It’s funny even though you can create passable art easily with AI, the results are still infinite and finding that special prompt that matches your vision is not easy. People who create top AI art that get lots of ‘stars’ in the SD discord are easily spending days coming up with the right prompt and tweaking it. It’s hard and personally I’m not as good as them (there is skill involved) it’s a different kind of hard than what traditional art has been.
Different tools, brush vs keyboard, but similar in that you need vision of what you want to create with those tools.
Is it really skilled? I feel like it's just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. You have an idea, write a prompt, and then edit and re-run that prompt repeatedly until you accidentally get what you want.
I think I agree, but couldn't the same be said about Mozart or Bach writing a symphony? They have an idea, write a score, then iterate on it until they accidentally get something that sounds good.
This does not take into account the years of practice and the natural talent that led to these composers being able to do this. In comparison, any schmuck can learn how to find prompts within a few hours, and can get pretty good at it within a few weeks.
Like I said, people trivialize and discount how hard it is to create good AI art. It’s a lot tougher since everyone now can create something passable, it comes down to vision. Is your vision great enough to create award winning AI art? Mine isn’t, yours probably isn’t either.
The current type of AI art is less than a year old, so no person can have more than a year of experience, at most. Most artists spend years and years developing their craft, and it involves daily deliberate multi-sensory practice. By comparison, all a prompter has to do is play around with types of words and iterate over a few weeks. Yes, they might need some eye for detail or composition or some intuition with the sort of words that could work, but since the AI is a blackbox anyway it cannot logically be much more but throwing mud and finding what sticks.
Don't get me wrong, I am in fact excited by this technology. The applications are clear in terms of generating new art, in particular in hybrid contexts where a person talented in one sphere only could finally make it work e.g. graphic novels
I suppose what bothers me is the idea of a prompt user seeing themselves as an artist, not because I want to gatekeep people's minds but because that misunderstands the nature of the technology. A visitor to an AI art gallery (I do mean material that is 100% the direct result of prompt generation) could be able to generate maybe not the exact same art but something of equivalent worth upon arriving at the door. The contribution of the human being or to be more precise the specific individual is almost immaterial. Sure, they might have come up with a prompt with many words but you could come up with any number of equivalent artworks in the same breath. The artist is wholly interchangeable in a way that did not exist before.
I'll admit that it does require cultural understanding of art and some understanding of how prompts work because you need to know the names of artists and styles to fit into the prompt. But beyond having a good vocabulary there's not that much more involved. By comparison, if we're talking about artwork that uses AI as a tool as opposed to being the entire thing, then it becomes much more interesting and is what I am excited about because there will still be meaningful human input in there.
It’s a skill if you can get what you want quickly. It’s also a skill to create art better than everyone one else when it is so ‘easy’ to create the bottleneck is only your imagination.
My experience is that anyone that says predictably generating art is easy using AI is either lying, never done it, or exclusively copying prompts others have posted.
Beyond that, lots of people are unable to even explain how prompts are parsed or per token explain how it impacts what is generated. For example, do commas matter?
“Prompt engineering” is real, still unclear to me though what the future for it looks like, since easy to see via comparable things like Google search operators that the general public has little interest in learning command parameters.
One fun tip for anyone who wants to understand more how their prompts work - lock down to a single seed, no variations, then change one word at a time in your prompt. Then you can see what effects each word has.
Or you can answer your question about the effects of commas. You can try moving a word or phrase forwards or backwards and see what effect it has.
By working with a single snapshot of randomness, you can see the word effects more clearly.
Agree; to the expand on your points, even trying ultra simple prompt like [black circle on a white background] and then running the output through CLIP to get its text outputs. Then try to narrow the iterations between the two to be predictable and controlled by you.
Obviously understanding the code and data the model is based on is likely best path to better understanding what is going on; for example, last time I checked, Stable Diffusion was limited to 77 tokens.
Ultimately though, possible paths to understanding are like unlimited and just as creative as any other aspect of the topic.
People are way overvaluing this thing right? AI "art", prompt "engineering". All I see is people with too much time throwing words at a parser without understanding what it does until something sticks.
And the result is probably a copyright violation of some poor artist's work.
