One way I've seen AI art argued for is this: "If you gave a ten year old access to all public art, and then they sat down and did their best to redraw each image, you'd eventually have an artist with a style similar to whatever type of art they were working on." "When said teenager then starts posting/selling art, are they doing a crime? The style they produce is very similar to, and competes with existing artists." "AI does the exact same thing, just way faster, at the direction of someone who never learned to draw." "It is an incredibly similar problem to the conflict between the weaving guilds and textile industrialization. A previously artisan industry has suddenly been threatened by mass production." As for 'AI art is theft of the public collections', the best way I've seen it described by a career artist and programmer is this: "I draw for myself, but I live in Capitalism." "Little of my art would be public if I had my choice, but in order to spend a significant amount of time doing art I must be paid for it." "I have to put examples out, advertise them, and then do commissions." "Most commissions are later posted publicly by the commissioner." "There was no choice in my work being public, and I dislike that it is being used as raw materials to craft my replacement and force me to stop doing art due to financial issues caused by oversupply."
Artists are upset because they have a skill that they put time and effort into and they are about to see it become useless. It sucks. Complaining about scraping is pointless because AI is trained on images; it just needs a camera. Art scrapping is cheaper and faster, but having an AI learn from existing styles versus independently invent them ends up in the same place- the AI can produce those styles. (I'm assuming progress continues; I'd be pissed if AI hits a wall where some stuff can be duplicated and others cannot and I was in the former category because I was included in the training data. It doesn't look like that is the case since you can feed the AI its own output in order to train it.)
I think an alternative way to look at it is that most artwork posted online is under some form of creative license. These licenses usually control not just reproductions of the work, but also derivative work created from them. In my mind, this means that all AI artwork must be held to the most strict creative license for derivative works among those used in its training set. As far as I understand the most common creative licenses, this will mean that nothing produced by the AI can ever be sold.
@@zacharyherl8080 You can use AIs to make art to train other AIs; would this be covered by the same rules? If not, it is toothless. If yes, it essentially means you can never sell anything made by an AI.
@@samuelskinner7704 I would argue yes. If each AI is limited by the most restrictive license in its training material, then anything trained by its output would have the same limitation. Honestly, all an AI creator has to do is first train on a public source as a proof of concept, and then rake in some funding dollars to hire artists or buy their work to train an entirely new AI.
@@zacharyherl8080 The issue with 'anything from restrictive sources is equally restrictive' is proving it once you are no longer dealing with the original. "Honestly, all an AI creator has to do is first train on a public source as a proof of concept, and then rake in some funding dollars to hire artists or buy their work to train an entirely new AI." Or you release you stable diffusion for free and private individuals produce models which you integrate latter for free.
Yeah i know how you feel with the art scraping,getting your hard work fed into a machine sucks In another note i remember seeing this game's dev logs videos,glad to see how far it came!
I don't really get it. People always seem to say "Without their consent" but it was with their consent, they didn't read or care about the EULA of the place they registered to showcase their art. Like, I can understand it being a sore spot, but when you sign up to these places, if they're free and good, you are the product - this is a process that has been working for years, companies selling your data for a profit.
@@BaneWilliams nah, while I do agree that the sooner people accept that AI generated art is here to stay the better (tough there does need to be a distinction on the result), no one reads EULAs. You are the product but you also get to complain about excessive abuse.
@@BaneWilliams yeah, no they may be selling your behavioural data (like personal preference or wishes through whatever) but they can’t just sell someone’s art as it is the artist’s intellectual property. If you would ask permission/at least give credit to an artist for, say, a video, then you should ask permission for stable diffusion.
