- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Netflix Japan uses AI in anime (artists not happy)
Posted on 2/7/23 at 7:44 pm
Posted on 2/7/23 at 7:44 pm
Netflix says there's a shortage of anime artists, underemployed artists say working conditions should be better, etc.
AI created backgrounds are good looking. Anime is a major big seller for Netflix.
A background look at the industry,
LINK
AI created backgrounds are good looking. Anime is a major big seller for Netflix.
A background look at the industry,
LINK
quote:
Screenshots from the end credits of The Boy and the Dog, showing a hand-drawn primary sketch (left) and an A.I. generated background (right). Photo: @NetflixJP on Twitter
Posted on 2/7/23 at 7:53 pm to real turf fan
The problem with AI is that it can’t create art.
It absorbed other people’s images and melds them together.
So it’s basically just plagiarizing. Which is a pretty uncool way to lose a job.
Now of course they probably just hire a few animators have them pump out imagoes and the AI uses those z
It absorbed other people’s images and melds them together.
So it’s basically just plagiarizing. Which is a pretty uncool way to lose a job.
Now of course they probably just hire a few animators have them pump out imagoes and the AI uses those z
Posted on 2/8/23 at 7:57 am to SammyTiger
quote:
The problem with AI is that it can’t create art.
It absorbed other people’s images and melds them together.
So it’s basically just plagiarizing. Which is a pretty uncool way to lose a job.
My wife and I follow one artist, who goes by Loish online, who confirmed that she discovered that one of the AI developers used her art without permission or compensation to feed it into their software.
AI's not smart enough, as you said, to actually "create" anything - it's ripping off real artists and simply combining things.
AI is better designed to put accountants out of work than artists, but for whatever reason AI developers went this route instead.
Posted on 2/8/23 at 8:53 am to SammyTiger
quote:
The problem with AI is that it can’t create art.
It absorbed other people’s images and melds them together.
Literally all "art" is. A human brain remixing things that it's seen is similar to a computer remixing available inputs.
Posted on 2/8/23 at 8:57 am to skrayper
quote:
she discovered that one of the AI developers used her art without permission or compensation to feed it into their software.
Viewing an art piece and then creating your own piece with stylistic elements of the original is not theft. It's how creativity naturally occurs. Of course, an artist with a vested interest in protecting their income source would argue against anything that devalues their revenue stream. That protectionist instinct does not make their argument valid. Especially when the human's style is based on their perception and study of everything that's come before them. Fair Use dictates that a substantive change to the original is a new product. Regardless of the originators butthurt.
Posted on 2/8/23 at 12:19 pm to blackinthesaddle
quote:
Viewing an art piece and then creating your own piece with stylistic elements of the original is not theft. It's how creativity naturally occurs. Of course, an artist with a vested interest in protecting their income source would argue against anything that devalues their revenue stream. That protectionist instinct does not make their argument valid. Especially when the human's style is based on their perception and study of everything that's come before them. Fair Use dictates that a substantive change to the original is a new product. Regardless of the originators butthurt.
So you're comparing taking other's people work, running it through an application, and generating a similar piece in a few moments to a person observing various art forms, spending years honing their craft, and generating something where you MIGHT see the influence of other artists?
Is this a "how dare you develop a skill I don't have, now I want stuff that makes you irrelevant" mentality?
Posted on 2/8/23 at 1:45 pm to skrayper
quote:
So you're comparing taking other's people work, running it through an application, and generating a similar piece in a few moments to a person observing various art forms, spending years honing their craft, and generating something where you MIGHT see the influence of other artists?
Is this a "how dare you develop a skill I don't have, now I want stuff that makes you irrelevant" mentality?
No, this is a "your skills have been made an obsolete time sink due to an advance in technology" mentality. You see, when guns became more effective, archers who had honed their skills over years became obsolete, as the skill set needed for success changed. Archers still exist, but in a niche market now, just as the skilled hand artist will become. The new tech opens new opportunities. Instead of the greatest technical skill in a niche being the most valuable, now the person with the most creative ideals when it comes to prompts will have a higher market value. The "arts" aren't dead because of this technological change, they are transformed.
