←back to thread

As an artist I am concerned about AI image generation

(twitter.com)
114 points valgaze | 3 comments | 14 Aug 22 17:33 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
cercatrova ◴[14 Aug 22 17:44 UTC] No.32461248[source]▶
Title should be more like, artists concerned about Stable Diffusion AI model that makes images look human-made.
replies(1): >>32461290 #
antiterra ◴[14 Aug 22 17:49 UTC] No.32461290[source]▶
It also apparently copies the artist’s logo.

In a way, the “it just does what humans do but faster” argument is starting to follow the “a number can’t be illegal” trajectory.

replies(1): >>32461342 #
cercatrova ◴[14 Aug 22 17:54 UTC] No.32461342[source]▶
Either way I support AI art and AI in other fields. Just because artists are mad it's gonna take their jobs does not seem like a legitimate reason to halt human progress. It's just inevitable the way things are going.
replies(6): >>32461451 #>>32461558 #>>32461593 #>>32461841 #>>32462157 #>>32462306 #
teakettle42 ◴[14 Aug 22 18:55 UTC] No.32461841[source]▶
Stealing people’s work to serve as your training set is not human progress.

Sounds like the AI model should be paying royalties to every affected artist for the right to sample their work.

replies(3): >>32461865 #>>32462631 #>>32462693 #
cercatrova ◴[14 Aug 22 18:58 UTC] No.32461865[source]▶
The art that was trained on was all Creative Commons apparently, so perhaps artists should understand licenses first before giving their work a permissive license.
replies(3): >>32462114 #>>32462469 #>>32462624 #
1. teakettle42 ◴[14 Aug 22 19:23 UTC] No.32462114[source]▶
All CC licenses, other than the “CC0 public domain dedication”, require attribution, but CC themselves have taken what I’d consider to be an ass-backwards position on the matter:

> At CC, we believe that, as a matter of copyright law, the use of works to train AI should be considered non-infringing by default, assuming that access to the copyright works was lawful at the point of input.

https://creativecommons.org/2021/03/04/should-cc-licensed-co...

replies(1): >>32462465 #
2. charcircuit ◴[14 Aug 22 20:06 UTC] No.32462465[source]▶
>backwards position

It's not backwards. It's the same as if a human artist studied it.

Backwards would be thinking that any creative work you make is a derivative work of many creative works that you've seen in the past which you aren't copying from.

replies(1): >>32463162 #
3. teakettle42 ◴[14 Aug 22 21:35 UTC] No.32463162[source]▶
> It's the same as if a human artist studied it.

It’s not a human artist, and it can only regurgitate mash-ups of work stolen from others.