Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.Daz 3D is part of
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
That's the kind of thing I wish more people would focus on when it comes to AI: editing your renders with AI to get different styles or to add elements that you cannot in the 3D program. I did this quick test yesterday, taking one of my very old renders (left) and running it through a Stable Diffusion anime model (right). Kinda cool, and certainly not a result I could get either out of DAZ Studio or even with postwork.
your render is already neat, ok very simple - i love the anime version tho ^^
Great example, @SnowSultan
I am hesitant to start with ai, but your example is a good excuse to try it out.
It is also good to learn new techniques, because I hardly see, if ai will disappear at all.
so.. after some reflection... this means you have all necessafry tools at home/on your comouter, meaning that YOU DON'T HAVE TO UPLOAD YOUR PICTURES ON AN AI SERVER SOMEWHERE, SPREADING YOUR ART more or less willfully even if you don't publish it officially, and so your stuff stays yours until you decide to put it online (or not) - right?
because that's one reason i only uploaded some crappy renders to "enhance" or to serve as a base/input image yet: i'm an absolute total hypocrite, i agree, since many artists have not been consulted nor given their approval at all before having their art "learned" by the AI i use daily, but i'm not really looking to have my renders up some servers somewhere before i give my ok to publish them there. ofc everything i ever uploaded like deviantart or rendo's gallery IS factually on servers somewhere and visible to the public thus available for everything by humans or AI, and my art is crap anyways i.e. so worth nothing that i should be honored anyone wants to steal it and (ab)use as they deem fit, but still... when i think of it, my attitude is really shamefully two-faced.i don't even know if lol is appropriate ~
yes, everything is on my computer
sadly your specifications are not enough so an online option all you can use
what I have still was trained on LIAON 5b though so same ethical issues
I have no issues with spreading my 'art' it's only crappy renders with premade content but understand others feeling differently
just googled LAION 5b, since i had no clue - not going into informing myself on details i suck at tech and focus, but from what i gathered real quick it seems pretty much all stable diffusion was trained on this set, so what's left besides stable diffusion... and why unethical, i saw they mentioned "open" something. wouldn't any kind of database collection be unethical then? i don't really understand what you meant, i'm not arguing ^^
yeah.. after all, you're right, my art is way worse than yours anyway, i'm not making any money with it/selling it/living off it either, so i guess keeping "private" stuff that i mostly uploaded on 2 galleries anyways is a bit futile and useless, lol. it's holding me back from any chance to have it enhanced or modified so it actually might get a little less pathetic. and i as said, i should thank anyone giving it the slightest tad of interest by stealing it XDD... ah, i guess it's my general reluctance with online apps and the likes in general - i like to have my progs here on my machine. stuff like those subscriptions for use of online apps and also cloud storage is a nightmare for me. tho besides "i don't like it", i'm not quite sure i can bring a logical argument standing its ground about my reasons, lol...
Thanks, neither are anything special but it's fun to see the different styles you can make. Getting painterly results from AI is pretty easy too, I'm just mainly focusing on toony looks because it's what I've always wanted to make with 3D and it's easy to edit by hand afterwards.
Thank you very much, especially considering what you said about AI artists in the other thread. ;) I really am trying to use this as a tool and not just as a quick way to just generate art. I'll always indicate when I use AI in an artwork and I have no plans to use any of it commercially.
Databases do not always consist of conflicted data, though for instance, with more strict privacy rules like in the EU, not everything is legal to collect or process just for any reason. But that's another field.
Scraping the web (US) isn't illegal either, in general. It just gets itchy, like with freedoms in general, when relevant conflicts with others arise.
In case of images that's obviously copyright and the intentions of the rights holders (mostly/often the artists). So if you used the LAION 5B data set exclusively to create music, the likelyhoof of "fair use" applying is much higher. But using it to create a machine that renders competition to the rights holders of processed images, obviously results in a conflict. And it may well become an existential one for many of the artists. Naturally some people will go to court over it.
When the art was orginally collected for the dataset, it was clearly indicated that it would be used for RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY. as university are a place for higher learning and the general well intentioned expansion of human knowledge was counterbalanced with the threat of court action for copyright infringement and hesistated.
