HOME | DD

Description

>>> I'm not against AI per se, but against the current abuse made of it! I fight for regulation and for making it ethical. It's currently not made for empowerment, nor to assist people. It's a way to transfer what is left of labor capacity and money to an already privileged few (companies, etc.)! <<<

-------

Artists, don't forget to Nightshade and to Glaze your art to protect it against scraping and AI!!

Nightshade nightshade.cs.uchicago.edu/ind…

Nightshade works to change your input image, so every generated pieces that use your content will, in fact, produce a different result (a dog instead of a cat, a toaster instead of a bag, etc.). In addition, there is a randomized component in Nightshade (just like Glaze), so that each run with the same input image will not produce the same output.

Glaze glaze.cs.uchicago.edu/

Glaze “cloaks” images so that models incorrectly learn the unique features that define an artist’s style, thwarting subsequent efforts to generate artificial plagiarisms. People might be able to generate similar composition, but it won't look like the original artist work.

Both programs are free and will "poison" the AI dataset if someone scraps your work without consent.

You can learn more about it here: news.uchicago.edu/story/uchica… and from the official paper: arxiv.org/abs/2302.04222

Here's also a complete artist review if you are curious: twitter.com/antsstyle/status/1…

-------

I join the movement, I’ve had enough. As many others, I’m appalled by the current use of AI to generate pictures thanks to stolen content and by some people without qualm who are actively deceiving both public and clients with it. I’m also exhausted to see Deviantart and other places flooded with countless generated (stolen) pictures, sometimes +30 versions of same prompts!

Original picture by ZAKUGA : Support Human Artists

You're free to post this picture in you gallery to join the protest (using at least the #SupportHumanArtists tag and crediting original artist Zakuga). Follow the movement and let's stand for our rights as artists!

You also can take part in this fundraising campaign from the Concept Art Association to make a change and protect human artists rights: www.gofundme.com/f/protecting-…

There's an alternative one for EU too, created by MeFu!, an italian non-profit association for comics crafts: www.gofundme.com/f/help-protec…

AND NOW I'M DEBUNKING SOME ARGUMENTS THAT YOU HAVE SEEN ONLINE
(You also can check Daniel McGarry post www.artstation.com/artwork/03P… that gives pretty good information)

1) “AI doesn’t copy!”
There are debates on whether or not an AI copies (in the most generic sense of the term), but some people create AI models to copy artists style (therefore deceiving other people) and to mimic their signature. For more information: twitter.com/CraigTheDev/status… + twitter.com/iarhiee/status/159… + twitter.com/JonLamArt/status/1…

Also, AI models can and will reproduce copyrighted images from datasets: gizmodo.com/ai-art-generators-… (old post) + spectrum.ieee.org/midjourney-c… (more recently).

For further knowledge on the subject, you can read this research paper conducted by the University of Maryland & New York University which gives an interesting analyze: www.researchgate.net/publicati…

2) “AI won’t take people job away!”
It’s already doing it, some companies are working on marketing, promos, posters and such with AI. Heck, someone even made a full children book and sold it, only using AI! (twitter.com/JoJoesArt/status/1… + twitter.com/Jonahlobe/status/1… ) There are also plenty of testimonies, of artists and other people in the art industry, that shows the loss of job opportunities or the discourse about relying on an AI rather than paying a human worker. One of the many examples: www.instagram.com/p/CmMxA8TDEV…

Most recently, many artists working for the game industry in China are also getting out of work: restofworld.org/2023/ai-image-… and www.gamedeveloper.com/art/chin…

As things are right now, AI won't profit to the general user, nor the artists or the mass. In the end, the risk is seeing every independent creator (no matter if artist or prompter) being drowned in the middle, with little to no space for any individual creativity or business. Corey Brickley explained it quite well: "When all books on Amazon are of high quality & generated by AI, only corporations will capture a significant portion of the market. [...] automated systems run by algorithm will exist not for our benefit, but to transfer whatever wealth remains among the majority upwards". For more details: twitter.com/CoreyBrickley/stat…

EDIT: And... "ironically", we're kinda at this point: www.theguardian.com/technology… Even publishers are being spammed by AI-generated stories from people who want to make a quick buck and are abusing this technology. It's hurting real aspiring (and more experienced) writers who are collateral victims and won't be able to make it to publication.

There's this testimony as well, speaking about the "shortage" excuse and how people who finally get back to work have in fact to train AI (to be replaced by it then) : twitter.com/ArtofDavidW/status…

3) “AI art isn’t theft!”
Yes, it is, by miles away. It was unethically trained with tons of pictures online without anyone’s consent (you can check it here: haveibeentrained.com/ ), nor any regard for their copyrights and ToS. Some outputs even will display parts of or the whole signature of original artists. Also, if that’s not theft, tell me why many prompters are now trying to watermark their “work” or hide their prompts? They don’t want other people to come up with the same generated pictures or make profits on it? In the meantime, some even try to create full models to copy one artist style in particular: twitter.com/gy_sup/status/1600… Isn’t that theft and fraud?

I also heard people saying we could not call it "stolen" or "theft" since there's no "physical" content. However we do see virtual goods as property, then it can be "stolen". Maybe not in the material sense of it, but the term still can be used: www.theguardian.com/law/2011/j…

4) “AI uses art like a human would take inspiration.”
Nope, that's a fake argument. Even the Creative Director of Real-Time Technology for NVIDIA (and who worked on GauGAN too) broke this statement: twitter.com/hexeract01/status/… Same talk from François Chollet, a software engineer and AI researcher (currently a Senior Staff Software Engineer at Google): twitter.com/fchollet/status/15…

You're trying to compare a sentient biological being to an inanimate programmed object. Even if you can find some similarities, AI is stuck to what it has been fed with and can't understand what it sees nor innovate from it. I didn't see an AI adding a lemon to its generated picture cause it became its favorite shape of fruit, nor consciously or unconsciously adding an element from a past experience it had (a meaningful event for itself). I didn't see it deciding to draw a sad picture because it was moved by a text online or that it's just having a bad day. AI recreates from inputs, it doesn't create something "new", nor does it reinterpret in the sense of reasoning and understanding like a human would.

EDIT: I've seen many people anthropomorphizing a program like if it was "intelligent" (in the sense of a sentient being), but an AI does not train/"learn" like a human does. First, the way we treat the information and make use of it is different. If you're curious about how Stable Diffusion works, for example, you can have a look at this page which explains it quite well: jalammar.github.io/illustrated… . An AI will also gather an amount of data/input/references that is far beyond what a human can ingest. This will cause many problems for crediting the people who made the raw material and that the AI is using/referencing for its generated pictures. Second, when talking about inspiration, we cannot apply this concept to the AI either since it won't go beyond the prompt. It answers a command and cannot comprehend the object beyond said command. For more about this part, please see the first paragraph of point 4.

5) “Your art is available online, then we can do whatever we want with it and feed the AI too.”
Not so fast! Artists DO have laws that protect their content the moment they give it a tangible form online or irl! : blogs.loc.gov/copyright/2020/0… This goes for art, writings, music, etc. It may vary from a country to another, but most of them set rules to protect creators! It's not free real estate. Also see the statement from the copyright alliance for further information: copyrightalliance.org/ai-copyr…

In the other side, AI-Created images AREN'T protected by Copyright Law: www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak…

6) “Why don’t you use AI and your own art to train it?”
Why would we? We’re already training ourselves by drawing daily, following tutorials, or finding new ways to express our art. We don’t need AI to improve, we want to improve in our own ways as artists.
However, it can find an interest if you're working in fields like animation and the likes, to make some tasks less repetitive or easier. As long as it's ethical (fed with your own content or content you're allowed to use), used responsibly and as an assistance (not doing the whole job for you), we can start considering AI as a tool.

7) “Artists are just mad and gatekeeping!”
Like… really? Defending a livehood and passion against theft and fraud is gatekeeping?
First, AI bros said artists were wrong for refusing that AI uses their art without their consent. Then same group said that artists were gatekeeping because they denounced people for doing business thanks to stolen works and pointed at the copyright problems. While there’s plenty, PLENTY, of art content, tutorials, videos, etc. that you can get for free online! Just grab a paper and pen, start your art adventure.

8) “Just embrace AI art, it’s the future!”
I’m not against technology and progress, but I prefer being called a "luddite" (since that’s what I’ve been called by AI bros) wanting ethic and regulation in tech, rather than being a sheep that blindly follows progress and can’t question the consequences in the short/long-term (even for themselves). Also, if we all should embrace it, why are many prompters covering their track (no correct tag use, no mention of AI), even hiding / removing comments when they’re called out? There are fair users tagging their stuff but many others just pretend that the generated images are their own work. There's also the risk that AI gets used (like deepfake technology is) to harass people, create illegal content, fake news, etc.

And I'll add, for those who use the term "luddite" without knowing the true meaning of it, that: "The Luddites did not rail against "progress", they railed against their callous disposal at the hands of the bosses, who jumped at the opportunity to replace workers for the sake of profit with no thought at all given to their workers' fates" (from twitter.com/CoreyBrickley/stat… ).

--> Another link that shows how far it went in some people's mind: twitter.com/michellieart/statu…
--> The risks it brings like non-consensual nudity or child abuse content: jezebel.com/trendy-portrait-ap…
--> How AI can be used for disinformation, propaganda, and so on: twitter.com/ninaism/status/162…
--> How AI is used for scams and to impersonate other people: www.businessinsider.com/ai-sca…

9) “These prompts and generated pictures are mine, then I can make profit with it!”
No you can’t, you just got a patchwork of many other artists stolen works. Everything you did was thanks to their pictures; AI wouldn’t have generated anything otherwise! Also good luck copyrighting words put together in a sentence. Recently, the United States Copyright Office (USCO) even reversed a decision to grant copyright protection to a comic book that was created thanks to AI. Artistic works must be created by humans to use copyright protection laws. For more details: www.federalregister.gov/docume…

10) “You just need to give AI a try, then you'll see what a wonderful tool it is!”
We're not discussing whether AI could be a tool (like for referencing) or could have its own category. We're denouncing the fact that it's now fully unethical (grabbing everything from the internet without anyone's consent), helping people to fraud and to deceive others and flooding the marketplace with no regard for copyrights and rules. It needs proper regulation, especially with the risk of counterfeiting and the risk to build illegal content (such as child abuse pictures or non-consensual nudity). There's also the fact that, in the end, this technology will mainly benefit to a few privileged individuals and companies, and that we're serving our own creativity on a silver place for replacement. There's no way defending a process that takes from artists and private pictures to build unruly business and hurt people's integrity or livelihood.

11) “I don't have the talent to be an artist, that's why I enjoy AI art.”
We're not judging you for the intention, but being an artist is not a talent, it's practice and patience. You'll always find people with a gift for it (like some others have a gift for music, maths, etc.), but most of us started from the roots and small. Be confident and have a look at the content other artists give for free like tutorials, videos and such to learn. You can do it!

I've even seen artists questioning their motivation, their inspiration, and their own place/legitimacy! None of what AI is capable of right now would have been possible without artists, yet we're treated so poorly and it's utterly disgusting. (Some very well written post about it can be found here: twitter.com/NatasaIlincic/stat… )

But don’t give up, regulations and lawsuits are coming! Here are a few examples:

--> www.theverge.com/2022/11/8/234…
--> arstechnica.com/information-te…
--> www.prnewswire.com/news-releas… and stablediffusionlitigation.com/
--> www.theverge.com/2023/1/17/235…
--> news.artnet.com/art-world/clas…
--> artificialintelligenceact.eu/
--> www.artnews.com/art-news/news/…

AND the European Guild for Artificial Intelligence Regulation is now on: www.egair.eu/

Also a few interesting links to watch/read and share:

The End of Art: An Argument Against Image AIs: www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjSxFA…
The Solutions to Ethical issues with Generative AI will be Social: psychoftech.substack.com/p/the…
Open Questions on the Generative Models and Fair Use Debate: manlikemishap.github.io/posts/…
The Illustrated Stable Diffusion: jalammar.github.io/illustrated…
Why Artists are Fed Up with AI Art: www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Viy3C…
Copyright Registration Guidance - Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence: www.federalregister.gov/docume…
We’re told AI neural networks ‘learn’ the way humans do. A neuroscientist explains why that’s not the case - theconversation.com/were-told-…

Description

>>> I'm not against AI per se, but against the current abuse made of it! I fight for regulation and for making it ethical. It's currently not made for empowerment, nor to assist people. It's a way to transfer what is left of labor capacity and money to an already privileged few (companies, etc.)! <<<

-------

Artists, don't forget to Nightshade and to Glaze your art to protect it against scraping and AI!!

Nightshade nightshade.cs.uchicago.edu/ind…

Nightshade works to change your input image, so every generated pieces that use your content will, in fact, produce a different result (a dog instead of a cat, a toaster instead of a bag, etc.). In addition, there is a randomized component in Nightshade (just like Glaze), so that each run with the same input image will not produce the same output.

Glaze glaze.cs.uchicago.edu/

Glaze “cloaks” images so that models incorrectly learn the unique features that define an artist’s style, thwarting subsequent efforts to generate artificial plagiarisms. People might be able to generate similar composition, but it won't look like the original artist work.

Both programs are free and will "poison" the AI dataset if someone scraps your work without consent.

You can learn more about it here: news.uchicago.edu/story/uchica… and from the official paper: arxiv.org/abs/2302.04222

Here's also a complete artist review if you are curious: twitter.com/antsstyle/status/1…

-------

I join the movement, I’ve had enough. As many others, I’m appalled by the current use of AI to generate pictures thanks to stolen content and by some people without qualm who are actively deceiving both public and clients with it. I’m also exhausted to see Deviantart and other places flooded with countless generated (stolen) pictures, sometimes +30 versions of same prompts!

Original picture by ZAKUGA : Support Human Artists

You're free to post this picture in you gallery to join the protest (using at least the #SupportHumanArtists tag and crediting original artist Zakuga). Follow the movement and let's stand for our rights as artists!

You also can take part in this fundraising campaign from the Concept Art Association to make a change and protect human artists rights: www.gofundme.com/f/protecting-…

There's an alternative one for EU too, created by MeFu!, an italian non-profit association for comics crafts: www.gofundme.com/f/help-protec…

AND NOW I'M DEBUNKING SOME ARGUMENTS THAT YOU HAVE SEEN ONLINE
(You also can check Daniel McGarry post www.artstation.com/artwork/03P… that gives pretty good information)

1) “AI doesn’t copy!”
There are debates on whether or not an AI copies (in the most generic sense of the term), but some people create AI models to copy artists style (therefore deceiving other people) and to mimic their signature. For more information: twitter.com/CraigTheDev/status… + twitter.com/iarhiee/status/159… + twitter.com/JonLamArt/status/1…

Also, AI models can and will reproduce copyrighted images from datasets: gizmodo.com/ai-art-generators-… (old post) + spectrum.ieee.org/midjourney-c… (more recently).

For further knowledge on the subject, you can read this research paper conducted by the University of Maryland & New York University which gives an interesting analyze: www.researchgate.net/publicati…

2) “AI won’t take people job away!”
It’s already doing it, some companies are working on marketing, promos, posters and such with AI. Heck, someone even made a full children book and sold it, only using AI! (twitter.com/JoJoesArt/status/1… + twitter.com/Jonahlobe/status/1… ) There are also plenty of testimonies, of artists and other people in the art industry, that shows the loss of job opportunities or the discourse about relying on an AI rather than paying a human worker. One of the many examples: www.instagram.com/p/CmMxA8TDEV…

Most recently, many artists working for the game industry in China are also getting out of work: restofworld.org/2023/ai-image-… and www.gamedeveloper.com/art/chin…

As things are right now, AI won't profit to the general user, nor the artists or the mass. In the end, the risk is seeing every independent creator (no matter if artist or prompter) being drowned in the middle, with little to no space for any individual creativity or business. Corey Brickley explained it quite well: "When all books on Amazon are of high quality & generated by AI, only corporations will capture a significant portion of the market. [...] automated systems run by algorithm will exist not for our benefit, but to transfer whatever wealth remains among the majority upwards". For more details: twitter.com/CoreyBrickley/stat…

EDIT: And... "ironically", we're kinda at this point: www.theguardian.com/technology… Even publishers are being spammed by AI-generated stories from people who want to make a quick buck and are abusing this technology. It's hurting real aspiring (and more experienced) writers who are collateral victims and won't be able to make it to publication.

There's this testimony as well, speaking about the "shortage" excuse and how people who finally get back to work have in fact to train AI (to be replaced by it then) : twitter.com/ArtofDavidW/status…

3) “AI art isn’t theft!”
Yes, it is, by miles away. It was unethically trained with tons of pictures online without anyone’s consent (you can check it here: haveibeentrained.com/ ), nor any regard for their copyrights and ToS. Some outputs even will display parts of or the whole signature of original artists. Also, if that’s not theft, tell me why many prompters are now trying to watermark their “work” or hide their prompts? They don’t want other people to come up with the same generated pictures or make profits on it? In the meantime, some even try to create full models to copy one artist style in particular: twitter.com/gy_sup/status/1600… Isn’t that theft and fraud?

I also heard people saying we could not call it "stolen" or "theft" since there's no "physical" content. However we do see virtual goods as property, then it can be "stolen". Maybe not in the material sense of it, but the term still can be used: www.theguardian.com/law/2011/j…

4) “AI uses art like a human would take inspiration.”
Nope, that's a fake argument. Even the Creative Director of Real-Time Technology for NVIDIA (and who worked on GauGAN too) broke this statement: twitter.com/hexeract01/status/… Same talk from François Chollet, a software engineer and AI researcher (currently a Senior Staff Software Engineer at Google): twitter.com/fchollet/status/15…

You're trying to compare a sentient biological being to an inanimate programmed object. Even if you can find some similarities, AI is stuck to what it has been fed with and can't understand what it sees nor innovate from it. I didn't see an AI adding a lemon to its generated picture cause it became its favorite shape of fruit, nor consciously or unconsciously adding an element from a past experience it had (a meaningful event for itself). I didn't see it deciding to draw a sad picture because it was moved by a text online or that it's just having a bad day. AI recreates from inputs, it doesn't create something "new", nor does it reinterpret in the sense of reasoning and understanding like a human would.

EDIT: I've seen many people anthropomorphizing a program like if it was "intelligent" (in the sense of a sentient being), but an AI does not train/"learn" like a human does. First, the way we treat the information and make use of it is different. If you're curious about how Stable Diffusion works, for example, you can have a look at this page which explains it quite well: jalammar.github.io/illustrated… . An AI will also gather an amount of data/input/references that is far beyond what a human can ingest. This will cause many problems for crediting the people who made the raw material and that the AI is using/referencing for its generated pictures. Second, when talking about inspiration, we cannot apply this concept to the AI either since it won't go beyond the prompt. It answers a command and cannot comprehend the object beyond said command. For more about this part, please see the first paragraph of point 4.

5) “Your art is available online, then we can do whatever we want with it and feed the AI too.”
Not so fast! Artists DO have laws that protect their content the moment they give it a tangible form online or irl! : blogs.loc.gov/copyright/2020/0… This goes for art, writings, music, etc. It may vary from a country to another, but most of them set rules to protect creators! It's not free real estate. Also see the statement from the copyright alliance for further information: copyrightalliance.org/ai-copyr…

In the other side, AI-Created images AREN'T protected by Copyright Law: www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak…

6) “Why don’t you use AI and your own art to train it?”
Why would we? We’re already training ourselves by drawing daily, following tutorials, or finding new ways to express our art. We don’t need AI to improve, we want to improve in our own ways as artists.
However, it can find an interest if you're working in fields like animation and the likes, to make some tasks less repetitive or easier. As long as it's ethical (fed with your own content or content you're allowed to use), used responsibly and as an assistance (not doing the whole job for you), we can start considering AI as a tool.

7) “Artists are just mad and gatekeeping!”
Like… really? Defending a livehood and passion against theft and fraud is gatekeeping?
First, AI bros said artists were wrong for refusing that AI uses their art without their consent. Then same group said that artists were gatekeeping because they denounced people for doing business thanks to stolen works and pointed at the copyright problems. While there’s plenty, PLENTY, of art content, tutorials, videos, etc. that you can get for free online! Just grab a paper and pen, start your art adventure.

8) “Just embrace AI art, it’s the future!”
I’m not against technology and progress, but I prefer being called a "luddite" (since that’s what I’ve been called by AI bros) wanting ethic and regulation in tech, rather than being a sheep that blindly follows progress and can’t question the consequences in the short/long-term (even for themselves). Also, if we all should embrace it, why are many prompters covering their track (no correct tag use, no mention of AI), even hiding / removing comments when they’re called out? There are fair users tagging their stuff but many others just pretend that the generated images are their own work. There's also the risk that AI gets used (like deepfake technology is) to harass people, create illegal content, fake news, etc.

And I'll add, for those who use the term "luddite" without knowing the true meaning of it, that: "The Luddites did not rail against "progress", they railed against their callous disposal at the hands of the bosses, who jumped at the opportunity to replace workers for the sake of profit with no thought at all given to their workers' fates" (from twitter.com/CoreyBrickley/stat… ).

--> Another link that shows how far it went in some people's mind: twitter.com/michellieart/statu…
--> The risks it brings like non-consensual nudity or child abuse content: jezebel.com/trendy-portrait-ap…
--> How AI can be used for disinformation, propaganda, and so on: twitter.com/ninaism/status/162…
--> How AI is used for scams and to impersonate other people: www.businessinsider.com/ai-sca…

9) “These prompts and generated pictures are mine, then I can make profit with it!”
No you can’t, you just got a patchwork of many other artists stolen works. Everything you did was thanks to their pictures; AI wouldn’t have generated anything otherwise! Also good luck copyrighting words put together in a sentence. Recently, the United States Copyright Office (USCO) even reversed a decision to grant copyright protection to a comic book that was created thanks to AI. Artistic works must be created by humans to use copyright protection laws. For more details: www.federalregister.gov/docume…

10) “You just need to give AI a try, then you'll see what a wonderful tool it is!”
We're not discussing whether AI could be a tool (like for referencing) or could have its own category. We're denouncing the fact that it's now fully unethical (grabbing everything from the internet without anyone's consent), helping people to fraud and to deceive others and flooding the marketplace with no regard for copyrights and rules. It needs proper regulation, especially with the risk of counterfeiting and the risk to build illegal content (such as child abuse pictures or non-consensual nudity). There's also the fact that, in the end, this technology will mainly benefit to a few privileged individuals and companies, and that we're serving our own creativity on a silver place for replacement. There's no way defending a process that takes from artists and private pictures to build unruly business and hurt people's integrity or livelihood.

11) “I don't have the talent to be an artist, that's why I enjoy AI art.”
We're not judging you for the intention, but being an artist is not a talent, it's practice and patience. You'll always find people with a gift for it (like some others have a gift for music, maths, etc.), but most of us started from the roots and small. Be confident and have a look at the content other artists give for free like tutorials, videos and such to learn. You can do it!

I've even seen artists questioning their motivation, their inspiration, and their own place/legitimacy! None of what AI is capable of right now would have been possible without artists, yet we're treated so poorly and it's utterly disgusting. (Some very well written post about it can be found here: twitter.com/NatasaIlincic/stat… )

But don’t give up, regulations and lawsuits are coming! Here are a few examples:

--> www.theverge.com/2022/11/8/234…
--> arstechnica.com/information-te…
--> www.prnewswire.com/news-releas… and stablediffusionlitigation.com/
--> www.theverge.com/2023/1/17/235…
--> news.artnet.com/art-world/clas…
--> artificialintelligenceact.eu/
--> www.artnews.com/art-news/news/…

AND the European Guild for Artificial Intelligence Regulation is now on: www.egair.eu/

Also a few interesting links to watch/read and share:

The End of Art: An Argument Against Image AIs: www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjSxFA…
The Solutions to Ethical issues with Generative AI will be Social: psychoftech.substack.com/p/the…
Open Questions on the Generative Models and Fair Use Debate: manlikemishap.github.io/posts/…
The Illustrated Stable Diffusion: jalammar.github.io/illustrated…
Why Artists are Fed Up with AI Art: www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Viy3C…
Copyright Registration Guidance - Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence: www.federalregister.gov/docume…
We’re told AI neural networks ‘learn’ the way humans do. A neuroscientist explains why that’s not the case - theconversation.com/were-told-…