Greg Rutkowski, a digital artist known for his surreal style, opposes AI art but his name and style have been frequently used by AI art generators without his consent. In response, Stable Diffusion removed his work from their dataset in version 2.0. However, the community has now created a tool to emulate Rutkowski’s style against his wishes using a LoRA model. While some argue this is unethical, others justify it since Rutkowski’s art has already been widely used in Stable Diffusion 1.5. The debate highlights the blurry line between innovation and infringement in the emerging field of AI art.

    • @Steeve@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      13
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This person has no idea what machine learning actually is. And they hate such a generic concept on a “gut feeling” and come up with the reasons later?

      If you want good reasons to hate AI generated art you won’t find them in this shitty blogpost.

      • @liminalDeluge@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        61 year ago

        Apparently your comment really got to them, because the blogpost now contains a direct quote of you and a response.

        • @Steeve@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          6
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Someone I don’t get along with very well wrote:

          Hahaha yikes. Pretty cowardly to post their unhinged response on their blog where nobody can actually respond.

          Also, why the hell would this person who hates the very general concept of machine learning (because of their gut lol) get a degree in a field that significantly utilizes machine learning? Computational linguistics is essentially driven by machine learning, so that’s uh… probably bullshit.

    • @Thrashy@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      101 year ago

      as a counterpoint, when the use-case for the tool is specifically “I want a picture that looks like it was painted by Greg Rutkowski, but I don’t want to pay Greg Rutkowski to paint it for me” that sounds like the sort of scenario that copyright was specifically envisioned to protect against – and if it doesn’t protect against that, it’s arguably an oversight in need of correction. It’s in AI makers and users’ interest to proactively self-regulate on this front, because if they don’t somebody like Disney is going to wade into this at some point with expensive lobbyists, and dictate the law to their own benefit.

      That said, it’s working artists like Rutkowski, or friends of mine who scrape together a living off commissioned pieces, that I am most concerned for. Fantasy art like Greg makes, or personal character portraits of the sort you find on character sheets of long-running DnD games or as avatar images on forums like this one, make up the bread and butter of many small-time artists’ work, and those commissions are the ones most endangered by the current state of the art in generative AI. It’s great for would-be patrons that the cost of commissioning a mood piece for a campaign setting or a portrait of their fursona has suddenly dropped to basically zero, but it sucks for artists that their lunch is being eaten by an AI algorithm that was trained by slurping up all their work without compensation or even credit. For as long as artists need to get paid for their work in order to live, that’s inherently anti-worker.

      • Sandra
        link
        fedilink
        41 year ago

        I’m also an artist, for whatever that’s worth, 🤷🏻‍♀️

        Copyright is artificial scarcity which is ultimately designed for publishers, not workers.

        One of the many, many bugs in market capitalism is that it can’t handle when something is difficult to initially create but when copies are cheap. Like a song. It’s tricky to write it but once you have it you can copy it endlessly. Markets based on supply and demand can’t handle that so they cooked up copyright as kind of a brutal patch, originally for book publishers in an era where normal readers couldn’t easily copy books anyway, only other publishers could.

        It’s a patch that doesn’t work very well since many artist still work super hard and still have to get by on scraps. Ultimately we need to re-think a lot of economics. Not only because digital threw everything on its ear and what could’ve been a cornucopia is now a tug of war for pennies, but also because of climate change (which is caused by fossil fuel transaction externalities being under-accounted for—if I sell you a can of gas, the full environmental impact of that is not going to be factored in properly. Sort of like how a memory leak works in a computer program).

        I definitively sympathize with your artist friends and I’ve been speaking out against AI art, at least some aspects of it (including, but not limited to, the environmental impact of new models, and the increasing wealth&power concentration for big data capital).

      • Harrison [He/Him]
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        It sucked for candle makers when electric lights were adopted. It sucked for farriers and stable hands and saddle makers when cars became affordable for the average person. Such is the cost of progress.