When those same researchers and university turned around and created multiple commercial ventures to monetize those same images dataset, charging subscription fees for the use of the dataset and the resulting output, then their infringement has a monetray component opening them up to legal actions for breaking any number of laws.
They were always in the wrong, The question is how the courts will rule on the transgrassion.
You might want to follow this case.
i don't appreciate either that the monetization aspect takes so much room - because this isn't fair use when the original artist doesn't get a cent from it, but the Ai art site does (over the minimal fee maybe for the managing of the site/servers), and i don't really mean the creators of stable diffusion, but all those sites exploiting it... probem being is you'd have to retrace who has created an original work via the database and then compensate them or i dunno...
you know what the real issue is with AI? Ai does, LIKE ANY HUMAN, learn from external information. the difference is that i can learn by watching an image and then somehow reproduce it, make a synthesis (not talking about a copy which is illegal). as a kid you see trees - real ones - and images of trees, and at some point you're able to draw a tree. and since humans are organic and have brains, YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE A PHYSICAL/DIGITAL COPY OF IT. but in a way, well you do, it's called a memory.
AI being a digital construct, all those images have been copied, transformed into "physical"/electric impulses, bits, whatever.
so both humans and AI copy when they learn - just in a different way, one being more tangible than the other.
i don't know how to position myself in this whole context. i can understand the original artists, i can see why there's a purely legal problem (like, we get fined for copyright infringement, but AI doesn't), but what just happened with dall-e, stable diffusion, all of this is so magical, so awesome, so promising for the future (ok, the whole political deep fake stuff is the dark side of it...), i wouldn't want to miss it, i'd be very p*ssed off if the whole AI art world collapsed soon just after its birth for the public, i really love creating stuff with AI. maybe or probalby even it's because i totally suck at art and can't draw properly.
i wish there was a quantic solution allowing both to exist at the same time ... a world where artists' works are respected and protcted, and a world where Ai art is availavle for all for free ~
and i'm not correcting my typos - daz forum get a text corrector for * sake, like everywhere else.-
In theory you could build a system that attributes to sources +- maybe. BUT, there hardly will be any significant amount of revenue to be expected, if you scale it up to millions of users "cheap". So it could not stay (as) cheap. It's also still unethical to go against consent there, and probably not even doable, due to differing legislation in different places.
Essentially the reason for the mentioned datasets to be used are: GIANT, CHEAP, FAST, DOABLE.
"Ai does, LIKE ANY HUMAN, learn from external information. " - No it doesn't. Humans breathe between and reflect upon what they're doing. The image generators are (modernist) encyclopedic systems and are trained to literally reproduce the training images as accurate as possible. For the rest: Harddrives copy too, e.g. what the connection protocol tells them to copy, same with the "ai"-s here.
"purely legal problem " It's an ethical problem of severe abuse. It's a potentially existential conflict. Not some fun issue for courts, like if you have an insurance.
"i'd be very p*ssed off if the whole AI art world collapsed soon just after its birth for the public," - So we don't resolve the conflicts, because some people are pissed? Welcome to social media politics!
" a world where artists' works are respected and protcted, and a world where Ai art is availavle for all for free" - Don't laugh! If you remove the artists (cleanroom scenario), there will be no more genuine training data for the "ai", so you'll be stuck in some random age between "2022" and then, artwork-wise, eventually. If you kill off the ai stuff now, the big thing for the public will come a little later, but we have time to develop more ethical concepts, build better ai systems, and find a way to keep artistry alive, perhaps? Why be fast?
Straight from "The Orville"...
To be fair, it won't fully collapse, no matter what. You will still be able to use a software like stable diffusion, and train on safe to use training data sets, your own or even publicly provided ones. Even if artists win fully at courts, that's still possible, if consent and copyright are respected. Just the huge training data set probably won't be there the next day, so it will be slightly limited, in comparison.
NOW, i forgot: The way between the both obviously is to not "kill off" (how/somehow??) "ai", but to enforce training data for generative ai to be licensed for the purpose. I.e. consent-only signalled via metadata (HTML/IMAGE, ...). Removed images have to be removed from the training data set, in order to honor take downs and similar. Of course there needs to be some leniency there, for the timing, because training still will be expensive, on the other hand that would be an incentive to use data from as reliable as possible sources. This will slow down ai training, but not necessarily hugely so. In addition you could adjust legislation to prevent using names of alive people and similar, to reduce the "I want to kill [...] now!" potential.
