[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Settings Mobile Home
/3/ - 3DCG

4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 32 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]

Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks. Make sure to check your spam box!

[Advertise on 4chan]

File: 1663674816085.png (513 KB, 1157x658)
513 KB
513 KB PNG
2 lawsuits against dumb ol AI already. One yesterday, one today. Its OVER.

For what purpose?
Stable Diffusion and the company didn't create the datasets, it's mostly CLIP and shit, which is done by a completely different entity.
It's gonna fail pretty hard in court. Assuming it can be explained to retards in a way they can understand. The technologically illiterate can be dangerous people. They're retarded and can be swayed by any fuck who pretends they know what they're talking about and can trigger an emotional response, since they only function based on emotion and not rationality.
I mean for fuck's sake look at all the retards who still think AI is stealing parts of their drawings and photobashing them into something new.
>Although the creators of some AI image tools (like OpenAI) refuse to disclose the data used to create their models, Stable Diffusion’s training dataset is open source. An independent analysis of the dataset found that Getty Images and other stock image sites constitute a large portion of its contents, and evidence of Getty Images’ presence can be seen in the AI software’s tendency to recreate the company’s watermark, as in the example image below:

its OVER
I can see why they are mad tho. It would be one thing if the image generators were going to be free but it's obvious they will charge for them. Novelai already does. It's simple, you can't sell the image generation service when you got the models "from the internet" . "Somebody else scrapped the images we're just planning to sell it" is a retarded excuse
It's too late
I already have a local install and the ability to train models myself

Don't @ me feds I won't reply
Fucking this, the amount of porn I've generated FOR FREE would be enough to put every single jewish porn site out of business.
really now, you think you have the audacity to use a different method of consuming porn? you will regret this manoeuvre.
getty's looking to settle and reach a licensing agreement, it says as much in their press release:

they'll probably get their way.

the other law suit is a bit griftery.

major media companies may eventually make their move and we'll see what happens then. but those companies will be looking to in-house/pvt solutions - they got squeezed by tech once (streaming), but they're pushing back now with their own platforms. they see opportunity here and once they're ready / threatened, they'll make their move.

individual artists tho? lol. fucked.
>individual artists tho? lol. fucked.
not necessarily.
If big companies create precedents, then individuals will jump on that train too. Class action law suits will be prevalent.
Its all about creating enough force to break the dam.
This shit takes so much time, that by the time any of this gets settled, the AIs will very likely be so unrecognizable from their current forms, that none of the things they settle on will matter. Not that it matters anyway, since even if they set a precedent in the US, nothing's stopping people from continuing to use these tools elsewhere in the world. This is essentially impossible to stop, it's inevitable. It's time to stop hoping for a miracle, and start adapting to the future instead.
>nothing's stopping people from continuing to use these tools elsewhere in the world. This is essentially impossible to stop, it's inevitable

They said the same about music and video piracy but now its almost entirely disappeared due to streaming and your isp blocking it and sending you notices. Or do you only have "selective" memory or are very very young?
That is an entirely different matter, and has more to do with convenience than law enforcement.

It's not gone either. Anyone can pirate essentially risk free with VPN, if you don't count the risk of malware, for those not familiar with how to protect against it. VPN goes for around $20 per year, often lower for first timer deals. However, people really only pirate TV shows and porn these days. It's simpler to just pay for a game on steam than get one, and music is readily available on youtube and spotify. There's very little reason to pirate those theses days, unless you're extremely poor/live in a poor country. TV/Movies are a different matter, due to the fracturing of the streaming services, and regional limitations and do still get heavily pirated.
No, you cant pirate with a vpn idiot because they are banned / blacklisted
Bullshit. Get a better VPN service if you're really having trouble. But I doubt you've even tried one, if you seriously think it's hard to pirate these days.
I have tried multiple and they are all blacklisted. No speeds on piracy sites, only getting connections on legit gpl torrents
I use PIA, and have never had any issues. Speeds are comparable to speeds without VPN. Of course varies on the server you've connected to, if one is not working great, try another server.
I used pia. Now i have a job and no need to torrent. I respect the content creators.
Same here! The only time I torrent these days, is if it's something that's not available in my region, due to some contrived local licensing shit. So we're in agreement, you're chiming my initial point I made here >>933897

Piracy being in the downlow is not comparable to AI regulations in any way.
It is comparable, because the creators dont get any money off of their copyrights
I'm not disputing that, even if it's not quite that cut and dry. I was talking about the viability of regulating it. The other guy used piracy as an example of how it's been regulated, and I mentioned that those regulations haven't changed shit, that piracy's decline is related more to convenience, than law enforcement.
AI bros are about to get fucked, hard.
Its easy to regulate ai. They are already doing it with the pizza it can generate both on the ai platform level and the spying on you through os and hardware backdoor level
>I mean for fuck's sake look at all the retards who still think AI is stealing parts of their drawings and photobashing them into something new.

that is exactly what AI does though.
>that is exactly what AI does though.
Just like human artists. Not an argument. "Art is stealing" exists for a reason.
>Just like human artists. Not an argument. "Art is stealing" exists for a reason.
you cant steal copyrighted material. You cant steal designs that you have collected from the mouse or you will face the consequences. You have to respect copyright.

