Do you think ChatGPT should not be allowed to read books and join ideas across them without paying the original authors for their contribution to the thought?
I have a bit of cognitive dissonance on the subject of blog posts or articles in general, since those are kinda public domain? But I still think it should be opt in/out-able.
I realise I'm also a bit of a hypocrite since I've enjoyed playing with these AI tools myself, and I realise they'd be nowhere as cool if they didn't have access to such large datasets.
In order for blog posts (or other written works) to be in the public domain, authors must explicitly waive those rights. But, not that it needs saying, copyright's applicability in training data is basically the entire subject of debate right now. https://creativecommons.org/2023/02/17/fair-use-training-gen...
So my assumption was that anything trained on it will just help further expand that knowledge.
Although I do realise now as I'm typing this—AI could diminish their audience, clout and motivation, which isn't what I'd want.
If you don't like it, don't sign the contract.
Yeah, I think Adobe is a publisher and as such, you give it distribution rights. So, I agree with you on this case.
Slightly tangential, but Imagine a singer or actor's voice of face being used without their consent just because the publisher has rights to distribute their performance. That probably wouldn't fly very well, and I assume this doesn't fly with some artists either (even though they signed a contract).
I assume publishers will probably have an AI consent form soon.
It's all very exciting, and I hope we don't ruin it with greed and disregard for the works of the very people that made these technologies so successful. Like, if it weren't for the scraped works, the AI feats would've been both much more underwhelming and and much more expensive to train.
Instead of lower morality, I'd say it's selective morality.
I bet quite a few artists (rightfully) feeling threatened by this phenomenon would have absolutely no problem watching a pirated movie, using an ad blocker, read paywall-stripped articles, the like....whilst this is principally the same thing: taking the work of others without consent or compensation.
Are you saying all those art styles are original? They are not. Artists influence artists. Sometimes the influence is strong, other times just a glimmer.
Perhaps the burden of responsibility shouldn't be on Ai machine learning, but the human prompt author who chooses the instruction: "...in the style of Jo Blow". Who owns the ethical dilemma in that case? Who is being unfair to Jo Blow in that case? I'm quite certain whoever wrote the prompt is 100% responsible.
I could be wrong, but you seem to imply originality is a made up concept? Do original thoughts even exist?
Are our comments original or just regurgitation?
Do you believe nothing ever created throughout history is original then?
If you believe originality does exist, where and how do you draw the line?
I don't think people are as boring as you think they are. Or maybe you just don't appreciate art. I can't tell. Some people say they do, but they really don't.
And further, even if we do ignore originality as a concept and pretend for the sake of the argument it doesn't exist, someone still values that style or approach to creation. That probably makes a living based on the subjective value it brings to the table. They sold their work. An AI company now profits off of their work, having used it in an algorithm, without paying anything to those artists.
As an experiment: Give me an example of something you've made yourself that you valued enough to sell, and then tell me why I deserve to have it for free. Maybe that will help me understand. Maybe you can work for me for free?
If none of their work was original or valuable, why even train on it, and why can you even ask for "in style of X"?
Also, the approach of waving responsibility onto individuals is too naïve. If that worked, we'd not need laws or any type of regulation.
Anyway, even with this diatribe I still don't think AI is a bad thing or that it will replace people or or their work—in its current iteration at least. It'll probably improve it, but I certainly understand why people feel violated.
The keyword you missed is "style". Your word, that I quoted.
As in, "the style of that artist". I wasn't referring to individual pieces of original art.
"Black and white street photography, gritty contrast, low wide angles, urban decay, weathered characters"... could be a style shared by many, that Ai learns.
Nobody owns a "style". A style is merely a convenient way to describe art. It belongs to the art critic more than the artist.
Many have made art in the style of say Andy Warhol - minimal flat colors, mass produced product imagery. Or surrealist styles, "like Dali", with dreamscapes, imaginary landscapes, twisted architecture and optical illusions. Things Ai can learn without being accused of stealing. Unless you're arguing a kind of "theft of humanity".
> Also, the approach of waving responsibility onto individuals is too naïve.
You want others to take responsibility for your actions?
Prompt: "image like Jon Doe's fantasy illustrations"... Prompting with intent. That's on you, not others to regulate your adult choices.
Before Ai, you could hire an artist to help you learn the style of another artist, living or dead. Maybe a drawing style you like. So you hire a skilled artist to point you in the right direction for acquiring a similar result with the pencil. Nothing ethically unsound there. Ai just skips the lessons and time it takes you to draw in the style of your favourite artist. Nothing has been stolen.
Sorry I miss-interpreted a little.
I guess we disagree on what style means maybe:
> Black and white street photography, gritty contrast, low wide angles, urban decay, weathered characters"... could be a style shared by many, that Ai learns.
I still think there's a lot more individual flavour in art that can't be captured with words.
You described a specific art style in your example, and within that there's probably a plethora that fit that description roughly, but there's often a unique signature every artists brings to the table through different application and mixture of those "sub styles" and techniques.
You can try to reduce Matt Inman's (Oatmeal) style to "line art, blobs for humans, vivid colours, absurdist face expressions, comic" etc, and spend ages explaining to an AI to steal the style, and it wouldn't get it probably, but just slapping "in style of Oatmeal" would probably get you very close.
Similar for xkcd, Olaf, specific anime styles, concept artists (often time this is what gets them hired). They all have a flavour of style that's unique to them even if they use similar approaches and techniques.
Listing the individual composition of technique won't really get you close to how they work, but saying "in style of X" gets you crazy close.
> You want others to take responsibility for your actions?
