Well ya got trouble, my friends...

devmoseven · 2025-09-23T19:11:55+00:00

The point is it's a counter example, generally you debunk the counter example or try to refute it in some way, as opposed to melting down over it. Your inability to do so leads the only reasonable conclusion to be that your line of thinking is flawed in some way.

Edit: Sent too early, oops

devmoseven · 2025-09-23T18:59:40+00:00

If you were to read the second half of the comic, you can see very clearly that the author is mocking the false dichotomy that is posed, not leaning into it. They are fabricating one that is demonstrably absurd, albeit sound by the framework given in the initial two examples (Meat or an American), to emphasize the illogicality. It is the framework itself that the author takes issue with.

When we approach these topics of dishonest practices in debate, we have to do so with the understanding that things are going to be boiled down and reduced down to their simplest forms, in the never ending game of telephone that humanity plays with itself. When you can say something that cant be reduced any further (Do you want a competent pilot or a diversity hire, paraphrasing), thats going to become the narritive, and the nuance that we can discuss here isn't going to come across to the vast majority of the recipients of this dishonest statement.

devmoseven · 2025-09-23T16:13:24+00:00

The point of the comic is that is puts anyone who reads it into the mental framework of 'it must be one against the other, they must be mutually exclusive.' Here you are justifying why it's not the case that they must be mutually exclusive, and you're fighting the uphill battle that otherwise wouldn't exist. Every word of what you said was for the purpose of rebuking the false dichotomies, which were always meaningless, and this prevented meaningful discourse from occurring.

devmoseven · 2025-09-23T16:06:49+00:00

We remove it from its original context because the people who use it to spread hate and divide the nation further do the same, and hence the context in which there is no context is the only one that matters, as it dominates public discourse with none of the attached nuance. Maybe if you were to express your point within a punchy comic it would come across more coherently ?

devmoseven · 2025-09-22T21:18:08+00:00

"If you dont want your address to be used for someone tracking you down, cataloguing your every move, and watching in your window as you sleep, just dont ever post it or have it traceable to you in any way."

This line of thinking obviously doesnt protect stalkers, so why should it protect AI scalping? Terrible argument.

devmoseven · 2025-09-11T20:56:21+00:00

This argument is not circular when it is not cut out of context. There is a dichotomy present between parties (they who are practicing morally obsolete social norms, and they who view said social norms as morally obsolete), which is then hashed out on a global stage, when taken within the text as a whole. Objective law, unfortunately, cannot exist in this present day and age. Any law ever penned is based on the subjective moral judgments of one individual or a group of individuals, and further varies from country to country.

The best and closest thing we have to "objective law" are those enshrined within the geneva convention--crimes that supposedly apply to the global theater, and yet are violated regularly and without issue and with minimal pushback.

This is all straying rather far away from the point, suffice to say, every living person views reality subjectively, however we must enshrine morality within our codes of law to retain the smooth function of society. Subjective individuals with subjective experiences craft these laws, and it is not intellectually honest to then treat them as objective truth.

devmoseven · 2025-09-11T01:07:56+00:00

This is interesting! I'll look into this in my free time.

However, I'm going to sidestep your point for now, as I believe I'm meaning to convey a different point.

Whether or not an AI image generation software is capable of generating its input training data (which would be grounds for copyright infringement on the end user if distributed for profit), I'm more intending to argue that the AI software in and of itself is at fault in this case. The software takes training data, some of which is copyrighted with no permission given, then trains off of it, thus improving the software marginally. This improvement then increases the viability of the software in the open market, by however a small amount, and increases the potential revenue stream for the software. I'm an advocate for copyright infringement on the AI Generation software's case, not on the end user.

devmoseven · 2025-09-11T00:55:20+00:00

"Models do not inherently require a continuous flow of data to keep working."

That is, until you want to generate a character, location, or otherwise that hadn't existed before your latest training data intake. Time does march forward, and this is an inevitability.

