Kindly fuck off. We make actual art here. Thanks.
Jojo
@Jukestar
Age 31, Fem-male
Joined on 8/11/21
- Level:
- 12
- Exp Points:
- 1,570 / 1,600
- Exp Rank:
- 42,217
- Vote Power:
- 5.45 votes
- Audio Scouts
- 6
- Rank:
- Civilian
- Global Rank:
- > 100,000
- Blams:
- 0
- Saves:
- 30
- B/P Bonus:
- 0%
- Whistle:
- Normal
- Trophies:
- 1
- Medals:
- 29
- Supporter:
- 2y 10m 19d
Comments
To the best of my knowledge, to date all AIs used to create "artificial intelligence art" were "trained" using the work of artist who never gave permission for their art to be used for this. An AI doesn't decide how to 'draw' lines, it 'copies' pieces of work from its library - 1:1. So, to my best understanding, every single image generated by such an AI could be considered a violation of international copyright law.
Not to read too far into the decision making processes by the Newgrounds team, but one of their reasons to not permit this might be that all of those images might become DMCA-strike-able in the foreseeable future. Which would take too much time for them to deal with.
We could've been designing robots to do all the jobs nobody wants to do as we work towards a future where nobody ever has to work anymore, thus we could start focusing on the more complex layers of consciousness and making people happy, healthy, and wealthy, but instead we're giving robots all the jobs that are actually fun like drawing, voice acting, and making music. It's such a dystopian move on humanity's part.
Well, there 'are' robots working on assembly lines - but there are still people working on them as well. The ones deciding which jobs are done by the robots are ultimately the ones who are in charge of the factory - not the workers. And to sound a little grim for a second: You can't underpay a machine...
I haven't dug too deep into the history of "artificial intelligence creating art from art" but for the one who made the first version producing acceptable results, it was probably an attempt to make "I want a drawing of [X]" easier and more affordable - as well as something they programmed for the fun of it. It's not like they invented (say) 'miniaturized guns' or something, but there should have gone more ethical concerns into the AIs available today. On top of that, until some artists give their consent, or some more copyrights run out (70 years after the death of the author, I believe) they stand on legally shaky ground.
However, right now how that technology is used gives us a glimpse into the future. Which incidentally is showing us the same situation we see when we look back into the past: The vast majority of people _don't care_ about consequences, unless they are directly affected by them. Despite all those ways that made our lives easier, most humans do not better themselves.
Which brings this 'Calvin and Hobbes' strip to mind:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/26/da/24/26da2454f3a6e4767456b9bb0e180288.jpg
This is very informative. Thank you for commenting!
Tell that to @illwillpress
Yatsufusa
AI art is actually against the rules on NG ( https://www.newgrounds.com/wiki/help-information/terms-of-use/art-guidelines ), so if you ever stumble upon some, you can just report that "art" (the little flag-button).
And if you see somebody uploading a whole bunch of those images, you can just write in your report that the user in question has lots of them. Saves time for both yourself as well as for the moderators. :)
Jukestar
Very happy that Tom and the others agree this shit shouldn't be here.