Como confrontaremos as IAs
Welcome to the forum, @Willcape. I moved your post into the existing topic that is for all AI-related discussion.
Glaze, an anti-AI protection for artists, is now available as a free web tool (previously you had to own a pretty hefty desktop to use it). Itās called WebGlaze.
" Any human artist who does not use GenAI tools can get a free invite. Just DM us on @TheGlazeProject on twitter or instagram, or email us (slower). Once you get your invite and create an account, just go to https://webglaze.cs.uchicago.edu to glaze your art."
5 Likes
While the effort is commendable. These are my criticisms of this project
-
Some of the tools for AI generation are open source such that anyone can use them, if they have the means. This is a tool to mitigate AI usage of the images but this is closed source making it like a secret circle. The other side encourages open usage while ironically glazeās side doesnāt encourage it. Tomorrow glaze can put a price to use this.
-
This method is already busted and AI users have counter measure for this.
1 Like
How did they bust this? 
I was reading this FAQ and they didnāt mention it being busted already. 
Why would they include that in the FAQ, I do not think they are even aware, given how they ignorantly violated copyright of an existing Ai tool by copying its code without credit. As for the actual busting tool here is one of such tool to remove whatever noise glaze puts on top - GitHub - lllyasviel/AdverseCleaner: Remove adversarial noise from images And also glaze puts noise on top of full resolution image typically AI people resize the images before feeding it to the training data set. This downsizing anyway destroys to a certain extent what glaze does.
Iāve been thinking about AI art a lil bit, so I wanted to organize my thoughts in a post. Maybe youāll find this interesting, maybe you donāt, maybe you agree with me by the end of this, maybe you donāt, but do give me your opinions at the end.
I DONT think AI is a problem, like, at all. Let me explain.
First off, letās see why a lot of artists think AI art IS a problem. the idea is that AI will eventually be able to perfectly replicate everybodyās art style and be able to make any requested image, basically pushing actual artists out of a job. but letās analyse this situation in depth.
We must first start by understanding what value even is. Technically, humans derive their sense of value primarily from their pathos. Let me explain. We need to live, and to do that, we need to eat food and drink water. Hunger and thirst are part of our base instincts, and hence anything which alleviates these negative sensations are valuable. Another base desire is fear, which derives from our discomfort with death. Anything which prevents or circumvents death is hence good. Enter healthcare, housing, security, etc. Another part of our pathos would be our irrational desire to entertain ourselves. Enter, well, entertainment. Anything you can think of that has any value in society can be traced back to a combination of base desires which cannot be further explained.
Certain items which are rare to find or hard to manufacture, or in any other way either extremely hard or impossible to replicate are often used as stores of value. For example, gold. It in itself is not very valuable immediately, but because it is so hard to find, it becomes a store of value, specifically the value of the time spent finding and refining it. In modern times, we use currency notes which are not replicable by third parties for this purpose. Such stores of value prevent the need for bartering. The perceived value of such a store is inversely proportional to how easily one can acquire it, for example, the value of a currency drops when the country prints more notes.
So, why the economics lesson? Well, ask yourselves this, where does AI art even fit into any of this?
The two ways for a piece of AI art to be of value would be for it to satisfy our pathos in some way or be a store of value. Since AI art is infinitely replicable, it is immediately obvious why it can never be a store of value. So AI NFTs will never work (well, normal NFTs donāt work either, soā¦. Not the grandest revelation there). As for being a valuable item in and of itself, that wont work either.
Our assignment of value to something entertaining is based on whether or not we can come up with the same thing, more specifically how much effort it takes for us to do the same thing. You like the art you like because you canāt draw like that, or you could, but with considerably higher effort. You like movies because you couldnāt have thought of a story like that. You hate trashy webtoons because the story is garbage (i.e. you could do better). You hate your previous artwork because you know you can do better now. So what would be the condition for you finding AI art valuable? Well, it would be if you canāt make it yourself, right? Well guess what my friends, this s*** is not only free, itās open source (just like Krita) 
.