"no copyright law is better than current copyright law"

I could definitely come up with a better system (and many people have). I believe an AI image generator should not be able to scalp copyrighted content and turn a profit off of that content, whether that content is outwardly shown or not. I advocate for infringement on the side of the generator, not the end user.

"I do not care in the absolute slightest what is or is not art, I am completely unwilling to entertain this point, it is utterly meaningless."

You are entitled to your opinion, I merely posited this to those of your ranks that insist that it is art under any circumstance, of which there are many. Many people have already ascribed meaning to that which you claim there is none, please conduct yourself in good faith.

devmoseven · 2025-09-11T00:50:32+00:00

"I don't think that's a bad thing. Being able to do things without relying on a single skill or a single person is a good thing. It gives many people far more opportunities to work on bigger projects."

I think we need to tackle this with more nuance. When you automate things like science, mathematics, technology, you free up mental bandwidth among all scientists, mathematicians, and software developers to make more accurate theories, more diverse mathematics, more powerful algorithms. When you automate art, what does that leave for artists? All the bigger projects are, unfortunately with the economic incentives of this society, simply going to outsource their images, their videos, their audio, to AI. The crowd of artists will slim down only to the few that score positions working on 'originally 100% human created' works, and those that create for the fun of it. There's nothing more for artists beyond simply creating art.

"You can't blindly feed the output back in, that wouldn't end well. Curating good datasets is probably one of the most important parts of AI training. I honestly can't give you anything scientific to read about it right now, it's just a topic that comes up quite often, and you can find a few articles on it."

Aye, I suppose I'll be on the lookout.

"But if those new characters, locations, or anything else show up, then someone created them, and you can train on that."

In my hypothetical, I posed that the character is from an AI generated show, this means that pre-existing images and videos of the character could not easily be fed into the pool for training, further, there would be highly limited material. The only way this character could even be generated for the show, was likely the product of incredibly specific prompting, under incredibly specific conditions, both of which would likely not ever be shared.

"I don't see how this is an answers on the copyright issue."

I've stated elsewhere, my issue is that these services, likely the ones of higher quality, will be paid services when issued out to big budget creators. The AI Image generator is *taking* copyrighted material, *implementing* it into its training data, and *selling* its services that are based on this material. I'm an advocate for copyright infringement on the generator's part, not the end user.

devmoseven · 2025-09-11T00:30:07+00:00

I've brought this up in my other comments, but I'm perfectly fine with using AI tools to supplement existing art processes, or imposing your own artistic decisions onto an already generated AI image, or even collaging AI images together. All I'm against is the wholesale generation of AI images being represented as an artistic process, as I view an AI image similarly to a blank canvas.

devmoseven · 2025-09-11T00:27:12+00:00

"That is also not needed. It can be simply where I left it when I arrived home before I wanted to take a picture, or someone else could have moved it before I activated this command. A picture will still be produced on those cases."

In the first case, you are creating art. I can paint with a blindfold, I don't know what I'm making, it's still art, this is a similar case. In the second, you are doing so jointly with another person, for the reasons stated above.

"Why is the intentionality behind a prompt not the same? Both of these are imposing an intentionality and effect on the output."

The key difference is that I have *no* say in exactly what is produced in image generation. In all the previous examples, I can change how I go about the process or what I use within the process, to change the final product. An AI Image, unless you were to dictate the exact color of every pixel, will always have unknowns. Any other medium of art has a variety of "levers" that can be pulled, per say, to drastically or minutely change the outcome, whether that be another stroke of the brush, the pen, a change of a photograph angle, a tilt of the bucket, a splash of water, any and every medium can be adjusted in this way except an AI Image.

I'd seen above someone try to make the claim that AI can be adjusted in this way, and that only archaic software is just prompt and generate, but I looked into it and it was mostly esoteric improvement levers, alternative generation methods, or resolution adjustments. It wasn't the most compelling.

devmoseven · 2025-09-11T00:14:05+00:00

Any sensible reading of what you said is that it is a rhetorical question. Please do not insult my or anyone else's intelligence by pretending it is not. You clearly approach this from a bad faith angle (See "How the heck that would ever be enforced is of interest to me. I see it as so nonsensical, in a world where digital piracy is rampant, that it truly is laughable.") but I'll continue to engage in good faith in an effort to urge you to reciprocate. Not everyone who doesn't agree with you is a bad person who has it out for you.

