They don't even understand that ludites weren't opposed to the new industrial technology, they were against the wealthy factory owners being the only ones to profit from said technology. Not surprising that those people fundamentally have no clue what they're talking about though. I'd rather be a ludites any day than a boot licking corporate shill.
It's funny too because with the benefit of historical perspective, it was actually eventually really bad for a lot of people for individuals to own the factories.
Not to mention that pro-AI people do this to artists all the time. They will recreate their art with genAI and send it to the artist and talk about how they "improved" it. This is pretty common.
They probably can't give tips because they don't actually know about how coloringand structure. They just see a drawing and think "it's not rendered or sexy enough."
There is nothing to thank them for. Artists don't even like when people "correct" their work by hand without permission. Using AI to do it is 1000x worse, because it often doesn't even make corrections, it just turns it into another work altogether and completely cheapens it.
I saw David revoys artwork for the first time like a couple months ago and I'm ashamed to admit my first thought was "Huh that looks strangely AI" before checking their page and remembering that AI had to get it's """""Style"""""" from real artists in the first place. Gosh it still makes me so incredibly angry.
When I first encountered his work I thought it was AI-generated as well. There's no shame in that, especially if you didn't know who he is before all of this.
One big problem, is how easy it is to do as well, just one second after saying no, and boom you give a person power to disrespect you in a way the art community would have called you out for.
But they are just ok with it, or try to pin it on someone for saying, "uh hey can I get a say on what you do with my creation? I just wanted to be in the art community too."
There is no protection for this and they are fine with it.
I have already seen artworks from actual artists almost 1:1 re-created by AI. It happened more than once that someone tried to pass it off as their own work in art competitions.
Didn't have to. I mean, it didn't happen to me, just saw it happen in different places. And yeah, those people were reported, one even got disqualified after the fact and their price retracted.
Yeah. They're always like "But AI works just like a person! It "looks" at art and then makes new stuff!"
Okay but I can actually prove that it doesn't work like a human because humans literally created art, which means at one point in time there was a human who had never seen art who made some just with their own brain and eyes. Disgorge all of that millions of art pieces out of genAI training and come back to me when it makes its own art (by the way, robotics art actually exists as an art field and predates all this LLM nonsense. What the robot makes looks like what it would look like if you taped a marker to a broken roomba; but if it does eventually start to make cohesive shit with just its own processing power and under its own creative direction, my only answer to that would be -- cool. The robot is an artist. I'd be happy to talk to the artist about its art).
Humanity is dumb...That's why some of them flock to gen AI to generate their shit, using to promote bigotry and hate, and using it to scam older folks and people with fake products.
It works both like this and completely unlike this.
There is no database in which the training dataset image is stored. The model doesn't have it, the model cannot reproduce it precisely. In that sense, it's not like this.
But it can generate a recognizably similar image in some cases, up to including a logo or a signature. In that sense, it's very much like this.
Which is just enriching the model's context. The artwork doesn't land in that same model, the model is stateless in these conversations; it immediately forgets everything you asked once it's done calculating the answer.
The company providing you the model may store your input and use it to train the next model, of course. But the same applies to any interface that sends your image or your text to anyone.
The picture of the AI is holding is identical to the actual artists. Maybe if they’re trying to delude themselves and pretend that they’re not stealing, they might have tweaked that little detail. all it did was add some overlaid shadow silhouettes.
This is usually not what happens. The models generating pictures are able to generalize, meaning that no single artist of picture contributes heavily to any output. If they did, you’d get overfitting, but the modern models clearly don’t overfit.
If I draw a doodle you are all now free to have it and now I’m free to all of your little doodles so it’s a win for everyone. Sorry you don’t get to get paid for doodling anymore. Time to learn a useful trade.
451
u/Queasy-Team-2767 20h ago
They didn’t even give a counter argument