Can artists protect their work from AI? - BBC News 

Humans are fundamentally lazy, it wouldn't be surprising to find humanity controlled by AI.

If there were no people using these big corporation's ai programs we wouldn't have this problem. It is the users not the corporations....

​@@vllad74it's the companies

stealing is wrong....unless it creates more money

@@bunnywar This a bit like the egg and the chicken and which one is the first. I know what you mean but lets not forget that the initial testing of all these platforms was done by the users for free. Users who knew that all the data these programs used was stolen...And they did it anyway...

Perhaps we should ban cars to protect buggy makers?

Yes, I see images from different artists with different styles uploaded by the same uploader XD

I don’t think the company’s have even opted out anyone that requested yet either.

They consented with the terms that Adobe can use their work for any purpose regarding development of their software long long ago. And there have been warnings and beggings of lawyers about to read the terms of use for years now. It is just, that people care a shit about such things until they feel the consequences. 🤷‍♂ In Germany we say "TJA!"

Adobe firefly works on non copyrighted images

@@mirm0n Wrong

so where do artist take their inspiration from? they probably got their own style based on a collection of style and influence, that's also what AI is doing.

@@vinchino So when do AI have inspiration?

@@vinchino You are going off on a tangent, the issue has nothing to do with whether ai is inspired the same way humans are inspired. That's a separate philosophical argument. It's an interesting philosophical question whether or not ai learns like humans, but it doesn't pertain to the issue. The issue at the hand is whether ai companies have permission to train their ai on artists' works. They don't. Artists have explicitly said they don't want ai training from their work. They are okay with humans training from their work, it's actually a time honored tradition to allow artists to learn from other artists. As long as the ai companies don't have permission to use artists' work in the training set, what they are engaged in is theft. This is why artists and companies like Getty images, which do get permission from artists to use their work are upset by what the ai companies have done. It's why politicians have asked if the ai has compensated artists and musicians for their work, when they've grilled ai people in congress and parliaments around the world.

@@vinchino Do yourself a favor and don't talk about things you've no understanding of like for example ML (machine learning)

​@vinchino their own style evolves from inspiration from others but each artist will bring their unique spin on things and move past copying. Stop justifying art theft.

It’s so over

I'm currently studying to be a concept artist and I'm fuming that ai generated images have gotten this far. It shouldn't even be an argument they have stolen artists work, and profited off of it. Ridiculous that the current court bs going on surrounding it is taking so logn

I'm tired of hearing about prompt engineers and how artists need to learn that. There's ChatGPT and a plethora of ai systems that aren't covered in the news. All those talking about the skill involved prompt engineering can't even grasp that these technologies will be combined in ways that will get rid of new jobs created by ai like prompt engineering. If a human isn't needed to create art, but types text into image ai, there's no reason a Chatgpt like program add on can't type in the text. It's going to bring alot of harm a lot of people, across many aspects of our society. And the sad part will be, it won't be ai replacing humans, it'll be ai that's stolen countless human data that represents our vast number of cultures to function, that will channel massive profits into the hands of a few at the expense of humanity. And people actively encourage others to help contribute to this and quit protesting, all in the name of progress at any costs. If humanity loses, well that's just how evolution is supposed to go.

That's wrong though. AI companies weren't idiots in the EU at least. They made the laws in 2019 and LAION started as soon as Germany adopted those laws itself. So you need to add - Step 0: Have universities convince politicians to create a machine learning friendly environment, with the real concern that without AI development centered in Europe, they will again be left behind the US.

​@@minyaw1234 Is that how you explain data loundering? Sure, let me fix that for you. Step 0: Create a non-profit "research" based company that scrapes the internet, who is allowed the **exception** of scraping for that same and only purpose, then use your other company to use the research data from the first company for commercial use, keeping them separate to avoid the law and use loopholes. There. I'm done here.

@@VengefulEggroll Problem for you - even if you think that 60c of the German copyright law doesn't apply and somehow can prove the supposed influence Stability has over LAION - LAION uses common crawl to scrape images, which supports the machine readable opt out in 44b of the German copyright law for machine learning for commercial purposes. So even if it is found to not be a research institute, which mind you, it is - but even if that wasn't the case, it was acting according the rules for commercial use to begin with.