@@BaneWilliams they weren't talking about _legality,_ they were talking about *morality.* It's also very, very debatable whether those EULA's are even legally enforceable (or rather, which parts are enforceable) in the first place, given their nature and intended reader. So even from an entirely legal perspective, it's nowhere _near_ as black and white as your comment makes it seem. And obviously there's the ethical side of things too. It seems kinda silly to say "I don't understand how those people couldn't foresee this [absurdly specific] thing happening that I didn't really see coming either".. that's not how human beings work. We don't generally think of art as "data" (even though it technically is) as a society, and as such, the rules might not apply correctly. That's the discussion people are having, and it's a discussion worth having. Imo, the answers are not even slightly obvious (right now) and pretending otherwise is foolish. edit: LOL, I was not expecting the game to specifically poke fun at the "incomprehensible EULA" trope I was talking about, that was a nice surprise :)
@@BaneWilliams These clauses/"features" have been sneaked in past peoples noses via updates and the like, having become the standard against their wishes that has to be *explicitly opposed* instead of explicitly agreed to like would be more honest...and even *if* people refused it, next update it´s there again anyways, just with small changes as to no longer "be the same thing" on legal technicalities. That way people are being scammed out of their intellectual property and rights in the most dickish ways.
about the collage discussion: Copyright law is different in education. You're allowed to use art without the express permission in an education context. This means that products which are made and used solely in the context of school, may use any artworks they want. This is true for teachers and students, which mean that collages in class are no issue whatsoever. Of course, students are then not allowed to use these collages in any context outside of school, unless they abide by copyright law.
That's not quite accurate. The better answer is that no one is going to bother suing a school. Copyright is fun in that there _aren't_ clear rules, it's all a mess of semiconsistent court rulings. The only way to know for sure if something is legal is to try it and get sued. Yes, that's dumb and horrible. Welcome to the American legal system.
@@Khaim.m We should just get rid of IP laws, they are redundant and just hammer creativity. Sure in doing so AI art would be made fully legal, but that negative is worth the positives.
oh hey i also am going to do this i have been beta testing this and i hope you like this one ISTRO inc is a great compony and the discord is a great community i 100% recommend lol
Love that you played for a full hour on this. Found it first on another channel, but was unsatisfied by the short duration so I searched around and lo and behold, Wander has a full gameplay, just what I wanted! Edit: Hot damn, I thought an hour would have enough progress to go from hand picking to full-automation. I guess this game is harder than I thought.
Text to image generation AI is much more similar to humans looking at your artwork in order to learn to produce their own, blending it with the styles of hundreds of other styles of art which they’ve seen
I like watching you and Splattercatgaming... the problem is that that usually means that my bank account hates that I like watching you and Splattercatgaming...
AI art softwaree acts as a psudo artist. When you're learning art, you look at other artist's work and learn to do things by seeing how they did things. The AI does the same. Its not stealing artwork, it is simply training itself with them hence why we don't see perfectly done things like hands, feet, or other complex objects. If it was stealing artwork, we wouldn't be seeing the abominations the many AI's give us. Its often coming down to people not knowing how the AI's get the results they do, not knowing that in order to mimic a style the ai must be fed specific prompts and information, and being afraid it's somehow going to replace artists or infringe on your work- which it won't.
There's a lot of misinformation purposely fed to the masses about AI image generation mostly by people that haven't even looked into the technology and it's current scope and limitations... The most hilarious one I found is how AI models steal thousands of images and "mesh" them together to create an artwork...
Are there Difficulty adjust or Accessibility settings to tone down or turn off the "encroaching darkness" timers? Gameplay with endless ticking clocks kicks up my anxiety, lol.
No difficulty settings, but you get upgrades that increases how long your flashlight lasts. Plus you can keep upgrading your power and adding more lights so you don't really need to be out in the dark if you don't want to. Most of the time anyway.
Do you have a secondary channel where you could upload your playthroughs? I love seeing those, Prey was awesome and Resident Evil Village was very entertaining.
I used to do full series here, but had to stop since YT changed the algorithm- which caused views to drop off pretty hard. Someday I'll start series back up again, but I'm currently juggling a bunch of other tasks and don't have the time (or the endurance) to do them regularly at the moment.
a better argument to bring up for the whole AI art thing is, AI writing a lot of scrip writers where troubled by it but the whole industry did not collapse, thu you have a point they should never feed your art to AI without your permission
I disagree, information cannot be properly. Being the one who made it doesn’t let you dictate how it is used, that’s LTV bullshit. As a creator the only thing you are deserving is the truth, aka attribution.
