[ SECRET POST #5838 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5838 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________




















06. [SPOILERS for Midnight Mass]




__________________________________________________



07. [WARNING for discussion of addiction]
























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #835.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

05. https://i.imgur.com/jDPhlPz.jpg

[(Anonymous)]

Which filter is that? Don't think I've seen it before.

[(Anonymous)]

I need to know what this filter is, too!

[meadowphoenix]

i mean...depending on how anti-ai they are, this isn't hypocrisy. a little dumb to give their photos to the internet which trains ai, but that's less pro-ai and more anti-reading terms and conditions.

[starfleetbrat]

depends on why they are anti-AI but a big issue with the AI is the company providing them, scraping art without permission to use in AI art generation that is then sold for profit with no payment or even credit to the original artists.

That in my opinion is completely different to AI used for adding a filter to a free video on tik tok.

[(Anonymous)]

AI-produced art should not be credited to the artists who made the material in the training corpus, because AI-produced art is not the product of the original artists, it's a new and distinct product.

OFC it's still wrong to use copyrighted images without permission or payment in a training corpus, because the artists have a right to those images. But if an AI uses those images, it doesn't mean that the images it then produces have anything to do with them.

[(Anonymous)]

Is it really “new and distinct” if it’s cobbled together from multiple pieces of art, some of it pretty easy to spot? These aren’t pieces of art being submitted for the training corpus with permission, this is art that is being used to make different art without the permission of the original artists.

I don’t get how you can say that the art used by AI to make new art shouldn’t have to be credited, while also saying it’s wrong to use copyrighted art without permission or payment. I also don’t get how you can clearly say all of that about the artists having a right to these images, how you can acknowledge that several pieces of art that can be recognizable are used to make something else, and then say that the images the AI produces has “nothing to do” with the artists. Those are contradictory statements you’re making. And the resulting AI art still does have something to do with artists, and the AI art isn’t a completely new and distinct thing considering it’s using their art as a base component.

[(Anonymous)]

It's not being used to make different art without the permission of the original artists.

The reason that you can sometimes spot source material in new images produced by AI models is because those models were designed to do that. It's not because of anything inherent in AI models. It's a characteristic of those specific models doing what they were told to do. It's the same way that a human artist can decide to sit down and plagiarize another artist, or they can make art that imitates the style of another artist, or they can make original art. And obviously, no one should use AI to plagiarize other artists, for the same reasons that human artists should not plagiarize other artists.

The way that it works is that the training corpus makes the AI, and then the AI makes original art. The AI is *not* just cutting up and reassembling elements from the training corpus. The resulting art is *not* merely an elaboration or recontextualization or whatever word you want to use of the human-created art. It is totally distinct and original. The art that is used in the training corpus has nothing to do with the art that is produced, it's just a necessary thing that you have to use to make the AI exist.

The reason that AI training materials shouldn't use copyrighted images without permission / payment is just because those images are copyrighted and artists have a right to say that their images shouldn't be used for purposes they disapprove of, whether it's the purposes of a training corpus or anything else. But it is *not* the case that the art produced by the AI after it's up and running are genetic descendants of the art from the training corpus. And the original artists have no authority, bearing, or relationship to the art produced by the AI.

[(Anonymous)]

The fact that AI art needs other art to exist means it probably shouldn’t until that’s no longer the case. These defenses are lukewarm at best. Walking back things you’ve specifically said in other cases.

[(Anonymous)]

all art needs other art to exist

do you think that humans learn how to draw in total isolation from existing art

[(Anonymous)]

That is hella cute.

(And I know nothing about how filters work, so that's all I have to say.)

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry anon but you got it all wrong.

TBH as an artist and fan of artists I have nothing against AI tech for the purpose of graphic-making in itself. But have everything against how badly regulated its usage is - Some apps are UNETHICAL in how they STEAL art.
It would be one thing to make one app called, whatever, "Ghibli Art AI App" and feed it Ghibli movie pictures and make everything look like a Ghibli movie picture, and either pay the studio to use its images or (better) pay the studio a % of the app's revenue. It's ANOTHER to feed your app images created and freely distributed by kind artists who clearly stated "DON'T REPOST" in their art pages and have people generate images in whatever styles they want for "free" (ie. in exchange for their data ofc, which gives power to such stealing companies) knowing full well that some of these people are going to claim that they drew the thing (even if they wouldn't be able to in a million years because they would never spend the amount of time studying and drawing requires, because they don't respect graphic art all that much.) and SELL it. Lie. and sell it. To people who should be purchasing art from well-intentioned artists (who invested in their studies, drawing tablets and apps, etc., only to get stolen lol) instead.

That's... two completely different issues bro. And you are totally missing the point if you disagree.

[(Anonymous)]

1000% agree with you. OP just sounds salty cos they want to use AI without being judged for it.

[(Anonymous)]

People are complaining, entirely missing the fact that the issue with AI technology has never been AI technology in itself, but rather, how unethical humans can be. Of course we could limit AI functions. But Do We?

[(Anonymous)]

DA

I disagree with this, only because nobody is blaming the AI technology itself as if it is sentient and capable of thought. They’re obviously blaming the people behind it that exploit it. It’s disingenuous to act like what you’re saying isn’t basically the same argument the others are making. Because they’re definitely not blaming everything on some mythical thieving robots. What you’re insinuating that people are saying is a strawman, not what they’re actually saying.

What's this filter?

[(Anonymous)]

And where do I find it? Is AI art only available online? I don't want to give it more information from which to draw from lol.

Re: What's this filter?

[(Anonymous)]

no such thing as AI "art". they're computer generated images. nothing artsy or intelligent about it.

[(Anonymous)]

It really does further "cute-ify" that raccoon.