I bet this is because LLMs stole her art for training, so now that the LLM users have pumped out thousands of slop-art aping hers down to the colour palate and brushstrokes, her originals also get identified as also AI.
This is exactly it. Also the reason that inputting an excerpt of a classical text (cfr. Dracula, Frankenstein, …) returns “likely AI” results - it’s literally what it was trained on.
But the fact that they say their system is “advanced” and “refined”, while they don’t even add some guardrails as, i.e., date checks, that are the minimum one would expect to be added to reduce the likeliness of both false positives and false negatives.
It’s just stunning.
While I don’t think you’re entirely wrong, I feel like this sentiment will lead people to believing AI content checkers more. The content checkers are wrong even for newer stuff. I always default to believing something is human made because I never want to accuse a real artist for using AI.
I don’t follow, if content checkers are wrong for not being able to tell original art from AI slop because they have been trained on datasets that include the original art, why wouldn’t they also be wrong for the same reason on newer art? They would still likely absorb that newer art into their datasets.
Okay after writing it out I get what you mean, but I am thinking that the turnaround time of absorbing new art, using it to produce AI slop requests a few dozen/hundred/million times, and then calling the original works AI because the AI sloptificator can no longer tell the difference will be a constant, unless there is some way to track OC across multiple AI agents in the panslopticon.
AI content checkers will always be wrong. They’ll always sometimes flag non-AI images as AI and AI images as human made some percentage of the time. I don’t want artists to have to prove that their art is real, I want them to be able to make and share the content they want.
I agree, I am not sure how they can do this… Maybe release original art work with some kind of 2FA QR code to verify authenticity to the original author? That probably wouldn’t work but you get my drift.
The irony of people immediately and without hesitation to believe AI to fact check AI, and simultaneously increasingly anything that anyone does is accused of using AI, nearly every single time with zero evidence other than their own gut feeling. The wider internet is an increasingly miserable place to be, which is impressive that it somehow seems gets worse every year.
No, words have meanings, I hate AI as much as the average lemming but “LLMs stole art” is just a horrible way to describe what actually happened. It makes it sound like LLMs are going rogue and collecting art themselves. Humans decided to train an image generation model specifically on art like the one in the OP, and just glued an LLM on top of the final model. LLMs are not the ones that do this. I wasn’t even trying to defend anything or anyone here, but I guess this place is too toxic to even use correct phrasing.
But you could have said something along the lines of “LLM companies steal data, don’t accidentally give credence to the marketing idea that these things are sentient”
The irony of him complaining about inaccuracy and lack of clarity in someones post, but being so inaccurate and unclear with his complaint is just… amazing.
I guess this place is too toxic to even use correct phrasing.
I feel you on a daily basis here, however I do think you could consider what the tone of your first response was like. There are a lot of AI supporters out there and I genuinely think you sounded like one there.
“LLMs stole art” is shorthand for “the people who made the LLMs stole the art and put it into their datasets to generate shitty images”. we don’t want to type that every time.
I fully agree with you that humans are the culprit here. And you’re right, words do have meaning. So I’m going to point out you took an active action “stealing” to the passive voices “fed” and “invoked” and “trained.” Yet you never said humans “stole.” Because they did. They are thieves who are stealing and profiting on other people’s intellectual property. Even if other commenters can’t name why they are upset, that’s why. It’s the same thing that pisses people off when news articles do the same thing depending on which groups they are talking about. Without meaning to your language softens when you talked about the human actions for the exact same acts. It’s a bias. One I’m sure you’re not aware you’re doing. I’ve honestly noticed a lot of people doing it. We all need to work on recognizing when we are unnecessarily softening our language for any group in power. We need to call them out for the thieving shitheads that they are with bold language. “Billionaires are stealing art.” Because they fucking are.
I bet this is because LLMs stole her art for training, so now that the LLM users have pumped out thousands of slop-art aping hers down to the colour palate and brushstrokes, her originals also get identified as also AI.
This is exactly it. Also the reason that inputting an excerpt of a classical text (cfr. Dracula, Frankenstein, …) returns “likely AI” results - it’s literally what it was trained on.
For anyone doubting Kyrgizion’s claim:
But the fact that they say their system is “advanced” and “refined”, while they don’t even add some guardrails as, i.e., date checks, that are the minimum one would expect to be added to reduce the likeliness of both false positives and false negatives. It’s just stunning.
