Crafting Avaloren - Fake 11.0 Expansion Leak

[Crimznrain]

Just cobbled together ideas other people came up with. This was neither impressive or convincing.

[Eupitor]

Still can't get over it that people found this Blizzcon AI pillar image more convincing

[AtomR]

No, artists simply shouldn't have to work for certain people or a certain way to survive (neither should anyone). Their survival shouldn't be tied to them finding clients to work for. You are making a false dichotomy.

right now, those AIs have been trained using artwork that wasn't paid for. and will be able to create infinite amounts of artworks for free every time they sample it again.

Actually no. Even worse, the AI companies are making money off of it.

[Guyviroth]

I found it funny. Reminds me of what my old Legion fake got so out of whack that it started huge arguments. I had to come in and tell everyone "Yes it's fake, I made it, here's how I did it".

[Zardas]

right now, those AIs have been trained using artwork that wasn't paid for. and will be able to create infinite amounts of artworks for free every time they sample it again.

Actually no. Even worse, the AI companies are making money off of it.

If all your issues are of economic nature, then your issue is not with AI, but with the economic system. So blame it instead of AI.

[Jester Joe]

If all your issues are of economic nature, then your issue is not with AI, but with the economic system. So blame it instead of AI.

You have to be doing this intentionally at this point, ain't no way you're genuinely trying to go "surely it's not the AIs fault that it's scraping people's work and using it without paying for it!".

It's the AI that's doing the action, not the economy.

[AtomR]

If all your issues are of economic nature, then your issue is not with AI, but with the economic system. So blame it instead of AI.

The stealing issue is not an economic system problem. It's a lack of integrity issue and once again capitalism evolving to screw over the working class, disguised as democratizing whatever they think they are democratizing now.

[SilverLion]

If all your issues are of economic nature, then your issue is not with AI, but with the economic system. So blame it instead of AI.

I'm convinced folks like you have never created an art project in your life with how dismissive you are of what creativity actually is. The moment an AI can be creative and inventive is the moment we as a species are in serious trouble because we've created real life, not artificial life. It's not gonna matter if AI can make games because we're gonna be talking about rights for digital beings.

[Zardas]

You have to be doing this intentionally at this point, ain't no way you're genuinely trying to go "surely it's not the AIs fault that it's scraping people's work and using it without paying for it!".

It's the AI that's doing the action, not the economy.

Again, if artist's survival wouldn't be tied to them finding clients to work for and/or producing content, do you think that anyone would find issues with AI using their work in their datasets ? Do you think that the notion of copyright would even be a thing ?

The stealing issue is not an economic system problem. It's a lack of integrity issue and once again capitalism evolving to screw over the working class, disguised as democratizing whatever they think they are democratizing now.

"Capitalism evolving to screw over the working class" IS an economic system problem. If you have an issue about how and why the economic system is using AI, then you have an issue with the economic system, not with AI.

I'm convinced folks like you have never created an art project in your life with how dismissive you are of what creativity actually is.

I'm a web designer. Do you not consider this an art ? If not I've obviously dabbled with art, at least in art class and countless times accross my years. Just like you I guess, the only difference is that's I'm not a pompous elitist.

The moment an AI can be creative and inventive is the moment we as a species are in serious trouble because we've created real life, not artificial life. It's not gonna matter if AI can make games because we're gonna be talking about rights for digital beings.

You're saying it like it's a bad thing. This sounds cool.

[Jester Joe]

Again, if artist's survival wouldn't be tied to them finding clients to work for and/or producing content, do you think that anyone would find issues with AI using their work in their datasets ? Do you think that the notion of copyright would even be a thing ?

1) Not all artists are client/commission based, I don't know why I need to keep repeating this over and over that you're just making it very clear you do not know the field of art.

2) Absolutely they would still.

3) You wouldn't have artists to the degree we have if they couldn't legally protect their own work.

This isn't rocket science.

[Zardas]

1) Not all artists are client/commission based,

But all of your argumentation seems to gravitates towards a potential financial loss for the artist (which, again, is not an issue with AI)

I don't know why I need to keep repeating this over and over that you're just making it very clear you do not know the field of art.

Doing art is literally my job...

2) Absolutely they would still.

Could you allaborate as to why someone would have issue with their work being used in the training datasets of an AI ? Because, from what I see, art is about sharing with the world, so the fact that one could want to protect their work like that seems a bit antithetical with the very notion of art.

3) You wouldn't have artists to the degree we have if they couldn't legally protect their own work.

And why would that be ? As an artist would you paint less, or write less, or do whatever you want less if your work wasn't "protected" ? Do you think an artist care more about people knowing that's it's him who painted this masterpiece, rather than people being able to actually fully enjoy said masterpiece ?

