• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

General Be careful talking about AI art

Spinward Scout

Spinward Scout

SOC-14 5K
Baron
So, the other day, I got banned from a particular author's subreddit on Reddit for asking if their work could be made using AI and put up a couple of articles about AI art being Fair Use. Of course, I immediately blocked anyone I had talked to who thought AI art is Theft, which were probably the ones that flagged me.

Be careful who you even talk to about AI artwork.

This is definitely not Freedom when anyone can make their Opinion into what's basically a law. I wonder what will happen if something like that goes to the Supreme Court. SCOTUS has overturned a number of creative lawsuits saying people stole music. If it's not exactly note for note, it wasn't stealing.

I think the same will happen with AI art.

I went over to the author's Facebook and mentioned it and they said it's not surprising that the 'AI Haters' caused a problem for me.

Anyone dealing with this for Traveller art?
 
As I understand it, currently under US law AI art is not copyrightable, which makes it a great way of 'laundering' art. As for whether it's stealing or not, that's not black-and-white - all artists copy techniques, compositions, etc. from one and another - it's part of learning to make art. However, currently those using others' art for AI 'training' do this on an epic scale, pay nothing for the 'education', and give no credit for it either, and that makes it unethical.

There's some quite good AI art out there that makes me want to see what the originals that 'inspired' it are like, but I can't, because nobody bothers to say, assuming they even know (and if they're using one of the major AIbots and haven't trained it themselves they won't know), and I think that's a terrible thing.
 
If it replicates the Mona Lisa, exactly, it should be outside of copyright.

The other option is an original rendering, using the style of an artist.

It's certainly an ethical issue, if the artist is still living, and continues to create art.
 
The First Amendment includes both freedom of speech and freedom of association, among its other grants.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...
It only applies specifically to the government. Companies and organizations are allowed to set their own rules on content and membership, except where it affects legally protected classes.

Also, it doesn't apply outside the US (and thus might not be a fully accepted norm in online communities with international membership). There are symbols you can't display in Germany, for example -- and for the most part they're just fine with that.
 
Rupert said:
which makes it a great way of 'laundering' art.

However, currently those using others' art for AI 'training' do this on an epic scale, pay nothing for the 'education', and give no credit for it either, and that makes it unethical.
Click to expand...
This is the crux of the problem ... the "laundering" side of it.

Clothes laundering is smiled upon.
Money laundering is frowned upon.

Guess which side of the divide that "AI works" trend towards? :unsure:
 
A.I. is a tool so new that there are no rules for it yet.

A.I. is a tool that has many uses. As time goes on, even more uses will be discovered.

A.I. is a tool that can be used to help one or many... or used to hurt one or many. Any rules for its use or laws to limit its use will be made as time goes on.

Having read many Sci-Fi books and watched many Sci-Fi movies, I can't help but wonder which way A.I. will go in reality. A part of me is scared and the other part of me is excited... maybe I've read & watched too many books & movies with so many forms of A.I..

Will Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics be enough or not enough for A.I.? (I know, it might be too early, but if A.I. improves enough, hopefully we'll be ready.)

As far as A.I. art, I've seen some really good A.I. art, and some that creeps me out. I guess that for now, it depends on the input and guidance of the artist.
 
Mark me down as anti-AI ''art'' for all the reasons given above by others, and then some I won't get into here.

I try not to be too rough on gamers using it for purely noncommercial purposes, but I banned it from my fanzine, when I was editor.
I'd much prefer to see even the crudest amateur art made by a real human than look at the slickest digital remixing of images done by a machine.
Not that most AI images good. They don't.

My policy:

I won't acknowledge nonart as art.

I won't pay for slop.

If I see an AI generated cover, I pass on reading the book, even if it free.

I will discourage others from using AI if my opinion is asked or the topic is open to general comment.

I will report scammers and frauds.

I won't badmouth or harass a fellow hobbyist for sharing AI images of his Traveller or other gaming stuff. I will usually just refrain from comment if I have nothing positive or helpful to say.
Some guys like to use it to generate character images. I tend to bleed a little at the eyes, looking at that, but I am not going to fight the Butlerian Jihad over it. I won't willingly read LLM text, though. Ugh.
 
Last edited:
bookwyrm said:
Having read many Sci-Fi books and watched many Sci-Fi movies, I can't help but wonder which way A.I. will go in reality.
Click to expand...
All of my experiences ("experiences") with AI in sci fiction, I never came across the AI making cat videos or meditation music with rooms and crackling fires.
 
As to AI art being theft - how many artists have reported it?

See, the authorities can't do anything if an artist doesn't report it. And it doesn't matter what anyone else says if the artists doesn't care enough to report it. Or if the original artist says it's not stolen.

This is kinda like the football team who was told to change the name of their team because people thought it was offensive to Native Americans. And then you find out that a Native American gave the team its name originally and then the local Native Americans wanted the name to go back to what it was originally. And it really turned out to be a bunch of people just not minding their own business.

Sometimes this 'AI Art Hate' looks to be a matter of some people not minding their own business. Especially if the ones crying theft can't prove that the original artist cared or thought that it was stolen even. Only the original owner of the artwork can say if it's been stolen or not.

I don't know why other people think they can speak for the original owner.
 
Last edited:
Can anyone tell me, did middenface get permission from the original designer of the Type A Free Trader to make awesome digital artwork that we all love?

Or did he just get permission from the owner of Traveller to use the design?

Who does that belong to?
 
Spinward Scout said:
Can anyone tell me, did middenface get permission from the original designer of the Type A Free Trader to make awesome digital artwork that we all love?

Or did he just get permission from the owner of Traveller to use the design?

Who does that belong to?
Click to expand...
I seem to recall that Ian Stead (aka "middenface") has done artwork for Mongoose Publishing which is the current IP holder for Traveller.
ETA:
For my own derivative works (each based on artwork by W.H.Keith), I credited the original artist, and each piece can be cconsidered as commentary on the original work as well as on the editorial and production decisions that led to the original products.

You don't get even that from AI engines.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top