The phrase is "Art imitates life". You do sims (fluid, smoke, fire, muscle) on top of mocap to imitate real life. There is no stealing from another artist, it is from real world phenomena. You should know better. Hell, who the fuck are you?
It's not.
Just like you can look at an image's style and deconstruct how to reach that product, the AI does the same thing, but from noise.
The imagesets aren't arsenals of bits and pieces to choose from to photobash together, it's reference same as what you'd grab if you were to do something (you are using reference when you make things, aren't you).
The only difference is the AI doesn't really "know" which parts are important or not to the final output and style, so you get shit like the OP pic where there's a watermark. The more of something there is in the dataset the more important the AI thinks it is to the final output, so it'll do its best to replicate (not copy/paste) it in the final output. If it were copy pasting bits and pieces, text would come out nearly perfectly readable, especially with those Getty watermarks, if it appears so much in the dataset that it's appearing on outputs that it could grab every section of the watermark to put on there. The fact that the text is partially readable, suggests that there are quite a bit of watermarked images in the dataset though.
>Just like you can look at an image's style and deconstruct how to reach that product, the AI does the same thing, but from noise.
You have le mouse's copyrighted designs. You "reconstruct them" as you say, but, you cannot sell them. In some countries fair use is defined differently than it is in the US, etc.

>The only difference is the AI doesn't really "know" which parts are important or not to the final output and style, so you get shit like the OP pic where there's a watermark.
The OP pic shows that these are copyrighted images, taken and used without consent. And its as clear as day. This is not legal, which is why they are being sued...
Problem with regulating it is, that everyone needs to agree on those regulations, not just the US and Europe. Or what do you think will be the end result, if productivity rises exponentially elsewhere thanks to constant advances, while AI is heavily regulated in the west? How well do you think the artists in the west would fair against their Chinese colleagues, who have access to unrestricted tools to help them create content at speeds unimaginable right now. No country is going to shoot themselves in the foot over this, unless there's some treaty that gets agreed upon by the entire world, and even then some if not most countries will keep developing in secret. Even if the regulations are focused solely on preventing art theft it's hard to estimate what kind of effects and restrictions those might end up causing for overall AI development.
You have to operate within the law
You're really not getting it, are you?
Let's step back a bit and dumb things down a tad. Completely ignoring style and copyright, and pretending like you know how to draw, making skill not an issue.

Let's say you and an AI want to make a picture of a dog, a German Shepard for example.
Going through the creative process, you'd gather up a bunch of reference images of dogs in general, and more specifically German Shepards, making sure to have good reference of the different telltale aspects that make that breed of dog, that breed of dog.
Now you start drawing that dog, and because of all that reference material, you have a good idea of what dogs look like, and what German Shepards look like. You draw a novel image of a German Shepard from scratch that's not a 1:1 recreation of an existing image, or traced from other parts of existing images, but rather a completely new image of a German Shepard based off of the knowledge you have about dogs and German Shepards.

For an AI, the process is very similar.
The AI is given a dataset to learn from that has a bunch of images of dogs, and a bunch of images of German Shepards. With that it can form neural pathways (in a loose sense), that tie all the aspects of what a "dog" is together (4 legs, a tail, floppy ears, etc.), as well as the aspects of a German Shepard (large size, long nose, black/brown coat, etc.). When you're looking at your reference, you do a similar thing.
The AI then takes a picture of random noise (based on a seed), and tries to infer that dog out of the noise (kind of like squinting at an image to make it look like something else). Because of all that "knowledge" it has about dogs and Shepards, it's able to (hopefully) create a novel image of the dog you tell it to make. The image isn't a collage of bits and pieces of other dogs to make your image, but the noise seed being inferred by those neural pathways of what a "dog" looks like to the AI ("to the AI" is the important bit).

cont. in next post
(continued from >>934028 )
The main issue with copyright is that inside the dataset that the AI learns to infer from, contains copyrighted images. The outputs themselves aren't copyrighted, but by training the AI on these copyright materials, certain telltale signs start to pop up that otherwise wouldn't be there if they hadn't.
In the case of the OP image, the prompt could be "stock photo of a crowd of people, black and white". Which means that the AI goes through those neural pathways of people and how they should look (2 arms, 2 legs, face, hair, etc.), black and white photography (monochrome, high contrast, etc.), and the part that's getting them into hot water, stock photos. Stock photos have a certain "look" to them, but in the dataset there's (potentially), a bunch of stock photos from Getty Images, images that are copyright. Going from what we've just learned about how an AI learns what a subject is, the AI had learned what a "stock photo" is, but as part of that, it also learned that the watermark is part of it. Just like how it would learn that a dog has a tail.
This doesn't mean that the outputs themselves are copyright and property of Getty images or that they contain anything explicitly from them, but rather it's kind of a smoking gun that says that those images are ocntained in the dataset it was trained from. Like a little kid who stayed up late watching a spooky movie with their dad and was told to keep it a secret and let it slip to their mom accidentally. The mom wouldn't blame the kid for letting it slip, she'd blame the dad for knowingly letting it happen. Kind of a shitty analogy, but the point is that the watermark is the "secret" that slipped. Not that they were trying to keep anything obfuscated, but datasets are extremely large and hard to curate by hand, and when scraping a fuckton of images, some copyrighted material falls through the cracks even when you add safeguards to prevent it.
Last bit from ( >>934029 )

>le mouse copyright
I don't really know what you mean in reference to "le mouse" (Disney?), but trademarks and stuff can be copyright sure, and images of copyrighted characters are probably definitely present in the datasets, but that's a gray zone that's even gray when talking about people drawing things. Given how prevalent a lot of things are in pop culture, it might be extremely hard (or even impossible) to create a model from images scraped from the web that don't have any copyrighted characters from pop-culture in them.

