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.

  • Pseu@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    You’re right, copyright won’t fix it, copyright will just enable large companies to activate more of their work extract more from the creative space.

    But who will benefit the most from AI? The artists seem to be getting screwed right now, and I’m pretty sure that Hasbro and Disney will love to cut costs and lay off artists as soon as this blows over.

    Technology is capital, and in a capitalist system, that goes to benefit the holders of that capital. No matter how you cut it, laborers including artists are the ones who will get screwed.

    • TheBurlapBandit@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Me, I’ll benefit the most. I’ve been using a locally running instance of the free and open source AI software Stable Diffusion to generate artwork for my D&D campaigns and they’ve never looked more beautiful!

      • FaceDeer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Same here. It’s awesome being able to effectively “commission” art for any random little thing the party might encounter. And sometimes while generating images there’ll be surprising details that give me new ideas, too. It’s like brainstorming with ChatGPT but in visual form.