Best Of

At the moment this really only affects people who sell a finished piece . People who make art as part of a process will be insulated against the problem until the AI gets smart enough to interpret very specific feedback - which will happen eventually.

If you make a living off your style (lois van baarle is the best example I can think of) then an AI that can generate images in your style is a legitimate threat to your livelihood.

I'm of the belief that there should be regulation that makes commercializing a robot trained on specific artist(s) portfolio without authorisation a breach of some sort of IP/copyright protection. it won't stop it happening but it will at least give you somewhere to aim the lawyers when it does (amounting to roughly the same level of protection your work has traditionally had)

impossible to regulate huh. this will likely move the hands of many providers and websites to enforce this.

It's a nightmare for recruiting since now you have to distinguish between AI art and human art and not all of it is labeled.

I do like the fact that it's disrupted the trending algorithm since I never liked that aspect of Artstation.

That said AI to me really counts as spam filling what ought to be a professional space, so unless hiring catches up with recruiting prompt artists, all the AI garbage ought to have its own place elsewhere.

why would they be useless? it doesnt even have to be a human readable watermark. machines are perfect at hiding information in some off pixels here and there. or even with visible watermarks, it doesnt have to be crossing the entire image.

if its not murder, how about a seatbelt? man have people been upset when their freedom was taken to drive a car without.

or piors example in france, where you have to tell that a picture was manipulated and is in fact not a real photo.

that is very very close.

I actually think watermarks is a pretty good idea. It doesn't fringe on censorship or denial of services. of course, people can simply not use them or remove them, the same way people do now. but saying it will help nothing is going too far I think.

Gun laws, copyrights, banning of drugs, murder being illegal, etc definitely work. Of course not to 100%, but to a reasonable point that doing nothing would be far worse.

that's fair, but laws are an ever changing construct, they get adjusted, they get adapted.

most of the times too slow.

but law is nothing that is written in stone and can never be touched, often enough they get changed in the favor of the people with the big money, so yeah there is always a risk that this goes sideways.

there is no law, does not mean there can not be one? there is no law that says ai art has to get marked as such, until there is.

and yes lawsuits between artists and artists or artists and companies exist, plagiarism is a thing.

I think the one thing that is missing from the people thinking only in "tech terms" is the fact that just because something is now possible to do, doesn't mean that it is "too late to stop it" and that it is the new normal. For instance in France there is a law from 2017 that stipulates that a photograph of a person used in advertising needs to have a written mention that it has been touched up if it was. The fact that liquify and the clone brush exist does not matter - the law is simply there to enforce the will of the people to not get unknowingly subjected to touched up photos without knowing about it. Similarly, just because research could be made on human cloning, doesn't mean that it can go unregulated. And so on.

Of course everyone can try to bypass the law for whatever reason, and of course no law is perfect and is subject to interpretations. But there is no need for some crazy bLocKcHaIn or wEbThReE tech to authenticate if a picture as not being photoshopped to erase fat rolls - the law just needs to exist, and then if gets violated then it can lead to an investigation.