Author Topic: I will never use AI (Read 45466 times)

Josephine · « **on:** November 22, 2023, 13:56 »

Many talk about selling AI images. For private use is´t o.k. but not for the purpose of making money on other peoples intellectual property.

I will never use AI. Anybody else on this forum? If I would do so, I am no longer myself but a thief.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #1 on:** November 22, 2023, 19:13 »

Using AI you're not stealing from anyone in particular or infringing copyright. The results AI systems produce are unique, but based on what it learned from other sources. Similar to what someone could create from memory whilst being inspired by something they've seen.

Evaristo tenscadisto · « **Reply #2 on:** November 22, 2023, 19:17 »

Quote from: Josephine on November 22, 2023, 13:56

Many talk about selling AI images. For private use is´t o.k. but not for the purpose of making money on other peoples intellectual property.

I will never use AI. Anybody else on this forum? If I would do so, I am no longer myself but a thief.

Sorry to know you feel that way. best of luck with your thoughts....

MysticMoon · « **Reply #3 on:** November 22, 2023, 22:31 »

I tried to make a tendency table to get your points. The higher the value, the more inclined it is to human art. The lower the value, the more inclined it is to commercialization. 5 is completely neutral. What would your point be?

Her Ugliness · « **Reply #4 on:** November 23, 2023, 01:09 »

Quote from: Josephine on November 22, 2023, 13:56

Many talk about selling AI images. For private use is´t o.k. but not for the purpose of making money on other peoples intellectual property.

I will never use AI. Anybody else on this forum? If I would do so, I am no longer myself but a thief.

I actually agree with you that it is stealing. However, since it does not look like laws will see it that way an I am one of the artists whos photos were stolen to train AI without my agreement, why should everyone but me now profit from the result of my stolen work?

DiscreetDuck · « **Reply #5 on:** November 23, 2023, 16:16 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on November 22, 2023, 19:13

Using AI you're not stealing from anyone in particular or infringing copyright. The results AI systems produce are unique, but based on what it learned from other sources. Similar to what someone could create from memory whilst being inspired by something they've seen.

You are so aware for the question of stealing or infringing copyright...

You know what is a unique production...

You also know what is of being inspired...

No doubt that AI is a new way for you being creative and unique.

Your work is left (and you did many illustrations of it). Right, is the famous La Linea by Osvaldo Cavandoli.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Linea_(TV_series)

No comment.

ShadySue · « **Reply #6 on:** November 24, 2023, 08:36 »

Quote from: Josephine on November 22, 2023, 13:56

Many talk about selling AI images. For private use is´t o.k. but not for the purpose of making money on other peoples intellectual property.

I will never use AI. Anybody else on this forum? If I would do so, I am no longer myself but a thief.

What if there was at some point some AI that you could train on only your own photos?

cobalt · « **Reply #7 on:** November 24, 2023, 10:12 »

that option already exists.

there are places where you can upload your own images to train your own personal ai model.

most people use it to create images with themselves, or they upload 200 images of their dog to create ai images with him.

i have considered uploading several hundred of my own greeting cards to generate a trained model that will then create more cards in my usual style.

the reason I haven't done it yet, is because I am not sure these trained models remain private.

in many places artists share the model they train with the wider community.

but i think especially for companies that is the future. they will train a model on their branded look and maybe include their top sales people and then their in house designer can create more content based on this specially trained ai model.

eta

companies are already asking for specific avatar models they can license that can be used safely in prompting and will remain visually stable in different scenarios.

there will be a strong overlap with the gaming media where you can already create your own personal avatars to use in games longterm.

so in addition to selling packages of 100 businesspeople, agencies will be selling avatar packages of business people that can be used alonne or together to create whatever the client needs.

similar to what you can buy for 3d renders.

Jaggy · « **Reply #8 on:** November 24, 2023, 22:11 »

Personally, I have no interest in doing AI. I enjoy wandering around with my camera and shooting what catches my eye.

Sometimes I get to meet other photographers doing the same and we have a good chat.

Of course, stock isn't a major income stream for me so I get to pick and choose.

