Ethical AI art generation? Adobe Firefly may be the answer
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Most artist I know have made sacrifices in terms of hours worked at job per week so that they can devote time to make progress on their art. In the hope of improving enough/building up enough followers to sell regularly. Commissions here and there help to make up the substantial penalty. It would be very hard for anyone not born wealthy to keep making art without that income. Fingers crossed that this makes human art more valuable.
I think it's pretty ridiculous to pretend like this massively overstated claim that applies only to conceptual art somehow affects all artists. Duchamp does not speak for everyone, he just invented conceptual art. Also, conceptual art only exists because it's in dialogue with practices and institutions of art, so this really does not apply to a consumer based pay-per-art-laundering service. Duchamp is not someone the arbiter of all IP law, art school,s individual artists practices, museums, etc etc. He's a guy who posed some interesting ideas while all those things continued to exist.
You can have a concept but unless you're actually making decisions in the process of making the thing, it's not art. Not even performance art, which is much closer to what Duchamp's intervention was (the act of exhibiting a signed urinal). Don't forget the man could also paint and was partially commenting on his own ideas and practices.
Last edited:
Upvote
-2
(0
/
-2)
Its a gray area. People do sell it. Its not illegal to produce though.
Upvote
-1
(0
/
-1)
The guy is convinced that art requires "expression of creative skill or imagination", I pointed out that it is just his opinion and nothing more. "Fountain" is a good example where this requirement doesn't work.
"unless you're actually making decisions in the process of making the thing, it's not art" - this is also just an opinion. Duchamp can't decide what art is and what is not, neither can you.
I think that "making decisions" is a pretty ridiculous requirement. Midjourney users invent a prompt, then decide which generated image they like and if they want to make variations of it. Stable Diffusion is much more flexible, plenty of decisions to make. So, is it art after all?
"a consumer based pay-per-art-laundering service" - what are you talking about? Laundering of what exactly? This article is about "ethical" AI art generator. All the ethical "problems" people were so concerned about are avoidable. All you need is a corporation with good lawyers and deep pockets. Very soon paying it for the privilege of using the laundering service will become mandatory for artists who don't want to touch unethical open source models.
"Don't forget the man could also paint" - what difference, at this point, does it make? I looked through his Wikipedia page and I think "the man could also paint" is a massive overstatement. "Fountain" seems to be his masterpiece. No wonder it's the most influential artwork of the 20th century.
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
It is not a grey area. It is illegal to sell fanart and you can be sued by the owners of the source franchise and made to pay reparations. You can avoid this outcome if the owner chooses to not pursue a lawsuit, or if you ask for permission in advance.
The problems in this case are 1) directly copying copyrighted artwork, which the fanartist may or may not be doing but the AI would do in training and 2) reproducing a unique copyrighted character design. Many AI models available right now can actually do both of these things, and they are illegal for a human when done for profit. In fact I think these issues surrounding the example of a copyrighted fictional character like poochyena is a great example of why you do not want copyrighted material in your training databases. I hope this makes it very clear why Adobe Firefly's approach is great for anyone with some foresight about potential legal hot water.
To respond to your original point, it is an interesting fact that AI is worse at copying established characters than humans, which tells use quite a bit about how differently we perceive and make images.
I think there's some confusion here. Duchamp invented conceptual art, which is deliberately considered separate from visual art. He invented the idea of language about art as an art form. This is not visual art, which does requires your own ideas and execution. Can conceptual art comment on visual art? Yes. Does it replace it? No. Visual art requires effort-- it's not like we kneel at a statue of Duchamp whenever we enter a gallery -- and I don't think that conceptual art is considered the dominant model of art in society either. Nor do I think the didactic description of art that goes into generators falls into a parodic or reflective category, so I don't that works as conceptual art either. In any case, the generator is doing the work, and it can't have intention or creativity, so there's no art. Only synthesis.
There are many other deeply influential artists of the 20th century who were very focused on labor in art.
