discussion AI CG Art isn't ethical

[ErzuzB]

Following my last post, I just wanted to add that based on what I posted makes USER 62433's ( or whoever he is) original post and bullet points a load of bollocks!

OP deleted his account... so...

 

[lewddewd]

One of my pass times is to create AI enhanced pics of some of my favourite characters from VNs.
If posted to LC I fail to see how something like this can upset anyone or have it removed by moderators when its a so called "RL" version of a character created in artwork software such as Daz.
The attached files (which will probably be removed!) show a couple of example of what I'm talking about. Both pics show a screenshot on the left and the AI enhanced pic on the right. (Models are Sister and Mum from Life in Santa County by Bold Bash Studios)
What is the harm in this?

Have you seen [VN] - [Ren'Py] - Brainstorm [v0.01p] [Wondertails]? Seems like that would interest you.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Following my last post, I just wanted to add that based on what I posted makes USER 62433's ( or whoever he is) original post and bullet points a load of bollocks!

In addition, those bullet points were already bollocks.

- There have always been people making sketches, drawings, paintings, etc. of others without explicit consent. Hell, paparazzi do just that with
their photographs every day.

- It's actually known that that the objectionable images in the LAION-5B dataset came from social media posts and 'popular' adult websites, not "dark shit floating collected from seedy ass corners of the web"
Further, most models aren't trained on the entire dataset, For example, Stable Diffusion was trained on a subset that explicitly omitted illegal images, and Imagen didn't use a LAION dataset at all.

- Text to image generators are, simply put, incapable of getting "lazy", and do not "reproduce images from its dataset, basically exactly as they are", unless they are intentionally fine tuned to do so. This, often repeated, claim shows a complete lack of understanding about how these systems work.

 

[User_111574]

Bullshit. An engineered product (which AI CG is) cannot be inherently ethical or unethical. It all depends on what people make it to be. You might as well make pretenses about DAZ CG

 

[CozeeBeaver]

Have you seen [VN] - [Ren'Py] - Brainstorm [v0.01p] [Wondertails]? Seems like that would interest you.

Thanks for link. I have already downloaded this VN but not opened it yet. Screenshots look promising

 

[aloysious]

Ai Art doesn't exist.

they are just Ai Images.

"Art is the expression of ideas and emotions through a physical medium"

 

[vixidev525]

Ai Art doesn't exist.

they are just Ai Images.

"Art is the expression of ideas and emotions through a physical medium"

Are you saying that digital art doesn't exist either? Back when that technology first came out, there were many who said it didn't count, because it didn't require the same skills and techniques of past artists. Same as when photography was invented. Seems like a constant trend of "whatever these darn kids are doing isn't art". Given enough time, the form of art has become accepted. There are still people who think movies count as art but video games do not, but eventually they'll go the same way as everyone else who said something wasn't art.

 

[walld]

Are you saying that digital art doesn't exist either? Back when that technology first came out, there were many who said it didn't count, because it didn't require the same skills and techniques of past artists. Same as when photography was invented. Seems like a constant trend of "whatever these darn kids are doing isn't art". Given enough time, the form of art has become accepted. There are still people who think movies count as art but video games do not, but eventually they'll go the same way as everyone else who said something wasn't art.

Maybe the issue is with the "ideas and emotions" which AI can't have, leading to AI art and music and writings as non-copyrightable for that very reason, and a human needs to create works to get any copyright.

 

[barryday]

Perhaps we should only use people who have passed away long ago as source material for AI, then it won't truly affect anyone seriously. It is a moral minefield though.

 

[vixidev525]

Maybe the issue is with the "ideas and emotions" which AI can't have, leading to AI art and music and writings as non-copyrightable for that very reason, and a human needs to create works to get any copyright.

A camera doesn't have emotions, nor does a virtual art studio. The person using the tools does. With copyright, it belongs to the person using the tool, not to the tool. Many digital art studios already have some lighter forms of AI integrated into their tool systems.

And for those with more skill, it isn't just about making prompts, but about training the models to product the images you want. If someone spends a dozen hours to get the image they want, does it really matter which computer software they used to do it?

 

[CozeeBeaver]

Perhaps we should only use people who have passed away long ago as source material for AI, then it won't truly affect anyone seriously. It is a moral minefield though.

That's given me an idea.....Elvis banging Marilyn Monroe!

 

[walld]

A camera doesn't have emotions, nor does a virtual art studio. The person using the tools does. With copyright, it belongs to the person using the tool, not to the tool. Many digital art studios already have some lighter forms of AI integrated into their tool systems.

And for those with more skill, it isn't just about making prompts, but about training the models to product the images you want. If someone spends a dozen hours to get the image they want, does it really matter which computer software they used to do it?

I don't know the whole legal issues, just the big picture of copyright and AI at the moment, and I would guess that will all change as AI develops and everyone starts to see the money involved in AI works, making for a huge money grab and laws that will absolutely benefit the small group that has the biggest payout to congress. As for tools, the people behind the tool will always have to be given the credit, because a camera doesn't set itself up to take the picture, etc, and that is the current thought process behind the AI not getting copyright.


In the future, as tech advances, there might be a whole new category of laws when the tools can become sentient enough to perform actions, and even lawsuits, like if an autonomous house building machine creates an unsafe house and needs to be rebuilt, who will have to ultimately pay out? the house building robot owner or the company or programmer? The things will get very complicated in the future when people take a very minor role in the entire process.

 

[Shmutty]

"I'm a good father, I recycle, and I masturbate. And I'm proud of it. And God's happy. And later I'm going to masturbate and I'm going to think about you. And there's nothing you can do about it." - Louis CK

We have this huge, interconnect communications system that allows us to voice our thoughts to each other in real time. Whatever you can think, you can express to another. That's almost always been the case. There are cave paintings of dudes with their dicks out and clay pottery of naked pregnant women. I'm sure there were some stone-age pervs beating their meat to fire light shadow puppets too. The issue though, is quickly becoming "I can't tell real from imagination". If someone is forcing someone else to pose for images or being sexually exploited, that's bad. Not an argument. If that someone in question never existed is it still unethical? Are we to fear expression of imagination? Should I feel bad about touching myself in private while thinking "dirty" thoughts? When should we start considering calling the police because in my mind I saw Scarlet Johansson giving head to Chewbacca and I didn't consider getting either of their notarized consent prior to my fap session? Do we wait until I verbally describe that image to someone else and they are FORCED to imagine Scarlet's lucious lips sliding on a Wookie fuckstick? What about when I set it down in text and there's a copy that can be shared with yet more people?

You can see where I'm going with this. AI is just another device humans have created to share their ideas with others. Without some lust addled deviant to enter the prompts, the machine just sits there. Is the unethical part really just the fear that someone will discover a new kink they hadn't thought of before? That we must safe guard the children from versions of sexual ideology and practices that that we find distasteful? The Japanese believe adults can enjoy porn, but we should blur out the naughty bits in case a child gets a hold of it so they don't learn what a vagina is. They'll be safe wondering why Ni-san shoved his PeePee into the pixelated groin of a squeeking schoolgirl in a one piece bathing suit. It's as if there's this idea that with censorship we can stop the viral sharing of what goes on in each other's heads or protect other people (come on, you're really just protecting your own sense of morality). Unfortunately, the cat is out of the bag, the genie is out of the bottle, the ship has sailed, the dick is in the mashed potatoes. The technological connections that have been made between humans have become such that the entire human race is functioning more and more like a single brain: each human a neuron with synapses of geographical distance being jumped by the internet. The more viral or promoted a meme, the more reinforced the pathway of the idea in the gestalt mind and the greater a part of the group consciousness. AI is an emergant property of this. We share our dreams now. The world shares a group online subconsious now.

And we masterbate.


Apologies about the stream of consciousness rant. I need sleep.

 

[MattShizzle]

Fuck that, it can make realistic looking, and realistic is a fuck ton better than unrealistic.

 

[vixidev525]

Fuck that, it can make realistic looking, and realistic is a fuck ton better than unrealistic.

When it comes to pictures and videos, sometimes 2d is better than 3d.

 

[Crpapjda]

Look, I get this a free-speech forward type of forum. And I get that a cartoon of my little pony doing the nasty with solid snake is probably ethically safer than real porn. So what I'm going to say isn't gonna be super popular.

But AI art is bad.

a) It is produced using images of non-consenting people
b) it is known that ai training sets include images from real life dark content (not fake stuff, actual dark shit floating collected from seedy ass corners of the web by the auto-crawler)
c) it is known that ai will occasionally get lazy and reproduce images from its dataset, basically exactly as they are

Now I get that the people here are masturbation addicts whose brains have been ruined by porn, probably with extra dark fetishes that will never see the light of day. But I like to think that most of us don't want to hurt real people, and more or less are respectable human beings outside of our brains being soaked in hentai for too long.

So respectfully, don't look at ai porn. And if it were up to me, it wouldn't be a thing, especially for known celebrities and darker content.

I agree. But take out the darker part (even if it is the worst part of it), IA art is still inherently a crime. Is copyright infringement. It uses photos/drawings made by people that didnt get paid for that, and didnt consent to for the training. And as you said, sometimes it just spits an exact copy of something, making it much worst
Even in the most vanilla of the scenarios, i believe is still bad. An amazing tool, but people should be compensated from their effort and work
Personally, i find it odd to the eye. Still in the uncanny valley. I dont like it when i search from normal things on the internet, and definitely dont like it in porn

 

[MattShizzle]

When it comes to pictures and videos, sometimes 2d is better than 3d.

Not at all. I hate cartoony.

 

[donuspro]

Fuck that, it can make realistic looking, and realistic is a fuck ton better than unrealistic.

Have to agree with you here. But 2D can be cool sometimes too

 

[c0rkscr3w]

Unless used unethically for blackmail or defamation purposes of real people then it doesn't really matter, even less so when those generated pictures are not shared with anyone else.

 

[lcflex]

I don't think AI inherently has any morality tied to it. There are moral issues with the training data, particularly with early generation models that were not as selective about what they trained on, and included images that almost certainly ought to have been excluded. There are moral issues with what people do with AI. None of that is inherently about AI itself.

On the training side, I disagree with those who argue that artists did not consent to have an AI learn from their work. AI might learn in a way that is technically different from how humans learn, but it is not conceptually different. The training data is not stored in the model in any meaningful sense. The process that an AI uses to create an image is technically different from how a human does it (and is many orders of magnitude faster), but is not conceptually different. Humans learn art through observing other art. AI learns art through observing other art. Humans create art that is influenced by all prior observed art. AI creates art that is influenced by all prior observed art.

Using AI to recreate an image of a real-life person (without consent) is morally questionable at best, and usually a violation of privacy. It does not matter if you create the image only for personal use; that doesn't magically make it OK. Recreating copyrighted work is a morally grey area; there are fair use cases and there are violations, and drawing the line between them can be difficult. AI isn't worse than other art forms in this respect, though.

I have my own code of ethics about what I will and won't do with AI. I try to use the latest AI models that are more selective about their training data. I won't create images of real people, or recreate copyrighted works unless it clearly and unambiguously falls under fair use. I don't make lewds of lolis. I never try to pass off AI images as real, no matter how real they might look.