@@minyaw1234 First when did German law become unable to be adapted to new issues in society and when did German law become the rule the world must follow. Pay attention to the news. The US and the EU and countries around the world are looking into ways to regulate this new tech. AI companies are asking for governments to lay out rules for this new tech. You can say German law allows ai companies to take data without permission from the owners of that data. But I've seen politicians in hearings ask AI company CEOs "Since the ai depends on artist's work, why aren't artists being compensated by the ai companies?" Why would politicians who makes the laws ask that question if what AI companies are doing is settled law? And why would AI CEO's stumble over the question instead of saying, "Well according to German copyright law, we have every right to do so."

Humans are not very creative, so it isn't much of a loss.

It's cheaper,faster and cuts out the middleman to generate art assets for businesses and individuals.

@@TomNook. So AI-generated imagery is freak'n convenient and cheap. I can't get past the fact that, for generations, AI wasn't necessary to get the work done. And there are a lot of artists and designers who would still like to do the work. There isn't any argument as why AI-generated art is necessary or should be used.

it's here to stay because it's about to become highly commercially viable.

@@amorphix7790 You don't understand the nature of my objection. The benefits of automating unpleasant, uninteresting work is not at issue. AI "art" isn't art. There is no intention behind it, no mind creating anything, no creativity involved at all. It's simply an example of the big-data approach to machine learning, this time for the purpose of putting creative people out of work. The problem is that actual creativity, the product of people who have pronounced divergent thinking capacity, is being treated as though it has no value. Talentless geeks and others can use big-data machine learning as a crutch to get around employing creative human minds.

@@HandgunSafe if their work can be easily replaced by talentless geeks then are they even more talentless?

yep, take an action pls

Yes protect artists who use Ai from the witch hunt

​@@jamessderbyArrest and imprison "artists" who use AI. Tech Bros are subhuman cancer.

Disney are using ai

How much do you owe to Disney for copyright infringement as you brain has a copy of their movies that you can use to make derivative work? Art we view is training data.

@@abram730 Our brains don't store pixel perfect copies of billions of images, and our hands can't reproduce pixel perfect versions of the images in our heads. The process of synthesis for producing an art piece is fundamentally different to a computer producing an image from a prompt. Stop being deliberately obtuse.

@@Sebastian_Terrazas AI doesn't store pixel perfect copies of billions of images, and can't reproduce pixel perfect versions of the images. The process of synthesis for producing an art piece is not fundamentally different to a human producing an image. Stop pretending that things you make up in your head are reality.

@@abram730 So what you're saying is that the AI itself is the artist, right? If the process of AI generating an image is not different than that of a human producing an art piece, then it still means that the people writing the prompts are not artists. EDIT:typo

The people of Iran and the world, the United States, Israel and the people of the world should know and be aware that the traitorous democrats of China, Russia and Putin are taking bribes from the terrorists of the world and destroying countries such as Ukraine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Armenia, the Middle East, and the United States. And let Europe know that the traitorous Biden and the traitorous democrats, the spy and the most corrupt party in the world, are turning America from the world's superpower into the world's most unzealous country with the support of the traitorous democrats, the spy and the swindler of China, Russia and Putin, and be aware that on Obama's orders The traitor, bribe taker, and self-dealer, liar and corrupt leader, the corrupt democrats and liar leader of Europe, sell the world to China, Russia, and Putin, the terrorist, to Nancy Pelosi, the filth, self-dealer, and leader of China, Russia, and Putin as a sign of the order. China's military attack on Taiwan, doing the same as Ukraine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Armenia, the Middle East, and America, from the world's superpower to the world's most ruthless country, with the support of traitorous democrats, traitors, spies, and mozadors of China, Russia, and Putin, long live the terrorist. Donald Trump is the most zealous president in the history of America and brought America to greatness. Long live Donald Trump is the most zealous president in American history and brought America to greatness. Long live Donald Trump, zealous and hero and hero and hero of disgrace, death and shame. On Joe Biden, the most unzealous president in the history of America and turning America from a world superpower into the world's most unzealous country with the support of the traitorous Democrats, Joe Biden, the unzealous, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Kamla Harris, and all the traitorous Democrats of China and Russia. Putin is a terrorist and Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama and Junckery Hillary Kinton and Kamla Harris and all the traitorous democrats, the spy and Mozador of China and Russia and Putin the terrorist terrorist terrorist