As I said I'm a web designer, and couldn't care less if someone decided to use my design, or part of it. If anything, I would be glad to know that he enjoyed it that much. Seems to me that it's a much more open-minded mindset, which is essential as an artist.

[Jester Joe]

But all of your argumentation seems to gravitates towards a potential financial loss for the artist (which, again, is not an issue with AI)

That's a nice strawman you got there.

I think this is really all I need honestly at this point. This is just straight up blatantly dishonest at this point. YOU were the one who brought up finances, and now you're like "Well if you're upset about finances". Like, no man, that was YOUR argument. Jesus, so many people pointed out to you how it's immoral too but you're just pretending that doesn't exist.

[Zardas]

That's a nice strawman you got there.

I think this is really all I need honestly at this point. This is just straight up blatantly dishonest at this point. YOU were the one who brought up finances, and now you're like "Well if you're upset about finances". Like, no man, that was YOUR argument. Jesus, so many people pointed out to you how it's immoral too but you're just pretending that doesn't exist.

After reviewing your messages, it seems that you indeed brought up the economic aspect of it only once ("You have to be doing this intentionally at this point, ain't no way you're genuinely trying to go "surely it's not the AIs fault that it's scraping people's work and using it without paying for it!"."). My apologies for that, I got confused with the other dudes I answered to.

As for the "immoral" aspect of it, I believe I inquired intensively about it in my previous message, so feel free to ellaborate on all the questions I asked, because, to me, it seems that this close-minded spirit is on the polar opposite of the one needed for art. And, eventually, also feel free to acknowledge that you called me not knowing the field of art while it's clearly not the case (but I'm not getting my hopes too high for this one).

[FelPlague]

No, artists simply shouldn't have to work for certain people or a certain way to survive (neither should anyone). Their survival shouldn't be tied to them finding clients to work for. You are making a false dichotomy.

So everyone who claims to be an artist should not have to work, because they should be taken care of no matter how much/little they work?
Are you going to set quota on artists of how much they should produce each month, or they don't get paid. And how many ratings it gets decides if they are paid or not?

Artists jobs should not be tied to finding clients to pay them.
So how do they get paid... Bro.

- - - Updated - - -

Why not through a universal salary ? You are limiting yourself to one very specific economic system, but art is not supposed to be restricted to such little concepts.

So your be all end all fix and reason why AI is not bad is "cause you could do universal income!"
Cool. We are not in a universal income now are we?
Things that work in a universal income, are not possible in the current world economics.
Bro you are literally pulling. "My arguments and opinions are all correct, cause what if we had universal salary."

- - - Updated - - -

If all your issues are of economic nature, then your issue is not with AI, but with the economic system. So blame it instead of AI.

If a zombie bites your arm, do you cut off the arm before the infection spreads? Or do you work for years to make a cute for the infection?


Yeah, if we had universal salary, ai would be great. But we don't, so trying to argue as if it does. Or is even a remotely possible thing any time in our lifespans. Is insane.

[Kalontas]

You know what, some of the posters are right. Seeing this promoted and having some experience with making this kind of stuff (not for faking leaks, for my own tabletop RPG use) makes me kind of want to try my own hand at it next time. Unfortunately the "next time" might happen quite a few years from now, seeing we got a whole saga announced.

[Zardas]

So everyone who claims to be an artist should not have to work, because they should be taken care of no matter how much/little they work?
Are you going to set quota on artists of how much they should produce each month, or they don't get paid. And how many ratings it gets decides if they are paid or not?

Artists jobs should not be tied to finding clients to pay them.
So how do they get paid... Bro.

I believe I already answered to it : the relationship work => money has been established because we needed humans to work and they needed a reason to get to work. But with AI and more generally the automatisation, this need is becoming less and less prevalent, making the previously stated relation less and less mandatory. In time, it could absolutely become meaningless and we could get to a more normal state where machines do the work and humans focus on more pleasant task (like doing art). In such a universe, the concept of money as a whole would obviously be quite useless.

So your be all end all fix and reason why AI is not bad is "cause you could do universal income!"
Cool. We are not in a universal income now are we?
Things that work in a universal income, are not possible in the current world economics.
Bro you are literally pulling. "My arguments and opinions are all correct, cause what if we had universal salary."

We unfortunately are not, indeed, but you are all looking as AI art like is the main issue without looking at the main culprit here. It's like saying that cars are bad because they are responsible for so much pollution, while the only issue is how prevalent our society has rendered them (at least in some part of the world).

If a zombie bites your arm, do you cut off the arm before the infection spreads? Or do you work for years to make a cute for the infection?

I'm not saying to not give temporary restriction to how AI art can be used and protection for artists. All I'm saying is that most of what has been said here about AI art not being art or being a big issue don't remember that those issues find roots not in AI itself, but in our economic system, that it is the real culprit here.
If a zombie infection starts, are you just gonna keep choping arms, or do you also try to find a cure to the infection ?

