With all the fuzz about IA image “stealing” illustrator job, I am curious about how much photography changed the art world in the 19th century.

There was a time where getting a portrait done was a relatively big thing, requiring several days of work for a painter, while you had to stand still for a while so the painter knew what you looked like, and then with photography, all you had to do was to stand still for a few minutes, and you’ll get a picture of you printed on paper the next day.

How did it impact the average painter who was getting paid to paint people once in their lifetime.

  • ekky43@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    But it does hold water. The original image might not be contained within the model, but the fact that it was trained on stolen data makes it problematic. Even if humans do the same, an AI model is not a human but a product, and therefore needs to adhere to different rules.

    • NotSpez@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also: scale. If you’re a painter inspired by other painters, your output will still be limited. AI is a different story in this regard.

    • MayaHorsewoman@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      AI pulling from a database to recreate artstyles is much more destructive than human inspiration.

      Imagine you’re a child book illustrator. Your work is out there and accessible. Now someone has the idea to get into it using AI. They really like your artstyle and tell the AI your name. Now the AI spits out illustrations in your artstyle, and many people might not even be able to tell the difference.

      This random person uploads it or maybe even contacts your publisher. Worst case scenario they even buy his work and not care about the quality of the stories. Now you’re actually replaced.

      Now is this not copyright infringement?

      Having the AI cite sources is not a solution to this as people will simply detach them. Having signatures on your works is not a solution and it actually makes it worse because then the AI copies it and now it looks like signed work from you.

      When I first saw people using AI to make great images I thought the same. It’s just a non human inspiration cycle. But human inspiration is so so different. You don’t just look at existing images. EVERYTHING you’ve ever seen is an inspiration. Everything you’ve ever read heard or done too.

      Human inspiration is one thing. Creation takes skill practice and time. AI creation doesn’t. The program might have required skill to write, but that’s not an excuse for it to threaten entire industries.

      • Harrison [He/Him]@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The program might have required skill to write, but that’s not an excuse for it to threaten entire industries.

        We don’t live in a world where industries exist just because it would be nice for them to and people need work.

        An industry is a productive environment that creates products for others to buy. If the people buying from the current art industry care about human inspiration and the uniqueness they add to art, they will continue to buy from humans. If they do not, why should the state use it’s monopoly on violence to cripple any other source of product?

        Are artists some special class of people above every other group of workers who’ve lost their jobs to automation?

    • RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If a painter looks at another artist’s painting, then decided to paint something similar, is that stealing?

      • RyanHeffronPhoto@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        @RightHandOfIkaros If they are just painting for themselves to learn new techniques or styles, no. If they are purposely trying to copy it to sell or pass off as the original artist, yes. A for-profit corperation taking works that have not been authorized for commercial use in order to develop their for-profit software is indeed stealing.

    • dave
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Like elephants?

      It does become not a technical discussion but a philosophical one pretty soon. I’m not sure humans can accurately cite their sources either—yes they can be interviewed and claim X or Y as a big influence on their artistic work. But how do they know that? Do they know that more than an AI asked the same question?