The use of AI generated content in TAS products

[MongooseMatt]

We move quicker than the Internet.

 

[Terry Mixon]

<Devil's advocate>It could take a day of work prompting an AI to get the image you want. That is a day of your work time. You are paying for the person to work, the AI is just a tool.

Do we pay for an editor to correct grammatical errors and spelling mistakes or use spellcheck?</Devil's advocate>

The parallel you are attempting to make isn’t the same. Generative AI uses what many believe to be stolen content to mimic what an original creator could do. Poorly in the case of text, but getting better in the case of art. Grammarly is more pattern recognition where it suggests alternatives. The same is true of spellchecking. Attempting to say one is the same as the other is just muddying the waters. Generative AI is unethical and not the same.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Machine Learning models, LLMs, and other types of "AI" have value and have a place. They are very powerful tools. I do not think that anyone here is denying that. And like many inventions before them they will free up humans to pursue other endeavors.

But comparing LLM generated Art to a cotton gin or a mechanical loom is ridiculous. Having computers generate "Art" is in no way the same as automating an industrial (or business) process. Art's purpose is self-expression and creativity, the mechanical loom, cotton gin, or robots on a factory floor are about neither of those. And "Art" generate by a computer with an algorithm cannot provide any self-expression or creativity. These models lack any creativity to the point they are not even able to create a picture of a glass of wine that is completely full. Even I, with my complete lack of artistic skills can draw that, but the computer cannot because it completely lacks any creativity.

This. Saying that someone who crafts a good prompt to generate art based on the stolen (in my opinion) creative works of others makes them an artist or their product art is disingenuous. The art comes from what we compose, not what a computer does using words we string together.

 

[Sigtrygg]

The parallel you are attempting to make isn’t the same.

You are missing the point I am making completely. I am paying for someones time. The AI is a tool.

Generative AI uses what many believe to be stolen content to mimic what an original creator could do.

"what many believe" - sorry but until a court of law says it is stolen IP I am not interested in what people feel or believe. If you post something to the interwebs and it is not protected behind a paywall with clear legalese then you are inviting others to take it and use it. If I post something to these forums or to CotI and someone takes the ideas and uses them to make a game line out of them good luck to them (and I am speaking from experience here).
Artists copy each other's work all the time, changing just enough to claim originality.

Poorly in the case of text, but getting better in the case of art.

Why is training an AI any different to training a person?

Grammarly is more pattern recognition where it suggests alternatives. The same is true of spellchecking. Attempting to say one is the same as the other is just muddying the waters. Generative AI is unethical and not the same.

In your opinion, and in the opinion of many others. It is not an opinion I share, you will not convince me and I will not convince you. Generative AI is a tool, it requires creativity to use it.

The market will decide the future. If I don't like it I don't buy it, but I refuse to deny someone a living over something that is perfectly acceptable to many.

 

[Arkathan]

This. Saying that someone who crafts a good prompt to generate art based on the stolen (in my opinion) creative works of others makes them an artist or their product art is disingenuous. The art comes from what we compose, not what a computer does using words we string together.

This applies only to the last part of the last sentence... What a computer does using the words we string together.
Unless you are coding the image using those words, with a shape based coding language and the computer renders the image you define.
POV-Ray was an early renderer. You created objects by additive and subtractive geometry, defined multiple layers of shaders, program in light sources, and render (over several hours) correct problems and render again. I looked at pieces of Ral Partha Battletech miniature parts, made those shapes, put reverse kinetic variables in the front of the program, and the variables let you pose the mech or tank.
Those were some huge text files. Several of the images got donated for use in CBT e-zines going around at the time.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Commissioning art doesn't make a person an artist, anymore than

You are missing the point I am making completely. I am paying for someones time. The AI is a tool.

You don't pay artists by their time. You commission them buy project. So, there is your first cognitive disconnect.