Think about it this way, the youtuber artist bitching about it uses photos taken by another person as a reference. Yet, he/she probably doesn't see her transmutation of the form he's/she's copying as theft, because they're making changes to it and recreating it in another medium. The youtuber cannot see the irony of their own position and you, a blind consumer, do not see it either.
Posted on 2/8/23 at 1:57 pm to real turf fan
It's theft. Pure and simple.
It's not just another "next step" in technology. It relies on the appropriation of the work of others.
You spent your life making art? frick you. I'm taking your art, I'm not going to pay you for it, and if it causes your income to decrease and mine to increase, then frick you again.
It's not just another "next step" in technology. It relies on the appropriation of the work of others.
You spent your life making art? frick you. I'm taking your art, I'm not going to pay you for it, and if it causes your income to decrease and mine to increase, then frick you again.
Posted on 2/8/23 at 2:06 pm to Fewer Kilometers
There is a class action lawsuit filed about this (maybe more than one?). I guess the courts will decide.
This post was edited on 2/8/23 at 2:06 pm
Posted on 2/8/23 at 2:06 pm to Fewer Kilometers
quote:
It's theft. Pure and simple.
The origin work still exists in the space it was placed. The work wasn't duplicated and sold. It's not pure or simple as a one to one comparison.
quote:
It's not just another "next step" in technology. It relies on the appropriation of the work of others.
All artwork is derivative. What artists are arguing is for the end of cultural development. A stagnant stalemate where somehow their appropriated thing is valuable but past things are not and future things are impossible to create.
quote:
it causes your income to decrease and mine to increase
So is the industrial cycle, my friend. You've taken a personal luxury time waste and commoditized it, and now you're upset that engineers have industrialized it through the use of machinery? Your potter's wheel still has value, just fewer willing to pay your production cost.
Posted on 2/8/23 at 3:06 pm to blackinthesaddle
quote:
You've taken a personal luxury time waste and commoditized it, and now you're upset that engineers have industrialized it through the use of machinery?
So basically what you're saying is that you do not believe that the creation of art is a worthy pursuit, and your bias in this regard is the principal reason for your opinion.
quote:
All artwork is derivative. What artists are arguing is for the end of cultural development.
Well that's absolutely false. You don't seem to understand what "cultural development" even is.
Posted on 2/8/23 at 3:20 pm to skrayper
quote:
So basically what you're saying is that you do not believe that the creation of art is a worthy pursuit, and your bias in this regard is the principal reason for your opinion.
Define "worthy".
The worth of something is determined by the individual. So, do I believe that producing art has value? Yes, for the producer. Does it have value for the consumer? Only if/when the consumer finds value in it. In a survival scenario, there is no time for art, so it's value then is zero. Once needs are met, production of art may become valuable as free time is available, a luxury. You seem to be elevating the "artist" who sees their production as "a work", when it is actually just "work", non-utilitarian work.
The machinery has cut the "workload" into a microsecond, thus devaluing the cost of production. Further, it has devalued detail work as the detail time has been eliminated. I understand why commercial artists are freaking out. However, many of them gleefully told West Virginia coalminers to "learn to code" when their jobs became obsolete. It appears that the coalminers have indeed learned to code.
quote:
You don't seem to understand what "cultural development" even is.
Educate me.
From my understanding, culture develops from shared ideals. A person, or group, does something unique and then the surrounding people or groups copy it and add their own twists. Common motifs develop over time and a style or trend can be seen. This continues until a new element is added from within the group, or from contact with other cultures. Then the process starts anew.
Posted on 2/8/23 at 5:06 pm to blackinthesaddle
All of these analogies in defense of AI appropriating art, but not one of the examples have the "next step" relying on the previous creators to continue forward. It's not a case of a better mousetrap. It's a program that will require the leech to continuously feed off of the work of others or it dies.
