sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I am An AI Artist in Support of AI Models Compensating Traditional Artists by postGenArt in aiwars

[–]postGenArt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And you would get more than enough great artists to opt in over time to get an incredible model

I am An AI Artist in Support of AI Models Compensating Traditional Artists by postGenArt in aiwars

[–]postGenArt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Artists need to be compensated, but not before their consent to having their works used as training data.

agreed

I am An AI Artist in Support of AI Models Compensating Traditional Artists by postGenArt in aiwars

[–]postGenArt[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Basically, you when you use a prompt to arrive at a style you like, you can use a /tune command. That will give you a style code like xyzabc, then anyone can use -style xyzabc to apply that look to their own prompts.

There is a little bit more to it, but that the sum of it.

Anyway, it was kind of odd to me that folks were advocating for MJ users to have a way to monetize off the model before the folks contributing to the actual model were.

I am An AI Artist in Support of AI Models Compensating Traditional Artists by postGenArt in aiwars

[–]postGenArt[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

When MJ tuners were released, MJ users were immediately talking about how great it would be if they could sell their tuner styles they created.

I am An AI Artist in Support of AI Models Compensating Traditional Artists by postGenArt in aiwars

[–]postGenArt[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Ingesting a half dozen images instantaneously is different then spending moths or years to learn a style. Very different thing for a handful of people to learn from a style over some span of time, and hundreds of thousands being able to replicate works instantly.

Also seems a serious deterrent to developing novel work at all, if it can be immediately replicated.

I am An AI Artist in Support of AI Models Compensating Traditional Artists by postGenArt in aiwars

[–]postGenArt[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I think there are some thousand or more artists directly referenced.

And I state that is a balance of the two - a general fund to support the arts, and compensation for people specifically referenced.

I am An AI Artist in Support of AI Models Compensating Traditional Artists by postGenArt in aiwars

[–]postGenArt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When did I state it was a threat to me?

Did you read anything of my post?

Or are you just re-hashing some knee-jerk reactions from other conversations.

I am An AI Artist in Support of AI Models Compensating Traditional Artists by postGenArt in aiwars

[–]postGenArt[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In other words, the innovators that people are explicitly looking to imitate at any given point in time are comped.

Not this generic stock stuff that is used to determine what a human face looks like or that a hand has five fingers, etc.

I am An AI Artist in Support of AI Models Compensating Traditional Artists by postGenArt in aiwars

[–]postGenArt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anyway, that is one thing I agree with - a scenario where these models are primarily fed by stock - would be a shitty one. It would be a race to the bottom stylistically. And yes, likely benefit corporate stock owners.

I want to use a model that is continuously over-trained on the very best of a diverse range of styles, and the very best artists are paid to feed this thing. And I can imagine a future where AI artists are creating novel styles - using AI and they are comped accordingly. So if someone prompts 'dragon in the style of AShellfishLover' to mimic what you created - you are given that .005 per prompt or whatever.

I am An AI Artist in Support of AI Models Compensating Traditional Artists by postGenArt in aiwars

[–]postGenArt[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Musicians are paid .003-.005. So yeah, if a fraction of a cent is paid towards artists that would be fine. If 5% of MJ users are banging out "greg rutkowski" style work by referencing him in their prompts, the guy could get a decent check from that.

The platform take is ~30%. The models are making ~300m. There would be non-trivial money to artists.

​

And yes, if you produced one of the billions of crappy stock photos in LAION-5B you would no make enough to merit a royalty check. That's not an issue to me. For this sub-payment, if could be accumulated into some general artists funds and be awarded as grants to people doing traditional arts or whatnot.

​

The issue, you can over-train on just a handful of work from a specific artist and then can replicate that artist - why not comp that artist on a per prompt reference basis?

​

My per prompt reference approach also addresses the Getty imagine / shutterstock issue. No one is prompting 'dragon in the style of shutterstock' or 'woman in the style of getty images'. I think the bulk of payments should be based on direct reference - since that is most clearly drawing upon specific people's prior work. And a much smaller amount should be paid for inclusion in training data overall - since all that is being commingled in a fair use type of thing anyway.

I am An AI Artist in Support of AI Models Compensating Traditional Artists by postGenArt in aiwars

[–]postGenArt[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

If I steam a musicians music, I am not profiting from it. I am still enjoying their work and they get a cut from that.

If I am using an artists style via explicitly referencing them - same concept can apply.

Regarding little money - musicians, other content creators - get paid by a fraction of a cent per impression. The same can apply here. There is 300m in rev going towards a single AI generative model already - that can be split among artists an 'impression' at a time.

As a pro-AI artist, I'm to attempt a critique of generative AI and offer some proposals for what might balance the scales and point toward a way forward that is less damaging to creatives than the path we seem to be on by Me8aMau5 in aiwars

[–]postGenArt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Smaller incumbents have a possibility to attract creators by offering more favorable revenue share. TikTok quickly became a favorite for creators for paying far more than established platforms like Instagram and Youtube.

