JohnGellings
Well-known
How do you credit people for 5 billion images and how do you decide whose images did what? How would you credit 5 billion people? I mean, none of it leads to a copy of any one specific person's work. It simply leads to copies of cliches generally speaking. I mean, look at the examples above of AA´s work. It is not anything like his. It is just some lazy user trying to capitalize off of his name.
Generally yes, but I bet we will see great art made with it in the future. NOT copies of photographs, but something entirely different.What it also make obvious is that AI needed literally decades worth of material to be brought up to the state of perfectly making bad propaganda to fool boomers on facebook. All the human creativity available on the internet, across the globe, and silicon valley has turned it into mindless sh!t.
Well, that is the internet...
tcmx3
Established
you are missing an incredibly obvious solution to this problem.
update and enforce the IP rights and shut these clowns down for good.
JohnGellings
Well-known
Haha, right... I'm not missing it, I just know it is not going to happen. It is only the beginning.
Mos6502
Well-known
Imagine being like "I've broken into so many homes and stolen so much from so many people, that I may as well not be held accountable, because how can we even keep track of how many people I've taken from?"
Wonderfully demonstrated how ethics are incompatible with the people who support this tech.
tcmx3
Established
if we just accept that these people are going to ruin the world, they definitely will.
if we fight against it, at least there's a chance they won't. even if it's not a very good chance.
JohnGellings
Well-known
People have been fighting perceived evils (real and fake) since the beginning of time. I am not so sure AI is going to ruin the world. Will it be used for nefarious purposes sometimes? Of course, but what type of imagery hasn't?
Last edited:
JohnGellings
Well-known
Well, if a group broke into 5 billion homes, I can guarantee that they would not be able to determine whose stuff is whose, but they certainly would be held accountable for the crime. That said, AI is not committing a crime... yet.
Appropriation has existed for a long time:
AI isn't even as blatant as this since it is using millions of images to create one. It'll be interesting to see where it ends up falling legally speaking.
Anyway, an interesting read on the subject from an unlikely source:
Last edited:
tcmx3
Established
Im sorry but it seems to me that your thinking is just too limited.
The whole business model is theft. All you seem to be able to see is the resulting image, and not what goes into making it.
If you couldn't tell from my joking post earlier I actually have worked in computer vision. My perspective comes from knowing more about how the sausage is made than damn near anyone else. You, and everyone else, are free to ignore my take, but I am not keen to just accept this degree of dismissiveness from someone who appears not to understand the basics.
Last edited:
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
I lived and worked in Silicon Valley for 20 years. I knew a lot of nice folks here, good friends with talent and acumen. But there are other folks there who cannot even spell ethics. There's millions being made in Silicon Valley. Where does all that money come from?
JohnGellings
Well-known
No, I try to understand the good and the bad of things, not just assume it is all bad. Maybe the bad outweighs the good. I'm not sure yet.
No, I try to think of how images have been used in the past, in the art world, and then see if I think AI could be useful to make art in any way. Of course it can be. That does not mean I will use it. It just means I am open minded. I am not talking about cheap facsimiles of photos and ripping off photographer´s work. I am talking about how AI can make new art.
Here is an article from Aperture about artists using AI:
How Will AI Transform Photography?
As artists experiment with this fast-evolving technology, they uncover creative opportunity, absurdity, and bias.
aperture.org
I do not agree with the "transform photography" part since AI isn't photography, and I may not like the work here, but I find it interesting as a tool. What I do not find interesting is using AI to mimic photography's cliches or to make stupid quasi historical images. There is a lot I do not like about AI, I want to make that clear.
That's great. Truly. However, I still will work my way through my own thoughts about it.
I am not being dismissive. I am truly trying to understand how you think "they" will stop this, how you think it can be regulated. How they will credit billions of photographs. How they will compensate everyone whose images were already used to train it. It has already been done. Time will tell what happens, but I'm skeptical that an all out ban is going to happen.
tcmx3
Established
you know what you're right in the whole wide world there doesn't exist a single body of people representing other people who could make laws clarifying that you are in violation of intellectual property law if you train on images without the permission of the ip holder.
