AI vs. ART

[JennieJo]

So I think we can all see where this is rapidly heading and it's pretty scary! I'm not saying the images can't be interesting or useful, but look at the disruption and displacement of humans involved. And those humans are us, the artists now!
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/21/tech/artists-ai-images/index.html

Have just read this article. When Getty images gets involved, the stakes are raised. Thus could be worth watching.

Getty Images sues AI art generator Stable Diffusion in the US for copyright infringement

Getty says Stability AI stole 12 million images without permission

www.theverge.com

 

[Bartc]

My youngest son works in both digital arts and IT in Silicon Valley. He brought me a video, really an audio, of a dead personality whose voice was being re-created to tell about the advances in AI technology. Scary as shit!

I'm no Luddite, but starting to understand not their fears but their accurate perception of the pace, direction and impact of change on their lives.

In our lives in very short order we will see that you can longer trust any of your senses to tell truth from fiction, and what will that do to society, law, etc.? The pace of AI creating a false reality is on the cusp of actually outpacing our biological/social mechanisms to do reality testing.

If you dislike the Metaverse, just take off your headset, refocus your eyes and smell the roses. But if you're living in a society in which people believe strongly enough in what they "see and hear" on social media to take up arms, to boycott business and to ostracize or even prosecute people, then guess where that goes when digitally manipulated versions of you and your neighbors appear all over saying or doing things that never actually happened. How would you like it if your neighbors all saw you in a porn or snuff film that is totally fake? How might the police and courts treat you? What about your employer or employees? Think on this, because it's coming very shortly to a theater near you, but no popcorn to soften the effect.

This is a warning, folks! It's more than a nuisance, a joke or a threat to some livelihoods. It can easily turn into a threat to our social sense of order and trust in one another. We're living in a science fiction pre-dystopia, I'm afraid.

BTW, as I recall Michael Crichton wrote a fictional novel about this way back in the 90s. While the theme was Japanese American relations, the premise was that IT could be manipulated to frame someone with murder, which it very well could do today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rising_Sun_(Crichton_novel)

 

[Bartc]

Have just read this article. When Getty images gets involved, the stakes are raised. Thus could be worth watching.

Getty Images sues AI art generator Stable Diffusion in the US for copyright infringement

Getty says Stability AI stole 12 million images without permission

www.theverge.com

It's not enough for a large company to sue another company. It will take legislation that is rigorously enforced to stop the real danger here, and frankly I suspect it's beyond the intellectual capacity of most legislators to comprehend.

 

[Artyczar]

My youngest son works in both digital arts and IT in Silicon Valley. He brought me a video, really an audio, of a dead personality whose voice was being re-created to tell about the advances in AI technology. Scary as shit!

I'm no Luddite, but starting to understand not their fears but their accurate perception of the pace, direction and impact of change on their lives.

In our lives in very short order we will see that you can longer trust any of your senses to tell truth from fiction, and what will that do to society, law, etc.? The pace of AI creating a false reality is on the cusp of actually outpacing our biological/social mechanisms to do reality testing.

If you dislike the Metaverse, just take off your headset, refocus your eyes and smell the roses. But if you're living in a society in which people believe strongly enough in what they "see and hear" on social media to take up arms, to boycott business and to ostracize or even prosecute people, then guess where that goes when digitally manipulated versions of you and your neighbors appear all over saying or doing things that never actually happened. How would you like it if your neighbors all saw you in a porn or snuff film that is totally fake? How might the police and courts treat you? What about your employer or employees? Think on this, because it's coming very shortly to a theater near you, but no popcorn to soften the effect.

This is a warning, folks! It's more than a nuisance, a joke or a threat to some livelihoods. It can easily turn into a threat to our social sense of order and trust in one another. We're living in a science fiction pre-dystopia, I'm afraid.

BTW, as I recall Michael Crichton wrote a fictional novel about this way back in the 90s. While the theme was Japanese American relations, the premise was that IT could be manipulated to frame someone with murder, which it very well could do today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rising_Sun_(Crichton_novel)

I understand what you're postulating here Bart. It's all very possible. What do you suggest we all do about it though, besides be in an uproar about it or live in a kind of fear? I guess I feel like there's nothing I personally can do. That's why I suppose I sit and do nothing. Like a meteor that may, or may not, or for sure eventually hit the earth and destroy most of life as we know it. It is a scary idea what AI can become. What is has already become. It is a kind of playful joke among most real artists at the moment (the ones I know)--something to play with and laugh about because it's so ridiculous and unreal. Anyone using it or manipulating to make money off it just seems as ordinary as anyone else doing nefarious things of the like, as that will always be. We can't stop things like that from happening. I don't think there's anything wrong with people using it for quick referencing. Or even as a starting point for further digital manipulation. I can see others making harsh judgements upon it being used in that way, but perhaps, when it's taken further, like in the case of that one particular children's book, even I have judged it too harshly. However, the "illustrator" of that book isn't claiming to have drafted those images by hand, so it seems pretty transparent. I guess if there's transparency, what's the harm, other than the artists that create genuine handmade originals being out of work? I mean, that's not ideal, of course. But if the person or company doesn't care about their products that much, then their product will show schlocky work. I think consumers are (mostly) smarter than we think and want quality things. But, as the saying goes (and it's very true), you get what you pay for.

Sorry I didn't break up these paragraphs!!!

In any case, I agree with some of your points. I just wish I knew what to do. And in some of this, I don't even know what I think! (Jury is still out.)

 

[Bartc]

Ayin, like you I have no problem with honest and transparent use of tools, providing they aren't crossing the hazy line into plagiarism and theft. That's a tough one. That line has always been difficult to draw, though some have indeed bothered with legal help and lots of patience to try to enforce it.

As to meteors, it's beyond me too. But this entire trend is human created, human driven and can theoretically be controlled by human society. That means pressure on governments and companies from ordinary people like you and me coupled with the inevitable economic interested parties might work, I believe.

If we just do nothing and say nothing, or mistakenly refer only to our own prurient interests as artists (vs. the entire legal/social system issues inherent here), then we may get what we don't deserve!

 

[Artyczar]

Excellent food for thought!

 

[JennieJo]

I agree there's a long way to go. But, I do think it will take large companies getting active, or class actions?, to get any legislators to see the issue.

 

[Artyczar]

What do we think about the AI art at the Grammys?

 

[Bartc]

What do we think about the AI art at the Grammys?

Ayin, I never watch those shows, so have no opinion to offer. But wouldn't we be better off if those well-heeled studios used living artists instead of AI? Even CGI involves lots of jobs for digital artists and designers, but AI apparently doesn't.

 

[Artyczar]

The AI used was used by an artist. Did you read the article?

 

[Bartc]

I confess, not!

 

[joe1It]

Artificial intelligence, investment boom: +24.5 ... - CorComhttps://www.corrierecomunicazioni.it › digital-economy
Aug 31, 2021 — Artificial intelligence, investment boom: +24.5% annual growth until 2025 · Retail and banking at the top of the rankings · Top cases: ...

Beyond Chat GPT: stocks for investing in artificial intelligencehttps://www.we-wealth.com › Articles
5 days ago — From Nvidia to Alteryx, passing through Snowflake: here are the best stocks to bet on artificial intelligence on the Stock Exchange.

these are old articles, but these days we are talking about new investments in artificial intelligence by very large companies, microsft, google.
even on the news they often talk about ai, yesterday even an interview with a company that received new funds for its project, a translator.
going back to art ai, investments are also in the artistic sector and it is something I find grotesque, aiart I find it just a legalized theft, without any real use for people.
not being able to distinguish the false from the true, discourage art. a theft not only for the data they use to train ai. but i think it's really like don quixote's fight against the windmills, i can't stop saying my feelings about it but i think about me, what i thought about don quixote.

here is a video that impressed me a lot, 2 of my favorite voice actors, thanks to ai , without their consent, people use their voice to dub anything thanks to ai .

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[Bartc]

Yeah, it's a real problem. It's also an old story: the technology outpaces the society and the law, so things go awry quickly before a civilization catches up with the impact. That's the danger here.

I agree it will take some large corporations pushing on the government because it's their ox that's being gored, because the race by other larger corps to invest is going to set a lot of trouble in motion. But it's also important for the citizenry to become alarmed and active.

They didn't take up arms when CGIs put many in Hollywood out of business, because they enjoyed the output and weren't personally affected by the process. Wonder how we can alarm them this time around?

Believe me, they don't see what's coming! And Americans as a whole are not very sophisticated when it comes to either the science or the economics; too nuanced for them to bother.

 

[Marc]

What do we think about the AI art at the Grammys?

"Momma all ways said."

Actually I'm not sure mine ever did. I don't feel strongly moved in any direction by that displayed at the link.

 

[Artyczar]

I don't feel strongly moved in any direction by that displayed at the link.

Me either.

 

[Enyaw]

My two cents
... you can't save the world from the sum of all it's parts unless you can controll all the parts .. good luck; your time is better spent improving the lives of those around you.

 

[joe1It]

hi, hi, Bartc, yesterday I wrote a long comment but then I thought not to put it, I don't know what will happen, let's hope so, personally I think Brian is right, AI can make politicians say things they never said, it's something big that it should have concerned everyone from the beginning and ask for stakes and clarifications but politics, I don't expect much from politics because it is directly interested but it seems to me that they don't care, 99% of politicians I don't think they are interested, maybe they will when it will be necessary to pocket or they are silent because they have already collected.
by now I believe that Ai is something that will have a gigantic impact throughout society, and I don't like how they are handling it, the oxen seem to have run away even though as of today we can only glimpse things.
for aiart I would like every drawing, every painting to bear the author and wording made with airart, that the involvement of every aiart generator be explicitly indicated whether they are magazines, cinema, newspapers, offline, online, I think it would be nice for people to know what they are buying or seeing and perhaps being informed of the repercussions and deciding with a minimum of awareness that they are choosing or not choosing whether human art must have a market or not, if they want a drawing or any type of art to tell a story, a lived or a series of codes (and honestly I think it's unfair that databases are not made only with explicit permission.
I'm afraid to count on politics but I hope above all on people even if it seems to me that they are giving us small doses of a drug to get us addicted while they are preparing a super drug which will then have more serious costs but an even greater impact.
But my pessimism comes mainly from things that are not related to AI, from disappointment in myself for not having saved my life 10 years ago and from the Fit for 55 project, with which the European Union puts the full burden of pollution on people and let those who have polluted the air and the world the most describe themselves as pure, like those who save the world and do not have to pay anything.

 

[Bartc]

Joe, your AI version of an "Organic" label would still require government action. Nobody is going to put it on voluntarily. So in the end we have to move the politicians. Sorry about that for all of us!

 

[joe1It]

let's hope, let's hope for interventions and greater transparency and honesty, I believe that these things are missing with AI, who are looking for cunning and the pre-established result at any cost, let's hope so, sorry for the type of thought. in practice I would have preferred they had made databases just for that, at least in areas such as art, it seems to me that they are bullying and not for a noble purpose, then, I could have been for or against but these things make me AI very unpleasant, like artists set aside from magazines for generators. However, really sorry for insistence

 

[mill]

Everything I've seen strengthens the conviction that although the details of the paintings are often photographic in their depiction of the styles of artists there is more than one glaring fault in all of them. A good artist through his experience and hands-on practice constructs his painting using the best of traditional composition. Depth and balance in colour, mass and tone are significantly missing. I used to base my crits to art clubs on these criteria alone when they paid me to do so. People nowadays, in the proliferation of camera images on advertising material have a distorted view of painting centred on detail against a Gaussian blur.
Frank Webb has said that "If on going into a gallery of paintings one in particular jumps to your immediate attention as the one which draws you, it's fairly certain that it is one that is traditionally well composed."
John