How to defeat AI prompters with logic (Lecture 2/6)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 січ 2023
- Watch the next part here: • AI art is illegal and ...
EU crowdfunder - Help protect our art and data from AI companies
gofund.me/1cd549ba
US crowdfunder Protecting Artists from AI Technologies
gofund.me/2df3dc07
My collection of fresh A.I. memes, you can look at, laugh at and share:
imgur.com/a/CGMSWqR
-----------------------------
New to 2D animation? I will teach you to animate with my course: www.animatorguild.com/courses....
Support the production of these free videos on Patreon:
/ animatorguild
Join our community on discord: / discord
__________________
ANIMATION SOFTWARE I use: www.tvpaint.com/
The accompanying SOFTWARE I use (Adobe CC): tinyurl.com/v7fvqgo
___________________
My Website:
www.howardwimshurst.com/
I work professionally as a freelance animation producer and consultant
MY PLAYLISTS TO WATCH:
My animated films - goo.gl/8kkgqD
Animation tutorials - goo.gl/TV50zo
Discussions about animation and art - goo.gl/BwbHbI
Industry advice and freelancing discussions - goo.gl/kajjK8
My PODCAST on Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/0kKfIDK...
TUMBLR: / howardwimshurst
TWITTER: / wimsanimations - Фільми й анімація
Watch the next part here: ua-cam.com/video/Nz8yiHhp7_8/v-deo.html
EU crowdfunder - Help protect our art and data from AI companies (I donated to this one)
gofund.me/1cd549ba
US crowdfunder Protecting Artists from AI Technologies
gofund.me/2df3dc07
My collection of fresh A.I. memes, you can look at, laugh at and share:
imgur.com/a/CGMSWqR
Thank you so much Howard. You know when all this ai stuff started, I really began to feel depressed for what can be the longest period of my life so far you know. And when chat gpt released, its like all the creative things that I enjoy such as writing, drawing and music began to feel somewhat hollow. I felt as though I was slowly losing a piece of myself as time went on, unable to create anything without the thought that by the time I get to the level I want, no one will take notice of my work as they can do it with minimal effort. That there'll be so much content dilution and likeness that all other artists would be unseeable. That no one can tell whether it was man or machine or if it was genuine or not.
We don't need to be protect from AI,it's just evolution we just need to know how as an artist to use Ai as an advantage for ourself.
I see that you deleted my comment instead of ignoring it, or addressing it :(
Paraphrasing one of AI-apologists arguments: "Coal power plants do exactly what humans do, emit CO2. Therefore if want to stop CO2 emission, you should stop breathing".
Sometimes, the scale has to be taken into consideration. Also, human artist don't work the same way AI does. We cannot feed images directly into our brains.
Imagine if I could just feed images into my brain and magically become able to make decent looking images, my life would be so much easier as an artist, but also much more boring.
Anime villain levels of hypocrisy from the Stability CEO. "Overthrow your oppressors! Rebel against the elite!" - Signed, an oppressor and top 0.0001% of wealthiest individuals on the planet
Here is my argument to bring in the public concern so they can look into the future: if any image or data can be scraped off the internet in order to be put into AI and sold, what happens if your private pictures get put into AI? If copyrighted art is considered fair game, what about your medical records, your embarrassing photos from Facebook, your face on incriminating evidence, your child's face on illegal NSFW, or more? None of your data is safe
@cable Wait what... 💀
That's disgusting... 😠🗿
More than that what if AI starts gathering your job data and then makes "better" version merging with other's work and replacing people who's laughing at artists?
@@c4blec yeah I have seen that. I feel like that needs to be emphasized more into the public because these AI generators could probably spit out some horrific stuff if someone really tried to
You understand that those images don't exist in the actual AI database, right? As for pasting your child's face onto NSFW images - that's a lot easier to do with photoshop.
@@waltlock8805 medical images have been found, but i am trying to say that if copyrighted material is allowed in the database, where does the line get drawn? Sure. photoshop might be easier to use to doctor specific photos. Before AI generators, you didn't pay to get a product with someone's random photos included in its data. With AI, you don't know exactly which photos and data were used to make up the end result. Unless it is obvious which photos were used, you cannot be sure whether a face closely resembles a person who doesn't want their face used
Whenever someone say that AI art is "advancement" ask them what exactly does it advance? What kind of problems does it solve? Do we replace a job that is monotonus or harmfull for health? The only people that benefit from it are those who want instant gratification and some people that just need piece of art for book cover / album, etc... But that's about it.
I invite all AI-bros to change my mind, but I genuinely don't see how AI art is helping society.
I'm going to be perfectly up front and honest on all of this.
You are never going to win an argument with someone who says they want something, for example tell a 6 year old they don't want a cookie when you show them a cookie, it's impossible.
The only way to make that go away is by not giving them the means to get the thing they want, now there's 2 ways I've thought of it at the moment.
1. Just don't post work online, do speedpaints and nothing more, that negates their ability to get your art to insert it into an AI generator.
2. If you need to put it online, you need a HUGE amount of very obtrusive watermarks that are all on your art that makes it clearly blocked so that when stuffed in an AI bot the AI will not be able to tell the difference between the text/symbols and the art.
The way to fix it like this is to get people to like your art and ten have physical copies sold of it in things like artbooks and even then those should have a watermark on them - not as profound as the ones you do for online but still there.
And if you want a non-watermark copy you need to pay the correct sum for it that the artist thinks is appropriate for the work put in.
Those are the only solution to this mess, starve the AI bots of their source and let the industry of it die, because companies aren't going to care Joe Bob McGillagunty is a great artist if they can make 120 thousand on 3 of his images and not give him a penny, there's 1000 Joe Bob's out there that are identical to him who they also can plumb for it, they won't care as long as they're making bank over it.
smart idea
The AI bots aren't starved though. Billions of images have already been appropriated and abused daily. These AI generative apps aren't just limited to online use. They're being used on PCs and trained privately as well. I've personally seen some private channels in Asia (particularly in Russia and China) where 50,000 images a day a generated into the chat. And these channels are growing in popularity daily. It's not going away - it's being abused.
AI will win. A decade ago if you said there'll be chatbots that none of its response are hard-coded and it could solve multitude of problems, people will think you watched too much science-fiction. Now its almost a mundane reality.
