual art, demonstrate that the original work most people will do is distinguishable from the recombinant work an AI can do. All evidence I have to date is you can't.

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. If you take away the database AI uses, it can't produce anything. A person still can. A person can create something without any reference. Secondly, take away my computer, or my paintbrush, and I can still create. Take away your AI prompt and you can't. Those are significant and fundamental differences, and why you can't just "put a seat at the table for AI prompters along with actual artists".

Using a CnC machine doesn't make me a woodcarver. Using AI doesn't make you an artist.

 

[Reynard]

I'm a biological machine that intends to make a profit, though. You need some reason other than "AI" to want to charge users of AI for doing the exact same thing that I can do without being charged.

If you can't see the distinction between a human learning something and a corporation building a product I don't know what to tell you.

We're talking about a tool that anyone can use.

If I can use a tool(paintbrush) and another tool(pain) to make better art on a canvas than I could with a crayon, why can't I use a tool(AI) and another tool(AI) to make better art on the internet than I could with a drawing program? It's still just me using tools to make better art one way than I could another make it another way.

You can. But the company built the tool using unlicensed intellectual property owned by someone else.

 

[Reynard]

Using a CnC machine doesn't make me a woodcarver.

This smacks of elitism. I have a degree in engineering technology and I assure you it take skill, intelligence and creativity to use a CNC machine. You might not be a woodcarver by some exclusionary definition but you are still doing something real.

 

[Sacrosanct]

This smacks of elitism. I have a degree in engineering technology and I assure you it take skill, intelligence and creativity to use a CNC machine. You might not be a woodcarver by some exclusionary definition but you are still doing something real.

I am a woodworker by hobby and I've used both. Using a CNC to carve doesn't make a person a woodcarver. No more than placing a request using a food replicator in Star Trek would make one a chef.

 

[Maxperson]

If you can't see the distinction between a human learning something and a corporation building a product I don't know what to tell you.

You can. But the company built the tool using unlicensed intellectual property owned by someone else.

It all boils down to things not being as clear cut as people here want to make it out to be. It's not a simple as corporation or not corporation and is something experts will be years in hammering out.