You are welcome to look at the talkback but please consider that this article is over 1 year old before posting.
Forum - View topicNEWS: DLsite, Ci-en, pixiv FANBOX, Fantia Ban AI-Generated Content
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Harleyquin
Posts: 2984 |
|
||
|
I'm not surprised. Looking at the store pages for the last two months, AI-generated content exploded and in some cases were the dominant contributor in the new releases list. Some sites still allow exceptions for games and novels, which is probably fair as the art assets are just one part of the game package and the rest of the work is still done by humans. Didn't stop some games with AI art assets from topping sales charts ahead of more traditional offerings with homebrew or commissioned art.
|
|||
|
|||
tfwnoymir
 Posts: 327 Location: Hungary |
|
||
|
About time. The fact that they allowed people to make money out of this in the first place still astounds me. They could do something about the non-fanbox part though, at this point you need to go through a tag search extensively to find something that is not generated by AI at all.
|
|||
|
|||
mgosdin
 Posts: 1302 Location: Kissimmee, Florida, USA |
|
||
|
"And it's too late, baby now, it's too late,"
It’s Too Late, Carole King As they say the Horses are out of the barn & the barn is on fire, they can ban all they want but as soon as someone asks thier ChatBot buddy, "How do we get around this ban?" the game is over. Mark Gosdin |
|||
|
|||
|
gsilver
Posts: 655 |
|
||
|
The AI debate continues to fascinate me. Places like these that let people monetize the specific images are pretty clear-cut examples of where it shouldn't be allowed, but AI-generated media is showing up in a lot of places.
Most recently, I heard them talk about the game Inworld Origins on a podcast, which uses AI to voice NPCs... and use said AI to let the NPCs respond to naturally spoken questions in great detail. Really fascinating stuff. I also heard of a (don't slay me for using the term this way) "Rougelike" game that I can't recall the name of at the moment that used AI to have run-unique art assets, and that's a AI-generated art use case that I'm not-sure if justified, but could be argued either way. The dynamism is built right into the game and is central to it. I guess that once the genie is out of the bottle, there's no going back. |
|||
|
|||
|
FilthyCasual
Posts: 2419 |
|
||
|
Based. I hope the bans become permanent.
|
|||
|
|||
Vanadise
 Posts: 535 |
|
||
No, it isn't. Like... I'm not even sure what your line of thought is here. Asking a chat bot how to circumvent a ban is not going to just magically give you a way to circumvent that ban. I'm sure some people will try, but AI generated imagery is still pretty easy to tell apart from human-made artwork if you're at all skilled at examining art, which I would assume the mods on these sites are. You also have to keep in mind that the kinds of people who want to quickly churn out and sell AI generated content are notorious for not being willing to put much work into anything they do. They don't actually see producing AI generated images as a way to express themselves, nor do they want to make a living doing it; they just want to make some quick cash doing something easy. As soon as it takes real effort, they'll move along to another grift. |
|||
|
|||
|
DRosencraft
Posts: 675 |
|
||
I would argue the two are not the same thing. If it's backgrounds and stuff like that, I don't think most folks have a problem with it, as most backgrounds are meant to replicate some real world locale, so it's less a concern. Would be different in the context of a true fantastical locale or something, but still not as big an issue, I don't think, as a character. I haven't been as keyed in on the AI art debate, but the crux of the arguments against, that I've seen, is that AI art as it pertains to characters hits two major issues. First, it is low-effort, and second, similar to the first, that it's basically tracing other's actual work but without even needing your own skill to trace. The notion behind the two problems is that someone who has minimal understanding or skill in art is having a computer copy elements from someone else's art, composite those elements, and present that as "new and original" art, where if the same steps had been done by hand that person would be accused of being a hack, a terrible artist, and worse. Just last year in a game I play there was a big debate because someone accused the devs of just copying popular characters from the anime sphere and only changing small things like colors of the clothes, minor shifts in emphasis on design elements. Not accusing them of AI art, but just generally copying other characters. AI art explicitly does this, so you can assume people that would accuse a game dev of something like described would likewise be dissatisfied with knowing AI created the character on screen. It is that the work being done isn't really their own in almost any meaningful way, but it is being presented as such and they're profiting off it. If you go to Deviant Art for example (I use them as an example only because I am more familiar with them) you can find folks selling AI generated character art for $150 USD, and you can immediately tell that it's 90% a character from a popular anime, manga, game, with tidbits tossed in from some other similar popular character, or just some extra element added on or exaggerated. Often times there are significant issues with the art itself, such as terrible finger rendering, stuff like the eyes not being aligned quite right, or "phantom elements" I sometimes call them (A character that is supposed to have a tail, but there are extra detached ends of tails left in the image, and not in the pseudo motion kind of way). Now, why would someone buy this? Because they now get the actual use case benefit of AI art - development of a concept - and get to skip ahead to polishing it, doing a few minor tweaks, and now they too can either sell that to someone else, or use it in a project they likely intend to market and profit from. It's one thing if a fan makes this and posts it to show off to other fans as a concept art piece. It's another when you have folks making fairly serious money by selling art they only typed in a descriptor for and let a PC program barf out an image. As mentioned, if the AI art is only used to establish a concept, the real work of creating a final piece still done by the artist, folks seem okay with that. The issue most seem to have from my experience is with the fact that AI art is improving to the point that "Bob" in his room typed a few descriptors into a program, it spits out a "completed" work, and "Bob" gets the same credit as being as artist as the folks who originally created the art the AI program sampled for its creation. Last edited by DRosencraft on Fri May 12, 2023 9:33 am; edited 1 time in total |
|||
|
|||
|
Tenebrae
Posts: 492 |
|
||
Indeed, because if the ban perists the next step is simple and obvious: someone will create a similar site that is geared towards AI generated stuff, all the AI content creators flock there, and the money keeps flowing. |
|||
|
|||
|
FukuchiChiisaia
|
|
||
|
There are several AI-only Pixiv-alike for image generation already even before this ban. Some of them are JP-only.
