The End of Art: An Argument Against Image AIs

[Zedman]

What if I use AI art in my project but dont charge for it? I release $15 game for 3$ because I used AI art? Is it unethical? I only charged for my work and creativity. Ai art was stolen. Yes. But it was destributed essentailly for free.

[Danioover9000]

@Zedman

Just now, Zedman said:

What if I use AI art in my project but dont charge for it? I release $15 game for 3$ because I used AI art? Is it unethical? I only charged for my work and creativity. Ai art was stolen. Yes. But it was destributed essentailly for free.

   What if you used AI art in your project using a dead artist's style, and don't charge for it?

   Did you release a $15 game for $3?

   Is it ethical or unethical to charge for your services/product provided, or for free? It may depend on how you make your income. For me, if you got a 9-5 job and can provide for yourself, and make a game for free or for a fee because of energy/time/attention spent making the game, sure it's ethical, but the unethical part is false advertising and marketing, and be like the Logan Paul situation with crypto zoo, take the money and either deliver a weak product/service with little value provided, or no value provided at all and run off with the money.

    It'll be distributed for free, until it's not.

[Zedman]

@Danioover9000

1)I am not very educated in Ethics but i dont think using dead artists style is unethical?

2)I am working on a project. It is my comittment to charge minimally because i am using AI art. Greed might take me over and I might overcharge a bit. I am sorry. But as a general guidline if I take something for free I will redistribute it for free.

9 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

    It'll be distributed for free, until it's not.

I will do my best. You cant judge me until I have done it

[Danioover9000]

@Zedman

2 hours ago, Zedman said:

@Danioover9000

1)I am not very educated in Ethics but i dont think using dead artists style is unethical?

2)I am working on a project. It is my comittment to charge minimally because i am using AI art. Greed might take me over and I might overcharge a bit. I am sorry. But as a general guidline if I take something for free I will redistribute it for free.

I will do my best. You cant judge me until I have done it

   You don't even need to look far for examples, just look at @Leo Gura. Bunch of free content videos on YouTube, whilst charging for his life purpose course and booklist, for very good reason, which I assume is because the amount of energy and time it took for Leo to construct his life purpose course, the many interviews or videos or lectures or workshops or wbinars or seminars and so much more just to create that course, make me feel ill when I think about making that life purpose course and booklist free. In fact it could be argued that half or so of the videos deserve to be monetized and packaged into some courses too, because how long and what energy must it have taken to gain those insights?

   As much as I do like some free content, some products and services don't deserve to be free. Some one must make some money to pay the bills right? It's just not practical to make all content free, someone has to charge for those services and products provided. It's sick to think of flattening the hierarchy and disfranchise all things. Sometimes some things are not meant to be handed for free. 

Edited April 1, 2023 by Danioover9000

[Leo Gura]

Of course not everything should be free.

[Leo Gura]

5 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@StarStruck

   Are you in the moral right to use A.I to take a style from a dead artist?

Artists immitate and copy each other's styles all the time. This is core to how artists learn art. Artists blend styles in their minds.

When I sit down to design a game, I might say: I want a game that is a blend of Zelda, Dark Souls, and Mario. All creativity works this way.

Edited April 1, 2023 by Leo Gura

[StarStruck]

3 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@StarStruck

   Are you in the moral right to use A.I to take a style from a dead artist?

There is no moral base in art. In the astral realm I had a glimpse how beautiful AI art can be. It will be shockingly beautiful. 

[Danioover9000]

@StarStruck

2 hours ago, StarStruck said:

There is no moral base in art. In the astral realm I had a glimpse how beautiful AI art can be. It will be shockingly beautiful. 

   Oh, if there is no moral base for art, I can in theory draw LOLI and Neko stuff then, right?

   Astral projection is pretty cool, if you know how and have that level of consciousness. AI assisted? Please, don't be lazy with your visualization.

[Danioover9000]

@Leo Gura

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Artists immitate and copy each other's styles all the time. This is core to how artists learn art. Artists blend styles in their minds.

When I sit down to design a game, I might say: I want a game that is a blend of Zelda, Dark Souls, and Mario. All creativity works this way.

   Sure, Artists, from images to music and even bodily art do copy and imitate nature or from other artists works. Agree here that artists do blend other styles, as I've been doing in my mind lately.

   Main moral issue isn't that I'm or some artists are using other works from dead artists or other legends roughly 100s to 1,000s of years ago as I can probably justify that, my moral qualm is with recently dead artists like within 10-1 years ago, like I can think of a few that actually died within a few years ago or even a few months ago, that's where it starts. I mean I might get critiqued by some Pragmatists or practically minded people that I should be capitalizing on when these artists recently died and make an artwork dedicated to their memory to leverage more views or attention my way, while paying to my favorite artist or even appear to pay homage and respect to an artist, for example Kim Jung Gi maybe, but that doesn't sit well with me, especially if I used AI image tool instead of the more analogue way of making an art style in his style so recently in that time. That feels too opportunistic and exploitative to me, so I'm willing to compromise on waiting longer and then I'd make an artwork like his style with some other style.