No, but the problem is that currently nobody is being held responsible. Not the model devs for using works without consent, nor the actors benefitting from it. For example, Fiverr is currently flooded with AI scam artists who get away with saying "in style of X" without even having a basic comprehension or intuition what that style is composed off, much less be able to describe the style intelligently.
So they're eating the market of someone who spent a lot of time developing a unique style. Can these artists use the tools? Yeah, and I hope they do, but I still think it's a bit ludicrous how easy it is for me (or anyone else) to mimic a style someone spent years building, with a few words. And that's "thanks" to that artist trying to build a name for themselves. So the clout the artist tried to build is literally coming to bite them in the ass. Not to mention the fact their good will of sharing artwork with the internet is also coming to bite them in the ass too.
> "indisputably Hayao; any fan of anime will recognise his style immediately"
No they wouldn't. If you're talking about a still frame, nobody can be certain who the artist is. Why? Because LOTS of artists make similar work. You think there's an indisputable signature in every drawing from every artist? There really isn't.
There may be an obvious signature, such as placing an "upside down umbrella" in every piece they make. But the Ai won't copy the umbrella, because that would be replicating the work rather than style.
There are books about Miyazaki's style, authored by him that go into detail and share everything from concept sketches to the use of computer graphics in his films. It's all there in the books he wrote explaining and SHARING his techniques with the world. But what he can't share, and what can't be replicated with prompts, is the brilliance of the storytelling that threads the vast body of visual work to create the whole.
> unique style
Again, you're claiming an artist's style is unique, when in fact the vast majority of "styles" are blends of other styles and influences. No artist was born in a bubble.
Even if there is a unique visual signature, so what? It's not the heart of the work. It's a preferential technical characteristic.
Not only that, but this world is saturated with images. Even in music, it's difficult to come up with an original riff that doesn't sound like an existing song. The musician, in order to be awarded "originality", needs to use the full 3 minutes of the song to involve lyrics and other elements before something truly "unique" emerges.
You think there's an infinite bucket of "styles" visual artists can tap into? There isn't.
Content choices and narrative choices are more important anyway. For example, the artist may have something to say about humans being cogs in the machine. Sounds interesting. Such concepts form part of the style and reputation of the artist. People follow artists largely because of their artistic substance.
You're too focused on visual technique. The guts of any good artwork is the whole package, including the symbolism and balance of meaning in the work.
What is the artist SAYING with the work. Ai won't help prompters with quality of symbolic meaning, concepts and interlinking symbolism, subtext, balance of imagery, subtle visual tension... all the things that make ART ART -- the ESSENCE of art is found in the body of work.
So... Ai can generate a sci-fi robot running through the city, and your concern is this impedes the profit margin of real artists pumping out the same generic stuff? Sorry, but I won't shed a tear for the loss of artistic mediocrity in a world saturated with stock images.
Artists are adaptable, and should be doing a lot more than selling robot images to stock art collections anyway. Time to level up. Nothing wrong with Ai keeping us on our toes.
I think the only part we maybe disagree is on the importance of style as a form of expression. I think style is a big part of it (or mixture of styles). To me, there was a style-space where each technique is a dimension (kinda like a colourspace), you can position yourself anywhere within that space. And I think that the choice of that position matters to artists a lot. It doesn't matter _for_ the artist, but it matters _to_ the artist. They could've spent a long time searching the style space to find their own individual style, and it's a part of their art. Maybe thinking about styles mathematically here is a mistake here?
To me it feels unfair their efforts to build this style is being treated dismissively by some. I don't think you yourself treat it dismissively, since you seem to appreciate art too. But I don't think every employer in need of art will see it like that.
Also, I as I read your reply and thought about the topic a bit and you partially changed my mind:
I believe established artists won't be impacted by this, but I fear that certain entry-level positions in some industries will be jeopardised by AI. I'm not even sure why I think this. Maybe it's no more than a hunch based on what I've seen happening to people in entry positions already being treated like throwaways in film and game industry.
An alternative and more optimistic way to look at it would be that entry-level positions will evolve to be more quality/fulfilling work. I hope that's what happens, then.
I also think it's hard to sufficiently develop in any field if you don't do some of the "grunt work" too. I guess I'm not a trained nor is art my career (just a self-taught hobby). So, maybe the exploration and development of styles isn't as big of a deal as I make it out to be for day-to-day artists. Maybe they do the grunt work in art school?
You mentioned mediocre art and stock images. I know what you mean, but I also think that's just a phase lot of people go through. Nobody is born a great artist (or anything else), they become it. People need to start somewhere.
I think it's all very complicated... This is somewhat tangentially related (which I think was the real thing that sent me down this spiral, more than anything else): I wish the artists' wishes about their works were treated with more respect by the people training the models, since I think it's difficult to expect every user of the tool to do the same. Or allow them to opt in and be compensated for their works.
Anyway, thank you for indulging me in this long thread! :)
I think this is incredibly cool technology, but using other people's property without their consent is stealing (I'm not talking about legality, but morality here).
The second reason why it's not the same is that people can't look at X million pictures and become proficient in thousands of different art styles. So, again its not legality but more about ethics.
I guess different people have lower moral standards than others, and that's always been part of the human condition.
With all that out of the way, I think artists won't get replaced, because these tools don't really produce anything... Substantial on their own. An artist still needs to compose them to tell a story. So, all this nonsense about how it will replace artists is nonsense. It can only replace some parts of an artist's workflow.
I know there was an art competition where someone won with a piece that was AI-aided, but honestly it looked like colour sludge. The only thing that was really well executed in it was the drama created by the contrast from sharp changes in values near the centre of that work, and something vaguely resembling a humanoid silhouette against it. You could've called it abstract art if you squinted.