EldritchFeminity

See, I agree with pretty much everything you say here, because my (and the artists who are opposed to AI) problem is with Capitalism, full stop. People have to monetize skills in order to survive if they want to spend their time doing something they love. Even hobbies have now become "side hustles." Many of the indie game studios start out as a hobby, before the people working on the game use their savings to move to developing full-time as their job so they can work on their passion more. And then they don't turn a profit and have to go back to making smaller projects as hobbies while they do something else for work. This is where the fear is - artists love making art, but if you do it professionally, AI that mimics your art is basically on the same level as knock-off products of name brand designs.

My issue with MidJourney, for example, wouldn't be an issue if the concern over taking business away from artists was made moot. You say that a professional career can't be reduced down to a style, but then what is MidJourney doing and what is the difference? Because 4,000 of the 5,000 "style" prompts that you can input into MidJourney are artists' names, and that list is growing apparently according to the Discord logs - somebody mentioned having a list of 15,000 new artists' names to add to the prompts after they scrape their art. You can say "make me an impressionist landscape," but you can also say "make me a landscape by Sara Winters." Would having MidJourney make you paintings by a specific artist and then selling them be okay? Is that just a style or is it copyright infringement? Because I can easily see the case where that could be considered damaging to Sara's (in this example) "market" as a professional, even if you aren't selling the paintings you make. Because MidJourney is explicitly providing the tools to create work that mimics her art with the intent of cutting her out of the equation. At that point, have we crossed the line into forgery?

We unfortunately live in a capitalist society and we have to keep that in mind. People need to market their skills as a job in order to afford the essentials to live. Beyond a certain point, the time investment in something demands that you make money doing it. AI as a tool has the capability to be absolutely monumentally helpful, we could even see a fundamental paradigm shift in how we think of the act of creativity. But it also has the possibility to be monstrously harmful, as we've already seen with faked nudes of underage teens and false endorsements for products and political campaigns. Somebody tried to threaten an artist by claiming they had the copyright to a picture the artist was working on on Twitch after they took a screenshot of it and supposedly ran it through some sort of image generator. There was even a DA who somebody tried to scam using an AI generated copy of his son's voice claiming that he was in prison. Letting it be unregulated is incredibly risky, and that goes for corporate AI uses as well. We need to be able to protect us from them as much as we need to be able to protect ourselves from bad actors. And part of that is saying what is and what isn't an acceptable use of AI and the data that goes into training it. Otherwise, people are going to use stuff like Nightshade to attempt to protect their livelihoods from a threat that may or may not be imagined.

You do realize that you basically just confirmed every fear that artists have over AI, right? That they have no rights or protections to prevent anybody from coming along and using their work to train an LLM to create imitation works for cheaper than they can possibly charge for their work, thereby putting them out of business? Because in the end, a professional in any field is nothing more than the sum of the knowledge and experience they've accrued over their career; a "style" as you and MidJourney put it. And so long as somebody isn't basically copy+pasting a piece, then it's not violating copyright, because it's not potentially harming the market for the original piece, even if it is potentially harming the market for the creator of said piece.

The Dolphin analogy is also incorrect (though an interesting choice considering they got pulled from the Steam store after the threat of legal action by Nintendo, but I think you and I feel the same way on that issue - Dolphin has done nothing wrong). A better analogy would be if Unreal created an RPGMaker style tool for generating an entire game of any genre you want in Unreal Engine at the push of a button by averaging a multitude of games across different genres to generate the script. If they didn't get permission to use said games, either by paying a one time fee, an ongoing fee, or using games that expressly give permission for said use, I'm sure the developers/publishers would be rather unhappy with Unreal. Could it be incredibly beneficial and vastly improve the process of creating games for the industry? Absolutely. If they released it for free, could it be used by anybody and everybody to make imitation Ubisoft games, or any other developer, and run the risk of strangling the industry with even more trash games with no soul in them? Also absolutely. And a big AAA publisher has a lot more ability to deal with knock-offs/competition like that than your average starving artist. The indie game scene is the strongest it's ever been thanks to the rise of digital storefronts, but how many great indie game developers go under after producing their first game and never make a second? The vast majority. Because indie games almost never make a profit, meaning they can't afford to make another.

The issue with AI is that it opens a whole can of worms in the form of creating an industrial scale imitation generator that anybody can use at the push of a button. And the general public have long made known their disdain for properly compensating artists for the work that they do, and have already been gleefully doing a corporation by using AI to avoid having to hire artists. This runs the risk of creating a chilling effect in the field of creativity and the arts, as your average independent artist can no longer afford to keep doing art thanks to the wonders of capitalism. There will always be people who do art as a hobby, but professional artists as we think of them today? Why go into debt by training at an art school if all your job prospects have been replaced because people generate art for free with some form of LLM instead of hiring artists. I myself never went into art beyond a hobby level despite wanting to because of how abysmal the job prospects were even 15 years ago. And I simply cannot afford to do it as much as I'd like (if at all) between work, the time investment, and the expense of it. And that's not even getting into the issues of LLM generated porn of people, advertisements generated using the voices of dead (and still alive) celebrities, scams made using the voices of relatives, and all the other ethical issues.

I used to work at a fish market with a kid who was a trained electrician who was set to follow in the footsteps of his dad who had been one of the highest paid electricians in the US, except he gave up on it because the thing he liked doing the most in the field was replaced with a machine by the time he graduated from technical school. Obviously the machine is more efficient (and probably safer), but instead of entering the field at all, he ended up working a job he hated and to this day has never found a job he has any passion for. What happens to art when professional artists are only NEETs, who have minimal living expenses, and those hired by corporations and the wealthy? Are we going to get the fine art market on steroids, with the masses only having access to AI generated art that will degrade in quality over time as the only new inputs are previous AI generated pieces, unless there's enough hobby artists to provide sufficient new art, while the wealthy hold a monopoly on human-made art that the rest of us will probably never see?

