Why It's Morally Okay To Steal A.I. Artwork (The Jimquisition)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ต.ค. 2024
- / jimquisition
bsky.app/profi...
www.thejimporiu...
A.I. advocates love to pretend they're real artists, and claims of plagiarism are little more than appropriative attempts to steal a sense of validity. Let's look at how these hacks justify themselves and see how little techbros understand the concept of hard work.
#AI #Art #Memes #Twitter #JimSterling #StephanieSterling #Jimquisition #Games #Gaming #Artist
Not only is it moral to steal, it's legal too! The courts have declared that since AI generated shit wasn't made by any actual people it's un-copyrightable!
Thx, I can now go copy all the AI porn I can find.
That's not accurate. Ai art created by ai has no copyright, ai art created by a human can have copyright. It's unlikely you'll get sued but you could get content taken down of TH-cam for example.
I knew AI art was community art!
True.
You can also use it instead of buying art from human artists all the same. Sure, can't copyright it, but who cares if it's just wallpaper or titulation material?
@Humster the funniest thing about this is that port was the only bastion of decent entry-level money in the online art world.
AI will render art entirely unsustainable as a career regardless, because the number of people who need copyrightable art for one reason or another is a drop in the bucket compared to those who don't.
i mean, "aren'tists" is right there
+++
I like that. Good!
bit of a mouthful, i'll give the pun a B+
👏Gat-dang, that's brilliant!
Congratulations! You just demonstrated more creativity than the average predictive algorithm user! 👍👍
Just think, Digital Homicide put more effort into their games, than the people making A.I art do. Now, that's depressing.
DH definitely would use AI if given the opportunity.
@@CeHee123 Yup, I mean Digital Homicide basically used store bought assets to make their games, nothing was original in the slightest, so they were pretty much the AI artists of their time, using other peoples work collaged together and then sold as if it was an original product.
@@luketfer They at least went to the effort of collaging the assets together, which is still significantly more effort than the AI scrotum-wrinkles do.
Thank the goddess Digital Homicide died before the rise of A.I. arts! Can you imagine a future where they survived because they exploited A.I. arts? Terrifying!
@@L9MN4sTCUk Yeah, that's the problem nowadays, quantity over quality. 10 grams of gold is worth more than 10 kilos of manure.
AI bros are just NFT bros who lost big, so it's a moral obligation to dunk on them as much as possible.
Crypto bros then NFT bros then AI bros, will it ever end?
@@hungrygrimalkin5610 not in a world that not only incentivizes but hypes up the idea of making money for free by stealing other people's effort, aka silicoln valley/techbros in a nutshell
@@hungrygrimalkin5610not under capitalism
@@hungrygrimalkin5610 when the rich and entitled have to "work" a corner to pay their bills
Hm, I advise against dismissing AI/machine learning as an industry and set of technologies, just because you're unimpressed by what it's done in art or text.
Big Data became a multi trillion dollar industry on much simpler algorithms than ChatGPT or Claude.
Even if you consider it nothing more than advanced statistical analysis, that's already something quite a bit more practically useful and less niche than cryptocurrency, which really only has a practical use in specific, low-trust, distributed scenarios.
Or let me put it this way, the tech has already been used to improve our capaiblities to solve multiple scientific problems, including speeding up of genetic analysis and the simulation of new materials for use in avionics and the motor industry.
You don't like LLMs or Stablediffusion or things like Sora? Fine, fair enough, it's fair enough to think they're overhyped. But AI isn't actually new, and has already massively changed how data science is approached by businesses including fortune 500 businesses who do not typically take risks. The fact that Microsoft, AWS and Google alike are pushing hard for this when they never pushed crypto should be telling.
Thus the Techpriests are born. Unable to comprehend how to build or create, due to incompetence or lazyness or both, they pray to The Machine for it to bestow its blessings. Over time, the rituals and prayers become more complex, and The Machine, in their rotting minds, gains divine sentience.
Sounds like a great setting for a TTRPG campaign
It is my great regret that we live in an age that is proud of machines that think and suspicious of people who try to.
Is this a quote? It seems familiar somehow.
we are on the fast track to the adeptus mechanicus existing.
@@TulilaSalome it is, don't remember which book or which character though x)
You can't steal what's already stolen, that goes against the fundamental ethos of the Pirates' Code!
Argggghhh 😊
criminals have no recourse
Down with copyright!
@@WannabeMarysueI'm stealing this comment.
@@nahelbeuk You cannot steal what already belongs to all of us. 🙏 Godspeed.
Honestly I'm not sure yet if I've seen an ai image that I'd want to steal in the first place
I once got what is now called Craiyon to generate images of Godzilla in court being tried for reckless endangerment and it was pretty funny. Would you wanna take that? (since it's not stealing)
The main use for AI generated shit in general is spam. If you don't care about quality, or accuracy, and want a ton of images very quickly. That's what AI can do.
Right? What even is this title? x D
Same here, I've never seen AI art that doesn't look like it's made by the same "person." It's so overused as thumbnails that all content like this might as well be from the same author.
They always have such a cold, emotionless, vapid energy.
10:21 to build on that point,
Skip Intro did a video a while back on _Abbot Elementary_ and how it discusses the problems facing the US public school system. In the video he made a really good observation about how people tend to view public school teachers which I think also applies to the way they view artists.
So under our current socio-economic system, a person's inherent worth is almost exclusively measured in money. The more profit a person is able to generate, the more valuable they are perceived to be. This is how you get people worshipping billionaires as 'geniuses' while ostracising people trapped in poverty for their 'poor choices', all while ignoring systemic inequalities.
This extends to skills, hobbies, education etc. If it can't generate a profit then there's no point doing it. Just look at how humanities degrees are dismissed as 'useless' because the benefits are difficult to quantify in strictly monetary terms.