still better than somebody stealing somebody else's photos and videos to use or catfish scams, which is super common. in fact, it's probably currently being automated by AI.

Im a pixel artist for a couple mmos. And quite often i see people claiming they made my work.. if a large company used it for a commercial product like an ai i would be rather annoyed.

That would shift the burden of proof to the accused and mean guilty until proven innocent. Copyright is already regularly abused (e.g. companies claiming the art of small creators/artists as their own because they know they can get away with it since it is expensive to fight back). We don't need any more shortsighted legislation like the DMCA.

@@RandomUser311 the burden of proof has to be shifted for AI art, and it's very reasonably practical.

@@Ass_of_Amalek no, it doesn't. And it's not practical either, it's just a sure way to sign your rights away 20 years down the line when arguments will be made that human artists have to be held to the same standard. To be frank, it's an all around terrible idea based on an overreaction to a new technology.

@@RandomUser311 that's ridiculous, nobody will derive a demand for human artists to document all their lifetime sensory input from a requirement for commercial AI art to prove that its dataset contains no unlicenced copyrighted material. generative AI can more easily log its entire input data than you can recall what you ate yesterday. and what I'm proposing is a strong distinction between humans and AI, you can't derive equivocation between AI and humans from that. you are being incredibly dense.

@@Ass_of_Amalek What an unnecessary choice of words. You should take a look at the history copyright legislation if you believe such a law would not be twisted and broadened beyond recognition. You are also ignorant of developments in the field if you believe you'll still be able to make a strong distinction between purely human and AI work just a few years from now. But hey, since I'm too dense for any of that I'll just stop notifications for this thread now and leave you with your superior opinion :)

How can you protect against ai, it literally combine all the past work into one, so know one can say this is 100% his art

@@xdxxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdx8578 No one

How would this be any different from a person looking at a piece of artwork and taking inspiration or mimicking the style.

where exactly the law is being broken ? this narrative is the rant of parasites, pseudo artist who never made it on their own nor would they ever be, claiming now its own success is being stollen by AI

Did you even watch the video?? 😆 It's all clearly explained in fairly simple words and examples.

Is AI generated pictures/sounds , not art.

If you directly copy work, that is plagiarism. But there is no copywrite on a style. Every subset of art we have from surrealism, to the abstract is all based off someone who did something once, and others did it in a similar style. Imangine if you told people they couldn't do a painting in the style of Picasso, they'd think you're absurd.

@@Syn_Slater There are differences between inspiration, appropriation, and plagiarism. Humans always use what’s come before to create the new; by incorporating their own experiences, ideas, interpretations. If you make art that deliberately looks like someone else’s work, without tour own personal input, I would call it plagiarism.

@@Syn_Slater Picasso: “Good artists copy, great artists steal.” Meaning, In my point of view, when you have incorporated your influences to a point where they are now an inseparable part of your own unique style.

@@MatsUnden no legal entity defines plagiarism in the way are using it (that might tell you something mats) every plagiarism case that has ever been won was because copying exact works, not styles. Half the music in the 80s sounded exactly like the rest, no one got sued for copying the style unless they copied the exact piece of music. "This sounds like a song nine inch nails would make, quickly Trent Reznor should sue them" said no lawyer ever.

