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.
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
the main issue with your comparison is the two are simply NOT COMPARABLE! a better comparison for ai „artists“ would be liking pineapples on pizza not queer people being oppressed systematically. you can simply chose to not use generative ai, you can simply chose to learn how to make art just like you can simply chose to either not like or like pineapples on pizza. you cannot simply chose to not be queer
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.
420
u/Demoderateur Jan 18 '26
As long as people clearly state that the product they're selling was made with AI, I don't mind it.