# AI Image Creation



## NekujaK (Aug 29, 2022)

There seems to be a fair amount of discussion and interest in AI art creation these days, not only out in the world, but also here on VI-Control. Currently, there are a few different threads where AI art has come up, so I thought it might be more convenient to have a single dedicated thread for the subject.

There are a surprisingly large amount of AI image generating technologies out there. Here's a list of some of the more popular ones:

*SOME AI ART CREATION SERVICES (not a comprehensive list)*​

LinkHow ToPricingInterface*MidJourney*docspricingRuns in Discord*Dall-E*https://analyticsindiamag.com/comprehensive-guide-to-dall-e-by-openai-creating-images-from-text/ (docs)pricingRuns in OpenAI*Disco Diffusion*docs(Free)Runs in Google Colab*Dream Studio Lite*docs(Free for now)Runs in Discord (uses Stable Diffusion AI)*Craiyon*docs(Free)Dedicated website (formerly Dall-E Mini)*NightCafe*docspricingDedicated website*Pixray*docspricingPython library that runs in any host environment*AI Art Maker*docspricingRuns on Hotpot website

Let the discussions begin!


----------



## Daren Audio (Aug 29, 2022)

I've done commercial food photography for branding/marketing and it's a specialty in its own BUT this AI-technolgy is definitely going to breakdown that barrier, level the playing field and cut out a lot of the "middle-men."

Below are examples with MJ alone. It's not perfect (yet) but a few tweaks , cloning, and lighting/shading adjustments in Photoshop and you're practically done.

I definitely can see big fast food chains and even small mom & pop food businesses adopting this tech just to save time and money.


----------



## AnhrithmonGelasma (Aug 29, 2022)

Daren Audio said:


> I've done commercial food photography for branding/marketing and it's a specialty in its own BUT this AI-technolgy is definitely going to breakdown that barrier, level the playing field and cut out a lot of the "middle-men."
> 
> Below are examples with MJ alone. It's not perfect (yet) but a few tweaks , cloning, and lighting/shading adjustments in Photoshop and you're practically done.
> 
> I definitely can see big fast food chains and even small mom & pop food businesses adopting this tech just to save time and money.


So in your professional opinion... the restaurants wouldn't care that these AI generated photorealistic images aren't photographs of their actual food? I'm pretty sure many customers would be upset. 

Of course AI could (eventually, if it hasn't already been) be trained to take actual photos of food in this style....


----------



## NekujaK (Aug 29, 2022)

Daren Audio said:


> I've done commercial food photography for branding/marketing and it's a specialty in its own BUT this AI-technolgy is definitely going to breakdown that barrier, level the playing field and cut out a lot of the "middle-men."
> 
> Below are examples with MJ alone. It's not perfect (yet) but a few tweaks , cloning, and lighting/shading adjustments in Photoshop and you're practically done.
> 
> I definitely can see big fast food chains and even small mom & pop food businesses adopting this tech just to save time and money.


Impressive. Were these created during last week's new beta algorithm, or with today's new photorealistic test algorithm?


----------



## NekujaK (Aug 29, 2022)

AnhrithmonGelasma said:


> So in your professional opinion... the restaurants wouldn't care that these AI generated photorealistic images aren't photographs of their actual food? I'm pretty sure many customers would be upset.
> 
> Of course AI could (eventually, if it hasn't already been) be trained to take actual photos of food in this style....


They could also embed links to existing images of their food in the prompts. But that wouldn't necessarily work well in all situations.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Aug 29, 2022)

I think I know the team who wrote the algorithm for the app that created the burgers:


----------



## Zedcars (Aug 29, 2022)

AnhrithmonGelasma said:


> So in your professional opinion... the restaurants wouldn't care that these AI generated photorealistic images aren't photographs of their actual food? I'm pretty sure many customers would be upset.
> 
> Of course AI could (eventually, if it hasn't already been) be trained to take actual photos of food in this style....


The photos they normally use aren’t photos of the food they serve customers so nothing much has changed tbh. It’s all smoke and mirrors anyway.


----------



## rnb_2 (Aug 29, 2022)

AnhrithmonGelasma said:


> So in your professional opinion... the restaurants wouldn't care that these AI generated photorealistic images aren't photographs of their actual food? I'm pretty sure many customers would be upset.
> 
> Of course AI could (eventually, if it hasn't already been) be trained to take actual photos of food in this style....


I used to do a lot of restaurant work at the very low end of the market, but that largely dried up when smartphone cameras got good enough for their purposes - many small businesses that want better than that just use stock photography. My stuff still looks much better, but in the grand scheme of things, nobody really cares.


----------



## Trash Panda (Aug 29, 2022)

AnhrithmonGelasma said:


> So in your professional opinion... the restaurants wouldn't care that these AI generated photorealistic images aren't photographs of their actual food? I'm pretty sure many customers would be upset.
> 
> Of course AI could (eventually, if it hasn't already been) be trained to take actual photos of food in this style....


Professional photos of corporate restaurants are not of actual food, but models built to represent the food in its ideal state. 

Those burgers in the McDonald’s photos and tacos from Taco Bell photos are made of wood.


----------



## David Cuny (Aug 29, 2022)

Zedcars said:


> The photos they normally use aren’t photos of the food they serve customers so nothing much has changed tbh. It’s all smoke and mirrors anyway.


If you're big enough to get sued, you better be using real photographs of the actual product you're selling.

There's plenty of room for trickery there. For example, they'll use the same burger patty that's served to the customer - but for the photo, they'll only cook it enough to sear the burger, but not shrink the size of the patty. They'll also arrange the burger in the bun to give the impression that it's much larger.

But using computer generated imagery that's not based on the product is flat out false advertising, which means you _will_ get sued.


----------



## Zanshin (Aug 29, 2022)

Trash Panda said:


> Professional photos of corporate restaurants are not of actual food, but models built to represent the food in its ideal state.
> 
> Those burgers in the McDonald’s photos and tacos from Taco Bell photos are made of wood.


Next you will be telling us Santa is not real. Come on man, be serious.


----------



## AceAudioHQ (Aug 29, 2022)

Many people seem to think that artists will not be needed next year because they've seen a few nice midjourney/dall-e 2 images, I think it's a long way to go still, you can get nice images out of them but rarely images that you actually need, and rarely anything that wouldn't need some retouching by an artist. Nice tools and a source of inspiration at the moment.


----------



## Mucusman (Aug 29, 2022)

Most of my attempts using Midjourney to create musically-related images have been utter failures... but things are slowly looking up. I can see this as a great tool to generate single song cover images. So far, I've always turned to my own photography and used such images for most of my recent single song covers (even those that only see the light of day in my own household), but I've already generated intriguing and interesting images that I can see using.


----------



## Zedcars (Aug 29, 2022)

David Cuny said:


> If you're big enough to get sued, it better be using real photographs of the actual product you're selling.
> 
> There's plenty of room for trickery there. For example, they'll use the same burger patty that's served to the customer - but for the photo, they'll only cook it enough to sear the burger, but not shrink the size of the patty. They'll also arrange the burger in the bun to give the impression that it's much larger.
> 
> But using computer generated imagery that's not based on the product is flat out false advertising, which means you _will_ get sued.


I hear you. But my point is literally no-one bought any of the food in the photos of any fast food outlet. It was “cooked” purely for the photo. And the food people are actually served always looks decidedly less appealing because they just don’t have the time to make them look as nearly as nice.

So these AI generated photos are just coming at the same thing from a different angle, is all I’m saying. Rightly or wrongly, there is a lot of trickery in the marketing of these fast food products.


----------



## AceAudioHQ (Aug 29, 2022)

Mucusman said:


> Most of my attempts using Midjourney to create musically-related images have been utter failures... but things are slowly looking up.


I once asked midjourney to generate me sheet music of a new composition in the style of mozart but what it generated wasn't legible


----------



## JDK88 (Aug 29, 2022)

AnhrithmonGelasma said:


> So in your professional opinion... the restaurants wouldn't care that these AI generated photorealistic images aren't photographs of their actual food? I'm pretty sure many customers would be upset.
> 
> Of course AI could (eventually, if it hasn't already been) be trained to take actual photos of food in this style....


They make fake food for commercials all the time.


----------



## Zedcars (Aug 29, 2022)

AceAudioHQ said:


> I once asked midjourney to generate me sheet music of a new composition in the style of mozart but what it generated wasn't legible


Wrong tool man. You need this instead… 









MuseNet


We’ve created Musenet, a deep neural network that can generate 4-minute musical compositions with 10 different instruments and can combine styles from country to Mozart to the Beatles.




openai.com


----------



## NekujaK (Aug 29, 2022)

AI image creation definitely has a long way to go, but there are already many instances where it's being used commercially, either sold as standalone art or incorporated into projets.

On MJ's Discord is a thread called #in-the-world where people post real-world manifestations of their MJ creations - many of which are sold commercially, including on Amazon.

That's not to say the images haven't been further manipulated in Photoshop after MJ renders them. But MJ can be used to do the artistic heavy lifting, and Photoshop is just for simple adjustments and cleanup that doesn't necessarily require a professional graphic artist.

Also, many of the best MJ images actually reference existing images (by embedding URLs in a prompt), making it even more likely that MJ's initial render will satisfy the user's requirements, and reducing the amount of retouching necessary in Photoshop.


----------



## ryst (Aug 29, 2022)

I only heard about Midjourney through this forum. I'm quite fascinated by it. Besides creating some logos, album art, and other stuff, I realized I can use it for something I have no access to anymore.
A long time ago, there was an art gallery in Laguna Beach and one of the pieces of art was something that has stuck with me for years. I tried finding the artist but the art gallery closed and last I heard, the guy was wacked out of his mind and impossible to reach and I could never even get his name.

