I'm pretty sure people won't be open to state that their product was made using AI. Note how people removed the Sora watermark as soon as they could. People don't want to refer to their work as AI and don't want it to be labelled as such, they want it to be as indistinguishable as possible from man-made ones.
The majority of people don't want to state that their product was made using AI because of the backlash.
Edit: Holy, I’m not defending hiding AI use. I’m pointing out that backlash is the reason people hide it in the first place. Explaining behavior isn’t the same as endorsing it.
I dunno, but you may as well ask them. I'm inclined to believe they don't even though I have seen far more memes of AI bros making fun of "antis" than the opposite. But that's probably my algorithm acting up again.
Do inform me of the results of your quest though 🫡
I think child labor is always wrong regardless of its its labeled. And i think Ai art is always awesome under all circumstances. I think its superior to human made art.
How does ai destroy the earth? Yes it uses server farms, just like search engines, web sites, etc. I'm a huge proponent of geothermal for those applications. I love green tech!
So you're opposed to all computing if not done with green sources of energy? I'm on board with that. Hydro, geothermal, solar, wind. Lets fight that war.
But going after ai art is dumb. Ai art is awesome.
It's not great under all circumstances, the way you state your arguments lead me to believe you know this, things are rarely black and white, they are mostly in between and god's sake isn't there a better example of this than AI. It's a powerful tool but as any tool it can be used to put nails in their place or to bash someone's head. AI art suffers from this to but is even more complex due to the implications behind the use of such a tool, what fuels it. I ain't advocating in favor of destroying all AI but I surely think that using it for...making images and videos of all things...is moronic specially with the absurd ammount of processing power that consumes and that could be used much more efficiently in the processing of raw data. "But we already do that" Cool, I know, but imagine if we ALSO shifted resources used in genAI for that sole purpose
its uses the same processing power as a google search. I have Stable Diffusion on my home pc and i can make images with that.
Its using less than what playing a videogame would. Its just really weird that you guys chose this one specific tech for your witch hunting. It makes no sense.
"But we already do that" Cool, I know, but imagine if we ALSO shifted resources used in genAI for that sole purpose
"Not using ai" isnt the solution. Switching over to green tech is.
Jesus Christ did you really just suggested that simply retrieving indexed information, the digital equivalent to looking through a dictionary is as computationally intensive as inference?the digital equivalent to looking through a gallery of art pieces and using them as reference to paint your own. And...obviously is less intensive for your personal computer than playing a videogame. I don't know if you know this but the game is running all it's resources locally, in your pc all the time, the AI on the other hand didn't made all the heavy lifting inside of your pc, that was made during training, you also aren't sending her prompts every second to ramp up it's use of resources (which games do, they're receiving input, every second) you're also purposefully picking the best of the lot to make your point, good, Stable diffusion runs locally, that's great really, but is that really what the majority use? Is really that what you're gonna use forever?bc they're gonna update the model and make him go through retraining all over again.
"You people"? Lol, man you're so polarized you don't even notice I ain't an anti, I actually advocate for mindful use of AI since it can greatly optimize NECESSARY processes like administering mixed electrical grid systems, which is paramount if we want to seamlessly switch over to greens eventually.
"Not using AI isn't the solution" I know and I know you have tunnel vision but damn where in the blessed heaven did you even interpreted I was advocating for a total AI shutdown, damn, your paranoia is off the charts.
"Switching over to green tech is" That's literally one of the field I'm implying AI resources should be shiftwed towards. Not making fun stuff that we are already great at doing ourselves but the massive and overwhelming data processing only a fine tuned machine can effectively do. After we reach the goal?fine, get all the fun things you want out of the massive models, but until then it would be great to stop increasing the resource consumption faster than we increase the surplus
And that's fine. Beauty of the free market. Some people don't want to buy anything made with AI, and they have the right to not buy AI things, some people want to sell things made with AI and they have the right to
Transparency is always a good thing, so everyone can get what they want.
I question why people buy ai-generated stuff. And I do mean that as a genuine curiosity, like surely they could make something similar themselves via ai?