The people of Iran and the world, the United States, Israel and the people of the world should know and be aware that the traitorous democrats of China, Russia and Putin are taking bribes from the terrorists of the world and destroying countries such as Ukraine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Armenia, the Middle East, and the United States. And let Europe know that the traitorous Biden and the traitorous democrats, the spy and the most corrupt party in the world, are turning America from the world's superpower into the world's most unzealous country with the support of the traitorous democrats, the spy and the swindler of China, Russia and Putin, and be aware that on Obama's orders The traitor, bribe taker, and self-dealer, liar and corrupt leader, the corrupt democrats and liar leader of Europe, sell the world to China, Russia, and Putin, the terrorist, to Nancy Pelosi, the filth, self-dealer, and leader of China, Russia, and Putin as a sign of the order. China's military attack on Taiwan, doing the same as Ukraine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Armenia, the Middle East, and America, from the world's superpower to the world's most ruthless country, with the support of traitorous democrats, traitors, spies, and mozadors of China, Russia, and Putin, long live the terrorist. Donald Trump is the most zealous president in the history of America and brought America to greatness. Long live Donald Trump is the most zealous president in American history and brought America to greatness. Long live Donald Trump, zealous and hero and hero and hero of disgrace, death and shame. On Joe Biden, the most unzealous president in the history of America and turning America from a world superpower into the world's most unzealous country with the support of the traitorous Democrats, Joe Biden, the unzealous, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Kamla Harris, and all the traitorous Democrats of China and Russia. Putin is a terrorist and Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama and Junckery Hillary Kinton and Kamla Harris and all the traitorous democrats, the spy and Mozador of China and Russia and Putin the terrorist terrorist terrorist

@@yaaghobrahmani4928 Nurse will soon be with you with your medication. 👩‍⚕️ 💊

nope. what's happening is that AI is demonstrating that the artsy-fartsy claims about art being somehow magically soulful are wrong. art consumers do not actually give a single shit about whether whoever or whatever made the art had a thought while doing it, only the product matters. any perception of the consumer of what the artist may have intended or thought is imaginary, it's entirely inferred from the product and not actually a reflection of the production process. if AI makes the same artwork as a human (yes, I know it's not quite that good yet), it makes absolutely no difference to the consumer which is which.

​@@Ass_of_AmalekAnd when ai comes for your job because consumers don't care how your job is accomplished, just remember artists won't be there to help you.

@@Ass_of_Amalek Who said anything about art being “magically soulful”? (Incidentally, the best art *is* magic *and* soulful.) I simply said AI “art” will never trump human art, quite simply because AI “art” isn’t itself genuinely creative and is simply parasitical, feeding off what has been created by humans. Seethe.

That's not possible. The model doesn't store images nor anything relevant that would be enable to trace anything back. Here is a simplified order of images for cat: 1. Every image that contained a cat for the AI to know the concept of cat. 2. Every image that did not contain cats for the AI to know the concept of what isn't a cat. That is the inspiration. Both are necessary. So every picture wouldn't exist with one of the other influencing the software. I already hear it: But what about artists? The same exact concept applies. Without knowing what X is not, it can not make a difference to what X is and therefor it needs as many pictures as possible of different things to know different concepts. And it goes through all of those points every time you click create. Millions of commands every millisecond. And yes, some it doesn't touch, for example if you negative prompt something. Let's say it could somehow save the links to what it used - every time an image is created it would leave an inspiration list as text documents with hundreds of millions of links bigger in size than the actual picture. Many of them completely unrelated for the human eye, but could be very important for the AI for some reason. That would be utterly useless for us.

@@vectorhooves7970 "AI can't invent anything", AI is not collaging images together. It learns what an apple looks like by looking at hundreds of images of apples, and how to recreate it. It is not copying the training data whatsoever. The process of creating AI art is no different to how humans create art. The only difference is computers do it sequentially and a lot quicker.

​@@vectorhooves7970 We are far from understanding the brain in its complexity, but acting like we're ignorant is disingenuous. And what we are discussing here is not a biological process, it is a simple process of logic gates of how the brain sees an image of something, analyses it, and tries to pick out those patterns again. This is why we see faces in things that aren't faces. Our brain has evolved to spot patterns in faces very easily. We are literally a pattern-recognition machine. So, just admit that you don't know how AI image generation works, as there is no "copying" whatsoever, in fact, training data is deleted once the model is trained, it does not have access to that original data at all from that point.