Anyway, I'm going to attempt to have Midjourney create my memory of this very particular piece of art. Should be interesting.


----------



## AceAudioHQ (Aug 29, 2022)

Zedcars said:


> Wrong tool man. You need this instead…


I guess I have to try that one, this is what I got from MidJourney


----------



## Zedcars (Aug 29, 2022)

AceAudioHQ said:


> I guess I have to try that one, this is what I got from MidJourney


To be fair, that isn’t too far removed from a real hand-written manuscript. This is Beethoven’s:






You should give your one to a copyist and see what they make of it!


----------



## Pier-V (Aug 30, 2022)

I haven't taken sides on the whole AI and neural network thing yet, but considering that this technology is clearly destined to become omnipresent at some point, I think it's really important to have a place like this thread to discuss the topic, and imho this is the perfect timing to do that (read: this technology hasn't become overwhelming yet, we still have time to form opinions without pressure).

Before having a change of mind and switching to composition at the very last moment, I was studying to become a mathematician. As a result, I'm in this weird position where, on one side, I'm deeply fascinated by the idea of a bunch of simple linear interpolations with hidden values having the power to take desicions and imitate human instinct, but on the other I'm aware of the possible risks for the artistic environment.

I have tried using Mid Journey as well with mixed results, but the potential is definitely there. The _one_ thing that scares me a bit, to be honest, is not the technology per se, but rather the _*pace*_ at which said technology is improving. I've seen plenty of people underestimate this aspect, and thinking something like "it's not a problem, if AI makes some blatant mistake, we will give it new instructions to correct the bad behaviour". I really hope to be wrong on what I'm about to say, but imho we should be as careful as possible, since we could reach a point where our human reactionary times will be too slow to correct mistakes.


----------



## NekujaK (Aug 30, 2022)

If you subscribe to AdWeek, there's an article about AI art and advertising:









Is AI-Generated Art Good Enough for Marketing and Ads?


OpenAI's breakthrough image generator is now being offered as a commercial product.




www.adweek.com


----------



## MartinH. (Aug 30, 2022)

Pier-V said:


> I have tried using Mid Journey as well with mixed results, but the potential is definitely there. The _one_ thing that scares me a bit, to be honest, is not the technology per se, but rather the _*pace*_ at which said technology is improving.



Yesterday I've read an article claiming the midjourney devs expect it to eclipse human artists in about 2 years and as a human artist who can see the pace of development, that sounds about right. 
Pretty depressing time to be an artist right now, like _seriously _depressing. Probably worse than being an airbrush artist for product visualization during the advent of 3D rendering. I'm legit starting to wonder what plan B career I should think about. :(


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Aug 30, 2022)

Re: pace, we are used to linear change, and the pace of technological change is exponential. We cannot follow this ride unless we change as well - neural link anyone?


----------



## AceAudioHQ (Aug 30, 2022)

Zedcars said:


> You should give your one to a copyist and see what they make of it!


I actually did give it to my brother who is a conductor and researcher who transcribes Leevi Madetoja’s original sheet music scribbles and he couldn’t read it


----------



## NekujaK (Aug 30, 2022)

MartinH. said:


> Yesterday I've read an article claiming the midjourney devs expect it to eclipse human artists in about 2 years and as a human artist who can see the pace of development, that sounds about right.
> Pretty depressing time to be an artist right now, like _seriously _depressing. Probably worse than being an airbrush artist for product visualization during the advent of 3D rendering. I'm legit starting to wonder what plan B career I should think about. :(


Maybe there will be opportunities for graphic artists to add AI to their suite of tools, and they can pitch their services as "AI enhanced artwork", which could sound very cutting edge to a lot of potential clients.

Not everyone is tech oriented or has the desire to create their own artwork, so there could still be a pool of clients who would want the services of a professional artist. Admittedly, it will probably be a smaller pool, but if artists can find ways for AI to assist them, instead of competing with them, it could be a workable combination.

I wonder how art schools are coping with this technology? Will it eventually have an impact on enrollments? Will there be curriculum built around creating AI art?


----------



## ryst (Aug 30, 2022)

Pier-V said:


> I haven't taken sides on the whole AI and neural network thing yet, but considering that this technology is clearly destined to become omnipresent at some point, I think it's really important to have a place like this thread to discuss the topic, and imho this is the perfect timing to do that (read: this technology hasn't become overwhelming yet, we still have time to form opinions without pressure).
> 
> Before having a change of mind and switching to composition at the very last moment, I was studying to become a mathematician. As a result, I'm in this weird position where, on one side, I'm deeply fascinated by the idea of a bunch of simple linear interpolations with hidden values having the power to take desicions and imitate human instinct, but on the other I'm aware of the possible risks for the artistic environment.
> 
> I have tried using Mid Journey as well with mixed results, but the potential is definitely there. The _one_ thing that scares me a bit, to be honest, is not the technology per se, but rather the _*pace*_ at which said technology is improving. I've seen plenty of people underestimate this aspect, and thinking something like "it's not a problem, if AI makes some blatant mistake, we will give it new instructions to correct the bad behaviour". I really hope to be wrong on what I'm about to say, but imho we should be as careful as possible, since we could reach a point where our human reactionary times will be too slow to correct mistakes.


The pace does seem crazy fast right now. But MJ is just the tip of the iceberg. Wait until moving pictures become what MJ is right now. It's going to happen. Imagine Ai creating a whole movie based on just a story you want it to tell. AI actors, AI voices, AI emotions, AI script and dialog....it's going to be here sooner than we think. Same thing with music making.

Also, something that's been on my mind lately is the idea of "rights". For instance, I see the 4 wheel robots going up and down my street all the time now in Los Angeles and a year ago, they were just starting out. Now they are everywhere here. They have names on them and cameras on them. So my question is, where do their rights begin and human rights end? I know it may sound silly, but on the sidewalk, these robots don't get out of your way. They just stop until it's clear for them to move again. Someone in a wheelchair might not be able to move and if they don't move for the person in a wheelchair, then what? Again, it may sound silly but it will eventually become a mainstream topic to discuss as I'm sure other scenarios will arise.


----------



## NekujaK (Aug 30, 2022)

Informative article examing the impact of AI generated art from multiple prespectives and viewpoints.









AI Creating 'Art' Is An Ethical And Copyright Nightmare


If a machine makes art, is it even art? And what does this mean for actual artists?




kotaku.com


----------



## Sophus (Aug 31, 2022)

ryst said:


> Same thing with music making.


AI music making is already here for some years. But it is currently so computationally intensive that it takes a massive GPU farm to render 45 seconds of music over many hours. So it is not really practical to use at the moment. But at one day in the future there will be streaming services that will create new music on the fly. You just will need to enter your favorite artists or genres and the system will create music in the same style.



MartinH. said:


> Yesterday I've read an article claiming the midjourney devs expect it to eclipse human artists in about 2 years and as a human artist who can see the pace of development, that sounds about right. Pretty depressing time to be an artist right now, like _seriously _depressing. Probably worse than being an airbrush artist for product visualization during the advent of 3D rendering. I'm legit starting to wonder what plan B career I should think about. :(


No, I don't think so. This will become a tool. It is like the invention of the letter press, the steam engine, electricity, photography, computer, Internet, smartphone and so on. Each of these invention opened up a massive amount of new opportunities for everybody using it. You should better think about integrating AI tools into your workflow.


----------



## GtrString (Aug 31, 2022)

Im not really into photography apart from using it for music releases and social media, but Id rather just use any random shot than use AI for photos.

Another thing is that perfect photos are totally out of fashion. Look at TikTok, its about the ugly reality now, random angles, imperfect frame cuts - very far from the 80s “perfect picture” idea..


----------



## David Cuny (Aug 31, 2022)

ryst said:


> Also, something that's been on my mind lately is the idea of "rights". For instance, I see the 4 wheel robots going up and down my street all the time now in Los Angeles and a year ago, they were just starting out. Now they are everywhere here. They have names on them and cameras on them. So my question is, where do their rights begin and human rights end? I know it may sound silly, but on the sidewalk, these robots don't get out of your way. They just stop until it's clear for them to move again. Someone in a wheelchair might not be able to move and if they don't move for the person in a wheelchair, then what? Again, it may sound silly but it will eventually become a mainstream topic to discuss as I'm sure other scenarios will arise.


What we're actually talking about isn't _robot_ rights, but _corporate_ rights, where rights once granted to citizens are being ceded to corporations.

The same think happened with pedestrians and cars. Before automobiles, streets were public spaces:



> It's strange to imagine now, but prior to the 1920s, city streets looked dramatically different than they do today. They were considered to be a public space: a place for pedestrians, pushcart vendors, horse-drawn vehicles, streetcars, and children at play.
> 
> 
> "Pedestrians were walking in the streets anywhere they wanted, whenever they wanted, usually without looking," Norton says. During the 1910s there were few crosswalks painted on the street, and they were generally ignored by pedestrians.


In response, "automakers, dealers, and enthusiast groups worked to legally redefine the street — so that pedestrians, rather than cars, would be restricted."

In the same way that we've lost streets to corporations (and are likely to lose sidewalks as well), we've lost the public domain.

Initially, copyright in the US only existed for 28 year, with an option to renew for an additional 28 years. That meant a maximum duration of 56 years.

Works are now set for 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, with anonymously unpublished becoming public domain 120 years from the date of creation.