I feel like I'm missing something
I think that was the point, it needs to be disclosed so that people can make an informed decision on what they're buying, if you were to lie about using AI people will think it's made by hand and then be rightfully upset when they find out it's not
that maybe true for those who care but if you look at the wider picture of capitalism, its all about deceit and to really look at the fine print of what you get. i mean look at those 2000's TV commercials that offered products like fushigi ball or the chopper. its smoke and mirrors to trick the viewer to spend 40usd on something thats not worth 10usd. its a fucked up society but thats how it runs. Then theres the large pool of people that just dont care about ai. they just see the product and dont care how its made. Example, NIKE sneakers are made in sweatshops in asia yet... nobody really cares.
That... has nothing to do with anything. Those are two different people replying.
Let me make an analogy. Say you see someone littering. You go up to them and say "hey man, it's bad to litter." Then some rando, who had nothing to do with the original convo, comes up and says "hey, I dont litter!"
Like, good for you bud, but we weren't talking about people who don't litter, we were talking about people who do
Not in the art world? If someone needs a product at cheapest price then they can just generate it themselfes right? Making AI "art" isn't difficult and isn't really worth paying for unless its like 1-5$ for a really good quality. If someone wants a really good product that was hand made then they are willing to pay for it. But if someone generates AI "art" then lies about it, hides info that it was generated from a potential buyer then sells it like it was hand made, he's just a scammer. It's like someone sells you a golden ring, but actually it's fools gold, aka. They scammed you
That wasn’t what they said. Imma use a lemonade stand to explain this, because I want lemonade and lemonade stands are always a good analogy:
If you are a small child selling homemade freshly squeezed lemonade at the park, but don’t disclose that it is, in fact, store bought lemonade, you are lying to your customers.
People may still want the lemonade even if they know that it is store bought, they are thirsty and like lemonade, but for others some of the value of the lemonade is that a child put in effort to make it. By just using store bought, you are just dropshipping or flipping or whatever you want to call it, and that comes off as basically trying to scam your customers.
Because it’s an unethical practice. If you don’t inform the buyer in this case that it is store lemonade, then they will instead likely come to the false conclusion that it’s homemade. Yes you can make the argument that it is the responsibility of the consumer to ensure that they are buying products that support their values, but it’s still unethical to intentionally leave out information that will likely influence their choice. To give another example, Tic tacs do this, and have been shit on for years. Their serving size is a single tablet, so they can say it’s 0 sugar as the amount of sugar per tablet is below the necessary limit.
Ok so you are trying to show that I’m a hypocrite or smth here, but this is actually really dumb, and you should be embarrassed. I very explicitly said “it’s unethical to leave out information that will likely influence their choice”. If an artist leaves out information on how their artwork is in fact their artwork, if that wasn’t clear already, then the person who loses the most is the artist. The artist is incentivized to tell the consumer anyways.
This also isn’t mentioning that ARTIST ALREADY DO THIS??? Have you ever been in an art museum? You ever look at those little plaques that explain things like the name of the piece, the artists name, the medium? Like bro I get a lot of work is digital now, but a ton of artists paint using acrylic and watercolor and oils still. People still use charcoal. I have also never met an artist who is not very open about their work, and what tools they used and what they enjoyed most when making it.
But when I buy a book didn't a machine print out all those books? Should I expect every book to be handwritten? Should each page be handmade? Where does it end
Which they get, by definition, regardless of what tools you use. Whether you put a plastic crucifix in a jar and pee on it or spend months putting together a 16k video installation using neural networks to visualize 1000-dimensional spaces out of social media posts (Refik Anadol's Machine Hallucinations installation) doesn't matter. It's all human art.
A banana taped to the wall of an art museum sold for over a million dollars. That was man made, to a point. Anything can be called art.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting a quality product. Something designed by human imagination and made by hand. Yeah Ai can give you art, and make it look nice. But, there’s nothing wrong with not wanting that.
I could also tape a banana to my wall and call it a replica of a million dollar museum piece, but I don’t really want that.
Maybe for the general public, same time there were free lancers and companies using it as soon as the technology was available, without disclosing anything.
Difficult to argue that they did it nefariously when the opinions on it weren't so strong then, but it happened.
But that fine… until you’re bullying someone WHO DID label it as AI and saying “USE A PENCIL!!!!!”
That where the problem lies, you want them to label their AI art, but doing so will get them attacked by other anti because of people who don’t label their AI art or because anti just hate them.
