Those regular people aren’t here. And If they were what would you want them to see? People arguing over “stealing” and “copyright”, completely sidestepping the actual point of the conversation like Mystic was. Or people warning each other over using corporate models and replacing artists.

From now on whenever I make something AI related I’m going to say “Don’t use corporate AI. Hire actual artists.” As the first line to combat this. Because, as I hope you’ve seen, arguing on whether or not this is stealing will simply go nowhere.

These models exist, and normal people will see generated content as every other platform is full of it. Allow this one space to be about doing image generation right: “No destroying the planet or replacing humans”.

As with consent. I think training falls under fair use. You aren’t going to be able to get an exact replica from a model anyway so any output I consider transformative, similarly to how a human brain transforms content (although obviously the internals completely different). For me the argument that you need consent to train a model is the same as arguing you need consent to train yourself, or cover a song, or trace over an image. Yes the transformation is mechanical, but if a human was doing all those calculations by hand it would be considered art, and no-one would question if they had the right.

Slight tangent as you mentioned music. I actually like generated music. Like the sound of it. It’s got the vibe of melting a bunch of different songs together to make something completely unoriginal but still different. Real music is obviously superior in every way, but when you want something like that one song that’s unlike any other and you just wish it were longer, that’s what generated music is for. It can’t replace any actual musician but it can provide an interesting listening experience… For like an hour at a time before it becomes grating.
But the point I want to make is that generated music does not sound like music. It’s something different. So arguing that it’s somehow plagiarising just seems silly to me. The model transformed it. It’s not the same, audibly.

If it’s artists’ livelihoods you care about then you are arguing the wrong point. Copyright is not the thing that gives artists money, getting hired is. The problem is not that someone copied an artists work and used it to generate a different picture in the same style. The problem is the people who use those pictures instead of paying artists. I don’t think anyone in this instance would use generated images instead of paying artists if they had that availability. The only claim that this instance is harmful to artists that has any weight is that it normalises generated images, but that’s circumstantial at best.

Your problem, that artists aren’t being paid, is caused by the people not hiring artists. Not some anarchists using their local models for fun. The theft happens when a would be commission gets generated instead, not when the image is processed into the model.

This is the point that you miss when you equate this and capitalists. Capitalists can afford to pay artists to create the art they want, they’re just too greedy to do so.

In all fairness an argument could be made that using generated images feeds the hype capitalists create around “AI”. eg. “Look even anarchists are using it”. Obviously they completely ignore the anti-capitalist sentiment or the fact that the models were running on local hardware.

However I don’t really think this matters, Our corner of the internet is small and no-one is going to subscribe to gemini because they saw some artwork generated here. Although I guess posting “This was made with locally. Fuck Corporations.” below every post wouldn’t hurt.

If you want to use this here’s a slightly fixed and png’d version:

I haven’t used any AI. This is traced over the https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/c/anarchism banner. That banner was generated, like most db0’s comms.

But I have wondered about doing this to images generated myself. I think it’s an interesting counter-argument to the “AI” hardliners. If I claim no ownership of the generated output or even my own work based on that output is it still stealing? And if the image was generated in a climate-friendly manner, like through AI Horde or Ecosia, is it still problematic?

If you like this art I have some more in my own comm: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/c/anaval

I don’t think anyone has ever proposed a banner image in response.

Very well. I’ve made one.

There’s a chapter on AFAQ with this exact question: https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionI.html#seci1

I.1 Isn’t libertarian socialism an oxymoron?

In a word, no. This question is often asked by those who have come across the so-called “libertarian” right. As discussed in section A.1.3, the word “libertarian” has been used by anarchists for far longer than the pro-free market right have been using it. In fact, anarchists have been using it as a synonym for anarchist for over 150 years, since 1858. In comparison, widespread use of the term by the so-called “libertarian” right dates from the 1970s in America (with, from the 1940s onwards, limited use by a few individuals). Indeed, outside of North America “libertarian” is still essentially used as an equivalent of “anarchist” and as a shortened version of “libertarian socialist.”