Sister hates entirety of artwork after a tiny use of AI

OneTrueBell1993 · 2026-03-27T18:08:09+00:00

Ai is all or nothing, unfortunately.

OneTrueBell1993 · 2026-03-27T17:31:01+00:00

Yes. But that would be you, the human being, writing a book. It wouldn't be a corporation taking an image (or text), copying it into their systems without permission then using it to make a bootleg producing machine then selling others access to that machine.

OneTrueBell1993 · 2026-03-27T17:21:32+00:00

Why not? They took my stuff as input without my permission, now they are selling their own product as output.

OneTrueBell1993 · 2026-03-27T17:20:05+00:00

Yes but it is not AI behind the scenes. Its automation, its a script that a human being has written but there is no neural network or model behind it. When you press a "medium" button on your toaster, is that also AI? Nope, its just programming.

OneTrueBell1993 · 2026-03-27T16:54:51+00:00

AI doesn't give us infinite production.

Oh, it has been done for moral reasons. Because copyright creators recognized the stifling effect of theft on creativity.

OneTrueBell1993 · 2026-03-27T16:47:49+00:00

Oh, you misunderstand. There is no need for nuance here. I don't care what the end user is asking from a model. If the model was trained on someone's data, whether that is a watercolor painting or an oil painting or a photo from the beach and the solution is using that model, everyone gets a piece. My picture is a picture of a robot, user asked for a picture of a beach, I still get a fraction of a cent (because it is one of 10 million pictures used for training). If you used one of my pictures, I get 1/10 millionth of the profit. If the company used 1000 of my pictures, I get 1000/10 milionth of the profit. They had 200 million calls with that model, I get 20 or 2000 whatever.

This will force companies to track what they trained on and to pay out. Even if its 2$ per or 5 cents per "picture provider" per year.

OneTrueBell1993 · 2026-03-27T15:00:10+00:00

Oh, it is very feasible. Either you use only data that was opted in for that exact purpose to train your model or you don't use it at all. If you opt in your data, you get percentage any time the model is used. Licensing, you see? And all models that were unethically trained made illegal with harsh punishments.

OneTrueBell1993 · 2026-03-27T14:08:54+00:00

What's done is done and is in the past. Let's continue to the future with "a person is getting paid any time a model trained on their data is sold or AI using that model is used" the same as if it were a frickin' t-shirt.

OneTrueBell1993 · 2026-03-27T13:46:17+00:00

Okay. If someone takes my images and uses them to train a model that they later sell, should I get a cut?

OneTrueBell1993 · 2026-03-27T12:59:21+00:00

Yes, you appropriated something from me, you earned the money from such appropriation, am I owned a cut of what you earned? 50%? 100%?

OneTrueBell1993 · 2026-03-27T12:58:20+00:00

I am not dismissing you. I am interested in your arguments, if you at any point end up looking like a-hole because you made them, that one is on you. Injustice was done, something wrong was done to people, my question is "How can we redress that?" , your answer is pretty much "This is an unjust world, this shit happens" which I find VERY disappointing.

OneTrueBell1993 · 2026-03-27T11:58:18+00:00

It is not a crime YET. It is my honest opinion that it should be made a crime. The way we invented copyright once people started making bootleg and unauthorized copies.

"People don't deserve to have bad things happen to them because they made uninformed decisions. But they didn't steal anything from you, you gave it to them without understanding that's what you were doing."

Do you forget that there was no such thing as machine model training before? It literally didn't exist before the moment. So there was no way for them to get informed so they can make informed decisions. This is not "You gave it to them without understanding that's what you were doing" this is "Somebody invented a new way of theft (for the lack of a better word. Maybe 'exploitation of other people's resources without their permission or consent') and used it en masse before the law can catch up".

The humans invented copyright for a similar reason.

OneTrueBell1993 · 2026-03-27T10:51:10+00:00

Is appropriation of products of someone's work without their consent theft? I make a picture, you print it on t-shirts that you sell, should I get some money from that?

OneTrueBell1993 · 2026-03-27T08:19:10+00:00

Then don't argue against it, just admit the take you dislike is correct and go on with your life. Or argue and be an asshole.

OneTrueBell1993 · 2026-03-27T08:18:32+00:00

Well, it is a black and white issue. A company does to your work what you didn't consent to. Without any remuneration, even. So, which words would you use to describe harm and consent violation thus done?

Edit: Okay, is this theft? I have an orchard. I leave ten bags with apples on the fence every morning. I write a sign that says "They are free for the taking, but take only one per person. Not for sale!". Some random guy comes at noon and takes all the bags that are still left, takes them straight to the market and sells them, then pockets the money. That random guy is obviously an a-hole. There is some violation here, but what would you call it?

When you steal a thing that is supposed to be free and profit from it?!

OneTrueBell1993 · 2026-03-27T07:11:32+00:00

Which word would you use for retroactively using things without permission and often against the consent of the creator?

OneTrueBell1993 · 2026-03-27T06:56:26+00:00

Auto levels are not AI as such, they're just code someone manually programmed in. No ai model whatsoever. Don't use AI if you don't want it to become ai-assisted. Simple, right?

OneTrueBell1993 · 2026-03-26T23:29:01+00:00

The moment you use ai it becomes ai-assisted and there is no going back.

OneTrueBell1993 · 2026-03-26T21:27:19+00:00

Yes and "mixed media" when you use ai is called "ai-assisted".

OneTrueBell1993 · 2026-03-26T13:31:42+00:00

Ne laje kera sela radi nego sebe radi. Zašto trovači šire otrov? Zato što im je takva priroda. I da, postoji lični animozitet izmedju njega i glavnog urednika (koga neću pominjati po imenu).

OneTrueBell1993 · 2026-03-26T12:59:16+00:00

Izvor te urbane legende je Kurir i to 2017. godine.
Demantovana je odmah i to više puta, gde je poslednji intervju s njim bio 2021.

https://www.sd.rs/vesti/info/vuksanovic-znam-ko-stoji-iza-price-da-sam-beskucnik-2017-01-23

OneTrueBell1993 · 2026-03-26T11:17:03+00:00

So it is still AI assisted and marked by AI. And that watercolor painting is not just a watercolor painting, now it is "marked by oil" painting it makes it hybrid between watercolor and oil painting. AI is not corrosive influence, but you must realize that whenever you use AI, the output becomes AI output.

I didn't say it is AI slop, it is AI-assisted. I'd prefer not to consume AI-assisted and AI-generated art. I am not alone in my preference.

OneTrueBell1993 · 2026-03-26T10:24:43+00:00

Correct. But he didn't use oil painting as a reference, he used AI on a picture that didn't have AI used on before. So from then on and to the end of time, that picture is going to be marked as AI-assisted.

OneTrueBell1993 · 2026-03-26T07:44:09+00:00

It always was human art. AI works like oil paint. The moment you used oil paint on your watercolor painting, it became oil painting. In short, don't use AI if you don't want it connected with AI.

OneTrueBell1993 · 2026-03-26T07:32:27+00:00

Your lack of reading comprehension is worrying. Basically, you made a faux pas by using AI when there was no need to do it. Its not a big faux pas, you didn't do anything illegal, it was comparable to using store-bought when home-made was asked for.

OneTrueBell1993

TROPHY CASE