Current Events > Can someone explain to me how AI steals art?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I've read a few articles but I'm having trouble understanding the argument. My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that image generation bots scrape thousands of pieces of art online and then use it to make their pieces based on other art. Isn't the actual output a novel work though, just based on the style and other elements from works? Isn't all art derivative of other works at the end of the day? Or is it equivalent to say tracing?

It's like cutting art up and putting it back together kinda

You are correct in that what is produced is technically novel, even if you can find traces of original works. In the same way that if you change over 20% of something it becomes a derivative work. The debate is on whether it was illegal for them to scrape and use the imagery in training in the first place which is a much murkier topic.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/f/f676e159.jpg

the point is that this art is being used without permission.

and i do mean 'used', as in fed into an art generation algorithm. that's different than a human being observing, appreciating, and then being inspired by art to make more art. and from what i've seen, it's absolutely sort of bullshit that ai art is allowed to occupy (and eventually dominate) some of the same spaces as artists who actually draw.

bnui_ransder posted...

It's like cutting art up and putting it back together kinda

But I thought you don't really see the original images on AI art. Like it could be a figure that a human made, but redrawn from a new angle so it's new art imo.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Yeah I agree. Just because AI is explicitly processing the images as a computer, is that so different from our brains looking and being inspired by works?

There are also prompts created to mimic other actual artists as well. This goes beyond just "creating". There is a difference between being inspired by an artist and straight doing the equivalent of a Chinese bootleg in picture form.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Humans bring their own perspective into it, they can see one piece of art and get inspired and make something unique. Humans can learn and observe and grow and have their perspective change.

AI Art is just fancy auto-complete, and AI Training is giving it a bigger pool to pull from. And again the issue is people's work are being taken to build these databases, charging money for it in some cases, and the artists aren't being compensated.

Cynrascal posted...

There are also prompts created to mimic other actual artists as well. This goes beyond just "creating". There is a difference between being inspired by an artist and straight doing the equivalent of a Chinese bootleg in picture form.

I'm sure there are scores of human made art made to replicate the styles ofnfamous artists though. I don't think an artist owns a style really. It's only a bootleg if you present the AI art as a genuine piece as a work by that artist.

SSJKirby posted...

Humans bring their own perspective into it, they can see one piece of art and get inspired and make something unique. Humans can learn and observe and grow and have their perspective change.

AI Art is just fancy auto-complete, and AI Training is giving it a bigger pool to pull from. And again the issue is people's work are being taken to build these databases, charging money for it in some cases, and the artists aren't being compensated.

So it's more about the use in training vs the 'stealing'? Some humans artists also make purely derivivate works too though.

Calling it auto complete seems too simplistic when it's using aspects of 1000 works to create a novel work. If I draw a Mona Lisa inspired work and people buy it, should I have to compensate da Vinci's estate?

C_Pain posted...

Just because AI is explicitly processing the images as a computer, is that so different from our brains looking and being inspired by works?

Yes, because AI is a computer program made specifically to scrape data and use only that data to form an image based on input from a user. It cannot be inspired; it has no creativity; it cannot make an influenced piece of art its own, because it makes nothing of its own, only what it is told to make. Computers have no life experience to pull from.

Humans are creatures of actual inspiration and creativity. We are influenced by things, but we make those influences into something that speaks to our own experience, aesthetic, etc.

The "humans do it too" argument requires a toxically cynical view of the human mind/spirit.

C_Pain posted...

If I draw a Mona Lisa inspired work and people buy it, should I have to compensate da Vinci's estate?

You're selling your talent and hard work being able to translate one piece of art into something else. AI Art doesn't exist without thousands of people's input just so someone who thinks they're an artist can get their ideas into tangible form.

Having an idea and letting something else make it for you doesn't make you an artist. AI Art exists on the backs of thousands of people's hard work and they didn't get a say in any of it.

Think of AI Art as the commision process, you want Bugs Bunny as Mona Lisa but instead of paying an artist whose work you like to do it for you, you get AI to do it. That artist just lost out on a potential customer, and that can scale up. Companies can commission AI Art faster, and significantly cheaper to get their ideas out on paper and the people responsible for AI Art being functional in the first place get nothing.