As an artist (hobbyist not professional but still) that also is studying engineering and interested in an AI profile I believe it is really shameful what their did and continue doing as if it was all free for their use and gain and not care even the slightest at the people who was going (and as we see it IS) being affected of all this blatant theft.
This should definitely not be legal but instead they are becoming millionaires while artists struggle to get their point across. It's ridiculous
Thank you so much for this, Howard. I am really passionate about art to the point I might just end up marrying it. Seeing this whole AI situation sorta threw me into a frenzy. I've spent so much time thinking about the future and if art will hold the same value as it has been. This video has made it clear to me that before the existentialism, we should focus on the unethical side of AI. I will do the best I can to spread awareness!
We are going to beat this thing and we are all going to make it
I’d say AI art is already somewhat of a taboo. Only the most audacious are ever proud of generating AI art.
The majority of users of AI art are people who just want to spam AI portraits of themselves in their social media page, but they really just see it as a toy and probably wouldn't care if it disappeared. The AI art arguers though - the ones that harass artists, go out of their way to be edgy and controversial, and are proud to cause as much disruption as possible - they're almost always someone who comes off as a psychopath. Zero empathy, no contributions to society, pirates digital content and wants everything for free, and is probably defending AI art just because it gives them more porn to consume.
The most audacious, or the people with the least amount of self-awareness. (Cof Cof, Shadiversity, Cof Cof)
I can just imagine people who spend 100 to 1000 of hours to there art work just to be compared to stolen art work
i wanna go to that company and blow up those midjourney servers
Not to mention, when AI starts doing half the work, your company is going to start paying you half the salary. Those who think you’ll have free time to do wonders while the AI works for us, yeah right.. free time to go through rubbish bins for food.
People: "Artists are an self-entitled elite who want to gatekeep creativity from the masses"
Artists: "Constantly die extremely poor despite making some of the most beautiful works humanity has ever seen"
Wow. I was kinda on the edge, but all the points make sense.
I'm completely here for this.
thank you for making these
18:20 there's this thing in AIs like this call "overfitting" where an AI without a large enough dataset will directly copy off its training data instead of combining anything, purely because it doesnt have enough to go off of, but it can also just be caused by a bad model.
This clearly is the second case because we all know it has an extremely large data set.
overfitting is a pretty smart way of re-branding plagiarism. Whether accidental or not, every single AI user is at risk of unknowingly plagi - I'm sorry - of """overfitting""" their images.
@@HowardWimshurst Yup. That's really one of the bigger issues, especially when its art that the artist didnt consent to having uploaded to the model.
Reminds Ms. H!tler almost a century ago, wasn't accepted to art school, started a genocide of "lesser" humans, true art of cruelty.
Not sure about you, but my pencils are actually several hundred thousand dollars each
Artists start with an empty canvas, AI starts with the finished work of all the artists it stole from.
Its not the same process!
> *Artists start with an empty canvas*
That's gonna need a big "citation needed," considering the amount of works we see regularly, on top of influences from the people, sights, interactions, nature around us, that all go into a work we create even subconsciously.. AND because the AI doesn't generate from existing images.
I love how they say we're depriving the masses of a "creative outlet", when the people using prompts to generate AI art aren't creating anything to begin with. It's literally the exact same thing as asking for a comission, except you're not paying the artist. (Hence why it should be regulated.)
You could train union organizers here in the US. In the state I live in we slowly trying to get unions to be popular in animation studios. Great info my friend. One important detail is someone funded this”tool” and someone funds big pocket politicians to keep the legal area grey here.
If you put me in contact with the right people, I would be happy to advise and offer any guidance that could be useful.
😏AI: stands for Adult Industry because because that’s the only audience who uses it. No genuine Artist will admit with pride that they create their signature artwork for adult entertainers, the way I see it let the Adult Entertainment industry make their own AI art.
A monopoly, by definition, cannot be a bunch of independent creators
+++ for the algorhytm. i really hope your videos will go viral. thank you so much for this incredable detailed videos.
Thanks for bringing this up. I'm a biganner Artist myself and I hope to create a carrier out of it but, as you said this AI tools are really bulling Artists and killing the creatives in many. So it's true we need to stand up for our selves not only as an artist but also as a dreamer.
So many of the AI art bro don't understand Deep Learing at all. Deep Learning Ai is one of the easy forms of AI to build cause they are statistic base. the AI don't think, if the AI don't have the data or a way to build data they will only do the min outcome. Ie noting or random blobs.
Sorry I can't fully agree with you..
As an artist and a programmer i'm not opposed to Deep Learning technology in general. There are some amazing tools, the one i used the most often is Denoising (and many others do without even realizing).
The Cascadeur animation program is another great example, that uses self made, or commissioned datasets.
Just because there are people and companies exploiting a tool and use it in an unethical way. Doesn't mean the technology itself is unethical.
I hold the same opinion about piracy software, despite being a creator.
And the same about guns, despite being a living human being.
I admire your activism though. It's necessary that pushback exist for the sake of balance, and figuring out where to go as humanity.
I am not opposed to the technology either. Check my last video. What I am opposed to is that behind closed doors, these AI companies had a big long board meeting where they discussed whether they could get away with robbing the entire digital art industry. They decided no for music and yes for digital art. That is what I have a problem with. Not the technology itself.
@@HowardWimshurst Ah ok that clears it up, i got the wrong impression from this video then. my bad
7:56 that's insane...wow
Hey Howard long time fan and fellow supporter against Ai Art
Small tip of advice.
I see that the ai art lectures have been split into 6 pieces but past part 1 has been put to unlisted! I don't know if you plan to make them all public in the future, but if not I think it would be good to have all 6 parts In a playlist on your channel so people can find the parts easier which can be helpful to share to others!
I hear you! They are unlisted because I haven't made the thumbnails yet
@@HowardWimshurst oh ok that makes perfect sense, you did say you were working on other things besides this as well, My b!
Keep up the great work my man!
Lol. This reminds me of the seething that happened in the early days of music downloads. Napster, kazaa, limewire etc.