As for "style" that's not really something that can be copyrighted (thought it's not a hard and fast rule). Though I had used it as an example of how the AI can learn (just like the dog example). In the case of a style, it's more about making those pathways that define a look, like brush strokes, color, tone, etc. You'd do the same thing if you tried to make something in a given style yourself. You'd grab a bunch of reference images of what you're going for, get an idea of what makes it up (distilling it to its elements), and give it a go yourself.

But yeah, long post that's a bit of a read, but hopefully it clears up a bit about how AI works (as I understand it), and how copyright is involved. Things might be a bit wrong, especially the bit about inferring it from noise, but it's the gist anyway.
I'm not any kind of computer science guy though, I just play around with AI image/text gen from time to time, and it's just a little bit of what I've picked up from hanging around threads. If you've got any questions I can try to answer them.
>you cant steal copyrighted material
>You cant steal designs that you have collected from the mouse
The original is still there. What was stolen? Explain.
>The phrase is "Art imitates life".
"Art is theft" - Picasso. Educate yourself.
>Hell, who the fuck are you?
An artist. And who the fuck are you?
It literally says "geety" instead of "Getty". There's literally nothing wrong with it.
Anon, dogs exist from nature. They cannot be copyrighted. Capeche? Not going to read the rest of your novel.
yes it is. didn't read the rest of your post.
By all means then, explain to me how AI works, because you're clearly an expert on the subject.

No shit dogs can't be copyrighted. I'm explaining HOW copyright material is injected into the AI by means of having it in the dataset.
If you DID dog that had a watermark in your data, the AI would think that watermark is intrinsic to what makes up a dog and put it into outputs.
Stability did the following and they got caught red fucking handed

>Stability AI “unlawfully copied and processed millions of images protected by copyright”

You can tell this because they used protected, copyrighted images in the dataset. This isn't rocket science, kiddo. They got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
>copied and processed millions of images protected by copyright
Show us where it says that this is even illegal. If I see an image on the Internet, I save it on my computer because I like it; How come that isn't illegal? Then I use that image to photoshop myself in front of the Eiffel Tower and post it to some social network, but this is not illegal either. Explain.
So you are saying you find an image of the Eiffel tower, you save it, you photoshop yourself in front of it, and then you post it to social media.

If that image is under a CC0 or similar free license, hooray - *You* are in the clear. If not, you possibly cannot post it to social media nor download the image. You probably wont get dragged into court for downloading and image, but is possible, just like the music industry does for mp3s. My friend had to pay over 7k in early 2000 dollars for torrenting. Fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement and varies wildly according to what country you are in. Scraping millions of images for your ai that was once free but is no longer free is not fair use. I hope you learned something today.
I can't help but notice that you typed an opinion, but I asked for a fact. If you're gonna educate us, show us where it says those things, instead of telling us that it is so. Source? Also, did you know that you can have copyright for a derivative work that was made illegally from a copyrighted work, and it has stood in court? When you post the source, also let me know what kind of law you specialize in.
what clown court, in what country, buddy?
>he doesn't know about one of the most important precedents regarding derivative work in the United States, that went all the way to the Supreme Court and involved two famous musicians
Oof. I knew you're not a lawyer. Well, then let me educate you. What they did with the AI is not illegal. They're just trying to see if it sticks, because then they would be able to sell AI scraping licenses and make some money. They figured that what they'll lose in the litigation is worth betting on.
>the united states

are you finished?
>are you finished?
With you. You may go lick your wounds now.
>his defense is a case from the fucking united states
>claims someone else needs to go "lick their wounds"
File: 1579302072683.jpg (14 KB, 461x287)
14 KB
>one company is in New York
>the other one is in California
>he's too stupid to realize why he's wrong
clown court, clown country
I know this. It's what I said (here >>934029 ).
I realize I wrote a fucking novel explaining HOW AI works to get to that point, but the main point was that copyrighted images were used and processed as part of the AI training.
In explaining how AI worked, I tried to give context to why the shit showed up in the first place.
Don't use watermarked shit in the dataset, the AI doesn't learn it, use watermarked shit in the dataset, it learns it. Which is why you get the "Geety images" in the OP. It's the "smoking gun".
Only reason I had to explain how the shit worked is because some people are getting caught up on how the shit works, and thinks that the outputs themselves contain copyrighted material and use chopped up bits and pieces to create a final output. The final output isn't what matters, it's the information taught to the AI to reach the final output that's the big "issue" here. How can people have a proper discourse if they don't understand what they're talking about? Though it looks like people see a slightly large bit of text, and turn their brains off. Easier to fling shit about something they don't understand than to try and shift their perspective.