Related to this is the myth that all it takes to be successful (ie rich) is passion and hardwork, and if you're poor then you're either not passionate enough, talented enough or haven't worked hard enough. On top of that, you should want to be rich because again, self-worth is measured in dollars.
Bringing this back to artists - under a system where a person's worth is tied almost directly to their financial status, and where the myth of hyper-individualism and hard work has become so engrained as to seem natural, society is encouraged to develop a deep suspicion and disdain for people who either do not wish to pursue ever-increasing wealth or who's genuine hard work does not generate enough profit.
Art, much like teaching, is an endeavour that requires immense passion and skill but is not seen as profitible and is therefore not seen as a 'worthy' skill deserving of reward. Artists also tend to be more motivated by a passion for their craft than maximising the profit it can generate.
Hence the callousness you can see towards the idea of machines replacing artists. When art becomes just another commodity to be bought and sold, the artists become mere tools on an assembly line. And why should you feel bad about someone swapping out one tool for another?
I will say a certain subset of artists did not help themselves either. With people increasing worried about automation replacing their jobs, the creatives were often the ones to say that "they could not be replaced" usually with some sort of snide jab. However then this AI generated art came along and suddenly they've found themselves in the same bucket everybody else is in.
The actual hardest jobs to replace with automations are ones where you would need a purpose built structure in order to fully replace the person AND it would need to be massively cheaper than it is now. Shelf stacker is cheaper and easier to be done by humans than it is robots because retrofitting an entire store or building one from the ground up to have it be that way ala the Amazon stores isn't cost effective. Hell Amazon still employ people to box things because it's cheaper for people to box things than it is for robots...and this is Amazon we're talking about.
The moment technology becomes as such that a robot can navigate a world built for humans, like a human and is costed in such a way that it's cheaper to replace a minimum wage worker THEN we're all in deep shit when it comes to jobs...
12:27 "the 1% inspiration" of ideas...
As an illustrator and an internet dinosaur one of my favorite icons that I used to use on my LiveJournal said:
"ILLUSTRATION:
1% inspiration
99% perspiration
(very sweaty)"
Anybody can have ideas. People who don't have the skill set or talent for visual art often have fantastic ideas. And that's why _they pay an artist to create that fantastic idea for them as a service._
Mind-blowing! 😮
Guy with multiple waccom tablets here: yeah, you hire an expert when you don't have the skills yourself.
But if labor gets too pricey, *you automate it* and save yourself the trouble. Art commissions pay basically nothing already unless you've got one helluva reputation and that was before AI.
Yeah we've been replaced by Artistic Self-Checkout but that was inevitable. There is nothing special about it being made by hand.
@@DFX2KX I'm not sure what the Wacom tablets have to do with it. I have a couple Wacom tablets myself as well as a Cintiq. I'm primarily a digital illustrator and colorist. It's still done by hand, the canvas is just digital.
It's not the "done by hand" aspect that's the issue.
Also just because anyone can have ideas doesn't mean that they are automatically any good. And I say that as someone with entire notebooks full of plot summaries for potential stories that, looking back at them now, are the most utter cringe imaginable.
According to a buddy of mine, I have some pretty neat ideas. I have paid them hundreds of dollars for art. I will continue to do it
Yep. I never had the money to commission art, so I learned how to use Blender. That took years, and there's still a lot left for me to learn, but now when I have an idea I like I can spend a couple weeks modelling it.
They aren't artists; they're data entry clerks
ETA: everyone pointing out this isn't fair to data entry clerks is right; what they do is actually useful and requires patience and eye for detail.
lololol, brilliant XD
No need to go insulting working people by conflating them with techbros.
Nah, there is some level of skill and work required to do data entry. Any human being that knows how to ask for something with loosely strung together words, and use their eyes to see if the result is shit can do "ai art".
That's an insult to data entry clerks. AI art techbros are just glorified clients that commission virtual artists to draw something for them.
As a data entry clerk, I take offense at this. What I do takes actual effort, usually involving fixing poorly formatted spreadsheets sent in by the kind of assholes who like AI art.
Neil Buchanan is unironically the best art teacher I've ever had; he taught me that humans aren't made of circles, they're actually made of sausages, with the head being a chipolata
Every week, Neil Buchanan taught the most important lesson in art, over and over - which is "get started". Nobody's work is perfect at the beginning, but you'll never improve if you never start.
His show was there to tell you that art is accessible, and give you motivation to TRY something, and starting is the biggest barrier to doing anything.
@@SocksAndPuppets same vibe for music. At first, everything you do is shit, but it gets better and better after tens of thousands of hours of practice. It's pretty easy actually, you just have to put the unbelievable amount of time needed into it xD (I have a feeling that this applies to the majority of anything anyone might want to do.)
Neil Buchanan's Art Attack was my jam as a kid. It's where I first heard the word "Turrah!" to say farewell. I still remember that show fondly.
The Acapella Skeleton Warriors was just beautiful.
Handmade, hand crafted - an excellent demonstration of what real artistry can achieve 💯
*It is capitalisms final form:* no effort, no value, no time or labour put into something they insist has value and they own, and lord it over everyone else.
There is a lot of effort and expertise that goes into AI generation. Just because you're ignorant of it doesn't mean it's nonexistant
@@JBBost you are literally that meme come to life. omg. thats HILARIOUS
do you know there's some grass outside? maybe you should touch it?
@@JBBost Then if your prompt and model parameters are creative enough (and I doubt it would ever rise to the level required to qualify as creativity), those could be copyrighted. Never the resulting artwork, as it is purely an AI that generated work, which will never be qualified as art until somehow machines can be creative, and even then, being machines, they couldn't own it, so couldn't transfer property of it to you.