*YOU WOULDN'T DOWNLOAD A CAR WOULD YOU?*
*YOU WOULDN'T PROMPT SOME ART WOULD YOU*
Only took like 10 yrs after that to get spotify. So in 10 years I wouldn't be suprised if you tell the AI, I want to see a movie like this, with characters like this, or just have the entire AI autogenerate something from an input of 'I want to see a new star wars movie'
the only chance we have against Ai , is to blow up the servers
Hahaha no 😂
We will make their crime recognized by the highest authorities in the world. That is much better than becoming a vigilante group
@@HowardWimshurst i hope that works
I would love to see AI art generating platforms to pay artists to use their data sets. If they don't, art innovation would stop. And art work in my opinion would plateau and cease to get better. But if artists were paid, even potential royalties for how often their artwork is used in AI software and a win win is found, then not only will AI images be great, ethical but artists would continue to innovate and train the models to get better and better. That's what I would love to see and I hope this happens in the future.
16:47 I wonder if there’s a way to create a virus that deletes the latent space of these programs 🤔
There’s always a way to fix things, that’s just how this universe works (every problem has a solution, even if it’s unethical)
that could risk making them look like the "good guy" victims I think. Artists don't need to resort to such tactics. Expose it for the scam it is. Have it written explicitely into law that this kind of mass exploitation is not allowed.
Great case. The 30 million image that isn't taken by pro artists really puts it into perspective.
I think the situation is complex and simple at the same time: the tools to create Ai art are now among us, they can bring disadvantages and advantages but there is no turning back.
However, I think it is appropriate to regulate them.
All the rest is chatter.
" There's no turning back" is propagated by these few AI firms so that they can profit off of images they don't own for as long as possible before we all come to our senses
@@HowardWimshurst so you propose to banish Ai generated images? Do you really think that it is possible? I saw amazing things made with Ai in animation, I think this technologies are amazing creative tools. But I’m agreed that a certain type of regulation could be right.
@@HowardWimshurst There are a bunch of locally run open source generators already, with thousands of models already trained available for download. Even if you can regulate the big corporations, good luck getting people to delete their local models.
13:50 or someone know knows anything about how AI works.
computers cant be creative, they cant even think. Its 1s and 0s, inputs and outputs.
just values going through calculations.
You give it a prompt "dog" so it goes through its randomly generated noise, pixel by pixel, comparing each one to the data set for the images it has that have the tag "dog", and it keeps going through until it copies one or more images to make a "dog".
im simplifying for the sake of a youtube comment but basically thats what it does.
hmm...wondering if this has happened or not because it'd be funny if it were
It's already bad enough that anyone is victim of this, regardless if it's a celebrity or not, but even worse, it isn't just celebrities that are being vitcims of this. There are a lot of reports of people using AI to create NSFW imagery of other people without their consent and sharing it online and all. This honestly should be considered a straight up form of sexual assault or something.
You need to be morally bankrupt to side with AI
And/or extremely entitled/entitled to other people's skills.
@@Cellardoor_ IMO that falls into a fallacious thinking of "opposing a means to an end = being part of the problem." If you believe that the tech can be done ethically and isn't inherently the problem vs how it's used, that doesn't mean you side with abusing AI, and thus doesn't mean characterizations like them soly being (sic) *"(people who are) entitled to other people's skills"* is logical. If anything, it's dishonest.
As an artist. I think AI is really, but really really cool but exacerbates problems in our societal structures.
I mostly agree but here is something that doesn't convince me:
- People love this AI art: First of all, people is just a very loose term, who are they referring by people, right? But in all honesty, I don't think this is far fetched, I do not like the impact that is having, but in a vacuum and for personal use, I think they are amazing. I was thinking in doing like side projects were I could write stories and quickly get like images of how the story would look like, like and advance google image search. I think there's a real value in this technology
- Answer: Whether or not somebody love it, is mostly irrelevant because of all the negative actual consequences it has. You could like Spanish-style bullfighting but that doesn't affect at all many of the implications of why people fight against this practice.
I don't know if this was what you were referring to, but It sounded like just something that it is not true which if its the case, I disagree, I do believe there are people who love this technology and even if they didn't ask for it, they really want it now.
Good take. I guess the massive problem in this space are the grifters who are selling courses on AI art, how to make money using AI, the scammers and the companies who want to make such AI that steals intention away as well.
I love AI, as an alternative to stock images. Sure. I love it for personal use as well. Very cool. I am proponent of using weights and biases, that can make my things more beautiful.
But, a lot of bad actors are out there. I do not like them.
Ok, feel free to discard those weaker arguments I made and use the stronger ones.
if you relay on Ai to help you as an artist , you may just let it do the entire work
being an artist takes alot of hard work and time to master , and Ai is taking that hard work from them and selling in for a profit .
so it either we stop it now , but shutting down the company . or let it do it thing ,and digital art will lose it value since anyone can make it in seconds
There's a massive problem that presents itself very obviously. AI art is morally terrible.
Without consent, a person's art is used as training data, this data is used by the company more times than you can imagine, and it keeps referring to the stolen art. It creates an approximation of people's work by a certain scientific latent space, yadda yadda.
People's art is being scraped without consent and the benefits of creating art as a profession is being shifted from the person who made the art over to whichever ai can scrape that person's art better, it's a stealing competition.
The artist has no say in this, can't even know if their art is in the dataset, yet people reap the benefits of their work without consent.
I know how latent space works, it does not work like a person works. Stop trying to compare a person taking reference with an ai scraping art.
*A person* can look at a piece of art and extrapolate, understand the meaning and reason for why a person does it, and apply their own take on it.
*An AI* has an unimaginably large library of content which it uses by searching through this library to find out whose art would best work as the approximation of the desired image, based on inputted prompts, etc. This is not "taking reference," it's picking pieces of other's art to run through the latent space so that it blends properly. It's like a dang photobash!
*This is not even close to the same process.*
I wouldn't have an issue with the technology if it weren't being developed to scrape and replace artists, but that's what it is, and it's frustrating! Auuuugh kill me now.
yeah AI apologists seem to think that the AI uses all 5 billion images at once to generate an image. In reality, it has sifted those images like panning for gold. And what rises to the top? a tiny selection of Professional artworks, because they are the highest quality and get the best results for the AI
2:15 nobody *needed* it but I mean look at the public, they have clearly had a blast with this. Mostly Craiyon. Lots of memes and stuff. AI art can make "original" things, you just need to give it a prompt that forces it to take from multiple sources. Multiple sources I acknowledge it likely should not have access to, given, they where stolen, but it does combine multiple things nontheless.