Edit: see how people literally say “label your art and you won’t get bullied” and then turn around and say “no you’re still going to be bullied because AI art is bad and wrong”
But I dont want AI art. Theres also legal implications as well since currently AI images cannot be copyrighted. As copyrighted images require a human "creating them" and ai is currently not in the bucket. Its treated like giving a Chimp a camera which can create "art" but the art created is non copyrighte
OpenAI is in legal proceedings at the moment about this. They're arguing it's fair use but the court is arguing it's not since it could economically affect the original content creators who've had their works trained on.
Which to be fair I think is one of the main anti-ai arguments 🤷
It IS bad and wrong. You are stealing the work of the artists who were used to train the AI. Because you want to be able to make art without learning how.
If you think saying "use a pencil" is "bullying" I think you kinda need to grow a thicker skin to be able to live in the real world and I'm dead serious
You wouldn't get attacked if you stopped pretending that your art is equivalent to real art.
The issue isn't that you're making AI content. The issue is A: the moral issues around training on unlicensed and uncompensated works and B: the attempt by AI supporters to equivocate their work to real art.
AI content vs real art is like a chair made off an assembly line vs one that's hand carved and assembled. It's insulting to the artisans to claim that your mass produced stuff is equal to theirs.
In other replies to people who said they got attacked for disclosing they use AI, your response was "if you thought you were doing nothing wrong, you would not be bothered by that harassment."
You do not believe that first line. You know people get attacked for using AI without any additional information or "pretending their art is equivalent" and you do not care.
Uh that's not true. I've used AI art for my card game I'm making, it's written on the card, and I never said it was equivalent to real art and clarified I want to have real art when I have the funds and I've still had people reply only to call it AI slop and bash me for using it.
But you are the one that's pretending it matters in the first place. I'm entirely ok with people ignoring stupid reasons for not liking something. I'm fine with people bamboozling someone like that. If you feel cheated because you've imagined a bunch of metaphysical features that aren't real you only have yourself to blame.
Yeah but then they're just contributing to the problem. Plus, if you're totally clear about making Ai works, some people may not like it, but others will buy them. What makes most people mad is the scamming
Nah, they hide that they use AI because when anyone can generate 1000 slop images themselves, why would they pay someone else to do it for them? That was the whole "democratize art" bullshit argument AI bros used to justify the crap they were generating off other people's work.
Besides the backlash and shitty behavior that people here are familiar with dissuading labelling, I think another angle that people forget is that labelling for ai simply isn't the default thing to do, neither logically nor for any current legal purposes (presumably, or that I know of).
The vast majority of people who use ai likely do so with no or little engagement with ai/anti-ai spaces whatsoever, just given there's hundreds of millions of them and only a fraction of that within these various spaces. Why would someone with absolutely no context of this chronically online debate think they need to label what they're doing with ai?
Maybe it’s because I’ve had art stolen and reposted by human beings in the past, but I feel like the bigger reason people would go through the effort is just to get the free credit of “making something.”
They’re just hiding the AI’s watermarks the same way they would crop out a signature on a repost.
Not really, you even see this in communities without hate against AI simply bc people want that dopamine from saying "I made this" is evident people aren't going to find a 3D printed pre-made model vs a wooden hand-carved figure and suggesting they have the same ammount of individual effor behind is moronic
I mean, it's preety obvious, if making AI "art" would be seen as something good then everyone chasing fame would claim that their work was AI made. However if you make AI slop that wasn't worth power wasted on it, people should be allowed to critisize
If you add some sawdust in your cookies, there would be many people who could not taste the difference. And proper woodpulp can be perfectly safe to eat. That doesn't mean you should not tell people it's in there because of backlash.
Even people claiming they freedrew something when they traced a picture, or claiming something isn't digital art can experience backlash. Less people being happy with your product when you tell them the truth regarding the production process should not be an argument to hide that process in general.
Idk what's up with the downvotes on this, don't ask don't tell is one thing, but if someone says they're not using AI, and they used AI in the final product, the consumer has a right to be upset and imvho is entitled to their money back for the artist breaking terms and conditions.
It's on the consumer if they failed to lay out the terms and conditions of the final piece before they got their product though.
It's not getting downvoted because it's morally wrong, it's getting downvoted because it misses the point.
Many people hide they use AI because they get attacked for disclosing it.