Yeah, if we had universal salary, ai would be great. But we don't, so trying to argue as if it does. Or is even a remotely possible thing any time in our lifespans. Is insane.

Of course it's a very long process, probably century long. But if we want to reach our destination, we must first start walking towards it. And from what I've seen here, plenty are walking the opposite direction. I'm not saying that you are, because from your messages in other thread you seems like a smart dude, but plenty are.

[Shadowferal]

This post seems appropriate here;

Leave it to Jon Stewart to address AI in the way only he can.

[Kaleredar]

Art is not a product. Or rather, it is one in only a specific economic system, but the concept of art is independant of the economic system. Like, do you think that the prehistoric paintings on the cave of Lascaux are product ? Yet, are they not art ?

The tool is the "product." The AI server you are punching words into is the "product," and it is being trained on stolen assets to train it. Its end result is not important.

Remove the words "art" and "pictures" from this entirely. Don't even think about them, because it isn't relevant. Think about it this way: "A product is being made by stealing elements its creators do not have a right to use and is then being sold for monetary value."

That's a widly different thing : the camera is the tool. With AI, the tool is not the pictures in the training dataset, it's the actual ML model, the algorithm. To get back to your example, it would be like if someone illegaly forked the code (maybe unpopular opinion, but all code should be open source), this has nothing to do with the present case.

That is no different than stealing the patents used to design a camera, or anything that produces "art."

If someone made brushes for Photoshop and adobe decided to include them in their software (that they are selling!) without the creator's permission then Adobe could absolutely find itself in hot water.

Spoilers : there is no "magic" behind any form of art (or anything in life really). It is just a product of hand movements, commanded by electrical current with tangible and quantifiable (granted, not precisely with out current technology) inputs in a brain that can be directly traced back to memories of previously seen art or physical locations.

Which is legally distinguished when done by a human versus any other means.

You can type an incoherent jumble of nonsense into an AI algorithm and you will end up with something, but not what you want (what you INTENT) Just like you can write an incoherent jumble of nonsense on a piece of paper and you will end up with something, but not what you want.
Just like you can trace inchorent jumble of colored lines on a frame and you will end up with something, but not what you want.

Ah, but you cannot know or prove that.

What's the difference between me saying "AI, make me a red dragon with black wings" and me google image searching an image that someone else painted of a red dragon with black wings and saying that's what I wanted? I had absolutely, quantitatively, the same input into obtaining an image in an AI algorithm as I did in a google image search.

How is IA different ? And how do you judge things like "picture quality" ? And how does it has anything to do with art ?

In the world of actually producing art, I can rattle off a good number of examples of what makes AI art rather inconsequential. Producing a "pretty picture" is not particularly useful on a production line.

In what world are you living ? You don't just "select the image presents were what you wanted it to give you". As I said multiple times, you start with an idea of what you want to achieve, an intent, then you rework your prompt for hours, play with the parameters and everything else that the model allows you to play with until you finally get the kinf of result you desire. How is it not "intent" ?

To which I give you a hearty scoff.

Here's a quick lesson from art school that wont cost you a nickle:

Training to be an artist is not realized by creating what you want. Your eye as an artist is trained by transferring what your eye sees into what your hand creates. That is what creates good artists. By cultivating that skill you can actually create things.

My first semester of art school we had sketchbooks for multiple classes that we were to fill a page out every single day, seven days a week, with sketches with explicit instructions to draw only from real life, and absolutely nothing from your head. Because when you're creating things "from your head," you have absolutely no metric for whether you succeeded. You do not progress as an artist at all, because you operate only in hypothetical.

Again, I scoff at your "toiling for hours" punching in words to a discord server and thinking that constitutes "work."


Hell, I'll throw in another free lesson: if your art is nothing without a specific tool, your art is nothing. I had a figure drawing professor who could render beautiful figure drawings with a milky way candy bar on a piece of paper, and then turning that into a lesson that people complaining that they didn't have the right pen or the right brush to paint/draw/whatever well were full of themselves.

A poet can write a beautiful poem without a word processor or typewriter or hell, even words, if they can just dictate it to you. An illustrator that can create amazing paintings in photoshop, if stripped of a computer, might have some growing pains but could probably learn to be a pretty damn good traditional painter once they learn how to mix paints and prep a canvas.

Without an AI algorithm? You can make... nothing.

You may not, but you seems to have a very strong opinion and what is and isn't, and, for some reason, refuse to give any semblance of definition.

Ultimately art is subjective, which is why ultimately I don't want to get bogged down in that. There are people out there who like Yoko Ono screeching into a microphone.


Ultimately, these language models are stolen. That's what matters.

But don't artists make art to show it to the world ? Why would anyone not want people to have access to their art ?

Artists don't do art to have it stolen.