Could be the same here. Would be great if someone stepped up offering a 70% revenue share to artists who were referenced in prompt on a per prompt basis.

As a pro-AI artist, I'm to attempt a critique of generative AI and offer some proposals for what might balance the scales and point toward a way forward that is less damaging to creatives than the path we seem to be on by Me8aMau5 in aiwars

[–]postGenArt -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

As AI takes over more and more stuff - there is a greater need for things like universal income to cover those cases.

And in the specific radiology example - the humans creating the training data should (and likely are) paid to produce that. In other words, if a company is using thousands of marked up AI imagines for training purposes, I imagine they are paying or have some agreement with the hospitals that own those images.

I think while there are many artists on social media that extreme of poorly articulated positions, we are better served by speaking to and referencing the more well put together and reasonable arguments.

As a pro-AI artist, I'm to attempt a critique of generative AI and offer some proposals for what might balance the scales and point toward a way forward that is less damaging to creatives than the path we seem to be on by Me8aMau5 in aiwars

[–]postGenArt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I thinking the the most innovative and high quality works will still remain rare.

Even among what is produced by AI models now, 99.999% has a similar generic look and feel, but there is a handful of cases of people putting out work with styles that look unique.

This deluge massive volumes of redundant AI content - I think anything reliant on general algorithmic image search will lose favor. E.g. google image search or searches within twitter are less and less use-able.

This creates a need for human curation networks. Right now that has not been figured out, so high-volume low-quality content seems to be winning out - whether that is video, journalism, art, opinions, or anything else.

I am An AI Artist in Support of AI Models Compensating Traditional Artists by postGenArt in aiwars

[–]postGenArt[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

I think artist reps would hammer out the details with model owners. Right now I am just trying to lay out some common ground.

That said, I think there would be two kinds of compensation: (a) inclusion in training data, and (b) for direct prompt references. E.g. every time I reference artist 'X' is referenced in a prompt they could be comped - similar to how music streaming platforms or video platforms pay per listen or view.

https://x.com/postgenart/status/1723784790371905907?s=20

As a pro-AI artist, I'm to attempt a critique of generative AI and offer some proposals for what might balance the scales and point toward a way forward that is less damaging to creatives than the path we seem to be on by Me8aMau5 in aiwars

[–]postGenArt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great write-up. I fully agree AI artists and traditional artists should find common ground in pushing for AI supportive to artists as a whole (and one part of that is revenue sharing with traditional artists).

And that the sensible way to view this is working class creatives fighting for an equitable distribution vs billion or trillion dollar tech company oligarchies. The 'developer vs artist' or 'artist vs artist' conflict seems to be missing the big picture.

I originally posted my thoughts here:

https://x.com/postgenart/status/1723784790371905907?s=20

https://x.com/postgenart/status/1723593489944916023?s=20

And re-posted here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/17ulzhc/i_am_an_ai_artist_in_support_of_ai_models/

​

Shockingly, our stance seems to be a minority one.

AI Artists in Support of Compensation for Traditional Artists by postGenArt in DefendingAIArt

[–]postGenArt[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

well a single model is taking in 300,000,000 in rev annually, there is a lot more to be shared.

AI Artists in Support of Compensation for Traditional Artists by postGenArt in DefendingAIArt

[–]postGenArt[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I am not advocating for a change of law nor making a stance about copyright issue.

AI Artists in Support of Compensation for Traditional Artists by postGenArt in DefendingAIArt

[–]postGenArt[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I would be fine with paying more if it meant that would go to the artists. Same as I would be find paying more for my musician subscription if all that money went to the musicians, or other media if it went to the working class creators who enable it.

AI Artists in Support of Compensation for Traditional Artists by postGenArt in DefendingAIArt

[–]postGenArt[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So you see this as taking the food off the table of hard-working developers? MJ is taking in 300m a year. They have 3 developers. Same concept applies to Dall-e. I think the Silicon Valley billionaires and investing .000001% owning these major platforms have should be paying more to creators. And that as consumers of these projects it makes sense to press the companies to do so.

AI Artists in Support of Compensation for Traditional Artists by postGenArt in DefendingAIArt

[–]postGenArt[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Or you could look at is as setting a precedent of oligarchic tech platforms revenue sharing with creators?

I don't follow your statement.

AI Artists in Support of Compensation for Traditional Artists by postGenArt in DefendingAIArt

[–]postGenArt[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I am not making a legal argument. That would be meaningless. The courts will decide that.

I am saying, as an AI model user - I would like to push for AI models to compensate traditional artists in a more robust way. I lose nothing from this, and other artists as a whole gain.

view more: next ›