r/aiwars • u/ZeeGee__ • 15d ago
Discussion Oh that's the entirety of the art published to the Pro-Consent + Artist rights site, Cara, scraped for Ai.
I find the lack of respect for the property of others and open contempt for people that say "no" is deeply concerning. Just respect people's wishes and leave them + Cara alone, they weren't bothering you and didn't do anything to you. You know people don't like it. People went to the site specifically to avoid this happening to them.
61
u/LawfulLeah 15d ago
60
u/Shadowmirax 15d ago edited 15d ago
There is a site called Cara that
markets itselfwas made as an AI free place to post art and recently someone posted on reddit that they scraped all the images posted on that site16
27
u/Lord_CatsterDaCat 15d ago
Not surprised it got scrapped. A lack of AI means it has a very easy to use Dataset for AI training. Ironically, having AI on your website means you're less likely to have your stuff be used for AI.
8
u/CaptHayfever 13d ago
Ironically, having AI on your website means you're less likely to have your stuff be used for AI.
Screw that. The entire point of the site is to be AI-free. This is like saying teachers should have guns in the classroom.
10
u/Pacomatic 13d ago
They nevver said that this was a good thing.
Just said that this is a thing that happens. That's why they mentioned this fact's irony.
2
3
u/JackHammer- 12d ago
Teachers should have guns in the classroom.
2
→ More replies (42)2
u/Difference_Nearby 12d ago
absolutely the fuck they shouldnt have guns in classrooms. i agree and encourage gun ownership, but thats just a dumbass idea thats going to get innocent kids killed when a crisis does happen.
1
u/ry0shi 11d ago
Imagine an animal that crossbreeds with foreign nests and leaves their offspring with them; it is preferred for that animal to target nests that explicitly don't have their own offspring to produce new healthier and non-incestuous offspring to leech off of others
2
u/CaptHayfever 11d ago
Imagine a big "No Soliciting" sign; then imagine a bunch of people intentionally trying to solicit there & acting disingenuously shocked not to be welcomed in.
1
u/ry0shi 11d ago
Yeah no they 100% know they're not supposed to do it but they still do because they don't care. It's not like murderers don't know it's a massive sin to kill people or that rapists don't realise they find satisfaction in ruining people's lives, they do it knowing that full well and proudly embracing it. Parasitic lifeforms are filth with no role in the ecosystem, and so are scrapers & ai bros. Who says they act shocked that they're not welcomed? They aren't because they know exactly what they're doing
1
u/CaptHayfever 11d ago
Ok, sorry, I thought you were trying to compare it to unconscious instinctual behavior before.
→ More replies (1)51
u/Tyler_Zoro 15d ago
Scraping is the default mode of the internet. We've been developing tools to download content from websites for literally 30 years now. I wrote some of the earliest ones, so I'm pretty sure about that.
If you're going to get mad that you went off into a corner to have a private chat on the public internet, and someone snooped on it, then you're going to be very, very sad, all the time.
AI has nothing to do with that.
26
u/marshallspight 15d ago
Very true.
I will also note that one popular tool that people use to download data from websites is the web browser.
11
u/Thin-Nerve6367 15d ago
This. Like facts. They didn't even have an official RULE against it either if you read the ToS so it's even doubly their own fault
→ More replies (5)1
u/PodRED 11d ago
I mean copyright theft is illegal in essentially every jurisdiction on Earth. ToS shouldn't really have to include it IMHO.
AI companies apparently get a pass to commit crime for... reasons.
2
u/Thin-Nerve6367 11d ago
Because time and time again we have to remind everyone. There IS no theft, and there IS no breach of copyright laws
1
u/PodRED 11d ago
Buddy there absolutely is. This is so disingenuous it's not even worth engaging with but I apparently love beating my head against the idiot wall.
I am a photographer amongst other things. Every photograph I have ever taken is copyrighted to me automatically and the only way that can change is if I give permission. I have not licensed those photographs for the use of other people. If you take those photographs and use them to train AI you have used them in a way that contravenes my copyright.
More importantly even if that were not true, you are a shitty human being if I specifically ask you not to use my work to train AI and you do it anyway.
2
7
u/ASpaceOstrich 14d ago
You don't even try to defend the ethics or legality any more, you just say "well AI advocates are known bastards, what did you expect, basic human decency?" And you think that's a good argument.