@@satyasyasatyasya5746 Do you feel justified attacking me like that? If so, why?
@@DarkVcious I said nothing about who owns the content created by AI. I'm simply saying that writing AI prompts is a skill and if tested, none of you would pass. There is very much time, labor, and effort involved, and to say otherwise is to speak ignorantly
I like how the same "I'll just right click and save this" thing that made the NFT bros mad also makes AI bros mad. Well, they are mostly the same people.
No it doesn't. It makes the minority mad, and trust me when I say, among most of the ai community, they're equally shunned ;)
@@karotconcarne3325 Ironic. Since its from what Ive seen, the MAJORITY of the art generative community
No its not real ai
@@elvingearmasterirma7241I suppose that depends what part of the community we most often look at, huh. Not saying youw wrong, mind you.
@@karotconcarne3325 Considering its like one person who just plinks away with the tool for funsies and dont consider them an artist and then a barrage of AIBros who swear up and down and will pick fights and degrade us artists-
Your community is doing your attempted argument about as much favours as a tack stuck in your arm does for ya.
@@elvingearmasterirma7241It's allright, I'm used to it. Belive it or not, few years ago I was a criminal and a hacker because I liked video games. Then I was a criminal and a r word because I liked manga and anime. Now I'm a criminal and a thief because I like playing with AI pictures. It's just the flavor of the month hate target, nothing more, nothing less.
It's legally public domain the SECOND it's generated so ... have at it.
Not exactly. If you use AI to render copyrighted characters the original rights holders still own those characters. You cant shit out 100 tshirts with donald duck drawn in ai on it and start to sell it online for example.
@@artcrime2999 While you're correct, that's a trademark issue rather than a copyright one. And even then, any 'original' aspects that aren't clearly identifiable as someone's IP are fair game. It's a case where both you and the OP are both correct, but there's some additional context you're not including.
For example, if you use AI to create a generic superhero and you wind up with a statuesque man in a cape that vaguely resembles Superman, but he's blonde, asian, and his tights and cape are in a different color and he's wearing a domino mask, that's not - legally - a clear enough imitation to count as DC's trademark. It is, however, not original product because it's pretty clear the AI was trained on DC's material (and likely superhero comics in general), even if it didn't directly produce Superman. So that character design? Totally public domain, use as you please.
@@nervaaugustus7089 Thats why I suggest people who want to copyright the designs attempt to draw or further elaborate on the image in photoshop to give it enough artist intent to create copyright.
Also this varies by legal jurisdiction: The UK is currently holding AI creations as copyrightable. So many people arguing "the Unknown" from glasgow wonka experience is inherently public domain are applying American law to the wrong continent. IDK how this will shake out and the government has every intention to reconsider this (and they should it doesn't really make sense) but acting like this is settled and international is just standard American exceptionalism.
But it "CAN TAKE HOURS"!
Hours of what? Hours of sitting on your ass while the computer does any actual work, churning on stolen assets in batch mode to beep pleasantly or send you a text or email when it's done?
The rest of us working on art are ACTUALLY WORKING, while YOU can go have a feckin' sandwich or have a grumper on the toilet simultaneously. Must be what it's like to be a C-suite executive, in fact, LIVING THE DREAM!
Amusingly, copyright law has never cared about effort. So there's just no basis for the claim.
Copying your comment 10 000 times by hand would take hours, that time is indeed valuable, what I would have made of it is not, also doesn't mean it has any artistic value. I never understood the "But it takes so much time to do it" argument. It taking time doesn't mean it has any originality, or value.
Effort =/= value. Look at most digital art and how meaningless it is. And let's be real that's the kind of "artist" complaining about this.
It takes hours of wiping after you finish.
Remember NFTs? This just feels like RNG NFTs.
That's because it is.
NFT bros ruined a very nice and innovative piece of tech by misusing it :(
"How can we make money with it fast ? I know, let's sell meaningless worthless links to images and tell people they are worth money!"
I was so hoping for the birth of a "used pc games market" using NFTs 😢
NFTs were not nice and were not innovative
NFT is just an entry in a database and blockchains are just a database
Nothing different from existing technology except for the massive amount of electricity it wastes
Yeah a non-fungible token is literally just "what if a thing had a unique identifier, so you can trace that thing and who or what it's linked to". The "innovation" was people making "NFT" a thing to create a speculative asset and make some cash off others (which was already a thing like the TF2 hat economy, it's just they got to invent the "assets")
There's a reason Steam lets you trade hats but not games, ain't nothing to do with technological limitations
@@cactustactics I know all that, I was just more optimistic at the time, but of course, even if one platform decided to do it, it would be controlled by them, they would take a cut of every transaction and it wouldn't work accross store fronts :(
Just nostalgic of the days when you actually owned what you bought, and could do with it as you pleased.
Can’t believe Steph called them “artistic incels” when “shartists” is right there
gonna steal that one thank you
But even sharts take effort to make
"Some vocabulary and creativity is needed" -That´s a bar so low you can´t crawl under it. Some vocabulary? Saying 'Hello, how are you?' also takes 'some vocabulary'. Some creativity? Also says nothing. The sentence could as well say "You must know at least one word and be able to form basic thoughts."
Requirements for ai :
- Some appendage capable of interacting with a text input (or speach to text if you have none)
- Know at least some words (don't need many of those, you don't even need to know how to string them together properly, just vaguely communicate what you want)
- At least one eye to see if the result is shit
Basically anyone with an IQ over 85 is capable of using an ai image generator according to their own "standards"
As an aside, our lass made me an art piece for my birthday, it took almost a year for her to complete it and took learning a whole new style (for her) and unlearning everything she knew about the process of creating art, and then take that and craft a piece of art from that process, it's a beautiful piece and I'm so honoured and proud to have been gifted it
No techbro ai-image generating imbecile could even comprehend how much effort and talent that took, but here they are crying poverty over how much money and time it took to type a sentence to get an image cobbled together from stolen creations, and it's absolutely pathetic
That's not what creativity is, and you know it. -_-
Know what the actully funny part is? Vocabulary is NOT necesary. Most checkpoints undarstand things that are not actual words and interpret them in... unpredictable by a human ways, but kind of consistent anyway. It's fun to experiment with.