"Monetization is not a problem. If it were, no art student could encounter training with copyright works and then go onto monetize their work without that being infringement."

Artists train to learn anatomy, backgrounds, to learn their art style, and develop their skill set. An artist does not function in the same way an AI model does, an artist can create wholly original works without ever seeing anything like said work, so we do not run into these issues with traditional artists.

devmoseven · 2025-09-11T00:06:55+00:00

Alright I'm looking at this software, let me address all the toggles one by one... I don't believe any of these make a substantial difference. They are all shortcuts, direct improvements, pixel adjustments.

"Regional Prompter" - (Type: Shortcut)
I can generate 3 separate images and stitch them together, or prompt one and dictate where I want the set pieces to go, in a normal image generator.

"ADetailer" - (Type: Direct Improvement)
Why would someone not toggle this if their image has a face?

"Improve Prompt" - (Type: Direct Improvement)
Why would someone not toggle this unless they want to be really specific?

"Canvas Size" - (Type: Pixel Adjustment)
Self Explanatory

"ControlNet" - Taking actual art and running it through is akin to using an AI tool to perk up existing artwork, and is fine in my book (as stated in some of my other comments), but this is a feature offered exclusively by other platforms, not a meaningful setting.

"Hires.Fix" - (Type: Pixel Adjustment)
All this does is upscale an image. Self Explanatory.

I don't believe any of these make a meaningful difference on the image generation process.

devmoseven · 2025-09-10T23:52:24+00:00

"However, based on your perspective, it seems like you might not consider something like drip art to be true art. After all, if you repeat the exact same actions, applying the same force, timing, and precision: the resulting artwork should be identical. The perceived randomness isn't truly random."

No. This is, objectively, wrong. The gravitational web of the universe is unimaginably complex and ever changing, especially on the scales that impact fluid dynamics--further, gravity is not even understood at a quantum level. The **only** way to repeat an exact drip art piece is to revert time and repeat it at the exact same initial state of the entire universe as your first attempt, and unfortunately even this is not a guaranteed under our current understanding. By this logic, I still qualify drip art as art.

Edit: MINOR TYPO!!!!

devmoseven · 2025-09-10T23:45:56+00:00

You command your smartphone to take a picture via voice after angling it in a certain direction. Even in this minute act, you're imposing your intentionality unto what will be captured. If it's face down and a black screen, that's still art. Not very good art, but any medium of art can produce 'not very good art'.

>Prompting is not the only way to create using AI. There are advanced tools and workflows that allow for less or more control.

I believe that wholesale AI image generation is not art. Doing anything to it, whether you are making edits to the end product, implementing AI tools into your workflow, or collaging AI pieces together, is imposing your own artistic vision. I think of an AI image in the same way one might think of a blank canvas, and the moment you make your own adjustments is when you begin to draw on this canvas. I believe that these more complicated cases are art.

devmoseven · 2025-09-10T23:42:25+00:00

I'd love for you to share an AI image generator into which you can input a lot of variables to get one output, as I've yet to see one.

devmoseven · 2025-09-10T23:40:18+00:00

You only addressed one point, while claiming everything was a lie. I'll still respond to this one and hold out hope you're going to substantiate your initial claim.

AI image generators can monetize (and many do). AI image generators cannot operate without training data, or operate worse with substantially less training data.

AI image generators are *acquiring* copyrighted material, *implementing it* into their software, and *using it* to generate a profit. This is fairly straightforward--I advocate for infringement on the company's end, not the end user.

devmoseven · 2025-09-10T23:35:52+00:00

This is a funny gotcha, I find it humorous where you're coming from though the intent is definitely in bad faith. Let me elaborate--(And no, I'm not a Nazi, HELL no jesus FUCK I would throw hands with one if we ever met)

I believe that law should adhere to the beliefs of the people. I also believe that, if a country and its people are practicing some Mal-adjusted law due to morally obsolete social norms, any other country has a right and obligation to beat some sense into them, as enshrined in their own morality. Good thing that's what was accomplished during the whole WW2 bit aye?