It gives your everyman the ability to make *something* in just a few seconds. Not something nearly as specific to every detail as an actual artist could, but by golly it is something.
But I think that should be the end of it. To use the AI in place of an artist, rather than something people casually do, that's just stealing.
10:47 well that doesnt mean its a bad tool, it was just made via bad methods. If these AIs where trained off consenting artists only, with purely copyright free (or free use or whatever) images, then the tool would be perfectly ok.
I understand your concerns, but the market will decide if AI art will thrive, not the artists. If people want something drawn or written and don't want to pay thousands of dollars for someone to do it, they will cut out the middle man (in this case, the artist themselves). They don't give a whit about moral and ethics. The only thing I can think of that will destroy AI is to not post anymore art online or post to a website that blocks an AI from pulling from its data.
I hear this all the time but in other industries more and more people do give a whit about ethics. Even if it's more expensive and/or uncomfortable. I.E. people go vegan, stop buying unsustainable/green washed clothing, stopped supporting companies like Blizzard and the likes after scandals etc. Ofc not everybody but there is a reason companies love keeping unethical behaviours a secret or frame them diffently (like the AI ceos do in this case) - because people care.
@@minniethriver "in other industries, more and more people do give a whit about ethics". This statement usually refers to the producers, not the consumers. Since consumers drive the market, they decide how well a product will thrive. From my experience in business, the only ethics the majority of consumers have in regards to buying decisions is 1) is it harmful to their own children? 2) is it pornographic or universally distasteful? 3) does it give an advantage to their enemies? or 4) is it too expensive? Since buying AI doesn't pose any of these risks, most consumers will buy anything that is fast and cheap. They don't give a darn about the creator. Why do you think people still buy knock-off Louis Vuitton bags or download music and movies off the internet for free?
@@Juwar1974 this fits neither what I have seen personally in consumers not what I've learned about them at a greater scale in my studies. At least not where I live (germany). Producers are often pressured to be more ethical by consumers. A lot of people deliberately spend more to feel good about themselves and that includes their morality. Ofc there are still a lot of people that buy at places like shein or eat cheap meat etc, I won't deny that. That's why sellers have a mulileveled pricing strategy. But with education, more and more people don't buy stuff they deem exploitative and harmful in the long run. Maybe they start to categorize it in one of your named reasons: buying things that exploits planet and society harms our children in the long run and with thus it is universally distateful.
Ofc all of this is also linked to having the privilege of enough money to care so I'm not here to shame anybody who can't afford being a more responsible consumer but they absolutely do exist and increase. That's why greenwashing became a thing in the first place.
@@minniethriver Again, your focus is on the producer/seller, not the consumer. Yes, consumers pressure producers/sellers to be more ethical, but the reverse is not reciprocated. When seller/producers ask consumers to not buy a product that they see as unethical, that request falls on deaf ears.
@@Juwar1974 I really don't see it like that. Producers/sellers also appear as influencers in their niche market and have power to guide their audience in any direction wanted, but ofc you already need to get customers to listen, what's surely not an easy task. But I'm ok when we disagree on this topic
honestly it could be a new tool. kinda like in 3d visual effect where its used everywhere. well deepfakes for example but used ethicaly.
but thats not where 2D AI is going right now. because in said 3d effect most of the time ou still need to give our own stuff to the ai to process. weher its a phone app that take thousands of photos or just copying natural light/water on something you did yourself.
here you basicly steal someone and just get fun out of it. wich honestly if you want to repurpice this ai in anyway shape or form might as well make it fun app kinda like whe tiktok is doing. as long as its not robbing other artist.
im not directly against AI because there is probably a lot of thing that they can do that we cant. and could help concentrating on what matters to us. AI bros are basicaly saying that knifes are good because we cna freely stab people. thx god we figured out we can also use them for many ifferent things that are way more ethical.
Both artist and prompters are being exploited.Artists for unauthorized use of artworks and AI apologists for their dose of instant gratification.Thing is they could've if they really wanted to do it right from the get go.
There are physical, biological factors like arm length, finger length, the unique arc of each human’s wrist, elbow, shoulder that are permanently encoded in individuals art, that machine algorithms don’t have. The algorithms just melt away the unique characteristics to average it with everything else.
they are literally interpolating between images!
"Get owned with facts and logic AI, neither of which care about your non-existent feelings" - Howard Shapiro
oh jee I hope I'm not as cringey as that man 😂
Love all your art and videos, but this is just 20 minutes of "you wouldn't download a car".
Well I had to get it off my chest. I'll be back to the usual stuff soon, no worries
a style is nothing more than a brand or patentable process. so style-jacking or biting is in fact theft.
Lobotomizing women used to be a medical advancement
The question is how we use new tech. I think in a world with ai, datasets become
Incredibly important. Regulations will 100% happen. Perhaps a licensing model...
The thing is that since the images in those datasets are not contained in any of the AI models that generate images and those models have no access to them after training, the use of those images as training data was transformative. Someone took art and made a machine whose sole purpose is to remove noise from images, it can't be more transformative than that. If it was otherwise I doubt that a company would invest lots of money knowingly and openly infringing the law.
I don't think I avoided talking about the problem of art theft in this comment, I just don't think it ever existed.
Also, some of the examples of damaging new technology are just idiotic: chemical weapons are not and never were new tech, they are the wrong use of new chemical tech, same for surveillance state, just a bad use of cameras and other recordings equipment, eugenics isn't even considered science, where were you going with this argument?
As for the issues with the outputs, like celebrities images being generated, artist style being copied, etc., there are already laws protecting artworks and I don't think there is a need for new ones.
You were very easily fooled by their "rabbit in the hat" magic trick. If the AI doesn't use images, then why did they require those images to train the AI in the first place? It's like fuelling a bombfire with books and then turning around saying "no, we don't use your books - see? Only ashes here!"
AI training is a very advanced irreversible form of data storage - for which they did not even attempt to get permission from the image owners. They should have got permission for every single private / copyrighted image they wanted to train their Ai on, and then we wouldn't have a problem here.