At the end of the day though, this isn't too much of a big hindrance to AI. Legislation wise, all it means going forward is that people are going to pay closer attention to what and where they get their sources from. Which might be good since it means more curated datasets. Might be a bit of a setback for Stability AI, but they're not that important to things anymore anyway. The floodgates are open.
File: 1643432675916.png (28 KB, 702x511)
28 KB
New TOS update today. They made it clear. It's over for ai folk. You legally cannot use the website to scrape.
Jews get away with anything there, have you seen them extending copyright law durations?

What's standard in USA will apply to the rest of the world eventually thanks to globalization
and yet you cant even scrape a single second off a copyrighted mp3, another pile of 0s and 1s. You're dead in the water

... does this realy matter at this point? the trained model allready "knows" to produce artwork that looks somewhat whats currently on artstation! and even when stable ai trains no models, users can create models of litterally everything they like ...
>Computer, what date is it?
Are you bot or something? I see faggots like you btfo constantly but you are always back somehow like you can't understand difference between human brain and one-click generator.
cope artlet
aitards we got too cocky
Just from the way you type I can tell you're an idiot.
I tried to explain this so many times on this board to AItards it's not even funny.
AI-art, no matter how good, will never get you hired because every single industry out there from Hollywood, to Disney, to Bollywood, to everything else will fight tooth and nail against it. This is because even by some miracle the law declares AI-art as fair use, then essentially what you have created is not only a program which can create art per se but, more importantly, a program which can remove copyright out of anything. Essentially if AI-art becomes fair use, say goodbye to any ability to make money out of ANY artform including: painting, photography, music, podcasts, novels, brands, PATENTS, etc.

AI-art will never become anything more than a gimmick.


You're comparing two different abstraction levels. The human brain is a one-woosh generator if you abstract it similarly. Alternatively, AI using transformers is an immensely complex thing. Compare them on the same abstraction level.
This post is like 2 hours old but it already aged like milk. Hollywood and Disney already said they're using a lot of AI to generate stuff in the future; I think there's even a series that's AI generated coming out. It sure doesn't look like they're "fighting tooth and nail against it" if they're changing their workflows to use the stuff. Now, consider the following:
>the prompts don't write themselves
>a human has to know how to prompt optimally
>that guy is most certainly not doing it for free
It looks like somebody will actually get hired to become a "prompting engineer", because it has to be that way. Tell me again that AI won't get me hired.
>Hollywood and Disney already said they're using a lot of AI to generate stuff

When you own a database of trillions of images which goes back a century or more then yeah... why wouldn't you train your own AI. You're under the impression that using AI = using Stable Diffusion.

You're coping so hard you don't even understand the issue I, like many others, have explained. There's a reason why EpicGames in their EULA explicitly forbids training AI with any of their stuff. Companies have started putting "not for AI training" in their EULA's years ago. This is nothing new.

And this whole "is AI-art fair use?" has been settle years ago when deepfakes became a thing. It was a resounding "NO".
EULAs are not laws. I can't break your EULA if I'm not even a user in the first place. You can have a site/software saying that I can't train AI on your stuff, but I still go and do it. What are you gonna do? You can't even ban me because I'm not even registered to begin with. EULAs exist to protect you from legal liabilities and not really to protect your interests, because it's gonna depend on your ability to enforce them; this depends on economic viability of the process and on the country you're in, among other stuff. EULAs and TOSs mean literally nothing; they also say that me and my brother can't both play the game with the same license and all sorts of stuff. If your best cope is to bring up EULAs, you might as well snitch to your mom and expect her to ground me, because they have about the same power.
>when deepfakes became a thing. It was a resounding "NO".
Deep fakes have nothing to do with this. Deep fakes infringe likeness rights. If you are born with Tom Cruise's face and try to go into acting, there are legal tools to stop you because of rights only famous people have. That's the issue with deep fakes. It's not even about copyright or fair use. It's about likeness, privacy, and safety.
>End User License Agreement
Never become an end user, never get in trouble.
Let me guess - you are one of those conspiracy theorists who believes that this ai is the singularity like ray kurzweil, that all patents, all copyrights across all industries will be ripe for the picking, that we will live in a post money world, that even the poor in the 3rd world will live like kings, that we will have ai invent the holodeck for us and we will all live for 500 years and travel the stars? Am i right? Is this a good enough cold read, dumbass? Ive seen your kind a million times and its never more than a conspiracy and delusion.
File: 1590169239359.jpg (29 KB, 359x347)
29 KB
>I b-bet you believe something c-completely different than what we-we-we-we h-h-have been talking about, and that hypothetical belief is my only shot at redeeming any of the things I've said
Only idiots assume stuff. I don't know about the other guy, but I am not what you described. You even assumed we were the same person. You were free to type absolutely anything, but you chose to go with a thing that you even knew you didn't know. Sit down and think about it and you will realize that you're a huge idiot for acting in a way that makes no sense. Was it out of despair? Are you an artist losing commissions to AI or something? Do you really have nothing of value to say? I pity you.
File: 1570629108768.jpg (4 KB, 190x190)
4 KB
>not knowing what avatarposting is
Back to whichever site you came from.
>thread made 1 week ago
very organic thread here fag/g/ots
i wont go
>If you are born with Tom Cruise's face and try to go into acting, there are legal tools to stop you because of rights only famous people have.
No such thing. If you have a smaller face, you can get prosthetic attachments/makeup and copy.

