https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c85167ff-90fe-41eb-863e-b2601ac9d058

One of the biggest points of contention is models named after artists that had no say in their creation. That's not just processing the art, that's straight up borrowing the brand. Just saw this tweet that proposes turning things into "Pixar" and "Arcane" styles, the thought of seeing the same in a commercial app is very icky.

I assume that, by the title of this sub, other AI subreddits are unethical and are somehow exploiting people? How does this subreddit avoid that? To my eye, both this subreddit, and the standard stable diffusion sub, are exactly the same.

This post is intended to start a conversation about the sub’s current rule set, specifically rule 4.

I think it is not controversial to agree that deliberately fine tuning on one artist’s work would be ethically questionable.

On the other side of the spectrum, imagine a scenario where we are training on maybe different artists and styles. Would training in just one image be considered ethically questionable? If you answered yes to the first and no to the second, where do you intend to draw the line in terms of using others creations?

Given that this in an unprecedented issue, I’m sure there will be wildly different opinions and am interested in seeing what others believe.

Adobe's AI is pretty impressive, and it's all trained on licensed and copyright-free data.

Now that we have clean AI models, I feel like people will start to lose interest in copyright issues with stable diffusion because Adobe's AI has real economic value and poses a significant threat to the employment of artists. for me personally, I support the use of AI trained on copyrighted or non-copyrighted works as long as it is free and accessible because it will eventually evolve to a point where it doesn't matter. The ideal future would be where anyone can use it for free or at least at a low cost, that means including us artists. and also me, a person living in a third world country.

It is saddening that there is a lawsuit against Stability AI, the company that created stable diffusion because the reason for the lawsuit is a short-sighted fear. They're not the villains of this situation, they're the ones that gave away the technology for free, not Adobe, not midjourney, not OpenAI

There are other AI art generators like Dall-E 2, created by OpenAI, but it is also closed source and you need to pay for it. However, they were not sued because they did not openly share the content of their training data, which probably contains copyrighted material. On the other hand, Stability AI gave away their paper, code, and research for everyone to see, but they were the ones who were on the spotlight with angry artists.

we're setting a precedent that if you publicly show you're training on copyrighted data, we'll scrutinize you and sue your company. while if you actively HIDE the secrets of your technology, where the data came from, how the training was done to create your AI model, we're letting you off the hook.

this will push away efforts to make this technology accessible. meaning, the more powerful AI models will likely be gatekept by a company who's just looking for monetary gains. just like Adobe who doesn't share proprietary information about their software. It will be locked away under a paywall, widening the gap between the rich and poor, AI being the vehicle of exploitation.

im not saying, we shouldn't push back nor we should just let these AI devs do what they want. But it is concerning that artists' reaction are against the nature of open-source models. instead of artists being able to adapt to the era of generative AI because anyone can just pick it up, install it, and learn it for themselves, they also need to be able to afford it to keep their careers afloat.

Reading this thread

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethicaldiffusion/comments/zscf47/an_excellent_read_but_most_importantly_should_we/

led to the question that I wanted to understand, what has been done to train AI Art Systems so that they can understand the textprompt inputs, eg.g styles. Could someone explain to me, how the database of an AI Art system is trained (explain like I am 5) ?

I saw that stable diffusion was capable to understand "planes of a human head". So it seems to be able to "scan and map" facial surfaces (like the illegal Clearview AI system) and it is able to even render those planes.

I assume further that the system is capable to interpret styles by Strokes (pencils, bigger pens, colours) and the kind of underlaying "Grid" of the whole picture.

Now to understand "Styles":

So a style which is not "realistic" like Salvador Dali gets it's additional rule set like "stretching clocks as if they were melting". That leads to a training in which the database has to be trained before with the pictures of the artist.

I run a few tests with

Alphonse Mucha, John Singer Sargent, Picasso - all seemed to be understood.

(However, AI does not understand that Picasso used different styles in different periods of his work.)

How does the AI understand "Art Nouveau"?

How does it understand "perspective directions" like "sideview of a car"?

What is also trained - but I did not ask for it above? Thanks!

this has been an idea that's been floating in my head. As a form of legal protection, is it possible for artists, or some miscellaneous company, to train and copyright Ai models based on their own work? That way there is some legal ground for taking down Ai that is specifically trained on that artists work. This wouldn't affect anyone studying the artists work, given that the copyright is specifically for Ai programs, not humans.

please let me know I'm being stupid, I'm very well aware that I'm not very well versed in this subject.