I'm not concerned with Firefly, primarily just with companies that didn't ask people permission before using their art for training. That seems illegal and unethical to me.
Also I don't think Duchamp got copyright over the urinal just for signing his name on it. It was the event of showing it in a museum that mattered.
Last edited:
Upvote
-1
(0
/
-1)
Its a gray area because there is no line between what is fanart and what is original art. Example, "realistic mario" fan art. Its art of mario, but looks very different from the source material. The gray area is how similar/different must it be to be considered copyright infringement? Thats why its a civil matter, and not a criminal one. Whether a company will win the lawsuit is never clear cut. I sell merch at anime conventions, there is a loooooooooooooooooooooot of fan art being sold at cons.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Mad Magazine for example made numerous parodies of all kinds of copyrighted characters.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Yep, you do seem to be confused. If there is no link between the artist's labor and the merit of the work in conceptual art, it is obviously not a particularly strong requirement for art in general.
"conceptual art, which is deliberately considered separate from visual art" - indeed, you are trying to deliberately separate them. 500 selected British art world professionals didn't make this separation - the urinal is the most influential artwork of the 20th century in their opinion. No separation whatsoever.
I wouldn't be surprised if Théâtre D’opéra Spatial become the most influential art piece of 21st century.
"Visual art requires effort" - AI art requires efforts, they are just different. Jason Allen spent "many weeks of fine tuning and curating" making his piece. People duct-tape banana to a wall and it's art. It is obvious who worked more.
"In any case, the generator is doing the work, and it can't have intention or creativity, so there's no art" - opinion doesn't turn into fact just because you add "in any case". Allen had intention and creative merits of his piece are obvious.
The simple truth is, art is whatever people in general consider art. They don't "focus on labor in art". Some of them do, but vast majority can't care less. Good luck convincing them that pretty picture is all wrong because someone didn't spent months making it. Especially after century of BS with urinals and duct-taped bananas.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
So humans are able to look at other artist's work posted on the Internet, learn from it and profit from it - but AI is not?
At the pace of AI progress, how long do we really think that's going to be an effective strategy to "protect" artists?
At the pace of AI progress, how long do we really think that's going to be an effective strategy to "protect" artists?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
AI is not self aware. It doesn't have nor deserve rights like humans do. If AI doing so threatens the wellbeing of humans, it doesn't deserve to exist. Humanity first.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
There's the argument that there is some inherent value in works created in full or in part by a human. Yes, but that argument doesn't extend to every kind of work. Should we get rid of printers altogether in favor of scribes because there is more value in the scribe being a human than the printer being a machine?
And there is an important point behind this. You're free to think that artistic works in particular belong to some special category of work that others do not, but you have to actually demonstrate it and not state it blindly. I could place the same value statements on the comparison between a sewing machine and manual sewing and you'd have no particular right to question me. Why is it suddenly that art in particular is being singled out as opposed to any other human activity so aggressively?
Humans are capable of a variety of tasks, and they naturally assign a higher value to those which they themselves are capable of versus others. A carpenter might believe and hold the opinion that there is some higher value in the act of carpentry as compared to other forms of work, because that is a task he can perform well. An artist might believe that there is some higher value in art as compared to other forms of work because they can do it better than they can do other tasks, like carpentry itself for example.
Even more so, a person can believe that because they are at all capable of performing some task in any capacity, that it therefore follows that it has a higher value. A low-quality artist could think that they have a right or that we have an obligation by force to provide them with an income because they have that skill and took time to learn it so we must provide them a return on their investment.
Cars replaced horses. The horse riders clearly believed that they provided value to society that shouldn't be taken away, much as the scribes thought they had some particular importance that a printer does not provide. But that's an obviously massively biased and one-sided reasoning: they want to continue to get paid, and will take steps towards ensuring their continued need in the economy specifically to get paid, not merely because the value in their work is there on its own merits.