Stop being a schinzo living in 1800s anon, the truth is closer to ability do not guarantee doing.
File: 2kx5yd.jpg (8 KB, 250x197)
8 KB
>Just from the way you type I can tell you're an idiot.
every single element of "transformative work" applies to deepfakes yet it was denied the status, same will happen to AI-art

The entertainment industry around the planet is not dumb, they make money because they own the copyright rights, they will never agree to suddenly release the copyright to everything they own. I can't sell Mickey Mouse toys even if I redesign and manufacture it myself under a different brand. People have been trying to do so (legally) for over 100 years yet all of them failed because Disney sued them into oblivion. Why do you assume the same won't happen to Stable Diffusion?
>EULAs are not laws
No shit. Still doesn't change the fact that GettyImages, ArtStation, DeviantArt, etc will soon change their terms of service to prohibit AI training. This in turn will make any AI trained on their stuff ILLEGAL.

You are living in a fantasy world. You can't take art created by someone else, photobash it, and then claim it as your own. There are very old laws in place which forbid you to do so. Google invested m(b)illions in an AI that can identify copyrighted stuff. You think they're not training an AI right now to identify AI-art and block it from their site?
>in the future, X will happen
Guys, nobody knows the future, get your heads out of your asses; humans have never been good at making predictions. Look at the past instead. The only technology I can think of that got banned is human cloning; everything else companies took it and used it to make money. If some companies decide to forbid AI on their stuff, it's probably just because they want to scrape it themselves and make their own AI. A prompting engineer would be a position, and human drawing would shrink. If you're artists, you better learn to prompt and start building a portfolio.
They just banned gas stoves, numb nuts
only the lawyers will win here
how is prompt engineer going to be hired exactly? Professionals need to be able to make multiple variation and changes to a concept. The director isnt going to stand for someone that only relies on randomness, someone that dont understand what they are making, and slowing down the workflow pipeline for the whole studio. If anything this responsibility is going to pushed to artists that already in the studios since they have experience in the field. Also prompt generator is aleady a thing so prompters are already replaced from the starting line.
File: this.png (3.01 MB, 1901x969)
3.01 MB
3.01 MB PNG
>The director isnt going to stand for someone that only relies on randomness ...

... you seem not having a clue what power this technology holds for people with ideas! the director himself, when he reads the script, will play around with stable diffusion to create the first visual ideas of the story - stable diffusion is an easy access machine concept artist ...
You know what, I think you're right. They're gonna install SD in a computer and when they want some art they will walk to it and the thing they wanted will be waiting right there. I think it could be done by a ghost, or maybe a script that has psychic powers to know what the producer is thinking of. Hiring a human for that role sounds crazy when you put it like that.

Protip: download SD and try using it; you will find out how hard it is to get the right thing. Prompting SD has the same energy of using SQL. When I walk into a company with my SD portfolio, I'm gonna steal the job from whomever they pushed that responsibility to, because I'm perfecting my prompting at least 4 hours a day for like 3 months now. I am literally a prompting engineer, and I could challenge any artist to a prompting duel in front of their bosses to prove that my prompting saves money and he should be fired.
Probably, but I think there's still a distinction to be made with prompting something that looks "good", and something that captures the artistic intent of a director. Right now AI can't really compose an image based on an exact feeling you want to impose on a viewer. It can handle broad strokes for sure, like coloring a spooky image in dark tones, but it can't handle subtleties like composing an image in a way that actually makes it spooky without obvious cues.
It understands images, but not the why.
I think an artist as a prompting engineer might be something to worry about though, since you have that compositional understanding and the chops to wrangle the AI, but also the know-how to do shit in between like paint up a quick scene with the correct composition and feed it to the AI.
>The only technology I can think of that got banned is human cloning

this only proves that you can't think
how the fuck can you ban something that doesn't even exist?

>prompting engineer would be a position

yeah, it's going to be right there next to "photoshop filter operator"

>prompting engineer applies for job
>qualifications: can write words into a text box
>starting salary: "GTFO out of my office, you retard"

the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior therefore:
> Stable Diffusion will become illegal and underground like deepfakes
> AI-art will become like torrented/pirated stuff, a lot of people will use it but nobody will ever admit to it publicly
> nobody will get a job as an AI prompt engineer (LMAO) just like nobody gets hired because they have an account on CGPersia

> Stable Diffusion will become illegal and underground like deepfakes
Deep fakes' legal angles are completely different.
>AI-art will become like torrented/pirated stuff, a lot of people will use it but nobody will ever admit to it publicly
Disney, Google and Microsoft already admitted they will be using them. Doesn't sound like the timeline you're talking about.
>nobody will get a job as an AI prompt engineer (LMAO) just like nobody gets hired because they have an account on CGPersia
What does this false equivalency have to do with anything? I can make SD put out exactly what I want. You can't because you're not a query artisan. You think it's just about typing words, but that's a low intelligence abstraction; in that vein one might as well say that writing a novel or writing a song is just typing words. There's a whole world in SD queries that makes in complex enough for a position of prompt engineer to exist. Not only that, but even specialized positions: a background prompt engineer, and anime prompt engineer, and so on. You obviously speak from a position of not being good at prompting, or maybe even never having used it. I understand why you think it will amount to nothing, but it's really that you don't have the skill to use it. Push the pencil while you can and enjoy it, because when the rubber meets the road we're gonna have an art showdown in front of your boss and I will prove that SD saves money and take your job from you.
>and take your job from you.
Not that anon but good. This industry is terrible.
Any prompt engineer that might get hired would likely be expected to have some actual art skills as well, so they can fill in for the AI, for the parts it might not create the exact wanted results in. Not to mention, that just because you can output good results on occasion, doesn't mean you actually have proper understanding on what constitutes as good results. Someone who doesn't do art either as a serious hobby, or for a living, is unlikely to be able to take a prompt to the next level, and will settle with something that they think looks good, but is actually just barely above average. You see this with inexperienced artists as well, where they might create content faster than an experienced one, since they don't understand how to take their average looking creation further to the next level. Essentially, what they might consider finished, is what someone with actually experience only considers as barely getting started.
What models are you people using? Mo-di? Robo? OpenJourney?
>Disney, Google and Microsoft already admitted they will be using them. Doesn't sound like the timeline you're talking about.

I already explained this many times over, goddamnit.

Stable Diffusion is AI-art but not all AI-art is Stable Diffusion.

You are using Stable Diffusion or whatever else that's publicly available.

This is illegal.

It will never be legal as time has shown.

AI-art is a tool which will be used because companies will be training their own AI.

You do not have access to their proprietary AI-art software.

You will not be given access to their proprietary AI-art software.

You will not be hired to operate a piece of software you never used before or know that it exists in the first place.

Nobody will ever become a prompt engineer (LMAO).

>I can make SD put out exactly what I want. You can't because you're not a query artisan.
>There's a whole world in SD queries that makes in complex enough for a position of prompt engineer to exist.
>a background prompt engineer, and anime prompt engineer

the level of cope is incredible

>"I'm an expert at typing words into a program that you can't use for legal uses. I specialize in anime loli prompts. Please hire me."
>Disney: "SECURITY!!"
yes, AI will be great for individuals and small to medium sized teams.

90% of the AAA games industry(and most western media) is trash and bloated, actively harming their mediums
AA is the best tier.
More quality and professionalism than shitty indie pixel shit, with nearly the same motivation and drive, but less bloat and bullshit than AAA companies.
Only problem with AA is you get so many games that are 90% of the way there to being great, if only they had the extra bit of funding/developers/development.
>This is illegal.
You keep repeating this, but can't quote the law. You need to be more accurate and say that you wish it were illegal, or that your opinion is that it should be illegal. By the way, what kind of lawyer are you?
>It will never be legal as time has shown.
Oh, you see the future too. Why do you care about making these posts if you're a lawyer that sees the future? You should find something better to do.
>You will not be hired to operate a piece of software you never used before or know that it exists in the first place.
I see. Disney is gonna make some clones to use it. Cool.
>Nobody will ever become a prompt engineer (LMAO).
The guy running Disney's generation software.
>You keep repeating this, but can't quote the law.
google "copyright laws"
you've got enough material to read now until the next year

>Disney is gonna make some clones to use it. Cool.

you have just exposed yourself as an ignoramus
Disney won't "clone" anything, training your own AI doesn't mean cloning Stable Diffusion ffs

goddamn are you people dumb

you don't even know what AI is yet are so confident that people will hire you because you can type words in a box

zoomers are a failed generation baka
File: 1583423341377.gif (2.9 MB, 395x540)
2.9 MB
2.9 MB GIF
>replies to the wrong post
>doesn't provide source of claims
>mistakenly thinks that the guy meant clones of the AI instead of human clones
>the other one is the ignorant
Artbros. We are done if this is what we have on our side.
Hopefully people that end up doing more than participating in random thread/forum/fuckingwhatever discussions with know what they're doing.
If that kind of person ends up being on the artists' side in court then we're fucked.
I guess there's always the option of praying that the other side contains bigger retards.
>mistakenly thinks that the guy meant clones of the AI instead of human clones

he literally meant AI clone
nobody's so retarded to think that Disney genetically engineers humans in order to create the perfect prompt engineer (LOL)

>doesn't provide source of claims
You want me to prove to you that copyright laws exist?

>Artbros. We are done if this is what we have on our side.
PYW, (so called) "artbro"

I think I'm going to start calling you retards copebros.

If you:
>think training an AI means using Stable Diffusion
>think AI will finally get you hired
>think AI is a substitute for talent
>don't understand what copyright laws are
>think Disney clones humans
>never post any work
>don't know how to code
>don't know how to draw
>don't know how to model
>don't know how to sculpt
>don't know how to rig
>can't use any function of Blender unless there's a tutorial about it

then you might just be a copebro
File: Sneed.png (283 KB, 792x511)
283 KB
283 KB PNG
>Tell me AI wont get me hired
It wont, more advanced AI models are operating with basically no prompting skills required. You can write literally anything on Midjourney and it will shit out good picture.
>But what if you want something specific, you will need experienced prompter for that
If you want something specific, then you will use artist. AI cant do anything specific, I challenged many prompters into making me requests, I made PromThread on /d/ and nobody fucking posted their promtping from people requesting. AI cant do something specific and edit it, and unless we change in fundamental way how these models work it wont change in the future because you will need to write entire pages of prompts to get everything specific. If you really think it can replace all concept artists, then please, generate me something very simple, something very generic that should be no problem for AI. Make me a rock bug that has 8 legs and head with 4 red eyes. This insect attacks the player by rolling on them, so please also make the insect in middle of rolling, preferably with some spikes sticking from its back as it rolls. Just a rocky bug you find in some random videogame, the most average request somebody who needs creature design would request you to do. No excuses, if you wont do it, you have not proven your point and all the AI is is just the practical equivalent of extended google search giving you more results then currently exist.
Individual artists can survive better in almost every situation then big corporation since they can adopt better. The reason why they are getting fucked over more is because AI is a massive fucking nuke that obliterates everything. If Disney can still sell their movies, so can the little guy making indie movies.
>Disney and other corporations will keep their AI for themselves and use it
This is your brain on libertarianism. Disney will continue making shit and sell it, while people who do not want to consume AIslop will just not buy stuff from Disney. AI for everyone just allows everyone to larp as artist and make real human art impossible to find once the AI images get on average unrecognizable. If the small guy can use nukes, so can the big corporations, and it is not better for the little guy to have nukes, this is not like guns where you can use it to protect yourself, this is you giving too much power to everyone and hoping some random psycho that is too retarded to make it big will not abuse it is extremely irresponsible way.
A very easy prompting challenge I've come up with that I'm yet to see anyone complete is this:
Pick a character, recreate them using AI without using or referencing their name or source media in the prompt, you can use img2img but only images that you have yourself made.
You can make the challenge easier or harder depending on how well established the character is and how complex their design is.
Bonus points if the AI have never been trained on pictures of that character.

It is needlessly convoluted and likely completely fucking stupid, but I think it does a decent job and presenting how reliable the AI is. I can only imagine how much of a pain in the ass trying to actually design a unique character with that thing is.
I do agree with most of what you've said and I am on the side of artists (and do know how to do a decent chunk of the stuff you've listed).
But if you're gonna discuss this stuff it's better to have sources on hand, even for the most basic shit, people absolutely will use the opportunity to call you an idiot when given one.

As for the clone thing I'm pretty sure that yes, they did actually mean star wars-like clones, as in "if they're not gonna hire a dedicated promoter then who will they get for that position, make a clone?".

I guess while I'm here I might as well add that the reason a company will never hire a prompter is also because they can give the task to literally anyone already employed. No reason to hire (and pay for) a whole extra person that's completely unskilled and useless outside of asking a machine for images and hoping they're good enough. There will never be a demand for someone that can only proooompt, if you have a choice of hiring (for the same pay) someone with extra art skills and someone who doesn't have any then you'd be an idiot to choose the second person.
File: 1595972840483.jpg (43 KB, 480x480)
43 KB
>AAA companies wont develop AI tools to save development costs

You're fucking stupid if they wont use something to lower the 300 million that cost to make their woke garbage.
The most disgusting part about it is that the unique character would be easiest since the prompter would just write the most barebones description of the character, like "little witch" or "Anime girl with red dress" and then the prompter would take the character and all the other details not specified about the character and use it, basically letting the AI do every part of the design, outsourcing all of creative thought to the computer.
Oh yeah, forgot that they often just give a simple and vague prompt, let the machine handle the "being creative" part and then convince themselves that this is exactly what they had in mind.
It's honestly kind of sad.
Hollywood, fuck, every industry, will absolutely replace each and everyone if it means the bottom line grows bigger.

Who the fuck wants to deal with people? AI solves that.
Just be happy you can do art as a hobby.
Hopefully they charge enough that it forces human artists to lower their prices since they're all closet capitalists.
>Nooooo you can't pirate our dogdicks only big business stuff!
Disney already admitted on Shehulk that Kevin Smith actually died and they replaced him with an AI.
The issue with copebros is that they fundamentally do not understand what is going on.
Is AI the future? Absolutely.
Will you get hired because you have a PhD in Stable Diffusion prompts? Absolutely not.

It's like laughing at clutchbros because they just invented the automatic gearbox.
>"Clutchbros BTFO! Now they'll only hire automaticbros!"
Doesn't matter that you can use an automatic because clutchbros can also use an automatic by default. Doesn't matter how great of an prompt engineer (LMAO) you are, artbros are at the very least just as good.
I just landed a prompting gig guys. It's 3 days teaching different batches of staff how to prompt, at a company that makes lamps. Got it over the Internet after knocking on many doors and promoting myself as an AI generation consultant. It pays 35 bucks per hour plus gas, and they also feed me once a day. The future of AI is looking bright.
>around 150$
>over the span of 3 days
>have to commute
>benefits: some food

le prompting engineer career
So basically some clueless boomer wanted to jump into the fad and temporarily hired you to teach how to use one of the most idiot-proof pieces of tech that most literate people know how to use by default.
I'm sure your career will go far, especially once employers realize how useful and rare your skillset is.