@@vectorhooves7970 I did not reference the legal implications at all. The only thing I addressed was an incorrect statement about how AI works. So really I have no idea what you are adding to this conversation whatsoever.

@@vectorhooves7970 "Ignoring the larger issues", my guy, I am not here to address every single issue AI causes, I commented in response to a single misconception which was made.

I'm pretty much pro Machine Learning, and I applaud your decision. I see a good market for you, especially once AI has been proliferated through Social Media, Dataset engineers will hunger for untouched art. You will be able to make quite a buck if you hold out for a decade longer. Love it. More power to you.

This sounds super interesting - you got any more info you wouldn’t mind sharing? I’m trying to find any way to protect my art 😅

That’s an example of an artist using ai art as a tool.

It’s their work and their choice soo no repercussions I assume

What if you stop grooming students in school, groomer? And stop forcing your filth on us?

That's why they are struggling using DVD/CD for distribution of artists products in the past decades. They knew internet/AI will hurt artists& every fields so much but with no better solution yet

Well any game artist or concept artist.. artists that rely on the money from prints and such.. copyright isn't really needed for these and ai will be pervasive in these feilds in a few years

There is copyright for AI works but only under UK law not under American law which is more respected internationally so just like the artists your AI work is more likely to be stolen online because of US law but if the person is British and operating in the UK you can probably sue You may be able to sue in the US depending on the US judge because any AI work coming out of the UK is copyrighted under UK law and if the person stealing it knows this but is exploiting the difference in law I don't think the judge will like that

(Section 178 (CDPA)). Section 9(3) CDPA provides that the author of a computer-generated work is deemed to be the person "by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken". Who, if anyone, is the author? If we assume that an AI tool has acted sufficiently independently of any human that the identity of the author in a normal sense is unclear, and Section 9(3) may therefore apply, the answer to the question whether copyright can subsist in an AI-generated work depends on whether it is obvious who is the human "by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken." In the short term this is likely to mean whether a human user of the AI tool is the author of works created, or whether it is the original programmer of the AI tool. [See our related article on IP Licensing]

@@ANGELBOBS_YT There "cannot be an author" under Section 9(3) . That's the problem with it. It was based on a 1980s case where data was generated randomly for a pools process. As mentioned, AI uses a software interface and Navitaire v Easyjet (2004) is the relevant case law. User input is a "method of operation" and the result is a software function (not expression). Thus no copyright. Only human expression is protected by copyright (TRIPS agreement article 9(2))

> *Given the lack of copyright protection AI image gens are worthless for professionals in a creative industry* I mean, a "creative industry" is a wide breadth, so ... say you need textures for a 3d model - it'd be really damn useful to not need licensing hurdles to get textures for whatever you're modeling.

They win art contests because they are better than human artists. Picasso: “Good artists copy, great artists steal.”

@abram730 I can see and agree with what you mean here, but I still think human creation is something special born out of a biological environment. In time, there will be a HUGE distinction between the human artist and the Artificial artist... For instance, an original Picasso could only come from the heart and soul of Picasso regardless of how he interpreted the musings of his creativity!! The subject of creation by artificial intelligence is easily reduced, to copying data and reformatting it. Until Artifical Intelligence can be born with a heart and soul, one built and connected by nature they are incapable of being compared to creating anything at a human capacity!! Their abilities are Artificial (fake). Our abilities are natural (real).

@@1Kind1 "I still think human creation is something special born out of a biological environment." Then why are artists afraid of loosing their jobs? Perhaps you are trying to convince yourself and not me?

Just expressing my thoughts...no need to convince you of them!!

@@abram730 AI will never replace humans

Give it time, and AI will be able to mimic emotion & sincerity. If you can fake sincerity, you've got it made.