"what many believe" - sorry but until a court of law says it is stolen IP I am not interested in what people feel or believe. If you post something to the interwebs and it is not protected behind a paywall with clear legalese then you are inviting others to take it and use it. If I post something to these forums or to CotI and someone takes the ideas and uses them to make a game line out of them good luck to them (and I am speaking from experience here).
Artists copy each other's work all the time, changing just enough to claim originality.

We are discussing morals and ethics, you are discussing law. These things are not the same.

Why is training an AI any different to training a person?

In keeping with your desire for law over morals and ethics, this response is easy. An AI is not a person. You don't train your hammer. You train people and animals, not objects. You can't sue an AI for theft as it is not a person. An AI is not subject to the law as it is not competant to stand trial, since it is not a person.

In your opinion, and in the opinion of many others. It is not an opinion I share, you will not convince me and I will not convince you.

None of what I stated in this post is an opinion.

Generative AI is a tool, it requires creativity to use it.

A tool for theft, yes. It is a datamining tool to steal the creative works of others as it is incapable of actual creation. Again. Paint the emotion of Joy. A generative AI cannot do it as it has no emotions to draw from. Nothing that is its own. It can only reflect what it has taken from others as what they consider to be "an expression of the emotion of joy"

The market will decide the future. If I don't like it I don't buy it, but I refuse to deny someone a living over something that is perfectly acceptable to many.

The market? That is funny. If the market decides the future We will only be allow to have what the CEOs give Us. If you have no real choices, then you are not really deciding anything. That is why regulation exists, to prevent things like that from happening. Until the US Supreme Court decided that businesses were people under the law. Then the CEOs could donate far more money to their pet politicians, who then undo even more of the legislation that protects the 99% from the 1%. Research "company towns". The law was what the CEOs said it was. You were paid in script and not legal currency. No days off. Hours set at however many the CEOs wanted the workers to work. 12, 14, 16 hours a day.

 

[MasterGwydion]

This applies only to the last part of the last sentence... What a computer does using the words we string together.
Unless you are coding the image using those words, with a shape based coding language and the computer renders the image you define.
POV-Ray was an early renderer. You created objects by additive and subtractive geometry, defined multiple layers of shaders, program in light sources, and render (over several hours) correct problems and render again. I looked at pieces of Ral Partha Battletech miniature parts, made those shapes, put reverse kinetic variables in the front of the program, and the variables let you pose the mech or tank.
Those were some huge text files. Several of the images got donated for use in CBT e-zines going around at the time.

I used POV-Ray when I was doing some of the graphics work for a videogame called Backlash. Not sure if you can even still find it. I was part of the team that built it and I still hate that game! lol


edit- Although, I hated POV-Ray more. Do some work, crash out on the couch while I wait to see if I screwed up My math...lol...

 

[Terry Mixon]

You are missing the point I am making completely. I am paying for someones time. The AI is a tool.

"what many believe" - sorry but until a court of law says it is stolen IP I am not interested in what people feel or believe. If you post something to the interwebs and it is not protected behind a paywall with clear legalese then you are inviting others to take it and use it. If I post something to these forums or to CotI and someone takes the ideas and uses them to make a game line out of them good luck to them (and I am speaking from experience here).
Artists copy each other's work all the time, changing just enough to claim originality.

Why is training an AI any different to training a person?

In your opinion, and in the opinion of many others. It is not an opinion I share, you will not convince me and I will not convince you. Generative AI is a tool, it requires creativity to use it.

The market will decide the future. If I don't like it I don't buy it, but I refuse to deny someone a living over something that is perfectly acceptable to many.

I don’t expect or need to convince you. You will do as you feel best based on your desires. If it doesn’t matter to you how the “skills” the tool was built, that speaks more to you than the tool. Party on, but don’t expect those that care about this strongly to ever be swayed by your point of view either.

