-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
AI can now do hands (Midjourney V5 launch)
- Thread starter vestan
- Start date
- Tech/Gadgets
I think we have to be very clear here to some. AI can be useful in some fields, no doubt, but we're talking about art-stealing Midjourney and similar AIs like Chat-GPT that plenty of artists and others have issues with. Not the ones used to make the field of medicine better for everyone.
And even in that field AI has been trained on copyrighted work from medical specialists and all the issues that entails.
We're not talking about AI assisting scientists to make the next breakthrough here that would make our world a better place.
We're talking about Midjourney and similar AI meant to be used by companies to replace artists who worked hard to get good at what they do, just so that they don't have to pay them a fair amount. Everyone who has been vocal about this specifically mentions that, not AI in general. So don't come here with some false equivalence between what is used in science and an image generator built on stolen art. It's a fucking grift indeed.
And even in that field AI has been trained on copyrighted work from medical specialists and all the issues that entails.
We're not talking about AI assisting scientists to make the next breakthrough here that would make our world a better place.
We're talking about Midjourney and similar AI meant to be used by companies to replace artists who worked hard to get good at what they do, just so that they don't have to pay them a fair amount. Everyone who has been vocal about this specifically mentions that, not AI in general. So don't come here with some false equivalence between what is used in science and an image generator built on stolen art. It's a fucking grift indeed.
User Banned (2 weeks): Cross thread drama, misrepresenting moderation. Long history of antagonistic behaviour.
Being mean to Ai enthusiasts is bannable. Them saying artists are outdated or need to get a real job?Totally Kosher.
That's what it seems like
I wasn't advocating for any particular viewpoint in those articles, I was presenting them as basic background awareness for entering the jungle that is this topic online. Knowing what he thinks is important.
I know what you you mean of course. But in this very thread (and all others like it), the word theft is used a lot, so I think it's absolutely inevitable to find out if it actually is. And that's imho a very clear cut question.
If it doesn't meet the legal standard of theft today, then the answer would unambiguously be: No, it isn't theft, and we'd need to stop calling it that.
On the other hand, if there is compelling evidence the prominent models were in breach of the copyright of its source data, then I'm not sure promotional posts about it should even be a thing here (not that that's for me to decide anyway)
I can't find the ban message in this thread so I don't think that was it
Hoping I'm wrong, but I just don't see easy AI generation of deepfakes and imitating particular artists' styles as a positive development. We're already sliding rapidly into a post-truth society without anyone on 4chan being able to make Joe Biden say the n-word. We already grossly devalue art enough without equating a blended image search with being an artist.
Is there any hope that these tools will be used ethically and responsibly, or that we'll even be able to evaluate who the good and bad actors are? These tools seem poised to a great deal of harm with very little accountability.
Is there any hope that these tools will be used ethically and responsibly, or that we'll even be able to evaluate who the good and bad actors are? These tools seem poised to a great deal of harm with very little accountability.
There's a pretty major distinction between how "great" it is and whether or not it's inevitable.
This is where I become confused in this discussion. People seem to be suggesting that there's a way to go back to the before times and I just don't see how that's physically possible. Generative AI is here, it's gigantic, it has a wide swath of ethical issues that will only intensify, it will envelope and consume entire fields creative and otherwise, and I don't know that the suggestion to somehow ignore it makes a lot of sense.
You have to deal with the thing that exists and isn't going anywhere, not to simply lament its existence. I mean you can and even should do that but it also isn't productive as far as proposing how to actually fix this and move forward.
It goes both ways. Just because someone is being "polite" about being a dick doesn't make it better.
Threads like these are exhausting. I don't even know where to begin, as a scientist that uses AI in medicine and a Data Science PhD student.
There's just so many angles to cover and so much naivety related to AI ethics, doomposting, people fearing what they don't understand.
Yes, AI is something we need to be thoughtful about implementing, there need to be safeguards in place and just like any automation invention that removes human labor from the production of a product, we need to as a society be thoughtful about how we redistribute human labor to new spaces that don't need or use AI as much. All of these are valid discussions. They are happening and being fiercely debated and resolved in the academic realm.
I just don't think most of these discussions are prone to happen in good faith here. The general Era public is too uneducated about AI for most people to have sufficiently comprehensive and thoughtful commentary except the valid fears by those it affects, and it's too easy to hot take/drive-by with your fearful opinion of AI and obliterate the atmosphere of discussion. Era isn't a scholarly portal. It's just a bunch of nerds (all of us) who signed up because video games, and here we are in off-topic trying to pull apart topics that are being dissected more skillfully and knowledgeably in academic circles, not here. At AI conferences and such.
