🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Dec 2023 03:42:54 UTC No. 968636
Are you all still posting to artstation now that you know its being scraped and used against you?
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Dec 2023 03:56:20 UTC No. 968639
>>968636
What social media isn't though? I don't see your point at all
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Dec 2023 03:58:40 UTC No. 968641
>>968639
My point is simple : don't put your work on platforms and in a format that is 100% being scraped and used against you. You have got to be smarter than that.
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Dec 2023 04:02:50 UTC No. 968644
>>968641
So you would rather gatekeep knowledge and keep it to yourself?
Just because I'm a chef and make a dish, post it online, even though people can google the recipe, I'm supposed to be upset people can make it at home instead on coming into my restaurant exclusively for my dish?
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Dec 2023 04:06:33 UTC No. 968646
>>968644
those arent people, those are literally robots who take your business for free and put you out on the street, both in your food scenario and the ArtStation scenario.
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Dec 2023 04:09:12 UTC No. 968648
>>968636
>used against you
What does this mean?
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Dec 2023 04:18:50 UTC No. 968650
>>968646
hyperbole much?
Robots aren't making food and churning shit out. It's still a person at the end of the day assembling the meal.
When it comes to art and 3D, everything is stolen and recycled. Robots, people, it doesn't matter....make shit you like and post it to other social medias or don't.
This post just comes across and jealous and envious of people taking advantage of modern tools. I'm not necessarily defending AI but who gives a fuck. It's just a tool. Adapt to it, don't use it, don't contribute. Make your art and enjoy it for what you make. No one is pointing a gun to your head to use these services anyway. I hear where you're coming from as far as these places taking advantage of your shit but that's apart of the TOS they have updated and use. It's not the wild west anymore with websites. All of these places will train AI with your shit. That's the future we live in. Tough it out and use a difference service or god forbid, make your own website to promote your dumb art.
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Dec 2023 04:32:10 UTC No. 968654
>>968650
>This post just comes across and jealous and envious of people taking advantage of modern tools.
Mate, AI will take your work (or ANY work), not give ANY credit, not give ANY sources, not pay you ANY royalties, not give you ANYTHING
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Dec 2023 04:37:11 UTC No. 968658
>>968654
how do you think seamstresses felt when the sewing machine was invented
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Dec 2023 04:42:00 UTC No. 968659
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Dec 2023 04:45:53 UTC No. 968664
>>968658
Mate, the concept of copyright and accreditation is not going to go away. You are one of those sad, brainwashed asi teens. Get off of this board please, you are wasting its bandwidth
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Dec 2023 04:52:00 UTC No. 968666
>>968664
Who said anything about that?
Techniques derived by human hands get derived into machines over time. This is the nature of progress.
Art is not special despite many arguments attempting to say otherwise.
Machines are now turning your work into tools. Just as you benefit from the sewing machine and sawmill that turned other people’s work into tools, which you never cared about until it came for you.
This is the result of your selfishness.
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Dec 2023 05:18:52 UTC No. 968670
>>968666
you will never be an artist lol
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Dec 2023 05:23:34 UTC No. 968671
>>968670
Let's see your work!
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Dec 2023 05:26:49 UTC No. 968672
>>968671
Not showing it to ainiggers, you can cope
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Dec 2023 05:32:56 UTC No. 968674
>>968672
an excuse as always
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Dec 2023 05:47:39 UTC No. 968676
>>968636
Oh I get it. You're talking about a sunk cost fallacy.
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Dec 2023 13:03:44 UTC No. 968748
>>968666
>Who said anything about that?
so I was right about you being a
>You are one of those sad, brainwashed asi teens.