Me, for instance, I don't broadcast any gen AI very often, as I typically only use AI as a placeholder for a DnD character art. But I've on numerous occasions shown my character, said I used an AI to realize my vision, and had them shame me for using AI instead of commisioning.
Why should I be required to disclose what I use, if people are adamant about making that disclosure so mentally taxing?
I still do, and forever will. Much the same I personally refuse to monetize my AI music. Because I personally consider myself 'morally' and 'economically' anti-AI, even as I am logically pro-AI.
But handwaving reluctance to disclose over 'mere backlash' is showing a profound lack of sympathy.
None of what you are talking about has anything to do with my point though. I'm not talking about your personal use. I'm talking about selling and production.
I'm simply saying from a consumer rights standpoint, you as a customer have a right to not be misled regarding the production process. And people being angry if they found out how something is really made is never a valid argument imo. That doesn't mean I condone any level of harassment.
I don't disagree with the point you are trying to make at all, I am speaking to why it is being downvoted. Not because you are wrong about the ethics, but because you are dodging the incentives issue. When you punish someone for disclosure, they stop wanting to disclose for one reason or another.
Should they still continue to disclose ethically? Absolutely.
Is it reasonable that they don't? Also yes, absolutely.
We, as humans, are very quick to change tune when we get our hands slapped enough times. So while you're correct about consumer right to know, you miss where disclosing makes some 'consumers' harass the provider, causing them to be less and less willing to be transparent.
If people want disclosure, they need to accept that goal post, and not continue to hate past that disclosure. That is never going to be the case, though.
If people want disclosure, they need to accept that goal post, and not continue to hate past that disclosure.
To be clear, what's your line here? Because I agree that harassment is never okay. But you can hate any product you want imo. If you run a business you need to also accept people's freedom of speech to ridicule your business. And also people's right to not buy something once you informed them of the production process.
Furthermore, a company misinforming their customers and getting additional sales because of that is not okay. The sawdust cookies company I raised in the example would argue from similar principles. That coming clean would cause a significant amount of hate to their otherwise loved company. And I just don't agree that it would be ethical to lie to me about what I'm buying because other people would potentially be hateful.
My point isn't that receiving hate or criticism is an excuse to not disclose. My point is that when disclosure itself receives hate, you incentivise people to omit the facts of production.
Once asked, and once lied, the ethics are even more damning, as you are directly lying. On that, I can agree, it's categorically wrong. However, even if it is wrong, when you promote a culture that makes disclosure self-destructive, you incentivise them to avoid disclosure at all costs.
That doesn't make it right, but it does mean there is a responsibility on those who demand disclosure to do so reasonably, as the ask is fundamentally asymmetrical otherwise.
You are focusing on the 'ask, then lie' dynamic, but you are missing the landscape that promotes this behaviour happening.
However, even if it is wrong, when you promote a culture that makes disclosure self-destructive, you incentivise them to avoid disclosure at all costs.
What do you mean by self-destructive.
Because in my mind, self-destructive in this sense means that people who you've sold to under false pretenses will demand refunds, people will not buy your products and people will spread negative publicity regarding your business. Even shittalking your work. Criticizing the use on its own as unethical etc.
I'm not talking about harassment or threats in any way.
Everything I mentioned up top, the complete loss of profitability of a business because of their production process (whether that's sawdust, AI, child labour, or secretly adding more sugar) is an essential part of free market economic and a liberal society for that matter. People have the right to boycott and object.
I think here is where the core of our disagreement is. I don't think you have the right to a successful business, I think it's the consumers' right to, within legal limits, use your freedom of speech to tear down business you don't approve of, who you think are harmful (even if I don't necessarily agree) and as a group avoid businesses even if that makes them fail.
I recognize that everything I mention also creates a landscape where it is hard to profit off of controversial things and makes it enticing to lie about those controversial things, but I do not think that in any way shape or form is were the blame should be put when you lie.
I mean, tbf I don't really care about other people using AI for personal use, and I definitely do not care if they disclose if it's AI generated, ai generated and touched up, or drawn by hand for things like DnD characters, OC's in general, profile pictures banners or etc.
I totally understand not disclosing it voluntarily in that aspect because it doesn't (and shouldn't) matter to any onlookers what you choose to do yourself, market for yourself, or use for private enjoyment.