What is then the merit of an artist? That they are specifically good at what they do? That they exist at all regardless of their skill level, and certain rights automatically follow from their existence? That they are human or sentient or intelligent, and specifically that they are a human in itself as being a human as opposed to a machine and not as performing some specific task or action, like the nature of being an artist?
Clearly as far the end goal is concerned, namely the final artistic work, AI is somewhat competitive and with more time will likely be even more so. Hence the real problem isn't that the AI specifically will affect the economic value of human production. The manual sewer had already seen the effects of the sewing machine first hand and thus had to adapt to survive in a new environment. You could argue there's a certain quality to a scribe's work that a printer just can't replicate, but is that a specific action they perform purposefully, or the mere fact that they are human at all, regardless of whatever they are actually doing? Should we also replace printed packaging boxes with millions of hand-drawing overworked warehouse workers just to satisfy this criterion? Even better, why use a digital calculator when you can instead hire a person who's good with maths and give him a job opportunity?
I hear you saying, but art in particular is different in many ways than a calculator. Says who, though? The naturally self-interested artist themselves? If you asked a person experienced with stone tools whether they'd prefer power tools they can't operate, would they have an incentive to say yes? Is Tim Cook ever going to walk around in public with a Samsung and sing its praises? Either way, something else is doing your work better than you are. You just happen to think artwork is in a special category where a computer cannot philosophically think or obtain emotions or truly draw. But it still gets the job done regardless. It may not be technically "creative", but it sure performs all of the processes that just happen to lead to a creative end product very well.
And there is an important point behind this. You're free to think that artistic works in particular belong to some special category of work that others do not, but you have to actually demonstrate it and not state it blindly. I could place the same value statements on the comparison between a sewing machine and manual sewing and you'd have no particular right to question me. Why is it suddenly that art in particular is being singled out as opposed to any other human activity so aggressively?
Humans are capable of a variety of tasks, and they naturally assign a higher value to those which they themselves are capable of versus others. A carpenter might believe and hold the opinion that there is some higher value in the act of carpentry as compared to other forms of work, because that is a task he can perform well. An artist might believe that there is some higher value in art as compared to other forms of work because they can do it better than they can do other tasks, like carpentry itself for example.
Even more so, a person can believe that because they are at all capable of performing some task in any capacity, that it therefore follows that it has a higher value. A low-quality artist could think that they have a right or that we have an obligation by force to provide them with an income because they have that skill and took time to learn it so we must provide them a return on their investment.
Cars replaced horses. The horse riders clearly believed that they provided value to society that shouldn't be taken away, much as the scribes thought they had some particular importance that a printer does not provide. But that's an obviously massively biased and one-sided reasoning: they want to continue to get paid, and will take steps towards ensuring their continued need in the economy specifically to get paid, not merely because the value in their work is there on its own merits.
What is then the merit of an artist? That they are specifically good at what they do? That they exist at all regardless of their skill level, and certain rights automatically follow from their existence? That they are human or sentient or intelligent, and specifically that they are a human in itself as being a human as opposed to a machine and not as performing some specific task or action, like the nature of being an artist?
Clearly as far the end goal is concerned, namely the final artistic work, AI is somewhat competitive and with more time will likely be even more so. Hence the real problem isn't that the AI specifically will affect the economic value of human production. The manual sewer had already seen the effects of the sewing machine first hand and thus had to adapt to survive in a new environment. You could argue there's a certain quality to a scribe's work that a printer just can't replicate, but is that a specific action they perform purposefully, or the mere fact that they are human at all, regardless of whatever they are actually doing? Should we also replace printed packaging boxes with millions of hand-drawing overworked warehouse workers just to satisfy this criterion? Even better, why use a digital calculator when you can instead hire a person who's good with maths and give him a job opportunity?