Evaristo tenscadisto · « **Reply #9 on:** November 25, 2023, 01:21 »

Quote from: ShadySue on November 24, 2023, 08:36

Quote from: Josephine on November 22, 2023, 13:56
Many talk about selling AI images. For private use is´t o.k. but not for the purpose of making money on other peoples intellectual property.

I will never use AI. Anybody else on this forum? If I would do so, I am no longer myself but a thief.

What if there was at some point some AI that you could train on only your own photos?

Thank you for raising that question. You can!
Actually before midjourney or dall-e was a thing we could already do it with via github/huggin face, or stable diffusion. At the time the results were not the best if we consider the output and user interface of the big companies. Since last 2 years a lot of people trained several type models and it's free.

It's hard to understand Generative AI is stealing which in fact is learning. Algorithms learn color, lines, shapes and dimension of things. Pretty similar like humans do. In a way since Art begin all artists have learn (stolen) styles from others. They have learned and developed a unique combination of that preview styles. We call it influences of an Artist which outputs a way of human experience. But if a machine can train and learn the same way some people call it steal.

If we consider machine learning to be stealing, perhaps computers shouldn't exist. Let me remind that copy/paste function is more enabled to be stealing someone's work than an unique generative AI image made from output learning.

Evaristo tenscadisto · « **Reply #10 on:** November 25, 2023, 01:25 »

Quote from: Jaggy on November 24, 2023, 22:11

Personally, I have no interest in doing AI. I enjoy wandering around with my camera and shooting what catches my eye.

Sometimes I get to meet other photographers doing the same and we have a good chat.

Of course, stock isn't a major income stream for me so I get to pick and choose.

I will not antagonize what can also be fun to do or experience with AI but for those who have no interest in doing AI... It is not a prophecy that all cameras will have AI very soon and i am not talking about enhance AI like focus and stabilize. Cameras will be able to set different realistic backgrounds in real time and combine perfectly with your model and light exposure.

Also, AI in Drones and Smartphones will be able to frame and capture pictures that "he" thinks its best so humans can avoid hazard risk environments or enjoy the family moments more instead spending time in clicking (i actually enjoy doing it).

I have seen also a big advance on Image Edit tools with AI. For example we can draw in a very naive way, i mean like childlike drawing just a tree with house and sun and AI will transform it in a gorgeous photographic landscape just like Midjourney outputs now with text to image.

In short: I still love my analog Nikon F too and whether we like it or not AI will be in all processes of making an image.

Josephine · « **Reply #11 on:** November 25, 2023, 03:38 »

I can only answer from the point of view of an illustrator. I easily could generate a coloring book for kids within minutes and sell it on Amazon. Is this fair? without a single stroke, without any knowledge and costs of any software. Its the matter of typing a few words into the search engine and you are done. You can proudly call yourself illustrator.

A photographer can easily steal someones sky and use it for the own purpose. The one who spent maybe days waiting for this very sky with this very special light. If anybody feels this is correct, fine.

Sorry my English is not perfect.

cascoly · « **Reply #12 on:** November 25, 2023, 05:21 »

Quote from: ShadySue on November 24, 2023, 08:36

....

What if there was at some point some AI that you could train on only your own photos?

realizing you were proposing a hypothetical, but it's not possible with this category of AI generators, since it takes millions of images to learn

this is different from the examples posed which are using a very narrow subject, but it's still AI that needs to be trained. that's where the lines of ai gen blur - already we see this with whether Ai content aware fill for small spaces is considered differently from creating entire new backgrounds.

and, eg, the avatar creators are really more lke a police sketch artist - it combines pre-existing characteristics to create a new avatar.

cobalt · « **Reply #13 on:** November 25, 2023, 08:25 »

Quote from: Josephine on November 25, 2023, 03:38

I can only answer from the point of view of an illustrator. I easily could generate a coloring book for kids within minutes and sell it on Amazon. Is this fair? without a single stroke, without any knowledge and costs of any software. Its the matter of typing a few words into the search engine and you are done. You can proudly call yourself illustrator.

A photographer can easily steal someones sky and use it for the own purpose. The one who spent maybe days waiting for this very sky with this very special light. If anybody feels this is correct, fine.

Sorry my English is not perfect.

You are using a computer to create your work then offer it online to the entire planet via agencies with the potential to create a million copies or downloads.