"it's already happened"
I dont care. seize assets. the feds seize the domains of companies who break the law all the time. piracy sites get seized all the time 🤷
"it's already happened"
I dont care. seize assets. the feds seize the domains of companies who break the law all the time. piracy sites get seized all the time 🤷
tcmx3
Established
btw highway expansion was an "inevitability" too, people said the same thing. yet my home city had loads of people decide we didn't want that, and we got one of the earliest light rail systems instead.
sure glad we didnt listen to folks who seem to believe nothing can ever get better.
sure glad we didnt listen to folks who seem to believe nothing can ever get better.
tcmx3
Established
as a last comment I'm going to make on this subject.
AI slop will never be art. Ever. I love modern art and I can see artistic value in almost everything. Those elephants painting? Sick. 3 year olds drawing a house with their mom and dad? Frame it.
Using one of these models and calling it art is indistinguishable from putting a frozen dinner in the microwave and calling yourself a chef.
Under vanishingly rare circumstances post-model output can then have actual artistic intent applied to it and become art by becoming something else. But that's it.
AI slop will never be art. Ever. I love modern art and I can see artistic value in almost everything. Those elephants painting? Sick. 3 year olds drawing a house with their mom and dad? Frame it.
Using one of these models and calling it art is indistinguishable from putting a frozen dinner in the microwave and calling yourself a chef.
Under vanishingly rare circumstances post-model output can then have actual artistic intent applied to it and become art by becoming something else. But that's it.
JohnGellings
Well-known
Of course they exist, but ask yourself why it is not happening. That is my point. I am not saying it should or should not. I think it is a very grey area. An interesting grey area.
You think they broke the law, but have they? That is to be decided. Neither what you or I think really matters.
Last edited:
JohnGellings
Well-known
I think that is a very shortsighted view of a new technology that has not been used to its full capabilities. I'm not going to use it and I agree, most of it is BS, but I think there are possibilities.
JohnGellings
Well-known
I'm happy for you and your home city. That's awesome. I do not know what that has to do with me trying to completely understand what AI can offer. Like I said, I do not think it is all great. I think there are some unsettling things about AI imagery, I cannot stand the garbage I see posted on FB they try to pass off as photography. It is the worst of the worst. However, I truly think someone will make compelling art with it in the future that does not just mimic things that exist in photography etc, but is its own thing. I get it, you think it is all bad. We can agree to disagree.
tcmx3
Established
you keep quoting me after I tried to just exit the convo. and you keep saying you want to understand.
but when an industry insider tries to tell you what's up you say to his face he's wrong and short sighted?
"concerning"
JohnGellings
Well-known
I do not know you personally. I do not know your true professional credentials. I only know you do not like AI and supposedly worked in the industry. That is not enough for me to follow you blindly. I agree to move on.
Mos6502
Well-known
I'm a "I'll believe it when I see it guy". There were thousands of people telling me that I was an idiot, a complete fool, for not investing in NFTs in 2021. Proclaiming, loudly, that in a couple of years, I would see how important the new technology is, and I was missing out for not seeing its potential.
The continuing theme among all the hype was that "technology = good, NFTs = technology, so NFTs = good". Anyway, if you haven't been paying attention, the NFT market is about 95% smaller this year than it was in 2022. Millions of dollars have been lost. Technology isn't always good. And potential isn't always realized. There was a time when people, quite literally, thought blowing smoke up people's asses was a major leap forward in medical science. Well, the tech industry has been heavy into the digital equivalent of such activities for the past few years.
AI generation is already in a stage of diminishing returns. It's why it's being marketed so heavily. Everybody who knows, knows that this is about as good as it's going to get, sinking more money into it isn't going to make it appreciably better, so it has to be launched now. Or it's not going to make money. What they want us to believe is that we're going to continue to see the massive improvements in results that they were making two years ago, when everybody suddenly was in a race to get their products to market (for the reason stated, spending more time and money wasn't going to ensure much better results). Well it's not going to happen. That's plainly obvious when you compare the pace of improvement two years ago, to the pace today. Yes, inevitably, there will be a time when the AI generated stuff is indistinguishable from the real thing, even to experts, such is the case today with CGI effects in movies -but it's not going to happen in the next year or two as promised. It's probably going to take five or ten more years. Which yes, is a lot nearer than it seems, but also gives some time to get the legal issues sorted out - which they really don't want us to do, thus all the "don't resist, just give in and be steamrolled" rhetoric being pushed by the people with vested interests.
JohnGellings
Well-known
Time will tell, but AI is being used for a lot more purposes than imaging and cannot be compared to NFTs.
Last edited: