Major game studios are banning AI Art

https://www.cbr.com/ai-a...copyright-legal-issues/

https://gameranx.com/upd...anned-ai-art-completely/

Good for them. Many other companies should do the same.

It's truly good news , a step in the right direction,
Anyways as long as real Artists exist AI will always be second best

This is more generally about the current AI craze and how it's stupid, but it touches upon generative as well.
Adam Conover - AI is BS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ro130m-f_yk it's 25 minutes.

--


Haha, this made me think of "Hugo Cabret", a movie about one of the pioneers of cinema. There's a stunning mechanical human drawing a funny image (not original though, of course). It's a children's movie but well worth a watch imo.

--


Yeah i feel similarly.

Since I am the one who made this thread, I'm going to play the devil's advocate. I decided to reach out to the AI for a statement regarding the controversy surrounding it. Unfortunately it can't actually use words, but it did give me this picture-

Thanks for posting this Magma. I just read the article and want to check if I understand the article properly as English isn't my first language.



I struggle to wrap my head around this. Does this mean that they have suspended their "activities" with him, because he basically pointed out that IA generated art can compete with Human generated art?

Another question that arises is: How many "artists" have submitted AI generated art at such competitions, pretending it's their work? An how many will attempt to do that in future? Do we need AI programs that recognize whether something is AI generated or Human generated?

I had the exact same doubt as you. Maybe in the regulation there is something like "the art presented must be created and owned by the participant in the competition" and they literally interpreted his provocation as a violation of the rules which therefore resulted in disqualification and a ban on participating in future to that competition. I don't know!

However, a provocation by the photographer to be greatly appreciated. Among other things, I don't understand how they didn't notice that it's AI generated since the hands are completely unnatural...

My interpretation of this is that Sony didn't like being made to look foolish and then wanted their ball back. Eldagsen has done a great job as an artist in having subverted the process; I suppose he legitimately could have been disqualified in using a non-photographic medium in the competition: the debacle itself. By throwing this curveball at the self-aggrandisement of a large corporation, Eldagsen highlights the problematic nature of centralised, corporate control of AI.

The issue with generative AI cannot be addressed without going into deep political discussions about the way we distribute wealth in our societies. This would probably result in debates not suited for the Nexus.

Personally, I would caution people from blaming the technology itself though, or the idea that we built a machine that learns by seeing. How do humans grow and learn, if not by seeing endless examples of what others have created before them? Every human artist is a product of every human artist who came before.

Does putting a prompt into a machine and seeing what it spits out qualify as 'art'? If that's where it begins and ends, then probably not. Is the topic better suited for the Science forum? Yes.

Because the real wonder is the fact that we have these machines... I would love to see more talk about connectionism (the scientific / engineering paradigm that resulted in GANs in the first place), about the sheer wonder that these machines hallucinate very similarly to humans, about, you know, the possibility that we have the knowledge to build something akin to a golem of homonculus from the dreams of mages of old.

Neural networks are beautiful.
It's corporations using them to further their greed that is ugly.

Mental gymnastics to justify data theft on a massive scale are also ugly - and no, people and machines do not learn in remotely the same way. That's just spurious nonsense.

You know, if a member of the mod team goes out of his way to use confrontational language, maybe the topic is ripe to be banned from discussion on the Nexus?

Peace and love. I won't engage in discussions on the topic here anymore.

Just so we're clear, if you are using any AI program trained on LAION datasets (which are most of them), you ARE complicit in the distribution of child sexual abuse material.

Of course it has been known from the beginning by LAION, Stability AI, Midjourney, et al that the datasets contain child porn. But now, thanks to the good folks at Stanford, it has been objectively proven.

I would certainly hope that all programs utilizing LAION will be taken offline immediately, all data sets destroyed and those at the top prosecuted and imprisoned. But of course, profits trump consumer protection 100 times out of 100, and all those who object are probably just troubled Luddites standing in the way of harmless fun and progress.

JUST KNOW THAT IF YOU CONTINUE TO USE THIS CRIMINALLY EXPLOITATIVE GARBAGE, YOU HAVE ZERO MORAL AUTHORITY AND ARE KNOWINGLY COMPLICIT IN THE SPREAD OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

https://www.theguardian....EtBh_BWkVoM36LbzURd2JHeA

I haven't played around much with AI art except for a few weeks when it first got popular at the beginning of the year or so....

Played around some on Lexica.... and it 100% would regularly produce images that could be described as child-pornographic... Full topless, frontal nudity even if you don't see direct crotch... It was almost awkward to have it make images of ANYTHING related to female imagery without the child-porn showing up... i stopped playing around on it...

It's important to acknowledge that ALL of these companies knew this was the case from the very beginning. It was just too profitable an endeavor for them to do anything other than proceed with the data sets, knowing full well they contained a) millions (or hundreds of millions) of copyrighted images, b) millions (or hundreds of millions) of personal photos, c) thousands (or tens of thousands) of images containing child sexual abuse material, and all manner of other inappropriate material (private medical records, beheading videos, etc. etc. etc.) - and just not disclose the contents to the public.

This news should be a surprise to absolutely no one, and a wake up call to all those who bend over backward on a daily basis trying to justify the tech.

Again, if you use it, you are 100% complicit. There is no way around this.

As of today, LAION has pulled their data sets, and I believe a criminal investigation in Germany is underway. I'm confused as to how and why Midjourney is still promoting their new version release, but I would guess this only increases their own criminal culpability (which is awesome).