 

[Hermit King]

My view as a creator is that I will never knowingly use or pay for a product that uses generative AI for text or art. The AI was trained on stolen (in my opinion) work and is irrevocably tainted. If the choice is between there being a work with AI art or no work at all, I come down firmly on the no work side. As was said earlier, a community can turn on a product line that uses it and I think allowing it is a poor decision.

SO what you are saying is IF i went to a gallery and saw a picture by Salvador Dalí and liked it very much. if i then went home and painted a picture in his style then it would not be acceptable because i got the idea fron his painting i saw. i mean if i were diectly coping a pic of his i would understand. if i am getting the idea to paint in his style....well i dont see it as a problem.

 

[Hermit King]

i have a question. How many of you publish with no ai art?

 

[Terry Mixon]

SO what you are saying is IF i went to a gallery and saw a picture by Salvador Dalí and liked it very much. if i then went home and painted a picture in his style then it would not be acceptable because i got the idea fron his painting i saw. i mean if i were diectly coping a pic of his i would understand. if i am getting the idea to paint in his style....well i dont see it as a problem.

Once again, you try to argue something that isn’t under discussion. If you see something and paint a likeness of it, that is art because it is your own innate talent being expressed to recreate something. Having a tool do the same thing is not art as it is not a unique expression as tools cannot express.

Let’s take your argument and reframe it. If you went in with a host of art students and had them recreate various parts of a master’s work and then compiled and arranged them, that would be art because each piece was created by someone capable of innate creativity. Your assembly of those pieces might or might not be art. It’s a grey area.

If you broke down images of the work of a master and has a machine do the individual brush strokes, that isn’t creative. It is derivative and not art. It is mechanical. That, in essence, is what AI does.

 

[Sigtrygg]

You don't pay artists by their time. You commission them buy project. So, there is your first cognitive disconnect.

Now you are straw clutching. Semantics and a ridiculous argument. Your personal attack has not gone without notice.

We are discussing morals and ethics, you are discussing law. These things are not the same.

So stick to the facts rather than feelings and opinions. Prove that AI's have been trained using stolen IP and should therefore be discontinued and the companies fined.

In keeping with your desire for law over morals and ethics, this response is easy. An AI is not a person. You don't train your hammer. You train people and animals, not objects. You can't sue an AI for theft as it is not a person. An AI is not subject to the law as it is not competant to stand trial, since it is not a person.

The company that programs the AI is liable if they are stealing.

None of what I stated in this post is an opinion.

So stick to facts, how many cases of IP theft have AI companies lost?

A tool for theft, yes. It is a datamining tool to steal the creative works of others as it is incapable of actual creation. Again. Paint the emotion of Joy. A generative AI cannot do it as it has no emotions to draw from. Nothing that is its own. It can only reflect what it has taken from others as what they consider to be "an expression of the emotion of joy"

I ask again, where is your evidence of criminal theft?

The market? That is funny. If the market decides the future We will only be allow to have what the CEOs give Us.

Now you are denying reality.

If you have no real choices, then you are not really deciding anything. That is why regulation exists, to prevent things like that from happening. Until the US Supreme Court decided that businesses were people under the law. Then the CEOs could donate far more money to their pet politicians, who then undo even more of the legislation that protects the 99% from the 1%. Research "company towns". The law was what the CEOs said it was. You were paid in script and not legal currency. No days off. Hours set at however many the CEOs wanted the workers to work. 12, 14, 16 hours a day.

An we are back to politics.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Now you are straw clutching. Semantics and a ridiculous argument. Your personal attack has not gone without notice.

So stick to the facts rather than feelings and opinions. Prove that AI's have been trained using stolen IP and should therefore be discontinued and the companies fined.

The company that programs the AI is liable, try again.

So stick to facts, how many cases of IP theft have AI companies lost?

I ask again, where is your evidence of criminal theft?

Now you are denying reality.

An we are back to politics.

Once again you confuse ethics with law. Will AI companies be found to be breaking the law? We shall see. Are they doing unethical things to train their AI products? That is something each person must decide for themselves.

