General Seiously good AI Sci-Fi artwork

[Spinward Scout]

I know AI Art is a bit taboo for printwork right now.

But this Facebook page has been putting out some seriously good art everyday.

Bei Facebook anmelden

Melde dich bei Facebook an, um dich mit deinen Freunden, deiner Familie und Personen, die du kennst, zu verbinden und Inhalte zu teilen.

www.facebook.com

Even if it's just for inspiration, take a look.

EDIT: Not sure why the link comes up in a different language.

You have to go under 'More' and click 'Photos'.

 

[Nightwind1]

AI "art" is theft.

 

[Spinward Scout]

AI "art" is theft.

I did a Search on this and it says:

Ultimately, to say AI art is theft just isn’t true.

You can read all about it:

AI "art" is theft. - Bing

Mit der intelligenten Bing-Suche können Sie die gewünschten Informationen schneller und einfacher finden und dabei Punkte sammeln.

www.bing.com

 

[Grav_Moped]

I did a Search on this and it says:



You can read all about it:

AI "art" is theft. - Bing

Mit der intelligenten Bing-Suche können Sie die gewünschten Informationen schneller und einfacher finden und dabei Punkte sammeln.

www.bing.com

Of course the internet would say that.

 

[Spinward Scout]

Of course the internet would say that.

I heard it say that it's a "Good Boy" one time.

 

[Badenov]

AI "art" is theft.

In the sense that it looks at other images to figure out how to compose a picture, sure. But how is that different from a living artist looking at pieces of art to get inspiration for their own creation, which is certain to have bits of the inspirational pieces as elements? An AI just uses all of the inspirational pieces as influences on the final product. Copying a single piece is theft, and using a single piece to feed an AI would be theft under the same concept. But AI art is basically showing a million monkeys a million pictures, then handing them paintbrushes and curating the results automatically. I wouldn't call it creative, but its not theft, except of work from actual artists. In that sense, definitely theft. I know a lot of people in gamerdom who used to commission art of characters they loved and paid actual people money to draw them. On the other hand automobiles were theft of work from horseshoe makers, grooms, stablehands, coachmen, and associated jobs (and horses themselves, of course), but we tend to call that progress rather than theft.

 

[Rupert]

In the sense that it looks at other images to figure out how to compose a picture, sure. But how is that different from a living artist looking at pieces of art to get inspiration for their own creation, which is certain to have bits of the inspirational pieces as elements? An AI just uses all of the inspirational pieces as influences on the final product. Copying a single piece is theft, and using a single piece to feed an AI would be theft under the same concept. But AI art is basically showing a million monkeys a million pictures, then handing them paintbrushes and curating the results automatically. I wouldn't call it creative, but its not theft, except of work from actual artists. In that sense, definitely theft. I know a lot of people in gamerdom who used to commission art of characters they loved and paid actual people money to draw them. On the other hand automobiles were theft of work from horseshoe makers, grooms, stablehands, coachmen, and associated jobs (and horses themselves, of course), but we tend to call that progress rather than theft.

But note that (current) AI art (or 'literature') cannot exist without the work of human artists to 'learn' from and copy from. It also, unlike a human, doesn't learn and then make it's own style. It just copies and blends, and thus its works are all derivative. When humans just copy styles and works it's called plagarism, and mixing a few artists' works together is just the same but slightly better hidden. As it's putting artists out of work by doing something that requires taking from their work, surely they should be paid some royalties? And surely they should have a say in whether their work is fed into the model to train it?

Essentially, as it is the purveyors of AI are trying to make a ton of money off a whole lot of others' work that they are not paying for.

I don't have a problem with AI per se. I do have a problem with not paying the people that it relies on to function. I also have a problem with the way it's being pushed into a whole bunch of roles it's not suited to, but that's a different issue.

 

[Badenov]

But note that (current) AI art (or 'literature') cannot exist without the work of human artists to 'learn' from and copy from. It also, unlike a human, doesn't learn and then make it's own style. It just copies and blends, and thus its works are all derivative.

Yes, but being derivative isn't a crime or half of Hollywood would be in jail.

When humans just copy styles and works it's called plagarism,

Works, yes. Styles, no. I suppose unless the style is super unique or specific.

and mixing a few artists' works together is just the same but slightly better hidden. As it's putting artists out of work by doing something that requires taking from their work, surely they should be paid some royalties? And surely they should have a say in whether their work is fed into the model to train it?

This feeds back into my comment about taking work from artists. All progress takes work from people who did things the old way, so I can't think of this as a meaningful argument. Now I won't disagree with the artists getting royalties if their works are used to train AI, but I don't consider artists a protected class. They're just another group of people who get less work because technology took their job. No one stood up for street sweepers when they made trucks that do the same thing.

Essentially, as it is the purveyors of AI are trying to make a ton of money off a whole lot of others' work that they are not paying for.

Now this is a legitimate complaint. If the works they're referencing aren't obtained legitimately, then it's illegal.

I don't have a problem with AI per se. I do have a problem with not paying the people that it relies on to function.

Agree.

I also have a problem with the way it's being pushed into a whole bunch of roles it's not suited to, but that's a different issue.

And often a humorous one.