How is that fair to the real oil painter who painstakingly creates their art on canvas from scratch and probably even makes his own paints and brushes???

It used to take YEARS to complete a great painting or portrait.

Yet here you are using modern tech to create it in mere hours.

How is what you are doing fair to the REAL artists?

And even worse if you use a camera, photographers are just one button pushers.

If you actually believe what you are saying, you MUST stop using any modern version of photoshop and forgo all modern cameras.

And please stop using your smartphone.

Because all modern tech will be using ai in the future.

Basically - freeze yourself in the tech and software of 2015, or maybe even earlier.

Forever.

So good luck with that.

Evaristo tenscadisto · « **Reply #14 on:** November 25, 2023, 09:37 »

I couldn't agree more with Cobalt.

Josephine.... let me ask your question from another perspective: is it fair with the technology we have today to have to take days or years to create a work of art?

I still like using the old methods but I think it's unfair that I can't use the best that technology has to offer.

Therefore what stops you as an illustrator from using this technology to create 100 coloring books instead of just 1 coloring book?
Isn't selling 100 books on Amazon better than 1?

The feeling of loss of power when faced with new things is understandable, but the fear of new things is easily overcome by learning new tools. During my academic career I was trained to be open-minded, that things are always changing and that is why training and learning are a lifetime experience instead a partial time of our lives.

Tutorials, E-learning, Workshops, Seminars, Senior Universities are some of the new ways to keep training and learning. I hope you consider some of the new learning methods.

Josephine · « **Reply #15 on:** November 25, 2023, 14:33 »

My simple question was, if anybody else in this forum decided not to use AI. That´s all.

Wilm · « **Reply #16 on:** November 25, 2023, 16:56 »

Quote from: cobalt on November 25, 2023, 08:25

Quote from: Josephine on November 25, 2023, 03:38
I can only answer from the point of view of an illustrator. I easily could generate a coloring book for kids within minutes and sell it on Amazon. Is this fair? without a single stroke, without any knowledge and costs of any software. Its the matter of typing a few words into the search engine and you are done. You can proudly call yourself illustrator.

A photographer can easily steal someones sky and use it for the own purpose. The one who spent maybe days waiting for this very sky with this very special light. If anybody feels this is correct, fine.

Sorry my English is not perfect.

You are using a computer to create your work then offer it online to the entire planet via agencies with the potential to create a million copies or downloads.

How is that fair to the real oil painter who painstakingly creates their art on canvas from scratch and probably even makes his own paints and brushes???

It used to take YEARS to complete a great painting or portrait.

Yet here you are using modern tech to create it in mere hours.

How is what you are doing fair to the REAL artists?

And even worse if you use a camera, photographers are just one button pushers.

If you actually believe what you are saying, you MUST stop using any modern version of photoshop and forgo all modern cameras.

And please stop using your smartphone.

Because all modern tech will be using ai in the future.

Basically - freeze yourself in the tech and software of 2015, or maybe even earlier.

Forever.

So good luck with that.

You're comparing apples with oranges. So I have to disagree with your statement.

If someone creates something, then that person needs visual, linguistic, musical or creative know-how. That is something completely different from typing in prompts.

It doesn't matter whether you use a paintbrush, a camera, a guitar, a keyboard, a computer or any other tool.

A work created by a human being, be it a painting, a photograph, a poem, a piece of music or whatever, is therefore an achievement that represents a value.

The fact that this is the case can be seen in how many images you are not allowed to upload anywhere for commercial purposes - be it an Eames chair, an Apple computer, the light installation on the Eiffel Tower, the Mona Lisa, a Harley Davidson and countless other subjects.

This also applies to AI-generated images, which are not allowed to take up these protected works visually.

The fact that a normal image contributor does not have the money to legally prosecute the illegal use of their work does not mean that a corporation offering AI software has the right to freely use the work of these "normal" contributors to make money illegally!

Anyone who produces something creative - with whatever tool - is the author of that thing. And no artificial intelligence has the right to circumvent that!

Wilm · « **Reply #17 on:** November 25, 2023, 17:01 »

In the case of brand companies, artists, musicians and architects who can afford to have their work protected under trademark law, the agencies are very careful to ensure that this copyright is observed.