That said, there are many things that happen that are legal but repugnant. People should and mostly do make that distinction. You do you, but don’t expect arguments like these to move the needle. If something is morally bankrupt, it should and likely will be called out.

 

[Hermit King]

Let’s take your argument and reframe it. If you went in with a host of art students and had them recreate various parts of a master’s work and then compiled and arranged them, that would be art because each piece was created by someone capable of innate creativity. Your assembly of those pieces might or might not be art. It’s a grey area.

If you broke down images of the work of a master and has a machine do the individual brush strokes, that isn’t creative. It is derivative and not art. It is mechanical. That, in essence, is what AI does.

Actualy we have a word for just that thing.....collage

 

[Terry Mixon]

Actualy we have a word for just that thing.....collage

Ah, but that is something that makes no bones about being exactly what it is: a compilation of images. AI purports to create art directly, not as a compilation of something.

That said, we could argue semantics for eternity. You believe it’s acceptable. I do not. We will never agree on common ground. You do you, but realize you will have very strong negative reactions for using generative AI. If you can live with that, I can’t stop you.

 

[Condottiere]

I used to use tracing paper.

I heard that one comic artist used pictures from pornography as the basis for superheroines.

Ethically speaking, the practice is questionable, when used for financial gain.

Then, it can be divided into how much the user expected to gain.

 

[Hardwire]

Commissioning art doesn't make a person an artist, anymore than

You don't pay artists by their time. You commission them buy project. So, there is your first cognitive disconnect.

We are discussing morals and ethics, you are discussing law. These things are not the same.

In keeping with your desire for law over morals and ethics, this response is easy. An AI is not a person. You don't train your hammer. You train people and animals, not objects. You can't sue an AI for theft as it is not a person. An AI is not subject to the law as it is not competant to stand trial, since it is not a person.

None of what I stated in this post is an opinion.

A tool for theft, yes. It is a datamining tool to steal the creative works of others as it is incapable of actual creation. Again. Paint the emotion of Joy. A generative AI cannot do it as it has no emotions to draw from. Nothing that is its own. It can only reflect what it has taken from others as what they consider to be "an expression of the emotion of joy"

The market? That is funny. If the market decides the future We will only be allow to have what the CEOs give Us. If you have no real choices, then you are not really deciding anything. That is why regulation exists, to prevent things like that from happening. Until the US Supreme Court decided that businesses were people under the law. Then the CEOs could donate far more money to their pet politicians, who then undo even more of the legislation that protects the 99% from the 1%. Research "company towns". The law was what the CEOs said it was. You were paid in script and not legal currency. No days off. Hours set at however many the CEOs wanted the workers to work. 12, 14, 16 hours a day.

Corporations are entities in the eyes of the Law, You can sue them, they can declare bankruptcy, They are entities.

 

[Hardwire]

It is all degrees of acceptability, and that is a personal matter. Some have ethical and moral qualms about using AI art and writing, others do not. Once again a personal matter.

 

[MasterGwydion]

It is all degrees of acceptability, and that is a personal matter. Some have ethical and moral qualms about using AI art and writing, others do not. Once again a personal matter.

Except, your "personal matter" destroys the very group of people who were robbed to create the tool you are using.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Corporations are entities in the eyes of the Law, You can sue them, they can declare bankruptcy, They are entities.

A corporation is also incapable of creating art. A corporation has no emotions with which to make art. A corporation can't be an artist.

So who gets sued? The corporations who are paying hundreds of millions of dollars to politicians to change the law in their favor? Who has standing to sue? Each individual artist? Broke people against multi-trillion dollar corporations? Training isn't free. Each artist that had work used in the training of each AI, should be compensated. That corporation used their work without permission or compensation. Still though, it comes down to broke artists versus billion-dollar corps. There is no way to win that fight. Right or wrong.