His style has been requested over 400,000 times, even surpassing legends like Picasso and Da Vinci—all without his consent.

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.

  • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
    8·
    1 year ago

    And yet the artist’s name is used to push the weights towards pictures in their style.

    That’s not even vaguely new in the world of art.

    Imitating style is the core of what art is. It’s absolutely unconditionally protected by copyright law. It’s not even a .01 out of 10 on the scale of unethical. It’s what’s supposed to happen.

    The law might not cover this yet, but any law that restricts the fundamental right to build off of the ideas of others that are the core of the entirety of human civilization is unadulterated evil. There is no part of that that could possibly be acceptable to own.

    • Rhaedas@kbin.social
      1·
      1 year ago

      I totally agree with you on protecting the basics of creativity and growth. I think the core issue is using “imitate” here. Is that what the LLM is doing, or is that an anthropomorphism of some sense that there’s intelligence guiding the process? I know it seems like I’m nitpicking things to further my point, but the fact that this is an issue to many even outside artwork says there is a question here of what is and isn’t okay.

      • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
        5·
        1 year ago

        The AI is not intelligent. That doesn’t matter.
        Nothing anyone owns is being copied or redistributed. The creator isn’t the tool; it’s the person using the tool.

        AI needs two things to work, an algorithm and data. If training is allowed to anyone, anyone can create their own algorithms and use the AI as a tool to create innovative new messages with some ideas borrowed from other work.

        If data is proprietary, they cannot. But Disney still can. They’ll just as successfully flood out all the artists who can’t use AI because they don’t have a data set, but now they and the two other companies in the world who own IP are basically a monopoly (or tri- or whatever) and everyone else is screwed.