Little strange to comment that users do not understand a technology, then comment that outputs are copyright violations; which to me says you neither understand copyright, nor how the technology works.
Legal or illegal, there's a big ethical debate to be had. Swallowing up the work of others and using that to generate derivative/new work that _a lot_ of people (I've seen half a dozen stock photo AI sites this week alone) are then trying to use to replace the original creators doesn't feel right.
Art history is literally full of transformation of prior works, technology is clearly transformative (if you understand it), copyright law clearly allows for it, and indexing publicly available data is also legal — there’s no reasonable basis for debating the topic being illegal or unethical.
This isn't really transformation though. It's compositing pixel-accurate bits and pieces of multiple pieces of art to make a new piece (as proven by stock photo watermarks being replicated in some pieces).
That difference is enough to assert that there is a wholly reasonable ethical basis. Especially when they're obviously not just training it on images with relaxed copyrights.
A collage of prior works is protected as a transformative work, regardless of if you’re able to recognize the seams between the pieces. Even use of trademarks is not protected in works of art if there is no clearly defined trademark violation; for example, putting fries in a box that looks identical to McDonald fries box and offering them for sell would not be legally justifiable by just saying it is art.
Ethically speaking, for the second time, you ignored that within art world, or real world for that matter, making derivative works is completely ethical if done within any related legal constraints; as such, to me, you’re not making a good faith effort, which is actually unethical if intentionally done, so I will not be replying any further.
Someone else can skip training with copyrighted images, so this copyright argument would be unusable there.
Competent creators will not be replaced, they will use the tools to do their job faster/better. I remember soem tiem ago artists having reservations on "digital art". Someone said it better, a person with a camera is not a photographer.
the problems I have with Microsoft Copilot is that the fuckers did not used MS proprietary code train but only trained with other people GPL/MIT code, this was shitty and implies that their implementation is "dangerous" to use with proprietary code but their expensive lawyers can handle a bunch of open source small developers.
GitHub’s terms of service explicitly allow them to do what they did, if anyone is in violation of the licenses you’re referencing it’s the people that loaded the code into GitHub.
That is not how copyright law works. If someone uploads an image as public domain, or code as a BSD license, without having the right to do so, that doesn't give others the right to use those things.
Unless I am missing something, nothing I said prior conflicts with your point, nor shows that GitHub is willfully violating the law. Are you aware of any copyrighted material that was illegally loaded to GitHub that has been proven to be used by CoPilot, it’s use was not transformative — AND - GitHub has not removed it from the model?
The code used in GitHub copilot is all copyrighted with GPL, MIT,BSD. Also lots of the code was not uploaded to GitHub by the authors so GitHub shity ToS won't apply so you can't claim that the authors agreed to some vague terms that we can now intepret as allows only GitHub to create copilot.
You did
1 MS did not violate copyright since is open source code, andfor soem reason you think that only proprietary code should be removed from copilot
2 even if MS violated the license the guilty person is the dude that uploaded the code to GitHub and click I Agree not he ToS, implying that somehow the GitHub ToS has the ability to change open source license(but t proprietary ones, since you claim MS "removed" such code when it was revealed).
As I mentioned above, MS are cowards, iof their thing is real creating new stuff then put their ass on the line and put their own code in too, put all proprietary code in GitHub in copilot too and then have their well paid lawyers defend their tech.
Are you sure you understand what you are writing here?
Let me try to use an example, maybe we are both bad at expressing this in english
I did no say that the user that uploads has no responsibility, but if I upload the Windows code, or FreeBSD code and mark it as GPL and click I agree on the ToS , does this mean that the original license is invalid and GitHub can do whatever they want just because a random person click an Html button?
Prior statement by me within thread you are responding to:
>> “Are you aware of any copyrighted material that was illegally loaded to GitHub that has been proven to be used by CoPilot, it’s use was not transformative — AND - GitHub has not removed it from the model?”
Speculative claims to me are do not merit any response, especially when accusing party of something for which you have no related evidence; which actually might be defamation.
If you have any creditable, independently verifiable, material, etc - evidence of a violation of a specific reproducible CoPilot output, which is documented as having been a valid copyright violation by an unauthorized party, and it has not been removed from the model — please feel free to share links.
