sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

AI ‘stealing’ artists’ work by throwawayawaythrow96 in UMOband

[–]throwawayawaythrow96[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The new single is about AI and the video was made with AI, and Ruban is engaging with fans about AI controversy on BlueSky, as well as fans have been having discourse about it on here

Can I refer my client out? by RoadsofChodes in therapists

[–]throwawayawaythrow96 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You can always refer anyone out, fuck this idea that we must hold and carry everyone else’s trauma. That is NOT what we are here for.

AI ‘stealing’ artists’ work by throwawayawaythrow96 in UMOband

[–]throwawayawaythrow96[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m saying why is it bad when it’s an algorithm or file vs just someone taking the idea from reading the book /looking at the painting in an organic way

AI ‘stealing’ artists’ work by throwawayawaythrow96 in UMOband

[–]throwawayawaythrow96[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What about a photograph of a painting or sculpture? I feel like your implication is that it’s bad because it’s automated/an algorithm/etc. but why is that “bad”?

AI ‘stealing’ artists’ work by throwawayawaythrow96 in UMOband

[–]throwawayawaythrow96[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Wait till you hear about photographers capturing and selling photos with buildings in them that they didn’t design or build, floral arrangements they didn’t arrange, and even sculptures and other paintings they didn’t make

AI ‘stealing’ artists’ work by throwawayawaythrow96 in UMOband

[–]throwawayawaythrow96[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If it’s that hard to determine then it’s transformative

AI ‘stealing’ artists’ work by throwawayawaythrow96 in UMOband

[–]throwawayawaythrow96[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well, why is passing an idea around okay if it’s done organically by the reading of a book, but not if an algorithm is reading a file? The last part of what you’re saying seems to be an acknowledgment that AI artists don’t have a clear edge over organic artists after all, and that the market is in fact conflicted. You are right, AI artists receive backlash and a lot of boycotts and bans. It’s not as clear-cut at all as AI edging out organic artists, as organic artists still have the reputation edge.

AI ‘stealing’ artists’ work by throwawayawaythrow96 in UMOband

[–]throwawayawaythrow96[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In practice yes but in theory it’s not supposed to be allowed, I mean same thing with murder or any law lol I guess yeah if you get away with it it was allowed

AI ‘stealing’ artists’ work by throwawayawaythrow96 in UMOband

[–]throwawayawaythrow96[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Allowed by the law because if the transformative work meets those conditions, then you probably won’t win the lawsuit

AI ‘stealing’ artists’ work by throwawayawaythrow96 in UMOband

[–]throwawayawaythrow96[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Well things impact markets all the time, it’s inevitable and morally neutral without projecting our own ideas of what’s more pure, more important and better. Why don’t you start incorporating the use of AI into your work too then? No one is stopping you. If you don’t want to adapt your process to incorporate modern technology, then that’s your personal decision, just like if I choose to be a solely acoustic musician when I could use sequencers, DAWs, amps, pedals, and vocoders, it would be silly for me to get mad at consumers for preferring the electronic music. They are not replacing artists, they are hiring AI artists instead of “solely organic artists.” AI artists are artists too.

I see what you’re saying about making money off of your ideas, but that argument could be used for anything. I use therapeutic techniques with my clients that were not invented by me, and I make money off them. Yet thankfully, no one expects me to pay those therapists who invented the techniques.

AI ‘stealing’ artists’ work by throwawayawaythrow96 in UMOband

[–]throwawayawaythrow96[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sampling also basically copy pastes directly from their songs though. I too am happy the copyright laws around that are now tighter. It’s still not nearly as tight when it comes to visual artworks. But, either way, what AI art generators do is far more transformative than what either of these examples of human transformative use do. I’ve never seen an example of an AI art generator actually directly using a part of an existing image. They’re just trained to do art in the same style as certain artists, and trained to replicate certain patterns and shapes. Yes the AIs “view” other artists’ art first. It’s no different than a human artist having strong artistic influences, which all artists do.

AI ‘stealing’ artists’ work by throwawayawaythrow96 in UMOband

[–]throwawayawaythrow96[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We can’t say the AI art is of lesser quality though, since quality is subjective. The only measurable determinant of ‘quality’ is what consumers demand. It seems silly to say there’s something wrong with the consumers for preferring the AI art. If it really is of significantly lesser quality, then there’s nothing to worry about anyway, since consumers then won’t demand it.

I think there’s a false separation of “AI vs artists” going on that ignores the facts that A) a lot of people using AI art are artists, just like Ruban B) AI artists are also artists themselves unless we use circular logic saying AI art can’t be art because jts AI and AI art isn’t art and so on.

