Using image2image allows you to create an artwork from an artwork. These examples have been used extensively to "prove" that AI artworks are "stealing" artist's "hard work" when in fact someone used a tool to plagiarize their works, and the AI had nothing to do with it. As for whether any of these examples are "false flags", I'll leave that to you.
I'm sure people have used image2image, but SDv1 is completely capable of emulating artstyles. Including Rutkowski's, who you mention in a minute. I hope you're not implying he was one of those people using i2i. If you use one of the prompts that came with out along with some of those articles, "Wizard with sword and a glowing orb of magic fire fights a fierce dragon Greg Rutkowski", you get images that resemble what came out in those articles. V2 does not, which is great
The first images share style elements with his greater body of work but don't directly reference specific images, which is fair.
in later SD models, "artist prompts" were nerfed. It doesn't matter because the very VERY tiny percentage of the training data that came from artstation is absolutely unnecessary for SD to function. The majority of AI art created today has nothing to do with Greg Rutkowski et al. Regardless, in the earlier models using an artist's name in the prompt STILL does not produce art work that's "directly referencing their original pieces.". Not sure why you think that but it is not true. It's not possible.
Patently untrue about directly referencing original pieces being impossible. I just posted a reply to another AI enjoyer with some Van Gogh art, using SDv1 and 2.1, and in both instances it's essentially just copying the art. Yeah, it looks messier and generally more amateurish, but every element is present, down to the number of swirls and their positioning on starry night, and every building at the ground. The only information I gave it were the words "Van Gogh" and it immediately mimicked his most famous works here (V1), and here (v2.1) This is objective. You can directly identify the pieces being used. They're referenced, in both style, and subject matter. Objectively. In fairness to AI, I'm sure of Van Gogh's overall body of work, which is around 2000 pieces, Starry Night and his self portraits are some of his most famous. So depending on how many resources the data set is referencing, it may have several, dozens, or hundreds of instances of single images from with his name attached. Anyway, if you include more descriptors it's not going to directly rip off the pieces, obviously, which is good. But again, they're still referencing specific and identifiable pieces from individual works. Typically the swirls from Starry night, but he has so many wildly identifiable pieces. It's pretty prominent in things like brickwork, especially just, color pallets overall.
Yeah, I'm really not sure why you think it can't directly reference images given this. Maybe you don't really understand what referencing is in a traditional artistic context? If an artist takes a picture of an instagram model, and draws them, that is a direct reference. That is what occurred here. It doesn't even have to be in the same style, and the model does not have to have the same features in the finished piece. It's a very broad practice, from just using a piece to add a one or a few elements to your own artwork (any one of the 20+ soft skills required to be a good artist), which is what using artist prompts with these generally, and ideally do, which I think is totally fine, to study, which is by and far the most common use of references, and all the way up to using the entire subject matter. The last usually prefers permission from the original creator by courtesy, and pretty much any respected artist will properly request and credit.
I'm just trying to really clarify here, because again, these are direct references. That is all I am trying to convey, what reference means in art. I really, really hope a bunch of people who have never studied art fundamentals aren't spearheading the AI movement and misusing terminology and concepts that have been cemented for centuries, because jesus fuck, that would bleak haha.
Anyway, if AI art going forward would just never copy so many elements of an artstyle at once then I would be pretty fine with it, that would be amazing. Artstyle is what sells and helps people live and differentiate themselves. I really don't understand why the greater AI movement's current feelings on the matter are "fuck everybody that unwillingly enabled this to happen for being scared about their livelihoods, we got ours". The mediums could exist together, but unfortunately they won't because pushing the envelope just for the sake of it is what we do as humans, I guess.
Speculation, but I imagine that despite version 2 of this specific model lessening the effect, it's going to resurface in another model just as a fact, and become continually more blatant about referenced artstyle. I'm sure in a couple years you'll be able to punch in any artist who's put out a couple hundred pieces and get something that looks like they drew it, which is novel and interesting, but still unfortunate for the artist. Ultimately is what it is
Anyway, onto the rest of your reply
Providing an option to "opt out" is simply a nice gesture, it isn't morally or legally necessary. If you think that using AI to train on any of various datasets out there scraped from public facing data then you have a huge problem with something that already is a basic fact of the internet that has been taken as granted for decades. Scraping publicly available data is a billion dollar business and the powers that be will protect them before they protect you.
Well aware of this commonly known fact, but thanks. I do have a problem with companies monetizing every aspect of our lives, indiscriminately, but am also aware that there's nothing that can be done for it.
No one is obliged to offer you to opt out, you should be thankful that you are given the opportunity tbh.
Yeah I'll be sure to get on my knees and suck whoever made that an option's big, fat, juicy cocks for the opportunity next time I see them, just for you.
How do you know this? Are you just saying it because you think your data was in the training data or have you actually looked? Was it used in the current model released for SD, or are you talking about the model released 5 months ago?
I used Haveibeentrained. I haven't scraped much deeper, I'm sure my art is being used in places that I'm not aware of, and will forever be, but it is what it is. I'll opt out when and where I can, but I do recognize the futility.
Your art is not necessary for SD to function and it will be excluded if you opt out, and SD will be no worse without it.
The training data comprises billions of images, more than 200Tb of data. The tiny little blip of data from artstation is a joke to make such a big fuss about - it's irrelevant and unimportant to the functioning of the software.
You do realize that you can just be direct and speak normally instead of making socially-awkward jabs, right? I never implied anything of the sort, and I'm aware because it's obvious...? Like, yeah, my art surely comprised like, a thousandth of a percent of the entire data set, duh, but I don't think me taking a few minutes like a month ago to go through that process is me making a fuss. But like, go off or whatever I guess
What do you think should happen going forward, out of curiosity?
Do you think future AIs should be disallowed from using public data to train on?
How would that be implemented and enforced?
Will Google and Apple still be allowed to scrape all of your data, just not LAION and such? What's the difference? It's all being used to train AI at this point, and if you don't realize that you aren't paying attention. Even Adobe is using your data to train AI, so be careful using photoshop. Seriously.
I'm not overly concerned about any of this. I realize it's happening, but this is out of anybody on my level's hands. Any time I have the options to opt out, I will out of principle, but yes, I realize it doesn't really matter. AI art specifically is topical in my circles and has directly impacted commission-bases on the lower end of the spectrum, which is bound to happen when most people just want pics of their OC's or DnD characters or whatever, and as it improves it'll do more. I'm resigned and have accepted it, but yeah I'm not just never going to express my concerns and criticisms.
I don't use Adobe products as what I do is generally more illustration-heavy than painterly, so I don't need it in any pressing manner.
Yeah idk, it all is what it is. tl;dr none of this matters and I'm clearly retarded for even engaging in discussion about this