@@naejin Mimic being the operative word. Never real. And anyone using it will always be plagued by doubt as it isn't really them doing it. I'd rather draw a stick figure myself than ask an AI to "create" a Picasso

nope. what's happening is that AI is demonstrating that the artsy-fartsy claims about art being somehow magically soulful are wrong. art consumers do not actually give a single shit about whether whoever or whatever made the art had a thought while doing it, only the product matters. any perception of the consumer of what the artist may have intended or thought is imaginary, it's entirely inferred from the product and not actually a reflection of the production process.

@@Ass_of_Amalek And what do you think AI was trained on😂 Apparently the creators of it doesn't think so👍 Keep dreaming. Art IS inspired. Even the great Greek philosophers couldn't explain it away, hence the Muses

@@psylentrage the ancient greek philosphers knew nothing compared to me. those guys thought that illness was an imbalance of four humors, and that gods visited earth to assault women in the form of a swan or whatever. "water, fire, air and dirt, F*ing magnets, how do they work?" - aristotle, probably

I think the idea of an artist in the public imagination is very limited. Like we all make paintings that we sell in galleries. There are artists across society. I work in animation. I need my work online. Say I'm looking for a job and want to apply to Disney. I have to have my work online to show them what I'm capable of before they will hire me. Gone are the days, when you had to send physical media like DVDs to Disney, they won't accept anything but online work. You can't show up to the studio and show your portfolio, gone are the days where Disney would allow anyone who's not an employee show up on their premises. And that's just one of the many many artistic field that need their work online to make a living. By the way, if you stand next to your print out and upload that photo to the internet, that image can easily be used to train the ai. Morever I can take that photo and use ai to recreate whatever part you are covering up by standing by it in less than a second. Since image ai has used billions of other stolen art, photographs, people's medical data, and tons of other stuff, it can imagine what most likely should be there in the same way ChatGPT can generate convincing conversations just based on endlessly guessing what word it expects to come after a word that's been written. Unless you stand and cover the entire image so AI can read none of it, in which case, you aren't posting your printout online for others to see.

> *If everyone can make it, then we'll all be making* Silly question, but wouldn't this assume that there aren't people who wouldn't be interested in using it - whether out of principle, or out of lack of interest in the field where it is being used? Perhaps I am taking the statement a bit literally, heh.

Is time back into handmade..not use online too much

Talent is a myth though. All the research shows that nearly anyone can become a master. It simply takes a lifetime of effort. You should give it a try. It's a very affirming process. You'll surprise yourself!

Why is it painful and unfortunate? I'm an artist, there are so many professions that I can't do. And you know what, they are all important to society. Art isn't some thing that's better than anything else and should be envied. It's an aspect of humanity of which there are many equally important aspects.

Not digitalising your art is kinda hard in 2023 I reckon, if you exhibit it you have to be strict in not letting people photograph your prints etc… plus how social media plays a big role in getting your work known and building a reputation. I’m an artist an feel mixed about it. Definitely need regulation, but I also use midjourney every day for social media content for my job. I can see why it will be significantly harder to find work as an artist / writer / musician when it’s cheaper, quicker and sometimes more precise to just use AI. Things are about to get weird…

Anyone can make art, and everyone should make some form of art. Art is not a product to be monetized, it is an expression of your unique perspective that no one else can represent. It doesn't matter if you have a pretty picture at the end of the day, it is a healing process, it makes you know yourself better, it helps you understand why you like the things you like, it improves your memory and your eye for detail, it makes your dreams and life more vibrant.

@@capnbarky2682 Some of us make a living from art. Art is all those things you said but there's nothing wrong with it being monitized. I work in animation. There's a film called the Iron Giant. It was made for a budget far less than a Disney movie, and because of its budget, I think that contributed to Director Brad Bird being able to make a great film. There's another film called the "Thief and the Cobbler" made for purely artistic reasons. Made by Richard Williams, one of the greatest animators who ever lived, of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" fame. Took 30 years and was never finished. It has truly some of the greatest breathtaking animation ever done, and all before computers but had attention been paid to monetizing it, it could have been finished. Disney's Aladdin owes something to that film. It's not a copy and a great film in its own right, but given Thief and the Cobbler was in production for 30 years and many of the artists that worked on Aladdin worked and studied under Richard Williams, some elements from that show up in Aladdin. Most people know Aladdin because despite Disney's lavish budgets, it still had a budget and it was a commercial product. Most beyond animators will never know about the Thief and the Cobbler.

So, Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan taught you nothing. You couldn't even defeat armies that were using bows and arrows and spears. Best you stay home and attend MAGA rallies.

He wasn't even a Yank, he was Scottish.

most normal american

@@Ass_of_Amalek 1) Yes, he was. 2) Regarding your username: Putin of Russia is evil!

They do however, store the coordinates/data that are derived from the billions of images, that are used to generate the outputs. Which functionally act as highly compressed copies. Otherwise, why would images be required to train upon in the first place if -something- wasn't stored or carried over?

​@@TychonAchae But that data ... is the data derived, about the image - that's not the image itself, that's like saying if you planted a seed from an apple, the resulting tree is the original apple - you apply a tenuous link when so many magnitudes of layers have been passed between one point and the other that prevent that kind of link being made in the first place.

@@gondoravalon7540 - _"is the data derived, about the image - that's not the image"_ So what? It still falls under copyright. _"you apply a tenuous link"_ That link isn't tenuous. It's directly causal. Don't want to infringe on copyright? Don't use copyrighted works. _"when so many magnitudes of layers have been passed between one point and the other that prevent that kind of link being made in the first place."_ There's a very easy way to test this: Remove the images from the database/equation altogether. Don't use them for training. Solves the problem, right? Don't get to have it both ways here to use them and then claim that they're irrelevant. That's literally counter causal.

Except when it's slavery. Labor without compensation...

99% of artists use Adobe products, which is online only. You can bet the house they are using all those projects to feed on.

Yours picture/voice from phone or online also can be mimicked by AI...which mean online fraudulent crime cases/misinformation/cyberwarfare is real thing & will goes rampant in future #good luck

become an artist that can do amazing thing in real time. then film yourself. i know a guy that paints amazing iconic buildings in London with a pen on site, tourists often film and take pictures of him. i know of another that can draw the human figure, incredibly accurately and fast in under 10 minutes with charcoal. so, the performer artist is one avenue to explore. my favourite is a plein-air painter who once painted a live a storm in person ,in real time, got all drenched but the painting was fantastic, it's almost like you could hear the strong wind, debris flying everywhere, bent palm trees and all. these are true artists. because they inspire people (well, me at least)

No. Adobe Firefly never had an opt-out option, at the same time, you could find the work of artists that never gave consent in their dataset.

@@AlvaroRealtimeMayhem I meant more the idea they said they were doing not necessarily the way they handled it.

@@notmyrealaccount8564 The problem is it would be cost prohibitive for them to ask artists for permission. They wouldn't be able to make a profit to get the billions and billions of data to train the data sets. The set of artists that would agree to it, would be a subset of the artists they currently have. And they'd have to pay the artists a decent rate, but even at a terrible rate, we are talking billions upon billions upon billions of data, which means even at a terrible rate, that's billions and billions of dollars allocated to artists (And not just artist, companies. Getty images is suing these AI models for consuming their content.). It already costs a lot of money to just run these ai models with millions of people entering prompts. Which is why they didn't ask for permission to eliminate the enormous costs of paying artists. The truth is their business model should never have existed because it's unprofitable if done ethically, but now that it does, and in an unethical form, they are hoping people see it as a minor thing and the backlash dies down so they can move forward with their business model and make a profit from it.

@@jmhorange I don’t know I think they could find a way, I suspect now it’s been done it will only become cheaper and faster especially if ai is used to help train other models. I think artists will come around though as they have tended to overvalue themselves before and found out the hard way that they were not as valuable as they thought. I think as long as there’s an opportunity to earn some money from their work, there’s always going to be artists that will be happy to contribute and then there’s usually some other way to earn money that pops up after a period of adjustment like different subscription models or ways for people to support their work.

