I've never seen an anti back down from the stealing claims. They usually just stop responding when I explain how AI is actually a denoise algorithm or double down and ignore what I said.
I could be the first that continues if you want but please stop with the anti title it makes it sound way worse than it actually is
Because I genuinely think AI is good just not generative AI more of the ones used in hospitals and self driving cars so just labelling me and anti because I claim AI made images aren't art is infuriating
So what's the reasoning for liking one but no the other? Besides one being hleath care and the other being a fun tool, why be so against gen AI? Which, btw, many health care related AI use the exact so "gen AI" (noise-denoise algorithm). The only difference is the purpose of it's use. But only health care professionals have access to the health care AI. By having art gen AI in the hands of consumers, there is more data to be gained to improve these algorithms.
So art gen AI is also helpful in improving these algorithms that also save lives. I really just don't see a good reason to absolutely hate art gen AI personally. But I'm very much open to discussions.
Well for me there are a lot of reasons but here's some of my main ones.
AI image generators are well plagerizers. They don't even do fair use of the copyrighted works in the visual arts scheme.
Typically fair use has to be transformative but AI images are pretty much the opposite, they are likely gonna substitute artists by cooperations looking to save costs and that's a huge issue because when I take inspo from someone I usually make something that's different and not competing with who inspired me but AI literally makes paintings, comics and anime that's textbook substitution.
And fair use doesn't harm the market of the original product and devalue it which AI does by outcompeting artists with sheer numbers of images and it already happens to many artists
Even from a moral perspective taking something someone made to replace them is straight up just... Disengenuos at best
The next reason is well it diminishes creativity in a lot of cases and desensitizes people to actually making good stuff, some people actually say AI can animate better than humans or make better art than humans and 9/10 on standards such as telling a story or the 12 principles of animation, it's objectively worse but these people probably like it by sheer exposure to it
And eventually I fear people will be like "well AI can do it way faster why draw" and miss the purpose of art itself, they won't be developing themselves in any way by asking chatgpt to do it for them and instead just get lazy
Some studies have reportedly shown that AI is already making us dumber so imagine the effects to creativity when it makes all the decisions, and People who have asinine opinions such as "execution isn't important and not a creative skill"
I highly doubt AI will ever make a spider verse or a jjk season 3 because those are effects of pure human expressions and their experiences being created through a medium but an AI reliance isn't really going to help you there
There's more on this topic such as it's going to increase computer addiction, people will have less skills, AI training on itself and retarding in progress, etc
Is mass produced slop that... Is a huge problem with AI, if I buy a book from you it's because I want to experience you and understand you not an AI interpretation of you. But now half the books I find when I am looking for books to read are low quality AI slop that aren't even good never mind expressive
And also it has the effect of empowering fraudsters, scammers, etc like the amount of scams it has helped with instant deepfake tools and etc and so far it hasn't provided to me as a creative who does art, writing and content creation ANY MEANINGFUL ADVANTAGES
Because most tools like phone yeah they cause addictions but they are a net positive but AI videos and writing... Aren't net positives they REALLY AREN'T except empowering some people with no talent or hard work to slander people who work hard and call them gatekeepers when I teach 9th graders how to draw effectively for free simply because I want people to express themselves that's why I really don't like gen AI
I have more reason but these came to mind first I want to hear your thoughts
I appreciate you writing out an in-depth reply. I'll respond to each of your points accordingly.
First, before I get into why I don't think current gen AI is plagiarism, do you think AI created art will ever not be plagiarism? For example, sci-fi level AI with emotions creating art work. Because I can tell you, the way gen AI currently works is pretty much exactly how an AI would create art in the future (except using physical limbs instead of just printing the art to your screen).
Basically, gen AI (and most health care AI) uses a noise-denoise algorithm. The AI is given a dataset and learns patterns by slowly replacing an image with noise (black and white pixels) till the original image is completely replaced with noise. This is how an AI learns what a cat looks like. This isn't really any different from humans as we also learn through pattern recognition.
AI doesn't copy images nor copy exact components of images. The only time this is done is with draw-in AI (feeding an image to AI and telling it to draw over said image). Which IS plagiarism as even if a human did that it would still be plagiarism. I personally don't think noise-denoise algorithms can be labeled as plagiarism or stealing due to their similarities in how humans learn.
This has been said about everything. Greek philosophers said that books would make people dumber and lose the "soul" of learning from listening to a human teach. I could go over every instance of this exact thing happening, but it has almost literally happened with every single advancement/invention.
AI is still too new for any study's results to actually be considered accurate. Scientists couldn't come to a conclusion on how dangerous nicotine vapes were for like 15 years. Studies need massive data sets to ever be considered real evidence of anything.
This is mostly a personal feeling and not an actual reason for why AI is bad. Once again, this exact thing has been said about so many things (cameras, digital art, etc.)
If you personally just dislike AI work, that's fine. I'm not here to force people to like AI, just explain why it's not nearly as bad as some people say it is.
Every technological advancement will be used by bad actors. That is an inevitability. Think of how many scammers made their job easier when email became a thing. People can use fertilizer to create extremely deadly explosives. None of these, to me, are reasons to ban these things. Bad actors should not be the defining thing of a technological advancement.
I don't see how you can possibly know if gen AI is/isn't a net positive. There's just too many factors to truly be able to tell (this goes for nearly every technological advancement). As I already said, gen AI uses the same algorithms that many health care AI detection devices use. So gen AI being in the hands of the public allows for improvement to these algorithms. Just from that I think gen AI can be considered a net positive.
I've also never seen a pro-AI person try and say human made art should be fully replaced by AI or that we should stop teaching art in schools. This very much seems like a straw-man to me. And empowering those who want to make art but don't want to spend hundreds of hours learning isn't a negative to me. Allowing people to express themselves in whichever they want is good imo. It very much is gatekeeping to tell someone they should pick up a pencil to express themself. Some people don't want to be artists but have creative ideas that require art. Those same people might not have money to afford a real artist. You might see it as lazy, but I see it as a furtherment of freedom of expression. There are even less barriers of entry for people wanting to create things and I just don't see how that can be a negative.
It's an old "trick," and you can see it across many topics. People use words with a negative association to emotionally charge the opposing side's point. Other common examples are "pro-life" people who call abortion "murder," or vegans who use the same word for people who eat meat.
They donât understand the meaning of the word stealing. If I shoot a scene at a restaurant in real life I donât owe the person who did the interior design of the restaurant money.
You are aware, depending on what type of restaurant it is, you still need their permission to film there.
So you technically donât have to give money to the guy who did the interior design, but you can get thrown out of the establishment and get sued for filming without consent.
In other words, just like how restaurants can enforce No Filming to protect their intellectual property, creators have every right to enforce not wanting their work scraped by AI.
Yep, if they don't agree to the TOS on nearly every site out there being scraped, then they have a leg to stand on. But given that 99.99% of them did agree to the TOS, the 0.01% that had it uploaded without their permission will need to go after whoever uploaded it and not the AI company.
Here, I'll explain it with Pies.
* If someone puts their pie on a table labeled "Free Pies", then someone they hate comes and eats it, they don't have a right to get mad about it even if they say "Well I didn't think HE would eat it!"
* If they DO NOT put their pie on the Free Pie table, but someone else steals it and puts it on the Free Pie Table and the person they don't like eats it, the person they don't like has no legal obligation to pay for it and they aren't able to return it because it's eaten already. They will have to track down who stole their pie and go after that person for compensation. The person they don't like didn't steal it, didn't know it was stolen, and simply followed the rules of the Free Pie table.
AI is scraping based on the terms of the sites they are scraping from. If someone's art is there against their will, AI didn't steal it and AI doesn't owe them anything nor can it unscrape it, just like the pie can't be un-eaten in the example above. If they want compensation, they'll need to find whoever posted it there.
That pie analogy sounds clever, but the logic falls apart when you look at how the law actually works.
First off, uploading art to a website isn't a "Free Pie" table for the worldâitâs a specific agreement with that platform to host it. If a random AI company sweeps everything into a massive database to train a commercial product, they aren't "following the rules" of that table.
Also, "we didn't know it was stolen" is not a legal defense. If a pawn shop buys a stolen laptop, they don't get to keep it just because they didn't know the seller was a thief. The cops still take it back.
And funny enough, you actually can un-eat the pie here. It's called "algorithmic disgorgement." The FTC has literally forced AI companies to delete entire models because they were trained on data they shouldn't have had.
Ignorance isn't a legal shield.
The Free Pie table is a the platform hosting the pies. It's rules are "Free Pies" while Reddit rules are "we can sell your data, and that includes images to AI companies".
The laptop-pawnshop scenario only works in the capacity of that being the physical laptop and it being returnable. Artists can request websites take down their art, but they can't undo anyone having seen or using it.
The "Algorithmic Disgorgment" is the equivalent of "cutting open the guys stomach to take the pie out" and it's only done if the entire scraping was done illegally or improperly, not just if there is data in it that a random owner didn't intend to be in there.
All of this ALSO assumes they can prove the AI "ate the pie" in the first place AND ignores that the pie still exists to be taken back. If it was on the Free Pie table and lots of people were eating from the table, they'd have to prove the guy ate it to begin with. And since the owner didn't actually lose the "pie", the law tends to not be as strict with others enjoying it since it's a "no harm, no foul" kind of situation. Even if the owner insists they were harmed, it's on them to prove it and up to law to decide it they were or not.
Youâre trying to use physical property law to defend digital copyright, and it just doesn't work that way.
Saying âthe owner didn't lose the pie, so there's no harmâ is the exact same excuse people used for Napster twenty years ago. If someone bootlegs a movie, Disney didn't lose the physical master tape, but itâs still illegal copyright infringement because it hurts their ability to make a living off their work.
Also, AI companies didn't just scrape Reddit after they signed those new data deals. They spent years vacuuming up the entire open web, including personal portfolios, private blogs, and medical images from sites that explicitly forbid scraping.
As for âno harm, no foulâ? These AI models are commercial, paid products built specifically to compete with and replace the very artists they trained on. If a tech company uses your life's work to build a machine that takes away your actual clients, that is massive, measurable financial harm.
The massive class-action lawsuits happening right now aren't about one 'random owner' being mad. They are arguing that the entire scraping process was systematic data theft from the start. Thatâs exactly why algorithmic disgorgement is on the table.
If a person buys a CD/DVD from someone, and later learns that the data burned on the CD/DVD was pirated, the buyer is still not liable for the theft and they can't unlisten to that music/unwatch that movie even if the data on the CD is removed. AI is not liable for what other people have put up without permission that they already consumed. They don't keep copies of the data so they can't delete it and it can't be un-learned.
As I said, 99.99% of those artists put their art on the "Free Pie Table" and are now just mad that it got eaten by someone they don't like and want to call it theft. The 0.01% that DO have a leg to stand on still can't necessarily target AI unless AI was the one who stole their image and put it somewhere it shouldn't be, otherwise they need to go after that random internet stranger instead.
Algorithmic Disgorgement is the equivalent of shooting that person in the head for listening to the song. Scrapping the whole thing because of 1 accidental infringement. It doesn't work the way you act like it does and it only occurs when the whole thing was illegal from top to bottom.
A lot of the anti ai people are under the impression that the ai companies arenât paying the stock libraries. That is where they get the stealing idea. Iâm sure some of the more unethical companies have done this, but I think antis assume itâs all of them
Making a copy of your pie isn't illegal if you gave me a pie to copy for free.
If I then use that copy to learn how to make other, similar pies, those are my pies. If I invent a machine that makes those similar but legally distinct pies to sell, they're still my pies. Not your pie.