|
|||
Kicksville
 Posts: 1261 |
|
||
|
A reason why all these sites may have shifted around the same time could be the inverse of that: What happens if there's a new art site that bans AI from the start?
You've got artists frustrated about their work, and the work of friends, getting buried under torrents of AI stuff (that's honestly the biggest problem, the sheer speed and amount of it). Then, imagine, a sexy new art site pops up and says, hey, no AI allowed, and then a few big name artists announce they'll only be posting there. And then the traffic and money is going somewhere else. Banning AI art after that might not be enough to repair trust. Granted, for all I know, maybe the AI stuff would make more money. I don't know. But I think it's easy to see why they'd be worried about competition. |
|||
|
|||
|
ximpalullaorg
Posts: 396 |
|
||
|
And this will help no one.
As the ridiculous discussion about AI ethics for ChatGPT (if one thinks it will stop China or India to do whatever they want...that's not going to happen) banning won't solve a thing. People will move to other sites. Also, this doesn't stop anyone from using Stable diffusion and its versions privately. And, as someone who has commissioned art and keeps commissioning art to artists... No one owes me anything but the same logic applies to the artists themselves. Copyright isn't a moral judgment. It has a purpose (albeit extremely distorted, especially in the US). The fact that "AI" (which is not) infringes copyright and/or produces derivative works has to be proven in court and not on forums and or Twitter, prove a causal link and prove damage. Good luck with an algorithm that uses tensor data and noise generation. The problem is there. But there's need to have a frank debate on this. Including on copyright (which for examples, lasts too much IMO). Banning, moral discussion won't help. As bad as it is to say... From now on, even if AI is regulated (which I hope not), only the fittest artists will survive. |
|||
|
|||
AJ (LordNikon)
 Posts: 518 Location: Kyoto |
|
||
|
Same arguments I remember from 1990s with anything digital, the internet, photography, napster... AI is new tech so easy to tell AI from human made content. Wait another year or two and you wont. As already stated, hose is out of barn, barn is on fire; firefighter is AI. The ban may be "temp" but other platforms will come and take place soon if bans is perm. Enjoy Skynet.
|
|||
|
|||
Pokenatic
 Posts: 584 Location: Neo Venezia |
|
||
|
Boy, AI-generated really is the new asset flip, huh.
|
|||
|
|||
|
kotomikun
Posts: 1205 |
|
||
And 3D TVs, virtual reality, self-driving cars, NFTs/cryptocurrencies... there's a long list of technologies that were supposed to take over the world, but ended up remaining niche or disappearing entirely. I can't predict the future, so I don't know which category AI "art" is in; but in most cases, the inventions that change the world are not the ones everyone is paying attention to--after all, those are the ones getting the most pushback. AI drawings have made surprisingly rapid progress over the past couple years, but that doesn't mean it's going to continue at that pace forever. Refining the quality of anything always becomes increasingly difficult as it gets closer to perfection. Until these programs become actual simulated minds that can understand language and conceptualize physical space, they will always have limitations and strange behaviors that you wouldn't get from a human artist. Currently, machine-printed still images look pretty good if you don't examine them for more than a few seconds, but animations are still a trippy trainwreck because they really have no comprehension of what movement is supposed to look like, and because any animations in its training material are not painstakingly tagged with all the thousands of movements they contain. Maybe they'll get better at this, but it'll be orders of magnitude more difficult than fixing all the illogical hands and wonky-shaped objects still plaguing the current image generators. It's apparently good enough for scamming and stealing, though... two things humans will never stop finding new methods for. |
|||
|
|||
|
Traptrix Lover
Posts: 111 |
|
||
I'm pretty sure you can disable AI art from showing on your search results on Pixiv. I keep it on though since I've seen a lot of it that is pretty nice. It is pretty plentiful though. I guess with how easy it is to make it. |
|||
|
|||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group