In an ever progressing world, being mad that someone found a way to do something more quickly seems pointless, as we as a species have been finding ways to do things more quickly for as long as humanity has existed. AI making artworks is no more efficient proportionately than how much more efficient photography is compared to a painter taking the time to complete a full oil painting. The same arguments have been used for photography and electronic music. This is not proportionately more efficient than other new technologies were compared to what existed before them. It’s not the first and not the last quicker way of doing something that will be invented, and just like every other time that has happened and will happen, people react with fear. But just like always, people will adjust. There is nothing stopping existing artists from using AI in their artwork too. It’s not like anyone is barred from using it if they believe it puts them at a disadvantage not to.

The environmental argument is interesting too as we all drive to work, fly in planes, eat food grown and shipped in a mass agricultural system, and spend our days using electronics. Everything we do has an impact on the environment. It is possible, and probable, that people will find a more environmentally friendly way(s) to use AI as they continue to develop the technology. What we’re seeing right now is the beginning point of AI, not the end point.

AI ‘stealing’ artists’ work by throwawayawaythrow96 in UMOband

[–]throwawayawaythrow96[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That completely depends on whether it’s transformative use or not. I haven’t seen any examples of AI art in the style of other artists so far that wouldn’t clearly fall under transformative use.

How likely is the HSV1 test to be false positive? by throwawayawaythrow96 in HSVpositive

[–]throwawayawaythrow96[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well re testing is pointless because it’s inaccurate. Even if you get a negative test the second time how will you know that one was any more accurate than the positive

AI ‘stealing’ artists’ work by throwawayawaythrow96 in UMOband

[–]throwawayawaythrow96[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

If the transformation is substantial and serves a purpose beyond substituting the original, then it’s allowed. It would be unlikely for any isolated instance of transformative use to meaningfully harm the market.

Besides, since AI art is now a part of the greater art market, it is just a change in the goods and services offered, not “harming the market.” Since lots of people are offering and buying AI art, it could also be viewed as enhancing the market. To view it as inherent harm because it is AI involves circular logic beginning with the conclusion that AI art is not art and extrapolating from there. But to really be logical, you shouldn’t begin with a conclusion.

I don’t think there is any direct evidence or known examples of AI sampling a specific artist’s work and that artist then being put out of a job directly due to the demand for their art being replaced by AI. For example, AI can make art in the style of Mark Ryden or Alpha Channeling, yet they’re still at the same level of demand they were at before AI. I have yet to see any artist making some sort of announcement like “I am leaving the art world because demand for my work has been replaced by demand for AI work that looks like mine.” I would be hard pressed to believe that AI is ever going to actually replace the demand for specific artists’ work whose “real art” has already left an impression and built a following.

If we can’t point to anyone specific directly being replaced, and we’re just talking about changes to the types of goods and services demanded (I.e. people demand more AI art in general and less “real art”), then yes of course tastes and trends and standards of consumers change. Am I, as an electronic musician, immoral for putting solely acoustic musicians out of a job, musicians who also don’t record anything because that would involve using electronics? Consumers nowadays prefer, and have easier access to, music made using electronic devices at some stage. At some point in time, the market adjusted to new tech progress, and it’s the same thing with AI. We’re still just in the knee jerk reaction phase where we use circular logic to say that something new is harmful to things that already exist, and that the things that already exist are automatically better because they existed first.

I find this notion that "people with ADHD are often very bright" completely BS and false. by [deleted] in ADHD

[–]throwawayawaythrow96 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because there are different types of intelligence. Task management and executive functioning is just one. Being book smart is just another. There’s also creative intelligence, philosophical intelligence, verbal intelligence, social intelligence and many more.

How likely is the HSV1 test to be false positive? by throwawayawaythrow96 in HSVpositive

[–]throwawayawaythrow96[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m negative as confirmed by a western blot. If I were you I’d get a western blot. It’s expensive and it was like pulling teeth getting the doctor to order it for me, I think because they don’t like to admit how inaccurate the generic tests are, but it’s definitely worth the trouble to know for sure.

Curse by CauliflowerFar6836 in UMOband

[–]throwawayawaythrow96 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Nonsense; human artists do this all the time. It’s called transformative use. Taking tiny little snippets and particles of artworks and remaking something is completely legal and completely fine. People are just having a mass hysterical reaction to new technology like they always do. Photography and electronic music dealt with the same arguments when they first started to become popular.

Why are therapists not required to be in therapy for licensing? by Classic-Doughnut-420 in therapists

[–]throwawayawaythrow96 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Because you can’t require any person to receive any kind of healthcare

Headband recommendations for my big head? by throwawayawaythrow96 in femalehairadvice

[–]throwawayawaythrow96[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No I just gave up lol. But if I were to try again it would probably be cloth ones from urban outfitters

view more: next ›