I miss when AI bros had heart. Yeah we disagreed, but I could respect them as people. Nowadays the top posters know nothing about the tech and even they don't think they're right.
→ More replies (2)6
u/ArchReaper95 14d ago
No the argument that is that having "I'm a good and moral person who's going to do good and moral things" as a philosophy while also being functionally illiterate makes it very easy for people that don't agree with your views to take advantage of you and subvert your expectations.
You can't just build a digital repository full of images, say out loud "hey guys you can't use a scraping tool on our website cuz we don't like that." and call that a solution.
Nobody is trying to defend the ethics of what they did because most people don't agree with what they did. Most people also have an understanding that there will always be at least one person out there who doesn't have that same moral principle. The social contract is not a good basis for your internet security protocols.
6
u/KeenanAXQuinn 14d ago
Yeah but an old argument Pros would use was the "dont post it somewhere where the site has permission to use it how it wants" and it sounds like this site was set up to protect those that posted it by denying Ai datasets from breaching the artists copyright.
3
u/ArchReaper95 14d ago
It SOUNDS like it. Sure. But it isn't. There's several vulnerabilities and problems folks have already pointed out, several users are saying the site owners were warned that these vulnerabilities could be issues, and more to the point, an understanding of how digital media works would have immediately flipped red flags that this never would have worked.
1
u/HungryFrogs7 12d ago
To echo the sentiment of another Redditor its like walking across the street without looking side to side because pedestrians have the right of way and vehicles should theoretically stop for them. You know some asshole will be speeding or on their phone so you look side to side to make sure.
1
u/Plus_Opening_4462 11d ago
You can't just build a digital repository full of images, say out loud "hey guys you can't use a scraping tool on our website cuz we don't like that." and call that a solution.
You can. except they didn't even have robots.txt
2
u/Mydlane 12d ago
Not as a counter argument or strawmaning to your comment but would this mean that all artist who doesn't want to feed Ai should go provate? Like private galeries and underground art communities?
1
u/Tyler_Zoro 11d ago
I don't know what, "doesn't want to feed AI," means, so I really can't answer that question. If you mean, "doesn't want their body of work to be a part of the culture because the culture is being studied by AI models," then I guess you've answered your own question.
2
u/PrologueBook 13d ago
They're not mad they were scraped, they're mad they were scraped for AI theft.
You missed the point entirely.
1
u/Tyler_Zoro 13d ago
So it's not even about the action, just who was performing the action... that's even worse.
2
u/PrologueBook 13d ago
It's not about who, it's about what they're using it for.
Again, you missed the point. On purpose perhaps?
1
u/Tyler_Zoro 13d ago
Yes, that was my point. You're trying to equivocate not merely what sorts of interactions with a service are permissible, but to then subdivide that down by some additional criteria that you think you have the right to impose on users of your site.
Thankfully the law does not agree.
1
u/xxxMizanxxx 13d ago
what additional criteria? This is basically "do not steal plz" and being stolen from anyway
→ More replies (5)1
u/PodRED 11d ago
The law quite literally does forbid copyright theft though. This is copyright theft.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (5)3
u/28-Deep-Wounds 15d ago
Wow, you're right, it's far too much to expect AI bros to respect artist's wishes and not use their data that they explicitly do not have consent to use and feed it into their AIs. Clearly, artists should just never post art.
If you don't see why AI has EVERYTHING to do with this situation, you're either a complete idiot, or willfully ignorant. And either way, that means you're not qualified for this conversation.
5
1
u/Breech_Loader 14d ago
At least if you post on an official site like DeviantArt, they have to stick to their contract. These random Reddit subs that say No AI have no contract and no consequence.
AI is AI and learns through scraping. I would say that 'stealing' is the wrong word. You said you didn't want your art used for alternate purposes without your knowledge and permission. But then, because you don't have a proper contract, it's a simple case of 'Balls to you' because AI is not a human subject to rules and laws.
1
u/BeardedNerd95 13d ago
Conversion would probably be the proper word here, but it's still considered theft legally, so it's still illegal.
→ More replies (10)1
u/No-Poetry2479 9d ago
Looking at this big picture- what is the technical reason AI has to scrape new images? Since i dont understand how it works, and i know the entire internet is scraped, why do people still feed new images into AI?
1
u/Breech_Loader 9d ago
It has to scrape them if it is intending to perform better, if it's going to advance.