@@notmyrealaccount8564 I don't know what artists you hang around with but artists tend to undervalue themselves, that's my pet peeve, I've lead groups of artists to get compensated for their work at studios. People in general don't like to rock the boat, and without a union, they often look to the business to compensate them fairly. Regardless, let's say artists demand too much and even accept a reduced price. Companies would have to be in this category too since their work is in the training data. And non artists, because things like medical data has appeared in the training sets. All these groups would have to be paid. I don't think you grasp how much data the AI needs to work. They could pay pennies on the dollar and the cost would be too much to build a profitable business on. The choice to not get permission was an intentional one, not some mistake. A non profit collected the data which was fine, as they couldn't use it for profit. And then a for profit company came and used that data which they would not be able to collect without permission as a for profit company to train their AI. At one point they said they would never do the same thing with music and listed the ethical issues artists have raised in deciding not to. Now they are doing music but it proves they knew it was unethical to collect artists work without permission. And yet they chose to move forward. Better to ask forgiveness than permission and they are hoping people like you forgive them and see the issue of permission as a minor issue.

Because those public resources were made public by the creators who gave their consent to it, they weren't stolen.

@@seauniart who were the creators of English languages? and where is your proof of consent for you to write English?

@@AllTimeNoobie no one invented english duh, it just shaped itself from previous languages and previous languages and previous sounds, what a shit comparison is this lmao no one has invented it or made it up (it'd be different if it were a conlang aka a language made up by someone, if an AI were to copy from a conlang it'd be as disrespectful as when it copies artists/writers/creators etc)

> *If there's one thing for sure is that these ai machines should be destroyed. It shouldn't be here in the first place.* It's not a physical machine that can be destroyed, it's software - and IMO you not seeing the need for the tech doesn't mean that there aren't people who find a way to incorporate it as a tool, and IMO it doesn't mean we can't find a way for it to have a home as a tool above all.

They said the same about printing presses. 🙄Cause writing was considered somekind of holy human activity. It is just, because you feel a certain way does not make it true. 🤷‍♂

Human made art/pictures/sounds is the nutrients for AI. And AI should be regulated&labeled clearly for easier to distinguish

Where do we draw the line? It's pretty easy. It's the same line needed in any type of theft. Was permission given? If not, that's theft. No artist has ever said humans can not learn from them. There's actually a time honored tradition that artists learn from those that came before them. Artists have explicitly said they don't want ai learning from their work. Therefore the ai companies are engaged in theft. Permission is key. If someone tells me I can't use something they own, they could give me the stupidest reason why I can't. If I use it, it's theft.

@@jmhorange well said. Not sure why some people act like it’s hard to draw a line between real breathing people and a machine

@@DONTTOUCHTHEGRASSIMALLERGIC I don't know. I always thought humans and all animals intrinsically cared about their own species. Now, I'm not so sure about humans... I've had conversations with people with racist views. And I try to get them to see, "Hey, I get you care about your people, that's great, but those people you don't like, they are your people." I don't know where to start with someone who is okay with giving rights to ai at the expense of human rights. There's so many people recently that literally don't care if ai replaces or causes harm to humans. Progress at any costs. I mean, not this guy who started this thread, he may just be unclear what the issue is, but there's a lot of people that just don't care.

The problem is intention. There is no mind, no divergent thinking capacity behind AI-generate art. And, no, AI is not learning the way humans do, not even close. Try reading Eric Larson's book, The Myth Of Artificial Intelligence.

AI does not "identify traits", it associates keywords with pictures. You don't learn this way, by crunching JPGs on a weighted virtual graph, you learn by assimilating structured mental concepts. The way it learns is so far removed from the way we do that I'm surprised it even warrants an explanation, it's like having to explain to someone in the 60s how a computer differs from a humain brain lol. It's like saying that you're the same as a nuclear reactor because you both consume fuel to generate energy. Technically true, but intentionally misleading and ridiculous for anyone who knows anything about humans or nuclear reactors. This belief that AI, an autocorrect tool on steroids, is the same as us in any capacity or is somehow gaining sentience, serves no one but greedy Silicon Valley ghouls looking to eat up entire industries on the back of their own work, under nebulous promises of progress, and the flimsy guise of fair use.