Villain_S_Fiend posted...

Yes, because AI is a computer program made specifically to scrape data and use only that data to form an image based on input from a user. It cannot be inspired; it has no creativity; it cannot make an influenced piece of art its own, because it makes nothing of its own, only what it is told to make. Computers have no life experience to pull from.

Humans are creatures of actual inspiration and creativity. We are influenced by things, but we make those influences into something that speaks to our own experience, aesthetic, etc.

The "humans do it too" argument requires a toxically cynical view of the human mind/spirit.

I get what you mean but I don't see what inspired has to do with it really. You can say it's without passion but that doesnt make it theft.

SSJKirby posted...

You're selling your talent and hard work being able to translate one piece of art into something else. AI Art doesn't exist without thousands of people's input just so someone who thinks they're an artist can get their ideas into tangible form.

Having an idea and letting something else make it for you doesn't make you an artist. AI Art exists on the backs of thousands of people's hard work and they didn't get a say in any of it.

Think of AI Art as the commision process, you want Bugs Bunny as Mona Lisa but instead of paying an artist whose work you like to do it for you, you get AI to do it. That artist just lost out on a potential customer, and that can scale up. Companies can commission AI Art faster, and significantly cheaper to get their ideas out on paper and the people responsible for AI Art being functional in the first place get nothing.

I agree and I don't think using AI to make art makes you an artist, and it's cringe if you claim yourself as an AI artist. However if I just want a funny bugs bunny picture for my own use, I don't think there's anything wrong with using an AI vs paying a person. If the AI didn't exist, I probably wouldn't ever commission it anyway, so it's a moot point that they're losing out on money. Any artist who gets a commission is taking a customer away from another artist anyway, so I don't really buy that argument.

The entire history of human art and media is built on all that came before. A computer looking at art to make a novel piece of art isnt stealing imo.

SSJKirby posted...

You're selling your talent and hard work being able to translate one piece of art into something else. AI Art doesn't exist without thousands of people's input just so someone who thinks they're an artist can get their ideas into tangible form.

Having an idea and letting something else make it for you doesn't make you an artist. AI Art exists on the backs of thousands of people's hard work and they didn't get a say in any of it.

Think of AI Art as the commision process, you want Bugs Bunny as Mona Lisa but instead of paying an artist whose work you like to do it for you, you get AI to do it. That artist just lost out on a potential customer, and that can scale up. Companies can commission AI Art faster, and significantly cheaper to get their ideas out on paper and the people responsible for AI Art being functional in the first place get nothing.

The problem with this is that since this technology is now out in the open and relatively easy to use on a personal level, what incentive does a company have to go through the effort of finding the right artist and compensating them for work which could be done for free in a matter of seconds?

I completely agree that relying on AI for art screws over human artists and further commodifies human creativity but for as long as we've been in this postmodern era, when hasn't creativity and artistry been commodified?

I think the larger issue with existentialism over AI is that we're only able to view AI in relation to capitalism and that distorts all opinions. To many, automation is a threat because people in factories and warehouses won't be able to make money since their labor wouldn't be worth the compensation. AI is a threat because artists, writers, musicians and educators won't be able to make money since their labor wouldn't be worth the compensation.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


No, because humans also think about what aspects they don't like and how to improve a good work into a great work. AI doesn't do that.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


so do humans.

Villain_S_Fiend posted...

Yes, because AI is a computer program made specifically to scrape data and use only that data to form an image based on input from a user. It cannot be inspired; it has no creativity; it cannot make an influenced piece of art its own, because it makes nothing of its own, only what it is told to make. Computers have no life experience to pull from.

Humans are creatures of actual inspiration and creativity. We are influenced by things, but we make those influences into something that speaks to our own experience, aesthetic, etc.

The "humans do it too" argument requires a toxically cynical view of the human mind/spirit.

Actually best response in this topic you said what I couldnt put into words thanks

AI can't do anything without robbing search engines. All we have to do is unplug the internet and it's dead.

companies download terrabytes of copyrighted artwork/photos, payed nothing, and then use it to power their software.

they already did this, like download every image from both GettyImages and DeviantArt as well as Facebook and Instagram, Google Images, etc etc.