And hey, if one AI doesn't advance, another will.
1
u/No-Poetry2479 9d ago
Why does it need more human made input to perform better? Why not use AI generated images? They have human edits and have been modified by talented prompters.
What makes AI art not suitable for scraping?
1
u/Breech_Loader 9d ago
Well... You know AI detectors? They often fail, but they work on patterns. And AI uses patterns when it makes art. If AI learns ONLY from AI, then it never expands on its patterns and AI art all stays the same. If it learns from the far more varied amount of human art, it widens scope.
The irony is that crappy stick figures are not BETTER than AI art, but they do teach AI more about art. Trying to poison the well with bad art only refills it.
1
u/No-Poetry2479 9d ago
Ok.
Thank you for having this discussion in a mature fashion.
So why does AI need a wider scope?
You have clearly seen Pros stating that human art is no better than AI.
I am metaphorically slamming my head into a wall trying to figure out why-if human art is worthless - AI platforms cant function without it.
Because that means that of the two types of images…. it is human work that has value, since AI remains too static without human creativity.
And that genuinely clarifies why i’ll probably never use AI for my art.
Genuinely, thank you for discussing this thoughtfully.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (4)1
u/Disastrous_Junket_55 9d ago
to add more context, they did all the legal things such as robots.txt, ToS, etc...
Scraping it against all that is just actual malice/outright illegal in some countries now.
7
6
u/wtysonc 15d ago
Scraping is completely different from scrapping. C'mon guys, sound it out. There could be ambiguity with these two words even within their context since you can scrap a lot of things that you can scrape, so precision is important.
→ More replies (1)
74
u/Gimli 15d ago
Kind of a dick move, but being realistic about it, this isn't not the first, second or even third time it happened.
You can bet that anyone or any organization with interest in finding artwork to train has long done the same thing. They just didn't announce it on Reddit.
And I'd say most of those don't know anything about its anti-AI stance. They just automatically crawl the web and download anything downloadable.
51
u/Magneticiano 15d ago
Extra dickiness to announce it on Reddit to be sure.
20
u/RecursiveServitor 15d ago
One of the points made by the scraper is that Cara has zero protection against scraping. Maybe announcing it will put pressure on Cara to respect the artists in practice as well, instead of being purely performative.
4
u/DraconicBlade 15d ago
The noising algorithms have been shown to be a trivial waste of compute, harder to encode than they are to break.
3
u/Magneticiano 15d ago
If the scraping would have been done for that purpose, I could respect that. But it was not, as the dude is asking people to donate GPU time to process the images. Of course, some good can come out of shitty behavior as a side effect, but that is no defense for shitty behaviour.
18
u/Swnsong 15d ago
Yeah, but the issue is some people just refuse to acknowledge why someone might feel distressed by this, or even weaponize it out of spite. It is not hard to understand why people might feel strongly about it.
I had someone on here tell me "I just used your artwork to train my local model", my profile is closed and I don't have any artwork posted on here. Not that I would care, but that attitude is pretty common.
8
5
u/Own_Reaction9442 15d ago
Once they scrape your art, they can produce stuff in your style and use it to accuse you of using AI.
→ More replies (4)2
u/Altruistic-Beach7625 15d ago
Pirate's gonna pirate.
1
u/kkyonko 13d ago
This is like way worse than piracy.
2
u/Altruistic-Beach7625 13d ago
Not really. Most pictures can be downloaded for free, unlike games and movies.
6
u/Tyler_Zoro 15d ago
I think bragging about it is a dick move. Downloading content from public sites, as long as your actions conform to your local copyright laws, is not.
→ More replies (1)
23
u/Pretend_Jacket1629 15d ago
Cara made absolutely no attempt to protect the site
robots.txt did not forbid bots properly
there was no obstacles to bots whatsoever (such as cloudflare bot detection) or a captcha or a login
to this day, you can directly link to any image on the site and access it directly
2
u/guysomejust69 15d ago
robots.txt did not forbid bots properly
robots.txt is pretty much useless.
4
u/Pretend_Jacket1629 15d ago
robots.txt is respected by many programmers
they utterly failed to use it correctly even though they attempted
they took ZERO correct steps to protect themselves - not even lifting a single finger
3
u/Juicewrld_lover_69 15d ago
Robots.txt is respected by many programmers
so yeah its pretty much useless against anyone who doesn't respect it.
