I decided to not post my art here any longer because of AI (tl;dr version).
To elaborate: Look, this is not a debate. Nobody in their right mind argues in favor of slavery and no sane person would sanctify the invasion of privacy and copyright abuse as a legitimate business model. A company just dropping their industrial waste into nature is already enough to set people off these days, so they clearly care a bit about morality.
Why do you think “AI” image generators work as good as they do? It's because the companies assemble their datasets with no consideration for the sources, nor do they have any regards for moral implications. Their data miners didn't only take copyrighted artwork to sell in their datasets, but also private photographs, Isis beheading videos, graphic imagery of accidents, war, irl child pornography and visual hospital data.
I noticed a bunch of people tell you about the AI issue and they mostly seem to say “the AI stuff floods the front page” or “it looks bad”. I am not making any of these points, not because I don't think they're valid, but because all of them are merely cascading symptoms of a rather easily identifiable root problem.
All of the image generators can only function as good as they do because the datasets they use have been assembled under the blanket of science, resources taken from just everywhere the data miners could go, because according to them “asking for permission would have taken time”.
Laziness has never been a good defense in the first place, but these companies SELL this as a product (which was not in the “contract” when they said they need this much data for scientific purposes ONLY, mind you).
Not a single inch of their way is in any way shape or form defensible and the fact that they (the companies) even attempt to put themselves onto a pedestal as moral arbiters who act “in the name of progress” makes them extra disgusting.
So yeah, dear Ink Bunny Staff;
people who are frustrated tell you that you're lazy and don't want to work, so I would like to encourage you to be REALLY lazy by putting a blanket ban on AI generated imagery, violations result in bans, your new terms of service will say this explicitly. When someone wants to upload, a small text will say this explicitly as well to make sure nobody misses it. Short process, easy going, no discussions. You have no obligation to argue with any defender of predatory businesses.
Believe me, the vast majority of folks will be thankful, you're 100% free to ignore those who are going to be pissed, for they are not artists and had no interest in keeping the community alive in the first place. Trust me, I have seen them in action on Deviant Art en masse.
Ye, there were plenty of other things happening as well, but I definitely also needed a break from the AI debate first before I felt strong enough to go into it again (and I didn't want to copy and past things).
Ye, there were plenty of other things happening as well, but I definitely also needed a break from t
Part of the problem, I think, is that there aren't any actual artists on staff, so they don't understand how much this pisses us off. I'll be the first to admit that artists can be overprotective of our work, but when it comes to being "scraped" against our will in an attempt to make us obsolete, I think it's pretty fucking clear why we'd be upset.
The fact that he never responded to this comment ( https://inkbunny.net/j/487067#commentid_2611596 )
Thank you, I fell over the double standard in regards to the music industry early on ~ which doesn't help their case either, so far, absolutely nothing has.
You know, the most frustrating thing is the utter lack of empathy, or will to understand, some people show. It's okay to not be an artist, but plenty of people are very eager to just disregard any sort of concerns being raised by us or ignore it.
So far, I haven't come across a single person who was able to effectively argue against the ethical points I am making and the reason for this is simply because they're all in the wrong here and deep down they know it. The best I personally got was someone on DA finally dropping the act and openly say "I don't care if they steal" which is not a position that will get you ahead on this issue (as I expected already at that point).
Thank you, I fell over the double standard in regards to the music industry early on ~ which doesn't
I assume like Deviantart and FA they too banned AI art. Or at least added filters to hide it, like Pixiv did. Odd they have not done so. Anyway I already watch you on FA (I think?) , so I guess see you there!
I assume like Deviantart and FA they too banned AI art. Or at least added filters to hide it, like P
Fur Affinity banned AI art 100%. Deviantart pretty much has made the option whether you want to see most of it or not (hence the options "Show AI" or "Supress AI.") In other words, Deviantart pretty much allowed all of AI art onto their website.
Fur Affinity banned AI art 100%. Deviantart pretty much has made the option whether you want to see
Oh did not know that. I only watch a few people on DA, due to their censorship most furry artists I watch are on other sites anyway. Most of what I draw is porn so I can only post my pics censored there, too.
Oh did not know that. I only watch a few people on DA, due to their censorship most furry artists I
It really sucks the developers went the way they did, 'cause it could've been an amazing tool if developed properly. I know many artists would likely love being able to just grab backgrounds and things to spruce up their pictures, on top of a bunch of other stuff that could've been made. But they went and screwed it up, and the users of it make it worse by trying to claim the same kind of clout as artists while using their own work to do it.
It really sucks the developers went the way they did, 'cause it could've been an amazing tool if de
They intentionally preyed upon artists first because they have the weaker legal backbone, especially next to the music industry. The very fact that this is how all of these AI companies begin their business right away from 0 has gotten me convinced that all of them act maliciously. Plenty of them aren't even using the word "artist" at any point and even use the same vocabulary as authoritarian conquerors with this "we want to DEMOCRATIZE art".
If I would get my personal wishfullfillment, all of them would be locked up in prison for 30 years minimum. This technology will cause more harm than it does good on a previously unheard of scale and needs to be destroyed, only fragments of it can be used in medicine perhaps.
They intentionally preyed upon artists first because they have the weaker legal backbone, especially
"Democratizing art" is the dumbest thing too. Literally all you need is a pencil and paper and boom, you can do art. Or heck, if you don't have that, you sure have whatever device you're reading this on.
"Democratizing art" is the dumbest thing too. Literally all you need is a pencil and paper and boom,
The problem is that we can't avoid it. Artists, sadly, are acting like artisans back in the days of the 2nd Industrial Revolution... before their entire work market collapsed.
Sane futurists -the ones who actually do their fucking job of the good and the bad- can only see that there is no stopping it, and the only way you're going to live is to accept it.
The problem is that we can't avoid it. Artists, sadly, are acting like artisans back in the days of
Hmm... let's see... Failure to adress even a single point I made... Inaccurate comparisons to previous historical events... Employment of an oxymoron to defend progress or weakly excuse it... And a variant of "adapt or die".
Your rank: corporate propagandist and fearmonger.
Hmm... let's see... Failure to adress even a single point I made... Inaccurate comparisons to previo
What makes you so sure that this point of yours is truly justified? Also, progress is not always a good thing just because its progress; and vice versa. However I don't think AI is inherently bad, honestly. It can be useful for things beyond mathematics, medical and photography editing. True, the so-called "democratizing of art" is a farce of a term, but blanket terming all AI imaging as corrupt and without any usefulness, and locking those who developed it up for at least 30 years!? WTF!? It appears you are getting way passionate and such about your negative views regarding this stuff. You're fear and you're anger, is strong in this here journal and its posts. & wish to destroy most of such technology, oh so present. Go on and have have those views, fine by me. BTW, how do you know that ISIS beheadings, war events, and pics & vids of irl child porn are known to be involved in the algorithms of these programs? Anywho, I think there should either be changes to the blacklist so it can be more personalized, or at most a partial ban on it a la most of it being used for the backgrounds of an image posted.
What makes you so sure that this point of yours is truly justified? Also, progress is not always a g
