"AI" generated art is 100% using stolen art from artists that it's being trained on (And yes, I do mean stolen. Just cause it's on the internet doesn't mean you can just take it and use it). Alex is on the mark about calling it kitbashing.. cause that is what it is, they take bits and pieces from a hundred different pieces of arts in an attempt to emulate a style.
The idea that the programs are so smart as to be able to think, feel and have the mental acuity to process to learn from art, understand the art, understand what they put to canvas, to put meaning into it without simply copying is.. Sci-fi. Fiction.
It will always be lifeless, soulless and it will always completely misunderstand the purpose of art. Because the people who make these programs don't understand it either, they only see another way to make money, another way to scam people and rip them off with little to no effort on their part (well aside from the coding).
"AI" art might be as vast as an ocean.. but it's as shallow as a puddle.
Edit: I also find it hilarious that people are going "Well who cares about the ethics???" as if that's a good thing. What, you mean to say that it's totally fine to use data that's 80-90% of the time been taken without any sort of consent from the artist that the so called "AI" program is trying to reproduce?
There was potential for Generated content, for a very brief window, but it was all soured by greedy.. corporations, techbros, scammers, thieves, jealous people and so many more people who don't care about art, but just that they can annoy people or "Get back" at people who've spent their lives studying art to become good at it.
We're supposed to hate data scraping and the companies using it to sell our info, it's immoral and intrudes on our privacy. But when it comes to art it's suddenly perfectly okay to use the exact same kind of data? Just because it has a picture attached to it?
I am a creator who uses AI art a lot in my creations. And this attitude is one that I see a lot. I'm primarily a developer and technical person. Most of my mods I've made before are for Bethesda games, that are more script heavy or using their engine. Art has always been something that has been out of reach for me to do, despite trying to learn multiple times. After Stable Diffusion started getting popular, I was able to start using it to make some of the ideas I and concepts I had in my head a reality. My first published mod for Starsector, beyond some ports for older mods to new versions, was an AI Portrait pack (AI Portraits of AI Cores). Under the current rules that mod is now gone. Honestly, its water under the bridge, as I'm not attached to it. Had I known the devs opinion on it before making it, I never would have done it. I try to honor artists wishes when it comes to working in existing systems.
What I take a lot of issue with is the moralistic stance. I mentioned all the stuff about how I use AI art for ideas and concepts, because I frequently use it nowadays for that. I've had a lot of story ideas in my head for a long time, and I frequently use AI for concept art for those stories. It's completely changed my life for the better and given me a good chance of actually making something out of those stories, even if it'll take a while. AI is
a tool, more then anything else, and how you use that tool is up to the user. That said, there are absolutely 100% people in the AI community who do use that tool poorly, whether its trying to pass lazy or copied art off as genuine, or in trying to antagonize artists. The techbros and "AI will obsolete artists!" people are completely moronic in this regard, and I think you'd probably agree with this.
I know a lot of the issue is how AI has been trained, and you're 100% right in that most AI models are trained using copyrighted content. They were very much hoping to ask forgiveness then permission on this, and that take is wrong. That said several AI groups are trying to do better about this, such as StabilityAI and such, who are removing artist's images and real people's likenesses from their models. This doesn't negate the fact the old models will forever still be out there and exist, but it does at least show they're trying to listen. The other main point of critique I'd bring up is use of copyright materials is
NOT theft; it's infringement. Legally, these are very distinct. There is reasonable basis to assume in America at least, based on previous rulings, that AI training could constitute a fair use of copyrighted material, due to the nature of how training works. For reference in that regard, training doesn't store copies or data based on the images being trained on, it converts those images into a mathematical formula and maps information on it to words. All the data stored is essentially 'weights' in the model's equations, which are just numbers. Typically, they're not supposed to be able to reproduce the images they're trained on exactly, and most of the time they don't unless they're overtrained, which isn't a good thing. Anyway, the point is that its possible creating the model itself is a transformative use of copyrighted content because of that, but until a court ruling comes down we don't know. And even if it wasn't ruled fair use, it doesn't mean the models using copyrighted content simply vanish, either. As people said, its kind of like Pandora's box - AI is just around now, and we can only try to push for more responsible use, not try to suppress it.
Ultimately I don't want to ramble too much, but I wanted to state that while there are bad actors in the AI community, that this policy is not future proof and a bit reactionary. I will take down my portrait mod if it goes into effect but I'm adamant in viewing AI as a creative tool that can help people realize their visions.
)