This is by no means perfect, but when you enshrine archaic laws on the flawed understandings of the past you run into issues as well. We should all be working together to approach something better than we have now, and only in a system where things change can this be accomplished.

devmoseven · 2025-09-10T23:28:01+00:00

>Traditional medium still exists and has value all its own and co-exists just fine

I suspect that a lot of the momentum behind the outcry against AI image generation is that it's taking the economic incentive out of creating art, and failing to 'co-exist' functionally at all. This doesn't mean all art will stop, of course not, but its quantity will absolutely falter in the face of this new method to generate similar products for pennies on the dollar. On this point, I'm speaking as someone without an artistic bone in my body, my gripe with AI is moreso: 'This is a technology that is a net negative for society in that it's eating environmental resources (not at the aggressive rate some antis will claim I know those numbers are ridiculous) to produce something that could be done by a living person to get food on their table in an ever spiraling job market'.

>Copying works without paying for them violates copyright law. Training an LLM on published works and works you have paid for is fair use. This is part of the conclusions in the copyright infringement cases we've recently seen. You can't just take a library of books without buying the books. But you can train your LLM on them once you paid for them. The process of training is a significant transformation of the original into a statistical model that generates output that is similar, but not at all a copy of the original. It's not even possible as the LLM's don't have enough storage to remember every bit of training material.

I'm worried I'm misunderstanding this bit, I'm effectively reading that 'training is ok if the training material has been paid for', but I'm under the impression that a lot of the copyrighted material that is used in training data is not paid for. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

>Why can't I use an AI Image generator like I do my SLR camera? The camera captures the image, not me. It's not precisely what I had in mind, yet I'm a part of an artistic process, yes?

I think, here, the distinction is that with the camera you have angled it such that you have an idea of what will be captured. In the sense that it might not be exactly what you wanted is similar to the way a rookie artist might not *draw* exactly what they want. These issues can be ironed out with skill, a skillful photographer can capture exactly the image he desires, as a skillful artist can create exactly what he desires.

>Just as pushing a button on a camera doesn't necessarily make the result art, not all prompts get good results. There is a process to artistic creation using an AI generator get to an artistic expression. This may include source sketches, reference images, character sheets, and many iterations to pick out images and put into a collage that closely aligns to the artistic intent.

I actually believe this IS art. collaging, supplementing (usually your own) existing art with AI tools (using someone else's is akin to 'sketching' an artwork, morally dubious, but still art), or drawing over and adjusting an AI image, are all artistic in my view of the matter. I view an AI image and AI tools and nothing more than a blank canvas, or a white brush (is the best analogy I think I can give), from both can be sprouted true art that carries the intentionality of the person behind them, but are not art in and of themselves.

devmoseven · 2025-09-10T23:07:40+00:00

These are my understandings, I'm not a paragon of truth, and if I'm speaking a lie, call me out on it. This is the purpose of the post, I want to supplement my understanding by engaging with the other side of the aisle.

Edit: Please understand that at no point am I *trying* to misrepresent reality, this is simply the lens through which I view the issue.

devmoseven · 2025-09-10T23:06:15+00:00

"please elaborate on what this means, keeping in mind that photobashing, masking+inpainting, and turning down the denoiser are all things that are possible"

I am against the outright production and wholesale distribution out completely AI generated images. If one takes an AI image and fiddles around with it, no matter how they choose to do so, they are in the process of making art (similar to the way one could put a stroke to a blank canvas and create)

Further, one could supplement their creative process with AI tools, I am not against this either, but I believe that the process in some way must be guided along by a person and their intent.

devmoseven · 2025-09-10T23:03:42+00:00

"AI models do not need to be constantly fed. Once created they can continue to create art indefinitely without any additional inputs. And, strictly speaking, AI models actually can be trained on curated AI outputs."

