AI plagiarism wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for intellectual copyright and capitalism. Ironically, the status quo of AI art being public domain is absolutely based, as the fruits of our stolen labor belong to us. The communists and anarchists should totally make nonprofit AI art that nobody is allowed to own. Reclaiming AI would be awesome!

Unfortunately, tech bros want to enslave all artists along with the rest of the workers, so they'll rewrite copyright law to turn AI into their exclusive property. It'll be an exception with no justification besides "greed=good"

[–] mindlesscrollyparrot@discuss.tchncs.de 26 points 2 days ago (3 children)

AIs take away attribution as well as copyright. The original authors don't get any credit for their creativity and hard work. That is an entirely separate thing from ownership and property.

It is not at all OK for an AI to take a work that is in the public domain, erase the author's identity, and then reproduce it for people, claiming it as its own.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] Jomega@lemmy.world 38 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Even in a hypothetical utopia, the thought of a sea of slop drowning the creative world makes my skin crawl. Imagine putting your heart and soul into something only to watch some machine liquify it into an ugly paste in a nanosecond, then it goes on to do the same thing a million times in a row. It's hard enough to get noticed in this world, and now every passion project has to compete with the diseased inbred freak clones of other passion projects? It makes me feel so goddamn angry that some asshole felt the need to invent such a thing, and for what? What problem does it solve? Why do you need to use up a cities worth of water to make a six fingered Sailor Moon?

[–] nectar@lemmy.world 34 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I generally agree (especially with the current critique of using up water/power just for one image)

But I can't get behind "this tool will make people who don't use it feel bad". The same arguments were levied against Photoshop and now it's a tool in the arsenal. The same arguments were levied against the camera. And I could see the same argument against the printing press (save those poor monks doing calligraphy)

The goal of "everything shall be AI" is fucked and clearly wrong. That doesn't mean there isn't any use for it. People who wanna crank out slop will give up when there's no money in it and it doesn't grant them attention.

And I say this as someone who despises how every website has an AI chatbot popping up when I visit their site and every search engine is offloading actually visiting and reading pages to AI summaries

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 2 days ago (2 children)

This is where I'm coming from. Generative AI is pretty cool and useful, but it has severe limitations that most people don't comprehend. Machine learning can automate countless time consuming tasks. This is especially true in the entertainment industry, where it's just another tool for production to use.

Businesses fail to understand is that it cannot perform deductive tasks without necessarily making errors. It can only give probable outputs, not outputs that must be correct based on the input. It goes against the very assumptions we make about computer logic, as it doesn't work on deductive reasoning.

Generative AI works by emulating biological intelligence, taking principles of neuroscience to solve problems quickly and efficiently. However, this gives AI similar weaknesses to our own minds, imagining things and baking in bias. It can never give the accurate summaries Google hopes it can, as it will only ever tell us what it thinks we want to hear. They keep misusing it in ways that either waste everyone's time, or do serious harm.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago

Eh. Without the economic incentive, we wouldn't be getting a sea of slop. The energy concerns are very real though.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The sad thing is there is currently a vibrant open source scene around generative ai. There is a strong media campaign against it, as to manipulate the general population so they clamor for a strengthening of copyrights laws.

This won't lead to these tools disappearing, it will just force them behind pricey and censored subscription models while open source options wither and die.

They do indeed want to enslave us, and will do it with the help of people like OP.

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 2 days ago (4 children)

IP, like every part of capitalism, has been totally turned against the artists it claimed to protect. If they want it to only be a chain that binds us, we need to break it. They had their chance to make it work for workers, and they squashed it. If we can't buy into the system, we have every reason to oppose it.

On a large scale, this will come in the form of "crime," not revolutionary action. With no social contract binding anyone voluntarily, people will do what they must to serve their own interests. Any criminal activity that weakens the system more than the people must be supported whole heartedly. Smuggling and theft from the wealthy; true Robin Hood marks; are worthy of support. Vengeance from those scarred by the system is more justice than state justice. Revolution isn't what the fat cats need to fear.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It's random slop shat out by a machine. Art requires a living, breathing human with thoughts, emotions, and experiences, otherwise it's just a pile of shit.

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 day ago

It's only immoral, not inherently of lower quality. Aesthetics and ethics aren't about what actually is, but about what should be. Even if an AI and a person produce the same image, the AI isn't a living, breathing human. AI art isn't slop because of its content, but because of the economic context. That's a far better reason to hate it than its mistakes and shortcomings.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] Mr_Mofu@lemmy.blahaj.zone 31 points 2 days ago (6 children)

As someone who is largely around the art community admiring and sharing thier work, the fact that I could confuse AI Generated Images and thusly falsely share or save them has been such a huge anxiety of mine every since 2022

[–] megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 days ago

One easy way to check is the look for JPEG artifacts that doesn’t make any sense. A lot of the systems were trained with images stored as JPEGs, so the output will have absurd amounts of JPEG artifacting that will show up in ways that make no sense for something that actually went through JPEG compression, such as having multiple grids of artifacts that don’t line up or of wildly different scales.

[–] AlolanYoda@mander.xyz 12 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I'm really bad at noticing small details. Luckily 99% of AI artists use the same art style (with more or less Pixar influence for humans) so I can still spot AI imagery from a mile away

[–] Anivia@feddit.org 24 points 2 days ago

Or you only notice the obvious ones and are oblivious to all the ones you have not recognized

[–] droans@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And the face is always one of these.

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 day ago

All of these faces make physical sense, while AI art often doesn't.

[–] Mr_Mofu@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 2 days ago

I've had moments where they admitted to Generating the Images in thier Bio, yet even with that knowledge I could not tell. I reccon this is much more of an issue in the Anime Artist scene where there are more varied Art styles to steal and replicate...

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] Corno@lemm.ee 11 points 2 days ago (13 children)

The way some people defend AI generated images reminds me of the way some people defend the act of tracing other people's art without the artist's permission and uploading it while claiming they made it.

load more comments (13 replies)

[–] mhague@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I only consume garbage slop when it's manmade. A song with 57 kajillion views is real art. A movie with Dwayne Johnson is real art. Only rich people should be able to subject everyone to their limited imagination. Now that regular people can create slop my delicate capitalist machines that shit out content for me to consume are being disrupted. I'm too lazy and dumb to form personal connections with other humans so these fake ass systems are the only way I can get content. And you just can't tell if it's human anymore, it's so sad.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Mikina@programming.dev 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

If you look at it from this perspective, it sounds way more obvious. I like this PoV.

[–] LMagicalus@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 2 days ago

That is one hell of a garden path sentence

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (11 children)

Tech bro: I don't know you stranger. But here is the source code of my lifelong project, have fun and do whatever you want with it

Etsy Artist: NO, you cannot have the raw files of your wedding pictures, are you insane? THOSE ARE MINE AND ONLY MINE!. I want to be paid for anytime you vaguely look in the direction of anything I done, FOREVER!

But you are telling me the former is the greedy bad guy and the later is the light for the revolution or something.

I'll go all in:

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 7 points 1 day ago

I'm inclined to say that TechBros are usually not the ones whose work they give away for free*, and they really care more about profits than anything.

* there are a multitude of ways to provide information but making sure it's useless, for AI models that usually comes in a way of providing the source code but not training data or architecture, so that you'll need to do most of the work again. A lot of them don't do even that.

Please note, this comment is off topic to the OP post and is only about your idealistic view of TechBros

load more comments (10 replies)

load more comments