Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Golroc" data-source="post: 9096905" data-attributes="member: 7042497">The last point isn't entirely correct. An AI system which does image transformation of various kinds does not need a dataset to draw from to perform its function. It usually has no dataset during operation. Data was used during the training process, but that's a different thing - and it can also be very different to that used image generation tools. This doesn't invalidate the legal and ethical discussions about the training data used, and in particular how it was acquired. But I think it is an important distinction. Some types of image transformation AI can be created without using any human-created art or photo at all. Purely synthetic (2D/3D rendered) images are sufficient for a fair number of transformative tools.Is this the case for the specific tools used by this artist? We don't know. But it is possible to do transformative tooling without having a massive dataset - and such tools will be commonplace very soon, and the training done purely with legal reference data, either by licensing it or by creating it synthetically through rendering (rasterization, raytracing, etc).I know this may sound like nitpicking or trying to pick a fight, but I honestly think it is important for those of us with technical insight (and this is not an appeal to authority - by all means if anyone wants to refute my claims I am open to constructive discussion) to help clear up misunderstanding. It is important that artists, publishers and the wider public are aware of the technical possibilities. We will reach a point, if we haven't already, where certain use of AI tooling is impossible to trace and is also perfectly legal. It will be very hard in the coming months and years to figure out where to draw the lines - regardless of whether it is a a publisher making guidelines for contributors/staff, an artist trying to figure out which tools are useful/legal/ethical, a consumer trying to make purchases that support artists, an activist trying to call out companies or individuals with questionable practices/policies. I strongly believe "no AI assistance ever" will probably end up hurting people who could have benefitted from perfectly legal and ethical use of AI. And on the other hand, simply dividing it into "AI image creation = bad" and "AI image enhancement = ok" is also problematic. It's a tough topic, and the technical realities are changing so quickly that even many self-proclaimed experts are not fully aware of recent developments.</blockquote>

Verification