@@karotconcarne3325 Yup, always fun to look at what tokens a model will accept "WTF is that ?" and try it xD
Only problem with this argument is I have yet to see an AI generated image I'd actually want to have.
Some Deviantart adopts made by AI were pretty good. I would like to steal them, but I'm worried the original artists would get upset.
@@Projectarchan But I'm bri'ish! D:
I’ve been drawing for like 25 years now, and people always give me the “wow I can’t even draw a stick figure! I wish I could draw like that” line which is flattering but also, I just practiced. That’s literally it. People drooling over AI aren’t even the “stick figure” line guys. They’re the ones seething in the corner when other people say it, wishing they could be told how cool their art is but not wanting to do any of the work to get there.
That's exactly right. I WISH I could be a great artist. But clearly, not enough to put in the time and effort to become one. And that's okay, that's my decision, my fault. I'm not about to go getting AI to do it and pretend my dreams have come true.
Lol and now you're mad that an AI can draw better than you.
Frodo Baggins was right, wouldn't you say? "The Shadow that bred them can only mock, it cannot make: not real things of its own...it only ruined them and twisted them.".
That must be the best description of AI I've ever seen x)
@@DarkVcious Well, it sums it up nicely.
One thing that gives me hope for humanity is the sheer animalistic hatred of generative AI I've seen in the past year.
It really is a turn-off whenever a game or something has AI Art in it... Feels cheap, and not in a charming way.
@@tyrus1235 Same thing with NFT shit a couple of years ago also.
Not only just raw hatred, but raw hatred from most groups of people, even in a political lense.
Turns out most people would rather not have “artwork” done by a machine or folks who only seem to value it for potential financial or social gain. Why have a machine do something you don’t even enjoy, or can’t be bothered to learn how to do, when the entire point is to be creative and enjoy yourself?
It has destroyed Pinterest. It used to be my main source of references, now it' a garbage dump landfill full of AI generated images.
@@crazyluigi6664 there was also the metaverse rush between those two, because capitalism decided to just reinvent Second Life again
"You wouldn't steal a car that I went to the trouble of stealing first."
"How dare you kidnap what I've rightfully stolen!"
God, Art Attack? Thanks for punching me right in the nostalgia
Petition to put "Artwork" in quotes in the title.
You got my signature.
I sign up
@@ZelphTheWebmancerco-signed
Signed
Agreed. A picture produced via an algorithm definitionally isn't art. Art is creative expression. An algorithm of data that tries to follow and repeat certain patterns isn't creative expression just like plagiarism and tracing someone else's work also definitionally isn't creative expression.
The robots were going to be our slaves and we were going to be artists and poets. It’s all gone horribly wrong.
@bleh329 😭
Spoiler alert, the rich people just wanted everyone to be slaves... and replaced with machines, whenever possible, to reduce the amount of human decency required in the whole process of giving them whatever they want until they get as bored as Rick Sanchez with a planet full of simpy hivemind hosts.
It’s gone so awry!
Artists have power at diluting monopolies so oligarchy is trying to squash it.
Only very few people are capable of being artists or poets.
As an artist who's recently lost their motivation to do art because of this bs, I appreciate you speaking out.
Reminder, people will have interest in paying for artists.
If the fad of AI generated shite is putting you off art, you might have a deeper problem tbfh.
Don't give up. Losing inspiration for off times like this makes sense. Be proud as a creator who can make something from nothing.
@@PeannluiThis is an extremely diminishing response. There have been artists who have had their entire life's work stolen. Artists who have been added to search algorithms designed to ape their styles, and have lost their livelihoods because of it. It is absolutely valid to not want to engage in a passion for fear that it will be ripped from underneath you, and cheaply copied by thoughtless morons.
Hang in there, try other things, you might find something else you like more, or come back to it later on finding that you like it again ;)
Personally, I think all AI creations should automatically be in the public domain. This would go some way to protecting the skills and livelihood of artists, musicians etc. because it would be the only way for corporations to protect their intellectual property.
Yeah, they are in the public domain, however, I'm guessing that corporations will be pushing to make it so that they aren't as they try to employ more AI to cut their workforce to gain more profit. I have no idea what that would mean for the end user though.
Courts have already ruled they are.
@@ruekurei88 It's already used within production, so they would very much not want you to consider it public domain.
Remember, stealing from normal people is apparantly okay, but stealing from corporations? Biiiig naughty naughty!
Welp you’re in luck because that’s exactly how the rules work right now.
@@reniorjd That's great. But I wonder if it's enforced internationally, and water-tight against the big shot legal teams hired by corps. I could imagine, for instance, a big game developer claiming that the prompts behind the AI work are IP. The law would need to state unequivocally that the moment something is AI generated the result can't be copyrighted.
Can't wait for Shad to think he's specifically being targeted by this and makes a 2 hour rebuttal.
Like he did with Sellsword.
@@spikem5950 As the Commander once said (as documented in court at the time), there's not enough popcorn in the world.
@@SymbioteMullet Commander?
@@spikem5950 Commander Sterling?
@@ShinGallon yes
The state of the art industry (especially in game dev) has completely sapped me of all motivation to create. Haven't made a serious piece of art in MONTHS. One thing that gives me hope that I might one day find my way back to it is seeing folks like yourself provide much needed support, and the ever-growing public backlash towards these thieves.