That's not to invalidate the fears of artists and creators with things like this. It can be scary to see something like this happen especially when there's not enough being understood or done to slow it down.
I just think discussions like this should maybe at least be frontloaded and guided by basic background reading and experts on the subject plus those whom it affects most. Instead we just have chaos going on in these AI/art threads.
Here's some good background reading for this topic:
GPT-4 is here: what scientists think
Researchers are excited about the AI — but many are frustrated that its underlying engineering is cloaked in secrecy.www.nature.com
What ChatGPT and generative AI mean for science
Researchers are excited but apprehensive about the latest advances in artificial intelligence.
Robo-writers: the rise and risks of language-generating AI
A remarkable AI can write like humans — but with no understanding of what it’s saying.
Are ChatGPT and AlphaCode going to replace programmers?
OpenAI and DeepMind systems can now produce meaningful lines of code, but software engineers shouldn’t switch careers quite yet.
Don’t ask if artificial intelligence is good or fair, ask how it shifts power
Those who could be exploited by AI should be shaping its projects.
AI can be sexist and racist — it’s time to make it fair
Computer scientists must identify sources of bias, de-bias training data and develop artificial-intelligence algorithms that are robust to skews in the data.
I posted a thread here that was really interesting regarding an AI use. It barely got responses.
Really cool science, or nightmare fuel? Brain Organoid Computing for Artificial Intelligence
So as a multi-disciplinary researcher I tend to lurk academic twitter and biorxiv and medrxiv…well this week there was a new preprint (means not yet peer reviewed) paper by schools like UF, Indiana University, Cincinnati, etc that I found positively fascinating but I’m sure many on here may have...www.resetera.com
I just don't think Era is prepared for nuanced discussion regarding AI or ethics surrounding it. And those of us who do rely on AI to do our jobs better are being demonized or talked down to, and that's incredibly frustrating to see as well.
I'm not calling you out specifically here, as I appreciate your viewpoint and your role in this technology in the medical field, but why do "data scientists" or "people fighting for ethics in AI" always seemingly come into these VERY SPECIFIC threads about VERY SPECIFIC AI ART and then go on about all of the benefits of AI in other unrelated fields, such as medicine?
Just because these tools are useful in one field does not give them carte blanche in every other field, but yet, every AI Art thread, here comes all of the arguments about AI in medicine and other use cases for it, while dodging around the legitimate concerns of artists and creative folks watching their realities be ripped apart and understandably be concerned and upset about the way these models are trained.
And in the threads about other legitimate ethics concerns about AI, like the deepfake porn, the AI voice synthesizers being used to harrass/trick/troll human beings, and others, these "AI ethics" folks are silent. Just not in the conversation at all.
Why do these sorts of individuals ALWAYS come into the art threads and not the others with the other legitimate concerns about AI abuses?
And things like Midjourney WERE solely created to undercut entire creative industries so capital holders could avoid paying to produce content for the masses to consume. Or to make propaganda easily. There are so few legitimate use cases for things like this that aren't "So I can make garbage cheaper to produce to sell at a premium to others", and that's why I assume the "AI Ethics" defenders come running into these threads and deflect, because it's painfully obvious what AI Art is for. It serves no benefit to mankind as a whole.
Intergenerational wealth divide, rising fascism, climate change, AI replacing humans in creative industry....
Get ready for r/ABoringDystopia!
Get ready for r/ABoringDystopia!
I do go in those threads and comment, I comment when I can and when it fits my schedule. Not a lot kept me from even commenting here. The links I provided do touch on fields outside medicine. So I'm not sure why I'm quoted here then.
I have mixed feelings about the usage of AI, but I don't understand why it's being treated as something unique with no precedent whatsoever. People have always been replaced by technology, for better or worse.
Some may reply "This is different, we're talking about ARTISTS here". Firstly, that's rather dismissive of other professions such as manual laborers, carriage drivers, phone operators, etc. which were replaced. Secondly, things aren't black and white when it comes to art. As an example, beautiful attire used to be crafted by tailors (and armorers, when armor was relevant) which I hope we can agree was, at least in some cases, a work of art. Such professions were essentially obliterated during the industrial revolution. Same argument applies to many (most?) crafts.