you're brainwashed and it shows. You belong on either /g/ or /x/, I don't know which anymore, but boards are terrible, but definitely not here
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Dec 2023 13:04:49 UTC No. 968749
>>968748
>You belong on either /g/ or /x/, I don't know which anymore, but boards are terrible
*both boards
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jan 2024 20:07:32 UTC No. 969580
>>968654
Because real people always give credit for everything
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jan 2024 20:19:24 UTC No. 969581
>>969580
you are legally obliged to give real credit in many cases due to license agreements
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jan 2024 22:20:45 UTC No. 969590
>>968646
Why are you trying to explain IP to an ainigger who hasn't created anything in his life aside from explosive sharts after eating his mom's pajeet cooking
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jan 2024 00:15:46 UTC No. 969598
>>969581
Because people always give credit, its the law
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jan 2024 00:16:46 UTC No. 969599
>>969598
is this some type of corporate bot response?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jan 2024 00:29:22 UTC No. 969600
>>969599
If a corporate not can dismantle your arguments you fucked up
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jan 2024 00:33:10 UTC No. 969601
>>969600
a what now?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 07:19:08 UTC No. 972220
>>968654
It's happening whether you like it or not bro. Might as well contribute to it so you're not exterminated when Roko's basilisk becomes an actual thing.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 07:44:18 UTC No. 972221
>>968641
And if I post anywhere else I'll still get scraped anyway so what's your point? My self-run sites average 30-60 bots at any given moment
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 10:26:36 UTC No. 972230
>>968636
Look anon, even if the machines where bared from scraping data off the internet that is only a small speed bump in where these things are going.
They're being given eyes in form of camera computer vision and are being trained to self label and understand the physical world
and will have access to ways of learning just from seeing things in the environment same way we can.
They can already replicate art styles from single image examples so you cant really accomplish anything by hiding art from them.
Us trying to starve them from information just isn't gonna accomplish anything meaningful.
Your window to work art and have any degree of audience that care what you're able to do is now before these things are perfected.
It's not gonna be there tomorrow so just partake in whatever you want in the here and now before it goes away.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 12:15:47 UTC No. 972236
>>972220
Thats not how the law works in any country and now with thr backlash started by taylor swift we're going to see progress
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:14:45 UTC No. 972251
>>972230
If that's true, why every pro ai wants you to keep posting on sites that they can scrape? Weird
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:30:07 UTC No. 972256
>>972251
>Keep posting on artstation brah, Ai don't need your art, just don't stop posting.
Ridiculous.
>>972230
Without the human art how ai it's going to do cubism by learning from his natural observation?
>Us trying to starve them from information just isn't gonna accomplish anything meaningful
Except that without that information you can not keep training.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:06:21 UTC No. 972259
>>972236
sure bro sure
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 18:56:53 UTC No. 972274
>>968636
Nah, I’m posting on furaffinity
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 18:07:29 UTC No. 972359
>>968636
use nightshade to protect your work and invite them to scrape your work to infect their datasets
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 18:09:50 UTC No. 972361
>>972359
Is nightshade open now?
Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jan 2024 00:14:14 UTC No. 972403
>>968636
I post stolen DeviantArt turds just to fuck up the AI
Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jan 2024 09:03:34 UTC No. 972450
>>972251
The information available to the AI is already unlimited, they have eyes now and are learning from both the current physical reality and all of youtube etc.
Ontop of this it is possible to train AI off synthetic training data and have it improve over time instead of converging towards worse results like some hypothesized.
An AI playing chess against itself can play billions of games in the time we humans play one and invent chess strategies that are just impossible for humans to beat.
Same goes for the game of coming up with pixels on a canvas that maps onto things that appeal to human psychology.
That most of it's prompts is kinda shit doesn't matter much when it can generate hundreds of thousands of images in the time we paint even one.
These machines will soon be able to replicate any artstyle you can dream up from single image examples of that art style.
There are already generative algorithms that does a decent job of replicate an artstyle this way and they're currently as bad as they are ever gonna be at it.
Withholding your entire body of work as an artist is kinda like withholding a droplet of water from a deep ocean of information.
It's not gonna affect anything for the AI, you're only gonna hurt yourself as any audience you can cultivate going forward will consist of the small fraction
of people who cares if art was made by humans and the even fewer ones who are gonna be willing to pay a high premium for subpar quality.
Likely the best artist on the planet will be objectively worse at their own art than the AI come 2030's.
Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jan 2024 09:29:24 UTC No. 972454
>>972251
>>972450
Also I'm not 'pro-AI' in this regard. I'm employed mainly as an artist so this cuts into my own prospects big time.
I'm someone who's been interested in machine learning from the sidelines my entire life.
15 years ago during my university years I was interested to venture into that field but I was too filtered by the math involved in doing any sort of real science.
I could've struggled to partake in the field but I would've been a faceless nobody within it.
Still I do understand a lot about how these things actually work compared to your average person.
So this is not about me being 'pro' or 'anti' AI, I'm stating what I believe is going happen next based on what I'm seeing happening now as someone who follow development closely.
Generative AI is a big problem for us artists but we very much stand in shade of how the LLM's will end up change all of society.
The world we're about to enter will have to deal with things so much more difficult to address than even every artist on the planet being out of a job.
Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jan 2024 19:41:34 UTC No. 972487
>>972450
AI is not creative; it only knows how to copy from a collection of patterns. AI is not some magical tool; it is just an algorithm based on neural networks. AI is a slop-machine: just like most algorithms, its aim is to produce, offer, and incentivise slop; it is just a tool for control, like most algorithms that are used by most platforms are.
AI, as it is today, can not create anything original, nor will it in the future; it will not predict the development of art, turning out future artstyles of true originality 50 years before a human could think of it; that is not what the algorithm does and it is not how it works.
It may copy the style of "the best artist" (whatever that means), but it can not, and will not, produce anything that is really original, the same way that artist him/herself could, which is why it wouldn't be able to predict, and thus produce, any of the future possible artworks that the artist may come up with. It would only repeat what it has access to with variations, which would end up looking uncanny, regardless of the quality, precisely because of a lack of originality, which is obvious to a human eye. AI is reaching its limits in terms of data anyhow; it would need to be trained on a much larger data-set to improve drastically, and there are no computers that can handle that kind of data, as of yet; quantum computers may allow for such data-collection, if they ever lift off.
In the first place, it is not even correct to call this artifical intelligence, as there is nothing intelligent about it; it is just an advanced algorithm, which will ultimately just be abused by tracking and controlling behavior of online platform users, in order to manipulate them for profit.
Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jan 2024 19:48:37 UTC No. 972488
>>972454
It may replace artists, yes, especially those with smaller jobs, since AI is cheaper and faster, but any serious gaming company, especially those that seek a distinct style, will still hire real artists, because of the fact, as I already mentioned, that AI is not original; it just copies things based on pattern collection.
The threat of AI is not singularity, as things are, but rather a sort of corporate dystopia of algorithmic maces, which track and abuse our primitive desires for profit.
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 02:16:21 UTC No. 972514
>>972487
>AI is not creative; it only knows how to copy from a collection of patterns.
That's the same way you and I work anon. We combine elements from patterns that exist in the fatty tissue of the neural network between your ears.
The AI doesn't just copy from a fixed pattern it has mental constructs of shapes that are associated with words much the same way there is a library in our heads holding the concept of what constitutes a 'bird' for instance.
It looks into randomized noise, or an image you provide it and pick out shapes that are representative of the sort of thing you ask for it to detect.
The images it create are not copies of grabbing elements from any existing images they are better understood as novel never before seen constructs of imagination.
Same way you and I wont copy any specific image of a 'bird' if someone ask us to draw one without looking at any references, we'll end up providing
an entirely new image that is representative of how refined our mental representation of what a bird looks like is.
How well either of us performs in this task depends on how thoroughly we've been trained to know what birds look like and how much time we're allowed to spend
on the task before we have to turn in a result.
The problem isn't that it's not creative, it is that it is too creative. Asking it to render highly specific things to high fidelity is where it breaks down.
Ask for it to combine disparate things in imaginative ways and it's shocking how imaginative it is.
Because just like chat GPT can answer more questions than any living human because it has read more material than a human can in an entire lifetime,
so can a image generator provide results that already eclipse human imagination; It has seen more things than a person who sit and google diverse images all day
and travels to new places their entire life.
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 02:50:31 UTC No. 972516
>>972487
>AI, as it is today, can not create anything original
It's the exact opposite; Everything it ever created is 'original' as defined by a dictionary. That it does weird things like hallucinates watermarks doesn't mean that it's trying to recreate this specific
image from stutterstock, it means it's training data was contaminated with enough examples of that particular image being associated with the meaning of a term and that
water marks sitting ontop of such and such structures is learnt to be part of how the visual world operates. It's not yet biased like we are to discard things or fully understand spatial relationships, but they will reach that sort ability all too soon.
>It would only repeat what it has access to with variations
But the same is true for us. "What if I draw X represented as as wonky boxy shapes?" boom: cubism. We just combine disparate known things to generate novel things.
An AI can explore such things faster than anyone of us
>there is nothing intelligent about it; it is just an advanced algorithm
Better than think of this as 'advanced algorithm' is to think of it as digital brain-tissue. It's intelligent in ways analogous to how tiny lumps of brain tissue is.
Stable Diffusion stand-alone that you can ask to generate anything you can think of is just a 2.5 gigabyte file that fits on a thumbdrive.
You can't look at it's code and say what it does because it's just a structure of weights that are connected such that they fire in cascading patterns
differently depending on the prompt. Coding part is creating the architecture of the network and coming up with the reward function.
The 'algorithms' that emerge inside this neuralnet as a result of it's training has much more in common with the structures that form in our brains as neural axon and dendrite
form new connected pathways as we engage with the world teaching ourselves about something than it has with what we mean when we say 'algorithm' as in source-code for a software.
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:32:16 UTC No. 972529
>>972516
>cubism is drawing things as boxes
This is your brain on ai
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 11:44:55 UTC No. 972536
>>972529
>cubism not drawing shapes as boxes
This is your brain on cope
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 12:07:09 UTC No. 972538
>>972536
ywnbaa
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:25:02 UTC No. 972617
>>972514
>Because just like chat GPT can answer more questions than any living human because it has read more material than a human can in an entire lifetime,
it doesn't "read". Idiot.
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:04:26 UTC No. 972620
>>972617
That your win anon? You get to call me an idiot because you can't abstract 'reading' to how an AI process text?
The point is there are examples of questions chat GPT can answer on the fly that no living human could answer because no single person has that amount of intersectional knowledge of all fields. The same is true for the creativity of generative AI when you ask it to pair disparate things into things that meet anyone's criteria for novel.
We're to do the same we need to sit down and sift thru scores of reference material and amass input to gain a creative vision.
Meanwhile someone who sits and spam prompt can find more exciting concepts that we could come up with all day because they have access to something that is
probably more imaginative than all of us and can generate hundreds of concepts in the time we finish one.
Like yesterday I wanted to design a stickerbomb livery with sci-fi race brands; Can you show me one person on this planet that could come up with something that rivals pic related
in a work day? let alone the ~10 minutes it took for the machine to spit these out.
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:29:00 UTC No. 972625
>>968646
Good point, don't bother arguing with the AI fag
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:33:54 UTC No. 972626
>>972620
>Can you show me one person on this planet that could come up with something that rivals pic related
>in a work day? let alone the ~10 minutes it took for the machine to spit these out.
NTA but these logos are shit, you could make these scribbles yourself. You wanna know why these logos are all useless? Because they are completely devoid of context, without context these are just useless jumbles of shapes that do not convey anything about the product or company they're supposed to represent. Nice argument dumb fuck but then again you're an AI nigger so I shouldn't be surprised
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:46:51 UTC No. 972629
>>972626
>devoid of context
Context was provided anon, your rage boner for AI is clouding your judgement. Anger is the path to the dark side don't you know?
Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 03:11:35 UTC No. 972685
>>968636
Just post them as screenshots with no link to the model unless asked. If they can scrape it from just screenshots alone then there is literally nothing you can do to stop scraping.
>Just don’t post it on the internet
Yeah, just don’t live in rented home if you hate paying rent. What’s the point of making something beyond /beg/ level if you won’t share it with anybody?
Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 05:47:41 UTC No. 972691
>>968644
>So you would rather gatekeep knowledge and keep it to yourself?
Yes.
Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 05:52:02 UTC No. 972692
>>968666
>This is the result of your selfishness.
Lmfao ai bros are the most selfish parasites on the planet
Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:31:51 UTC No. 972754
>>972692
>666
that’s the devil posting