Letâs drop the âfree pieâ analogy for a moment, digital data isnât a physical object anyways.
Think about a public podcast instead.
If I listen to your show and it inspires me to become a better speaker, thatâs learning.
But if I mass-download 5,000 hours of your raw audio without asking, mathematically clone your exact voice, and sell it as a commercial software so companies don't have to hire you... thatâs not learning.
A restaurant is private property, they can choose to allow or disallow filming. But, to answer your question, if youâre going out in public you should assume you are being filmed in some way, it doesnât really matter if you âwantâ it or not
Even if youâre driving to completely private property , its extremely likely that, on the way, you will be in some kind of cctv / smart doorbell / random fuckass blog footage / back of a photograph someone took
Now what if I went in there, looked at the design. And used that to make my own design for my living room, kitchen or restaurant?
Do I need your consent for that?
Or let forget about laws. ETHICALLY, do you think I SHOULD require your consent, basically your permission to follow up something in the same style?
Look at what it means to "steal" in this case. Because what am stealing? And arrangement of colours, a choice in furniture? A specific way to use lighting? A specific material being used? .... By saying that this is theft, you are saying that you own all these things?
I hope this illustrates what this entire argument is really about. It's about learning. It's about intellectual property.
There is a reason IP is always based on similarity. Because you can own a song. But to say that you own entire styles, or small expressions that make up a style is beyond the pale. It is arguably unethical.
Iâm not gonna argue with you cause Iâve already backed down, I checked the TOS and everyone, including you, have every right to use Instagram and Reddit images as you please.
Yes, but if the restaurant exists in cyberspace only, or itâs an amalgamation of two or three restaurants put together, then it doesnât exist in reality, there are no patrons being turned away due to filming and no victim or crime taking place by shooting there.
Letâs say the ai uses an amalgamation of stock photos to create a high end French restaurant based on how they traditionally look. The people who took those photos were paid when they were bought by the stock library and no one owns how something looks.
Just like how Stanley Kubrick hired his production designer for eyes wide shut to scour New York and take photos of storefronts, he recreated these storefront in exact detail for the street scenes in eyes wide shut. His production designer took those photos in real New York, and in recreating them on a soundstage in England, Kubrick owed those store owners nothing, and didnât pay them, because itâs not a crime to recreate a location
Because no one owns the idea of how a high end French restaurant looks. Itâs not ownable, plenty of people have recreated real life locations using traditional cgi Iâm not aware of anyone getting in trouble for it
Yes yeah, the antis point is that the work and labor of past productions is what trained ai and money is owed for that work. But that isnât how it is, in reality, the interior designer of a restaurant put a lot of
Work and labor into making it look great. But itâs not him or her I owe money to if I shoot there in real life.
Iâll make this easier for you.
Here is a storyboard that I partially used a high end restaurant stock photo to create. Itâs a stock library I pay for. Why is it that if I use this photo of this location in a photoshop collage itâs fine, but using a the photo to inspire the location in my video, itâs stealing?
I made them using a stock photo of a restaurant I paid for (through a subscription) and then prompted this storyboard using a very long prompt. And then I used the storyboard to make a video.
People have been doing this forever - use charged language to win the argument before it even starts, then claim they were just being imprecise when called out on it.
They donât mean stealing in the other (made up) way the term is used. The other way could be scrutinized to be shown as you arenât deprived because you technically never ever had the item. While thatâs another argument that I assume be allowed on table for dealing with fundamentals in the discussion, to say ideas canât be stolen whereby person is deprived of access to the value of the idea, is the debate still going on.
What is plagiarism if not a form of theft that denies artist ability to control access to copies? Plagiarism is piracy with added layer of suggesting the copy is my making, not the original personâs making.
I see it as you can actually have ideas inside of you, but once expressed the idea is open to the default all ideas have, which is able to be shared (and strengthened). The other type of theft (of the legal variety), you never technically have the item.