Art AI learned to make art the same way you did, by looking at lots of art, analyzing art techniques, and making and critiquing it's work. It would be a bit hypocritical to say that the art a human makes based on their skill and knowledge of existing works and styles isn't reproduction, but AI doing the same thing is. I think the real take away is that when you publish art in an open-license platform, that it should be obvious to you that it's open-license so you can choose whether you are okay with that. Hopefully, most people are okay with it, but if you actually intent to sell your work, that's a good reason not to be okay with it, and that's an obvious concern that those platforms are keenly aware of and mat choose not to address it as their platform would get less submissions.
Nah. There's a vast gulf between me learning by looking at other art and a machine feeding art into a digital wood chipper and then recombining it to make something 'new'. Baseline, I'll never be able to fully replicate someone else's work without dedicating a serious chunk of my life to it, while these programs can be spun up to virtually clone someone else within a few hours. I get from a consumer/AI advocate perspective that seems fine, but there is something seriously wrong about feeding people's hard work into a machine to replace them. Maybe for burgers and menial stuff, but not creative work. Especially not in a capitalist society where people who are displaced by things like this are potentially left permanently incapable of finding new work without dedicating time and money they might not have to retrain in another field.
@@wanderbots You are straw-manning how an AI works. It's not doing copy-pasta, it Is literally learning in a very similar way, in fact, to how a brain learns, and when it creates art work, it's not pulling images from a database and cobbling them together, it's again behaving much more like how a brain processes data with concepts and by bits and pieces. Humans are fully capable of reproducing works, and the fact that the AI tends to be better at that thing than you, doesn't make it any less valid. You are better than an AI at certain things, that doesn't invalidate your benefit or right to create. It's interesting that you think taking jobs from the food industry is okay, but, coincidently, taking your job isn't. Could you explain why your job shouldn't be taken but other people's jobs should?
I don't normally like this type of game. They all seem to demand you min/max and I don't play games that way. HOWEVER. This one appeals because thematically you are just a dumb android anyway...
I think AI art is more similar to taking inspiration. All creativity is ideas taken from others, just reframed and reconstructed. I don't think AI art is inherently different so long as it's done properly.
Nah man, throwing artists art into a grinder that can mass produce it/something similar is morally wrong, and arguably illegal. They need to train the ai with public domain or licensed works only, and then its fine.
yep. imo the blame should lie not with the ai tools themselves or their creators, but with shitty users of those tools who just use them to basically copy someone's artwork to claim it for themselves
I personally disagree. I'm not against the technology itself but i don't think you should feed an artists work without their consent It's an algorithm that sees it as a piece of data it doesn't function as the same way we do,while you can't copyright or claim an art style it doesn't change the fact you are using someone's else data without their permission
I DO blame the tools creators. They took art without permission/consent/compensation to make their tools that they profit from, and provided few if any safeguards to stop people from cloning artists directly.
On the case of AI art, I don’t like IP laws, and without those there is no legal problems with Ai and art made by them. There are moral issues with it, but that’s mainly some bad actors. If you really want to get rid of those embrace AI art and just target the bad actors, otherwise you are labeling everyone who uses AI as bad and they will not care about doing worse.
But it’s not just a few bad actors, every major art generator is fundamentally built on the artwork of people who did not consent to that use. There are certainly people using the generators who don’t have any ill intent and support artists, but using the AI at all inherently supports the flawed foundation it comes from. You may disagree on whether it’s technically theft or not, but the way the AIs were trained is absolutely unethical and cannot be supported if you want current and future AI companies to be held to ethical standards
@@pizzajoke3561 I don’t like IP laws and all social concepts stemming from them. One of them is that you need consent to use someone else work, you need consent for normal property because only one person can use that property at a time, but an infinite number of people can use any set of information at a time.
