I will take that as a complement, it indicates some degree of variation from the unthinking masses 
「いいね！」 1
I guess I am just missing something in the Artwork AI vs SynthV AI debate. SynthV uses “AI” to allow us to more easily achieve realistic singing voices. It doesn’t use AI to create anything at all by itself. (Now if you use chatgpt or something to write lyrics, that’s different, but then that’s not SynthV AI.)
I don’t think the fact that the voice providers get paid is relevant to the argument. All creative content is done by us: folks who have the full legal, moral, and ethical right to use the software that way.
Graphical art created with AI is an entirely different beast. It causes concerns in all of these areas. First off, if it not clearly labeled as AI generated, it seems like cheating, because art (historically, at least) is the purview of humans and their expression. It kind of seems like using steroids in sports. And don’t give me the “well I entered the prompts so I created it” BS. If you want to call yourself the creator then go create it, period.
Secondly, there is the concern of others’ true work that is training the AI and the lack of attribution or compensation for them.
But just because “AI” is used in the name of both it doesn’t mean we should equate the concerns about them. SynthV does not write songs, unless I’ve missed some serious functionality!
(With all this said, I still could see usage of AI-generated artwork as perfectly fine [and would use it myself as a time-saver to make videos] if these concerns were addressed. I’m interested in writing songs, not creating artwork. But youtube watchers expect video for some reason. Long-winded way to say I see no issue with what the OP here was doing.)
「いいね！」 1
The reason voice provider consent is relevant is by contrast to how AI image generators are created.
The only reason it is ethically sound for us to use the product is because the dataset was created in a non-exploititive manner.
If the product was created by analyzing recordings of people without their permission, regardless of whether it is the user contributing the creative input, we would still be using a “stolen voice” to do so. Luckily that sort of thing would be more trouble than it’s worth for commercial vocal synthesis (unlike what we see in the image generation space…).
So it’s relevant to the conversation, at least by way of how it doesn’t run into the same ethical pitfalls as the image generators in question.
「いいね！」 2
Ok, I buy that. Ever since that youtube video whatshername put out caused a tempest, I’ve been wondering why what appear to be two different species of AI were being compared. To me, AI in SynthV is a (big) value-add to the non-AI version of the voice banks, but not the fundamental value. I wish there was another term for it, like “enhanced vocal fidelity” or some such. But everything with any sort of advanced algorithm must be called AI these days I guess.
「いいね！」 3
Making this kind of general statement without backing it up with clear information regarding what or who you’re targeting is just childish and sterile akin to trolling. Not all people are the same, and this thread clearly proves it as we see various reactions.
「いいね！」 1
I am a severly disabled artist and am a huge fan of AI-Art-Tools of any kind. When I won‘t be able to use my hands anymore for drawing and painting (and that already is hard with cramps and being partly paralyzed), I will still be able to express myself in a creative way. About the only thing that keeps me attached to this life. I totally dislike those pretentious gatekeeping pseudo artists who boycott ai art, force Artstation to incorporate a „warning“ for ai art and the worst of all: there are some bad players in the art community, who will use the lack of knowledge about AI to gain more followers, earn add ravenue and patreon dollars and spill hatefull lies all over the internet.
Seeing your experience in the forum lets my blood boil. I just yesterday learned about this Synth V tool and played with the thought of buying the software and several voice plugins, but if they still quietly endorse this subreddit with this hate rule, I will try to find a similar tool on the market. Thank you for sharing your story. Since this thread is some days old, I will try to find out, of it still is this way and form my decision according to that.
Greetings from Germany!
Chris
「いいね！」 2
@Unheilbargut, I am truly sorry you suffer so, if you cut the Mona Lisa into strips and reassemble those strips differently for your own pleasure then all is well and good as far as I am concerned but if you tell a computer to mess with someone else’s work without some form of agreement, claim you did all the ‘work’ and try to make any sort of profit, be that monetary or reputation, then I still say theft!
I don’t fundamentally deny so called ‘AI’ as that would be as realistic as King Canute’s attitude with the tide but … if you really are “a huge fan of AI ‘Art’ Tools of any kind” then will you demonstrate that by giving me ALL your work so I may do with it as I wish? no payment? no credit to you? If so, will you ask Stefan Hoenerloh, Michaela Eichwald and Eric Peters (random selection) to gift their entire output also? After all, that would only be fair wouldn’t it? Wouldn’t that be demonstrating the topic here?
As Claire said, SynthV voice talents get paid or, for free versions, at least credited when I use one of their ‘AI’ voices, an important difference from ChatGPT or whatever cloning/repackaging engine.
One last point - I have not taken either side on the ‘hate rule’ you mention, it is irrelevant to me how some other site behaves. I do think that just because a few users on this forum don’t agree with UnfinishedChronicles, you will turn away from a product whose authors more than likely will NEVER read this thread seems a bit … strange.
OK, I’m out of this thread
/soapbox
「いいね！」 2
It really is sad, when people have no idea what they talk about but think they are the brightest… research keeps people from being stupid idiots. #protipp
Well, AI image creation is undoubtely an hot topic those days.
My idea (if anyone cares) is that i feel about artists feeling “ripped” of their style and/or creative vision BUT:
-A big part of art has always been see what other do and adapt it to yourself;
-An art style isn’t copyrightable;
AI image generation is the same as anyone seeing a lot of painting/images and trying to replicate the style (not the images). It has been done for centuries now.
Fact that today it’s much easier, relying on AI more than one person talent doesn’t change things.
(BTW: in the same way as “art styles”, as laws are now, voice cannot be copyrighted: there’s enough legal documents around and anybody can google for it. Of course this is outside of the realm of the licence you get with Dreamtronics when you purchase a voice and you are agreeing [ence, obliged] to follow their licence to the letter).
Said that, those mods behaviour has been terribily unprofessional.
「いいね！」 1
Except it’s not, and this argument wholly misunderstands the difference between a probability engine like Stable Diffusion and how human brains work. Machine image generation algorithms (ie the things marketed as “AI art”) are doing nothing more than combining and repackaging other people’s work.
Humans can take inspiration. Modern machine learning algorithms cannot, and anyone claiming otherwise is only doing so to mislead people because they stand to profit from doing so. It’s really as simple as that.
「いいね！」 3
Machine image generation algorithms (ie the things marketed as “AI art”) are doing nothing more than combining and repackaging other people’s work.
Wich is what humans do when they “take inspiration”.
Of course the process i completely different (but, in the end, who can say how really humans do? Maybe human brain is giving form to some sort of noise, or maybe not).
In my opinion (and i underline it), nobody knows how really human brain works when it comes to memorize, retrieve the informations and use them to (in the case of “art”) give it a form. In my (again) opinion, it’s always derivative work, in any case.
「いいね！」 1
Indeed. Humans can plagiarize, but modern “AI art” algorithms can only plagiarize.
「いいね！」 3
modern “AI art” algorithms can only plagiarize
On this you are absolutely right.
Today.
If i see what happened only in the last 6 months with AI is both exciting and scary.
Your messages here show that you have no understanding of the matter and a huge gatekeeping personality. Together a rather ugly mixture…
「いいね！」 1
None of the ‘‘AI’’ creators/users have an agreement that allows them to gather and use the noise data of the pictures. Stablediff and Midjourney keep bending their knees because they know how ‘‘their’’ technology works.
Midjourney in particular just tries to cash in through the hype with the legal loophole, otherwise this would be happening with music too.
Considering how strict Japan is with copyright, they will likely be the first ones to act in a very harsh manner once non affiliates start synthesizing their favourtie mangas, maybe even to the point where another Content ID will be created.
You also have the possibility to scratch cars, knowing you shouldn’t do that.
When someone tells you to not just use pictures you found on google, it’s because of the same issues with Midjourney etc.
「いいね！」 2
The focus on whether contemporary generative AI, which produces artistic content, qualifies as AI art is interesting. The video makes several valid points, but I’m uncertain if it addresses the most crucial questions. Examining the process of art creation is enlightening. An artist is constantly observing content, be it other art pieces or their natural environment, and selects what resonates with them. Through numerous variations and over time, they create something novel - this selection of variations plays a significant role in the creative process. On top of that, there’s also a selection process conducted by the audience who engages with the art. This phase in the artistic journey, which filters and refines ideas, is fascinating and can often be quite unpredictable.
The existing method involving so-called “AI generative art” involves machine learning assisting in art curation on a scale unattainable by humans alone - it looks at the global art catalog and produces permutations at an unprecedented speed. However, the individual using this technology still plays a crucial role in initiating the creative direction, despite the current limitations in control, navigating through countless iterations during the creative process.
Many argue that this approach falls significantly short of the authenticity and depth of human-created art, with some even finding the process distasteful.
A primary concern is that the developers of these AI tools are prioritizing automation and replacement of human artistic control over creating tools that enhance human creativity and provide more nuanced control. The focus seems to be more on leveraging public consumption patterns of curation to generate value, rather than empowering artists.
Additionally, there’s an issue with the mental toll on individuals immersed in these environments. The daily experience for some is likened to navigating through surreal, Bosch-esque hellscapes, challenging their mental wellbeing.
「いいね！」 2
“Good artists copy, great artists steal” – this takes on new meaning in the context of AI generative tools, which are currently rudimentary, not even achieving the level of ‘good’. This is what’s alarming. Consider how artists like Bach, who spent years copying scores for his brother, begin their journey: first by imitating, then by analyzing and experimenting with variations of others’ works.The process employed by machine learning and AI generative tools tries to mirror that. As we look ahead, the prospect of these algorithms evolving to replicate the human creative process on a large scale suggests they could rapidly advance. Once they reach a level of proficiency, predicting the trajectory of their development becomes uncertain. The idea of these tools becoming fully autonomous is the scary part and it is driven to a large part by human curiosity, unchecked and unconcerned with the implications of its results.
「いいね！」 1
Nah. It’s easy to dismiss any algorithm, no matter how sophisticated, as stupid and put humans on the high pedestal simply because they are humans, regardless of how bad and downright horrible decisions they often make.
With modern AI generation algorithms, it’s pretty obvious that they are able to do pretty much everything an human can do, inspirational and everything. Drawing something in the style of someone and learning that particular style isn’t illegal for humans, and shouldn’t be illegal for algorithms either.
Ultimately, these cases should be handled like every case dealing with plagiarism: Compare the AI image in question with the images they are supposedly ripping off. Ask a jury if they would consider the image to be a ripoff, assuming it was drawn by a human. If the answer is yes, then the commercial use of that image has to be forbidden, otherwise not.
Regarding using training images without consent: There are enough big companies with legal rights to massive libraries of images. And these companies also understand the value of AI-assisted generative art. Sooner or later you will have perfect AI models using only legally consensual images, so that argument isn’t really stopping AI art from what currently artists fear the most with regards to AI: Getting obsolete.
Which again, is a non-reasonable fear. Cameras were considered the big evil when they emerged, since they could do what many artists back then did in seconds and better. Yet nowadays, we consider photography, the “mere clicking of a button”, art. Of course, anyone actually practicing photography knows it takes much more than just a button press and guess what, the same is true for AI art. It’s just a new tool for artists, and casual people, nothing more. The fun of drawing an image of your own and shaping it the exact way you want will still be found in regular art. And fun always stays.
You really need to look into the whole “everything is a remix” theory video. What you find there will shock you. These days the line between what can be considered original vs what is considered derivative is very blurred, and if we are really going by that logic, there really is no such thing as an original work anymore, as everything will have been a derivative in one way or another.
That said, I hate to be the one to have to redirect the topic of the discussion to what it was actually supposed to be - the topic of wrongful bans/punishments, it truly is a rather rapidly growing problem on the planet as a whole. Having discovered an old video of how Reddit admins and mods in general are infamous for whimsical punishments such as these, I should have been nowhere near as shocked as I was, it was a typical admin power trip all along.
Despite what the video seems to be about, the exact same argument can be made against just about any platform, any moderator, and any admin. This isn’t just a Reddit issue, it’s a societal issue, just like how corrupt police officers legally get away with throwing countless innocent lives to prisons and death rows and even go as far as get away with even literal murders.