This happened primarily so that corporations could prevent their works from falling into the public domain.

The logic behind copyright is to reward individuals in the short term, while benefiting society in the long run. These rules have been bent so that copyrights benefit corporations, while keeping works out of the Public Domain for such a long time that they become virtually worthless.

But what about AI?

Neural networks typically requires a _massive _amount of data, much of it _not_ in the public domain. This is why corporations are at such an advantage, because they can trawl through terabytes of data to fuel the models.

Consider how your own private data has been declared public for the sake of corporate and government convenience:

Your location and purchases via your cell phone and credit card use.
Your interests are tracked via your web browsing.
Your location via automatic collection of license plate information.
All this information is now routinely gathered together and because it can be found in the "public" space.

In the same way, AI - which is only capable of creation by learning from the works of others - depends on the ability to freely access materials on the internet, _even if those materials are under copyright and don't belong to the users processing that data_.

I have no doubt that corporations will assert the "right" to freely access and analyze this data.

Of course, none of the original content creators will receive any profits from the derivative works. After all, since the result is an unsearchable "latent space" built of millions of data points, it's virtually impossible to prove that any particular work contributed to the final result.

Yet the AI is incapable of producing _anything_ without being trained on source material it has freely taken.


----------



## NekujaK (Aug 31, 2022)

David Cuny said:


> In the same way, AI - which is only capable of creation by learning from the works of others - depends on the ability to freely access materials on the internet, _even if those materials are under copyright and don't belong to the users processing that data_.





David Cuny said:


> Of course, none of the original content creators will receive any profits from the derivative works. After all, since the result is an unsearchable "latent space" built of millions of data points, it's virtually impossible to prove that any particular work contributed to the final result.


Well said and great analysis.

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a second...

How is AI mining data that is copyrighted or in the public domain any different than say, a composer who has been tasked with writing a piece of music in a particular style, going on the web to listen to recordings, watch tutorials, download charts, and read articles to learn how to compose in the requested style? Both the composer and AI are leveraging data from similar sources.

The composer's resulting output will effectively be a "derivative" work that is a synthesis of all his research plus whatever inherent knowledge s/he already possesses thru years of study and experience. And this is essentially what AI is doing as well. In both cases, none of the researched sources are compensated nor given attribution.

So why would there be an expectation for AI to pay for its research, when humans don't?

Just food for thought...


----------



## rnb_2 (Aug 31, 2022)

NekujaK said:


> Well said and great analysis.
> 
> Allow me to play devil's advocate for a second...
> 
> ...


I think it's just a question of volume - an AI can incorporate millions or billions of inputs into its model, where a human is probably limited to double digits. I guess that makes each input less problematic from a copyright standpoint in the case of the AI, though, as pointed out by @David Cuny, this is just volume masking the influence of any given input.


----------



## NekujaK (Aug 31, 2022)

rnb_2 said:


> I think it's just a question of volume - an AI can incorporate millions or billions of inputs into its model, where a human is probably limited to double digits. I guess that makes each input less problematic from a copyright standpoint in the case of the AI, though, as pointed out by @David Cuny, this is just volume masking the influence of any given input.


I had the same thought, but instead of looking at it as one human = one AI engine, it's really many millions of humans, each consuming their small portion of research, that can be thought of as a single AI equivalent. So the scale of information being consumed for training is not that disparate between humans and AI.

But we could also examine this on a smaller scale. I don't actually know how neural networks are used in something like a Neural DSP amp sim, but I imagine there is a similar process of training the network that's involved. But Neural DSP don't appear to be paying any of the source amp manufacturer's for the privilege of using their amps as a training source.


----------



## MartinH. (Aug 31, 2022)

NekujaK said:


> Maybe there will be opportunities for graphic artists to add AI to their suite of tools, and they can pitch their services as "AI enhanced artwork", which could sound very cutting edge to a lot of potential clients.


I don't want to go down that road if I can at all help it. I think a line needs to be drawn in the sand, and you're either for us human artists or against us.




NekujaK said:


> I wonder how art schools are coping with this technology? Will it eventually have an impact on enrollments? Will there be curriculum built around creating AI art?


I think they will for sure see less applications once artist is no longer a viable career, but the good places all have way more applications than open slots to fill. So maybe it won't matter to them?




NekujaK said:


> Allow me to play devil's advocate for a second...
> 
> How is AI mining data that is copyrighted or in the public domain any different than say, a composer who has been tasked with writing a piece of music in a particular style, going on the web to listen to recordings, watch tutorials, download charts, and read articles to learn how to compose in the requested style? Both the composer and AI are leveraging data from similar sources.


Humans learn by breaking down examples into concepts, they don't need a staggering amount of these examples to deduce and apply concepts from them. Current gen AI does not learn concepts, it slices artistic works into countless pieces, sorts pieces into piles that look similar, and draws lines between those piles to smoothly interpolate between the patterns. If a human was "writing like John Williams" the way AI does, they would take all the music he's ever written, cut it into little pieces, sort them in some way that makes sense to them and that roughly corresponds to where in a piece they'd occur, and then roll the dice to copy and paste them together, and mask the transitions as best they can. AI is reallly good at the "masking the transitions" part, until it tries to blend things together that make no sense at all. Current art AIs are just an automation and obfuscation of the fact that they hack together stuff from stolen intellectual property in my opinion.


----------



## NekujaK (Aug 31, 2022)

MartinH. said:


> Current gen AI does not learn concepts, it slices artistic works into countless pieces, sorts pieces into piles that look similar, and draws lines between those piles to smoothly interpolate between the patterns.


Fair enough. But perhaps deep down in our mechanical brain it's a similar process, we're just not consciously aware of it. Perhaps what we call a "concept" is really just our filtered perception of a similar underlying mechanic to AI.

But speculation and science fiction aside... the key concept is that both humans and AI use external input to create new things. We may achieve our results through different underlying methods, but there is still an overall process of gathering input, synthesizing information, and creating something new/derivative that is similar for both humans and AI.

In the end, results are achieved. AI still has a long way to go, but to the untrained eye, there are already a lot of examples of AI generating works that are indistinguishable from human output. And I guess that's the scary, exciting, and potentially depressing part.


----------



## LatinXCombo (Aug 31, 2022)

Trash Panda said:


> Those burgers in the McDonald’s photos and tacos from Taco Bell photos are made of wood.


All that means is that they used authentic pictures from one of their restaurants.


----------



## David Cuny (Aug 31, 2022)

NekujaK said:


> How is AI mining data that is copyrighted or in the public domain any different than say, a composer who has been tasked with writing a piece of music in a particular style, going on the web to listen to recordings, watch tutorials, download charts, and read articles to learn how to compose in the requested style? Both the composer and AI are leveraging data from similar sources.


You're absolutely right that all work is derivative.

However, with a neural network, _all work is equally and entirely derivative_.

As a composer, even if you're trying to create a work that's in the style of a particular composer, you'll make decisions about which parts are copied, and how slavishly they are copied.

The goal is to avoid having to pay the author of the derived work by not copying too closely. 

And herein lies a key point: you _understand_ what makes it unique. Sort of like Vanilla Ice explaining how his bass line differs from "Under Pressure". 

On the other hand, the neural network has no concept of what it's doing. It can only nudge a given solution towards a particular latent space and iterate towards a solution with a higher ranking.

But it doesn't know that a work is unique or not, because that's not part of the process. That's just a side-effect of having a large data space to sample from.


----------



## NekujaK (Aug 31, 2022)

David Cuny said:


> You're absolutely right that all work is derivative.
> 
> However, with a neural network, _all work is equally and entirely derivative_.
> 
> ...


Totally agree. But one has to wonder, does it really matter? If both humans and AI tend to generate derivative works, as long as the final result is novel, does it really matter how they got there?

This article by Ahmed Elgamma, director of the Art and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at Rutgers, seems to indicate their AICAN engine is capable of assessing the uniqueness of its own work:



https://www.americanscientist.org/article/ai-is-blurring-the-definition-of-artist


----------



## Bman70 (Aug 31, 2022)

David Cuny said:


> You're absolutely right that all work is derivative.
> 
> However, with a neural network, _all work is equally and entirely derivative_.
> 
> ...



From what I've seen so far, AI art borrows from so many images, that it doesn't seem possible to detect any of the source content in the final result. It's less like taking pieces of millions of images, than it is like observing millions of images in order to learn "how to draw/ paint / put together an image." It's certainly not in any way a very sophisticated collage.


----------



## MartinH. (Aug 31, 2022)

I don't get the pro-athlete levels of mental gymnastics to justify corporations trying to get rid of human artists by systemically mass exploiting all of their collective intellectual property. If this was the same level of threat to composer jobs, I bet most of you would be up in arms about it. They're coming for your jobs too, just wait, you'll see.


----------



## dohm (Aug 31, 2022)

MartinH. said:


> I don't get the pro-athlete levels of mental gymnastics to justify corporations trying to get rid of human artists by systemically mass exploiting all of their collective intellectual property. If this was the same level of threat to composer jobs, I bet most of you would be up in arms about it. They're coming for your jobs too, just wait, you'll see.


Actually, it is coming for the jobs of radiologists, truck drivers, pilots, graphic designers, authors, food workers, teachers, analysts, reporters, etc., etc. In the not so distant future, maybe we will all be feeding training data to computers. It will be just like raising toddlers/kids but without the diaper changes. 
It is interesting that just about any application of AI/ML can be viewed as automating something a human might have done previously. We only care, when we care.