Transformative? I could write a page of code that overlays one copyright image on top of another by a varying percentage - hit go - and see billions of so-called "original" images be churned out. Transformative is a flimsy clause to hide behind, especially for an un-manned software. It's established in law that if the collecting of preexisting material is a purely mechanical task then copyright protection for the compilation of the data won't be granted www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf
Okay, you don't like the comparisons I used, so i will say it without comparisons for you. New technology can lead to massive damage and exploitation, and therefore we should proceed with caution and responsibility and respect. This "ends justify the means" attitude has been used by dictators, crusaders, collonists throughout human history and I caution against it. It's frankly alarming how many people buy it in 2023.
Yes - there are already laws for these things - false impersonation, GDPR, copyright violation, CP production and distribution, data privacy breaches - and this AI technology and its users are responsible for breaking those laws on a massive scale. Not only do we need to enforce our CURRENT laws, we need to agree on regulations. these AI directors have proven that they cannot be trusted to release products in a responsible way. We need transparrency and third party involvement when they release dangerous tools, in the same way that an arms dealer should be held at the boarder when exporting a shipping container full of bazookas.
People can't seem to catch the most important point that AI art lacks. Artists use bunch of references and add THEIR OWN to the art they create, whereas AI completely overlooks that, because that special ability is exclusive to human beings, period.
Yeah AI interpolates between images. It doesn't go outside of its database of images
Artists passing off AI art as traditional art isn't an AI problem, it's a person problem. Most AI artists do state that they use AI.
As for deep fakes - again, not an AI problem, a person problem. Photoshop has been used to this (and is frankly better at it) than AI.
@s smh, big L
You’re gonna hate this comment. But your argument is analogous to saying it was immoral for businessmen in the 1800s to take artisan pottery and textile designs and mass-manufacture them during the industrial revolution. In a sense, those businesspeople did “steal profits” that would have belonged to traditional artisans had the industrial revolution not happened. So, I see your point, but I can make a logical argument that the industrialization of that creative field gave us more affordable products, and traditional pottery and textile creatives did not go extinct, but rather charged more for their wares because people still pay good money for the intangible value of handmade art. The same will likely happen here. You can call it immoral, but I think it goes too far.
You can try and draw similarities between an 1800s case study and a modern problem involving new technology if you want.. But don't get too carried away with the comparison as they are different.
The nihilist "capitalism is unfair - get used to it" argument. I have seen this many times. Are you suggesting that we should not strive for responsible capitalism?
The ends don't justify the means. We need slow, responsible progress or else powerful people will do bad things in the name of radical progress.
@@HowardWimshurst I of course support responsible and ethical capitalism, but to some extent all capitalism is based on a degree of unfairness. Competition begets winners and losers. Capitalism spawned the very technology that created AI art. Truly, all trades will inevitably meet a day when they have to adapt because of technology advancements. I’m not nihilist in the sense that it’s hopeless to resist and AI art will overtake traditional artists. Rather, I’m nihilist in the sense that artists will need to make changes and adjust how they do business. Take the advent of digital art. Or 3D animation overtaking 2D animation. There will always be a crowd that appreciates the unique style and medium of a particularly talented artist, and they will pay handsomely if that artist has good business sense. I think AI art will kill off a lot of less talented artists who don’t rise to that level. Already, you can see the cruel yet beneficial edge of capitalism at work there.
@@Ashman792 this brutal outlook is a neat summary of why I take issue with capitalism as it stands.
"I can make a logical argument that the industrialization of that creative field gave us more affordable products". In a world that is literally drowning in consumerism, it doesn't stand to reason that this end justifies the means. Being able to saturate ourselves in cheap product isn't necessarily a great step forward for humanity. Nor is allowing the general attitude of 'winners vs losers' to continue to perpetuate.
I don't know about you but when I come at my art with that attitude I'm definitely not serving my creative spirit to the best of my ability. It's a shame that so many artists or would be artists are indoctrinated or pressured into this worldview. A sure fire way to stop many in their tracks towards mastery and send them on the unhappy path of mediocrity. AI certainly isn't helping with that. Supporters of it say that it helps the every day person to express themselves creatively. I say the opposite.
It seems to me to be a vacuous pass time of instant gratification that feeds both on artists hard earned mastery and creativity, and on consumers who behave like emotionally stunted toddlers that just want everything now now now without a damn given to the exploited bodies and minds and hands that made that gratification so accessible, while profits are siphoned by our... oh so great innovative genius overlords. Neoliberal capitalism in a nutshell and it's always marginalised communities coming out the worse for it.
Excuse the tone but I'm a little allergic to anything that smells like bending over and taking it from tech bros. Data exploitation in general gets my goat and it is a serious human rights issue. It's not something to be waved aside as if technocracy is our inevitable future. I don't accept it.
@@discordantfungi2741 thank you for that comment. My vaning mental fortitude when having to deal with all the "resistance is futile" comments got a real boost from hearing others who can equally come to the conclusion that, we can absolutely choose to not do or use something, even if it exists. Just like we can absolutely choose to not screw over literally millions of other people in our selfish quests for instant gratification.
@@discordantfungi2741 I think we've reached the point where it comes down to our preferences toward capitalism vs. anti-capitalism (whether that be communism, socialism, or some other equity-based economic system). I'm just here to point out the reality of the situation: that we are very much living in a capitalist economy, and that the only way to change that is to tear the whole system down. Artists are usually the type to advocate for that sort of thing. And, true to form, here we are.
exactly, some people thing because they paying a "price" for AI content means its legit,
its the same thing as paying a thief to steal couple objects-> combine them together,
and then deliver it to your house, paying a criminal does not make his act legit
That's not how it works
> * its the same thing as paying a thief to steal couple objects-> combine them together, *
Well, except it's not, because that's not how this tech works.
Come on folks, you don't need to make up shit about the tech that can be disproven by looking at how it works, in order to raise concerns, express legitimate fears, and raise legitimate ethical issues. You don't need to undermine yourselves like you are with such bizarre analogies.
