Banning AI art on PP

Unfocussed Mike said

HorrifyMeUK said

Tarmoo said

Interesting article suggesting that AI Art is damaging artists such as Greg Reukowski as their art is getting swamped by online digital copies made by AI generators ... https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/09/16/1059598/this-artist-is-dominating-ai-generated-art-and-hes-not-happy-about-it/

Edited by Tarmoo

I just read this. 

“The UK, which hopes to boost domestic AI development, wants to change laws to give AI developers greater access to copyrighted data. Under these changes,  developers would be able to scrape works protected by copyright to train their AI systems for both commercial and noncommercial purposes. ”

it’s interesting to see how many artists are against this, and how the AI companies clearly don’t give a fuck. Talk of training the algorithm on public domain images or forming partnerships with museums or artists is utter bollocks. You only need look at how piss poor the copyright policy is on YouTube or any social media platform to see where it will end up. 

This really is a genuine Jurassic Park moment: they were so concerned with whether or not they COULD build this thing that nobody ever stopped to ask if they SHOULD. I’ve always embraced digital tech in my career in image making so don’t exactly consider myself a Luddite but this AI text-to-image tool really does feel like a huge step too far. I really hope it gets eaten by its own can of worms.

It's appalling, isn't it -- a wholly unjustifiable bit of law that is being drafted so early that most people do not know what it means: 

- Copyright doesn't apply if you're training an AI.

But since the theft has already happened -- the training data set is out there -- there's nothing really to do.

I do think it is possible it will get eaten by its own can of worms, though, because one AI will not necessarily recognise the work of another AI. So for example an AI training itself on Jackson Pollock won't necessarily be able to tell that the Jackson Pollock in the blog post is not real. 

It's entirely possible that for example Midjourney can't even recognise its own work -- though I do wonder if they've devised some way to resolve that problem by embedding adversarial qualities.

"I do think it is possible it will get eaten by its own can of worms" especially when one considers that the AI companies will no doubt want to copyright their own work and expect others to abide by it.

Simon Cole said

Unfocussed Mike said

HorrifyMeUK said

Tarmoo said

Interesting article suggesting that AI Art is damaging artists such as Greg Reukowski as their art is getting swamped by online digital copies made by AI generators ... https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/09/16/1059598/this-artist-is-dominating-ai-generated-art-and-hes-not-happy-about-it/

Edited by Tarmoo

I just read this. 

“The UK, which hopes to boost domestic AI development, wants to change laws to give AI developers greater access to copyrighted data. Under these changes,  developers would be able to scrape works protected by copyright to train their AI systems for both commercial and noncommercial purposes. ”

it’s interesting to see how many artists are against this, and how the AI companies clearly don’t give a fuck. Talk of training the algorithm on public domain images or forming partnerships with museums or artists is utter bollocks. You only need look at how piss poor the copyright policy is on YouTube or any social media platform to see where it will end up. 

This really is a genuine Jurassic Park moment: they were so concerned with whether or not they COULD build this thing that nobody ever stopped to ask if they SHOULD. I’ve always embraced digital tech in my career in image making so don’t exactly consider myself a Luddite but this AI text-to-image tool really does feel like a huge step too far. I really hope it gets eaten by its own can of worms.

It's appalling, isn't it -- a wholly unjustifiable bit of law that is being drafted so early that most people do not know what it means: 

- Copyright doesn't apply if you're training an AI.

But since the theft has already happened -- the training data set is out there -- there's nothing really to do.

I do think it is possible it will get eaten by its own can of worms, though, because one AI will not necessarily recognise the work of another AI. So for example an AI training itself on Jackson Pollock won't necessarily be able to tell that the Jackson Pollock in the blog post is not real. 

It's entirely possible that for example Midjourney can't even recognise its own work -- though I do wonder if they've devised some way to resolve that problem by embedding adversarial qualities.

"I do think it is possible it will get eaten by its own can of worms" especially when one considers that the AI companies will no doubt want to copyright their own work and expect others to abide by it.

I think that ship has sailed already because Stable Diffusion is open source and the developers — a British firm that will benefit from the law — are not asserting copyright over the output of the tool. Stable Diffusion is cutting edge and that will define the market approach going forward.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

Unfocussed Mike said

Simon Cole said

Unfocussed Mike said

HorrifyMeUK said

Tarmoo said

Interesting article suggesting that AI Art is damaging artists such as Greg Reukowski as their art is getting swamped by online digital copies made by AI generators ... https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/09/16/1059598/this-artist-is-dominating-ai-generated-art-and-hes-not-happy-about-it/

Edited by Tarmoo

I just read this. 

“The UK, which hopes to boost domestic AI development, wants to change laws to give AI developers greater access to copyrighted data. Under these changes,  developers would be able to scrape works protected by copyright to train their AI systems for both commercial and noncommercial purposes. ”

it’s interesting to see how many artists are against this, and how the AI companies clearly don’t give a fuck. Talk of training the algorithm on public domain images or forming partnerships with museums or artists is utter bollocks. You only need look at how piss poor the copyright policy is on YouTube or any social media platform to see where it will end up. 

This really is a genuine Jurassic Park moment: they were so concerned with whether or not they COULD build this thing that nobody ever stopped to ask if they SHOULD. I’ve always embraced digital tech in my career in image making so don’t exactly consider myself a Luddite but this AI text-to-image tool really does feel like a huge step too far. I really hope it gets eaten by its own can of worms.

It's appalling, isn't it -- a wholly unjustifiable bit of law that is being drafted so early that most people do not know what it means: 

- Copyright doesn't apply if you're training an AI.

But since the theft has already happened -- the training data set is out there -- there's nothing really to do.

I do think it is possible it will get eaten by its own can of worms, though, because one AI will not necessarily recognise the work of another AI. So for example an AI training itself on Jackson Pollock won't necessarily be able to tell that the Jackson Pollock in the blog post is not real. 

It's entirely possible that for example Midjourney can't even recognise its own work -- though I do wonder if they've devised some way to resolve that problem by embedding adversarial qualities.

"I do think it is possible it will get eaten by its own can of worms" especially when one considers that the AI companies will no doubt want to copyright their own work and expect others to abide by it.

I think that ship has sailed already because Stable Diffusion is open source and the developers — a British firm that will benefit from the law — are not asserting copyright over the output of the tool. Stable Diffusion is cutting edge and that will define the market approach going forward.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

This is actually horrible enough to make me consider abandoning the internet and stop sharing my work online. 

HorrifyMeUK said

Unfocussed Mike said

Simon Cole said

Unfocussed Mike said

HorrifyMeUK said

Tarmoo said

Interesting article suggesting that AI Art is damaging artists such as Greg Reukowski as their art is getting swamped by online digital copies made by AI generators ... https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/09/16/1059598/this-artist-is-dominating-ai-generated-art-and-hes-not-happy-about-it/

Edited by Tarmoo

I just read this. 

“The UK, which hopes to boost domestic AI development, wants to change laws to give AI developers greater access to copyrighted data. Under these changes,  developers would be able to scrape works protected by copyright to train their AI systems for both commercial and noncommercial purposes. ”

it’s interesting to see how many artists are against this, and how the AI companies clearly don’t give a fuck. Talk of training the algorithm on public domain images or forming partnerships with museums or artists is utter bollocks. You only need look at how piss poor the copyright policy is on YouTube or any social media platform to see where it will end up. 

This really is a genuine Jurassic Park moment: they were so concerned with whether or not they COULD build this thing that nobody ever stopped to ask if they SHOULD. I’ve always embraced digital tech in my career in image making so don’t exactly consider myself a Luddite but this AI text-to-image tool really does feel like a huge step too far. I really hope it gets eaten by its own can of worms.

It's appalling, isn't it -- a wholly unjustifiable bit of law that is being drafted so early that most people do not know what it means: 

- Copyright doesn't apply if you're training an AI.

But since the theft has already happened -- the training data set is out there -- there's nothing really to do.

I do think it is possible it will get eaten by its own can of worms, though, because one AI will not necessarily recognise the work of another AI. So for example an AI training itself on Jackson Pollock won't necessarily be able to tell that the Jackson Pollock in the blog post is not real. 

It's entirely possible that for example Midjourney can't even recognise its own work -- though I do wonder if they've devised some way to resolve that problem by embedding adversarial qualities.

"I do think it is possible it will get eaten by its own can of worms" especially when one considers that the AI companies will no doubt want to copyright their own work and expect others to abide by it.

I think that ship has sailed already because Stable Diffusion is open source and the developers — a British firm that will benefit from the law — are not asserting copyright over the output of the tool. Stable Diffusion is cutting edge and that will define the market approach going forward.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

This is actually horrible enough to make me consider abandoning the internet and stop sharing my work online. 

Did you check out https://haveibeentrained.com/ ?

It searches the LAION data set that several AI generators were trained on. I believe it to be safe to upload example images, but in your case you could probably find your own images if they are in there - just use some keywords you have used to describe your own images when publishing them.

Also possible your images aren’t in any of the resulting generators at all because of an attempt to avoid training the model to produce certain kinds of images, but it might be useful to you.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

Insofar as PP is concerned, there have been several comments about checking the original image for authenticity.

Something that has been going through my head since my very first shoot where I had to pay an editor to remove a rather obvious bottle in the background, where I could have very easily done that for real, for free, in a few seconds, is to get THE shot, straight out of camera, as often as possible.

pre production using apps, trying out concepts at home, repeating them over and over again, fine tuning them, searching for a model who not only has the looks but also follows a fitness and diet regimen to optimise skin (I have actually seen a few models state this on their profiles), using hair and makeup artists, taking the time to select the right location, if that's a studio, then I am prepared to use 5+ lights, taking the time to fine tune them, tweaking them to get the right shot, using 5+ filters on the front of the lens, taking the time to compose the shot so no cropping is necessary.

For me, this is the goal, not a fantasy.

Should this goal ever be realised, how do I prove what the original image is if that is the only image?

Σ OI Σ you’ll have a bunch of shots from the same set that you can share.

Russ Freeman said

Σ OI Σ you’ll have a bunch of shots from the same set that you can share.

And a few BTS (Behind The Scenes) mobile phone shots from the model on Instagram.

Unless the AI opens its own Instagram account and starts generating BTS images.

Difficult problem for the AI.

1) Are you truly alive if you don’t post BTS on IG?

2) Are you truly intelligent if you do post BTS on IG?

Schrödinger's cat for the modern age.

Funnily enough, after I had made my initial comment on this thread, my YouTube feed has had several videos of AI generated art pop up on it.

I had no idea that it is as prevalent as it seems to be.

I still think the site is right to ban it though.

Huw

"1) Are you truly alive if you don’t post BTS on IG?"

I don't have (and will not have) IG ... so I guess that makes me alive and *free*.

And hopefully less likely to be scraped by an AI ...

Stu H said

Huw

"1) Are you truly alive if you don’t post BTS on IG?"

I don't have (and will not have) IG ... so I guess that makes me alive and *free*.

And hopefully less likely to be scraped by an AI ...

Hmm.... wait until your next Prostate examination.   

Brings a whole new meaning to "scraped by an AI". 

;)

Huw

" Hmm.... wait until your next Prostate examination. "

... [clench start] Furiously hopes you've not changed profession.

I remember you saying the sizes of some of the smaller needles... [clench end]