MaleProstateMilker88
56517
1817
32
What he said last year about ai.
Mar 27, 2025 4:31 PM
MaleProstateMilker88
56517
1817
32
What he said last year about ai.
VibratingNipples
just about anyone can make a lora for any kind of art style or anything you can think of. If OpenAI wasn't gonna do it, someone will eventually sadly.
FelonyRaptor
AI art is liek the worlds most expensive and power consuming copy machine
ahorseelbowdeepinme
Daimoth
Hayao Miyazaki, as per usual, pulls no fucking punches.
That man doesn't give even half of a fuck
PigeonRemarketer
This is par for the course with AI. Zuckerberg's Facebook pirated the LibGen dataset of books to train their AI. Machine learning is based heavily on 'stolen' content.
ForgotMyUsernameYetAgain
apneax3n0n
Ddd
ShadeMeadowsArt
S U E ' E M
IUpvoteEveryNicholasCageGIF
How to snuff life out of art, presented to you by OpenAI and talentless people.
kurvarVillain
Zephrman
On one hand, nobody can claim these images as copyright material. On the other hand, nobody can stop AI from learning an art style... I know what could stop it, and it's a giant corporation that cares deeply about it's copyrights, trademarks, and intellectual properties: The Walt Disney Corporation.
Let's make the AI churn out hundreds of thousands of Disney images and let the chaos ensue
MaleProstateMilker88
I'm pretty sure people have already done that. The ai generators have movies in them which is why you can see marvel ai slop as well as any other franchise out there. Very few are doing anything to stop it.
unclesporky
To sue for copyright infringement is saying that you own the content of those images, that in a sense you made them, that it's yours. Ghibli doesn't own the distracted boyfriend meme, none of their artists ever drew the Olympic pistol guy. It would be misrepresenting themselves to say that content is "theirs." You cannot copyright an art style or else all of DeviantArt / fan art would be constantly and deeply in trouble. In fact, it would be awful for everyone if you COULD copyright style.
unclesporky
Imagine if Disney owned "classic Disney style" like Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Lion King or Aladdin, and no one could ever draw in that style again. Imagine if someone owned "PIxar style" or "Dreamworks style" so you can't create renderings that look vaguely similar to something out of those studios. It would destroy art itself.
LordLobster
Yeah, most people that hate on this are people that don't understand art history. Literally every new technology used for art has gone through this process: New tech-> Rejected as art -> Considered inferior art -> Finally accepted as art. Photography, digital art, movies, TV, video games. It's stealing! They shout, as if artists don't take from other artists all the time. They are trying to make money! As if all the artists that stole their styles were not also trying to make money. It's silly.
xanthio
On the plus side, they only had to burn down three rain forests to power the computers to do it.
jimbowardo3000
Hmm, Studio Ghibli is Japanese, there is no fair use (copyright) law in Japan. I hope they sue the shit out of these fuckers. (Ghibli suing open AI I mean). THIS IS A BREACH OF COPYRIGHT what open ai did is not.
unclesporky
Miyazaki did not say this about AI. Years ago he was shown how a computer had figured out to keep a zombie/monster "walking" with whatever bones and muscles remained, as a horror concept, and he said it reminded him of a disabled friend he had, and that this particular gross-looking animation was an insult to life itself. He did not say or imply that the mere concept of a computer automating some parts of animation was an insult or abomination or anything like that.
TheOldHen
I remember the poor bastards that proudly demoed it to him. They were basically in tears when he gave his feedback. Felt bad for them: they were deliberately depicting something horrific. I think Miyazaki is often a little uppity.
Alavar
Didn't he say his own son is a dog shit director? Lmao dudes ruthless
Josh25AP
His actual response to AI drawing pictures like humans was: 'I feel like we are nearing to the end of times. We humans are losing faith in ourselves.' And now that AI is doing just that, people are losing the will to learn and create.
unclesporky
No, that's from the same clip from 10 years ago. The animators say they would like to make a computer draw like humans do, which I believe is a language barrier thing, where they meant they wanted to build procedural systems that could animate automatically (as seen in the clip). Then there is a cut to a different time and place where he says humans are losing faith in ourselves. We do not know whether or not that even has any relevance to the preceding scene (a common documentarian tactic).
Josh25AP
His statement can apply to little else, even if it does, it still holds true and is applicable.