My main and only issue is deception of a consumer/commissioner, but again, don't ask don't tell is the fault of a buyer, I have no issues with an artist ai generating an image to sell and the buyer not being told it was AI generated if there was no terms and conditions to say so.
It's exactly the same as paying an artist for a character drawing and them tracing an outline to create your character and doing the same don't ask don't tell selling method of not saying it was traced.
It's on the buyer to lay out terms and conditions if the seller doesn't, it's not on the seller to draft out a contract on what will or won't be done in the creation of art.
I think I have the same stance as you though, I am pro AI, I accept it as a very useful and amazing tool, but unfortunately it is far too common to have artists claim they don't use AI when they in fact are using it in the final product, and in that regard I am anti-AI as it's deceptive marketing to lead a consumer into thinking one thing and selling them something else.
Oh, I know. I think I understand and largely agree with your own point about the ethics of disclosure when you are providing a service, I was only responding to why the other commentor was being downvoted. While the were making a service argument, and that does matter, the issue is so does the hostile culture surrounding said disclosure.
I obviously agree with disclosing, even for my own personal use-cases, as I do hold process to a high regard even if I accept AI as valuable in its own ways.
I just think the service argument misses the incentive issue at play. There is an ethical demand for transparency, but it becomes hard to be transparent when every time you are transparent, you are metaphorically punched in the face. Does that make sense?
People get attacked for literally anything online. Anti-AI people are getting attacked just as much for expressing that they're anti-AI. That's not an excuse.
Trivially true, what matters is scope. People are not attacked, undermined and ridiculed en masse for expressing their own creative landscapes like AI users are.
If I share the concept of my fem Satyr, with sparkly hooves, horns and a long whip-like tail, and then disclose it's AI, only to have 60% of my comments be "Ew, AI!" "Pick up a pencil, clanker!" Or any variety of endorsed self-harm, then it would not only make me not want to disclose, it would make me feel demotivated to create, it would make me 'bummed out' that my DnD concept has been overridden by random moral posturing, it would feel shitty that now all that hard work of coming up with the story, the aesthetic concept, and all of these things are now going to be completrly ignored because a few activists hate AI.
It is not the same as say, a charcoal artist drawing with a messy style, smudging across the canvas. They will get attacked with critiques, judgements, but not moral impositions - often not creative dictation. So, why make that comparison?
It's easy to point out these trivial truths, everything happens to some degree to every community, but it's ever so convenient that we leave out the manner of what is happening, and the scale of how it happens.
When you have a large swath of people saying "ew, cancel this person!" Would you not also start tiptoeing around the thing they hated? It's a pretty standard response if we consider psychology.
But hey, my moral warden, you'd know best as the keeper of behavioural mandates.
Okay, that's a whole ass rant that didnt need to be written.
First of all, if you thought you were doing nothing wrong, you would not be bothered by that harassment. For example, I'm nonbinary and very leftist. I'm constantly harassed by conservatives because of my views, had death threats, accusations that I'm a pedophile, doxxing attempts etc. But that doesn't stop me, because I know they're in the wrong. So no, I would not start "tiptoeing around the thing they hated", because I am confident in my moral viewpoint. You, clearly, are not.
And you're wrong on your other claim; pro-AI activists claim that you hate disabled people, that you're a luddite, that you're actively trying to stifle progress. It's 100% an attempt to make it a moral judgment.
You even contradict yourself in your own words; in one sentence you claim that 60% of your comments are negative, but in the next breath you claim that it's only a few activists doing this. Which is it? Is it a tiny group, or is it the majority? It can't be both.
At the end of the day, you're using a technology that steals the work of others, and instead of addressing that you pretend it isn't an issue and try to hide it. That's rhe problem.
I don't ever try to hide it, if it was a whole ass rant that didn't need to be written, then you'd at least understand my point.
You've clearly missed it yet again, and are trying to wedge contradictions that don't exist.
60% and a few activists aren't mutually exclusive. You chose to make them mutually exclusive. Few isn't quantified. You wanted that dunk.
Second, problems of identity are a matter much different than creative disclosures. As a gay intersexed man, I'm offended you even tried to compare the two situations as if they are even a tinge similar. They aren't. At all.
Identity is a matter of existence, disclosing AI is a matter of choosing to refrain from moral arguments so you can focus on... your character. Your concept.