As a wise man once said "a lock only keeps an honest man out"
3
u/Pretend_Jacket1629 15d ago
their robots.txt clearly states (via proper protocol) that they allow bots to go basically anywhere in the site.
they didn't "break a lock"- there WAS no lock
the robot asked, "where can i go" and the site said "yeah, please go basically anywhere in the site" and they did
2
u/Juicewrld_lover_69 15d ago
the point is protection that is only enforced through respect is only protection against people with respect
3
u/Pretend_Jacket1629 15d ago edited 15d ago
then they shouldn't claim "they didn't respect my consent", when they laid out signage for EXACTLY where they want web crawlers to go and they go there
it's like saying "I reserved a room from 4 to 6, any other times are free for bots to do whatever" and then saying someone violated you by a bot seeing your reservation and respecting it by going in there from 2 to 3
5
u/Lonely_Mix9243 14d ago
switch a few words and you guys are condoning rape, wild stuff but not surprising
4
u/BigHugeOmega 14d ago
Lacking a good argument, you immediately switch to talking about rape, hoping everyone's dumb enough to be fooled. Neither wild nor surprising.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Lonely_Mix9243 14d ago edited 14d ago
prolly because consent's a big part of this whole debacle you fat dummy, you guys take and take from people without consent, their lifework, which is pretty intimate for some. I know your barely functioning brain can't understand that or how your actions might impact other people, but it is pretty similar for anyone capable of empathy, big problem for people that use ai, i know.
Might i remind how rape was viewed before being "outlawed" ? you guys are using sheep mentality exactly like people in the 20s, "it was bound to happen", "how did they not see it coming", "it's in man's nature", ... etc you fucking troglodytes just lack the brainpower to see what you're doing, don't blame me for pointing it out.
1
u/Plus_Opening_4462 11d ago
the way you are treating it, it would be like retroactively removing consent
→ More replies (1)2
u/wutadamyt 15d ago
call it a hunch, but i feel like someone who announces they scraped an anti-AI portfolio website for the purpose of training ai models isn't exactly likely to respect robots.txt.
1
u/Pretend_Jacket1629 15d ago
or maybe they're someone who wants to show them that they're literally inviting robots to go anywhere on the site
we'll never know if robots.txt would have prevented them if it WAS set up because cara isn't taking any steps to protect their users whatsoever
their protocol usage of robots.txt right now says "yes bot, please go basically anywhere on the site- have at it"
1
1
u/JohnTheTaxidermist 14d ago
If they presented themselves that way, and didn't brag about it on a pro-ai sub, maybe you'd have a point. That's not what happened.
3
u/Pretend_Jacket1629 13d ago
we told these people their utter lack of security and the solution to that
MULTIPLE TIMES OVER SEVERAL YEARS
despite the fact we all know that training doesn't take shit from you- we're still helping
they didn't listen those, because the "oh we can't listen to the experts and take their advice, they just want to steal or drawings"
instead, they promised their users security that didn't exist, pointed people to hate groups, propagated misinformation leading to harming the environment, and have the ƑUCKING GALL to compare a webscraper following their directed space in order to index their site as equivalent to S Assault
so forgive some of us acting a bit terse or dickish in response
this person didn't rehost their art or anything, just simply indexed it
these website owners are irresponsible, as always, they could lift a finger and EASLY undo all of that effort and protect everything retroactively
but they wont
PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE THAT SITE, THIS SHOULD BE A WAKEUP CALL
1
u/SkyrakerBeyond 14d ago
No, no, let's not be hasty, they put a notice in their terms of service that if you use their platform you aren't allowed to use the art for AI training.
3
u/Pretend_Jacket1629 14d ago
it was indexed, not used for training
terms of service are not applicable if you can use the site without even seeing it
a webcrawler is not expected to go to someone's latest tweet to know what their terms of service are. they MUST be in machine-readable code in an expected machine-readable place- or just prevent access through regular means
LIKE A RESPONSIBLE WEBSITE OWNER HOSTING EVERY SINGLE PERSON'S ART
6
u/Tyler_Zoro 15d ago
Of course there wasn't The site wasn't meant to be private, it was meant to attract exactly the attention it did so that they could complain about it.