CaptSchmidtGaming
The tool is fine. not disgusting. if anything what a fantastic achievement.
the way the tool interacts socially, and the way people view eachother thru the lens of the tool,
that is what is disgusting.
dennydorko
AI proponents:
MoopsyLD
alright idiots. you cant copyright a style obviously but the problem is that studio ghiblis art was stolen and used to make these meme recreations. they were then posted which garnered Monetary gains for openAI. openAI used copyrighted stolen art in a Language model to create memes and gained profit off of it. this can be sued over.
resworn
twinkwtp
jjlolwtfkog
Disney is the distributor of Ghibli outside Japan. They have the muscle to do something. Do they have balls ? I wonder…
LunaWolvesLoyalist
Fucking destroy these AI pricks.
Chattafaukup
No art is safe from being stolen and resold now.
peeopeepeee
Never was, you just had to actually have skill before now
Chattafaukup
Which means it happened much less often and most art was safe. See: Studio Ghibli.
peeopeepeee
Not to sound pro-ai, but before die casting was invented you needed to be trained and have the skills to make things, but once you could just make copies of an existinging thing and make changes to it, that went out the door and those skills were just used to make new original dies. Theft happened a LOT and it ruined many livelihoods, but it also enabled whole new sets of industry and opened the door to regular Joe's who couldn't afford bespoke tools to now have access. And that's just the start
Chattafaukup
Sure but tools and machinery have HUGE practical uses in society. Thousands of pictures of warped art have less societal impact i would think.
peeopeepeee
Art is just the beginning, eventually it will be designing the chips in your phone and it will be using every design known to man as a reference, not just the designs that the company has made before, and it will find optimizations that no human would think to do. And the real kicker is that you can go ahead and stop openai from doing it, but you can't stop any other country from doing. So instead of solving the AI problem you create a deficit in knowledge and industry for your own country.
RunawaySpoons
Oh they have impact alright, just not the good kind.
LurkingSarcasm
Deviantart seems like a big target I have not heard a whisper about regarding AI...
Itaru
You must not be paying attention. They've literally offered an AI solution for more than a year.
IrrationalNumber
https://www.deviantart.com/team/journal/Create-AI-Generated-Art-Fairly-with-DreamUp-933537821
sevenfingerman
More and more I think about Herbert and the Buerian Jihad.
“Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.”
Kangadilla
Using A.I and calling it 'art' is like tracing someone else's drawing, making it look worse then proudly boasting "look what I did all by myself".
It lacks any form of skill, creativity, passion, etc. An excuse for the lazy and talentless to claim they achieved something on their own.
It's a sad state of humanity, so many people looking for shortcuts in life, completely unwilling to put in the work themselves or take time to learn and improve their own skills.
echonite
AI generated images are not remotely close to tracing. That simply isnt how it works at all. You have issues with the legality and morality of training a system on data, have at it, but try at least a little bit to understand what it even is first.
Gelflingus
Honestly as everything it comes down to a matter of degree. There are actual artists right now using AI generation models like Stable Diffusion and Flux to generate art. It takes skill, creativity and passion. And then there are people generating thousands of porn images starring Scarlett Johansson in 2 minutes. AI can be a legitimate tool of creation and creativity the same way Photoshop or even collage is. Still doesn't excuse stealing and passing off one-liner prompts as art.
ExplodingPortaPotty
By this logic anyone who ever wants to draw something in this style ( even for fun) would need to get written permission from/pay the Studio.
scoutknife
Yes, OpenAI isn't a for profit company. They're just in it for fun.
ExplodingPortaPotty
Until they start trying to sell those images for profit they aren't technically doing anything a freelance artist isn't doing when they draw in that style.
scoutknife
That is their business. AI. They sucked up all of that work without permission to use in their money making business. That's why they're trying to get exempted from any copyright laws.
ExplodingPortaPotty
How is posting some AI generated images on Social media any different from me drawing those same things and posting them on my twitter? Do I need to ask for permission or pay licensing rights to do that?
Dansosaur
Technically, yes you do (need permission). Fair use only applies when you are specifically: Criticizing, reporting, parodying, reviewing, teaching or researching. If you're not doing any of that, then profit or not, you ARE breaking copyright law. The difference is that these companies don't care about your fan-art enough to send you a cease & desist, but these guys are advertising an AI tool trained specifically to copy their intellectual property. That's something they WOULD give a crap about.
scoutknife
You're missing the point about OpenAI. Their entire business relies on sucking up other people's work and selling it back en masse. They recently even admitted to this. And if you start selling someone else's ip for profit you would need to pay licensing rights.
MCFLYYY
How is it different? Nobody cares about you drawing a few images and posting them on Twitter, because you're nobody and you are only one person. They care about a large operation mass producing artwork in their exact style, and distributing them as their own. How are you this stupid? Do you fall down a lot?