I hear you saying, but art in particular is different in many ways than a calculator. Says who, though? The naturally self-interested artist themselves? If you asked a person experienced with stone tools whether they'd prefer power tools they can't operate, would they have an incentive to say yes? Is Tim Cook ever going to walk around in public with a Samsung and sing its praises? Either way, something else is doing your work better than you are. You just happen to think artwork is in a special category where a computer cannot philosophically think or obtain emotions or truly draw. But it still gets the job done regardless. It may not be technically "creative", but it sure performs all of the processes that just happen to lead to a creative end product very well.
Last edited:
Upvote
-2
(0
/
-2)
Art is for humanity. The satisfaction of work is for people. It would be one thing if replacing these jobs meant businesses took that money and just paid people a stipend to keep on living work free, like The Jetsons or something. That's not what's happening. These billionaires are just keeping the profits themselves. If AI is only serving giant corporations, then the tech doesn't deserve to exist.
An argument can also be made that we addressed the advent of the combustion engine entirely wrong too. I love technology, understand. I find it fascinating and both my career and hobby directly involve it. However, I understand that technology can be implemented either for the sake of humanity, or against humanity. Certain social structures need to be rethought before AI is something worth pursuing.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
For all people talk about how those who are anti-AI are Luddites, they have to admit - the Luddites were right.
The industrialization of clothing manufacture did lead to a quality issue, did lead to a loss of uniqueness of creation, and did lead to a considerable downshift in the well-being of those doing the work.
The commodification of art through AI image generation is going to lead to a situation where artists just can't do what they love anymore. It will lead to a quality issue and a loss of unique artistry.
The industrialization of clothing manufacture did lead to a quality issue, did lead to a loss of uniqueness of creation, and did lead to a considerable downshift in the well-being of those doing the work.
The commodification of art through AI image generation is going to lead to a situation where artists just can't do what they love anymore. It will lead to a quality issue and a loss of unique artistry.
Upvote
-1
(0
/
-1)
You have proved my point. The horse carriage rider who had a fixed skill and prefered to keep doing what he does best tried hard to keep himself relevant in the age of cars not because the horses themselves had some advantage in particular, but only due to self-interest and his lack of will to update his knowledge.
The artist will be soon be the same. You can think there is some specific process with art that doesn't apply to industrial work and there aren't any defined steps to what makes a good painting for example versus what defines the function of a motor engine. But we already see that the AI cares nothing for these deeper questions, the output it presents to us fullfils all our expectations of what art is like whether we admit it or not. Adapt or get left behind.
And as I have mentioned previously, I don't believe that there's any specific right afforded to someone with a job that they should keep it at all costs. Some forms of labor will just cease to exist like it or not, we're not going to keep finding excuses to make these people still work if they aren't going to learn anything new. Will there be people specifically on the lookout for human art like there are people who prefer handmade stuffs? Surely. But don't kid yourself there isn't a lot of marketing involved. Just like how people can take a look at random drips of ink and call it a masterpiece.
Last edited:
Upvote
-3
(0
/
-3)
Your "point" is apparently that art should no longer be a career path, that AI should produce it from now on and let it be stripped from humanity, and that the people deprived of work (with a skillset that doesn't transfer to other career paths) don't even deserve anything more than to starve and die somewhere out of sight.
This attitude is anti-humanity, and pro corporate. I reject it entirely.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
I did not say that art shouldn't be studied or become a career. I did say however that art on its merits of only being a human production won't be relevant soon enough. If your standard is "at least a talking, walking being made it" regardless of how good it actually is, you're in for a rude awakening.
Upvote
-1
(0
/
-1)
You keep acting like I'm somehow ignorant of the economic realities. I know. I just don't care about that. I think the economy should serve people, not the other way around, and if something this devastating to people is going to happen, it should be stopped by the force of law. I know full well that outside of that, economic forces will pressure corporations to do this. This is the problem with capitalism as faith (with the god being the "invisible hand of the market"). The market can make terrible decisions, and it should be prevented from doing so in some cases.
Upvote
-1
(0
/
-1)
"Regardless of how good it is"? Who died and made you the art critic? People draw terrible art all the time and I fucking love it!
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)