@@colebehnke7767 IP laws did not invent the idea of intellectual property. People developed those ideas on their own and made things like patent offices, copyright, and trademarks. For sure, plenty of that has been pushed for and abused by corporations for their own ends, but it’s also been instrumental in protecting individuals from corporations stealing their inventions/art/ideas and cutting them out from any fame or money coming from it. Much like Midjourney and Stable Diffusion are doing right now. Let’s go to the logical extent of what you said. Physical property, by being limited by the laws of physics, are limited in their use by individuals. But thoughts are something anyone can have and can be multiplied instantly by sharing it with someone who has not had that thought before. What you sound like you are proposing is a absolute minimum number of barriers to accessing and using information. That includes: Personal information, medical history, military secrets, contracts of all sorts done in confidentiality, private data, etc. All of these are forms of information that no one disputes the need for consent for, but have the same standards applied to them as the information that you believe shouldn’t require consent to know and use. But the blueprints for how to make a ballistic missile are protected because there is a vested interest in making sure that other people are not able to learn the information and make the missile to be used against them. Same with non-tangible products. Contracts made in confidentiality are not shown to others because the product of that contract or its authority can be destroyed by an outside party learning the contents of it and using the info to hurt one or more involved parties. Philosophically, consent is as needed for art and ideas as it is for your bank account information: someone using that information without your permission could ruin your life. Is consent a perfect standard? No, even if you willingly give someone your bank account password, they can still do harm with that and make you regret giving consent. But it should always be an opt-in system rather than an opt-out one. Because once someone has your bank account, that missile blueprint, or yes, your artwork, you can’t opt-out of the damage they cause to you
ai art disgusts me on a visceral level. either get permission if you want ai-based art to be based on a specific artist, or don't use it at all. i'm more or less lucky, my usual style isn't exactly clean and is therefore not exactly popular, but it pisses me off.
@@pelontrix You do that because if you take someone’s tools, you deprive him of those tools, but if you take someone’s ideas you don’t deprive them of it.
@@colebehnke7767 > considering art to be ideas > have you considered the effort that it took for me to even learn how to do art > jesus fucking christ get off the internet and touch grass
@@colebehnke7767 I heavily disagree. You never know what purpose an individual is using your IP for, regardless of whether or not they attribute the creator. If I made a piece of art and found it was being used to promote/sell something I don't support, it would be assumed that I endorse it. Imagine if you made yourself a superhero and made a short comic, and found it was being used as promotional material for Marvel/DC and you don't like the movies. They attribute you in the credits for making the character, but they didn't ask permission, and now they're making money off something they didn't create. It doesn't matter if the character is in the movie or not - it was used *for profit* **without your consent.** Alternately, if a painting you made was used for political propaganda you're against.
![Incredible Tower Defense & Automation Mashup! - Mob Factory [Demo]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/svtmJxHCBmA/mqdefault.jpg)
amazon warehouse simulator looks great
LMAAOO
Heart attack
@joaoaugusto6290 ah yes google "LMAAOO" needs translating to english
Funny I thought it was a fedex simulation too me
8:04 "I really like the idea of pushing back against the darkness." Buddy I think thats just the creeper world mindset kickin in.
I literally just ran across this game on Steam and it pops up on my subscription feed. You are on it my dude.
Love me some Atrio! Isto is an absolute amazing person. Have loved watching the development of this game!
Do you actually love Isto's content, or were you just scooped in by the clickbait titles and thumbnails?
@@commanderfoxtrot as someone who got to hang out with isto at TwitchCon for a while I can in fact say I like his work.
Isn't the team like three people?
@@commanderfoxtrot I’m out of the loop what happened?
Would be great to see more if you do decide to do that!
I remember when you played this title initially on your channel. Glad to see that it got a formal 1.0 release.
Fun Fact! GTA V in Brazil, wasted was localized to "Se Fodeu" which basically means "You got fucked"
56:45 I find it funny how Wander doesn‘t even register the batteries Right next to him
One way I've seen AI art argued for is this:
"If you gave a ten year old access to all public art, and then they sat down and did their best to redraw each image, you'd eventually have an artist with a style similar to whatever type of art they were working on."
"When said teenager then starts posting/selling art, are they doing a crime? The style they produce is very similar to, and competes with existing artists."
"AI does the exact same thing, just way faster, at the direction of someone who never learned to draw."
"It is an incredibly similar problem to the conflict between the weaving guilds and textile industrialization. A previously artisan industry has suddenly been threatened by mass production."
As for 'AI art is theft of the public collections', the best way I've seen it described by a career artist and programmer is this:
"I draw for myself, but I live in Capitalism."
"Little of my art would be public if I had my choice, but in order to spend a significant amount of time doing art I must be paid for it."
