Lemmy when discussing health care: Karl Marx
Lemmy when discussing creative works: Ayn Rand
It would sure be cool if all art could belong to all people.
Sadly, as long as we live in a profit driven system, there needs to be a way for artists to claim ownership over their work.
I don't see how people think this is any sort of slam dunk or how it could go against leftist principles.
It would sure be cool if all health care could be access by all people.
Sadly, as long as we live in a profit driven system, there needs to be a way for doctors to make money from their work.
So... Sounds like the health insurance companies, the companies that buy and redistribute intellectual properties for profit, and the general for profit systems are the problem?
And no one on the left is advocating for a system where doctors would not be getting paid for their work under capitalism.
I don't know if Marx would disagree with individual artists owning the intellectual right to their artworks.
And if you asked Lemmy about how long copyright should last, I doubt that Ayn Rand would approve.
Everything's just a retelling of Gilgamesh anyway, why bother protecting "originality"
Fuck AI art, honestly. I find the idea of using AI for instance in microbiology for finding combinations of proteins awesome, and so is it being used to help people learn and improve. For instance, when I don't understand concept in like math and engineering, I ask AI to give me advice. But using it for 'art' is honestly disgusting. It steals personality from art.
As someone who is largely around the art community admiring and sharing thier work, the fact that I could confuse AI Generated Images and thusly falsely share or save them has been such a huge anxiety of mine every since 2022
One easy way to check is the look for JPEG artifacts that doesn’t make any sense. A lot of the systems were trained with images stored as JPEGs, so the output will have absurd amounts of JPEG artifacting that will show up in ways that make no sense for something that actually went through JPEG compression, such as having multiple grids of artifacts that don’t line up or of wildly different scales.
I'm really bad at noticing small details. Luckily 99% of AI artists use the same art style (with more or less Pixar influence for humans) so I can still spot AI imagery from a mile away
Or you only notice the obvious ones and are oblivious to all the ones you have not recognized
The way some people defend AI generated images reminds me of the way some people defend the act of tracing other people's art without the artist's permission and uploading it while claiming they made it.
When I was making an android game I wanted to make art so i made an ai art gen on Perchance. OP would hate it most of all since a large part of it is the combining of different artist styles. I personally love being able to combine my 5 fav artists and see what prompts become with them combined.
I recently realized the artist Hannah Yata results in cool trippy pics. I then went to her site and yeah her pics are really like that. She's one of maybe 8 artists I've recently found a special connection to that I would not have known about otherwise.
so yeah ai art may be bad for struggling professional artists but for people that are not big money game studios yet, ai art basically allows having nonstockimage art in projects legally. I can 100% say ai art empowers me to have visuals where I could not have before unless i used stock(gross) images or had starting wealth to pay artists. So if you focus on artists losing, also focus on the poor but smart kid in some poverty place who is now that much more empowered to make something on their phone and legitly escape poverty.
There was a wealth barrier to visual art; now there isn't.
Entrenched struggling professional artists cry. People needing art that weren't wealthy enough to pay for it win.
When drugs become fabricateable at home by anyone, drug companies will also cry. People that weren't wealthy enough to pay for them win.
Same thing.
Poor artists.
But when you're the one no longer paywalled it's a different story.
You could always have commissioned an artist to work with you on your project, there's tons of artists who work for very reasonable prices and your game wouldn't look like an incoherently mishmash.
And I could commission a portrait artist instead of taking a selfie with my phone.
It all depends on your objectives and budget. For many people a few hundred bucks are just too much. And for a small payment (like 5-25 bucks) most commissions will return much worse results that the AI. For a result actually better we would be talking about an amount of money that obviously not everyone is capable to pay.
"Oh you could always simply spend thousands and thousands of dollars commissioning an artist to create artwork for your game you are building on a zero dollar budget and will most likely return $0 regardless of if the art is AI or commissioned"
Gee that's really tempting.
You’re doing the corkboard thing in the post. This requires a lot of specific details and assumptions and benefit of the doubt, none of which can be applied to AI generation writ large.
I’m glad your ends are not nefarious. I’m glad you found a new artist you like. But you have to understand that you are not the norm.
I only consume garbage slop when it's manmade. A song with 57 kajillion views is real art. A movie with Dwayne Johnson is real art. Only rich people should be able to subject everyone to their limited imagination. Now that regular people can create slop my delicate capitalist machines that shit out content for me to consume are being disrupted. I'm too lazy and dumb to form personal connections with other humans so these fake ass systems are the only way I can get content. And you just can't tell if it's human anymore, it's so sad.
This is an interesting take honestly. A lot of art is made without much care or creativity. That isn't a bad thing. So why should AI "art" be considered inherently bad?
Tech bro: I don't know you stranger. But here is the source code of my lifelong project, have fun and do whatever you want with it
Etsy Artist: NO, you cannot have the raw files of your wedding pictures, are you insane? THOSE ARE MINE AND ONLY MINE!. I want to be paid for anytime you vaguely look in the direction of anything I done, FOREVER!
But you are telling me the former is the greedy bad guy and the later is the light for the revolution or something.
I'll go all in:
Yes, art has always been derivative. One artist inspires the other, borrows from the other, reacts on the ither. That's the way it works. The copyright laws we have now are pushing all life out of art in the name of making money.
because I don't make art to sell, I'd love to train an Ai on my pics or songs and then see what it can make when given cool prompts :)
But I'm far from the competitive capitalism scene so I more view such an activity with a sense of wonder instead of anything to do with a loss of paid work.
Honestly I think people should embrace their medium, whatever it is.
If you look at it from this perspective, it sounds way more obvious. I like this PoV.
AI generated art doesn't meet the definition of plagiarism though?
plagiarize: : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source.
Since almost no one actually consented to having their images used as training data for generative art, and since it never credits the training data that was referenced to train the nodes used for any given generation; it is using another persons production without crediting the source, and thus is text book plagiarism.
Every living artist uses other people's art as training data without their consent. That's the way art works and it's ok. Please let's not consider every artist has to pay for every piece of art they ever layed their eyes on to be allowed to create art themselves.
plagiarize: : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own : use (another’s production) without crediting the source.
Since almost no one actually consented to having their images used as training data for generative art, and since it never credits the training data that was referenced to train the nodes used for any given generation; it is using another persons production without crediting the source, and thus is text book plagiarism.
AI systems like generative art models are trained on large datasets to recognize patterns, styles, and structures, but the output they create does not directly copy or reproduce the original data. Instead, the AI generates new works by synthesizing learned features. This is more akin to how a human artist might create something inspired by various influences. If the generated image does not directly replicate any specific piece of the training data, it cannot be considered "using another’s production without crediting the source."
Also AI platforms like Midjourney do not “reference” specific works in a way that can be credited. The training process distills millions of examples into mathematical representations, not a library of individual artworks. Crediting every source is not only infeasible and impractical, it is also not analogous to failing to attribute a specific inspiration or idea, which is a cornerstone of plagiarism.
Plagiarism is defined in academic settings very precisely. Getting ideas and structure from others rarely meets the standard. Why? Because we do this all the time. Also, plagiarism is 100% legal, because of course it is! Imitation is often a good thing.
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