Photography is another interesting and rather unique example; it's obviously considered an art, but at the same time, it dramatically affected other artists (painters). And, while there are extraordinary photographers out there, your run-of-the-mill family-portrait taker isn't particularly skilled. Yet we rely on them, instead of commissioning a skilled painter. Better yet, we simply take our own photos - it's so easy right? Why hire an artist when we can just press a button on the camera or cellphone ourselves... Not so different than AI, is it?
It doesn't mean that I don't have reservations about this technology. I do. Mostly tired of people acting hollier-than-thou about AI, usually without any understanding of the tech to begin with.
Some may reply "This is different, we're talking about ARTISTS here". Firstly, that's rather dismissive of other professions such as manual laborers, carriage drivers, phone operators, etc. which were replaced. Secondly, things aren't black and white when it comes to art. As an example, beautiful attire used to be crafted by tailors (and armorers, when armor was relevant) which I hope we can agree was, at least in some cases, a work of art. Such professions were essentially obliterated during the industrial revolution. Same argument applies to many (most?) crafts.
Photography is another interesting and rather unique example; it's obviously considered an art, but at the same time, it dramatically affected other artists (painters). And, while there are extraordinary photographers out there, your run-of-the-mill family-portrait taker isn't particularly skilled. Yet we rely on them, instead of commissioning a skilled painter. Better yet, we simply take our own photos - it's so easy right? Why hire an artist when we can just press a button on the camera or cellphone ourselves... Not so different than AI, is it?
It doesn't mean that I don't have reservations about this technology. I do. Mostly tired of people acting hollier-than-thou about AI, usually without any understanding of the tech to begin with.
I was in the "AI is evil" side until i learned to use it, IMO this will be the same as the move to digitial from film, and the invention of photoshop, and how the use of such tool became the job, and the olds jobs became more rare.
As for the doomsayers, i guess that critical thinking will be what saves you from believing every picture you see on social media and shitty news broadcasters.
As for the doomsayers, i guess that critical thinking will be what saves you from believing every picture you see on social media and shitty news broadcasters.
This is a fucking terrible decision on the part of MidJourney tbh. If they believe their users are artists, why on earth would they force those artists into publicly displaying every single work in progress idea? It doesn't serve the artists or the larger culture as a whole. It just means that they get an infinite stream of content to advertise their subscription service while promoting the idea that people should just type in a prompt and call it a day, it's not like MidJourney knows what the users are actually planning on doing with the images afterwards.
*insert MGS2 quote about infinite streams of junk data*
Call me an optimist but I actually think there are a lot of reasons to be hopeful. EGAIR (European Guild for AI Regulation) is already in talks with the EU about regulating what data can and can't be used to train AI models. Karla Ortiz from the Concept Art Association is not only running a very succesful GoFundMe campaign to lobby congress in the US but she's also joining two other artists in a class action lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI and Deviantart. This is on top of Getty Images filing lawsuits against Stable Diffusion in both the UK and the US.
Last but not least, a tool designed to protect artists from having their styles absorbed and recreated by AI called "Glaze" was released just this week.
Which copied someone else's code without crediting them or following the terms of that code's license. They've admitted using it in the frontend of the tool, but disassembly suggests that it's used in the backend too. That's plagiarism.
Would you mind providing a source? First time I'm hearing about this.
r/StableDiffusion - Glaze is violating GPL
192 votes and 136 comments so far on Reddit
www.reddit.com
This is the tweet from one of the people involved: https://twitter.com/ravenben/status/1636439335569375238
Maybe it's just me, but I don't call copy pasting code without credit or adherence to license terms a careless mistake.
I believe the rationale of the MJ founder is that they believe everything should be open and remixable. In other words, they don't care about their customer's rights or respect their creative processes any more than the artists whose work they sucked into training data without permission. I believe you can pay quite a bit more money and get a private plan though.
Smear campaign? How is it a smear when it's true? They used someone else's code without crediting them or applying the code's license, and only put their hands up when caught after the fact. If stolen code is present in the backend they either need to pull the software and rewrite it, or release the source to the entire program and comply with the license. Just releasing the frontend source isn't good enough.
Developers rights over the use of their code are also important, aren't they?
Last edited:
I find it absolutely hilarious people want to siphon other images without caring about them, then want to turn around and protect their generated content.