Thanks for always standing up for the underdog, Steph. It means a helluva lot, and I'm grateful for the work that you do.
according to those dudes, Nintendo is the artist behind Majora's Mask because they asked for a sequel to Ocarina of Time, Pope Julius II is the artist responsible for the frescoes in the Sistine chapel, and the Philharmonic Society of London is the creator of Beethoven's fucking 9th symphony.
...it's like the starting idea, or the prompt, is worth fuck all without competent people to make it a reality and inject their own unique feelings, experiences and inspirations into it. jfccccc
I made my McDonalds order because I asked the staff for a burger without onions.
@@SpamhardI made Mobile Suit Gundam because I assembled a gunpla once!
@@Spamhard somebody sue McDonald’s for not inventing hamburgers, french fries, and milkshakes. From a legal standpoint, they need to stop AI art from being trained on intellectual property, but don’t think the legislation is there yet. But from a human psychology perspective, obviously people are mad that competent art can be created without natural talent and/or painstaking practice
@@rossz4898 The issue imo is the stolen property. If they just had artists who were willing to have their art used in this process, then whatever. Still shit but everyone consented and is in agreement. But that would involved seeking permission and payment and who wants to bother with that? /s
And I don't agree that's the main reason folk are mad. Most people I know are angry for totally different reasons. The quality of the AI art is not a factor, it could look like dog shit and still be a problem (see most of the NFTs). Reasons for being mad at least for me are it being stolen art, and AI bros flooding every fucking website with this shit, ramming it down every art communities throat and flooding out anything else. Thankfully some sites like deviantart require you to tag AI art and have away to block it from showing on your feed. All sites need to do that IMO, especially sites like etsy that are actively trying to profit on stolen work.
@@Spamhard I like that idea of tagging AI art images, would assuage a lot of the issues with them, would be hard to enforce though…maybe AI can help with that lol.
I brought up the effort involved in AI art generation vs hand drawing/painting mostly cuz Steph used it as their jumping off point, sorta hamfistedly. I agree that the infringement of artist’s IPs is the real issue here…the fact the technology itself may cost real artists work is sad but not unforeseen, tech continues to take human jobs, I don’t see a concrete solution to that
How dare you steal from the Theftbot 3000
"artistic incels" is great, but I've enjoyed calling them "trickle-down artists" - focuses on the people who are TRULY being stolen from, and may also lead to a discussion about the bullshit of trickle-down economics
As an artist I approve of this video.
This reminds me a bit about a twitter spat where an AI-Bro was accusing another AI-Bro for stealing his prompt because the "art" that was generated was too similar to his own... Like how the svarte granskauen do you react to that!?
Pointing and laughing seems about right
I think it'll only take a couple of years or a generation till we're used to the idea of AI art and humans doing it will be a novelty and "quaint". Like knitting or whatever.
@@TheOneGreat Even if AI art proliferated like that, it's not going to replace artists. Artisinal bread baking didn't go away because we can mass produce bread
@@JBBost That's true but it's foodstuffs and heavily industrialised. I'm sure rich people will be like "a real person made it" therefore it's worth more and a novelty. Which, I think would prove my point. But we'll see. Can't say I care too much either way.
@@TheOneGreat All art consumption is rich people spending money on a novelty
why would I want to steal garbage? I wouldn't touch that shit even if I was homeless.
to make memes, it was funny when ai video were "cartoon but live action" "that show but that other decade"
Some AI models have gotten *very* good at it, arguably a great deal better than a fair chunk of the internet art world.
It’s like “stealing” NFT’s mostly just to make them mad and it works 😂
@@DFX2KX Overwhelming majority of AI arts out there is pretty much only available in a handful set of styles. Yeah, the rendering got better, but in the end, they still look pretty much the same style. I've seen a lot of TH-cam content mills out there that use AI art, and I swear you could fool me into thinking that all channels like this are made by the same person.
Don't shit on hobos bro I have much more cash and sex and guns than u and I hobo AF
The only situation I can see where the AI art belongs to the prompter is where they create and submit all their training data, like with procedual generation.
Or if they assist themselves with AI to create art (filling some void in their image with "something", or sufficiently modifying an AI's output to make it theirs). But even then, it wouldn't be the "ai art" that would be theirs, it would be their art that would be theirs, even if part of it was generated using AI.
Yes if that had happened and people weren’t being laid off from their creative jobs the outrage would be nowhere near as intense
In your example, if the user creates the images/data necessary for the Ai generator... Wouldn't that mean they've drawn what they wanted already? Or that they can draw and could just do it by themselves?
@@nobodyinparticular9640 or they could take their own photos for the training data, for example
@@DarkVcious Right, like how artists can use stock assets as part of their work and still have the overall result be considered their work.
And here I thought this week's video was going to be about Warner Bros. delisting all of Adult Swim Games, including indie games published through Adult Swim Games, and also being lazy about transferring ownership back to the game developer as well as demanding that those who do publish it separately remove all references to Adult Swim Games, including people in the credits who helped develop and publish the game in the first place...
But yeah, I'd rather not use A.I. art, stolen or otherwise. Even the better-looking ones have this uncanny, almost plastic look to it that I don't really care for.
Hopefully that's covered next week...
Myself I was thinking some deserved bashing on craptendo for being *skeleton warriors,* but yeah, WB have been very *skeleton warriors* too
I was honestly expecting something about Sweet Baby Inc
Billing yourself as an artist based on AI prompts is like calling yourself a chef after ordering food.
Nope. It's like calling yourself a chef after stealing your neighbor's food.
Love it when steph puts in references to 90's UK kids TV that the majority of their audience won't get but those of us who were there just get transported back.