This is all pure speculation, but it's the Jurassic Park question: "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

I actually did read it, that's why I specifically called out MidJourney here, as they're one I have specific problems with. MidJourney is currently caught up in a lawsuit partly because the devs were caught talking about how they launder artists' works through a dataset to then create prompts specifically for reproducing art that appears to be made by a specific artist of your choosing. You enter an artist's name as part of the generating parameters and you get a piece trained on their art. Essentially using LLM to run an art-tracing scheme while skirting copyright violations.

I wanna make it clear that I'm not on the "AI evilllll!!!1!!" train. My stance is specifically about ethical sourcing for AI datasets. In short, I believe that AI specifically should have an opt-in requirement rather than an opt-out requirement or no choice at all. Essentially creative commons licensing for works used in data sets, to ensure that artists are duly compensated for their works being used. This would allow artists to license out their portfolios for use with a fee or make them openly available for use, however they see fit, while still ensuring that they still have the ability to protect their job as an artist from stuff like what MidJourney is doing.

MidJourney is already storing pre-rendered images made from and mimicking around 4,000 artists' work. The derivative works infringement is already happening right out in the open.

It absolutely is true. If people can't afford the time to create, what you'll see is a hyper-accelerated version of the fine art world, with AI art for the masses, and human-made art for the wealthy either by commission or by those wealthy enough to spend the time learning to create their own, never to be seen by anyone else. And since AI work is a derivative of the work in its data set, it will degrade in quality over time as those data sets become filled with AI generated work. We're already seeing this with stuff like ChatGPT.

It's only been in the past 50-100 years that your average person has been able to buy art. Before then, art was relegated to the wealthy. Artists had patrons, people with more money than sense who were willing to pay the artist enough that they could spend their time making art instead of working, or they made commissioned pieces for the wealthy: private art for their homes, public statues and pieces for temples venerating the person who had it commissioned, stuff like that.

Copyright should absolutely include analyzing when you're talking about AI, and for one simple reason: companies are profiting off of the work of artists without compensating them. People want the rewards of work without having to do the work. AI has the potential to be incredibly useful for artists and non artists alike, but these kinds of people are ruining it for everybody.

What artists are asking for is ethical sourcing for AI datasets. We're talking paying a licensing fee or using free art that's opt-in. Right now, artists have no choice in the matter - their rights to their works are being violated by corporations. Already the music industry has made it illegal to use songs in AI without the artist's permission. You can't just take songs and make your own synthesizer out of them, then sell it. If you want music for something you're making, you either pay a licensing fee of some kind (like paying for a service) or use free-use songs. That's what artists want.

When an artist, who does art for a living, posts something online, it's an ad for their skills. People want to use AI to take the artist out of the equation. And doing so will result in creativity only being possible for people wealthy enough to pay for it. Much of the art you see online, and almost all the art you see in a museum, was paid for by somebody. Van Gogh died a poor man because people didn't want to buy his art. The Sistine Chapel was commissioned by a Pope. You take the artist out of the equation and what's left? Just AI art made as a derivative of AI art that was made as a derivative of other art.

If they can't afford to do it, then you're relegating creativity to only those wealthy enough to be able to afford to do it.

The vast majority of art throughout human history was paid for by somebody, or sold by the artist. Van Gogh dies a poor man because people didn't want to buy his paintings when he was alive. The Sistine Chapel was commissioned by a Pope. Just because you think your have an intrinsic right to the work of somebody else doesn't mean you do.

The best way to fight it is to simply be unmarketable as a community. This is how Verizon ended up having to sell Tumblr for less than 1% of the price they paid for it like only 3 years later. If the cost outweighs the benefit, fewer people will bother trying.

I don't know if it's in that video or a separate video, but she did talk about it in a specific video, and the short of it is, she was raised as a boy by her family and it messed her up for many years. Like, to the point where the trans community has adopted her to some degree for having had a similar experience to their experiences with gender dysphoria and other related psychological issues. So her dressing and looking like that is in part her embracing her feminity and the fact that she's a woman. Kinda like that stereotype of the gay guy who comes out of the closet and starts acting "fruity" or whatever the term is. Or the trans woman who has a pigtails and overalls phase like having the childhood they never got to experience the first time.

I didn't say there was no sexual aspect to it, but I stand corrected that there's some sexual aspect involved for the vast majority (at least of the men they interviewed). I wish the rest of that study wasn't locked behind a paywall, 'cause I'm curious about the details now. I wanna know what they mean by "some aspect." However, it's disingenuous/misleading to say that furries are attracted to animals, as that's zoophilia and is on the same level as pedophilia. Grouping the two together like that is like "MAPs" claiming they're part of the LGBT. My general experience with furries is that the animal fuckers are treated on the same level as the Nazi furs.

Whenever this kind of thing comes up, though, I can't help but think about the internet outrage from when they made Lola Bunny's boobs smaller in the new Space Jam movie and wonder how many of those people are the same people who call furries gross, lmao.

No, I fail to see the difference between hating someone for being born and supporting the actions of a genocidal regime against a person because you don't like them.

I made it racist because you bodyshamed her, called her a freak, and then said she deserves to be silenced, kidnapped, possibly killed along with her girlfriend, and whatever other horrible things the Chinese government can come up with. All because you don't like her. I fail to see the difference between racism and what you said. Which was my point in going that route.

I'm a trans woman in the US. My life expectancy is 30 years due to suicide rates and how commonly we end up murdered. My colors are supporting minorities against oppression, regardless of whether or not I like them or agree with them.