As is, GitHub has the right to use code unless they receive what I just requested multiple times from you and appears possible you’re intentionally ignoring for reasons I do not understand.
If I have missed something, it’s not intentional, happy to address any errors or omissions on my party if they exist; assuming you’re not skipping over my points.
>If you have any creditable, independently verifiable, material, etc - evidence of a violation of a specific reproducible CoPilot output, which is documented as having been a valid copyright violation by an unauthorized party, and it has not been removed from the model — please feel free to share links.
Snippets of code were already found, and MS did not removed them from the model but put an IF check to make sure is not appearing again.
So now I need to find specially for you a new snippet and also somehow ensure MS won't add it in the IF checks too ... then I would have proven to you that all that list of conditions are broken.
The proof was already shown, the code was spiting exactly snippets of code, I am not the one that needs to prove that the MS "quick fix" is working correctly now.
Dude I think this kind of AI can be done right, I am not convinced MS did it correct because they already outputed copyrighted code and on top of that they avoided to put their ass on the line. I don't hate the idea of copilot, just the bad implementation of it.
>if anyone is in violation of the licenses you’re referencing it’s the people that loaded the code into GitHub.
MS can't use this excuse, if some dude uploads Windows code or say GTA6 code on GitHub I can't just use it and point you to the GitHub repo and ask you to figure it out with that person.
MS should either
1 tell you that the code is BSD,GPL, MIT depending on what is derived from
2 tell you that is not derived but some new code, but at the same time put his fat ass on the line and also put proprietary code in the mix, like their code and private code on GitHub since they claim the output is not derived from the input.
But they did it half ways, they did not had the courage for 2 and they did not want to respect the MIT,GPL either
The law hasn't caught up, and might never do. But surely a generator that even sometimes inputs the artists' signature (or at least a bizarro version of it) in the output meets the spirit if not the letter of what copyright law is trying to achieve? At the very least you have artists in a more precarious position than they were before.
Copyright law allows for transformative use, signature alone in some from would not negate the work being transformative. If it was claimed to be work of art by an artist associated with a signature, that would be fraud, which is completely different. If signature was trademarked, that might be another basis for legal claims, but unrelated to copyright.
Again, I am aware that legally there's nothing they can do, but the point of copyright law is to facilitate making a living from art (let's ignore the House of Mouse shenanigans for the sake of the argument).
A service that is able to pop out a new piece that will be indistinguishable from the artist's style is going to be disastrous for hundreds of thousands of artists around the world. We can't hide, at least not in good faith, behind the concept of 'transformative' art.
Besides, there clearly hasn't been enough time for the legal system to catch up so arguments about the letter of the law might change too. If you look at musical cases you'll be surprised to see that the 'transformative' part is up to interpretation. Just ask the Verve...
Copyright law protects finished works of art. It does not protect things like facts, ideas, procedures, or an artist's style, no matter how distinct.
And legal system is up to date in any material matter related to the topic. If is not, you not only need to provide a specific notable claim, but back it up with evidence to support it and state why it’s not addressed by current legal code, case law, etc.
Well it looks as though some actors such as Bruce Willis have already signed away their deepfake likeness and/or style, however you'd want to call it. Maybe additional legal concepts are not far behind? There was a time when copyright did not exist at all. It came into being because there was a need for it.
Reddit-style argumentation about the literal aspect of the law is missing the point altogether. These new services are barely a few months old (or at least publicly available) and it remains to be seen how society will react. How can there even be case law if there is literally not enough time for it to appear?
The salient fact is that the living conditions of many artists is going to degrade. If you do not believe that or do not care about it, then we can agree to disagree, but personally I think it would be better to alleviate that problem in some way and to nudge the law towards supporting this.
You randomly mixing in concepts which are wholly related, as such, will not be replying to them; likeliness as a concept under tort law is basically unregistered trade mark rights, not copyright.
You again refuse mention verbatim what legal issues are new that are not covered by existing laws. Law by definition will always have a latent space that’s beyond the law, it is called extralegal, and one of the many reasons in common law that judges exists. Something being extralegal does neither make it illegal, nor shows a law is currently imperfect. Laws and judges further do not represent some idle truth, but a system for bring disagreements to an end without the need to exceed the monopoly governments have on violence as a means of dispute resolution; which is why criminals resort to violence as a means of dispute resolution, because they are frequently unable to resolve disputes using the law.