I am reimagining old movies
true, to try compensating or asking the artists for permission or avoiding this whole messy unsatisfying situation we're in, now/after the databanks have been created/the data assimilated and used, is a probably impossible task, or a very time/money consuming one.
THEY SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF THAT BEFORE, WE WOULDN'T BE IN THAT SITUATION NOW.
like, i'm absolutely in awe about what has been created, and i don't fire at stable or other researchers etc, but yeah, they should have behaved in an ethical way, and opted for only taking open source art, and/or asked for permission, whatever...
the last paragraph you wrote, now as to this particular issue here, makes sense.
i'm referring to
" a world where artists' works are respected and protcted, and a world where Ai art is availavle for all for free" - Don't laugh! If you remove the artists (cleanroom scenario), there will be no more genuine training data for the "ai", so you'll be stuck in some random age between "2022" and then, artwork-wise, eventually. If you kill off the ai stuff now, the big thing for the public will come a little later, but we have time to develop more ethical concepts, build better ai systems, and find a way to keep artistry alive, perhaps? Why be fast? "
except that i dunno if personally i'll still be alive in 10 years, or able to use a computer - or if there globally still will be computers to use because of the times we're living in, maybe the climate and other increasing issues causing serious problems recently will totally blow exponentially, way worse than all predictions, and in 10 years having a functioning house/electricity system etc will not be as evident as today, who knows.
so if i have to choose between totally deleting the whole AI art thing "until it's ethical", and being able to use it right now, i am egoistically opting for myself.
because you know, my life is so pathetic right now, for many reasons i won't specify in detail here, that being able to have fun daily and fool around with free AI art, beside daz studio, is one of the best thing that happened to me in months, or even years.
short: being able to create cheaply/for free with a totally subpar laptop (which stops me from being able to use DS efficiently with all gimmicks like dforce, particles, fluids etc etc + fast render + keeping iray viewport on, etc etc + also having the money to buy 3D stuff) is vital for me. it keeps me from spending my day in a grey somber depressive sad state, after (among other things) seeing my beautiful big cat family increasingly fast dying away from old age/sickness like in the past 4 years. it keeps me, apart from the fact that i want to enjoy every moment of their presence and care attentively for the last few remaining ones, from totally falling apart and crying half of the day thinking of the sorely missed ones gone, from acutely suffering daily heartbreak. and cursing at other aspects of my highly unsatisfying life, in which i can't even change sh*t to improve it...
i'm sorry if that includes using AI systems that have, at some point, stolen art works from artists, which i don't approve of - but this doesn't motivate me enough to stop doing it or support attempts at annihilating the actual easy & cheap access to Ai art platforms... sorry for being an egoist.
also - totally different subject - i prefer jumping up and down for the billions of billions of animal and vegetal lives killed for humanity's sake for eons, instead of for anything related to art, which is in my eyes way less essential to life/tragical...
NOTE: not because of a lack of interest, but because i have other things to do and reaing forums is very tiring for me, everybody can answer to this, BUT I WON'T FOLLOW THIS THREAD ANY MORE. i thought it was just remixes of Ai, now it's a full scale Ai vs no Ai discussion, way too many posts etc etc. so i personally won't read your answer. sorry.
I am posting videos I made with AI
manekiNeko you and I and most people playing with are not hurting anyone
we never were buying the art etc, at least I wasn't
I drew my own and now use DAZ and still buying content
lots this week!
I'm not sure that that matters - if it is infringing, which is yet to be decided in law, then it is a violation to use it. And of course if you post your work then the hosts will be monetising it even if you don't.
Not 100% sure which context this is. As far as i understand @WendyLuvsCatz trained a model of her own.
The software itself may not be infringing anything, i.e. the code without the models derived from the LAION-5B data set /similar, and there may be various "clean" models to download (from somewhere).
Even if the software couldn't be used, there will be alternative open source versions for use with provided models, at some point (if not already). Of course it's then on the user to check how thorough the concept of data scraping is with a given model, +- maybe depending on the outcome of the lawsuits.