And that’s still not really how that works. Those checkers just aren’t very good.
While I don’t think you’re entirely wrong, I feel like this sentiment will lead people to believing AI content checkers more. The content checkers are wrong even for newer stuff. I always default to believing something is human made because I never want to accuse a real artist for using AI.
I don’t follow, if content checkers are wrong for not being able to tell original art from AI slop because they have been trained on datasets that include the original art, why wouldn’t they also be wrong for the same reason on newer art? They would still likely absorb that newer art into their datasets.
Okay after writing it out I get what you mean, but I am thinking that the turnaround time of absorbing new art, using it to produce AI slop requests a few dozen/hundred/million times, and then calling the original works AI because the AI sloptificator can no longer tell the difference will be a constant, unless there is some way to track OC across multiple AI agents in the panslopticon.
AI content checkers will always be wrong. They’ll always sometimes flag non-AI images as AI and AI images as human made some percentage of the time. I don’t want artists to have to prove that their art is real, I want them to be able to make and share the content they want.
New ai checkers are based on companies signing the response of the llm.
Those are good as that puts the proof on the ai creators, not the artists.
I agree, I am not sure how they can do this… Maybe release original art work with some kind of 2FA QR code to verify authenticity to the original author? That probably wouldn’t work but you get my drift.
I’m with you we need to chill
The irony of people immediately and without hesitation to believe AI to fact check AI, and simultaneously increasingly anything that anyone does is accused of using AI, nearly every single time with zero evidence other than their own gut feeling. The wider internet is an increasingly miserable place to be, which is impressive that it somehow seems gets worse every year.
If that’s the case, everything on Instagram, heck, the internet, would be labeled as AI …
Not really stole, she gave it to Meta willingly.
LLMs don’t steal art for training, image generation models are fed datasets by humans, which are then invoked by LLMs when prompted
Arguing semantics is a classic strategy of people who don’t have a valid argument to make.
Literally the “guns don’t kill people” argument.
but they don’t! it’s bullets!
/s
No, words have meanings, I hate AI as much as the average lemming but “LLMs stole art” is just a horrible way to describe what actually happened. It makes it sound like LLMs are going rogue and collecting art themselves. Humans decided to train an image generation model specifically on art like the one in the OP, and just glued an LLM on top of the final model. LLMs are not the ones that do this. I wasn’t even trying to defend anything or anyone here, but I guess this place is too toxic to even use correct phrasing.
But you could have said something along the lines of “LLM companies steal data, don’t accidentally give credence to the marketing idea that these things are sentient”
The irony of him complaining about inaccuracy and lack of clarity in someones post, but being so inaccurate and unclear with his complaint is just… amazing.
I feel you on a daily basis here, however I do think you could consider what the tone of your first response was like. There are a lot of AI supporters out there and I genuinely think you sounded like one there.
Yeah I considered editing it after the first response but had better things to. Karma doesn’t exist on Lemmy anyways.
“LLMs stole art” is shorthand for “the people who made the LLMs stole the art and put it into their datasets to generate shitty images”. we don’t want to type that every time.
I fully agree with you that humans are the culprit here. And you’re right, words do have meaning. So I’m going to point out you took an active action “stealing” to the passive voices “fed” and “invoked” and “trained.” Yet you never said humans “stole.” Because they did. They are thieves who are stealing and profiting on other people’s intellectual property. Even if other commenters can’t name why they are upset, that’s why. It’s the same thing that pisses people off when news articles do the same thing depending on which groups they are talking about. Without meaning to your language softens when you talked about the human actions for the exact same acts. It’s a bias. One I’m sure you’re not aware you’re doing. I’ve honestly noticed a lot of people doing it. We all need to work on recognizing when we are unnecessarily softening our language for any group in power. We need to call them out for the thieving shitheads that they are with bold language. “Billionaires are stealing art.” Because they fucking are.
Exactly what does any of that change?
Why do you think people are upset about ai “stealing” art styles then?
It’s tracing.
I’ll trace a chalk line around your dead fucking body, you fuck!
https://youtu.be/epHCMiCtt3M
Correct. The people who make and train LLMs with stolen art and writing are the actual thieves and should be in prison. Not disputed.