Personally, I am very hopeful that a bunch of people go to prison over this, and that end users as a whole snap out of their shitty dystopian daydreams as a result of the subsequent fallout.

A.I. Is a student, we are building it and giving it information to do with it whatever it wants.

There is no difference in A.I. learning to make paintings or a human... The question is however, is it merely copying?

It is simply copying the style but still depends on user input for it to process the painting.

Right now A.I. can not make new styles and have much creative inputs even when it look like it does it bassicaly just copy's a style and then makes a painting of it in a 'in its own words' kind of way...

However, this can also become alive in the A.I. script itself. And then it might truely develop its own style..

-- Banning this technology will mean you give the upper hand to the others who do use the technology. --
I suggest we keep working with it and find a way to use it in a positive manner

This is the #1 yapping point for all AI enthusiasts, and it makes me want to scream. There is a difference. Of course there is a difference. A toddler can tell the difference.

People learn through a lifetime of experience and daily hard fought effort, and their memories of, say, a painting they've seen is filtered through an idiosyncratic lens of personal experience and unique context. Machines on the other hand instantaneously commit everything they've been fed to photographic memory (which at this point is 6 billion images, or the bulk of all human made art throughout the course of history), and then aggregate it to accommodate simple text prompts, often overfitting images pixel for pixel.

So, no. There is no similarity. I wish people would grow up and find some better argument that can't be dismantled by the tiniest bit of critical thinking and common sense. But I understand. There's no room for logic and common sense when you want what you want regardless.



It requires as much user input as does a google search. I'll give you that. But honestly, you don't even need to be able to spell correctly. You could even mash out a string of gibberish and the machine will still produce for you a perfectly rendered image.

Everyone who uses this stuff GROSSLY overstates their contribution to the process. It's minimal to the point of nonexistent. A monkey could do it. I mean, honestly...



Stop with the anthropomorphizing. It's embarrassing. These are not living, independently thinking beings. They're machines. All they can do is regurgitate what they are fed. What you are suggesting is a fantasy.



This is the #2 yapping point for all AI enthusiasts: "This is progress. And even if it isn't, it's here now and there's nothing you can do about it. So just adapt or get left behind". I say to hell with that. I don't use it because it's theft, and I know a great many principled artists who feel exactly the same.

Your servile "whatcha gonna do?" attitude is going to age very badly. This is the year that these companies burn to the ground and people start going to prison. The NY Times sued OpenAI last week for copyright infringement, and they will most likely win (because they're absolutely correct and have plenty of receipts). That means that Disney will inevitably follow, and then litigation after litigation until these companies are pounded into dust.

Remember Napster? Give it a google for some much needed historical context.

As I posted above, one week prior it was proven that the datasets used to train virtually every currently available text to image generator contain child pornography. The models utilizing them are still operating, but they are only compounding their criminal culpability and will almost certainly be held to account.

And conversations between the CEO of Midjourney and a number of Midjourney devs were leaked just a few days ago (along with a Google doc containing 5,000 new artist names - including at least one longstanding Nexus member I'm aware of), where they discuss incorporating them into V6 and laundering the data in such a way that it won't be traced.

All of this is to say that there is a reckoning coming. I look forward to saying I told ya so.

Can confirm - when I've tried keymash prompts, the algorithm had an alarming tendency to produce images of heavily-armed arabs. I'm 100% serious here, and struggle to comprehend why these results occurred.

If any of us aren't into AI, we'd do well not to shop on Amazon either. But that whole can of worms would devolve into an off-topic political rant, so I'll stop

If there's one further aspect of "AI" that needs to be restated is its energy footprint. I've said this since the early days where machines beat human players at chess, and then Go. How would the machines fare in 'creative' output if they were restricted to the energy (and resource) consumption of a human brain? Energy consumption figures are available for AI and anyone can look them up. Drop in the ocean, or straw on the camel's back?

Bill are you seriously trying to imply that generative AI as a whole will disappear?

That's probably as naive of an opinion as the people who think that generating AI images is the same as making art. Your example of napster isn't great either, considering I can still pirate any and all songs that I want.

I'm not here to defend the stance that "AI is art" but the technology isn't going anywhere. Capitalism is too greedy to let tools like this disappear. Will it be more regulated? Probably.

Personally I find less problem with AI than I do with how ridiculously polarized every single topic has become these days. Everyone seems to have an all-or-nothing attitude with a fiery passion and an "I'm smarter than you" undertone.

It won't disappear, but the current models won't survive. That is my official prediction.

If the datasets are completely disgorged, the companies currently utilizing them are bankrupted and those running them are imprisoned, I will take that as a win. What can then follow is at least the possibility of a new ethical model that doesn't rely on copyright infringement. Will piracy continue? As long as there are scumbags about, I'm guessing it probably will. And regarding polarization, this tends to happen when heavily resourced corporations plunder private individuals' work for profit, and then opportunists dig in with hollow justifications.

Do I think I'm smarter than you? Who knows. I don't know you personally, so I couldn't say. Do I think I'm more ethical? Absolutely I do, given your AI avatar and the fact that you feel entitled to use the tech to your heart's content regardless of the human cost.

This stuff is just wrong, assuming we can agree on a common baseline set of values (such as don't steal from others, or don't contribute to the distribution of child pornography). If we can't, then we really don't have anything much to discuss. I'm on one side of an ethical divide. You are on the other. And we're not going to see eye to eye.

And regarding the environmental cost, it's horrifying. That tends to get lost among the other horrors in the larger discussion, but with 2.5 million images being generated everyday it is of course significant.

https://www.technologyre...-as-charging-your-phone/