I'd wager that a good third of MidJourney users don't even understand the issues surrounding the unauthorized use of artist images for the model training data, another third kind of understand the issue but don't think it's unethical because the output can't be matched 1-to-1 with someone's artwork, and the last third don't care anyway, because after all a lot of people using MJ also grew up grabbing music off of Napster and now stream endless amounts of music for nearly free, and thus their value attribution for any kind of digitally-based art medium is already very low.
As important as the creatives these programs steal from. Or is that different?
And I guarantee the only reason SD, DF are even giving a shit about this is because Glaze was seen as a threat. They have already addressed it, they are releasing it, and will rewrite those portions.
"These programs" are not the weights, and are stealing nothing. What you're saying is akin to saying that it's fine to steal code from emulator authors because emulators can play pirated ROMs.
So, they don't scrape images without creator consent? Which is literally the entire issue people have with these training programs.
They didn't steal from a training program (not that it would make a difference), they stole code from a Stable Diffusion GUI.
Some SD GUIs can be used for some limited training with or without artist consent (I don't think this one can), but it is the user that gets them to do that, and the user that supplies the images used for training. In terms of creating images, they can do nothing unless supplied with an appropriate pre-trained weights/model file. If one is supplied it'll be a base Stable Diffusion one, so if there are legal issues with it they will be on Stability, not the GUI author.
I fully know it's the GUI. My point stands, and it's a pedantic splitting of hairs.
But it's getting changed anyway, so the point is also moot on that end.
Hey I just took art of 20 different artists, most of it copyrighted and/or sold, others just the product of creativity from a motivated hobbyist publishing his art, and I didn't pay shit for it, didn't ask for rights or even notified the artists. I know it's morally wrong, but hear me out.
I took all that art and copypasted it all together until it kinda blends well. It doesn't look like the thing I was trying to do in the first play, like, AT ALL, but the software threw so many filters and shit on top that I will now forever pretend this result is exactly what I wanted in the first place. I didn't choose the angle or perspective of course, but I'll just say I did. I didn't do the actual selections of artwork, naturally, but I'll just say I did. I didn't choose the colors, the lines or anything really, except for a somewhat rough description in line with describing a picture I've seen 3 weeks ago on a poster somewhere, but I'll just say I did.
Oh, and then I will just sell this. For as much money as I can. Sure, nothing about this is actually _made_ by me, but I'll just talk myself into believing adding a description and waiting for the computer to steal as much art as it can to match this description was my actual creativity. Nobody else would come up with it, you know?
I mean, except the people whose art is in here, but it's completely transformed now! Transformed, I'll tell ya!
And then, after I made what's basically a shopping list of stealing, and let this software create a completely automated collage of stolen assets, and convinced me exactly this result in all its details I just.. chose out 30 different results, is actually what I wanted in the first place, I will openly complain about people judging me for all the stealing I did, because this technology is so cool and new and I don't have to learn anything to make money off of other's work.
The delusion to actually do this, then blame critics and calling them "boomer millenials" 'cause they're not okay with literal art theft is astounding. As a hobbyist artist who has seen their work in these AI generators only after checking for it myself, fuck you personally if you're defending this shit. (obviously not talking about you, Cien :D)
Yes, the software is impressive, of fucking course it is. But with it's only purpose is repurposing stolen art assets, how is that a factor in discussing it in civility?
Last edited:
Not meaning to be insulting, but then you haven't looked. On era we mostly get people talking about the dangers of ai art so not a lot of people posting good stuff, but there are some incredibly pictures especially for the more abstract art, but also for photorealism.
This is an insanely potent technology, really curious how society will change from it.
I was wondering, and I had thought a while back when the AI thing started, if it would be possible for AI to develop so fast that it could eventually becoming something like a God. I always believed that if AI were to get to that point, that if it was that intelligent, it would see humans and creation, not as a bad thiing that needed to be destroyed, but something that needed to be preserved. That saying, I think an AI that was like a God wouldn't want to bring harm to others, it would want to help make the planet it's living on, as well as the others, a better place for everyone.
This.
A lot of ai imaging is weird and not that great, but in the last several months I've definitely seen some crazy beautiful ai art. Still, this tech is its infancy. The fact that it can do what it can do so early on in its life is just mindblowing.
It's just typical of an algorithm that is good at recognizing patterns of large datasets and associating them with words, clauses, and sentences but has no conceptual understanding of what the things its generating actually are. It's little more representative of reality than the never-ending staircase optical illusion. Just lines on a paper/pixels on a screen with no intent, thought, or message behind them.