I wouldn't say it's become that. The currently active posters mostly agreed upon that it's for remixing ai mainly. Sometimes question or new aspects arise, so it gets discussed shortly. All in all, if we disregard your last post (and maybe mine too), the amount of area taken by images has largely increased in comparison, since the previous lengthy batch of discussion.
That being said, i probably should put it in the forum signature, because i can't repeat it all the time ~ i'm not blaming anyone for using the systems.
Just if you publish stuff, you might want to watch out for any results of current and pending lawsuits, for your own good...
(Depending on country and what you publish, it may not be an issue, as the worst that will happen is a platform taking it down, or a DMCA flying in. It can't be fully excluded, that if infringement is ruled, there will be some attorneys trying to make money with some kinde of takedown requests, probably rather in Germany, if that's still easy/possible there - so they won't look for artist's works, but instead try to detect ai-generated art and "nuke it". Typically they'd do that if they can intimidate people into paying some fee and signing off something. Such could in theory happen, but it likely also would be mentioned in the media fairly soon, and it might not be legal at all for the general case. There also has been some backlash for such practices, even in Germany.)
Some Ai generated art.
Some interesting info in this video. The guy talking is a college professor at my youngest son's college and a copyright lawyer.
That's very interesting and more comprehensive than most other content i read.
If you do read this, you don't have to reply, but I just want to say that I totally understand (and I agree with you). I won't go into details, but my life has been turned to total s**t. I don't have the heart (or motivation) to use Daz right now.
As for AI - I had no intention of touching it. But when I saw the results that one artist (Snow Sultan) was getting, I thought I'd give it a try... Now, I'm hooked. I have no intention of selling anything I create.
People can post all of the videos that are "anti-ai" in the world, people will still use it. Besides, they're all just starting to sound like broken records now (we get it Ai = bad).
Really? Wow, I'm flattered that anything I made could inspire someone to try this. I have no intentions of selling any art either and am doing this just for my enjoyment and to hopefully make things that others will like.
Did you make those little images, FirstBastion?
Really? Wow, I'm flattered that anything I made could inspire someone to try this. I have no intentions of selling any art either and am doing this just for my enjoyment and to hopefully make things that others will like.
@SnowSultan: Man. okay, okay. Hand raised too. I saw that image and I said "I gotta try this Stable Diffusion thing too".
i'm actually about to send you a PM with some questions...
This thread was interesting as WendyCats was showing lots of funky examples.
yeah there are several other threads for disputes over the validity of ai art
this thread was for mixing your art with ai and it's a shame it got railroaded
If it got railroaded, it happened due to people claiming that it's ok and they don't care. Societally, i can't but to argue, that that will mean no less than (pretty much civil-ish) war (by attitude). And the worst part is, people arguing "for ai" a) often don't fully understand what it does and what it does not and b) don't care what it's based on, and what gets destroyed anyway. Not blaming anyone, but it's not that simple, and it's probably not so unlikely that court decisions will fall short of the actual issues.
Concerning you, i might be going too far here, but it's not the validity question of "ai art". It's how to kill each other, because some people want it.
Then go argue it in the other thread. Sheesh, "kill each other"? No less than war? The anti-AI crowd are the ones who don't understand how it works because they keep repeating the lie that it just reassembles pieces of stolen art.
Thanks Griffin, I will check your PM shortly.
Let's please keep the conversation civil and not go at one another. Argue the points not each other please.
No. You don't get:
a) What's (this) ai. (Maybe: what it's not.)
b) Why it's a problem how it's done.
c) How you're leveraged to create a conflict with the very people, whose lives get negatively affected by "ai", while that "ai" is using their works to even function at all.
This is the minimum distinctions to make. If you train your own images - no issue. If you use the service to experiment and see what it's about - no issue. If you argue like this - problem. If you keep publishing using problematic data sets, in case courts ruled "otherwise" - your problem. It's not meant as harsh, but it's not anti-ai. AI may independently of humans violating other humans create problems, but as i read stuff, i come to believe/assume+-random that not too many people even see the (potential) issue at all. Likely mainly due to being used to "ai" hardly doing anything ever at all, not understanding, that at some point, it will inevitably bite the hand that holds it, if done like this.