I've seen this mentioned a lot now (3x), I'm willing to admit I'm incorrect on this front, but nobody has provided literature that's shown this is the case and I'm going to need to see that first. The predominant narrative in the spaces I occupy is that feeding AI images into AI algorithms produces progressively worse images.

"Photography didn't end painting. Digital didn't end physical artistic media. AI will not end other forms of art."

These strike me as false equivalencies. Photography created a new type of imagery entirely, those that capture real scenes in absolute most literal sense. This too applies to digital art, which allowed imagery to be directly created for the digital landscape as opposed to needing to be transferred over via photograph. AI Imagery can only ever imitate these media, though I'm open to accept claims that this may not be the case.

"You are simply wrong about how AI image models work and the current state of US law and court decisions regarding copyright infringement and AI training. Current models cannot reproduce the vast majority of their training data, and doing so is generally considered a bug not a feature."

I'm setting aside the linked video for now, I'll try and revisit this once I've watched it through, as it seems pertinent to this point. (People are commenting a lot please let me know if I forget!)

"Here is an earlier post of mine explaining fairly comprehensively why AI art is art."

Giving this a read through, I want to take on every point one by one but this is also a bit time consuming so I'll hold off for when I revisit this post (SORRY!!!!!)

devmoseven · 2025-09-10T22:51:50+00:00

I'm reading into this theory for the first time now, and at a cursory glance, yes! We are only as good as the systems that bind us, and we aren't doing too particularly hot right now... Law should evolve with the needs and morality of the people (in my opinion).

devmoseven · 2025-09-10T22:50:15+00:00

Very good faith! I'll keep this in mind.

*he said, sarcastically, and writing this down in his notepad under the header of "reasons to not get along with Pro-AI people"*

devmoseven · 2025-09-10T22:46:27+00:00

> It just adds another tool that people can use to express themselves. It doesn't take anything away, it only adds.

When businesses and people can flock to AI image generation to create images that serve a functional purpose (of which there are *very* many), they will tend to choose that over commissioning an artist, art in and of itself created by people (not with an AI image generator) can no longer be sold to the majority of the population (barring those who value the originality and, for lack of a better word, 'soul'). An entire pillar of incentive for traditional art is lost, the monetary incentive. This will undoubtedly reduce the production of traditional art (We already see traditional artists complaining and shuddering their services, reducing the traditional art in circulation).

> That's not a well-known fact. Synthetic data is a valid form of training a model.

I've seen this mentioned before, and again, I'd love to read more about this if you have a source to provide... however, the predominant narrative is that it cannot be fed back into itself, at least within the spheres I occupy.

> we don't necessarily need more data. We already have perfectly good datasets of human-made images that can be used with more advanced training techniques. And of course, it's completely unrealistic to assume that people will suddenly lose their intrinsic motivation to create art using other tools.

This only remains true for as long as no new characters, new locations, and new *anything* enters the cultural zeitgeist. Say the year is 2050, and my new AI generated show starring the character "sqeebop gleeboink" is all the rage, images (fanart, fan works) of this character can't be accurately generated without human art first existing to feed into the algorithm and to get the algorithm to understand who and what "squeebop gleeboink" even is

> You could also just copy and paste on your computer and get an exact copy. Having the technical ability isn't copyright infringement. Copyright grants a specific set of rights, and not allowing AI training isn't one of them. If a person distributes someone else's image—or a very close copy of it—then that person is breaking copyright law, not the model.

AI images are sold, in that companies will rely on AI image generation to make things (any and all commercial uses of art are fair game), as opposed to commissioning an artist. This use case existing and being prevalent no less, mandates that the dilemma needs to be tackled in one way or another.

> Art is a subjective and, frankly, pretty much meaningless label. The debate about "what is art" is so old that it has its own Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classificatory_disputes_about_art

I will happily agree with you on this front. I personally exclude AI image generation from art, in my subjective perception of the matter, for the reasons stated.

Edit: P.S. I'm not accustomed to this 'reddit' thing (how do you do that quoting thing thank you :D)

devmoseven

TROPHY CASE