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.

The gates of Hynterion

The gates of Hynterion. 26,145 likes · 5,484 talking about this. It is the 26th Century. Mankind has finally reached a peak in its technological and social evolution. However, a thin thread still...

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

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

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

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

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.

 

[BlaiddGwyn]

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.

Humans look at existing art and get ideas on how to make something brand new, even if that resembles the things that they got inspiration from. A.I. takes a million things that it "learned" on and chops it up and regurgitates it as is, with nothing new added. Computers cannot "imagine" or "invent" new ideas, only rearrange the things that it knows about (aka at that it's "trained" on). If I (without the artist's permission at that) took a million photographs, cut them up, and reassembled them to make a photograph of something that somebody asked me for, would you say that I am "inspired" by the art I cut up, or would I say I am simply taking existing stuff and rearranging it while adding nothing of my own beyond the order of which pieces were placed where? If a human isn't allowed to get away with doing that, why are we allowing multi-billion dollar companies to do the exact same thing as long as they call it "A.I. art"?

Add in the fact that literally every A.I. "art" program has been trained on millions of pieces of copyrighted artwork that was obtained without permission or recompense (which is illegal for anybody other than A.I. companies for some reason) and basically what we end up with is "if you have enough money you don't have to follow the rules and laws that everybody else does." Several companies have been accused of illegally downloading multi-terabyte packages of pirated books to create their A.I. Anthropic paid $1.5 billion ... in order to make over $12 billion in 2025 and expected to make at least $15 billion in 2026. So they had to pay a whopping 5% of their profits so they can continue to stay in business and have no legal consequences. Meta admitted to pirating over 85 TB of books... and have yet to face any consequences at all, legal or financial, for it. They're trying to say it's "fair use" to pirate books for the creation of A.I. to make billions of dollars while at the same time people who pirate just a handful of books for their own use go to prison and get slapped with astronomical fines and fees they can never pay back in their lifetime.

But sure, let's not call any of that theft and continue to award the companies who already have enough money to do it the right way by allowing them to keep doing it the wrong way for free.

 

[McPerth]

This last post borders on political areas.

While allowed this time, please avoid politics outside the Political Pulpit subforum.