AI art controversy

[Phoenix]

How much of a game-changer will generative AI be in transforming the creative industry, especially when it comes to digital art?

 

[Shadab]

Honestly artificial intelligence generators have affected so many artists it's insane and it's only going to get better.

 

[Lawson]

Honestly artificial intelligence generators have affected so many artists it's insane and it's only going to get better.

I view this as similar to how gamers felt when monetization was increasingly becoming a mechanic. You will think that your job or game will be safe, but increasingly, everything will be AI or monetized progress. Eventually, people will be shouting to high heaven that finally non-AI art is being promoted only for it to be attacked by those who only use AI art.

 

[Cloud Guru]

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is such a legal gray area right now and big companies only see profit in exploiting it.

 

[Yan Dalei]

Methinks artists are making a huge, gigantic mistake going after AI in a way that will hurt them. And by fighting for this silly "opt-out" battle, you are just digging your own grave. In case you'll succeed, AI companies will be able to claim that AI-generated art is 100% legal, hence a "fair" competitor. At the same time, you won't protect anything, because AI software allows users to train their datasets, at home, using whatever they want. So you'll have unfair competition that will crush you, and your work won't be protected anyway.

 

[Tan Shangyuan]

Methinks artists are making a huge, gigantic mistake going after AI in a way that will hurt them. And by fighting for this silly "opt-out" battle, you are just digging your own grave. In case you'll succeed, AI companies will be able to claim that AI-generated art is 100% legal, hence a "fair" competitor. At the same time, you won't protect anything, because AI software allows users to train their datasets, at home, using whatever they want. So you'll have unfair competition that will crush you, and your work won't be protected anyway.

What's a solution to that?

 

[Lukas Gosens]

AI is not art, it's just asking a computer to generate a soulless image created by mixing different pictures from artists without their permission, which counts as theft. plus the AI is the one who creates the image, not the human. And even if AI is unstoppable, human artists will never be replaced or become obsolete. There are still people who uses canvas, paper, pencil and tablet. Not because of comfort zone but because real art needs a soul, passion and time.

 

[Jamal Schade]

There is a reason why human artists are fed up with all these generative AI models. It's because AI bros are trying to force AI on them and stealing from other human artists.

 

[Matthias Kehrer]

AI is not going to completely replace artists, it's probably gonna replace some low-paying amateur gigs. It's more fear-mongering than anything else.

 

[Yan Dalei]

What's a solution to that?

What we have to do, instead, is a proposal to have every output generated by an artificial intelligence generator tool be public domain and copyright free. In this way, you won't have an unfair competitor. This goes not only for AI-generated art but for AI-generated everything. Since the source was public and collected for free, the output must be public and released for free.

 

[Dormammu]

Gimme a break! Avatar, Transformers, Jurassic Park used AI.

 

[Wong]

What we have to do, instead, is a proposal to have every output generated by an artificial intelligence generator tool be public domain and copyright free. In this way, you won't have an unfair competitor. This goes not only for AI-generated art but for AI-generated everything. Since the source was public and collected for free, the output must be public and released for free.

I must say you have a good point. Although AI is a fairly new subject and society is still adjusting to this new reality, fighting against it is a lost battle. It's inevitable. Making every AI art public domain is the first solution I read so far that made me think "umm, this could work".

 

[Unknown Knight]

There is a reason why human artists are fed up with all these generative AI models. It's because AI bros are trying to force AI on them and stealing from other human artists.

Nothing is being stolen. You need to learn how AI art works. Humans taking inspiration from other artists is doing the exact same thing.

 

[Mr. Nobody]

What we have to do, instead, is a proposal to have every output generated by an artificial intelligence generator tool be public domain and copyright free. In this way, you won't have an unfair competitor. This goes not only for AI-generated art but for AI-generated everything. Since the source was public and collected for free, the output must be public and released for free.

Obviously, AI is here to stay. Opting out isn't gonna change anything, but it'd be great if AI could actually try working with artists instead of against it. There doesn't have to be a winner or loser. And if people want to use it or don't, they should be allowed to have that choice too. Stop acting like it's one or the other.

 

[Quantum Meme Lord]

It's a complex matter with many and probably unforeseen complications. But on the other hand, I've seen what happened with music. The legislation that was pushed by big labels under the idea of artist protection, now mostly benefits big labels. Meanwhile, musicians are making less and less money, and even making tons of free commercial music just for recognition. However, even that didn't stop people from making it big, there's always needs and niches to be targeted.

 

[Kaecilius]

The idea of canceling the current models or making new law regulations won't change a thing, because the real issue artists don't get is they are against other individual artists who trained custom generative AI models using pictures from the internet, using open-sourced side extensions technologies. These tools are not going anywhere and will only be developed by indie companies. As for the market, art prices will drastically drop in the short term, cause now studios don't need a team of concept art makers but just a one pro artist who uses AI technologies, there is nothing anyone can do about it.

 

[Emma Frost]

Gimme a break! Avatar, Transformers, Jurassic Park used AI.

That was CGI (computer-generated imagery), not artificial intelligence (AI).

 

[Vincent Bisset de Gramont]

There is a reason why human artists are fed up with all these generative AI models. It's because AI bros are trying to force AI on them and stealing from other human artists.

You clearly don't understand how machine learning actually works. None of the works were copied; they were analyzed. It's the equivalent of looking at a ton of artwork and remembering general details about how it looked. Copyright is an exclusive right over distribution only. I can look at a movie and draw art based on poses and elements I saw generally without infringing on anyone's copyright. Likewise, so can machine learning.

 

[Reasonably Badass]

Artists deserve the same level of protection musicians are getting. That's a bare minimum. It won't stop people from still doing it- but it would protect artists' careers since it would stop commercial abuse of it. That would be enough. Artists deserve the same level of protection musicians are getting. That's a bare minimum. It won't stop people from still doing it, but it would protect artists' careers since it would stop commercial abuse of it. That would be enough

 

[Cyrus Julians]

The sad part is that things will become harder for artists to earn with their talent and some artists most of the times are not business people (i.e., cutthroat capitalists) or tech savvy.