It aired internationally too! :D I grew up with it in Canada. Used to watch it with my parents all the time.
Shame it doesn't get talked about more. It was such a good show.
Zilla was such a great addition to the team!!
Nice and succinct
When it comes to stealing AI art, I think Gibbs and Jack Sparrow put it best:
"Take what you can!"
"Give nothing back!"
Oh my god, I used to love Art attack! When I got up in the morning for public school, I was excited to see what he would make just by dropping random things on the ground and showing you the full thing with a zoom out camera shot. I actually love that style of art, I would love to see it make a comeback.
This is the "executive mindset". The sort of person who thinks because they gave an order to an employee, they deserve all the credit for what the employee actually did is the same sort who are convinced "ordering" a deep learning AI to make something means they deserve credit for whatever it, to use the word charitably, makes.
We don't really need the executive class, but they're convinced we do, to realize THEIR vision with OUR work.
I encourage anyone with even the tiniest curiousity in art to go for it, pick up a pencil, pen, brush whatever and have fun. There are countless resources on the internet to help. Having some form of creative outlet is important to maintaining mental health and can genuinely have therapeutic value.
You can't steal a generated image, because you can't copyright a Google prompt.
You can actually copyright an AI prompt. You just can't copyright an AI generated image, because only humans have copyright.
Listen, it's hard typing out "hot anime waifu big boobs giant sword awesome cool sword", they put time into that prompt!
@@Septimius that seems dangerous, like copyrighting a generic term such as "chocolate chip cookie"
@@Septimius No you cannot.
@@Septimius No you cannot copyright an AI prompt, nor the resultant image:
'From the USCO’s perspective, because Midjourney does not understand grammar and sentence structures in the way that humans do, the text prompts cannot be considered as direct instructions for the output. Therefore, Allen could not have assumed with certainty what his text prompt into Midjourney would generate, Estoesta said.'
For further reading,(Source-Law(DOT)com-article title-'USCO’s Decision That AI Prompts Aren’t Copyrightable Underscores Tech’s ‘Black Box’ Problem'):
“So the [USCO] was asking him to disclaim, meaning he could not claim copyright authorship over what the AI itself generated,” Estoesta said. “[But] the author was not willing to disclaim any part that was generated by AI. So I think that maybe if he did, then the board would have gotten to the next question of whether or not his modifications using Photoshop could have been sufficient[ly] creative to qualify for copyright protection.”
Of course, it is anybody’s guess whether the office would have granted any copyright protection for the modifications Allen did to the Midjourney product. But considering how the USCO dealt with the recent AI-generated comic book case-granting a license for the words generated by the author, but not for the images generated by AI-attorneys believe Allen’s case could have gone in a similar direction for image modifications done using Photoshop, Estoesta said.
Marshall Gerstein patent attorney Matthew Carey said that the Allen case is the third piece of the puzzle to track how the USCO will view AI generations: the first being the Thaler case, and the second being the comic book case.
“Perhaps if one day these models don’t have as much of a black box,” and allow for more insight into how they read a text prompt, and for “humans to control the output via the prompts a little bit more than they are now,” it could potentially “tilt the scales more towards registrants [not having to] disclaim as much as they have to now” while using AI, Carey said.
But until then, the USCO is not looking leniently upon AI’s contribution when looking at copyright eligibility. “They have made their position clear,” and entities using AI should be mindful that their creations could end up without protection, “until there’s legislation that changes what is considered copyrightable,” Estoesta said.
Same people who would argue over copy paste NFT, you can do it, it's absolutely free and worth nothing.
Came to hear AI getting shat on, delighted to hear Anish Kapoor getting shat on too.
There is a saying in my country: "thief that steals from thief has 10 years of forgiveness"
In my country it's 100 lol
I like those sayings either way! ;)
No other creator is brave enough to include the entire art attack theme in their work (except Neil Buchanan I guess). Thankyou Steph 🙏
AI generated images have no copyright, since copyright can only be given to humans. Commercially utilizing copyrighted art for AI generation without permission, however, should be legally punished.
None of these AI "artists" would ever make it through a year at an art college. Your professors WILL shred you a new one over your work, and they will laugh you out of the school if you present AI work
It's about time to them, because time is money, and money is all they care about.
Putting a price on anything and everything.
They want to commodify art so they can hijack it and sell it back to you.
It's a shortcut for them to make the money they feel they are entitled to.
Bob Ross is very good at converting mistaken brush strokes into a beautiful part of the picture. He calls this type of event [ happy little accidents ]
Just to say "prompting" has also largely been automated in the new versions of Midjourney. All thinking has been offset and outsourced. Nothing but (smooth) brains with thumbs.
Even if we ignore the ethical implications generating AI Art is like generating Minecraft worlds. Once you've done it often enough you've seen everything the generator has to offer. Everything is technically unique but looks and feels the same.
And in the case of AI Art it's not worth more than a few minutes of amusement. At least you could play in a Minecraft world for hours and build tons of cool stuff. Or hang out with friends.
Except there's actually hard work happening behind the scenes in Minecraft to make sure to randomly generated worlds follow some kind of internal logic and can still come out as playable.
@@jordanloux3883That's a good point.
@@jordanloux3883I mean can you remember the early Java days? Man there were some fucking wacky combo of biomes and landscapes the game could generate through the normal random seed process (as opposed to the ones you typed in), as the game progressed it got better and better at making a world that made sense.
@@luketfer In Minecraft's defense, the weird generation seeds (or weird terrain coords) were sought after because they weren't exactly common.