"I have to put examples out, advertise them, and then do commissions."
"Most commissions are later posted publicly by the commissioner."
"There was no choice in my work being public, and I dislike that it is being used as raw materials to craft my replacement and force me to stop doing art due to financial issues caused by oversupply."
Artists are upset because they have a skill that they put time and effort into and they are about to see it become useless. It sucks.
Complaining about scraping is pointless because AI is trained on images; it just needs a camera. Art scrapping is cheaper and faster, but having an AI learn from existing styles versus independently invent them ends up in the same place- the AI can produce those styles.
(I'm assuming progress continues; I'd be pissed if AI hits a wall where some stuff can be duplicated and others cannot and I was in the former category because I was included in the training data. It doesn't look like that is the case since you can feed the AI its own output in order to train it.)
I think an alternative way to look at it is that most artwork posted online is under some form of creative license. These licenses usually control not just reproductions of the work, but also derivative work created from them. In my mind, this means that all AI artwork must be held to the most strict creative license for derivative works among those used in its training set. As far as I understand the most common creative licenses, this will mean that nothing produced by the AI can ever be sold.
@@zacharyherl8080
You can use AIs to make art to train other AIs; would this be covered by the same rules?
If not, it is toothless. If yes, it essentially means you can never sell anything made by an AI.
@@samuelskinner7704 I would argue yes. If each AI is limited by the most restrictive license in its training material, then anything trained by its output would have the same limitation.
Honestly, all an AI creator has to do is first train on a public source as a proof of concept, and then rake in some funding dollars to hire artists or buy their work to train an entirely new AI.
@@zacharyherl8080
The issue with 'anything from restrictive sources is equally restrictive' is proving it once you are no longer dealing with the original.
"Honestly, all an AI creator has to do is first train on a public source as a proof of concept, and then rake in some funding dollars to hire artists or buy their work to train an entirely new AI."
Or you release you stable diffusion for free and private individuals produce models which you integrate latter for free.
Love this game and have been looking forward to full release. Can we get a full lp?
Cool! Love this game, looks AWESOME!
If you like it and wonder how it was made you can check out the game dev videos
Yeah i know how you feel with the art scraping,getting your hard work fed into a machine sucks
In another note i remember seeing this game's dev logs videos,glad to see how far it came!
I don't really get it. People always seem to say "Without their consent" but it was with their consent, they didn't read or care about the EULA of the place they registered to showcase their art. Like, I can understand it being a sore spot, but when you sign up to these places, if they're free and good, you are the product - this is a process that has been working for years, companies selling your data for a profit.
@@BaneWilliams nah, while I do agree that the sooner people accept that AI generated art is here to stay the better (tough there does need to be a distinction on the result), no one reads EULAs. You are the product but you also get to complain about excessive abuse.
@@BaneWilliams yeah, no they may be selling your behavioural data (like personal preference or wishes through whatever) but they can’t just sell someone’s art as it is the artist’s intellectual property. If you would ask permission/at least give credit to an artist for, say, a video, then you should ask permission for stable diffusion.
@@BaneWilliams they weren't talking about _legality,_ they were talking about *morality.*
It's also very, very debatable whether those EULA's are even legally enforceable (or rather, which parts are enforceable) in the first place, given their nature and intended reader. So even from an entirely legal perspective, it's nowhere _near_ as black and white as your comment makes it seem. And obviously there's the ethical side of things too.
It seems kinda silly to say "I don't understand how those people couldn't foresee this [absurdly specific] thing happening that I didn't really see coming either".. that's not how human beings work. We don't generally think of art as "data" (even though it technically is) as a society, and as such, the rules might not apply correctly. That's the discussion people are having, and it's a discussion worth having. Imo, the answers are not even slightly obvious (right now) and pretending otherwise is foolish.
edit: LOL, I was not expecting the game to specifically poke fun at the "incomprehensible EULA" trope I was talking about, that was a nice surprise :)
@@BaneWilliams These clauses/"features" have been sneaked in past peoples noses via updates and the like, having become the standard against their wishes that has to be *explicitly opposed* instead of explicitly agreed to like would be more honest...and even *if* people refused it, next update it´s there again anyways, just with small changes as to no longer "be the same thing" on legal technicalities.