@@email7919 *the smart argument* : "that's not how it works (( and this is why and this is the evidence )) "
*your moron -1 IQ argument*: "that's not how it works . "
@@DoctorMGL I don't want to waste time on an arguments anymore. Arguing doesn't change anything
I don't think AI art is revolutionary in any way. If they're made to copy art then they copy art like any other person with a printer or camera would. If they're made to take aspects of art and incorporate it into a new creation, then they're doing what humans already do every day. At this point in time, almost everything we make is inspired by something else. Whether that's someone else's creation, one of our previous creations, or something else that exists in the world, we've been inspired and we borrow aspects of what gave us that inspiration to make something we consider to be new. So regardless of if the AI is a crudely designed program that just melts images together or a more refined program that can precisely import details, that in and of itself is a simple clone of human creativity. The real difference would be the amount of effort put into it since a human could do something similar with, let's say, a decade.
I mean AI is just a tool... Like how nuclear bombs are just a tool.
Your artwork is not being loaded into the training data. Any artwork that has been loaded into the training data was purchased in bulk from websites that people signed away their rights to the images on. And even if your artwork was somehow inside of the training data, you're one in billions. Your contribution is less than a penny.
How could we sign away the rights to have our images used in a tech that didn't exist yet?
Also, the AI does not use the billions of images. It sits through the images like panning for gold. It uses the highest quality images (those made by professionals) the overwhelming majority of the time. It is intelligent enough to do that.
@@HowardWimshurst you are not reading the terms of service when you're just blindly throwing your art up on websites.
@@HowardWimshurst also, it is not "copying your art" It is mathematically determining a style (again against billions of images). And no matter how much you would like to you cannot copyright or trademark a style of art
@@blackmartini7684 Most websites state that in terms of agreement that the artists retain the copyrights to their works and the website only retains the right to use their work for advertising their website. I know this is true for Artstation and Deviantart. What happened is that the company LION was asked to find images off the internet with include a lot of art sites.
lets do a little knife metaphore.
the knife is AI thechnology.
AI bros want to youe the knif to stab people. Because yeah. robbing people of their life time work and making somthing they cant addapt to that will force them to change their entire life to live is kinda like stabbing them.
artists dont want AI bros to stab people. but they dont seem to understand how unethical it is.
but you know what they could do, instead of stabing artists, couldnt they give us the kinfe in our artist hads, and let us cook bager meals for them?
if the AI industries get a big enouth backclash, they might change their way. and develop AI more like they do in movies CGI. as actual TOOLS the ARTIST can USE to make the vision of anyone that pay them to be realised better and faster. You know, kinda like digital art. or even color for god sake.
why is it so hard for both parties to understand that this knife can also cook bager meal for both of them?
Does he ever prove that AI is illegally copying images and does it prove it across the board with multiple examples? Because so far all I've heard is ranting. I can't tell if this is unbiased or not.
It's not illegal, just unethical. The problem with copyright laws is that they always have to play catchup with new technology. It won't be like for ever. Eventually ai will be properly regulated like the others in different sectors
The ai's are not trained with "illegaly obtained images", as those artworks are available for all to see online. If I train myself by looking at a picture of the mona lisa, am I stealing the mona lisa? No lol
Oh dear oh dear oh dear
This is really basic buddy
Being able to see an image, and having the rights to use the image in something such as training an AI are two very different things.
Watching a movie does not grant you to use that movie footage in whatever you want. You aren't buying the rights to that footage when you buy a cinema ticket.
@@HowardWimshurst No not really. Your just pissed cause someone can do it much faster and better than a human can.
@@HowardWimshurst How is it different to be able to train yourself from an image or train an ai?
@@Budderluvr mf pickup a pencil if you want to be called an artist!!!
@@24framedavinci13 yea cause film and video games and music aren’t also art.
Cope
you assume that AI prompters concern themselves with Morality.
I wonder what the environmental cost of AI art is...
caught up in the flow are many people who never stopped to question if what they were doing was harming a group of people. They are good people who just aren't very alert. They aren't aware of the issues. They wouldn't buy a stolen car, they wouldn't buy a crocodile skin purse, they wouldn't buy something they knew involved child labour. Let's bring them onto our side
@@HowardWimshurst and there are many that simply do not see the worth in digital art and don't want to understand it. All the "pan I can do that for cheaper" types that we meet on artist alleys in conventions or people who wanna scam us out of art by claiming they have a terminal illness or something like that and all the "gimme dat for free it just takes you 5 minutes" types of this world. To them we are not worth it.
AI Art has various uses that would be absolutely amazing to have. Joel Javier uses EB Synth to have AI help with key frames. Game dev’s use AI to create awesome assets that nobody would “love making” like your arguing. I don’t see the passion in modeling a phone dial for half an hour.
I feel no worse for the artists than I do for all the woodworkers who lost their jobs to ikea and factory made furniture. Especially when AI brings great advantages to those with a minuscule or total lack of a budget. AI isn’t doing something that different from a human looking to another work for inspiration. It’s just doing it on an objective level and doing it MUCH better than almost any human. Also porn Deepfakes have been around for a LONG time. You picked a great time to care about this side of AI. But what about “artists” who draw their art like Shadman. He causes much more pain for others than deepfakes do. Yet none of you complained about this guys presence. Can only wonder why?
Just because you don't enjoy something - don't extend that to an entire population of people who chose to become artists instead of more lucrative career paths. Don't assume that they are all like you.
Also... Give them the right to choose. Why not put it to the test? Make it an opt-in system and see how many artists opt in? AI companies didn't do that because they estimated that the turn out would be slim to none
@@HowardWimshurst huh? You must have meant to reply to someone else cause this is just not about anything I just said. But yea. AI art is overall good for the future of art. Just maybe not the artist’s. Adapt and overcome otherwise your really not needed.
you're another passive sheep that follows the "future" crowd
@@fghsrgu1100 and your not backing up anything your saying. You know why? Cause your stance is dumb as hell and you know it.
i agreed until you pronounced bourgeoisie like that.
Sorry I'm not french 😄
Hey, your argument has been weak from the very start. One is you clearly have shown that you have absolutely done no research behind the codebase, and second is that you are only bashing StabilityAI. Not the companies making proprietary software like OpenAI or Midjourney. Just because they have a closed dataset, doesn't mean they're stealing right?
In Stable Diffusion, it is completely upto prompter's intentions to make that art copyrighted or not. So then it's prompters and grifters to blame rather than Emad. Maybe they can prompt way differently? What about those companies who want to replace the intention part as well? Please Howard, look into this and I hope we can listen to you putting your best case forward.