AnonsAndMinions
I still fucking hate they call it AI. It's not even close to AI. It's just an advanced algorithm absorbing humanity and re-vomiting it on command. I will die on this hill.
ReltivlyObjectv
Yes! The watering down of language to make "Machine Learning" and "AI" mean the same thing needs to stop.
Gelflingus
Thank you. The generalized use of "AI" is egregious. This is not about intelligence any more than "VR" is virtual reality. It's a marketing thing that should not be spread around by anyone who is not trying to make money off that crap. It's training code, that's all it is. Anyone who believes there's "intelligence" in it, should try to ask ChatGPT to solve a basic riddle. If the answer is not in wikipedia, it won't be able to.
echonite
If it can pass off as human, then whats the difference? Its not there completely yet, but its getting pretty damn close. If you ultimatly cant tell the difference, then it really doesnt matter if its not true AI.
GogglesGreek
It's not intelligence, it's just using LLMs to predict things.
It's a parrot, and you're kind of telling on yourself if you believe their hype lies that it's "getting pretty damn close".
We've had chatbots for years now. We've had Siri. We've had predictive text even. This isn't AI.
echonite
Doesnt matter if its a "parrot". And if you cant see how close it has gotten, then you havent really been paying attention. This isnt the same thing as a chat bot.
AnonsAndMinions
It's literally an advanced chat bot. That is it. Word vomiting 'hurr haven't been paying attention' doesn't do anything for your cause. Cited evidence. What makes you believe it's that advanced? You used Google a couple of times and were amazed by the answers? Do you work in tech? Do you have hands on experience? Because I do. It's nothing more than a chatbot except it's dragged the entire internet for info, hence why most of them are 60 percent accurate and have to be 'trained'.
GogglesGreek
I have been. It's not intelligent. It's predictive. More plagiarism and more gluttonous resource consumption is not going to make it intelligent.
It's a useful tool in narrow situations, primarily support while designing code, and it's fine if you understand the info may be faulty (which it can be and frequently is.)
But it's not magic, it's not some wonderous invention for everything. It's not even having a hammer and seeing nails everywhere; it's more like a spatula and pancakes.
echonite
It's not plagiarism as nothing is being copied. And never argued it was magic.
nihiltres
Um, I’m sorry, and I mean to inform and not to insult, but it is *technically* AI. Science fiction has unfortunately taught people incorrectly that “AI” means what’s properly called artificial general intelligence (AGI) or artificial superior intelligence (ASI), but there’s technically been things that academics would agree is AI since the *1940s*. Yes, really: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptron
>It’s such a cliché that there’s a phrase for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect
TsubakiTragic
damn... and there I was thinking that the I in AI stood for intelligence.
AnonsAndMinions
I don't give a shit what the technicality of the terms are. Like I said, I'll die on this hill. Predictive text is not something that is independently thinking or has a will of it's own. It's not self evolving, it doesn't have original thought. It's just a written algorithm. True A.I. would give birth to an entire race as it would be able to self-evolve and produce *original* things. It would produce bodies for itself, of it's own design, etc.
nihiltres
I was telling you that the academic definition of “AI” is met by extant systems, and has been met since the 1940s even though they *clearly* don’t meet *your* sci-fi-based definition for “AI”. The academic definition does not require the self-evolution or volition that you’re asking for.
You’re not wrong if we were to accept your definition, but *your definition isn’t standard*. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not pretending that extant systems are any less mediocre than they are.
AidanPrydeCork
Hmm, Studio Ghibli is Japanese, there is no fair use (copyright) law in Japan. I hope they sue the shit out of these fuckers. (Ghibli suing open AI I mean).
[deleted]
[deleted]
NotSomoneElse68
"AI" is renowned for plagiarizing. Remember the images that literally had watermarks on them. It's more on "AI" now to prove it didn't. If you have somebody that robbed 20 people, when the 21st shows up, the first thought isn't "maybe they asked permission this time."
[deleted]
[deleted]
NotSomoneElse68
Looking it up I get: an unmodified car, and rail car for livestock. Nothing regarding what we're discussing. So, no, I guess.
NotSomoneElse68
Also, if they got permission, why is he so pissed off?
gloupin
Uh, there is a law for AI where article 30.4 says explicitly you can use copyrighted material to train your model for *non enjoyment* purpose.
(Like statistics...)
But it seems very dubious "art creation" falls under this. It's going to be... interesting...
patapof
Did you get that by asking ChatGPT?
gloupin
Uh, no... getting legal advice from chatgpt is a very bad idea...
patapof
Oh, I misread your post, apologies - you refer to the Japanese copyright law, which has an exception for analytics and AI training. Except it does not enable derivative works generated by AI.