As for us, who can't protect our work because our income is too low, they ignore it because they know that there is nothing to fear legally. And that's a huge mess!

The fact that AI even copies protected works 1:1 can be seen perfectly in the countless examples of clearly recognizable Apple products. Even with the brand logo!

So you have to assume that other works - like yours and mine - may even be copied 1:1. Anyone who thinks that's okay is really beyond help.

ShadySue · « **Reply #18 on:** November 25, 2023, 18:29 »

Quote from: Josephine on November 22, 2023, 13:56

Many talk about selling AI images. For private use is´t o.k. but not for the purpose of making money on other peoples intellectual property.

I will never use AI. Anybody else on this forum? If I would do so, I am no longer myself but a thief.

I see you're an illustrator, so this may not be relevant to you, but for example the relatively new Denoise is an AI function of Adobe Camera Raw. I'm using that function when needed to rescue high ISO files, so I can't say I'll never use AI, but AFAIK, this use isn't (ab)using other people's IP.

Evaristo tenscadisto · « **Reply #19 on:** November 25, 2023, 19:22 »

Quote from: Wilm on November 25, 2023, 16:56

You're comparing apples with oranges. So I have to disagree with your statement.

If someone creates something, then that person needs visual, linguistic, musical or creative know-how. That is something completely different from typing in prompts.

It doesn't matter whether you use a paintbrush, a camera, a guitar, a keyboard, a computer or any other tool.

A work created by a human being, be it a painting, a photograph, a poem, a piece of music or whatever, is therefore an achievement that represents a value.

The fact that this is the case can be seen in how many images you are not allowed to upload anywhere for commercial purposes - be it an Eames chair, an Apple computer, the light installation on the Eiffel Tower, the Mona Lisa, a Harley Davidson and countless other subjects.

This also applies to AI-generated images, which are not allowed to take up these protected works visually.

The fact that a normal image contributor does not have the money to legally prosecute the illegal use of their work does not mean that a corporation offering AI software has the right to freely use the work of these "normal" contributors to make money illegally!

Anyone who produces something creative - with whatever tool - is the author of that thing. And no artificial intelligence has the right to circumvent that!

Actually the comparison is perfect. Using your example It's fruit what we are talking about regardless the shape or taste. It's Image what we are talking about regardless method or process used to achieve it.

"If someone creates something, then that person needs visual, linguistic, musical or creative know-how. That is something completely different from typing in prompts."

Of course it is. it's a different brush, process or method but the person can be the same or not?

You cannot argue that an image is not the representation of reality or an idea. In the second case anyone can have one, right?
Humans have cultural layers that translate into learning from lived experiences, social or scientific knowledge. All people have influences from someone on themselves or if you prefer, all people keep, store or steal memories from others and mix with their own experiences.

I don't know anyone that don't have visual, musical or creative know-how. In terms of image value everyone can have an idea but don't explore it too much because tools and methods used today are still too primitive and requires a lot of time to learn.

So... why don't use prompts instead? Is it less artistic or less representative of the idea?
It's not. It seems to me we both agree and can guarantee through Art history it is wrong to think that an idea can be held hostage by any type of technique or method used.

In that sense, "A work created by a human being, be it a painting, a photograph, a poem, a piece of music or" ....including prompts too... ", is therefore an achievement that represents a value."

DiscreetDuck · « **Reply #20 on:** November 26, 2023, 03:14 »

Quote from: ShadySue on November 25, 2023, 18:29

I see you're an illustrator, so this may not be relevant to you, but for example the relatively new Denoise is an AI function of Adobe Camera Raw. I'm using that function when needed to rescue high ISO files, so I can't say I'll never use AI, but AFAIK, this use isn't (ab)using other people's IP.

AI should consist in not refusing very good photos for invisible noise, that have been shot at 100 iso, more than 20 millions pixels and mostly sold low res for web usage, we don't need AI Denoise...
AI should consist in not accepting images uploaded by thieves, that are already on sale by their honest and working author...
AI should be about not validating tons of images that violate the submission guidelines and copyrights... and I stop there the long list for saving my precious time.

AI stand for Adobe Idiocy, the only plausible explanation, since this is the leader.

Josephine, I don't and will never use AI

cobalt · « **Reply #21 on:** November 26, 2023, 04:40 »

Well good for you both. Good luck with your future business and providing a family income without any modern technology.