Actual art will always retain its value because it represents actual effort, which is valuable.
of course, there still remains the concern of AI imitating your art-style. but this in my opinion is either a non-issue (someone who feeds your art into AI wasnāt gonna give you money anyway) or a legal issue (someone impersonating you selling AI art). which means it is taken care of already. Iād like to elaborate on the ānon-issueā part. let me be clear, it is still wrong to feed someoneās art into an AI art generator, morally speaking. Iām just saying, you are definitely not losing money here, unless these models are sold for money, which again would fall in the ālegal issueā category. letās take the example of NSFW art. anyone generating some art to āmassageā themselves with was definitely not gonna buy NSFW art anyway. the people who buy NSFW art would be the ones who actually value the artistic effort of the author, and very rarely is it purely for the āmassageā. This logic can be extended for other genres as well.
As for AI being used to generate part of an end product, this would be the hardest hit area in my opinion. Stock photos, in-between animators, video game asset designers (for non-important assets) will probably lose their jobs. but this to me just sounds like charioteers losing their jobs when cars came around. they will just find new jobs in the ecosystem.
again, do give me your opinions. is this an unpopular take? is it a hot take? am I just being an idiot here? what do you think?
(@B_Venom your topic was moved into this thread so we can keep all the AI-related topics together)
@B_Venom do give me your opinions
My main objection to AI image generators is the wholesale use of othersā artwork with no thought about copyright infringement or ethics.
I hope Getty and other large organizations with deep pockets fine them so heavily that it becomes financially impossible to continue with the current business model which appears to be ātake things that donāt belong to us and see if we can get the world so excited about the technology that theyāre willing to overlook our thievery.ā
4 Likes
No, itās different. Itās not like the cars replaced charioteers, they just became taxi drivers. The job changed as the tool changed but what they did generally stayed the same. Horses were replaced by cars not the drivers. And itās still not the same because itās not like someone replaces art (the horse in this analogy) with something new. We still have horses (art is still the end product) but instead they took the DNA of our best horses we have careful bred, to artificially create an abomination from it. And these mass produced, good enough and easily replaced horses are flooding the market.
Actually, I think artist are even more like the horses themselves. We pull the creative industry that is the chariot and the charioteers are the leads or the managers wo make the money from our labour but now do it with AI which is built from our DNA.
Off course horses are still around and so will be artist but at the mercy of a few rich people and a lot less of us because most wonāt be able to justify their existence anymore.
7 Likes
If I could take a neutral position here, AI is a tool. There are perfectly ethical uses of AI such as in the movie into the spiderverse as well as its sequel. They used AI to automate very repetitive tasks and the artists could focus on the creative aspects. I see it when used ethically no different than running a shell script. The issue arises to me when itās used to spite artists who put their heart and soul into something that they think they can make a masterpiece with the click of a button. Iām often having to assume anything that looks good was just AI generated and devalue the hard work of what could have been a good drawing or painting. Thankfully cartoony works were spared from the AI machine, it mostly just makes really realistic or anime inspired stuff.
All the analogy that AI proponents give are inherently flawed. in almost all the cases new form of jobs were created. Here I only see prompt engineer as the job profile. But then who knows what is in store tomorrow there may be genuine job profile with Ai which uses ethical data.
To reiterate my viewpoint about AI is not that it takes my job away, I can adapt and I am sure I will. The point is that I canāt support unethical practices by corporates used to maximise their profit and create products on the shoulders of the collective artistsā hardwork. they could have done this the right way but they didnāt and here we are.
Some people escape this debate by saying I will not go in to philosophy this and that, well they will get philosophical when someone steals their own product.
See how open Ai or stability Ai people would react when some other company would steal their most regarded products and sell it for profit more than them
P.S the term slapped on to this tech is wrong in itself, it is just for hype like how they slap a name and icon on a computer program vulnerability to create buzz. It is not intelligence it is just a program that does math and statistics. If intelligence is described with such a low bar of pattern matching and probability then a crow can be a nobel laureate.
5 Likes
Iām pretty sure that the āAIā used is less intelligent than the AI from the video game Quake.
