first of all that's the wrong use of the word probiotic

"a microorganism (such as lactobacillus) that when consumed (as in a food or a dietary supplement) maintains or restores beneficial bacteria to the digestive tract
also : a product or preparation that contains such microorganisms"

source: the mirriam webster dictionary

second of all, it's not really the machine's fault or it's users that are making artists lives miserable(unemployment, low commissions etc..) that's just luddism, what is creates unemployment is our current economical system(capitalism) in the form of corporate greed and alike that causes this sorts of issues, not just some individual who decided use your art for their ai

How is that Luddism? No one in this thread has said we should ban AI. We said you should ask artists before using their work.

Every reply in this thread you ignore people's points and then accuse them of something else. As the internet saying goes you've imagined a guy and gotten really mad about it.

I'm going to attempt to bring this back to the points me and other have actually raised. Let's keep this simple. Just give me a one word yes or no answer.

If an artist requests their work not be used in a certain way for whatever reason. It's right to respect their wishes. Yes or no?

ok man i'm gonna be as straightforward and blunt as humanly possible

i could not care less about copywriting, be it from my works be if for everything else, i just think it should not exist

So no?

Not only is that a "no" it might also be a disqualifier to ever be taken seriously.

"People shouldn't own their creations" is such a bad take, I have a hard time believing that the person making it is actually old enough to be on this site.

Yeah it's quite the take. Can see why it took 2 pages for them to finally answer my question.

Yeah, Jigiyak has been debating in bad faith this entire time. There is no "reasonable discussion" to be had when their starting perspective is that we should have NO RIGHTS at all.

They're not trying to find a reasonable compromise or meet some understanding. They want to steal from others, and not be called out for it. That's the start and end of this story.

Sorry Jijiyak, respect is not a one way street. If you don't respect artists, artist are not obligated to "Be reasonable" and politely let you trample on their rights.

For good reasons
The real-life pics present here are represented by actor\acrtresses who gave 100% full consent to be filmed\photographed doing what they are doing.

In AI art, you can indeed generate non-existent real humans... but there is also the considerable risk that one pictured doing lewd things is, instead, a real human being (it is awfully easy training a model with few pictures now, I already did it with my face for personal use). It's virtually impossible to tell if the one you're seeing sucking a d... while in a trance is based on a real human, or it's just a byproduct of the AI neural networks.

I'm all for democratizing AI and all, but I will always be on the side of a site that prefers to avoid the risk of having IRL person portrayed in an embarrassing (to say the least) situation.



Ironic, considering we, as a community, decided to listen to your requests and gave you a way not to allow us to use your images for training purposes for the new models (and let me remark this: StabilityAI is STILL under no legal obligations to do such a thing)
twitter.com/EMostaque/sta...;t=h5kWEOAKXkbASrhtfuzSBw
While the non-AI artist community was so "open" towards each other they started banning non-AI artistry because "It resembled one"
hyperallergic.com/791951/...r-work-resembling-ai-art/


I'm not on the same idea of jigiyak about how copyright laws should work (or exist); I believe every non-ai artist should be entitled to tell "This is mine, and I can decide how it can be used"... but, by uploading online, you automatically forfeited some of that power (otherwise Google Images, who follows the exact same principle of SD or MJ for training, would be neck deep in fines... didn't hear any uproar for that, though, nor for Adobe using your work for their own profit) under the same laws you decided to agree upon when you uploaded.
By the exact same spectrum, however, these laws force us AI users not to be able to copyright our work because as the things I'm extracting from the datasets are just algorithms (and not a collage; got debunked so many times I've lost interest on it), the final piece is an outputted algorithm (and I'm 100% okay with this: SD is made possible by the community's constant work and sharing, profiting by forcing one of my work to be used only when I say so sounds wrong to me, it would defeat the very purpose of being part of a sharing community).

Did you actually read the discussion? Its not about the web scraper. Its about people *manually* taking and using art from the hub. Edge said you should ask permission from the artist before doing that, and Jigiyak threw a temper tantrum about it because they, by their own words, believe artists shouldn't have rights.

It seems to me that your argument there is incompatible with Jigiyak's stance that it's unreasonable to ask people not to steal your art and use it for AI training without permission. Unless your stance is that because the web scraper added an opt out, letting individuals steal from us is a "reasonable compromise"?

If that is your position there's still nothing reasonable about it. artists get nothing out of this compromise. AI art proponents have offered NOTHING to artists in compromise. The only compromise is "Let us take what we want, or at least let us take a bit of what we want" with nothing given in return. That's not how compromise works.

Scraping images from the web and taking them manually from a website is the same thing, just the first being done more efficiently. What do you think a program does when I ask specifically to get images that got the tag "Mind control" in it? It goes on Google Images, open every websites that fits the criteria and gets the images and the tags for the dataset. Anyone doing a "scraping" without a target these days is... well, I would dare to say nobody, because it's simply non a viable way to do things.