I'm not surprised, however at a non-artist being okay with devaluing the value of art. That kind of abuse, yes abuse, is rife in the industry. That people should do it "for the love of it." Well, "the love of it" doesn't fucking pay the bills, now does it?

I hope the answer is not "because then they wouldn't be paid" because, if so, this is an widly different issue, one that roots not within IA, but within our economic system.

If you train your whole life to do something, something with proven monetary value (see, video games, graphic design, film, product design, I could go on,) and that generates value for others, you deserve to be compensated for it.


"Why do electricians wire buildings? Just to get paid? That's a problem with the system, you should wire my house for free!" see how far that sentiment gets you.

Like, if professional artists' survival weren't tied to them finding clients to write, draw or whatever else for, would you still find issue with their art being used as insipration ?

Inspiration and stealing are two different things. The literal pixels that make up their works are being used to train these models. Like actual, quantifiable images and pictures in their wholesale, presented form. No different than if they were used as sprites in a game or backgrounds in a movie or designs on a poster.

And regardless of "shoulds," this is how reality is. Try and internalize that.

Everything I tried to create (it's wasn't a great success) vs everything that you can find on dedicated subreddit or other forums.

That's still just vague allusions.

So if you're not paid to do so, then you're not an artist ? Like, people doing cool artwork for free on the walls are not artists ?

They're still... you know, making their art.

My qualifier is that I'm an "artist" enough for someone to deem me qualified to pay me for my troubles. Again, monetary value.

And as we've establish, the only issue with it is an economic one, caused not by AI but but how people's survival is tied to them finding clients.

And it ignores that problem. Conveniently, for you. And not for the people without whom these AI algorithms would have nothing to train from.

"My machine that burns trash isn't the problem, the problem is that the trash is full of harmful chemicals! So I'm going to just go on burning trash, and if you have a problem take it up with the way the trash is made!"

We must live in a different world : from what I'm seeing people generating AI art just share it with anyone interested in it and happily exchange tips and tricks on how to improve. Meanwhile, you're the one constantly complaining. Like, where do you see people complaining ?

Because it's stolen.

Well then do it, go "put words into a discord server and choose a picture". The chance of you getting what you want (what you intent) is as small as me getting the exact painting I work after randomly splashing paint on a frame. You would know that if you had tried, but unfortunately you're talking out of ignorance.

I'm not paying thieves, I've already said this. Find me a free one, a truly free one, and maybe we'll talk.

Of course, being an artist... I could always just make what I have in mind myself.

You mean other than if the artwork in front of your eyes is what you wanted ?

And your doodles of sonic kissing goku or whatever could be just as meritorious. Why should anyone else care?

So someone spending 30 minutes doing a haiku, for example, is not an artist ? It's not a "real piece of art" ? Not gonna lie, your words seem more and more pompous and bitter ; and that doesn't reflect nice on one, especiallly as a professional artist.

You were the one droning on about having to spend "hours" trying to get a discord randomizer to spit out the result you wanted, not me.


And I'm not bitter. Like I said, AI is not poised to replace my specific type of art any kind of soon, mainly because the details of what make the art I make useful are highly specific (a common failure of AI; a departure from exact specificity into any sort of least common denominator would be nothing but a failure) and not holistically, immediately observable (something that a bunch of programmers yay'ing or nay'ing tiddy fidelity on anime waifu art wouldn't know to look for) by just glancing at a picture on artstation.

I just don't like seeing my colleagues and friends having their work devalued, least of all by the common sentiment that you yourself are echoing with "they should do it for the love of it, and no expectation of monetary gain, therefore I should be able to use it as much as I want."

Because I really don't care about people generating their waifus and DnD characters or whatever other inconsequential, faffing things. I think this is establishing a dangerous, deleterious trend in the short term on an actual paying gig level for artists where studios try and cut costs to generate a worse product quicker by producing increasingly generic work by stealing from actual artists. It means I have shittier content to consume and my pals get shafted out of work.

And don't worry mate, I've also spent hundreds of hours polishing pieces of art (although maybe you don't think that web-design is an art ?) but, unlike you, I'm not judging the quality of an art by how long it took to produce it (can an artwork really be finished, even ? Isn't it always something to improve ?).

Mmm did you do that web design for free? You worked your 12 hour shift at 7/11 or whatever and then went home to do some pro bono web design for clients for the love of it?

And after all this time, you still haven't been able to give a coherent definition to what is an "actual artist"...

But go ahead, please find me professional artists who whouldn't want their art to be easily accessible (would their survival not being tied to them finding clients to work for, of course). I'm very curious as to why they wouldn't want it.

Literally throw a google search out in the vaguest vein of "artists against AI." You'll find dozens. Hundreds. I'll give you an insight into the industry. Most "professional artists" revile AI art specifically because it is stolen.