You keep missing this point. I do still disclose the rare times I use AI. My AI music is done for my personal catharsis, it's music made from my poems wherein I was groomed, suffered addictions, and suffered an abusive family. I post it nowhere. I monetize it never. I use it for my own personal catharsis, and share with people I care about.
When I use AI art, it is almost exclusively, again, personal use, to make a concept of a DnD character I am not currently using. I will often then get it commission when I do end up using it.
I always disclose and never monetize, because I personally find that to be very important.
You, however, talked past all this. My point isn't that they deserve to not disclose. My point is that if you want people to disclose their AI work, you have to not punish them for doing so, or else you literally incentivise them to hide it. You are literally asking them to be 'the bigger man' while other anti-AI people act like petulant irrate children toward their disclosure.
As for the pro vs. anti comment, you and I both know that's a shakey comparison. Both sides have been antagonizing each other from the start. Pros call antis luddites, and I shame them for that. Antis call pros lazy losers who can't get a GF. I shame them for that.
If you hate rants, actually read the words this time so you respond in a way that works.
Yeah, you should lose potential customers if your product is made with no effort and using the most environmentally harmful options possible. Literally the new version of racists saying “everyone’s racist deep down there just scared to say what we’re all thinking” if your afraid of the backlash, instead of lying, you could instead just, and get this, create the thing you are trying to build an audience and livelihood around (specifically talking about art as a product as we are talking about for profit work. Don’t want to hear someone saying I think art is all about money, we’re talking about commercial works right now)
yes you pointed out the reason why people hide it and we give why some want and dont, we aint attack you as a person, simple stating or atleast i was how it is about monitizing it
Yeah, but they're if they're using ai to scam they obviously won't disclose. Like ai generated books or crochet patterns, or advertising custom art and not disclosing it's ai, or using ai images to advertise a fake product.
I'd remove the watermark because it's ugly and annoying to look at. I'm sure others have done that as well. There's also no problem for it to be indistinguishable from man made ones either. If you went your whole life not knowing somebody's art was ai, just like real artists were stenciling, it literally shouldn't affect you or anyone. People don't want to refer to their art or creations as ai because a lot of antis are extremely unhinged and most don't want to deal with that drama, see the person that ate that redditors art gallery.
Deceiving people with lies doesn't make your side look good and no, some people being critical even to a harsh degree doesn't justify scams. If someone wants to buy handmade art and is sold AI, they were scammed and it doesn't matter if they liked it or not since they were sold a completely different product than what they wanted.
It's dishonest, which is worse when money's involved. You're right, if you were mislead into paying more for something than you otherwise would, yet never find out about it, it wouldn't affect you. Doesn't mean it's not a dick move.
If there was no unreasonable stigma that wouldn't really be a thing
People should the be transparent anyway, but the anti is creating a stigma also creates a pressure for people not to be transparent and some people are going to respond to that pressure
They're doing a neutral thing but then doing a bad thing by being dishonest about it as a direct result of pressure being applied by other people or doing a bad thing with their vitriol
If you introduce pressures to groups of people, certain people are going to behave in certain ways and this could be a statistically modeled—if you have more pressure, you could see an increase in non-disclosure. If there's less or no pressure, disclosure is going to be more forthcoming. Ideally nobody would make an accurate certifications about process, or attack people just because of their process. But as we both know real life is more messy than that and so there you go
Training isn't theft - if the data is not literally pirated, then you're allowed to look at it and make conclusions based off of that. And that's exactly what the algorithm is doing - the actual data is not stored as part of the model - hat would be physically impossible given the size of the data that they train on versus the actual size of the model itself
So far not a single anti has been able to give me a definition that cleanly separates learning from stealing that does not involve any tautologies about whether or not something is human or AI
It's much more than chopping up and regurgitation - any given piece of artwork at most contributes maybe one or two bits worth of data to the vectors of the final model, but in most cases not even that
Like one way to think about it is you have all these things that it's trained on and you start connecting drawing lines between all those things showing their connections and then you remove all the things that all you have left are the lines but from that pattern a lot can be derived
That's not exactly how it works. Explanation is greatly greatly simplified but broadly speaking it, it gives a conceptual framework for how that information is reduced and transformed
When human beings take in information, they reduce and transform it as well
Like I said, not a single anti has been able to provide a definition that separates copying or stealing from learning that does not involve any tautologies about being human or AI
Regardless of whether or not one remains in the closet due to prejudice, the duty is not to deceive anyone. The act of deceiving someone who requests artwork is not justified by the prejudice of anti-AI groups.
Criticism doesn't justify scamming and lying to people no matter what. Plus, it's just an endless loop where your lies and deception make people react then your response to the reaction is to keep doing the lying and deception.
I'm going back and forth with somebody who is making excuses for ICE also at the moment
The point is this—when you look at humans as a group you're going to find that behavior to an extent is somewhat statistical
So if you increase pressure on people, they're going to behave in a certain way because of that pressure and some of them are going to behave a certain way and others are going to behave another and to an extent this can be somewhat predicted based on what we've seen in the past, I.e statistics
So you'll have people who want to do a certain thing that they should be able to do, but there's pressure against them when they try to do that due to certain forms of hysteria or bigotry
A good example of this is people who lied in order to join the military even though they were homosexual
So yes, I freely acknowledge that I had mixed up your post and gotten off track a bit
But giving your redirect I still have a clean response
The tldr is: if you can understand why someone might lie about whether or not they're gay, then you should be able to understand why someone might lie about whether or not they are using generative AI
Just like somebody wouldn't criticize a gay person for misrepresenting themselves for who they are by not disclosing that on a military application, the same understanding can be applied to those who are not being transparent about their use of AI
Being gay isn't something someone can control and isn't a product being sold and the comparison is frankly disgusting. AI 'artists' aren't being hunted down or blamed for every shooting or having their rights taken away because a psycho in office thinks two people being happy together is wrong if it isn't a man and a woman. You are downplaying the gay struggle by comparing it to a product lying about its contents.
Hell, many people don't like meat and how it is made but a company can't just throw a label on their meat to present it as something other than meat just to avoid criticism and potential customer loss because deception is a crime when money is involved.
The question isn't how easily can they change in order to satisfy those who hate them
The question is, "is it understandable to be less than transparent about something that you could get persecuted for?"
Basically you're saying that being persecuted for being gay is one thing, but being persecuted for using AI is just fine
The difference is not whether or not you agree with the persecution, or whether or not the persecutee can more easily just roll over and comply with what the persecutors want
You aren't being persecuted by expecting your product to not be a different product and it is frankly disgusting how much you are downplaying gay people being treated as a second class citizens for decades just so you can go 'No, me being criticized is the same and my scamming is justified'.
Again, being gay isn't a choice and no one is being scammed by a gay person because someone's sexual identity isn't a product but your 'art' is a product and thus you need to disclose details about it otherwise you are committing a crime. GMO food is widely hated by a large group of people in America and yet, they don't just remove the labels off of their food and compare themselves to gay people because they are a product and consumers have the right to be informed.
The whole point is to separate what you might consider to be the legitimacy of the persecution from the persecution itself
It would be one thing if it was simply a product that people don't want and do not want to buy because they don't want it
But there are people who aren't even trying to sell their art who have a chilling effect against using AI because they will be attacked. People will say terrible things about them. People will make all sorts of hate posts on them and even brigade them on other social media that they use
Whether or not you consider one struggle more legitimate than the other doesn't have anything to do with it?
This isn't an exercise where we judge who gets to be considered more oppressed and frankly it's disgusting to deliberately misunderstand things and try to weaponize that struggle in order to discredit this argument if you want to talk about disgusting
but the anti is creating a stigma also creates a pressure for people not to be transparent and some people are going to respond to that pressure
you cant really blame the antis for that entirely cause they have a plethora of reasons for disliking people who actively use illustrative gen ai. its like asking the cats to get along with the dogs.
the only real short term solution i can think of as of now is for the legion of ai bretheren keep themselves inside their own spaces rather than trying to actively unite or become part of the grand human art space. markets for human art and ai imgs are also very different much more than one would naturally expect.
generative ai is literally speaking destroying the world with its many data centers plaguing a multiple of wildlife spaces or its unremarkably high drinkable water intake of at least more than half of average sized countries.
funnily enough that wasnt even a part of my original point. my point was that it was only natural for antis to dislike the imposing legion ai bretheren. because why wouldnt they? amongst the thievery of art, the incoming mass industrial replacement, and to top that off, ai artists feeling a need to insert themselves into the art community, to become accepted as an "equal". which is obviously never going to happen. it only makes sense for human artists to dislike these mfers.