I dabbled with AI art. At first I was kind of blown away with what was created, but soon realized that my prompts weren't being followed. No matter how well I wrote a prompt out, it never came out quite right. So I actually dropped it after a single day and never looked back. I prefer working with real artists.
lolololololol
And that's why AI "art" will never really replace the human hand, right? The level of control, even at its best like image2image, will always be lesser than even so much as just telling it to a person. At the end of the day, this is just a model that might barely understand how random matrices of colors correspond with text, having never interacted with this world nor interactively communicated about objects within it, forced to just guess these correlations, defaulting the the mean when unsure. It's an engine of cliche, locked onto it to such extent as to even complicate basic steering.
I think the AI art thing is really just a fad. The AI winter will come and unless the tech bros can provide something undeniably useful, the funding will die, and with it their services (which themselves are increasingly computational black holes for investment; inference isn't free, training doubly isn't). And even in the other case, we can see, plain as day, that the ones taking most advantage of these tools aren't artists, but businesses. Their fate had always been predestined to produce vast amounts of subpar visual noise, thrown into the world with little care nor attention.
Okay, that title is absolutely wrong. AI-generated images are not art.
If it isnt then taping a banana to a wall isnt either. AI images take much more work to make
Neither are they work.😂
Goddammit you beat me to it.
@@outmywritemind1739 Typing words is hard. :c
Sure they are. They're just unethical, plagiarized art.
That scat rendition of skeleton warriors was fantastic.
Recently commissioned art for the BBEG of my D&D campaign. It was a collaborative and creative process that involved me, with no visual creative competence, translating how I picture the character in my head along with what references I could find and the artist using their talent and effort to make my vague idea a reality. There was multiple stages of sketches, color palettes, and checking back for feedback. The final product was very good and showed the clearly involved effort of someone trying to bring what was in my head to life. It wasn't a perfect match as any ideas had to go from my mind, to my words, to the artist's understanding of what I intended, and finally the piece. It was definitely something I wouldn't trust an AI to do. I couldn't bring my vision to reality myself, so I paid an artist to do it.
As they say in my country
*"Ladron que roba a ladron tiene 100 años de perdón"*
It’s the same in my (Portuguese). Maybe is something to do with the latin languages
I think an elevator pitch is actually covered by copyright.
If you pitch a movie, get denied, then they go ahead and make sure movie, you are actually entitled to sue iirc
I get the feeling that if you don't have a 10-pages draft (or perhaps a full draft) already written, your elevator pitch is probably worthless
2 movies can be PRODUCED while beeing made with the same basic ideas (ex.: "White House Down" and "Olympus as Fallen"), if the tone and themes are a bit different. I can't imagine making a movie with the same premise as an elevator pitch beeing copyright infringement.
Most studios might steal your basic idea, but put enough of their own twist on it that any copyright suit falls flat on its face, see the "tardigrades in space" guy suing Star Trek Discovery. And a studio that copies your pitch 1:1 deserves to be sued.
Wow, TH-cam actually pinged me within an hour 😅
“What can be labeled, packaged, mass produced is neither truth nor art.” - Marty Rubin
An important question everyone should ask themselves is if AI technologies can be tools or even mediums for said truth
@@JBBost There are, undoubtedly, good and necessary uses for AI: Pattern recognition is useful in medicin, engineering and planning. The more precise and goal-oriented the task is, the better it can perform. An AI that just remixes Art, Texts and Songs that could be done better, cheaper and greener by Humans is novel at best, in my humble opinion.
@@JachymorDota that's one function of many. A computer can be used to pirate art. Should we ban computers?
@@JBBostWe should ban the nefarious use of stealing from artists.
@@JBBost Now you are comparing apples with action figures. That's like asking If we should ban roads because cars have accidents.
Holy shit the dubbed-over skeleton warriors got me good
Rest in Peace Akira Toriyama
Yep. 😔😭
Now there was a real artist.
@@ItsmeInternetStranger Amen.
Seeing pages I really respected use AI pics as a way to "homage" him made me really sad.
Bye Akira Toriyama.
I think at least some of the ai tech Bros had as their only previous dealing with artists be commissioning work. They probably see the prompts process as the notes they would send the artist. They confuse patronage with participation.
Edit: and that’s what I get for commenting mid video… ending summed it up better I could have
Great minds think alike! ;)
Zmanzilla's rendition of skeleton warriors was auditory excellence.
How dare you steal the stolen art I told a robot to go out and steal for me!
"Fingertips are required to type the prompts.
So have mercy!"
I can push a button with a pencil or a stick while writing mine, so that argument is invalid :D
@@karotconcarne3325 Good point. You can steal AI work then, I'm allowing it.
Speach to text has also gotten way better lately, no physical interraction required :D
I watch Steph's videos once while I'm hoovering, and then once when I'm sat all cozy. Safe to say I was confused with the opening bit's audio 😅
I saw this headline and thought it was pretty rich; I thoroughly appreciated your outraged dismantling of the utter temerity of these people. Cheers!
You know, I just thought of something. If AI Art makes someone an artist... Then playing a competitive shooter with an Aimbot makes you a master player.
And now I hope these AI techbros run into nothing but cheaters in every game they ever play from now on.
That bit at the end is a refreshingly optimistic silver lining about this that I hadn't thought of before
Watching it while sculpting, ironic.
Aren't-ists
(To be moral I stole this word)
Time, money, and words, but none of the actual effort? So, A.I. "artists" are just CEOs! No wonder they're so infuriating.
In a legal sense AI art copyright is unenforced so you could use it, and the "owner" couldn't sue since it wasn't their creative expression.
Or more simply, there is no owner of ai generated images.
I would guess it's easy to bypass that by having someone retouch it or just claim that it's not AI who produced it.
@@ionezgb if it was edited to not be an obvious AI art then they'd have contributed some level of artistic vision. The cases could get really convoluted though about how much modification it takes to turn one piece of work into your own since in this same vein, you could do this with a movie too. photoshop every character in the Avengers to be Shrek or something and then it'd technically be a distinct piece of art.