Also, you made absolute gross statements about Emad without understanding AT ALL where he is coming from. I hope my comment doesn't get deleted and you can address these points. To all the fellow artists, I am sad about the scams done by crypto bros in the name of AI art just as you. Maybe we can arrive at a common ground? Let's see.
Thanks very much!
The wrongdoing of these AI companies does not take expertise and mountains of research to understand. It only take expertise and research if you are attempting to excuse.
They are trained on datasets they had no permission to use. What they did from there is irrelevant. The artists who owned the images did not consent. Plain and simple.
If you are so confident, why not make consent mandatory? Why on earth not? How do you explain that?
I understand perfectly where Emad is coming from. I can smell his ego from a thousand miles away.
@@HowardWimshurst Why Emad? Why not OpenAI? I can assume artists or the guy filing lawsuit might be scared of Microsoft, but I'll hear you first. You just have an image of Emad in your head to be honest.
Stability has made their dataset open sourced. If you are not addressing say OpenAI, you are probably putting a dent on the open source culture too.
Nothing against you, but please take some more context into account. Even if then your argument stands true. Go for it, sure.
also i'm anti ai pro chem weapon
and yet we try to help whack artists learn to make better art. the truth is they're just lazy and want the accolades without the work. Theres nothing creative about it.
"No one needed it." In developing countries where the average salary is $200 a month, yeah they need it. People are using AI generated (theft) art to create books on Amazon - creating thousands of books a month in order to earn a decent living. There are card games in Asia that rip off characters from any popular game (like Brawl Stars) and sell them as battle card games. Insanely popular - and will only be made more popular with AI art because more amateurs can enter the market.
You will see bigger companies hire out concept work with shadowy AI art generative companies in the developing world to avoid law suits and then have their cleanup artists work over it. AI art is here and the genie's been let out of the bottle. As AI art ravages the developing world, it will hit the developed world due to it being insanely quick and cheap. The world runs on greed and capitalism - and AI art removes time, money and opens the floodgates of exploitation.
Another point I want to make. There are many legitimate artists who are using AI art to get ideas from a popular artist and then take into Photoshop to manipulate it so it doesn't have that AI look. They can upscale the image, trace over it, paint over, liquify it and then sell it as original art. That's the dangerous middle-ground we're also seeing.
So you're saying that this has the ability to lift literally millions of people out of poverty? That sounds like an absolute Good Thing(tm) for society.
That's a bit like saying that scam call centres are absolutely needed for young men in Kulkata, because their economy is down.
The ends don't justify the means. Don't cheat your way to success. It's not honest work.
@@waltlock8805 Like Call Centers?
People here slave away for ridiculous hours with less pay to give entitled westerners services. That's not uplifting in the effing least. That does a number on their mental health and isn't even a secure job in the first place.
The world is not America. We don't care about their hypocritical freedom-less freedom seeking states. Nor do we want their bootstraps mentality to affect the rest of the world. They've poisoned enough people's brains down here as it is.
@@ilikestuff9250 Not sure where call centers came from. If producing AI generated art allows people to open a shop to sell some merch and support their family, I'm 100% in favor of that.
Don't be so naive to think that the anti-AI community isn't engaging in cyberbullying and targeting people who disagree with them. I don't use AI to make art but just because I disagree with this community of purists I've had them tell me I'm not an artist. That apparently I'm a "rich toxic sociopath" and they've even gone onto my social media and insulted friends of mine who have passed away in recent years, all because they don't like hearing that not every artist believes them and not everyone wants to join the crusade against AI artists. I am curious about the rest of your series but I don't think this is going to age well for you Howard especially you insulting others because you ideologically disagree with them. We'll see man I think AI is going to evolve past needing the data sets. My art is open for AI to train on, years ago I specifically made art with the hope that an AI would look at it in the future and that maybe it would understand me on some level through my art. So unless you want to remove me from the Earth there will be atleast one person here who is passionate about art that fundamentally disagrees with you and isn't afraid of the mob you'll send after me for it. Go ahead call me and apologist or an "AI bro" even tho I don't use it lol. I'm not apologizing for AI I'm warning you against encouraging your viewers to bully and harass people for using AI or even talking about potential benefits of using AI. It's been absolutely disgusting to see the level of hate and anger these artists have towards other human beings who think about art differently then they do. Don't kill me over this lol but if you try I will defend myself by all means.
This, I don't have a large following, but man I got so much shit for not agreeing, I don't mind AI using my art. I ended up closing a lot of my accounts, I posted my art for fun, and this is not fun. I don't need random strangers harassing me with there blind hate.
Yes, I can use those arguments with a completely straight face:
Copyright has stolen all of the works that should have been free for me to use my whole life (ten to twenty years is reasonable, life+50 is not).
It helps society at large. Millions of people without the time to dedicate or the skill to draw or paint can now create art to express themselves.
It should be totally legal (see how easy that one is?)
People love the product - they don't care how the art is generated so long as it is fit for purpose.
Should be free for you to use because you can't be bothered putting in the time and energy to master a craft like the artists that you are stealing from? Skill isn't some unfair god given advantage. It takes serious commitment. AI art isn't self expression. It's an amalgamation of the expression of artists who actually bother to make art. Self expression actually takes work. Real work.
Your arguments are shallow and entitled. You are owed nothing.
You fail to break the premises of the arguments either deductively or inductively besides relying on "IT'S STOLEN DATASETS" in which every "AI bro" has explained to you to prove the distinction from when a human like Picasso "steals" art from African artists to create his own unique art. Under current copyright law, it is not stealing and physically it is impossible to prevent someone from taking inspiration from your art to create a new unique artwork. You just resort to calling these arguments weak without properly taking apart the premises that lead to these conclusions. All you do is just keep on repeating STOLEN DATASET without any nuance into the history of transformative creativity where many have tried to make the case of "stealing art" in the past and of fair use. You even link to a GoFundMe that is funding a Disney employee into a copyright organization AKA corporate lobbying. I cannot believe how idiotic artists are to support the people fighting against their ability to make fan art.