That way people are being scammed out of their intellectual property and rights in the most dickish ways.
Been following the dev logs of this game since Wander last played this. The games pretty neat.
The best way to kill the AI pipeline is to feed it Disney art.
You can`t go wrong with a couple lawsuits from a huge media conglomerate.
id love to see 1 or 2 more episodes of this (or more!)
about the collage discussion: Copyright law is different in education. You're allowed to use art without the express permission in an education context. This means that products which are made and used solely in the context of school, may use any artworks they want. This is true for teachers and students, which mean that collages in class are no issue whatsoever. Of course, students are then not allowed to use these collages in any context outside of school, unless they abide by copyright law.
That's not quite accurate. The better answer is that no one is going to bother suing a school.
Copyright is fun in that there _aren't_ clear rules, it's all a mess of semiconsistent court rulings. The only way to know for sure if something is legal is to try it and get sued. Yes, that's dumb and horrible. Welcome to the American legal system.
@@Khaim.m We should just get rid of IP laws, they are redundant and just hammer creativity. Sure in doing so AI art would be made fully legal, but that negative is worth the positives.
@@colebehnke7767 I don't disagree, but there's no chance in hell that ever happens. Best we can hope for is incremental change.
oh hey i also am going to do this i have been beta testing this and i hope you like this one ISTRO inc is a great compony and the discord is a great community i 100% recommend lol
I'd like to see more of this game when you have more time
Hah, they call it the "Sub-Servience Test" instead of a subservience test.
Neat game, thanks bro :)
Love that you played for a full hour on this. Found it first on another channel, but was unsatisfied by the short duration so I searched around and lo and behold, Wander has a full gameplay, just what I wanted!
Edit: Hot damn, I thought an hour would have enough progress to go from hand picking to full-automation. I guess this game is harder than I thought.
When I saw the yellow eyes in the darkness the Cats overture just started playing in my head lol.
"Jellicle Cats" for me.
That's my baseline background music anyway, though. It's... rather unfortunate :/
@@idontwantahandlethough it's a banger though.
Unless it's the film version, in which case... sorry for your loss.
Oh Catrio"c" is Finally out!!!
Harvesting your own corpse for resources sold me on this game.
SUCH a good game! Been playing since alpha, and the creativity never fails to amuse
Would love to see more of this
Text to image generation AI is much more similar to humans looking at your artwork in order to learn to produce their own, blending it with the styles of hundreds of other styles of art which they’ve seen
Atrio made though the lawsuit?
Bro this an automation game, automate some shit lol. Over here doing everything yourself. Run those power orbs straight into the machine.
Also...Best dev vlogs EVAR
Who’s gonna tell him that you can position the picker pal stations above and below each other so there’s no need for conveyor belts?
are many these sound effect from the first Ufo: enemy unknown?
id love to see more
Found this from the Atrioc stream lol
I like watching you and Splattercatgaming... the problem is that that usually means that my bank account hates that I like watching you and Splattercatgaming...
this game look really fun, are you gona play more of it ?
Looks cool
AI art softwaree acts as a psudo artist. When you're learning art, you look at other artist's work and learn to do things by seeing how they did things. The AI does the same. Its not stealing artwork, it is simply training itself with them hence why we don't see perfectly done things like hands, feet, or other complex objects. If it was stealing artwork, we wouldn't be seeing the abominations the many AI's give us. Its often coming down to people not knowing how the AI's get the results they do, not knowing that in order to mimic a style the ai must be fed specific prompts and information, and being afraid it's somehow going to replace artists or infringe on your work- which it won't.
There's a lot of misinformation purposely fed to the masses about AI image generation mostly by people that haven't even looked into the technology and it's current scope and limitations... The most hilarious one I found is how AI models steal thousands of images and "mesh" them together to create an artwork...
Are there Difficulty adjust or Accessibility settings to tone down or turn off the "encroaching darkness" timers?
Gameplay with endless ticking clocks kicks up my anxiety, lol.
No difficulty settings, but you get upgrades that increases how long your flashlight lasts. Plus you can keep upgrading your power and adding more lights so you don't really need to be out in the dark if you don't want to. Most of the time anyway.
