0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Wilm on November 26, 2023, 05:56Quote from: cobalt on November 26, 2023, 04:41eta...then I am just adjusting the clothes a bit, changing out the sky, removing the glasses, changing the hairstyle...Yes, I have also exchanged skies. For many years now. But it was always a sky that I photographed myself. I've never used a sky from one of your photos. That wasn't allowed either.And that's exactly what the AI providers get around. Without paying a single cent for it. Why are you not allowed to use elements from other people's images, but AI is? Can you explain why?...one more time -- i don't know your specific knowledge, but, in general, complaints about being victimized show an underlying ignorance of how these models work. -- AI does not use ANY elements from images when creating new images - in an entirely separate process it trains on billions of images to create its dataset. when creating a new image (which may take millions of steps) it no longer has access to the original hundreds of millions of images it used in training. there are many descriptions, of varying detail, on how this actually works - posted frequently here & available online, so there's really no excuse for continuing to promote this false idea.the completely separate argument is whether there should be any payment for images to be used in training, but no one has been able to show that pieces of their image shows up in a new creation
Quote from: cobalt on November 26, 2023, 04:41eta...then I am just adjusting the clothes a bit, changing out the sky, removing the glasses, changing the hairstyle...Yes, I have also exchanged skies. For many years now. But it was always a sky that I photographed myself. I've never used a sky from one of your photos. That wasn't allowed either.And that's exactly what the AI providers get around. Without paying a single cent for it. Why are you not allowed to use elements from other people's images, but AI is? Can you explain why?...
eta...then I am just adjusting the clothes a bit, changing out the sky, removing the glasses, changing the hairstyle...
The topic here is: "I will never use AI".To all the pro-AIs who sell their faith and prostration on this thread: Why not open a topic "I pray I will get eternal AI" for the simple sake of consistency and intellectual respect? [Edit]:I know that most AI critics tend to leave this forum, and that's unfortunately really understandable.
Take Adobe Firefly: "Generate images from a detailed text description." This is the promise of Adobe.If you write Tiger you get a tiger, if you write Pope you get the image of the Pope. There must have been a photographer who took a photo of the tiger, and another photographer who took the photo of the Pope." Both photographer go empty and Adobe makes the deal.Am I wrong?
Furthermore "I never use AI" topic will mean that in future someone will not use smartphone, computers, Tv, internet, electric cars, hospitals, etc. It's a complete return to old "Zoe" but not really a return to innocence. Well...In some way it can be achievable if someone isolates from society.
Quote from: cascoly on November 28, 2023, 16:17Quote from: Wilm on November 26, 2023, 05:56Quote from: cobalt on November 26, 2023, 04:41eta...then I am just adjusting the clothes a bit, changing out the sky, removing the glasses, changing the hairstyle...Yes, I have also exchanged skies. For many years now. But it was always a sky that I photographed myself. I've never used a sky from one of your photos. That wasn't allowed either.And that's exactly what the AI providers get around. Without paying a single cent for it. Why are you not allowed to use elements from other people's images, but AI is? Can you explain why?...one more time -- i don't know your specific knowledge, but, in general, complaints about being victimized show an underlying ignorance of how these models work. -- AI does not use ANY elements from images when creating new images - in an entirely separate process it trains on billions of images to create its dataset. when creating a new image (which may take millions of steps) it no longer has access to the original hundreds of millions of images it used in training. there are many descriptions, of varying detail, on how this actually works - posted frequently here & available online, so there's really no excuse for continuing to promote this false idea.the completely separate argument is whether there should be any payment for images to be used in training, but no one has been able to show that pieces of their image shows up in a new creationTo say it right away: I don't have any specific knowledge because I haven't experimented with AI yet. In this respect, I agree with you.So I can only try to draw conclusions from what I can see.Maybe I really don't understand the working principle of AI software.But, if it were as you say, that AI does NOT use ANY elements from existing images, how can it be explained that, for example - the Apple logo- the Apple mouse- the iMac- the keyboard- the Mercedes starand so many other elements can be seen unchanged from the original in the images? Then why doesn't the AI "design" a new Apple or Mercedes logo, a different foot of the iMac, a new mouse etc.? I see here exactly the design features of Apple (material/color, radii, shapes, etc.).And, if it is as seen here, who can rule out that elements from your and my pictures appear 1:1 in other pictures.If you have a link that helps me to understand this, I would be grateful.
Quote from: HalfFull on October 06, 2022, 06:04Interestingly, it obviously copies quite a bit as they were also including watermarks with the images they produce. Might risk sounding like a broken record, but: The AIs sometimes generated images that have something resembling microstock agency watermarks, because they have been trained with so many watermarked (unlicensed!) images that they wrongly learned that the watermark was part of whatever it was supposed to generate. When an AI generates a watermark, it "thinks" it belongs in the picture like a suit to a businessman or the sun to a picture of a sunny sky. It's an issue of wrong learning, not an issue of copying. It recreates the watermark, just like it re-creates the sun or a suit. It cannot understand that the watermark is not part of whatever it is supposed to depict. If an AI was capable of thinking/realizing that whatever it is creating in images was actually something that exists in the offline world, then it would think that people walk around with floating watermarks in front of them.I start to think that many people do not really understand what an AI is. Artificial intelligence. It's not a computer programm that copy & pastes stuff. It is a program that has learning abilities. It gets input and it learns from it. Give it the wrong input and it will learn to create wrong results.
Interestingly, it obviously copies quite a bit as they were also including watermarks with the images they produce.
thus trademarks appear not because these are copied from a particular image but because many images contain those TM, the TM becomes part of its knowledge of what a computer looks like. it extracts info & stores it in a different format so after training it doesn't know anything about the original images.
...If I now have a rare, unrivaled landscape image or an object in my portfolio, the AI has no choice but to copy it too
Author
Topic: I will never use AI (Read 45925 times)