Please stick to your convictions and keep letting us know how you will forego modern tech forever.

You also might want to consider giving up electricity and heating and go live in a cave the way a REAL human is supposed to live.

The hypocritical crocodile tears by people who style themselves as a reincarnation mix of rembrandt and banksy and pretend they are "victims"...we have all heard this story before.

Nearly 20 years ago when microstock came on the scene and istock was the "designers dirty little secret" our forums were literally invaded by horribly angry classic photographers, including the high end people with their million dollar shootings and penthouse parties with pretty models and they berated us how we could DARE to destroy their exclusive way of life.

They were licensing "lonely tree in landscape" for 100 000 dollars a year to global cooperations and here we came offering a much better looking tree for 30 cents.

They HATED us.

Many retired.

But...of course those among them that knew how to use a calculator...they did the math of how many times a pretty tree can be sold to the entire PLANET, literally millions of downloads.

And thus came the influx of very expensively produced high end content, created by some of the most advanced and prize winning artists and advertising companies and our ranking statistics were completely taken over by the pros.

This is exactly what is happening now.

While you get people arrogantly positioning themselves as some kind of fake art elite, the real pros are all already incorporating gen ai tools into their workflow, saving them massive amounts of time and increasing their sales, income and output tremendously.

And then you have the influx of new young talent, who were literally born with all these creative options that can be accessed from their smartphone.

They will practise, they will upload, they will sell and suddenly a family in Afghanistan has enough food forever because 30 dollars a week can be life changing money that lifts people out of extreme poverty.

And why would you be against that??

Selling art online means you are competing with the entire planet.

Which means if you want to have regular sales you must improve your work every day, because the world is not waiting for you.

If you find this new world much too competitive...by all means...go and do something else.

But at least try to be honest about it.

If you find the pressure too hard, then just admit that.

At least be honest with yourself.

cobalt · « **Reply #22 on:** November 26, 2023, 04:41 »

eta

Anyone taking any bets how long it will take OP and others to fully embrace ai??

It will start with - oh I am just denoising my high iso images...there is no harm in that...

...then...I am just expanding the image a bit, just a simple nature shot that was too close up, so the customer has more options...I am just adding a little more grass and sky...

...then I am just adjusting the clothes a bit, changing out the sky, removing the glasses, changing the hairstyle...

...my clients asked me to change this image/design with the help of ai and I obliged because it was a client request...

...my clients asked me to help them with prompting, so I did it as a service...

...* it... EVERYONE is using ai and I must feed my family and ...

IT SAVES ME SO MUCH TIME...happy prompting noises in the background...

Wilm · « **Reply #23 on:** November 26, 2023, 05:56 »

Quote from: cobalt on November 26, 2023, 04:41

eta

...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?

If someone were to develop an AI that made it possible to open any car, start it up and drive it around, that would also be a great innovation. And there would certainly be a lot of social and environmental aspects in favor of this. Great! Anyone who didn't have a car before can now just take one that's standing around. All they have to do is pay money to the developer of this software. I am sure that such an AI could be developed without any problems.
But if someone were to use your car and not have to pay you a penny for it, would you still celebrate this innovation?

everest · « **Reply #24 on:** November 26, 2023, 06:59 »

AI is garbage from a creative point of view the same way 99.99% of photos on micros are . Uninspiring work that will never be considered as a piece of art. But as commodities they work and we will be see it more and more everyday.

In any case AI will kill all microstock snapshots and substitute it sooner than later. And soon no human prompts by suppliers will be needed . The same AI that powers these sites will know how to fill their databases with what is needed and asked for by clients. The clock is ticking fast . Qe are really arount the corner of that reality.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: I will never use AI (Read 45466 times)

Josephine

Noedelhap

Evaristo tenscadisto

MysticMoon

Her Ugliness

DiscreetDuck

ShadySue

cobalt

Jaggy

Evaristo tenscadisto

Evaristo tenscadisto

Josephine

cascoly

cobalt

Evaristo tenscadisto

Josephine

Wilm

Wilm

ShadySue

Evaristo tenscadisto

DiscreetDuck

cobalt

cobalt

Wilm

everest

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors