Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by headsoup 1318 days ago
Who believes artists and human art isn't going anywhere? So this business art is just replacing art no one was doing, or it was just happening for free somehow?

Do you think any of the artists that created the content the AI learns from are going to get any royalties for this business use?
1 comments
orbital-decay 1318 days ago
This is a bit of a red herring. Nobody in their right mind will just copy another artist 1:1 and make money with it. That would be plagiarism, and that won't have value anyway.

Even imitators (check out how much of those the artists like Ilya Kuvshinov have on Artstation, for example) vary their style a bit. That doesn't save them from being samey and boring, though. Some imitators like those of Jacek Yerka are less boring, yet they still have no message to tell.

Artists have been driving themselves out of the industry for decades, without any ML. What can be easily automated with the current tools (which is not a lot) isn't worth saving at all. I suspect that most people perpetuating the panic never actually dived into AI art, learning what the tools are and aren't good for; they mostly enter a prompt, think it's magic, and start doomposting on Twitter. This is probably how artists felt with early 3D CGI, except we didn't have Twitter back then.

link
headsoup 1318 days ago
No, I think "it's going to happen anyway because things happened in the past" is the poor argument.

These AI companies are wholesale scraping art without permission, payment or credit. You just have to look at how they act in other, more litigation heavy industries to see what they're getting away with.

I'm not sure how your argument relates to businesses not paying for artists?

link
orbital-decay 1317 days ago
>These AI companies are wholesale scraping art without permission, payment or credit.

I specifically mentioned Ilya Kuvshinov, who is one of the most copied artists on Artstation; you can see so much of his rendering, poses, lighting, ideas around that it gets uncanny. Have all those imitators (who make money with it) paid anything to him for scraping his art into their minds? Maybe he got credited? Maybe they asked him for permission? I think it's neither of those.

Artists have been copying each other much more blatantly for ages, and they never had any qualms about it, they've just been diminishing their own value. What's changed?

link
headsoup 1317 days ago
Artists most certainly do care once they have the finances and value to fight/protect it. Not all of them of course, but there's a difference between heavy inspiration and plagiarism, as per the music industry.

I'd say the key difference with AI is its scale, which can widely out-produce any genuine artist by a massive amount x by many, many multiples of 'AI artist' personas used.

link