Also, once again, I find all of this process 100% reasonable because it's not stealing (not by the law), and anyone who uploads an image on the Internet signs off a contract that allows anyone to use their work for specific purposes without crediting: AI training, like scientific research or style copying\inspiration, is included. Also, you actually got things out of it, just nonmonetary:
- Google Images is a tool used by billions each day, and artists get quite a nice deal with a free tool that can help them get inspiration, tutorials and such.
- Stable Diffusion, by being free, can be used by anyone, and it has lot of tools that can help speed up lots of processes that were, usually, relegated by manual work (like putting a generic background, basic colors, or even the fine-tuning of details after putting down an elaborate sketch).

To be quite honest, I find even discussing this utterly hypocritical. Plenty of artists in digital media today use programs like Photoshop and the like. Adobe has made NO secret they used their users' work to improve their systems, thus allowing the same artists (the uncredited ones) to do work more efficiently while also improving their product (and raising their own profit by it, Adobe I mean). The artists community NEVER sparked outrage for that (despite Adobe making dimes of their uncredited work, SD doesn't make one on comparison), and I have a suspect why: because it didn't democratize art, it actually made it more difficult for newcomers to reach the new, higher level of mastery compared to the "veterans". SD destroys this barrier, allowing me, a mere UX Researcher, to do the lewds of my dreams in my free time (while also having the AI easily remove part of my job in the quantitative field, but I don't feel at risk of losing my job, just need to adapt). It suddenly becomes "theft" when you are risking losing money, should you refuse to learn to adapt to this progress in tech? We literally did nothing different from Google, Adobe, and oh so many others for a decade already, using the same laws you decided to abide to, but NOW you decided to wake up?

Also, where was the "justice police" when AI took out plenty of jobs at many warehouses, where humans were kicked out because a tiny piece of plastic on wheels could do their job... I wouldn't say better, but I would say with fewer costs involved. Where was the outrage for AIs?

However, as a final note: since many asked NOT to do that, I would say it would be quite the dick move not to respect their wishes; exactly as SD allows to opt out from their next model, this request should not be ignored. Perhaps a statement from the site to make this much more clear to anyone thinking about training a new hypnohub model: it's not illegal (yet), but it would be common courtesy.

I believe I said all I had to.

You practiced that speech in the mirror didn't you? I can tell because it doesn't really have anything to do with the points raised here but you clearly really wanted to say it. I hope you feel better having got it off your chest.

You even say me and Changer are in the right at the end. The rest seems like again. Making up a guy and getting really mad about it.

I am not a full-time artist, but I did work FT in the backroom for a retailer. For you to think these two jobs are exactly the same and that automation is the same in every application indicates that you are also not to be considered a grownup when important topics are discussed.

Also it kinda ignores nearly every news story about Amazon workers.

all i can read from this thread is that you guys are a my way or the highway type of people, because unless someone completely agree with your side, you throw a temper tantrum and get patronize the person, i am just sooo sick of people like that, this was the reason i left this argument and this time i will do it definitely, because it seems like some people are just too dense to be debated with

So many problems in that rant... Where to even start...

So first off, you contradict yourself. You argued both that it "isn't stealing" to use an artist's work without their permission, then concluded with that it's a dick move to steal people's art without their permission. Which is it? You can't hold the opinion that both there's nothing wrong with it but that it's also a dick move to do it.

Second, you are waving around "Technically it's not illegal" as a banner but that's not true at all. The state AI art is in right now is that no court has yet ruled on it's legality. It lives in the same legal space as NFTs; there are specific laws that they break (in the case of NFTs 99% of them are illegal ponzi schemes) but they just haven't been ruled on in court yet. Fair use is a defense; its where you say "Yes, I violated someone's copyright, but I should be allowed to for this reason". Its up to a judge to decide if you actually succeed in that defense.

Third, taking user data and using that information to improve a tool used by that user is so far removed from AI art that there's just no way to argue this point. You're not even comparing apples to oranges because at least those are both fruits. You're comparing apples to pidgins.

And finally, comparing AI art replacing artists to automation replacing labor workers. This is something that only a non-artist can conceive of arguing. The difference between labor automation and this is that artists LIKE to make art.

Do you think someone digging ditches does so because they just LOVE digging? That if they were in a perfect utopia, what they would choose to do with their time above all else would be to go into their back yard and just dig holes and fill them in for fun?

No. Nobody actually WANTS to do the jobs that have traditionally been automated away. What they want is to be paid, and doing that job happens to be what they're experienced at doing.

But artists are different. They WANT to make art. They ENJOY making art. What's being automated away here is the FUN part. All that will be left for artists who can even manage to stay employed as AI improves will be doing tedious little touch ups to fix the mistakes the AI makes. Its taking a dream job and making it *worse* for the person doing it.

Your view is that we should have NO rights, and that even politely asking to be respected is an act worthy of mockery. You don't get any high road here; you're acting like a child, to the point I do have to wonder if you actually are one.