In my opinion, AI just feels like the logical next step for capitalist exploitation and destruction of culture. Generative AI is (in most cases) just a fancy way for cooperations to steal art on a scale, that hasn’t been possible before. And then they use AI to fill the internet with slop and misinformation and actual artists are getting fired from their jobs, because the company replaces them with an AI, that was trained on their original art. Because of these reasons and some others, it just feels wrong to me, to be using AI in such a manner, when this community should be about inclusion and kindness. Wouldn’t it be much cooler, if we commissioned an actual artist for the banner or find a nice existing artwork (where the licence fits, of course)? I would love to hear your thoughts!

  • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
    1011·
    3 days ago

    AI only borrows from others, it creates nothing.

    This isn’t an argument, it’s pseudophilosophical nonsense.

    But the real artists whose work was used by the AI to make the banner had no choice in the matter, let alone any chance of recompense.

    In order to make such a statement you must:

    1. Know what model was used and;
    2. Know that it was trained on unlicensed work.

    So, what model did the OP use?

    I mean, unless you’re just ignorantly suggesting that all diffusion models are trained on unlicensed work. Something that is demonstratively untrue: https://helpx.adobe.com/firefly/get-set-up/learn-the-basics/adobe-firefly-faq.html

    Your arguments havent been true since the earliest days of diffusion models. AI training techniques are at the point where anybody with a few thousand images, a graphics card and a free weekend can train a high quality diffusion model.

    It’s simply ignorance to suggest that any generated image is using other artist’s work.

    • BennyTheExplorer@lemmy.worldOP
      124·
      3 days ago

      Nope, you can’t train a good diffusion model from scratch with just a few thousand images, that is just delusion (I am open for examples though). Adobe Firefly is a black box, so we can’t verify their claims, obviously they wouldn’t admit, if they broke copyright to train their models. We do however have strong evidence, that google, openai and stability AI used tons of images, which they had no licence to use. Also, I still doubt that all of the people, who sold on Adobe Stock either knew, what their photos are gonna be used for or explicitly wanted that or just had to accept it to be able to sell their work.

      Great counterargument to my first argument by the way 👏

      • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
        39·
        3 days ago

        So, what model did the OP use?

        Adobe has a massive company with a huge amount to lose if they’re lying to their customers. They have much more credibility than a random anti-AI troll account. Of course you’d want to dismiss them, it’s pretty devastating to your arguments if there are models which are built using artwork freely given by artists.