807

Generated "art" does not rule. (lemmy.world)

submitted 4 days ago by Jomega@lemmy.world to c/196

127 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] mhague@lemmy.world 27 points 4 days ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

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:

[-] Prandom_returns@lemm.ee 3 points 2 days ago

Tech bro: I'm taking all of your creative work without permission, all your personality, uniqueness, everything that makes you worth anything as an artist. I will make billions and give you absolutely nothing in return.

Artists: here are my artworks for you to enjoy for free. You can listen / look / share / whatever. But I'd love to make more of this instead of being a cashier, can I get $5? Or $0.00000000001 per view/play?

load more comments (7 replies)

[-] sukhmel@programming.dev 8 points 3 days ago

I'm inclined to say that TechBros are usually not the ones whose work they give away for free*, and they really care more about profits than anything.

* there are a multitude of ways to provide information but making sure it's useless, for AI models that usually comes in a way of providing the source code but not training data or architecture, so that you'll need to do most of the work again. A lot of them don't do even that.

Please note, this comment is off topic to the OP post and is only about your idealistic view of TechBros

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] Mikina@programming.dev 19 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

If you look at it from this perspective, it sounds way more obvious. I like this PoV.

[-] Emerald@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

It's not just compressing images in an archive. The AI model is trained off the data, but it doesn't contain the data.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] LMagicalus@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 4 days ago

That is one hell of a garden path sentence

[-] PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world 22 points 4 days ago

Get over it already.

[-] Mr_Mofu 22 points 4 days ago

Once I stop seeing this garbage daily, sure~

[-] hungryphrog 6 points 3 days ago

Maybe when it isn't an active threat to me having food.

[-] orcrist@lemm.ee 17 points 4 days ago

The buzz over AI art and especially AI wiritng? Sure did! Lots of snake oil there, not so interesting.

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] big_fat_fluffy@leminal.space 23 points 4 days ago

It could rule tho. It just needs more development. We didn't put men on the moon in a day.

[-] Jomega@lemmy.world 41 points 4 days ago

It's a computer program that turns the hard work of artists and utterly ridiculous amounts of water into samey, uncanny abominations. To compare that to the moon landing? I don't even have words for that.

[-] Lemminary@lemmy.world 22 points 4 days ago

To compare that to the moon landing?

I don't think they're comparing it to the moon landing. If I say "Rome wasn't built in a day" I'm not taking about Rome.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] MBM@lemmings.world 16 points 4 days ago

It could give prettier results but that doesn't solve the ethical issues (and even for the prettier part I can see there being fundamental limits)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] YungOnions@sh.itjust.works 13 points 4 days ago

AI generated art doesn't meet the definition of plagiarism though?

[-] megopie 14 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

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.

[-] YungOnions@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

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.

[-] orcrist@lemm.ee 11 points 3 days ago

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.

[-] CommissarVulpin@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago

So does that mean that any artist which has viewed another piece of art and learned from it, and used that knowledge in their own works, has therefore committed plagiarism by not asking for permission or crediting every work they’ve ever seen?

I’m an author and one of the most common pieces of advice for authors is to read more. Reading other authors’ works teaches a lot about word choice, character development, world building, etc. How is that any different from an AI model learning from art pieces to make its own?

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments