this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2023
222 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37343 readers
480 users here now

Rumors, happenings, and innovations in the technology sphere. If it's technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Greg Rutkowski, a digital artist known for his surreal style, opposes AI art but his name and style have been frequently used by AI art generators without his consent. In response, Stable Diffusion removed his work from their dataset in version 2.0. However, the community has now created a tool to emulate Rutkowski's style against his wishes using a LoRA model. While some argue this is unethical, others justify it since Rutkowski's art has already been widely used in Stable Diffusion 1.5. The debate highlights the blurry line between innovation and infringement in the emerging field of AI art.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 25 points 11 months ago (60 children)

His art was not "stolen." That's not an accurate word to describe this process with.

It's not so much that "it was done before so it's fine now" as "it's a well-understood part of many peoples' workflows" that can be used to justify it. As well as the view that there was nothing wrong with doing it the first time, so what's wrong with doing it a second time?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 11 months ago (22 children)

pirating photoshop is a well-understood part of many peoples' workflows. that doesn't make it legal or condoned by adobe

[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago (21 children)

I don't know what this has to do with anything. Nothing was "pirated", either.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

i'm not making a moral comment on anything, including piracy. i'm saying "but it's part of my established workflow" is not an excuse for something morally wrong.

only click here if you understand analogy and hyperbole

if i say "i can't write without kicking a few babies first", it's not an excuse to keep kicking babies. i just have to stop writing, or maybe find another workflow

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The difference is that kicking babies is illegal whereas training and running an AI is not. Kind of a big difference.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

did you click the thing saying that you understand analogies?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You're using an analogy as the basis for an argument. That's not what analogies are for. Analogies are useful explanatory tools, but only within a limited domain. Kicking a baby is not the same as creating an artwork, so there are areas in which they don't map to each other.

You can't dodge flaws in your argument by adding a "don't respond unless you agree with me" clause on your comment.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

You're using an analogy as the basis for an argument. That's not what analogies are for. Analogies are useful explanatory tools, but only within a limited domain

actually that's exactly what i was using it for.

Kicking a baby is not the same[^1] as creating an artwork, so there are areas in which they don't map to each other.

if you read carefully, you'll see that writing is analogous to creating an artwork, and kicking a baby is analogous to doing something that someone has asked you not to, and you're continuing anyways. if you read even more carefully, you'll see that i implied i wasn't making a moral comment on ai, piracy, or even kicking babies

You can't dodge flaws in your argument by adding a "don't respond unless you agree with me" clause on your comment.

i didn't intend to. i did it so i wouldn't have to waste my time arguing with those who don't understand analogies. however i seem to be doing that anyways, so if you'll excuse me, i'm going to stop


edit: okay, i've been reading the rest of this thread, and you clearly don't understand analogy. i have no idea why you clicked on my comment

[^1]: yes. analogous doesn't mean "the same". it means "able to draw demonstrative parallels between

load more comments (19 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
load more comments (56 replies)