----------



## Zanshin (Aug 31, 2022)

It's almost time for the Butlerian Jihad.


----------



## NekujaK (Aug 31, 2022)

MartinH. said:


> I don't get the pro-athlete levels of mental gymnastics to justify corporations trying to get rid of human artists by systemically mass exploiting all of their collective intellectual property. If this was the same level of threat to composer jobs, I bet most of you would be up in arms about it. They're coming for your jobs too, just wait, you'll see.


It's already coming for certain composer jobs, and more are likely to follow. This disturbs and disappoints me on many levels. I can choose to be outraged about it, which will have little effect except raising my blood pressure and sending me to an early grave, or I can try to learn more about my new competition, to understand its strengths and weaknesses, and find out if I can leverage its capabilities to enhance my own work.

Curiosity and adaptability are good survival skills.


----------



## David Cuny (Aug 31, 2022)

Bman70 said:


> It's certainly not in any way a very sophisticated collage.


Actually, it _is_ a very sophisticated collage.

Consider what a neural network is: a categorizing machine. The network is given inputs which run through layers of non-linear weightings. The weights produce a score, which are adjusted via back-propagation.

A classic collage is constructed from a collection of disparate elements that, when combined, create a unified whole.

In a neural network, the elements of the "collage" reside as set classifiers within the network. But it's a collage in the sense that it's a hodge-podge of classifiers working together to generate a final construct. There's no single point of "intelligence" in the system - it's just a bunch of disparate classifiers that vote.

So... yes, it _is_ a very sophisticated collage.


----------



## David Cuny (Aug 31, 2022)

NekujaK said:


> Totally agree. But one has to wonder, does it really matter? If both humans and AI tend to generate derivative works, as long as the final result is novel, does it really matter how they got there?


Yes, I think it does matter.

Consider a simpler example: imagine you used a probabilistic process to generate melodies. If you used the music of Schubert to generate the melodies, could you take credit for melodies created by the process?

After all, they are novel and didn't exist prior to running your code.

But these melodies would not have existed at all, had Schubert's music not existed. The process _depends on the data_. While Schubert didn't directly write the melodies, the only "creativity" is the rolling of probabilistic dice.

In a similar way, AI art depends on an enormous data set being properly tagged and analyzed. The neural network isn't actually learning to be creative, it's learning to mimic. The "creative" element comes from being fed so much information that it's difficult to pinpoint the source material.

Even if it creates something novel, it's only a variation on a statistical theme from the original data set.


----------



## Bman70 (Aug 31, 2022)

David Cuny said:


> Actually, it _is_ a very sophisticated collage.
> 
> Consider what a neural network is: a categorizing machine. The network is given inputs which run through layers of non-linear weightings. The weights produce a score, which are adjusted via back-propagation.
> 
> ...



Conceptually that's the tempting comparison to make, that's why I used it.  

However, a collage takes intact pieces and compiles a different image. But the pieces themselves remain unchanged, and recognizable if compared to the original they came from. AI can take a piece, and extrapolate from it by comparing it to other pieces, and make it larger if required, or smaller, or a different color, or wider or shorter. So it's much more like learning from what it sees in order to imitate, yet with its own twist.

For example, here's an MJ image on the left, put into a Bing search for similar images. There's a lot of commonality between the AI image and some of the others, but also commonality between many of the other images.


----------



## NekujaK (Aug 31, 2022)

David Cuny said:


> Consider a simpler example: imagine you used a probabilistic process to generate melodies. If you used the music of Schubert to generate the melodies, could you take credit for melodies created by the process?


Taking credit for works created through probability, AI, Quija boards, divining rods, etc... is a separate discussion that also includes things like composing music with loops, phrase libraries, and musical pattern generators.

Do composers take credit for works they create using Sonokinetic's phrase libraries? Indeed they do.

Do composers take credit for works they create using Toontrack's EZdrummer, EZkeys, and EZbass MIDI loops. Indeed they do.



David Cuny said:


> But these melodies would not have existed at all, had Schubert's music not existed. The process _depends on the data_. While Schubert didn't directly write the melodies, the only "creativity" is the rolling of probabilistic dice.


Or sometimes even directly lifting parts of existing works: John Williams + Korngold = Star Wars!

But again, the issue of what constitutes creativity is another separate discussion. I personally don't get any creative satisfaction from combing musical loops, but I know musicians who do. Everybody draws their line in a different place, and for some people, rolling dice may be enough to provide that satisfaction.

But regardless, the only thing the audience cares about is the final result. They don't care how the man behind the curtain made it happen.



David Cuny said:


> In a similar way, AI art depends on an enormous data set being properly tagged and analyzed. The neural network isn't actually learning to be creative, it's learning to mimic. The "creative" element comes from being fed so much information that it's difficult to pinpoint the source material.
> 
> Even if it creates something novel, it's only a variation on a statistical theme from the original data set.


And that's okay, because again, only the result matters. If the final creation is pleasing, engaging, and novel, then mission accomplished! Knowing how the sausage was made doesn't change the result.


----------



## David Cuny (Aug 31, 2022)

NekujaK said:


> And that's okay, because again, only the result matters. If the final creation is pleasing, engaging, and novel, then mission accomplished! Knowing how the sausage was made doesn't change the result.


To be clear, I'm not in any way denigrating the results. And I think we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg in terms of being able to use these as effective creation tools.


----------



## AnhrithmonGelasma (Sep 1, 2022)

"AI-generated artwork’s state fair victory fuels arguments over ‘what art is’

A game designer has sparked controversy after submitting an image created by an AI text-to-image generator to a state art competition and taking home first prize.

... titled “Theatre d’Opera Spatial”"









An AI-generated artwork’s state fair victory fuels arguments over ‘what art is’


Just a simple question: but what is art, anyway?




www.theverge.com


----------



## ryst (Sep 1, 2022)

NekujaK said:


> Taking credit for works created through probability, AI, Quija boards, divining rods, etc... is a separate discussion that also includes things like composing music with loops, phrase libraries, and musical pattern generators.
> 
> Do composers take credit for works they create using Sonokinetic's phrase libraries? Indeed they do.
> 
> ...


A separate discussion indeed. But an interesting one, for sure. I've seen some people selling their AI generated art. Not sure if they are making any money but it's fascinating to see this develop.


----------



## David Cuny (Sep 2, 2022)

AnhrithmonGelasma said:


> A game designer has sparked controversy after submitting an image created by an AI text-to-image generator to a state art competition and taking home first prize.


I don't think there's much doubt that the program is capable of producing art.

The controversy is primarily over whether Jason should have claimed authorship of a graphic image primarily created by an AI program.

Despite Jason saying he had used Midjourney, people think it's unlikely that the judges were aware of what Midjourney was, or the level of contribution from the program.

For example, here's an image generated by Craiyon:





_"sensual abstract cubism style oil painting in green and gold of a curvy neolithic fertility goddess made of silver spheres descending an m. c. escher staircase"_

How much credit - if any - should I actually claim for this image? And how much credit should I give to the source material that I've obviously prompted the program to "borrow" from?


----------



## Zanshin (Sep 2, 2022)

How much credit should Holst get for the Star Wars soundtrack? Is that really a productive line of reasoning to follow? Genuine question.

Edit: I wasn't following closely enough, @NekujaK said as much, much nicer.


----------



## AnhrithmonGelasma (Sep 2, 2022)

David Cuny said:


> I don't think there's much doubt that the program is capable of producing art.
> 
> The controversy is primarily over whether Jason should have claimed authorship of a graphic image primarily created by an AI program.
> 
> ...


I have seen a surprisingly large number of posts claiming that AI art isn't "real art" or art of any value, or that it necessarily fails to convey emotion, etc.---but (at least insofar as whether or not it's "art" of value can be settled by the visual image in relative isolation) I doubt these claims would hold up in blind tests.

There is also the question of whether human input, selection, post-processing etc. should be considered "art", or the acts of an "artist"---going back to debates around early 20th century found objects, Duchamp's assisted ready-mades, etc. (Not to mention photography....) Of course, many prompts are clearly creative, as yours demonstrates; and there is "an art", a skill, to producing prompts for a particular AI (currently). But even the minimal act of selection of a particular image is an act of artistic value (perhaps it's not surprising that curators and investors in art have overwhelmingly agreed with this...).

"[the State Fair winner] emphasizes the work he put into creating the image — “I made the prompt, I fine tuned it for many weeks, curated all the images” — and adds that his Photoshop editing constituted “at least 10%” of the work."

The category was specifically digital art. That already encompasses a wide range of pseudo-random or chaotic processes and complex images generated by prompts (or gui equivalents, etc.).


----------



## David Cuny (Sep 2, 2022)

Zanshin said:


> How much credit should Holst get for the Star Wars soundtrack? Is that really a productive line of reasoning to follow?


I see two competing forces in the domain of "public" information.

The first treats things like art as something that can be owned. Write a song too closely to another, and you can be sued for it.

This is problematic because _all _art is derivative. And the people who win these legal fights tend to be those with the most money and lawyers. Witness the number of people who have had videos removed from YouTube because someone else claimed they owned a creator's music.

On the other hand, you've got AI projects that treat the world as free data sources. As long as you have enough data points, it's virtually impossible to show that a work is directly derivative from another. In fact, if you've got enough data points, you can show that a work is derivative from _many_ similar sources - even if in practice there is only one primary source.

I suspect that we're heading toward a collision between these two forces - one where companies with a portfolio of works will use them as weapons to sue infringing artists; the other with the ability to create legal works that are verified to be legally clean, yet are completely derivative.