1 Like
As I have stated, I donāt like the fact that this thievery is going on. But it is definitely not a profitable heist. Again, why would anyone give these people money when they can just generate the images themselves (full disclosure, I have tested stable diffusion, and it does work on my potato laptop, so I assume itās gonna work for anyone). AI art, despite the ethical concerns, is a fundamentally value-less product. Theyāll stop the stealing when they realize they arenāt getting any money from it.
Think about it this way. You see a painting, the best you have ever seen. You think it has some deep meaning, it captures something only a true master can convey. I tell you itās AI generated. Whatās your reaction then? Exactly, you think itās worthless now, because it is revealed to be the product of essentially a very complicated random number generator. The problem comes in actually finding out whether itās AI generated or not. I havenāt figured this part out yet, but there do seem to be detectors for this stuff. I donāt know how good they are, but Iād assume they are at least as good as the generators themselves. I liken this to detecting forged paintings. Itās a problem that requires a trained eye, but essentially itās a problem that the irl paintings industry has already figured out. There do seem to be laws in place already to deal with a forged painting.
There are no laws against making a āforgedā painting. The illegality is in using that painting as an āinstrumentā in the furtherance of an act of fraud.
The law that should be applied in the āAI artā area is the law of copyright.
Then it gets so messy and deeply technical and not at all well defined.
The law, as always, is incapable of dealing with any new technology unless there are existing laws in place to deal with the effects of that technology or acts that are carried out using that technology.
5 Likes
Their profit (or lack thereof) isnāt germane to the problem. We have to make sure the public doesnāt lose sight of the main issue which is the intentional wholesale theft of artwork.
3 Likes
I agree with all of you guysā points. The point I was making was that this wonāt continue for much longer because itās not profitable thatās all. Of course anything which will speed up the process of dumping this tech, like for example spreading awareness, applying pressure on art hosting websites to not encourage this, trying to bring new laws which would further discourage the grifters, etc. is very much appreciated. My original post was basically an optimistic take.
There is a fundamental difference between a horse and an artist. Firstly, since art isnāt something a person āneedsā, but āwantsā. Horses were required to go faster and hence get more work done.
Artists are not a Mom-n-Pop local restaurant that goes out of business because of a fast food place opening up nearby. Art cannot be compared to anything a human would āneedā. But I canāt exactly think of another analogy either which is why I gave that analogy. Frankly, it was flawed. I apologize.
But again, even as parts of finished products, I donāt think you can use AI to any significant extent. Because if you do, then the actual price of your product will also decrease, because as I have said, AI art is inherently worthless, so the laws of supply and demand imply that the final cost of the product will decrease.
In video games, I think there is not much more AI you can bring into it without it being either intentional or downgrading the game if it is not intentional. AI generation will not exceed the usual procedurally generated terrain, procedurally generated structures, maybe random loot, etc. no way will anything of consequence be designed by AI, for example, character models for playable characters.
Stock images might be a little complicated. I donāt see paid stock image services surviving this. A considerable number of YouTubers I watch (not the majority) are already using AI generated stock images in their videos. This will probably be in my opinion the most prevalent use case for AI art, just as random assets in the background.
The jobs of in-between animators rests ultimately on how good the art generators get. I personally canāt think of an outcome. My guess is that the technology is fundamentally untrustworthy for the use of in-between animation, and you would have to feed it millions of sample animations in the specific style you want, in which case you can just, you knowā¦, actually animate your animation?
Disclaimer, Iām definitely not an expert. A scroll through my instagram page will firmly establish my level as an artist (I have less than 300 followers). I just stopped being a teenager a year ago. So take anything Iām saying with a grain of salt.
1 Like
Aah this statement is wrong on so many level. Art has shaped humanity imagine if there was no art in society. So it is really one of the needs of human. By need I mean need for collective human society not need as in food shelter and clothing for survival. Art is required for survival of the society.
Also some people believe art is and should only be hobby and not a career that can be said to all the jobs. Coding should only be hobby and not a career all code should only be produced by AI woodworking should only be a hobby etc etc.
5 Likes