And then, you inject a yet another completely different topic, for which disagree, that being the impact of AI of professional artists, but as I said before, you lack the sense to understand your response are not in good faith, to me oddly argumentative, and wish you the best.
I don't see how what I am saying is incoherent, and I see we got off on the wrong foot here, so in the spirit of discussion please allow me to rephrase more simply and neutrally:
1. AI art is still extremely new, and it's unclear what direction the law will take regarding it (if any)
2. Artists are likely to be significantly impacted by this, therefore it is probable that there will be some debate about the legal environment for this AI art. It won't necessarily be in favor of the artists, though I personally hope it will.
3. The law is hopefully aimed at making society better in some way. The definition of that is relative of course, but the spirit of the law is important, otherwise the entire edifice is pointless.
4. The AI art could be argued to be classified as merely transformative, but is regular transformative art likely to have the same impact on artists as AI art? Intuitively, we can probably tell that's not the case because the amount of effort and talent needed to generate AI art is incredibly low compared to the regular version and therefore the output will be vastly higher. The distribution, ease of production and other factors makes this an altogether different problem.
5. The prospect of AI art seems to be a bigger problem for artists than copyright infringement, because it can nuke sales/commissions or even types of artists (such as concept illustrators) in a way copyright infringement cannot. The market power of the 2D artist, which is the hard to reproduce ability to produce things in a very specific style, is gone.
6. Prompt users will deliberately use a reference to specific artists because they expect the result will be better than without. They understand that they are implicitly piggybacking on the work of the artist that led to the style being available in the model, to then use it for their own ends. If the artist had not worked in the way they did, the style would not be easily available in a few seconds. You would have to train for a long time to be able to replicate it, and your output would be very low (hence unproblematic)
So in the end you have something that will greatly impact artists, more so than most threats to intellectual property that are currently covered by the law, and that leads me to believe that the law will change, and if it does not, that it should change. Naturally, it is possible to disagree.
As someone who has personally litigated cases, even gotten judges to issues orders by phone, I have every right to present reasonable claims; as do you, unfortunately you’re not doing that.
Case you referenced is scheduled for hearing on January 2023 and I don’t see any reason to review it until it’s finalized.
If I am missing something, please feel free to explicitly state what and why it is related to current topic.
You're getting downvoted for a decidedly un-hn opinion, but that is my perception as well. You throw 30 prompts at gpt3 until you get what you know you wanted. Then you post saying "look! gpt3 has domain knowledge". Please...
The model doesn't store or reproduce anyone's art, maybe except with some intentional img2img prompting. And styles aren't copyrightable.
There's some really impressive stuff being created out there, and it's still very early days. People take sets of personal images, train a mini model on that and use that model to prompt Stable Diffusion to create something that it wasn't even trained on. There are interesting short animations, etc. It's a brave new world to explore.
I've been having immense fun with SD in the past few days, but I think you're right. Prompt "engineering" is educated guesses plus experience, a good way to get a good (txt2img) image seems to be to iterate on prompts until something promising appears then leaving it to churn out 50 similar images with varying parameters.
Using the "by {artistname}" string in prompts does seem to produce a lot of stuff which could potentially be copyright violation - it'll even output a signature/initials fairly frequently.
In the next year or two I'm sure we'll see some a refined version of something like img2img integrated into Photoshop, maybe Adobe will finally justify their "Cloud" approach with a big stack of GPUs in a data center.
It's only a matter of months before someone comes up with a half-text / half-image prompting method for these models.
As in: you'll be able to draw a bunch of circles and arrows with labels in them like "astronaut" / "horse" => "sunset" and some environmental info like "in the style of van gogh" and bang you get a proper image.
In some sense img2img can already do this, I have seen enough artists trying to leverage img2img in their creative process (as opposed to txt2img, which really seems only useful for ideation).
img2img and in/outpainting are already two forms that this idea exists in. Maybe not with textual labels in the image itself, but the concept of having a starting image that a model can modify for a desired change is definitely already a thing.
I've seen some people use () and other syntax on the stable diffusion subreddit. I've been trying to find a guide for the syntax but haven't had much luck with Google. Is there a resource for this?