[Leo Gura]

22 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

my moral qualm is with recently dead artists like within 10-1 years ago

I would even defend the right to imitate living artists, let alone dead ones.

As far as I'm concerned, if you're dead you lose all rights to your work. It should become public domain.

It is exceedingly greedy to try to hoard copyright after one's death. I mean, for fuck's sake. How greedy can you get?

We have a thing called Fair Use.

Edited April 1, 2023 by Leo Gura

[StarStruck]

@Leo Gura Death doesn’t exist

 

[Danioover9000]

@Leo Gura

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I would even defend the right to imitate living artists, let alone dead ones.

As far as I'm concerned, if you're dead you lose all rights to your work. It should become public domain.

It is exceedingly greedy to try to hoard copyright after one's death. I mean, for fuck's sake. How greedy can you get?

We have a thing called Fair Use.

   Good to know I could copy, imitate and change a dead artist's style, but I'd still then have moral issues with copying a living artist's style when they're struggling to make ends meet?

[Danioover9000]

@StarStruck

5 minutes ago, StarStruck said:

@Leo Gura Death doesn’t exist

 

   Until it comes knocking on your door.

[Leo Gura]

@Danioover9000 Read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

[StarStruck]

11 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@StarStruck

   Until it comes knocking on your door.

if it is not in the now it doesn’t exist. 

[Basman]

As an artist, I feel with the beef but not with AI itself. How it sources it data that it trains on. The fact that it uses copyrighted material without the consent of the artists.

AI gets given too much credit IMO, as if its a person who gets inspirered. In these debats, it gets antropormorphized. These "inspiration" arguments are a bit of red herring, because AI doesn't have feelings. It doesn't get "inspirered". It's not creative. It is generative. It is a machine. You wouldn't call a car athletic just because it goes fast. You wouldn't call a toast iron a "chef" just because it grills cheese.

The main difference between AI and humans is that AI is dependent on its data set in order to function. That is not the case for humans. People still come up with things regardless of input. And even then, the inspiration that humans take from other artists is a part of a long-term process and history. It involves emotion and livelihood. AI doesn't have that (because it is not a person).

I don't empathize with defending the way that AI art operates currently, because the bottomline is that it simply doesn't have to use copyrighted material in order to function. It could work exclusively on royalty free material. The reason it doesn't is because it would take a lot longer before it could prove itself as a technology and it would make less money.

Also, for something to be considered fair use, it can't compete with what it sources from. It is hotly debated right now whether or not that is the case in courts right now, which much of the future legality of AI generation will hing on.

Edited April 1, 2023 by Basman

[Leo Gura]

14 minutes ago, Basman said:

It doesn't get "inspirered". It's not creative.

The very mechanics of creativity requires blending source material.

This is technically how your brain does creativity. And your brain does not discriminate between copyrighted source material or not. Your brain was not trained on royalty free images.

Edited April 1, 2023 by Leo Gura

[TheAlchemist]

@Leo Gura I largely agree with you on this. 

But imagine a few years down the line someone creates a youtube channel which creates content through an AI that has consumed all the videos and forum posts you have ever created. And then based on that they get a 99% accurate version of what you might say. This AI channel starts publishing three hour long videos with your simulated face, your voice, your way of speaking, your style of thinking, your expression, your humour, your type of ideas. It even optimizes itself to keep people on the video as long as possible. It would even respond to questions and comments in your style. 

But the only thing lacking is that it's not actually doing any of the contemplation or experimentation that you have done, it has just created a model to mimic what you might say very very accurately. Would you be ok with this? Would those videos contain novel insights and be as valuable as original videos made by you? Would it be a win from your pov or for the people watching?

[Leo Gura]

@TheAlchemist That is NOT what this AI is doing.

[Basman]

@Leo Gura Its reductive to equate AI and humans as the same, especially in this context. There's a difference between an artist and companies breaching copyright for profit while competing with the artist who's work they depend on. Even if AI arguably gets "inspirered", the scale of production of art programs in the context of using "stolen art" is worth discussing and not dismissing out of hand.

I want to stress however that depending on how you use it, the use of AI art becomes more or less ethical. The closer you are to using what the AI generates whole sale as the finished product, generally you'll be more in the gray of things. Though it can depend on the context and for what purpose it is being used.

Just to be clear, I'm not mad that AI exists and that it can paint. I'm mad at how it is being utilized.

On a side note, I have noticed that the people who most staunchly defend AI, the way that it is being used right now, tend to have little to no experience with art and are largely male. They come of as not appreciating what art does for the people who make it. At least to me.