In my opinion, AI just feels like the logical next step for capitalist exploitation and destruction of culture. Generative AI is (in most cases) just a fancy way for cooperations to steal art on a scale, that hasn’t been possible before. And then they use AI to fill the internet with slop and misinformation and actual artists are getting fired from their jobs, because the company replaces them with an AI, that was trained on their original art. Because of these reasons and some others, it just feels wrong to me, to be using AI in such a manner, when this community should be about inclusion and kindness. Wouldn’t it be much cooler, if we commissioned an actual artist for the banner or find a nice existing artwork (where the licence fits, of course)? I would love to hear your thoughts!

  • rumba@lemmy.zipEnglish
    1510·
    2 days ago

    Real artists use uncited reference art all the time. That person that drew a picture of Catherine the Great for a video game certainly didn’t list the artist of the source art they were looking at when they drew it. No royalties went to that source artist. People stopped buying reference art books for the most part when Google image search became a thing.

    A hell, a lot of professional graphic artists right now use AI for inspiration.

    This isn’t to say that the problem isn’t real and a lot of artists stand to lose their livelihood over it, but nobody’s paying someone to draw a banner for this forum. The best you’re going to get is some artist doing out of the goodness of their heart when they could be spending their time and effort on a paying job.

    • SanguinePar@lemmy.world
      207·
      2 days ago

      Real artists may be influenced, but they still put something of themselves into what they make. AI only borrows from others, it creates nothing.

      I realise no-one is paying someone to make a banner for this forum, it would need to be someone choosing to do it because they want there to be a banner. But the real artists whose work was used by the AI to make the banner had no choice in the matter, let alone any chance of recompense.

      • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
        1011·
        2 days ago

        AI only borrows from others, it creates nothing.

        This isn’t an argument, it’s pseudophilosophical nonsense.

        But the real artists whose work was used by the AI to make the banner had no choice in the matter, let alone any chance of recompense.

        In order to make such a statement you must:

        1. Know what model was used and;
        2. Know that it was trained on unlicensed work.

        So, what model did the OP use?

        I mean, unless you’re just ignorantly suggesting that all diffusion models are trained on unlicensed work. Something that is demonstratively untrue: https://helpx.adobe.com/firefly/get-set-up/learn-the-basics/adobe-firefly-faq.html

        Your arguments havent been true since the earliest days of diffusion models. AI training techniques are at the point where anybody with a few thousand images, a graphics card and a free weekend can train a high quality diffusion model.

        It’s simply ignorance to suggest that any generated image is using other artist’s work.

        • BennyTheExplorer@lemmy.worldOP
          124·
          2 days ago

          Nope, you can’t train a good diffusion model from scratch with just a few thousand images, that is just delusion (I am open for examples though). Adobe Firefly is a black box, so we can’t verify their claims, obviously they wouldn’t admit, if they broke copyright to train their models. We do however have strong evidence, that google, openai and stability AI used tons of images, which they had no licence to use. Also, I still doubt that all of the people, who sold on Adobe Stock either knew, what their photos are gonna be used for or explicitly wanted that or just had to accept it to be able to sell their work.

          Great counterargument to my first argument by the way 👏

          • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
            39·
            2 days ago

            So, what model did the OOP use?

            Adobe has a massive company with a huge amount to lose if they’re lying to their customers. They have much more credibility than a random anti-AI troll account. Of course you’d want to dismiss them, it’s pretty devastating to your arguments if there are models which are built using artwork freely given by artists.

      • rumba@lemmy.zipEnglish
        710·
        2 days ago

        So what’s the solution for this board, they should just put up a black image? Should they start a crowdfunding to pay an artist?

        It’s a really bothers an artist enough they could make a banner for the board and ask them to swap out the AI. But, they’ll have to make something that more people like than the AI.