It seems similar to the software business not so long ago. So many companies were being sued for infringements on core technologies that the only way for a company to survive was to amass a huge portfolio of similar basic patents and stave lawyers off with the threat of mutually assured legal destruction.

How will independent artists be able to thrive under a similar legal landscape? It seems like they will be forced to use software to tell them where their music is potentially infringing, so they can rewrite those portions.

If you think this is far off, consider that today we require students to submit their papers to an automated validation system to ensure they aren't plagiarizing.

So yes - I think that the question of credit is one that is becoming critical as these technologies move forward.


----------



## Sophus (Sep 2, 2022)

AnhrithmonGelasma said:


> I have seen a surprisingly large number of posts claiming that AI art isn't "real art" or art of any value, or that it necessarily fails to convey emotion, etc.---but (at least insofar as whether or not it's "art" of value can be settled by the visual image in relative isolation) I doubt these claims would hold up in blind tests.


There is some kind of romanticism about how an artist is a "real" artist. There are people out there who think, that it isn't real art if you paint something you see instead of painting something from your pure imagination. They think artists never used models and always painted like you do it as a child but their paintings just look much better because of their mastercraft and talent. And, of course, an artist needs to work alone to be a real artist. But already hundreds of years ago many artists did run their own workshop where they trained their own students who then helped them with their projects. It isn't like all art was made completely alone by only the master artist. And they were paid by the wealthy to do contract work. Something like an independent modern artists, who paints what she or he wants and then sells it everyday people didn't even exists back then. This was made possible by making the necessary tools and painting materials affordable.



David Cuny said:


> It seems similar to the software business not so long ago. So many companies were being sued for infringements on core technologies that the only way for a company to survive was to amass a huge portfolio of similar basic patents and stave lawyers off with the threat of mutually assured legal destruction.


Depends on the country. I think it's already solved under EU law. Here it's not possible to patent what a software does which a lot of companies (like Microsoft or Oracle) tried to do to get a monopoly. Doesn't work here any longer.



David Cuny said:


> How will independent artists be able to thrive under a similar legal landscape? It seems like they will be forced to use software to tell them where their music is potentially infringing, so they can rewrite those portions.


You can basically just use the Google backwards image search or services like Shazam/Content ID to test your image or songs. Both isn't expensive and works fast. For other things you will probably need the help of a patent lawyer to check the patent databases for similar entries. But you don't do this every day.


----------



## David Cuny (Sep 2, 2022)

Sophus said:


> You can basically just use the Google backwards image search or services like Shazam/Content ID to test your image or songs. Both isn't expensive and works fast. For other things you will probably need the help of a patent lawyer to check the patent databases for similar entries. But you don't do this every day.


I don't mean to suggesting that these tools aren't (or won't be made available) to composers.

What I'm suggesting is that it may be difficult for composers to do business in the future _without_ using these tools.

I suspect that it will put anyone not on one of the following groups at a disadvantage:

Composers who are represented by corporations who have large enough portfolios that are either protected via MAD or have the "infringing" music as part of their portfolio, and
Composers who rely on software create music that is not legally infringing


----------



## dohm (Sep 2, 2022)

David Cuny said:


> Yes, I think it does matter.
> 
> Consider a simpler example: imagine you used a probabilistic process to generate melodies. If you used the music of Schubert to generate the melodies, could you take credit for melodies created by the process?
> 
> ...


Don't confuse the output classification, etc. being associate with a probability with a probabilistic process. Models/networks based on supervised learning are not probabilistic. Once the model is trained the network will produce the same results given the same input, i.e., deterministic. A neural network is essentially an adaptive filter with a lot of parameters. If the process was truly stochastic, then it would output random or pseudo random outputs regardless of whether you input Schubert or any other composer's data as input. It does not do that. Of course, there would hopefully be bounds on the possible output (values, etc.), otherwise you would get something very limiting


----------



## David Cuny (Sep 2, 2022)

dohm said:


> Models/networks based on supervised learning are not probabilistic. Once the model is trained the network will produce the same results given the same input, i.e., deterministic.


Yes, classic neural networks are at their core deterministic.

I picked the Markov model just to make clear that the "creative" portion comes from the data, and to not get caught up with the mechanics a neural network. 

However, training neural networks to use Markov distributions turns out to be super-easy - you can do it with a vanilla neural network by making one of the input the roll of a die.

And if you're generating outputs with neural networks, you'll often _need_ to use random values. Otherwise, you'll end up outputting mean values, where you want an output that cluter around the mean.

And don't forget those neural networks generate images by starting with noise, and work _backwards_ towards a likely solution.

Finally, if neural networks _didn't_ have some amount of randomness built into the rendering process, you'd end up getting the exact same rendering for the same text inputs on systems like Craiyon. And that's clearly not what's happening.


----------



## AnhrithmonGelasma (Sep 2, 2022)

dohm said:


> Don't confuse the output classification, etc. being associate with a probability with a probabilistic process. Models/networks based on supervised learning are not probabilistic. Once the model is trained the network will produce the same results given the same input, i.e., deterministic. A neural network is essentially an adaptive filter with a lot of parameters. If the process was truly stochastic, then it would output random or pseudo random outputs regardless of whether you input Schubert or any other composer's data as input. It does not do that. Of course, there would hopefully be bounds on the possible output (values, etc.), otherwise you would get something very limiting



"DALL.E is made up of two blocks. A first block *deterministic* y which provides an embedding z given a textual premise y, and a second block, *nondeterministic* and that is the one that taking that embedding of the image, and optionally, the encoding of the text, generates images"

"... we need to transform both the text and the image into those latent representations that coexist in the same mathematical space. This second encoder, the one in the image, is where the “artist’s mind” is located.

During training, we start from this encoder, inverting it to obtain a diffusion decoder, whose mission is the opposite, to go from the mathematical representation to an image generated by the model.

This decoder has the quality of being non-deterministic, given the same input, it will not always provide the same output."

https://techunwrapped.com/in-the-mind-of-dall-e/


----------



## dohm (Sep 2, 2022)

AnhrithmonGelasma said:


> "DALL.E is made up of two blocks. A first block *deterministic* y which provides an embedding z given a textual premise y, and a second block, *nondeterministic* and that is the one that taking that embedding of the image, and optionally, the encoding of the text, generates images"
> 
> "... we need to transform both the text and the image into those latent representations that coexist in the same mathematical space. This second encoder, the one in the image, is where the “artist’s mind” is located.
> 
> ...


That is a lot of big words to talk about something relatively simple. Maybe a little proof-by-intimidation? That article is full of fluff, imho. That is probably why no code or model details are shared. It's fun to watch the AI/ML world make up words for things. "Diffusion Decoder", "can take infinite values within the statistical distribution (wha?)", give me a break! Nothing to see here....

They state, " The non-determinism becomes evident when taking that numerical representation of the image and feeding it to the decoder in successive steps...". That only explains a heuristic for testing for determinism. How does it work? Is the decoder extremely sensitive to slight variations in those numerical values? Do they inject noise into the process prior to the decoder (or within)? Is it numerically unstable? A generative model or auto autoencoder-like network is inherently deterministic (and adaptable). Otherwise it would not be very useful for most applications. Yes, you can add a noise process with it to make the output vary...a lot. However, they don't explain anything about what is actually done. Instead, the author just makes it sound like it approximates the "artists mind". I call total BS. It just looks like yet another variation on a generative network to me. And yes, I still stand by my claim that the underlying process of a neural network with supervised training is deterministic. Combining a random process along with it to make an application does not change that. And it does not make it "intelligent".

I'm open to being wrong about any of this. So, please don't take this response as me not enjoying the conversation. I have been creating and training deep learning models for about 8 years so I might be unreasonably stubborn. I hope not. I'm certainly not an expert on AI for art generation.

To my original intent for engaging in this thread, I think the use of a generative method (any kind), regardless of it utilizing input noise or actual art (data) generated by humans, can only be violating copyright if it outputs something recognizably (by humans) and obviously derived or same as said violated work. Example, if I run a DeadMau5 recording through a band pass filter I cannot claim it to be my own original work. Why? People will obviously notice. If I use 10,000 EDM songs to train a generative model, I'm probably ok unless it somehow outputs something with a section too similar to something in one of those songs. The good part, is that in an AI model, that difference/distance parameter(s) can be tuned.

AI/ML is so cool! AI/ML really sucks! Maybe it is both.


----------



## AnhrithmonGelasma (Sep 2, 2022)

dohm said:


> That is a lot of big words to talk about something relatively simple. Maybe a little proof-by-intimidation? That article is full of fluff, imho. That is probably why no code or model details are shared. It's fun to watch the AI/ML world make up words for things. "Diffusion Decoder", "can take infinite values within the statistical distribution (wha?)", give me a break! Nothing to see here....
> 
> They state, " The non-determinism becomes evident when taking that numerical representation of the image and feeding it to the decoder in successive steps...". That only explains a heuristic for testing for determinism. How does it work? Is the decoder extremely sensitive to slight variations in those numerical values? Do they inject noise into the process prior to the decoder (or within)? Is it numerically unstable? A generative model or auto autoencoder-like network is inherently deterministic (and adaptable). Otherwise it would not be very useful for most applications. Yes, you can add a noise process with it to make the output vary...a lot. However, they don't explain anything about what is actually done. Instead, the author just makes it sound like it approximates the "artists mind". I call total BS. It just looks like yet another variation on a generative network to me. And yes, I still stand by my claim that the underlying process of a neural network with supervised training is deterministic. Combining a random process along with it to make an application does not change that. And it does not make it "intelligent".
> 
> ...











GitHub - lucidrains/DALLE2-pytorch: Implementation of DALL-E 2, OpenAI's updated text-to-image synthesis neural network, in Pytorch


Implementation of DALL-E 2, OpenAI's updated text-to-image synthesis neural network, in Pytorch - GitHub - lucidrains/DALLE2-pytorch: Implementation of DALL-E 2, OpenAI's updated text-to-i...




github.com













GitHub - CompVis/stable-diffusion: A latent text-to-image diffusion model


A latent text-to-image diffusion model. Contribute to CompVis/stable-diffusion development by creating an account on GitHub.




github.com





"Diffusion models consist of two steps:

Forward Diffusion — Maps data to noise by gradually perturbing the input data. This is formally achieved by a simple stochastic process that starts from a data sample and iteratively generates noisier samples using a simple Gaussian diffusion kernel. This process is used only during training and not on inference.
Parametrized Reverse — Undoes the forward diffusion and performs iterative denoising. This process represents data synthesis and is trained to generate data by converting random noise into realistic data.
The forward and reverse processes require sequential repetition of thousands of steps, injecting and reducing noise, which makes the whole process slow and heavy on computational resources."









Stable Diffusion: Best Open Source Version of DALL·E 2


Created by the researchers and engineers from Stability AI, CompVis, and LAION, “Stable Diffusion” claims the crown from Craiyon, formerly…




towardsdatascience.com


----------



## dohm (Sep 2, 2022)

Thanks for the links and info! I will look at Git repos in detail tomorrow. I would like to try and train the diffusion prior and decoder. I have a DGX sitting here doing nothing right now  The high level description seems to confirm that the noise process is added, as suspected. The iterative denoising is familiar. I will get smarter on it. It is interesting that this looks like a good way to mess up a perfectly good autoencoder from the perspective of other applications


----------



## NekujaK (Sep 3, 2022)

Consider this... in our lifetimes, we've heard hundreds of thousands of pieces of music. Some we listen to with intense scrutiny, other music just finds its way into our brains because it's in our environment (radio, TV, movies, restaurants, etc...). Some we pay for, some we happen upon for free.

All that accumulated musical input is forever bouncing around in our brains. So when we compose, it's unavoidable to not have those musical fragments find their way into what we write. In fact, most songwriters and composers will cite key influences that inform their work, and indeed they often write in styles that reflect their influences.

Since we really don't have enough insight into how the creative brain works, it could very well be that neural networks and our own creative process are extremely similar - both borrowing on fragments of previously input data to come up with something new.

So it's not a horrible thing when AI creates something that is a composite of various data inputs. Obviously, plagiarism is not being encouraged, but I think it's unfair to diminish what AI produces simply because there is randomness, probability, and perhaps lack of intent, involved. For all we know, that may be exactly what's going at the lowest levels of our brains when we "create".


----------



## MartinH. (Sep 3, 2022)

Bman70 said:


> From what I've seen so far, AI art borrows from so many images, that it doesn't seem possible to detect any of the source content in the final result. It's less like taking pieces of millions of images, than it is like observing millions of images in order to learn "how to draw/ paint / put together an image." It's certainly not in any way a very sophisticated collage.


I still think that is incorrect and I found an example of an image that was so overfitted during training that a certain very generic prompt with a certain "by artist" modifier spits out basically his most famous painting on a high percentage of random seeds.






This is the output of 6 different random seeds for the query "female portrait, by vermeer". Not very random as you can see, they should be totally different and with most other "by artist" modifiers they are, because most other artists have made more pictures that are in the dataset and this one must have had a lot of copies in the dataset so it's overfitted so hard, the model basically saved the image.


This is the exact equivalent of having a music AI, and you prompt it with "scifi movie opening title, in the style of john williams" and 4 out of 6 generated tracks are THE star wars theme with varying degrees of flaws that would bother a composer, but will still be 100% recognizable as THE star wars theme for every layman. All the "mind of the artist" fluff is marketing bullshit imho. These models are in no way intelligent, they compress fragments of images into similar fragments of images and provide a way to search in that space. Some images will be stored near verbatim, some images will be totally diffused into sort of similar fragments from other images that even the closest possible representation in the latent space is far enough off from the original that you couldn't recognize it, and probably most will be somewhere inbetween, consisting of image parts that you could clearly recoginze if you had the right one of the 5 billion input images at hand to compare to, and of parts that are so interpolated between recognizable parts that they are neither A nor B nor [...] N.

It is a fact that all the tech the developers made here has very little value without the input data, and the input data - basically all images on the internet - has immeasurable value on its own and is legally protected in numerous ways. And yet - for reasons I can absolutely not comprehend - most people seem to think it is ok to chuck the entirety of human image creation into this latent space meatgrinder and release every image compressed in this way into the public domain with no consideration whatsoever for what impact this will have culturally, ethically, financially for artists, healthwise for consumers, etc.. 

There are all kinds of other ethical problems with this release and the used datasets, but no one in charge seems to give a fuck, and everyone who cares is left to helplessly watch as it all unfolds.
Having read up a bit on that and seeing how long these problems have been known made me lose all hope that there's anything that can be done to stop this. "This is progress, consequences be damned".

But at least it seems like the current legal situation in Germany (maybe the whole EU and if not yet, then maybe soon) is that you can't copyright AI generated work, so companies needing artwork for products that need copyright protection will still need human artists that do original work. So that's my silver lining...


----------



## Bman70 (Sep 3, 2022)

MartinH. said:


> I still think that is incorrect and I found an example of an image that was so overfitted during training that a certain very generic prompt with a certain "by artist" modifier spits out basically his most famous painting on a high percentage of random seeds.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You want to type in "Vermeer" and see something unique and unlike Vermeer emerge? It's a computer, it's following orders! You caused the plagiarism, not the AI. There will eventually be enough keyword nuance to make dropping artist's names unnecessary, while still producing something in that vein.

Actually those images you posted are very interesting. When I look at the original Vermeer, none of the actual parts or details are identical. But it made a very compelling likeness, much like a human artists doing several renditions of the work on request. The computer knows how to build textures, skin, etc. But look at the shirt - the wrinkles fall differently and it's clear the image was created to match, but using the AI's own "skill" not pasting from a saved image.


----------



## David Cuny (Sep 4, 2022)

Bman70 said:


> ... and it's clear the image was created to match, but using the AI's own "skill" not pasting from a saved image.


It's _literally_ reconstructing from the saved image.

But the encoding of that image is lossy, so the reconstruction is imperfect.

The fact that it is imperfect - and therefore creates interesting variations - is a useful side-effect.

But I wouldn't call it "skill" - it's the function of trained encoder/decoder.


----------



## Daren Audio (Sep 6, 2022)

https://arstechnica.com/information...-may-never-believe-what-you-see-online-again/


----------



## Zedcars (Sep 6, 2022)

One of the images generated via text I fed into Hugging Face is clearly based on an image from Getty Images. So they train this thing on any image whether copyrighted or not. That can’t be legal or ethical can it?

(It’s supposed to be a mad scientist in front of a glowing neon time machine in New York in the year 1922.)


----------



## AnhrithmonGelasma (Sep 6, 2022)

Zedcars said:


> One of the images generated via text I fed into Hugging Face is clearly based on an image from Getty Images. So they train this thing on any image whether copyrighted or not. That can’t be legal or ethical can it?
> 
> (It’s supposed to be a mad scientist in front of a glowing neon time machine in New York in the year 1922.)


From the article linked to in the post before yours:

"Scraping the data appears lawful by US legal precedent, but one could argue that the law might be lagging behind rapidly evolving technology that upends previous assumptions about how public data might be utilized.

As a result, if image synthesis technology becomes adopted by major corporations in the future ... companies might train their own models based on a "clean" data set that includes licensed content, opt-in content, and public domain imagery to avoid some of these ethical issues, even if using an Internet scrape is technically legal. ... 'Stability is working on a range of models. All models by ourselves and our collaborators are legal within their jurisdictions.'" 

Not sure if terms of use for stock image sites could preclude data scraping in a legally binding way. Or whether it would be sufficient for data scraping to be outlawed wherever the servers hosting the stock image sites are. But that wouldn't affect models that have already been trained.


----------



## David Cuny (Sep 6, 2022)

Here's a link to the dataset: https://laion.ai/blog/laion-5b/

585 billion CLIP-filtered image-text pairs. That's a _lot_ of data!

The article notes:



> Recent analysis of the data set shows that many of the images come from sites such as Pinterest, DeviantArt, and even Getty Images.


----------



## MartinH. (Sep 6, 2022)

AnhrithmonGelasma said:


> "Scraping the data appears lawful by US legal precedent


Afaik the precedent was google caching images to provide their service of an image search engine, so that for example people can find stock photos to license from stock photo sites, without having to know where to go for that kind of thing first. In other words: a symbiotic relationship, and not "create a competing product that completely obliterates the business model of the stock photo sites the images were scraped from". 




AnhrithmonGelasma said:


> As a result, if image synthesis technology becomes adopted by major corporations in the future ... companies might train their own models based on a "clean" data set that includes licensed content, opt-in content, and public domain imagery to avoid some of these ethical issues,


Not sure it's feasible to create a "clean" data set that is still big enough to be useful.




AnhrithmonGelasma said:


> 'Stability is working on a range of models. All models by ourselves and our collaborators are legal within their jurisdictions.'"


Facebook etc. also always say what they're doing is legal, and yet they're fined millions upon millions for it.


----------



## AnhrithmonGelasma (Sep 7, 2022)

"DALL-E can now help you imagine what’s outside the frame of famous paintings

... DALL-E, with the help of human prompting, “imagines” what’s outside the frame of ... Vermeer’s portrait “Girl with a Pearl Earring.” ... the system is able to match Vermeer’s style, mimicking the shadows and highlights of the original.

[...] As with all text-to-image AI, the model requires that humans describe the new visuals."









DALL-E can now help you imagine what’s outside the frame of famous paintings


Expand the borders of any image




www.theverge.com


----------



## Daren Audio (Sep 10, 2022)

SD - Stable Diffusion Workflow Demonstration:


----------



## AnhrithmonGelasma (Sep 11, 2022)

Arts and Ai


Are We Even Asking the Right Questions?




modernmythology.net





"... [Midjourney has] been a source of inspiration, excitement, and even absurd humor, although as I see it — at least at this stage — nothing it produces is out-of-the-box production ready. It’s halfway there. (Midway, you might say).

... More broadly it seems much better understood as an imagination midwife ...

... a visual workflow ... playing with methods like the Gysin / Burroughs / Bowie approach to cut-up and randomization, that is, a means of riffing and generating unexpected combinations that is still very much dependent on the involvement of human agency.

This is true for many of the music projects I’ve worked on as well, but visually it started with collaging, and then digital collaging, and then photobashing ['a technique where artists merge & blend photographs or 3D assets together while painting and compositing them into one finished piece'
https://conceptartempire.com/photobashing/ ], and then digital painting with photobashing or pencils as a monochromatized underpainting, and so on.

... there seems to be a persistent idea in the forums that Ai is a servant that should deliver you exactly what you ask for, or that the end goal is for it to deliver a finished image at a moment's notice. ...

What it seems to do instead is a great deal more fun, and confounding — attempts at communication and interpretation, and subsequent sometimes creative misunderstandings. “This isn’t what I thought I was asking for, but it’s actually a quite interesting direction” is a common reaction. Discovery is mixed in throughout the illustration process, not provided upfront. ...

In the testing I’ve done with some fellow artists, programmers, and the like, it’s already proven quite valuable to have a shared channel where we can each riff off of each other’s visual ideas, mediated by the MidJourney bot."


----------



## Zedcars (Sep 11, 2022)

Just started using Midjourney. Nearly used up all my free credits already. 

Prompt:



> Picture yourself in a boat on a river, With tangerine trees and marmalade skies, Somebody calls you, you answer quite slowly, A girl with kaleidoscope eyes, Cellophane flowers of yellow and green towering over your head, fantasy world, hyperrealistic, concept art, smooth, sharp focus, illustration, 8K --ar 16:9​





​(click to view full res)


----------



## Zedcars (Sep 11, 2022)

> Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart playing electric guitar on stage at Wembley Stadium, night time, colorful lasers, beautifully detailed, 8K, atmospheric, hyperrealistic​




​


----------



## Daren Audio (Sep 12, 2022)

There's money to be made....

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenric...able-diffusion-text-to-image/?sh=23a42dba24d6


----------



## wxyz (Sep 13, 2022)

The beauty of the new technology blooms when paradoxical goals are given to create new hybrid directions


----------



## cuttime (Sep 15, 2022)

Frank Zappa plays guitar by Pablo Picasso, DiffusionBee


----------



## Saxer (Sep 16, 2022)

At the moment we are at a content mix level with simple tasks. Though a lot of the results are real stunning real artistic decisions are made by emotional feedback.

AI will get interesting when it's a real time process with human input and AI output. Like back and forth sculpting something new, propositions based on AI and the selection and creative input of a human. Like: I have an idea and you make it. Change here, change there... give it a structure... more contrast here... A lot of self analysis in the AI has to be done at that point. Like understanding structure and goal of the output. That will be the next meta level.

The human input aspect is probably something that could be simulated too some day but it takes the fun out of the process. Some day we are at a saturation point. Yeah, my phone can create images and movies of my deceased grandma and music like Michael Jackson and porn starring my neighbours wive.... one hour, two hours... wow... two days... yawn...

People want to create. People want to draw and sing and play music. We don't need computers to simulate our fun. I don't need a beer drinking AI.


----------



## AnhrithmonGelasma (Sep 16, 2022)

Saxer said:


> At the moment we are at a content mix level with simple tasks. Though a lot of the results are real stunning real artistic decisions are made by emotional feedback.
> 
> AI will get interesting when it's a real time process with human input and AI output. Like back and forth sculpting something new, propositions based on AI and the selection and creative input of a human. Like: I have an idea and you make it. Change here, change there... give it a structure... more contrast here... A lot of self analysis in the AI has to be done at that point. Like understanding structure and goal of the output. That will be the next meta level.
> 
> ...


Agree that one of the next major steps will be fine-grained text prompt feedback on changing the images (for example: make the eyes more similar or their color more uniform, fix the hands, make X more Y or more like image Z, etc.). Probably with the option to select particular areas. (Of course some of this is already integrated in Photoshop---which iirc has been using AI to determine the borders of objects or regions for years now. Perhaps for things like moving objects around or tweaking their boundaries the image generators could intelligently adjust the surrounding objects or shadows / lighting etc. assuming that isn't already incorporated in Photoshop or similar tools. Or perhaps text prompts could allow the AI to decide how much to "move it a little to the left"---potentially saving a lot of time by calculating a small set of ideal positional tweaks.)


----------



## AnhrithmonGelasma (Sep 16, 2022)




----------



## Daren Audio (Sep 17, 2022)

Best viewed on a smartphone or reduce browser size (video resolution is 360). 
Another example of Stable Diffusion AI in application.


----------



## Pier-V (Sep 17, 2022)

Daren Audio said:


> Best viewed on a smartphone or reduce browser size (video resolution is 360).
> Another example of Stable Diffusion AI in application.



This video answers the question I didn't know I needed: What happens when stop motion and morphing have an illegitimate son?


----------



## Zedcars (Sep 17, 2022)

Daren Audio said:


> Best viewed on a smartphone or reduce browser size (video resolution is 360).
> Another example of Stable Diffusion AI in application.



That would make a damn sophisticated advert for an ale. 🍻


----------



## Daren Audio (Sep 17, 2022)

Zedcars said:


> That would make a damn sophisticated advert for an ale. 🍻


Yes. That's exactly what came to my mind as well. 
I believe musicians/visual artists can augment this technology and use it to pitch their concepts/ideas to prospective commercial clients. 



Pier-V said:


> This video answers the question I didn't know I needed: What happens when stop motion and morphing have an illegitimate son?


I'm waiting for this tech to get more refined but it looks promising.


----------



## Daren Audio (Sep 18, 2022)

AI creation floods the stock photography websites.


----------



## AnhrithmonGelasma (Sep 18, 2022)

Daren Audio said:


> It was only a matter of time when this gets on the auction house.
> 
> View attachment 85100
> 
> But don't jump on this thinking your AI art would eventually fetch the same. It's the exception to the norm.


Notice that's from 2018....


----------



## Daren Audio (Sep 18, 2022)

AnhrithmonGelasma said:


> Notice that's from 2018....


Sigh. Thanks for catching that! Need coffee!
* I edited it with up to date news: AI creations flood the stock photography market.


----------



## Bman70 (Sep 21, 2022)

I have a few photos on Getty, and got this email today. I wonder how many AI images there are there. I imagine Shutterstock is swamped with them, but no word from them yet.


----------



## Daren Audio (Sep 23, 2022)

Bman70 said:


> I have a few photos on Getty, and got this email today. I wonder how many AI images there are there. I imagine Shutterstock is swamped with them, but no word from them yet.



LOL. So many people in the FB groups are upset and up in arms. 

And still believe that when you "prompt" AI to create your illustrations, you own the copyright to it. 

US Copyright Office has explicitly stated that AI generated art by itself cannot be copyrighted. Therefore, you don't have any protection. 

Source: 








AI-Created Art Cannot be Copyrighted, US Copyright Office Says - ASMP


Image: Steven Thaler and/or Creativity Machine Cross-posted from petapixel.com[by Michael Zhang] Artificial intelligence has gotten better and better at creating “art” in recent years — algorithms are now capable of […]




www.asmp.org


----------



## Bman70 (Sep 23, 2022)

Daren Audio said:


> LOL. So many people in the FB groups are upset and up in arms.
> 
> And still believe that when you "prompt" AI to create your illustrations, you own the copyright to it.


Imagine being a non-artist, and suddenly gaining this "ability." Fiverr must have exploded with new accounts . But honestly the stock / Fiverr sites were already farms for the crappiest kinds of art... It's amazing what some businesses will accept as a "logo."


----------



## AnhrithmonGelasma (Sep 23, 2022)

Daren Audio said:


> LOL. So many people in the FB groups are upset and up in arms.
> 
> And still believe that when you "prompt" AI to create your illustrations, you own the copyright to it.
> 
> ...


Key parts of the article:

"the door has not been closed for humans to receive the copyright of works created by AI — they may just have to take a different approach that causes the Copyright Office to see them as a crucial part of the creation process.

“Thaler emphasized that humans weren’t meaningfully involved because his goal was to prove that machine-created works could receive protection, not simply to stop people from infringing on the picture,” _The Verge_ writes. “The board’s reasoning takes his explanation for granted. So if someone tried to copyright a similar work by arguing it was a product of their own creativity executed by a machine, the outcome might look different.”

Thaler could also turn from the Copyright Office to the courts by filing a lawsuit to see if a judge might come to a different conclusion than the copyright board."


----------



## Daren Audio (Sep 23, 2022)

This is a first for AI-assisted illustrative work.

I double-checked the US Copyright Office on record and it's legit - good as gold.

_Source: _
https://arstechnica.com/information...copyright-registration-for-generative-ai-art/


----------



## NekujaK (Sep 24, 2022)

Daren Audio said:


> This is a first for AI-assisted illustrative work.
> 
> I double-checked the US Copyright Office on record and it's legit - good as gold.
> 
> ...


Well, this makes sense and is in line with traditional copyright registration norms, because what is being copyrighted is the entire graphic novel, of which the artwork is merely one component:

"_Kashtanova approached the registration by saying the artwork was AI-assisted and not created entirely by the AI. Kashtanova wrote the comic book story, created the layout, and made artistic choices to piece the images together._"

This is very similar to copyrighting an original song recording that makes use of loops, and even sample libraries.

If the author tried to individually copyright every illuistration that was generated by MidJourney as a standalone piece of art, I'm guessing the outcome would've been different.


----------



## Daren Audio (Sep 24, 2022)

NekujaK said:


> Well, this makes sense and is in line with traditional copyright registration norms, because what is being copyrighted is the entire graphic novel, of which the artwork is merely one component:
> 
> "_Kashtanova approached the registration by saying the artwork was AI-assisted and not created entirely by the AI. Kashtanova wrote the comic book story, created the layout, and made artistic choices to piece the images together._"
> 
> ...


Yes, absolutely. AI is a tool-set just like virtual instruments.

However, I'm not crazy that Kashtanova touts in FB groups that AI (by itself) is copyright-able.
That's completely misleading. There's a big distinction as you have mentioned.

Dr. Stephen Thaler, however, is challenging the court system to obtain copyright and patent registrations for his AI. Only time will tell if this changes.


----------



## wxyz (Sep 24, 2022)

Here's mine


----------



## Zedcars (Sep 25, 2022)

Not sure whether to post this separately or not… \_(“.)_/


----------



## Daren Audio (Oct 31, 2022)

Daren Audio said:


> This is a first for AI-assisted illustrative work.
> 
> I double-checked the US Copyright Office on record and it's legit - good as gold.
> 
> ...


_*UPDATE:*_ From the artist, the US Copyright office has informed her, after further review, that it plans to revoke her copyright registration. She has 30-days to appeal this decision.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 31, 2022)

Ridiculous. Of course the work is copyrightable. The artist made artistic choices in the writing/editing of the prompts, in choosing which results to keep, and in what order to present said images.


----------



## Bman70 (Oct 31, 2022)

It would be perfectly easy to copyright a book using public domain art. The book / text cannot be reproduced or sold without permission, but the art can. In fact, public domain art already cannot be copyrighted, but specifically authored collections can be.


----------



## MartinH. (Oct 31, 2022)

Ned Bouhalassa said:


> Ridiculous. Of course the work is copyrightable. The artist made artistic choices in the writing/editing of the prompts, in choosing which results to keep, and in what order to present said images.


Do you understand how much of the future financial viability of ALL creative professions hinges on AI generated stuff not being eligable for copyright? You are against human artists with your stance.


----------



## David Cuny (Nov 1, 2022)

Ned Bouhalassa said:


> Ridiculous. Of course the work is copyrightable. The artist made artistic choices in the writing/editing of the prompts, in choosing which results to keep, and in what order to present said images.


I suspect what is at issue is whether the program had the right to use the source material in the first place.

The neural network has been trained using images, many of which are subject to copyright.

Training consists of scoring the network more highly when it is able to more closely generate works that match the description of those copyright materials. The more accurate the copy, the higher the ranking.

The entire value of the network is its ability to mimic existing works.

When a user chooses prompts, they are guiding the neural network to select hyper-parameters in the network's latent space.

In a sense, those prompts can be thought of as directing the network to create an image 80% of one artist, and 20% of a smattering of other artists.

I don't believe that the "artistic choices" made by a user in crafting a set of prompts even begin to compare to the imagination it took to create the original works in the first place, and certainly are not akin to the training, skill and talent of the original artist.

Should someone be able to claim the copyright to a visual work generated by a phrase such as "A hyper-realistic cow on the moon"? They didn't create the image at all, they merely entered words into a program. Those words are not the same as the image.

Certainly, there are programs - for example, Band in a Box - where users can enter chord progressions, and the program will output individual instrumental parts, and the end user is granted a copyright to the created work.

But with these programs, the people who provided the content did so knowing what it was being used for, and were compensated for that.

That's not the case of these image creation programs, which harvest vast amounts of imagery with little regard to ownership, and no remuneration is made to the original artists.


----------



## Sophus (Nov 1, 2022)

Ned Bouhalassa said:


> Ridiculous. Of course the work is copyrightable. The artist made artistic choices in the writing/editing of the prompts, in choosing which results to keep, and in what order to present said images.


Then the artist should write a novel.


----------



## Sophus (Nov 1, 2022)

MartinH. said:


> Do you understand how much of the future financial viability of ALL creative professions hinges on AI generated stuff not being eligable for copyright? You are against human artists with your stance.


Regarding this problem, I think it is very important that AI-generated content is not copyrightable. Because that means that publishing AI-generated content would not be commercially viable, since anyone could legally redistribute it. And that in turn would mean that human artists would remain necessary to produce such content.


----------



## AnhrithmonGelasma (Nov 18, 2022)




----------



## angeruroth (Nov 19, 2022)

Just created this thing while testing DALL-E:

Should this be copyrighteable?
I don't know... The audio is mine, and also the video work and the image postprocessing, but not the RAW pictures generated by DALL-E (maybe I should give royalties to OpenAI )
But here is the thing: Is it mine if I paint something in Picasso's style? If the answer is yes, then it should also be allowed for AIs, because we are both copying something. Is your work copyrighteable if you are copying HZ's style? Hmm, and if an AI does the same thing?
Maybe the question could be: Do we want to discriminate AIs?


----------



## David Cuny (Nov 19, 2022)

angeruroth said:


> But here is the thing: Is it mine if I paint something in Picasso's style? If the answer is yes, then it should also be allowed for AIs, because we are both copying something. Is your work copyrighteable if you are copying HZ's style? Hmm, and if an AI does the same thing?


The traditional argument is that a work is "derived" from an existing work, it is sufficiently "transformative" as to create a new work.

A specific example is Andy Warhol's painting over photographs. The photographs were under copyright, and were obviously used as the basis of the work. There was no way the created work could have existed without the copyright work, and the copyright work was clearly visible in the derived work.

The ruling of the courts have been inconsistent as to how "transformative" a work must be, so I think AI works are on shaky legal ground. 

IANAL, I just play one on the internet.


----------



## AnhrithmonGelasma (Nov 27, 2022)

“You May Live to See Man-Made Horrors Beyond Your Comprehension”


Will AI Threaten The Creative Mind, Or Will We?




modernmythology.net


----------



## Tim_Wells (Nov 27, 2022)

What would be nice (if nothing else), is if there were a moratorium placed on ownership/copyright of A.I. generated works of art.

A 20-25 year grace period to allow artists to adjust to the new landscape. Then it could be re-evaluated.


----------



## Ambrose Luxor (Dec 5, 2022)

Here's something interesting:

On Nov 29th, Clip Studio Paint announced there would be an image-generator function included in the next release. Just three days later they canceled this idea because of user feedback, and apologized to the users:









Clip Studio Paint will no longer implement an image generator function







www.clipstudio.net


----------



## Daren Audio (Dec 22, 2022)

This AI-image company shoot portraits for its own data set for the AI-engine to learn. Therefore bypassing the "grey" area of copyright infringement of other stock photographers.

I'm not sure if the models were paid a one-time fee or not but the way things are heading licensing your "likeness" may be out the window (unless you're a celebrity).









Photos Used to Generate AI Images for Client So Photographer Never Shoots Again


He can create new images without leaving the office.




petapixel.com










I can definitely see this construction worker image being used in a Chevy truck commercial ad such as a billboard with some minor adjustments to the background for more realistic depth of field and bokeh.


----------



## gsilbers (Dec 22, 2022)

Midjourney Founder Admits to Using a 'Hundred Million' Images Without Consent


It has outraged artists and photographers.




petapixel.com


----------



## Bman70 (Dec 22, 2022)

Shutterstock is apparently paying contributors some kind of royalty for using their images for AI training. Of course, Shutterstock already pays only 10 cents (US) per sale of creators' own original images. So the AI royalty will likely be merely a few cents or so, perhaps a legal CYA for SS.


----------



## Thomas Kallweit (Dec 23, 2022)

This app / program claims to not go out to the cloud, the terms say though it's up to the user to check if the fotos he uses are copyrighted or not. So maybe on the safer side. Still an enigma how it works (maybe similar to eg. Corel Painter?)






Deep Art Effects: Be an artist! Turn your photos into awesome artworks


Deep Art Effects transforms your photos and videos into works of neural art using artistic style transfer of famous artists.




www.deeparteffects.com


----------



## rhizomusicosmos (Monday at 2:27 PM)

Article with artists' and copyright lawyers' perspectives:








'It feels like a violation': Kim found 'almost every portrait' they painted was used to train AI without their consent


AI image generators are learning from human illustrators without their consent. Now artists are speaking out.




www.abc.net.au





This website allows artists to search if their works have been used in (some) AI databases. There is also an opt-out facility for Stable Diffusion -- but what if it has already been trained?





Have I Been Trained?







haveibeentrained.com


----------