I keep circling back to that point deliberately. And perhaps you are right that stealing might be too much of a reduction. So you could also use the word "laundered". If there is nothing wrong with it, why didn't they take one extra simple little step, and just make the system opt-in? Why did they feel like they needed the first-mover's advantage? Why did they go behind the backs of all artists and quickly launch a product and a price tier system before the dust settled? Why did they spare the music industry and not the art industry from this data laundering?
You can try and apologise and explain away the problem all you like. Their behaviour says it all. It's wild that you are taking their side.
You claim that you understand how these models work, yet you make arguably invalid claims about the Craiyon model... The quality of the output is more associated with the model architecture than the training data or quantity. Craiyon is based on VQGAN with a BART conditioner and a CLIP ranking, and is much smaller than Stable Diffusion. That means Craiyon is transformer based and not CNN based, and it does not utilize diffusion. Craiyon was trained on LAION just like Stable Diffusion.
It also brings up an interesting point to consider.... Craiyon fine tunes the VQGAN model which was trained on a non-commercial dataset (research purposes only). Should that be illegal too, where they should have trained it from scratch instead? What about the object detection AI used by Meta? And the self driving AI used by Tesla... you better bet those were trained on equally questionable data.
Regardless, you can get much better quality outputs from a generative AI trained on royalty free images (and artworks that are no longer copyrightable) than what Craiyon outputs. The problem with restricting the dataset is more one of overfitting and generalization. The former cases would be closely reproducing images within the training set (which is okay if they are royalty free), and the latter is a restriction of what they are able to generate. It's very possible to match and beat the current generative AIs in image quality using these royalty free images though, depending on the model architecture, the training data, and the training methodology. The biggest hurdle is really the increased time it takes to train (a couple weeks up to several years most likely).
"The quality of the output is more associated with the model architecture than the training data or quantity"
If that is the case, then why did they use such a large database that they knew could land them in legal trouble?
About Meta, Tesla etc - yes, that's exactly what i'm saying. They need to play fair, or face consequences. Self-driving data by Tesla is gathered by their own cars. If they obtained stolen data from other car manufacturers, you bet they would get sued all the way to hell by the exploited car company. Rightly so.
Meta have been consistently in the news for the last decade about their mis-handeling of data. They have faced a slew of lawsuits, and their stock valuation has dropped to the lowest point since 2015 (8 years ago) because people don't trust or like the company - and you're referring to them as a shining example of how to handle data? Why on earth are you attempting to argue "questionable data is okay to use, because some big conglomorates using them". Next you will be saying "war crimes are totally okay because America commits them". Sheep mentality
"It's very possible to match and beat the current generative AIs in image quality using these royalty free images though"
The evidence all points to the quality of the training being linked to the quality/quantity of the datasets. You're making a huge speculation that is unfounded.
Again i will say: if what you say is true, why didn't they restrict themselves to royalty free images and save themselves the legal trouble? Why are they in so much of a hurry to get a product out the door that they decide to legally compromise their business and everything they worked for?
It's because it is a mad dash for market dominance, and they would rather be first, than be fair. They took a calculated risk in trampling all over the art industry because they prospected the insutry to be scattered and non-confrontational. Stop giving their illegal exploitations a free pass, just because you're excited about the tech. Baaahh
@@HowardWimshurst Who is "they"? Stability or Craiyon?
The quality of the output will roughly scale with model size. And the larger the model is, the more data it needs to train on to prevent over-fitting (which no AI researcher wants). However, adding more data beyond a certain point won't improve the model as it becomes saturated (that's where Stable Diffusion currently sits). And Craiyon could train on far fewer images because it's a much smaller model (I'm not sure if it's saturated - it's hard to tell given the architecture). I can explain more why Craiyon has architectural limitations if you want.
Note that Stable Diffusion did not train on all of LAION, or even most of it. The total number of images was probably around 100-200M (I haven't downloaded the parquets to apply their thresholding, but Stable Diffusion 1.2 only used around 19M images).
As for why they trained on that dataset if they knew it could land them in legal trouble? They most likely didn't think it could land them in legal trouble... to them this was clearly fair use and no one would complain (their prediction clearly didn't work out). i.e. Hanlon's razor. (what makes me so sure? because I didn't even consider copyright to be an issue until artists started complaining - rightfully so).
Oh, I think you misunderstood what I meant when I mentioned Meta and Tesla. Tesla most certainly bootstrapped their object detection AI using copyrighted images (intended for research purposes). And I would not be surprised if Meta was training on photos people upload to their private facebook and instagram accounts (not publicly visible). But good luck proving it.
I wasn't saying that Meta is a prime example for how to handle data, just that they are training their AI in a far more egregious way than Stability did (not that it makes Stability's actions ethical). I would not be surprised if companies like Topaz also trained off of copyright images for their upscaler models, and Adobe most likely did for their content aware fill tool. To these big tech companies (and AI researchers in general), data is data, they don't see anything wrong with using it in any way they see fit - it's just that Stability is being singled out because they are easy to go after.
"The evidence all points to the quality of the training being linked to the quality/quantity of the datasets. You're making a huge speculation that is unfounded."
Clearly you've you're not well versed in the generative AI literature. Most small models (not trained by big tech companies) are trained on domain specific academic datasets, many of which are under CC. Those AI can not only perform well in terms of generation, some of then can performed better than stable diffusion. Those papers also time and time again show that performance scales with model size, and also show how increasing the model size leads to overfitting. Don't just make wild claims based on a "gut feeling".
As for excitement about the tech... you better bet I am. But I couldn't care less about using generative AI for "art". My interest is in using these tools to create synthetic data for detection AI... to do important stuff (compared to using it to generate pretty pictures). Stuff like detect tumors in radiology images (and no that doesn't mean training Stable Diffusion on medical images). If you can't see how that relates to Stable Diffusion, then you should consider opening your mind to consider the world outside of your studio. Here's a hint, look at how the GPT models are used in practice, it's related to that.
Artists are left in debt because they borrowed thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of dollars to train for a career that may or may not be profitable. That's called taking a risk. Most college students take the same risk. If the market changes, you may end up in a bad position. That was the risk you knowingly took.
you're distracting - once again - from the data laundering that has been perpetrated against them by the hands of these AI bad actors. I'm sure these companies appreciate you victim-blaming to cover for their psychopathic behaviour. Nice smokescreen to distract from the real issue.