Greg Rutkowski, a digital artist known for his surreal style, opposes AI art but his name and style have been frequently used by AI art generators without his consent. In response, Stable Diffusion removed his work from their dataset in version 2.0. However, the community has now created a tool to emulate Rutkowski’s style against his wishes using a LoRA model. While some argue this is unethical, others justify it since Rutkowski’s art has already been widely used in Stable Diffusion 1.5. The debate highlights the blurry line between innovation and infringement in the emerging field of AI art.

  • TwilightVulpine@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Here is where a rhethorical sleight of hand is used by AI proponents.

    It’s displayed for people’s appreciation. AI is not people, it is a tool. It’s not entitled to the same rights as people, and the model it creates based on artists works is itself a derivative work.

    Even among AI proponents, few believe that the AI itself is an autonomous being who ought to have rights over their own artworks, least of all the AI creators.

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I use tools such as web browsers to view art. AI is a tool too. There’s no sleight of hand, AI doesn’t have to be an “autonomous being.” Training is just a mechanism for analyzing art. If I wrote a program that analyzed pictures to determine what the predominant colour in them was that’d be much the same, there’d be no problem with me running it on every image I came across on a public gallery.

      • TwilightVulpine@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You wouldn’t even be able to point a camera to works in public galleries without permission. Free for viewing doesn’t mean free to do whatever you want with them, and many artists have made clear they never gave permission that their works would be used to train AIs.