@@chaosryans Yeah, copyright law is a bit complicated. The raw ai image would never be protected though, it would be whatever you did to it that would be (as long as that passes the bar of "enough unique expression" to be considered copyrightable)
Indeed. You own your own creative exoressions. So as a human retouching art, you would own the creative ideas that you added to the work, but not those kicked out by the generator.
It is similar to taking the artistic work of someone else and retouching it. You own the creative additions, but not the underlying work retouched.
The most frustrating things about last weekend was seeing people posting ai "art" in "honor" of Toriyama
Never tell an artist we have "talent." That assumes we were born with anything but an obsession, and never did the work. The adjective "god-GIVEN" makes these people think they DESERVE to pick fruit off us for free.
A wonderful new entry to the Now-Trilogy of absolutely fundamentally morally correct video essays by James Stephanie Sterling, the "Why It's Morally Okay To" series. God bless you, hun, you preach the truth when no one listens. Thank God for you. And happy belated Women's Day. You rock it!
By their "realize" logic, when I order a custom sarnie from Subway I own the copyright on the footlong that results from the bespoke combination of components that I asked them to put in it. I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way.
No, but you own the sandwich.
To be an A.I artist is to be an editor, and while I do think editors doesn't get enough credit, they're supposed to be quality control, not the artist.
Indeed. If you think you can let AI do all the work for you, you might as well repeat Willy's Chocolate Experience in Glasgow.
No. "AI" "artists" are not editors, they're parasites. Editors contribute to and enhance the artworks they work on, to the benefit of the original creator. "AI" "artists" take other people's artwork, grind it down to a fine slurry, and excrete it into the public, to the detriment of the artists without whose artwork they would have absolutely nothing.
Hi, editor and artist here. I use the term "prompt-jockey" a lot, because that's their actual relationship with the medium - the horse (AI art generator) is doing all the essential labor, and the jockey (AI prompter) sits on top telling the horse where to go. They're basically trying to explain how slapping a horse and telling it when to turn left (on a track that only has left turns) is actually way harder than it looks you guys.
I won't say that there aren't AI artists who edit. If I had my druthers, they all would. But I've seen no evidence to suggest editing is at all requisite.
@@ZMannZilla ooh prompt-jockey is a perfect name for them
As someone who uses Stable Diffusion every couple of months, I'd say that you'll never get the exact results you want without some manual editing or re-drawing in between the generated images.
ZMan, if you happen to read this, I'm curious what you think of using AI image-gen as a "middle man" process, for example to add color or a background in between original lineart and detailed Photoshopping.
steal them to do WHAT? they have no use
I wouldn't even steal it because asides from already being stolen, it's shiiiiiiiiiit.
Latest Boston's Favorite Son was beautiful. The Shattered stand ready. Just give the word.
Its so grear, the best podcast ever
New one!?
Thank you for telling me!
If this was AI generated, you would be a favourite son artist.
Now you are just my hero
on point. ai prompt "artists" are like the creeps in the movie "idiocracy" sitting in the hospitals reception, having a bunch of shiny buttons for their decision making :D. in times of ai generated "art", known better as PICTUREES, its an ACT OF RESISTANCE taking a pen or whatnot, even if its a wacom pen, TO DRAW. or sculpt, or write, or actually mowing the lane rhater than prompting "mowing a lane"
I had to do a double-take at that title. People believe you can "steal" AI-generated art? 🤦♂️
Welp, it ain't art or any kind of protectable creative work because AI isn't creative and it's the thing doing the thing, even if they become creative, they aren't people, so they can't own the rights to anything, and can't transfer them to you. So not art, and no possible stealing.
I think those people do not understand the public domain. You can't "steal" what's in the public domain, and the US copyright office says anything "AI" generated is automatically public domain. You could build on top of it and get something copyrightable, but these people aren't about to do that, are they?
What should just be a fun little toy to mess around with has become a techbro hellhole. A.I. art should be for personal use only, but the NFT crowd isn't going to listen to that.
I fear for what these idiots will ruin, next.
Let me get this straight: I'm supposed to feel bad about "stealing" a Google search term and result?
Partnering with Zmanzilla has to be my favorite decision you ever made. I love hearing his input as well
having done both actual art and ai generation of images i can weigh in on the "it's a skill" thing
it took me 3 years of regular practice to get kinda ok at drawing
it took me less than a week to figure out how to get the machine to shit out something decent
I will now tell you that they call themselves "prompt engineers". I feel dirty just typing it out and I'm fucking pro ai "art"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
From the sounds of it, an AI "artist's" definition of effort is:
I'm not paying someone else to do this for me
Ironically, they're often happy to pay for use of someone else's computer to do the generation for them. At that point, you might as well just be paying an artist.
If you're ACTUALLY that cheap, you'd be running Stable Diffusion on your own computer and using whatever models you can find for free. Which is what any actual artist wanting to make use of the technology would do, because that's pretty-much the only way to get any significant control over what the thing produces.
Bless you for not cutting short the magnificent intro for Art Attack.
Copyright is a scam, plagiarism is wrong, and AI fails on both counts.
I never cared about art much in the drawing sense but man Art Attack was awesome and I'd always watch it. You can't replicate that artistry AI.
I was watching that Tv show as a kid ,the "Art attack" ,that guy was so talented
I left my overhyped concept artist/technical designer animatronics job (in part) because of their happy and uncritical acceptance of AI imagery into our workflow. Asking for twice the output in a fractional amount of time to what I was already underpaid to do. Thanks Z. Mann Zilla for the piece at the end, it really helps put that garbage into perspective!
I know a lot of important things were discussed but Valheim being represented was really nice to see.