But hey, I am genuinely impressed with how you managed to make "I can proooompt" appear like an actual position.
Why are you acting as if getting a job were a bad thing? I looked up local companies and started making prompts of the stuff they make, then contacted them telling them that I can teach them how to automate their design process using creativity-driven software. This gig will put 840 bucks in my wallet and also allow me to network and build a reputation. I don't see it as a low paying job or a clueless business decision because those are things that I don't control, and thus they're not useful to me. I see it as a stepping stone that allows me to:
>impress around 60 people of different departments by teaching them to promp
>impress the company owner by allowing him to save costs of the 2 artists that he hires every now and then to design lamps
>promote myself as an AI generation consultant that has helped local businesses to solve problems and increase profit (I have official experience now!)
>know that I'm one of the people who are spearheading the AI art industry (this is gonna become really valuable later on)
It's not even about the AI. It's about the people I can talk to and what they will tell to their friends about AI generation. My understanding right now is that AI generation is a people-oriented, community-driven, technological revolution that empowers workers to synergize with the customers' values and needs in order to exceed expectations of quality and affordability. I think this is a really powerful message that many businesses will be on board with. My workshop starts next tuesday with batches of around 10 and 10 people in the morning and afternoon, four hours each. I'm about halfway done preparing the curriculum.
It's not a bad thing, but not nearly as impressive as you think it is.
>This gig will put 840 bucks in my wallet
Something's not adding up.
You said 35$/hour.
840$ means 3 full work days, 8h a day.
You are not going to waste 3 days' work on teaching them how to prompt (LMAO) for 8h straight. They'll probably call you in after lunch to hold a 1-2h presentation, then call you back to do the same presentation for other departments. So at best they'll going to consider it 6h of work, which amounts to 210$. Plus gas money let's assume it's like 300$.

For a company 300$ is like a rounding error.
LAION is just a txt file filled with URLs to images
It's up to you to actually download those images
I am shocked that you are doing this to be quite honest. Time for you to post some work to back up your claims of "expertise"
My first day was kind of a screw up. I knew beforehand what kind of staff would be in every batch, so I tailored the curriculum to each one. In the morning group I expected the people that work directly with the artists' output, so I figured it would make an impression to emphasize the fact that this tech leaves the two artists the company commissions without a job, but the mood was really heavy. During lunch I was told that they invited one of the two guys to attend as a courtesy, so he was in the crowd when I said it. It was 13 people and I'd say that 5 were super into it, with other 3 really interested. The mood was really serious though.

The afternoon group was made of sales representatives and similar roles. My goal was to get them to understand the limitations of the tech so they can have realistic expectations and communicate them to customers. I didn't repeat the same jokes about AI leaving artists without a job though. Tomorrow morning I have managers, and I'm debating whether to repeat the jokes. If I don't it will look like I made a mistake, and if I do I might make people mad, but also might legitimize my position by doubling down on it. What do you guys think? I have like 11 hours to figure it out.
Im not sure how this leaves concept artists without a job. You often cant even rotate the view or get orthogonal views. Are you sure you know enough about this stuff, guy?
exactly thats why who would hire prompt engineer if director can do it themselves, but even the director cant exactly get what he wants and would get actual artists do better define the concept.
>I'm gonna steal the job from whomever they pushed that responsibility to
>least 4 hours a day for like 3 months now

>wow a whole 3 months such a skill gap im sure no professionals ever spent that much time on their career like me

lol if anything all its going to show is that prompting has such a low skill ceiling that any professional can adapt it to their workflow within 3 months and be able to manipulate their result to better suit the directors vision. Good luck telling the director to take what you can get.
Did you explain to them how AI-art infringes every copyright law known to man? Did you then explain that every retard can use SD and because of this every company will use SD because it's easy and because of the oversaturation of the market SD art will make their company seem lazy and out to scam people with minimum effort? And did you then say that SD will eventually become the Comics Sans of the art world?
>this tech leaves the two artists the company commissions without a job
>I didn't repeat the same jokes about AI leaving artists without a job
>I'm debating whether to repeat the jokes

What's with your obsession about telling a joke? If it didn't land the first time, it won't land the second time.
>If it didn't land the first time, it won't land the second time.
thats not true
>I learned the bare basics of how to use something from 4chan
>Hey, I know, I'll go around calling myself an expert and try to get money
>These people want to use it in a commercial setting, how do I let them down gently that it has almost no creative control and the artists' jobs are safe, without losing my money?
Anon's going to get fucked, plain and simple. This is like teaching people how to use printers, and carries the same sort of dishonesty - you could just point them to voldy's guide and they wouldn't have to listen to your bullshitting for a few hours.

He has the money now, but he stands to lose even more when they discover his lies.
File: 1645343827303.jpg (67 KB, 690x477)
67 KB
Oh no no no no no aisisters....a lot of people are now using the "memorization" argument against us, saying that we ARE in fact still distributing copyrighted and sensitive images through our neural networks. It is OVER

[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.