The Age Old Debate: Fire Good, or Fire Bad?
This was originally going to be part of this thread, but the points were distinct enough and my thoughts rambly enough that I split it into two posts.
From the recent PalWorld thread:
We gotta handle that last tag in two parts.
Part 1 "the devs admitted to using AI art to make the pals"
First off, that isn't true near as I can tell. I can't find anything of the PalWorld Devs admitting they used AI for PalWorld designs. Palworld had demo footage with Pals in it 2 years ago on June 6 with their announcement trailer, which means they would have had to have started dev much earlier than that.
This is what AI art from June of 2022 looked like:
On the left, Hieronymus Bosch's Pokemon, on the right, Charmander on Gumby.
I did a much deeper breakdown of the "used AI" accusation here. It does not hold water.
Now, I could change my mind on this point if there were linked evidence to the creators of Palworld saying this. But there isn't.
Because the accusation is repeated in a tag, there's no way to include supporting information, or even to easily directly ask the accuser for it. Many people are going to see it, internalize it, and then repeat it uncritically, and that's how rumors and witchhunts start.
Because I've seen a lot of accusations about PalWorld stealing fakemon, and I'm yet to see a smoking gun. There's barely smoke.
Gonna hit the second point in that tag, but while we're on the theme of spreading misinfo:
Part 2 of the Tag: Using AI to Brainstorm is "Bad"
This is also an assertion that would require support, and I believe it to be wholly incorrect.
Plagiarism happens at publication. Not at inception, not inspiration, not even at the production level. The only measure of whether something is or is not "stolen art" is whether what comes out at the end replicates, with insufficient transformation, an existing, fixed expression. Art theft is about what comes out, not about what goes in.
For more about how this works with AI art, I suggest checking out the Electronic Frontier Foundation's statement on the issue. They're the ones looking out for your online civil rights, and I agree with their position on this.
The argument that AI art is theft because it is trained on public-facing material on the internet just doesn't fly. Those are all fixed published works subject to inspiration, study, and transformative recreation under fair use. The utilization of mechanical apparatus does not change that principle.
And fair use that requires permission isn't fair use. That's a license.
Moreover, altering the process to put infringement at inspiration/input or allowing the copyrighting of styles would be the end of art as we know it.
There's no coincidence that the main legal push against AI art on copyright grounds is backed by Adobe and Disney. Adobe is already using AI art as a pretext to lobby congress to let them copyright styles, and Disney owns enough material on its own to produce a dataset that would let them do all the AI they'd ever need to, entirely with material they "own." And they're DOING THAT.
The genie is out of the bottle, they (Disney, Adobe, Warner Bros, Universal) have it, and it can't be taken away from them. They just don't want anyone else using AI to compete with them.
Palworld didn't use AI to conceive of its critters. If it had, they'd have probably been less derivative.
(three random AI fakemon I prompted up as examples of just that)
Both traditional and AI-assisted art can plagerize or be original, its entirely based upon how the techniques are used.
Moreover, you can infringe entirely accidentally without realizing, but you can also fail at copying enough that it becomes a new protected work.
We're well into moral panic territory with AI in general, and there's more than a touch of it around Palworld, largely because people aren't suspicious enough of information that confirms their worldview.
I used the quoted set of tags as the prompt for the top of the post, all the AI images in this post are unmodified and were not extensively guided, and thus do not meet the minimal expression threshold and should be considered in the public domain.
58 notes
·
View notes
Art is differentiated from activity of the understanding, which demands preparation and a certain sequence of knowledge (so that one cannot learn trigonometry before knowing geometry), by the fact that it acts on people independently of their state of development and education, that the charm of a picture, of sounds, or of forms, infects any man whatever his plane of development.
The business of art lies just in this—to make that understood and felt which, in the form of an argument, might be incomprehensible and inaccessible. Usually it seems to the recipient of a truly artistic impression that he knew the thing before but had been unable to express it.
Leo Tolstoy, What Is Art?
67 notes
·
View notes
I suppose this is a bit of vent art,
but,
I have unfortunately not been drawing as much as of late
I simply just don’t have the energy or have the mental capacity to draw something I will actually stick to and like
I feel
overwhelmed, I suppose
So, if you wonder why I haven’t been posting so much,
That is why
I want to get back into art and rediscover why I loved it so much since my youth
I want to fall in love with art again
And that is what inspired this piece
I tried to not force myself to do anything spectacular, so it’s just a simple self portrait painting that’s half unfinished
but,
it’s something
and that is what allows art to be art.
4 notes
·
View notes