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

        • Deniz Opal@syzito.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          @raccoona_nongrata

          Actually. It is necessary. The process of creativity is much much more a synergy of past consumption than we think.

          It took 100,000 years to get from cave drawings to Leonard Da Vinci.

          Yes we always find ways to draw, but the pinnacle of art comes from a shared culture of centuries.

            • Deniz Opal@syzito.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              @raccoona_nongrata

              A machine will not unilaterally develop an art form, and develop it for 100,000 years.

              Yes I agree with this.

              However, they are not developing an art form now.

              Nor did Monet, Shakespeare, or Beethoven develop an art form. Or develop it for 100,000 years.

              So machines cannot emulate that.

              But they can create the end product based on past creations, much as Monet, Shakespeare, and Beethoven did.

                • Deniz Opal@syzito.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  @raccoona_nongrata

                  Actually this is how we are training some models now.

                  The models are separated, fed different versions of the source data, then we kick off a process of feeding them content that was created by the other models creating a loop. It has proven very effective. It is also the case that this generation of AI created content is the next generations training data, simply by existing. What you are saying is absolutely false. Generated content DOES have a lot of value as source data

              • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                No, humans create and develope styles in art from “mistakes” that AI would not continue pursuing. Because they personally like it or have a strange addiction to their own creative process. The current hand mistakes for example were perhaps one of the few interesting things AI has done…

                Current AI models recreate what is most liked by the majority of people.

                • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  And what if the human running the AI likes one of these “mistakes” and tells the AI to run with it?

                  • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    But that’s still not how it works for an artist. I don’t mean stumbling upon an accident and using it in your work but deliberately creating something that’s not liked and perfect the way you do it. For someone who just instructs a tool and generates images in rapid speed they go a very different path.

      • Ben from CDS@dice.camp
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        @selzero @raccoona_nongrata @fwygon But human creativity is not ONLY a combination of past creativity. It is filtered through a lifetime of subjective experience and combined knowledge. Two human artists schooled on the same art history can still produce radically different art. Humans are capable of going beyond has been done before.

        Before going too deep on AI creation spend some time learning about being human. After that, if you still find statistical averages interesting, go back to AI.

        • Deniz Opal@syzito.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          @glenatron @raccoona_nongrata @fwygon

          I mean, yes, you are right, but essentially, it is all external factors. They can be lived through external factors, or data fed external factors.

          I don’t think there is a disagreement here other than you are placing a lot of value on “the human experience” being an in real life thing rather than a read thing. Which is not even fully true of the great masters. It’s a form of puritan fetishisation I guess.

          • Ben from CDS@dice.camp
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            @selzero @raccoona_nongrata @fwygon I don’t think it’s even contraversial. Will sentient machines ever have an equivalent experience? Very probably. Will they be capable of creating art? Absolutely.

            Can our current statistical bulk reincorporation tools make any creative leap? Absolutely not. They are only capable of plagiarism. Will they become legitimate artistic tools? Perhaps, when the people around them start taking artists seriously instead of treating them with distain.

            • Deniz Opal@syzito.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              @glenatron @raccoona_nongrata @fwygon

              This angle is very similar to a debate going on in the cinema world, with Scorsese famously ranting that Marvel movies are “not movies”

              The point being without a directors message being portrayed, these cookie cutter cinema experiences, with algorithmically developed story lines, should not be classified as proper movies.

              But the fact remains, we consume them as movies.

              We consume AI art as art.

                • Deniz Opal@syzito.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  @aredridel @glenatron @raccoona_nongrata @fwygon

                  Humans are also machines, biological machines, with a neurology based on neurons and synapse. As pointed out before, human “creativity” is also a result of past external consumption.

                  When AI is used to eventually make a movie, it will use more than one AI model. Does that make a difference? I guess your “one person” example is Scorsese’s “auteur”?

                  It seems we are fetishizing biological machines over silicon machines?

                  • Mx. Aria Stewart@kolektiva.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    @selzero @glenatron @raccoona_nongrata @fwygon no. Human relationships of cocreation over purely extractive ones. It’s not the biology (though humans have human relevant social drives simple algorithms don’t), it’s the relationships.

                    It’s obscuring that as if these clusters of Gpus care about creating and form relationships based on them that is so offensive.