LadyAutumn

'Charlotte' draws for people. She's good at it, and it's her livelihood. People like her are hurting literally no one by drawing things. She enriches the lives of all the people who enjoy her work. She should have a choice in whether or not her works are used to make image generators. That's it. It's not complicated. You shouldn't get to decide this for her, she never posted her images to the internet with the knowledge that someone would use them to figuratively build a machine with the expressive purpose of rendering what she does useless (even if it's very bad at doing so).

AI art stands against everything that every artist had ever taught me. It's spit on the face of art as a concept. It's art devoid of creation. Art made out of very long, very complicated algorithms weighing weights adjusted by billions of pictures passed through it. It's no more expressive or inspirational than an RNG function attached to a midi keyboard. It's mimicry, mimicry that really only stands to benefit corporations. I'm not about it.

AI in pretty well any other case? I'm on board. Let's automate human labor, all the things that we are forced to do for work. No more physical labor, no more 9 to 5, no more retail or fast food or corporate jobs. Do away with it all. I'm totally with you there. Doing away with human art? I mean, I've got no interest in that. If you like staring at what amounts essentially to nothing, then be my guest. I'm very open minded with art in general, totally down with avant guarde pieces, performance art, noise music, all the stuff at the fringe that offends the delicate sensibilities of those who seek to gatekeep what is or isn't genuine human expression.

Pretty big difference there is all those things are made by people. People with talent. Artists. We are enjoy the fruits of their labor. Their rights should be respected. They should have a say in whether specifically AI is allowed to copy their works.

Yeah, I'm not too concerned with janky AI generators having to ask before training a model on someone's art. Sucks for them I guess.

I don't agree with copyright. I'm an anarchist. I'm openly in favor of piracy, derivative, whatever else a human being might do with something. I don't agree with judicial systems, let alone market economies or even currency as a concept. And that's all fine and dandy, but there are people alive right now under capitalism. Unlike piracy, which pretty much exclusively takes from corporations like the overwhelming majority of things that are pirated are produced by corporate studios and studio funded artists, this one very specific thing takes the most specifically from artists the overwhelming majority of whom are already very poorly compensated many of them literally barely get by at all. AI models should have to ask them to copy and repurpose their works.

That's my only statement. You can assume I effectively don't agree with any other thing. I'm not here to have a long winded nuanced debate about a legal system I don't agree with and am not supporting in literally any capacity. I'm pointing at pixiv the website and saying "hey can you guys like actually ask before you start using these people's shit to make AI that is purposefully built to make sure that they are run out of jobs"

Unless you're going to somehow explain why artists aren't worth existing or something then don't even bother answering. I'm genuinely not interested in what you have to say and am tired of repeating myself in this thread.

Those are corporations. I'm concerned about how this impacts individuals. Small artists on social media, who make a living off small commissions. I think it is morally and ethically wrong to steal from them.

I also strongly dislike the way you are portraying artists as a monolith. There are some artists who would be willing to submit their art to make an image generation model. You're essentially complaining that not enough people would say yes in your opinion. As though there aren't hundreds of millions of public domain paintings drawings music and all sorts of things that can already be used without screwing over Charlotte and her small time Instagram art dig she affords her 1 bedroom apartment with. You're refusing to even ask her if she's okay with her creations being used in this way.

You're wrong. What you're describing is immoral. I don't care about corporations. They're not who I'm interested in protecting. Its artists themselves. You're also wrong that AI art is some boon for humanity. It's cheap, barely passable noise. Literally, that is what it is. A beefed up toy that mostly exists to generate shitty articles and images that corporations can churn out en mass to manipulate people. That's its best use case at the moment. It's gonna be a very long time, if ever, that human creativity and wit can be engineered.

I'm just gonna ask you to read my above comment again. What I'm suggesting is:

"Before you scrape and analyze art with the specific purpose of making an AI art generator model, you must ask permission from the original creating artist."

I'm not talking about IP holders, and I do not agree with copyright law. I'm not having a broad discussion on copyright here. I'm only saying, and not saying anything more, that people who sit down and make a painting and share it with their friends and communities online should be asked before it is scanned to train a model. That's it.

Fair enough, and I can't claim to be a fan of copyright law or how it's used. Maybe what I'm moreso talking about is a standard of ethics? Or some laws governing the usage of image and text generating AI specifically as opposed to copyright law. Like just straight up a law making it mandatory for AI to provide a list of all the data it used, as well as proof of the source of that data having consented to it's use in training the AI.

Yeah. Not that it's the fault of artists that capitalism exists in its current form. Their art is the fruit of their labor, and therefore, means should be taken to ensure that their labor is properly compensated. And I'm a marxist anarchist, no part of me agrees with any part of the capitalist system. But artists are effectively workers, and we enjoy the fruits of their labor. They are rarely fairly compensated for their work. In this particular instance, under the system we live in, artists rights should be prioritized over

I'm all for janky (getting less janky as time goes on) AI images, but I don't understand why it's so hard to ask artists permission first to use their data. We already maintain public domain image databases, and loads of artists have in the past allowed their art to be used freely for any purpose. How hard is it to gather a database of art who's creators have agreed to let it be used for AI? All the time we've (the collective we) been arguing over thise could've been spent implementing a system to create such a database.

That's become a whole rallying call for queerphobia lately. They also have beef with the words diversity, equity, and inclusion? I don't even fucking know they can't make their thoughts coherent and they don't even bother trying.

Have you ever pirated something? If so, have you ever been sent to jail for it?

I'm not talking about hosting companies. Yes, I am aware that prosecution exists for them and has been a thing a long time. I'm saying they're going to start pushing for end users to face jail time as well. It's the only real recourse they have.

Web 2.0 desperately clinging to life. FOSS self hosted web is the future. Internet speeds are fast enough on home networks that self hosting is perfectly viable for essentially everything, and for the few things that can't be self hosted by just anyone, FOSS alternatives and work arounds to existing paid services exist.

Internet is becoming harder to monopolize, and increasing amounts of power and control are being handed back to the working class online. FOSS has become a movement that has grown exponentially over the last few years.

Their next recourse will be attempting to make jail time a thing for piracy. Both for hosting it and downloading it.

There's already dozens of forks. There was before all of this even started. Sad to see it go, but the app itself and how it functions will pretty well certainly go on. Tachiyomi isn't even an app that needs routine updates, it's the extensions that do. So existing setups will probably work indefinitely so long as extensions continue getting updates...

So, sounds very "oh fuck" but for end users probably means literally nothing changes. Unless something breaks the functionality of the app, which really just means the reader and library and everything, it doesn't need active maintenance. Bugs might crop up occasionally, but everything looks fine as of now.

Ah, I see what you're saying. Yes the recognition for these advances should be with human programmers and engineers who are configuring the software and making the models for testing. You're right I can definitely see why that distinction is important and the media should be making clear that the AI isn't just turned on and magically works it all out on its own. It's computational resources being directed towards a task, the models it works within are setup by professionals and the discoveries it finds are interpreted and made useful by those professionals.