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.
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.
What is immoral? A third party willing to buy something, as long as the person is honest and doesnt try and deceive is not immoral. Which was my point. Go ahead tell me the “immoral act” because it isnt there.
Just because we live in a society that makes people wage slaves has nothing to do with I believe. But in the end, I will say that everything I do goes to the public domain, so you really don’t have a point.
You really are bad at making arguments.
Well the trained results, is what I meant, yes.
Again, what exactly is the immoral act?
Like I said many times, the training data is stolen, if someone stole your personal data and impersonates you they’re committing an immoral act, this is exactly the same thing. Person A does the immoral act of using stolen data from person B to generate images directly harming person’s B livelihood, the fact that a person C is willing to pay for it is completely pointless.
No, you’re really bad at understanding them. You yourself made the argument that math is math and can’t be owned nor stolen, by that standard numbers are numbers and can’t be owned or stolen either. Stop to think things through before making blanket statements.
Was it? Is it missing?
And when did we mention anything about person B? Where is this person? How does this affect them in any way?
When I learned to play guitar did I steal the chords? I certainly learned to play other peoples songs, did I steal those too? I am now influenced by those songs, did I suddenly take away someones livelyhood?
In any case, so if I understand your argument: if the data was trained on publicly available data, you wouldn’t care.
If someone grabbed the numbers of your credit card and used it to buy stuff, would you report it stolen? Or you would think that since you still have your card nothing got stolen? Same thing here.
Pay attention, person B is the artist who’s not getting hired/commissioned and/or whose data was used to generate the image. Which is why I said I have no issue with personal use, the artist wouldn’t have gotten hired to draw an artifact that I will show for 5 seconds to my RPG players, no harm no foul. However if I was running the game on YouTube, or otherwise earning money from it then I should pay for it or not use it.
If you recorded and sold those songs you would have quickly found out that there are copyrighted. This is the same case, we’re talking about someone profiting from it, not using for personal use.
If it was trained using data that the creators gave explicit permission for it to be used in that way then no, I wouldn’t have any issue with it. But publicly available data to view does not equate publicly available data to train a model, same as it wouldn’t allow you to print it and sell copies. Displaying something publicly doesn’t give you ownership of it.
Ok, let’s train the data on millions of credit cards. It isn’t just mine. Am I fine with sharing the weighted statistical result? Sure.
And like anything else, a sale to this person is never a loss to another artist. It doesn’t work that way. Which is why I said they need to say they used digital AI tools, and not lie and said they didn’t.
I will commsion an artist, but if it’s digital I wouldn’t.
And like the guitar analogy, anything made by AI is not a copy of the original, see credit card example above.
The credit card was to make you understand that even though no one owns math that doesn’t mean that all information should be free. You’re refusing to tell me your credit card numbers or even what you do for a living, this proving that you’re either a hypocrite or don’t truly believe that ALL information should be free.
Someone paying for art from someone who’s not an artist is definitely a loss for the artist who would have gotten hired instead. The fact that you’re even refusing to acknowledge this simple fact proves just how up your own ass you are.
Then don’t commission digital art, completely your prerogative, but the artist that does digital art is an artist, the person prompting an LLM is not. If you use digital art to make a profit you should have the rights for it, and a person who prompted an LLM can’t because they don’t own the training data, nor any derivation from it.
For the music, go and record chunks from several different music to see if you won’t get the same result, which is essentially what an LLM is doing with other people’s art.