Posted on 2/8/23 at 7:54 pm to blackinthesaddle
quote:
No, this is a "your skills have been made an obsolete time sink due to an advance in technology" mentality.
Except if people don’t keep making art for the AI to steal it stops creating new art. It just keeps remixing the same styles.
Humans can adapt new styles. AI needs to see a style to recreate it.
Posted on 2/8/23 at 8:00 pm to SammyTiger
I really hate the argument that all human art is derivative of other art, that quite literally can’t be true because there was a time in which no paint existed on a canvas. The art was created and different styles emerged. Sure, most art is likely derivative, but it’s overly reductive to the point of absurdity to say it all is.
Posted on 2/8/23 at 8:01 pm to blackinthesaddle
quote:
No, this is a "your skills have been made an obsolete time sink due to an advance in technology" mentality. You see, when guns became more effective, archers who had honed their skills over years became obsolete, as the skill set needed for success changed. Archers still exist, but in a niche market now, just as the skilled hand artist will become. The new tech opens new opportunities. Instead of the greatest technical skill in a niche being the most valuable, now the person with the most creative ideals when it comes to prompts will have a higher market value. The "arts" aren't dead because of this technological change, they are transformed. Think about it this way, the youtuber artist bitching about it uses photos taken by another person as a reference. Yet, he/she probably doesn't see her transmutation of the form he's/she's copying as theft, because they're making changes to it and recreating it in another medium. The youtuber cannot see the irony of their own position and you, a blind consumer, do not see it either.
Wildly more articulate than I could have put it, but this is my exact sentiment. Well said, sir.
Posted on 2/8/23 at 8:11 pm to Fewer Kilometers
quote:
It's theft. Pure and simple. It's not just another "next step" in technology. It relies on the appropriation of the work of others. You spent your life making art? frick you. I'm taking your art, I'm not going to pay you for it, and if it causes your income to decrease and mine to increase, then frick you again.
I mean I can’t remember if it was Midjourney or something else, but people have gotten these algorithms to reproduce art that includes falsified signatures of artists on the pieces.
I think that’s where my ethical red flags went full mast. I also view this as a form of theft against every artist whose pieces were used to train these algorithms without their consent.
This post was edited on 2/8/23 at 8:16 pm
Posted on 2/8/23 at 8:15 pm to blackinthesaddle
quote:
Literally all "art" is. A human brain remixing things that it's seen is similar to a computer remixing available inputs.
Human brain is connected to a soul.
Posted on 2/8/23 at 8:16 pm to blackinthesaddle
quote:
Literally all "art" is. A human brain remixing things that it's seen is similar to a computer remixing available inputs.
That’s not true though.
If you raised a human in a bubble with no art and gave them paint and a window they could produce a unique painting.
AI couldn’t. It would produce a picture unless you showed it paintings.
This post was edited on 2/8/23 at 8:18 pm
Posted on 2/8/23 at 8:18 pm to TomBuchanan
quote:
Human brain is connected to a soul.
There’s a very real philosophical underpinning to all of this found in the mind-body problem. Materialists think the human mind is an algorithm exclusively based on the hardware of a meat computer we call the brain, and see the notion of creativity as either illusory or something that can be modeled as an algorithm.
I fall into a different camp, and while I think there are useful analogies to explain how a neural network is trained to optimize performance that compare it to human learning, we would be remiss to lose sight that these are merely analogies. There are fundamental differences in the “learning” process and computational methods like backpropagation aren’t feasible biological explanations for human learning.
These algorithms aren’t capable of any form of understanding like a human is, and by conflating these algorithms with the human mind I think all we end up doing is dehumanizing the conscious experience.
quote:
If you raised a human in a bubble with no art and gave them paint and a window they could produce a unique painting.
Well put, and the concept of “understanding” is IMO central to why this is so.
This post was edited on 2/8/23 at 8:42 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News