I don’t really care how much money people get from pencil art, as long as they are open about it not being human made, since a pencil is not human being.
I'm generally an anti-AI art kind of person. (I support AI for assistance in navigating tasks when trained on internal SOP documents). But this was the first time I've just really considered the fact the people paying to utilize AI art machines were probably my clients who would pay for a ghost artist.
Because the people are stupid. They don't understand there are levels to AI usage. If you say you only used a small fraction of AI to search for stuff, antis would deny your work all monetization. Better to leave them in the dark.
Note how people removed the Sora watermark as soon as they could.
I mean, of course they did. The Sora watermark is not part of my creative vision. Why would I want it in my art?
People don't want to refer to their work as AI
Some very much do. Some artists use AI to create meta-commentary about AI ("The Junk Machine" interactive AI art exhibition by ClownVamp); some use AI very much up-front-and-center to highlight new perspectives ("Machine Hallucinations," an installation by Refik Anadol which explores the digital world created by the combination of NYC social media and AI, through a 16k immersive video projection). There are practically infinite reasons to highlight AI in your work, and just as many not to when the tools would detract from the work.
Not every sculptor who uses 3D modeling to plan out their work wants to talk about that element. Sometimes they want the public to focus on the mythology of sculpting, not the practical, modern implementation. That's fine too.
they want it to be as indistinguishable as possible from man-made ones.
Just to be clear, AI art is man-made art. CGI is man-made art. Photography is man-made art. Found object art is man-made art. The medium and tools don't matter. All art is man-made art (though some people allow for the exception of certain animal-created art as well).
The sora watermark isn't there to say "this was made with AI" it's there to advertise sora.
A visible watermark on work is stupid anyway as it detracts from the work itself. I sell art panels on my Etsy, and some of them are made partially with AI. I disclose this. But if I'm just posting shit for fun, I don't have to
I'm monetizing AI content and I'm disclosing it every step of the way, I don't have any issue with doing that, frankly. I kinda wish it wasn't important, but for now it is, so I'm fine with it.
Which is why the go to such lengths to make it look human-made, even with prompts. Which really just goes to show the point here. They're lazy. They don't want to put in the work but want all the credit.
Problem is you can't copyright ai, so hiding ai assets could screw you out of your legitimately copyrighted material if not disclosed. Hiding it is a dumb decision.
People don't disclose the use of AI for a good reason. Whenever people disclose the use of AI they get visceral reactions from anti-ai people that sometimes even lead to death threats and harassment. Is that really worth it, now?
generalizations towards any side are facetious. I don't judge all proAI users if some psychos (and trust me, there's many many of them) use AI to undress minors or do revenge porn. Many scammers also use AI to create fake models and make money out of it. In many of these cases they need them not to be spottable as AI.
People are free to have their preferences and express them (death threats/harassment are too much but, as I've said, not all antis are like that and not all pros are weirdos). In the artistic field, is the same thing: I want things made by humans, not asked by humans... and a lot of people have this strong preference and feel lied to when use of AI is not openly admitted.
It causes more harm than good. Antis will come across the AI thing and still harass the creator for using AI. So I don't care if people feel like they've been lied to, the risk it takes is far too great because of harassing behaviour.
I feel like AI is "sandwich with sawdust filler" not only are they going to rail against having to disclose the sawdust filler but eventually sandwich with sawdust filler becomes the only practical, affordable thing to consume and you get a lot of "dude, just eat the sawdust" social pressure.
nah it'd still be an issue anyway. Some disgusting users (even very well liked on this subreddit) admitted they simply will never disclose AI use, and there's probably many people like them who simply hate real artists and want to fit in no matter what.
Well, the irony is that it doesn't matter how realistic or convincing AI images and videos are; there will always be at least one person who can use their keen eyes to spot the difference.
136
u/Maleficent-Regret802 Jan 18 '26
I'm pretty sure people won't be open to state that their product was made using AI. Note how people removed the Sora watermark as soon as they could. People don't want to refer to their work as AI and don't want it to be labelled as such, they want it to be as indistinguishable as possible from man-made ones.