Nanananahatman
I hate it. I do not enjoy this infringement. Damn, by my having an issue with it, I have given them a leg to stand on
gloupin
I would love to see your post used in court :P
ismellthebacon
Here's hoping. The fair use policy is getting stretched way too far.
peeopeepeee
You have to sue where the infringement happened. If openai never made or released the art in Japan, then it won't happen in Japanese courts. I'm hoping they did, just so they get sued, but I am doubtful.
TheDethroning
I know of a lot of Pokémon clones never made or released in Japan that got cease and desists from Nintendo. Content being in Japan is meaningless in Japanese courts
peeopeepeee
Nintendo is an international company, they abide by laws in which ever country they are in. If someone from the US makes a clone that breaks US law, and Nintendo operates in the US, then Nintendo sends them a US legal notice.
Do you hear about these pokemon clones based in other countries receiving Japanese cease and desist's? Or are they cease and desist's from the country that the clone is from?
potshot
Sure, but Japanese law only applies in Japan. When Nintendo sues, they sue according to the country they are suing in. A lot of the time that may be Japan, if the clones are somehow available in Japan, but it can be elsewhere as well.
rattymcfatty
Nintendo has a lot of offices in other countries though don't they? Not saying you are wrong but wouldn't those offices be the ones suing and not the japanese hq?
I'm not well versed in law, let alone how it would work internationally, so that's how I always thought that happened
nihiltres
The laws of the country in which one sues are the ones that apply. If that country has fair use or fair dealing exceptions that apply, then it doesn’t matter whether Japan does, no disrespect to Japan.
Semphir
I doubt they can sue because of these pictures. But if ghibli can prove the AI has been trained on unlicensed work, they can sue.... However... This is probably exoected and cheaper than obtaining the license... Just look at what amazon just did... Just stole 1.5 million books to train it's LLM. They might get sued, because there where some big names (king, sanderson, martin).. But it's worth it
amglasgow
There needs to be a law that if evidence shows that people said, "even if they find out and sue us, the expected cost of a settlement is less than the cost of [doing the right thing]", damages are automatically *squared*.
sleepinggreenidea
The issue is that it's not clear that "train[ing] on unlicensed work" is actionable or illegal. Copyright is a grant of specific rights. Until and unless AI models are specifically included in those protections, whether AI trainers can be sued has more to do with very specific, ticky-tacky facts (e.g., if/how long they retained copies of the works, how big their data sets are, etc.) rather than "the specific copy of the work they used wasn't licensed for AI training".
IrrationalNumber
I don't see how copyright law is applicable here? Open AI is not selling bootleg copies of Ghibli movies. I don't know Japanese law, so some other charge may be relevant, I don't know. But copyright is not the issue.
djevelen
there was a news story from just a few years ago, about a Father who had to unfortunately had to bury his son, who loved spider-man. Disney sued the father for putting spider-man on the childs grave marker. No sale of anything, just the replication of art. Sale of works isnt the only way to infringe on copyrights.
Feralkyn
That story's bullshit. They never sued. He asked for permission, they said they have a policy of not allowing their chars on graves (b/c it's dark/grim) and offered a personalized hand-drawn image addressed to/for the dead child. I don't agree with their decision but they absolutely did not sue.
IrrationalNumber
Yes, I know. Where in Ghibli's body of work are those images taken from? Art style can't be copyrighted. I can freely make an original painting in the style of Picasso, and sell it, as long as I don't claim it *is* a Picasso.
kittyfajitas
It is copyright. It's intellectual property, which is what copyright is based on. It's why you can't make your own Mickey Mouse movie/art and sell it. Disney will sue you to hell and back.
sleepinggreenidea
That's trademark law, not copyright law. There's similarities between the two, but they are very much not the same thing.
Feralkyn
As an artist: this isn't copyright. You cannot copyright a style, in general. This COULD change because this case is absolutely blatant; but the way copyright works is: when you create art, that art *piece* is automatically, internationally copyrighted to you.
IrrationalNumber
But that's not what Open AI are doing.
kittyfajitas
Well, it's arguable, and plenty of ppl have been arguing about it for the last few years. It's not settled law yet, bc it's an entirely new thing. I land firmly on the side of it being a violation of copyright.
sleepinggreenidea
Why? Be specific. Copyright grants specific rights and protections. Which of those rights are being violated here? Be specific.
It may *feel* like copyright to you, but I suspect that's because you're not an IP lawyer or random law nerd who actually knows what copyright entails and does not entail. Contra your claim, this is not "an entirely new thing"; the existing caselaw is derived from well-established principles, based on very specific statutes, treaties, cases, etc.
IrrationalNumber
In your opinion, if an artist takes commissions to paint a portrait of you in the style of a Disney character, are they violating copyright? They are not reproducing any copyrighted characters they are just imitating the style.
djevelen
and Disney is there US distributor, OpenAI just poked a VERY litigious lion, the only way it could be worse is if they also used Nintendo artworks.
AnAverageBoxEnthusiast
disney and Ghibli makes sense. both make amazing children movies and it turns out are total assholes
Wolfshead009
Disney? Yes. Ghibli? Sauce needed.
IndianJoe
I'd love to see that on a t-shirt ! :D
peeopeepeee
KawaiiInari
Disney is not the distributor anymore. GKids/Toho has distribution/theatrical rights and HBO/Max has streaming rights.
onlyhalfghost
have OpenAI draw Mario and Mickey Mouse in Space Marine armor and watch the world's shittiest lawyers collectively cum in their pants.
Boksha
I think Disney is probably too busy dreaming of no longer having to pay actors and animators to endlessly remake their existing movies for pure profit to sue the company that's promising to make that possible.
SpaceballsTheComment
The ruling that you can't copyright a style is so old, it predates even Disney.
mystik42
Copyright also protects derivative works. If the model derives it's abilities from the source material, then that's pretty cut and dried? Otherwise we can just make a machine that through some inexplicable machinations transforms Disney Characters into whatever we want.
SpaceballsTheComment
Two problems: 1) The whole "it's just an elaborate collage" argument falls flat, because you can't trace a single piece of information from the generated output back to any original work. 2) Fair use doctrine limits Copyright in that way, with the result that parodies, reviews, etc. are also protected as a result, but the legalese behind it (probably) also applies to transformative use by AI.
edgeofadhesion
The AI is clearly trained on a dataset that includes their copyrighted material though. It's not about the finished piece, it's about how it was able to achieve it.
sleepinggreenidea
Copyright is a grant of specified rights. Those rights do not include a right to prevent others from extracting metadata from your work. The case law is actually fairly hostile to that idea. So your best bet is to claim that accessing the data is illegal, and the transitory storage of the data while processing it is unauthorized copying... but copyright grants a monopoly on NON-transitory reproduction. And that's w/o even touching fair use, which gets into discussions of transformational use...
sleepinggreenidea
(None of that is a thorough or fully accurate description of the state of the law ofc. But it points in the direction of how complicated the law is. The best bet under current law for copyright protections against AI works is to attack infringing end products, not to attack the training of models. That could change, but right now the law doesn't favor the argument that transitory copying of publicly available copyrighted works to transformationally derive stylistic metadata from them is illegal)
SpaceballsTheComment
Yeah, but here's the thing: Nobody knows for sure wether using publicy available but unlicensed data can legally be used to train AI models, or not. Literally. There is no available legal framework tailored to the issues, not in the US, UK, or EU. There's also no precedence set, all the cases are still ongoing, even Getty Images v Stability AI. Does it feel illegal? Sure. But is it? Also, anyone who thinks there may be a way in this for artists to be compensated, hasn't been paying attention.
DracarysBlackfyre
Look up derivative works. There most certainly is legal precedent, it's simply a matter of actually enforcing it, and pushing past BS excuses
sleepinggreenidea
There have been compensation models proposed, but every one I've seen has been toxic in ways the proposers refuse to address.
TZO2k15
The solitary way that IA can be useful is when the artist themselves makes images/videos from models trained from their own artwork... THAT is what I consider proper AI art... otherwise it's nothing more than shitty reposts...
SMB42
AI as you sell it hasn't brought any useful anything to society. Blender is what you're thinking of & artists use it already 🤷♂️ AI is a shitty prompt generator that would maybe give the artist one useful pic from a million chances
nihiltres
There are absolutely ways to apply it *interestingly*, but most people don’t seem to hear about them. For example, have you heard of ControlNet? https://github.com/lllyasviel/ControlNet
TZO2k15
I have now! Admittedly I am new to this medium, as I am a traditional, and 3D artist, so any new medium is interesting to me, I myself want to animate virtual characters, using soft body physics and the like, so this is good info to have, thanks!
Also, everything I say online is freely open to critique, so thanks for yours as it will help me choose my words better when concerning this subject!
TZO2k15
Note: prompt are one thing, but tuning tools can really reward effort and customisation with your work, vastly separating it from low effort carbon copies...
TZO2k15
AI is a new medium, and as an artist, I cannot ignore, or discount it outright, as the same could be said about 3D art and the reactions of traditional artists, and even within the 3D art community, where modellers snub their noses at 3D compositors of art, as in using pre-made models to pose, morph, and render... So any art form needs to be criticised on their own merit, such as shitty AI reposts and low effort artwork.
BTW, I did not downvote you, as that would have been pointless to do!
SMB42
No worries! Votes are meaningless. Well sadly the onus is on artists to prove your point, before corporations just use it to spam copycat art & prove mine. The last few years has left me a little jaded so I'm sure I'm very pessimistic. Sorry
nihiltres
Narrow thinking. The *exploration* of visual ideas is useful, at least. I think “AI art” *can* be art when it’s not purely consumptive, but *so much* is terminally shallow and low-effort. We should criticize it on those grounds … and acknowledge those rare occasions where it’s not so shallow.
TZO2k15
"Narrow thinking" ⇐ Not necessarily, as I only posted a tiny bit about my views on AI, you can't know what I considered coming to this view as I never mentioned it. Training your own models is preferable to stealing them from copy written sources, the reason I got downvoted has more to do with going against a popular opinion than anything else. It is impractical to sum up the entirety of a person from a 2 1/3-line paragraph, as I actually agree with much that you have written, ironically enough!
nihiltres
Okay, my apologies. I was criticizing “the solitary way that IA can be useful”, but it’s fair that you can’t carry much nuance in relatively short comments.
TZO2k15
Indeed, as I am horrifically verbose and a slave to specificity, had there not been a 500 char limit, I would be writing a novella! x^D
I admit at first I thought you were being snarky, but thankfully, I am wrong, and find that you are genuine, which gives me more joy than you can know!
Cheers!
loperinter
Serious question, can you steal a style? Copyright would protect a "work", right? That is, for example, Spirited Away, but the style in which it's drawn or animated is not protected in itself, or is it? So this is definitely in bad taste, but random artists have been doing the exact same thing for years as "homages" and to practice and even sell, no?
ikees0
This is a machine so fuck it and fuck them. Do the work!
MaleProstateMilker88
Based on the reactions imgur is definitely pro-ai.
djarcas
You cannot.
jimbowardo3000
no, exactly. i can watch princess mononoke and draw my classmates in ghibli style all day long! imagining a scenario where that's a breach of copyright is breaking my brain, do people realise what they're asking for?
emberfish
The part that breaks copyright laws is that they purposefully would've had to train the AI on copyrighted material, which would've been uploaded to their servers or whatever. I would also argue the process by which AI images are generated is fundamentally different from a human learning to draw, but the part that matters legally is the licensing rights.
unclesporky
Yeah, it would potentially be infringement if these images were of Ghibli characters. And these images are potentially a kind of infringement on the subjects of these images, like the stock photo company who owns the "distracted boyfriend" meme image could try to sue someone, not Ghibli.
emberfish
Ghibli could sue on the basis that their work was used without permission/licensing, though.
unclesporky
Yes, and in that case they would need to prove how much of their work is actually contained within the model, how much was actually used, and the answer to that is practically none. AI models are not big zip files that store images. Training examines hundreds of terabytes of data and the final model only ends up gigabytes in size, in a ratio that means every individual image examined amounts to a couple of bytes in the final model, and those bytes aren't even representative of the image.
emberfish
It certainly sounds like their work was used without permission/licensing, then.
unclesporky
Correct, which you are allowed to do under Fair Use, when you use so little of it.
loperinter
And I understand and agree that a commercial entity using Ghibli's work to train the AI without licensing that work is the stealing part. But how is that different from anyone watching a Ghibli movie and deciding to draw their friends or original characters in that style? Is it the scale of it all? If you saw one of these AI creations and were told it was made by a person, would you consider it art, but not if you knew it was AI? Does it matter? Should it matter?
macdjord
If a studio hired a college art student, gave them a copy of the Studio Ghibli movies, and told them 'study these and draw something in the same style', would you expect them to pay a licensing fee (beyond the cover price of the DVDs)? No? So why should they need to pay to have an AI do so?
loperinter
Actually, yes, I would, because a studio is ostensibly doing it for commercial purposes just as these AI companies sell access to their higher service tiers.
macdjord
That's not how media licensing works, I'm afraid. When you buy a DVD, there /are/ restrictions on what you can do with it - you cannot use it for public viewing without paying an additional license, for instance - but it specifically does include the right to watch it in a private setting, and there is no distinction made between 'for enjoyment' and 'to learn the artist's style'.
emberfish
A "derivative work" is based on an existing protected IP by definition, Ghibli or whoever would be able to go after them. An individual artist inspired by Totoro would probably be fair use unless they infringe/damage the IP in a meaningful way (read: hurt their bottom line). But AI MUST be trained using copy-written material, which is illegal. Consider an album inspired by The Beatles vs an album that directly samples them.
heckruler
AI can view other people's artwork just as legally as anyone else can. Currently there simply aren't any laws that distinguish an artist seeing something and making art similar to it vs an AI seeing something and making art similar to it.
I understand what you're aiming for with the "sampling" argument, but no pixel of any of this was copied from any IP source. Not unless you think it's some sort of mind-crime to remember artwork you've seen in the past.
echonite
How exactly is that different from what a person does when creating something? Whether a person trains themselves off X art vs a machine being trained off X art, what is the technical difference that is relevant?
emberfish
The difference is slight, but meaningful: one is a living being and the other is lines of code. An artist can take inspiration from all sorts of places, but they don't need to study hundreds upon hundreds of animation cels to approximate a style. They have all their other artistic experience to fall back on, which will inform the final product as well. But the ONLY way the machine can ape Miyazaki is by having all those drawings in its training data, and even that must be fed to it by a human.
echonite
Why does it being code matter? And did the artists not have to practice repeatedly to achieve a given style or animation or effect? And how is data being fed in different than a teacher feeding information to a student? Ultimatly it seems the core argument is "its not human". Another point to consider, how is an AI system different than an automated tool? Did you write your own code to do a gradiant in your image editor? Unlikely, it is computer generated.
AngstyCicero
Because one allows unskilled people to make derivative art in a style they like, and the other requires skill. I'm against people profiting off of this, but these samples are memes, no one's getting rich. I'd love a set of Star Wars themed desktop wallpapers in this style, but i can't make it myself.
khety1890
You cannot copyright a style, but the AI was trained on copyrighted work.
nihiltres
Yes, and which of the monopolies of copyright was infringed by the training process? I think there’s a good argument the answer is “none”.
It’s still scummy that corporations take from the commons without giving back, but I don’t want copyright expanded to be *yet further* overbroad. Every time it’s expanded, something reasonable becomes prohibited along with whatever unreasonable thing was the target.
Gin2ki
So what does a human person, who draws in the same style as someone else? How did the human learn that style? Was the images the human looked at, copyrighted material made by someone else?
emberfish
Human inspiration isn't a thing that can be litigated. Blatantly using copyrighted material as training data which is then manipulated by computer code is.
wihskey
Pretty sure there are a bunch of court cases that exactly did litigate "human inspiration", for example "Ice Ice Baby" vs. "Under Pressure"
emberfish
As I said elsewhere, the same rules apply. Ice Ice Baby directly sampled Under Pressure, just as this image generator sampled Ghibli's work. Now they settled out of court, but Vanilla was required to credit Queen/Bowie as authors of the song and paid $4 million for publishing rights.
SardineGoblin
The pro-AI people hate actual creative people, calling them "obsolete" and telling them to "seethe and cope". They see skill and creativity as obstacles to generating content, and don't believe in art having heart and soul The disrespect to creators is deliberate.
carlsagansghost
To them, the ends justify the means. Just like people who pirate music and movies. Pay for the art you love. It’s the only way to truly support those who create the things that make life special.
NonstopRampage
"I'm shit with no talent, how dare you have skills and an imagination!"
It's the same pathetic shit as always. Utter hacks tearing down exceptional people for being exceptional, as if they're not real. They just think this ai shit evens the playing field.
NinjablazerZero
But don't you know that telling people that they need to practice to get good at things is gatekeeping?
How dare you look down on these people for just doing the equivalent of a google image search.
NaughtButOne
KnaveOfSwords
When they aren't demanding that those same creative people create more material for their plagiarism machine to steal.
echonite
I am "pro-AI". I would never call the creative people anything other than amazingly talented. AI will never replace humans as you still need humans to feed new data anyway. AI systems have potential to be amazing and useful tools. The current usage is just not that.
mixiekins
They're suffering the problem that some amateur artists do, in that they don't recognize that their skills had built upon the works of those that came before them, and that having lack of reverence for that relationship will ultimately stifle their growth. Without new input it will stagnante and everyone will eventually lose interest.
Leithoa
I think they do recognize the skill that goes into art. They're just upset that they would have to work hard to get that good. They want the accolades without the work. Typified by Musk suing for / buying the right to call himself the founder of Tesla.
jamiedBreaker
I am getting the same taste in my mouth as when Syndrome told Mr. Incredible that he's selling his superpower machines, "and when everyone's super...no one will be".
Foxplay
the pro AI people deserve to be purged and put in a ditch
theguythatisme
I don’t think the people you’re describing actually exist do they? Is anyone championing AI as a replacement for real artists? They are physically doing it in all industries but is anyone saying it’s a good thing? I just have never heard that argument. It’s either you hate AI like it r*ped your mother or you don’t give a shit. And I find both sides ridiculous. The amount of rage behind the argument prevents any real conversation on the topic.
warfornothing
I'd call myself pro-AI in a sense but I have absolutely nothing against artists. There's quite a few I support on crowd funding platforms despite being pretty poor myself. I think AI image gen is fun and interesting but I only use it for personal things, don't profit or claim it as mine. I definitely lack the artistic talent to create art myself which is what makes AI art useful for visualization of my own ideas. I dunno why people think it has to be one extreme end or the other.
StopTheWorldIWannaGetOff
They also don't see the glaring fault here that AI wouldn't be 'creating' jack without the original content it based it's derived generated work from...
heckruler
Hey now, there's a group of pro-AI people that like and appreciate creative types. I know the exact battle they (and a whole host of other people in other industries) have stepped into a couple years ago. The Ludittes were previously middle-class weavers. Professionals with a skill. They were summarily dumped to the curb and suffered a soul-crushing 50% unemployment rate.
But we all enjoy clothes that don't cost as much as a car. The genie isn't going back in the bottle.
CayseeTheDog
Idk I am big pro AI, but i also work in AI, so I have bias. I got into AI to do things like automate my laundry, provide more responsive artificial limbs, improve translation of low resource language. I don't hate creatives, but I do hate that corporations have murdered this AI renaissance by trying to replicate art and calling it creative.
PicassoCT
And now they have all the tools- and they have no stories to tell..
InnerBushman
Right! And they fail to see that the AI wouldn't even exist if not for all the artists it sources from. If artists are obstacles, make your own AI without using pre-existing material!!!
ticktockbent
I'm pro-AI and still believe artists are important. I also believe companies should be required to pay for content they use in training.
AI is a great tool, but it can't come up with something entirely new. The AI wouldn't know what Ghibli style was without talented artists creating it. New styles will be created by those same talented artists.
nihiltres
I disagree on the payment issue, but more because it seems to expand copyright law beyond its current (already overreaching) scope than to favour those companies. They’re being scummy by creating a private good (a model from which they sell services) from a public one (publicly visible media on the Internet) without at least *giving back* to that commons.
ticktockbent
My opinion is based on the fact that they are using copyrighted material to train a product they intend to sell access to. If they intend to give away the resulting model for free then that should be fair use.
michiyl
Well, in a fair world the companies seeking to produce more art of the same type would've already contacted the artist(s), so that they both can benefit from it. Alas, capitalism doesn't care, and will seek the most efficient way to turn ANYTHING into profit.
GirdleTurtle
AI is a tool. AI contents basically has same merit as tracing and knock offs. But everything has its uses. If you have an idea and no talent, that idea will be wasted. If you have talent but no imagination, your potential goes unfulfilled.
AI gives subpar life to otherwise buried ideas. But it can also let artists generate references or see things visualized differently.
Just label the damn things and stop passing them off as genuine art. (And get permission where applicable obviously).
RunawaySpoons
That last part. It's being fed human creations without those humans' permission. For both visual art and music.
GirdleTurtle
I have no problem with AI, because new tools is a hallmark of human advancement. From photoshop to photocopy to 3d printing replicas… so on and so forth. It’s all tools that reduce burden and let us advance.
My biggest issue is fraud and misrepresentation. A knockoff that doesn’t deny it, is basically bargain brand goods for customers that want it. It would be weirdly elitist to fault ppl for their taste or budget. But a knockoff that pretends to be the real thing, now that can just F right off
carlsagansghost
There is no human advancement in AI generated images.
GirdleTurtle
Sure there is. Just not in the specific way you’re imagining it.
You could use them as references when working on something, especially if you can’t find a close enough match by simple searching, to speed up processes.
Or train an AI using your own previous works, and stock images to sketch out ideas.
An author can generate an AI image to communicate an Idea more accurately to an artist for cover art.
A disabled person can use visual communication they otherwise don’t have access to.
1/2
RunawaySpoons
You know what, you're kind of right in that it is a tool and isn't inherently bad. It's the way it's being used that's bad … just like most harmful tools throughout human history.