I am genuinely trying to get better at art. I’m not there yet (likely never will be), the lying machine is still better than me.
The context:
This is my sketch.
And this is what the ai output.
I like to think I poured my heart and soul into it. I know there are people who will tell me that I’m terrible for using ai at all. I’m also sorry if this is the wrong community to ask this question (ask reddit would delete my post instantly if I tried to post there).
Again, is this slop? I am not an artist. I drive a forklift real good, that’s my skillset. So if I were to use the ai upscaled version for my book, well, I’m asking for opinions.
Being slop or not is not the issue, the real question is is it morally correct. To me it depends on your usage, are you generating stuff for yourself? Then it doesn’t matter. Are you generating stuff to communicate to the artist you’re hiring your intended vision of the thing, or building a mood board or similar? Then it’s probably okay in my book. Are you using the generated image for something or selling it? Then it’s wrong.
Is it wrong though? I won’t buy digital art at all because it’s too assisted already.
But if someone does buy it, isn’t it on them?
I mean all the little errors all the mediocrity of it, why would any one pay for that?
Digital art is not any more assisted than digital writing, do you also refuse to buy ebooks?
I’m talking about the morality of it, whether someone pays for it or not is irrelevant. Child porn is morally wrong, regardless of there being a market for it.
Are you seriously going to use an absurdly extreme example for this discussion? It makes your argument pointless because it is an absurd example to compare this to.
It’s the same argument you’re making, that morality doesn’t matter as long as there are paying customers, if morality doesn’t matter because there are paying customers for AI stolen art, why does it matter for child pornography? Either morality matters or it doesn’t.
No its not. Jaywalking is the same as murder right?
These things are miles apart.
And I don’t believe in ownership of ideas so it can’t be theft. Teaching a system of weights is not stealing. Sorry. Math is math.
The morality would be if they claimed to have drawn all of it without assistance. That is fraud, and lying to your customer is inmoral.
I don’t consider jaywalking immoral, so no, not the same.
Regardless of the seriousness of the immoral act, my point is the same, person A’s immoral act that affects person B doesn’t become OK because person C is willing to pay for it. Which is your argument, I’m pointing out how ridiculous an argument it is by using something you should easily consider immoral, and not in any way suggesting that generating images for profit should be penalized in the same manner or that is equally immoral, just that your logic does not apply to immoral acts.
I strongly suspect you do believe that in the world we live in ideas can be owned, let me ask you, what do you do for a living? Because if ideas can’t be owned, intellectual work shouldn’t be remunerated, as you can simply grab whatever is produced without paying the person and it wouldn’t be theft.
Yes, math is math, no one is claiming to own the math behind LLMs, but that math is applied to training data that does have an owner. You might as well claim you didn’t kill the person you shot, physics and biology did. The immoral act is the stealing of the training data, and any byproduct of that is fruit of the poisoned tree.
What immoral act? Using a computer? The only immoral part is if they claim they hand did the work themselves, because that is fraud.
Good, because we learned everything from someone before us. It is immoral to hold back society for remuneration.
The companies that are trying to sell it to you are, which is also wrong, it should be public domain.
Regardless of the immoral act, your argument is wrong. A third party willing to pay has no bearing on the morality of an act, doesn’t matter how much you try to escape this.
You didn’t replied what you do for a living, I’m sure you didn’t because you know that there’s a very high chance I can show you you don’t truly believe that all knowledge must be free. Let me ask you other question then, what’s your credit card numbers, expiration date and code, it’s just numbers, by your own logic you shouldn’t have any claim to own them, therefore you should be okay to share them. The fact that you won’t is proof you understand that even if numbers can’t be owned, the information numbers convey is a different story.
And no, the companies are not claiming to own math, but to own the algorithm, the math on which those are based is (in general) public knowledge, and even in the cases where it’s not, like you said, math is math, others might have discovered it individually. Multiple of those companies might be using the same math independently without realizing it.