The idea of prompt “engineering” strikes me as nonsense. I’ve spent many hours on Midjourney, and it makes some astonishing artworks. But it essentially never makes what you expect. I see that as a feature rather than a bug. Instead of professional prompt engineers who somehow know the precise incantation to generate exactly the picture that’s in your head (they don’t), I think the actual future direction of this business is large numbers of people skimming through thousands of fairly similar images and varying the preferred ones over and over to inch towards the desired output. Of course, all that will be obviated when the AI itself advances by another big step, anyhow.
MidJourney is more heavily tuned to produce its "house style" unless you overwhelm it with keywords, and Stable Diffusion and other models are tuned differently.
If you ask MidJourney for a "futuristic solder in armor," you'll get... something. If you ask for "Hardmesh retro futurist steampunk fallout 7 6 power armor head, hyper realistic, art gta 5 cover, official fanart behance hd artstation by jesper ejsing, by rhads, makoto shinkai and lois van baarle, ilya kuvshinov, ossdraws, that looks like it is from borderlands and by feng zhu and loish and laurie greasley, victo ngai, andreas rocha, john harris radiating a glowing aura global illumination ray tracing hdr"[0] you'll get something that is less obviously MidJourney.
0. I grabbed that prompt from lexica.art as something work-safe.
I just read on reddit about https://aiprompt.io and I find it useful to kickstart a new generation. It's a good way to start and discover technics by serendipity.
It's not teaching you tricks, but it's great for beginners or when inspiration is lacking.
60 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 137 ms ] threadDifferent tools, brush vs keyboard, but similar in that you need vision of what you want to create with those tools.
The more you have, the better your AI art will be. You should try sitting at a prompt and making something compelling.
I suppose what bothers me is the idea of a prompt user seeing themselves as an artist, not because I want to gatekeep people's minds but because that misunderstands the nature of the technology. A visitor to an AI art gallery (I do mean material that is 100% the direct result of prompt generation) could be able to generate maybe not the exact same art but something of equivalent worth upon arriving at the door. The contribution of the human being or to be more precise the specific individual is almost immaterial. Sure, they might have come up with a prompt with many words but you could come up with any number of equivalent artworks in the same breath. The artist is wholly interchangeable in a way that did not exist before.
I'll admit that it does require cultural understanding of art and some understanding of how prompts work because you need to know the names of artists and styles to fit into the prompt. But beyond having a good vocabulary there's not that much more involved. By comparison, if we're talking about artwork that uses AI as a tool as opposed to being the entire thing, then it becomes much more interesting and is what I am excited about because there will still be meaningful human input in there.
Beyond that, lots of people are unable to even explain how prompts are parsed or per token explain how it impacts what is generated. For example, do commas matter?
“Prompt engineering” is real, still unclear to me though what the future for it looks like, since easy to see via comparable things like Google search operators that the general public has little interest in learning command parameters.
Or you can answer your question about the effects of commas. You can try moving a word or phrase forwards or backwards and see what effect it has.
By working with a single snapshot of randomness, you can see the word effects more clearly.
Obviously understanding the code and data the model is based on is likely best path to better understanding what is going on; for example, last time I checked, Stable Diffusion was limited to 77 tokens.
Ultimately though, possible paths to understanding are like unlimited and just as creative as any other aspect of the topic.
And the result is probably a copyright violation of some poor artist's work.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33079278
Today in many states it's perfectly legal to shoot a native american if you're in a wagon circle. Is that ethical?
Fair use is also a positive defense, which means that only the courts can really say if something is fair use or not.
>> “Art history is literally full of transformation of prior works”
There’s no reasonable ethical basis to take issue with. You’re examples and counter points to me add substantive your claims. What am I missing?
That difference is enough to assert that there is a wholly reasonable ethical basis. Especially when they're obviously not just training it on images with relaxed copyrights.
Ethically speaking, for the second time, you ignored that within art world, or real world for that matter, making derivative works is completely ethical if done within any related legal constraints; as such, to me, you’re not making a good faith effort, which is actually unethical if intentionally done, so I will not be replying any further.
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/25222/is-it-leg...
Competent creators will not be replaced, they will use the tools to do their job faster/better. I remember soem tiem ago artists having reservations on "digital art". Someone said it better, a person with a camera is not a photographer.
the problems I have with Microsoft Copilot is that the fuckers did not used MS proprietary code train but only trained with other people GPL/MIT code, this was shitty and implies that their implementation is "dangerous" to use with proprietary code but their expensive lawyers can handle a bunch of open source small developers.
You did
1 MS did not violate copyright since is open source code, andfor soem reason you think that only proprietary code should be removed from copilot
2 even if MS violated the license the guilty person is the dude that uploaded the code to GitHub and click I Agree not he ToS, implying that somehow the GitHub ToS has the ability to change open source license(but t proprietary ones, since you claim MS "removed" such code when it was revealed).
As I mentioned above, MS are cowards, iof their thing is real creating new stuff then put their ass on the line and put their own code in too, put all proprietary code in GitHub in copilot too and then have their well paid lawyers defend their tech.
Name calling is though is very clearly against HN’s guidelines.
Let me try to use an example, maybe we are both bad at expressing this in english
>> “Are you aware of any copyrighted material that was illegally loaded to GitHub that has been proven to be used by CoPilot, it’s use was not transformative — AND - GitHub has not removed it from the model?”
Speculative claims to me are do not merit any response, especially when accusing party of something for which you have no related evidence; which actually might be defamation.
If you have any creditable, independently verifiable, material, etc - evidence of a violation of a specific reproducible CoPilot output, which is documented as having been a valid copyright violation by an unauthorized party, and it has not been removed from the model — please feel free to share links.
As is, GitHub has the right to use code unless they receive what I just requested multiple times from you and appears possible you’re intentionally ignoring for reasons I do not understand.
If I have missed something, it’s not intentional, happy to address any errors or omissions on my party if they exist; assuming you’re not skipping over my points.
Snippets of code were already found, and MS did not removed them from the model but put an IF check to make sure is not appearing again.
So now I need to find specially for you a new snippet and also somehow ensure MS won't add it in the IF checks too ... then I would have proven to you that all that list of conditions are broken.
The proof was already shown, the code was spiting exactly snippets of code, I am not the one that needs to prove that the MS "quick fix" is working correctly now.
Dude I think this kind of AI can be done right, I am not convinced MS did it correct because they already outputed copyrighted code and on top of that they avoided to put their ass on the line. I don't hate the idea of copilot, just the bad implementation of it.
MS can't use this excuse, if some dude uploads Windows code or say GTA6 code on GitHub I can't just use it and point you to the GitHub repo and ask you to figure it out with that person.
MS should either
1 tell you that the code is BSD,GPL, MIT depending on what is derived from
2 tell you that is not derived but some new code, but at the same time put his fat ass on the line and also put proprietary code in the mix, like their code and private code on GitHub since they claim the output is not derived from the input.
But they did it half ways, they did not had the courage for 2 and they did not want to respect the MIT,GPL either
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33081744
A service that is able to pop out a new piece that will be indistinguishable from the artist's style is going to be disastrous for hundreds of thousands of artists around the world. We can't hide, at least not in good faith, behind the concept of 'transformative' art.
Besides, there clearly hasn't been enough time for the legal system to catch up so arguments about the letter of the law might change too. If you look at musical cases you'll be surprised to see that the 'transformative' part is up to interpretation. Just ask the Verve...
And legal system is up to date in any material matter related to the topic. If is not, you not only need to provide a specific notable claim, but back it up with evidence to support it and state why it’s not addressed by current legal code, case law, etc.
Reddit-style argumentation about the literal aspect of the law is missing the point altogether. These new services are barely a few months old (or at least publicly available) and it remains to be seen how society will react. How can there even be case law if there is literally not enough time for it to appear?
The salient fact is that the living conditions of many artists is going to degrade. If you do not believe that or do not care about it, then we can agree to disagree, but personally I think it would be better to alleviate that problem in some way and to nudge the law towards supporting this.
You again refuse mention verbatim what legal issues are new that are not covered by existing laws. Law by definition will always have a latent space that’s beyond the law, it is called extralegal, and one of the many reasons in common law that judges exists. Something being extralegal does neither make it illegal, nor shows a law is currently imperfect. Laws and judges further do not represent some idle truth, but a system for bring disagreements to an end without the need to exceed the monopoly governments have on violence as a means of dispute resolution; which is why criminals resort to violence as a means of dispute resolution, because they are frequently unable to resolve disputes using the law.