Please do more of this
It’s also available on Xbox. Wish there was an Apple compatible version on steam.
Do you have a secondary channel where you could upload your playthroughs? I love seeing those, Prey was awesome and Resident Evil Village was very entertaining.
I used to do full series here, but had to stop since YT changed the algorithm- which caused views to drop off pretty hard. Someday I'll start series back up again, but I'm currently juggling a bunch of other tasks and don't have the time (or the endurance) to do them regularly at the moment.
What keys do you press to dodge roll?
It's great and all but why does wonder hold his coffee ☕ like that?
a better argument to bring up for the whole AI art thing is, AI writing a lot of scrip writers where troubled by it but the whole industry did not collapse, thu you have a point they should never feed your art to AI without your permission
If you made something you get to choose how/if its used. You DO NOT need to justify it. It's your property.
I disagree, information cannot be properly. Being the one who made it doesn’t let you dictate how it is used, that’s LTV bullshit. As a creator the only thing you are deserving is the truth, aka attribution.
nice
I totally agree with you about AI stealing artist’s works without permission.
You shouldn’t need to ask for permission, IP laws are redundant and not necessary.
@@colebehnke7767 I think the issue comes from copyright laws not accounting for this new technology.
@@CoolJosh3k I don’t think IP laws should be a thing, the fact that without IP laws AI art could never be legally challenged is just a coincidence.
12:40 agh yeah, it's awful
Art AI learned to make art the same way you did, by looking at lots of art, analyzing art techniques, and making and critiquing it's work. It would be a bit hypocritical to say that the art a human makes based on their skill and knowledge of existing works and styles isn't reproduction, but AI doing the same thing is. I think the real take away is that when you publish art in an open-license platform, that it should be obvious to you that it's open-license so you can choose whether you are okay with that. Hopefully, most people are okay with it, but if you actually intent to sell your work, that's a good reason not to be okay with it, and that's an obvious concern that those platforms are keenly aware of and mat choose not to address it as their platform would get less submissions.
Nah. There's a vast gulf between me learning by looking at other art and a machine feeding art into a digital wood chipper and then recombining it to make something 'new'.
Baseline, I'll never be able to fully replicate someone else's work without dedicating a serious chunk of my life to it, while these programs can be spun up to virtually clone someone else within a few hours.
I get from a consumer/AI advocate perspective that seems fine, but there is something seriously wrong about feeding people's hard work into a machine to replace them. Maybe for burgers and menial stuff, but not creative work. Especially not in a capitalist society where people who are displaced by things like this are potentially left permanently incapable of finding new work without dedicating time and money they might not have to retrain in another field.
@@wanderbots You are straw-manning how an AI works. It's not doing copy-pasta, it Is literally learning in a very similar way, in fact, to how a brain learns, and when it creates art work, it's not pulling images from a database and cobbling them together, it's again behaving much more like how a brain processes data with concepts and by bits and pieces.
Humans are fully capable of reproducing works, and the fact that the AI tends to be better at that thing than you, doesn't make it any less valid. You are better than an AI at certain things, that doesn't invalidate your benefit or right to create.
It's interesting that you think taking jobs from the food industry is okay, but, coincidently, taking your job isn't. Could you explain why your job shouldn't be taken but other people's jobs should?
I don't normally like this type of game. They all seem to demand you min/max and I don't play games that way. HOWEVER. This one appeals because thematically you are just a dumb android anyway...
I think AI art is more similar to taking inspiration.
All creativity is ideas taken from others, just reframed and reconstructed. I don't think AI art is inherently different so long as it's done properly.
Nah man, throwing artists art into a grinder that can mass produce it/something similar is morally wrong, and arguably illegal.
They need to train the ai with public domain or licensed works only, and then its fine.
yep. imo the blame should lie not with the ai tools themselves or their creators, but with shitty users of those tools who just use them to basically copy someone's artwork to claim it for themselves
This goes double for the chuds who specifically throw a specific artist's body of work into an ai to duplicate them specifically.
I personally disagree.
I'm not against the technology itself but i don't think you should feed an artists work without their consent
It's an algorithm that sees it as a piece of data it doesn't function as the same way we do,while you can't copyright or claim an art style it doesn't change the fact you are using someone's else data without their permission
I DO blame the tools creators. They took art without permission/consent/compensation to make their tools that they profit from, and provided few if any safeguards to stop people from cloning artists directly.
Huh, where did my last comment go?
On the case of AI art, I don’t like IP laws, and without those there is no legal problems with Ai and art made by them. There are moral issues with it, but that’s mainly some bad actors. If you really want to get rid of those embrace AI art and just target the bad actors, otherwise you are labeling everyone who uses AI as bad and they will not care about doing worse.
But it’s not just a few bad actors, every major art generator is fundamentally built on the artwork of people who did not consent to that use. There are certainly people using the generators who don’t have any ill intent and support artists, but using the AI at all inherently supports the flawed foundation it comes from. You may disagree on whether it’s technically theft or not, but the way the AIs were trained is absolutely unethical and cannot be supported if you want current and future AI companies to be held to ethical standards
@@pizzajoke3561 I don’t like IP laws and all social concepts stemming from them. One of them is that you need consent to use someone else work, you need consent for normal property because only one person can use that property at a time, but an infinite number of people can use any set of information at a time.
@@colebehnke7767 IP laws did not invent the idea of intellectual property. People developed those ideas on their own and made things like patent offices, copyright, and trademarks. For sure, plenty of that has been pushed for and abused by corporations for their own ends, but it’s also been instrumental in protecting individuals from corporations stealing their inventions/art/ideas and cutting them out from any fame or money coming from it. Much like Midjourney and Stable Diffusion are doing right now.
Let’s go to the logical extent of what you said. Physical property, by being limited by the laws of physics, are limited in their use by individuals. But thoughts are something anyone can have and can be multiplied instantly by sharing it with someone who has not had that thought before. What you sound like you are proposing is a absolute minimum number of barriers to accessing and using information. That includes:
Personal information, medical history, military secrets, contracts of all sorts done in confidentiality, private data, etc.
All of these are forms of information that no one disputes the need for consent for, but have the same standards applied to them as the information that you believe shouldn’t require consent to know and use. But the blueprints for how to make a ballistic missile are protected because there is a vested interest in making sure that other people are not able to learn the information and make the missile to be used against them. Same with non-tangible products. Contracts made in confidentiality are not shown to others because the product of that contract or its authority can be destroyed by an outside party learning the contents of it and using the info to hurt one or more involved parties. Philosophically, consent is as needed for art and ideas as it is for your bank account information: someone using that information without your permission could ruin your life. Is consent a perfect standard? No, even if you willingly give someone your bank account password, they can still do harm with that and make you regret giving consent. But it should always be an opt-in system rather than an opt-out one. Because once someone has your bank account, that missile blueprint, or yes, your artwork, you can’t opt-out of the damage they cause to you
This game looks cool, but the creator makes clickbait videos of the dev process...
ai art disgusts me on a visceral level. either get permission if you want ai-based art to be based on a specific artist, or don't use it at all. i'm more or less lucky, my usual style isn't exactly clean and is therefore not exactly popular, but it pisses me off.
Well I’m against IP laws in general, you should never need permission, but you always should attribute.
@@colebehnke7767 i don't like IP laws very much, but generally speaking, if you want to use someone else's tools, you get permission, right?
@@pelontrix You do that because if you take someone’s tools, you deprive him of those tools, but if you take someone’s ideas you don’t deprive them of it.
@@colebehnke7767 > considering art to be ideas
> have you considered the effort that it took for me to even learn how to do art
> jesus fucking christ get off the internet and touch grass
@@colebehnke7767 I heavily disagree. You never know what purpose an individual is using your IP for, regardless of whether or not they attribute the creator. If I made a piece of art and found it was being used to promote/sell something I don't support, it would be assumed that I endorse it. Imagine if you made yourself a superhero and made a short comic, and found it was being used as promotional material for Marvel/DC and you don't like the movies. They attribute you in the credits for making the character, but they didn't ask permission, and now they're making money off something they didn't create. It doesn't matter if the character is in the movie or not - it was used *for profit* **without your consent.** Alternately, if a painting you made was used for political propaganda you're against.