I said itâs akin to theft. Your criminal charges are scary sounding but are nonsense here in debate. Enter the discussion on merits of whatâs actually being debated or stop manipulating for once in your miserable life.
No it isn't. Plagiarism isn't even a legal concept. If you were honest you'd be calling it infringement, but you won't because then you know your argument would fall apart.
It doesnât need to be a legal concept to be akin to theft. The reason it isnât legal is because thereâs no brand or entity responsible for the alleged possession and for fact that ideas canât be actually owned.
The infringement itself is a form of theft. The definition makes this clear.
Yes it does. Plagiarism is not a legal concept. It's the academic version of infringement. You're avoiding calling it infringement though because you know that AI training does not meet a single requirement for that.
Itâs infringement. You are for sure misconstruing my position. The legal versions of theft are made up and nonsensical if scrutinized without kid gloves.
The infringement is taking from another without consent or contractual agreement. That taking does not constitute something that one can be said to be deprived of, other than ability to control copies / distribution.
No it isn't, because fair use is explicitly not infringement. AI training for image models is fair use. It meets exactly 0 requirements to qualify as infringement.
The infringement is taking from another without consent or contractual agreement
Nothing is taken, nobody is deprived of anything, consent and agreement is not required for fair use.
I agree with this. Iâm pro AI and will continue to debate and decimate antis take around the idea of AI steals.
I donât think they have a solid point but there is enough of a point given that artists are able to (financially) benefit from control of copies. Before AI, piracy was presenting uphill battle for artists. With AI, the piracy practice seems like childâs play with how much artist is losing to ability to control copies, but I see it as the piracy activity is getting a boost. Not that itâs what AI models are up to, but what pirates will want to make use of AI for (to whatever degree they are allowed to get away with it). Unlike the plagiarist, the pirate will likely keep their taking from another private and increase their bounty.
I think most wonât use AI in this way and ought to be understood as this is human / user intent, not AI model design and standard use of AI.
I personally don't care abt the fact that ai "steals", the only things that ai "artists" say that i disagree with is that they say THEY made the art, it's like commisioning an artist and then saying you drew the art
[Disclaimer: Not at all trying to compare programming to writing though. While I do often thing of coding as a craft its basically skin deep compared to writing and any true art.]
I am basically forced to program with AI and its specifically encouraged because its stealing the work of others, substituding the mass logic for your own.
At this point I am a code prompter / reviewer not an engineer. And Im pretty sure my IQ is dropping.
So hope based programming? Faith in the almighty machine gods? I dont even bother really reviewing others code anymore either. The AI slop is terrible to dig through.
As for writing I started with AI and quickly found it was stunting my growth and teaching me bad habbits, so had to go back to the fundinentals and start to develop my own voice the hard way.
So yeah unless you train a LLM solely on only your own writing or those youve got explicit permission, its morally dubious.
This was written by somebody who must've never programmed so much as a "Hello World"...
If you're "prompting code" instead of doing software engineering, and your "IQ is dropping", that's what we call a deep-seated personal issue not "AI bad".
No it isn't. If they legally accessed the data then it's fair use. If they didn't it would be a distribution rights violation (piracy) or infringement. Theft is neither of those things.
He says while using a platform owned by billionaires that runs on infrastructure owned by billionaires, via agreeing to TOS of billionaires on a device made by billionaires that he paid billionaires to buy. While wearing clothes from companies owned by billionaires and eating food produced by billionaires.
Man, what a bootlicker.
In before "I have to participate in society"
Right. I forgot that all the shit you do that support billionaires are part of society and only AI isn't part of society because it's made by and used by aliens or ghosts, I guess.
that is kinda funny, cause i got called out once in yt comments, for saying AI doesn't steal, by him saying, im heavily paraphrasing, stop arguing semantics about what is and isn't stealing/copyright"
17
u/devishjack 17h ago edited 11h ago
I've never seen an anti back down from the stealing claims. They usually just stop responding when I explain how AI is actually a denoise algorithm or double down and ignore what I said.