And then, you inject a yet another completely different topic, for which disagree, that being the impact of AI of professional artists, but as I said before, you lack the sense to understand your response are not in good faith, to me oddly argumentative, and wish you the best.
Last comment is even against HN’s guidelines:
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
1. AI art is still extremely new, and it's unclear what direction the law will take regarding it (if any)
2. Artists are likely to be significantly impacted by this, therefore it is probable that there will be some debate about the legal environment for this AI art. It won't necessarily be in favor of the artists, though I personally hope it will.
3. The law is hopefully aimed at making society better in some way. The definition of that is relative of course, but the spirit of the law is important, otherwise the entire edifice is pointless.
4. The AI art could be argued to be classified as merely transformative, but is regular transformative art likely to have the same impact on artists as AI art? Intuitively, we can probably tell that's not the case because the amount of effort and talent needed to generate AI art is incredibly low compared to the regular version and therefore the output will be vastly higher. The distribution, ease of production and other factors makes this an altogether different problem.
5. The prospect of AI art seems to be a bigger problem for artists than copyright infringement, because it can nuke sales/commissions or even types of artists (such as concept illustrators) in a way copyright infringement cannot. The market power of the 2D artist, which is the hard to reproduce ability to produce things in a very specific style, is gone.
6. Prompt users will deliberately use a reference to specific artists because they expect the result will be better than without. They understand that they are implicitly piggybacking on the work of the artist that led to the style being available in the model, to then use it for their own ends. If the artist had not worked in the way they did, the style would not be easily available in a few seconds. You would have to train for a long time to be able to replicate it, and your output would be very low (hence unproblematic)
So in the end you have something that will greatly impact artists, more so than most threats to intellectual property that are currently covered by the law, and that leads me to believe that the law will change, and if it does not, that it should change. Naturally, it is possible to disagree.
Seems like perhaps copyright is more complicated than folks defending AI Art believe it is.
And frankly, unless you are a judge overseeing a specific copyright infringement case, you have no basis with which to make these assertions.
Case you referenced is scheduled for hearing on January 2023 and I don’t see any reason to review it until it’s finalized.
If I am missing something, please feel free to explicitly state what and why it is related to current topic.
The model doesn't store or reproduce anyone's art, maybe except with some intentional img2img prompting. And styles aren't copyrightable.
There's some really impressive stuff being created out there, and it's still very early days. People take sets of personal images, train a mini model on that and use that model to prompt Stable Diffusion to create something that it wasn't even trained on. There are interesting short animations, etc. It's a brave new world to explore.
Using the "by {artistname}" string in prompts does seem to produce a lot of stuff which could potentially be copyright violation - it'll even output a signature/initials fairly frequently.
In the next year or two I'm sure we'll see some a refined version of something like img2img integrated into Photoshop, maybe Adobe will finally justify their "Cloud" approach with a big stack of GPUs in a data center.
As in: you'll be able to draw a bunch of circles and arrows with labels in them like "astronaut" / "horse" => "sunset" and some environmental info like "in the style of van gogh" and bang you get a proper image.
If you ask MidJourney for a "futuristic solder in armor," you'll get... something. If you ask for "Hardmesh retro futurist steampunk fallout 7 6 power armor head, hyper realistic, art gta 5 cover, official fanart behance hd artstation by jesper ejsing, by rhads, makoto shinkai and lois van baarle, ilya kuvshinov, ossdraws, that looks like it is from borderlands and by feng zhu and loish and laurie greasley, victo ngai, andreas rocha, john harris radiating a glowing aura global illumination ray tracing hdr"[0] you'll get something that is less obviously MidJourney.
0. I grabbed that prompt from lexica.art as something work-safe.
I just read on reddit about https://aiprompt.io and I find it useful to kickstart a new generation. It's a good way to start and discover technics by serendipity.
It's not teaching you tricks, but it's great for beginners or when inspiration is lacking.
Curious, if you were to imagine what a truly useful tool would be like for teaching how to create prompts?