To be fair, sourcing vegan-friendly art supplies is often significantly more frustrating than finding vegan food. But as others have said, doing - do I call it ‘traditional digital’ art? - is going to have a much smaller environmental impact than AI generation systems that are dependent on servers. A used Thinkpad x230 > Midjourney?
Also wanna add that in theory I’m not against AI art generation, only the way it’s usually implemented. All creativity is derivative, and as long as the user is remixing free and public domain content, I think the gained accessibility for far more people to bring their expressions to life where they otherwise would not have been able to, is worth far more than the perceived threats felt by a stagnant copy monopolist industry.
But the key thing here is proper implementation. It’s like every time we get a new toy, we forget all over again that software freedom is a moral imperative in all forms of software.
Freedom relies on consent and mutual reciprocity, otherwise it’s exploitation. AI art diffusion models that scraped digital art portfolios and did not gain the consent of the artists nor did the artists get compensation is exploitation full stop. There is no freedom in exploitation.
I haven’t looked into it too much, because I don’t bother to use these things myself. But if I remember, there are some systems that are open-source, can be run locally, and then a person could train those systems on only public domain and freely licensed works. That is the kind I’m talking about, so bringing up the systems I’m not talking about is just a strawman.
However what you’re hypothesizing cannot exist, due to the nature of a diffusion model. The source that the images are generated from, all of that was stolen in 2021. It was illegally scraped.
AIHorde is moving in the right direction, but we need a system where the people who’s source work is being scraped need to either consent to the use of their artistic labor, through copy left practices. Or they deserve to be compensated through royalties.
In latestage capitalism the only power is that which lies within capitol. That has been stolen by the large AI companies. What you’re proposing through your hypotheticals is closing the barn door after the horses have got out.
That is the kind I’m talking about, so bringing up the systems I’m not talking about is just a strawman.
I’m actively refuting what you’re proposing because not only does it not exist, but it’s currently impossible, due to the nature of the tech it’s based on. This is not a strawman argument, this is a refutation of a naive take that does nothing to push forward the tech in a direction which you yourself would like it to go.
If you want to work towards what your hypotheticals state you could consider contributing to aihorde.net.
My response again is from the viewpoint of someone who is constantly refuting “Why don’t we just…” naval gazing and how trolls and other bad faith actors hide behind that type of language.
I understand what you’re saying the point to me that sticks out was the usage of “hypothetical”, which to me would mean things that don’t exist, which wouldn’t be a strawman as i understand it. With that being said I’m genuinely not trying to be an ass, just explaining the way I perceived the comments, I hope it’s not needed to say, but I meant no offense in my reply of your comment.
To be fair, sourcing vegan-friendly art supplies is often significantly more frustrating than finding vegan food. But as others have said, doing - do I call it ‘traditional digital’ art? - is going to have a much smaller environmental impact than AI generation systems that are dependent on servers. A used Thinkpad x230 > Midjourney?
Also wanna add that in theory I’m not against AI art generation, only the way it’s usually implemented. All creativity is derivative, and as long as the user is remixing free and public domain content, I think the gained accessibility for far more people to bring their expressions to life where they otherwise would not have been able to, is worth far more than the perceived threats felt by a stagnant copy monopolist industry.
But the key thing here is proper implementation. It’s like every time we get a new toy, we forget all over again that software freedom is a moral imperative in all forms of software.
Freedom relies on consent and mutual reciprocity, otherwise it’s exploitation. AI art diffusion models that scraped digital art portfolios and did not gain the consent of the artists nor did the artists get compensation is exploitation full stop. There is no freedom in exploitation.
None of the hypothetical methods I described would do that.
So it’s exploitive then.
No, it’s not. Why are you like this?
The present models are, is the point i think the other person is making.
I haven’t looked into it too much, because I don’t bother to use these things myself. But if I remember, there are some systems that are open-source, can be run locally, and then a person could train those systems on only public domain and freely licensed works. That is the kind I’m talking about, so bringing up the systems I’m not talking about is just a strawman.
The closest thing to what you’re discussing is what’s built over at db0
https://aihorde.net/
However what you’re hypothesizing cannot exist, due to the nature of a diffusion model. The source that the images are generated from, all of that was stolen in 2021. It was illegally scraped.
AIHorde is moving in the right direction, but we need a system where the people who’s source work is being scraped need to either consent to the use of their artistic labor, through copy left practices. Or they deserve to be compensated through royalties.
In latestage capitalism the only power is that which lies within capitol. That has been stolen by the large AI companies. What you’re proposing through your hypotheticals is closing the barn door after the horses have got out.
I’m actively refuting what you’re proposing because not only does it not exist, but it’s currently impossible, due to the nature of the tech it’s based on. This is not a strawman argument, this is a refutation of a naive take that does nothing to push forward the tech in a direction which you yourself would like it to go.
Sorry to be such a wet blanket. If you’d like to know more about Diffusion models and what they stole here’s a great place to start. https://systemicalternatives.org/2023/06/06/the-controversy-of-ai-art-theft/
If you want to work towards what your hypotheticals state you could consider contributing to aihorde.net.
My response again is from the viewpoint of someone who is constantly refuting “Why don’t we just…” naval gazing and how trolls and other bad faith actors hide behind that type of language.
I understand what you’re saying the point to me that sticks out was the usage of “hypothetical”, which to me would mean things that don’t exist, which wouldn’t be a strawman as i understand it. With that being said I’m genuinely not trying to be an ass, just explaining the way I perceived the comments, I hope it’s not needed to say, but I meant no offense in my reply of your comment.