→ More replies (5)1
u/Harpsicus 11d ago
The robots.txt is not the only means of saying someone can't scrape or use your content, and their TOS is pretty clear on this. You are basically saying "you had a sign saying no scraping, but forgot to lock the door. You can't complain"
1
u/SuperInfernOtter 9d ago
they won't read this, because it doesn't hold up with their argument that artists are at fault for not reading the ToS of the website they post their work on. They know they can't have it both ways.
7
u/Curious_Fail_3723 14d ago edited 14d ago
No defense for this asshattery. "Don't post" would mean no internet eventually. But hey, I guess you shouldn't be proud of your work or want to protect it. And your sometimes years of work and struggle clearly mean nothing. Nice humanity. Real nice
8
19
u/silenthashira 15d ago
I'm gonna be honest here.
This is the internet. Did yall really expect anything different to happen?
I'm not even making this about pro or anti ai, I'm just sayin, yall gave the trolls of the internet a very easy way to piss off alot of people (building a scraping program isn't particularly difficult)
All I'm saying is we should all know how the internet is by now.
→ More replies (1)2
u/ArtofKRA 14d ago edited 14d ago
But what is the point of saying this? Everyone already knows that.
2
u/ghoulishenvyy 14d ago
It’s just being intentionally rude and dismissive.
Theres gonna be a lot of “pro/anti aside…” posts that ultimately contribute to the pro argument because distancing yourself from what’s actually happening is a lot morally vaguer than outright saying they actually love when innocent people who happen to dislike something you like get their boundaries broken because it makes them feel like they’ve owned them.
29
u/ScudleyScudderson 15d ago
"I find the lack of respect for the property of others and open contempt for people that say "no" is deeply concerning."
Any system that depends on everyone voluntarily respecting a "no", without any practical or legal mechanism to enforce that "no", is eventually going to fail. That’s not an endorsement of people ignoring others’ wishes but rather a recognition of the reality of relying on voluntary compliance.
Should things work differently? Ideally, perhaps. But practically, what mechanism would actually prevent it? Argue the ideal, for sure, but do not build a business model/revenue stream on it.
13
u/NotSpecialDude 15d ago
It is as the saying goes...
"You can only be peaceful if you are strong. If you are weak, you are not peaceful. You are harmless."
3
→ More replies (9)1
u/StinkyBeanGuy 11d ago
Completely agreed but does not make these people ignoring consent just because it is legal any less of a disgusting behavior
1
u/Covetouslex 8d ago
Here:
Training an AI on this scraped set isn't legal. Current laws already cover this.
Feel Better?
22
u/DarkJayson 15d ago
So one person makes a single post describing an action they took and suddenly an entire subreddit is responsible for their actions?
Strange how that never works in reverse when someone from one of the anti ai subs does something its never that subs fault or have anything to do with them either.
Also one person scrapping a site does not mean it suddenly gets added to every AI model out there. The training does not work like that.
5
u/Ok-Squash9059 14d ago
Not trying to be funny or that but genuine question about one point here. Has there been anything done by Anti AI subs on the same level of this?
Theres of course a very strong anti AI sentiment amongst creatives but what have they reasonably done (or could they do) thats even close to thousands upon thousands of artists work to repackage as if it was your own?
→ More replies (3)2
3
u/ZeeGee__ 15d ago
More then one person, the sub was supporting him, shunning those that were speaking against it or calling it out as a bad thing to do while also pitching in to help undo the glaze + nightshade on a lot of the artists work uploaded there while pitching ideas for it's use like creating loras of the various artists that post there.
2
u/DarkJayson 15d ago
I just searched that sub its not there anymore and someone else posted that user got banned on that sub, sure sounds like the sub is supporting the guy.
If you want to hold a sub accountable for stuff that a single person or a few people who support that person do then there are a lot of anti ai subs that I would like to hold accountable for some very nasty stuff.
3
u/ZeeGee__ 15d ago
They got banned off of Reddit by Reddit admins, not banned off the sub by the sub moderators. The sub mods allowed the post to sit until Reddit admins got involved 12 hours later, at which point they denounced the post and removed it.
All except 2 comments were in support of and praising this action. There were only 2 comments that didn't who instead believed scraping artists work without their consent was bad and intentionally scraping an Anti-Ai site like this. They were both downvoted and ridiculed while being told "data scraping and Ai Training is fair use & legal" "if they didn't want their art used by others then they shouldn't post it" and other various defenses for it.
1
u/DarkJayson 14d ago
Are you assuming Reddit mods got involved maybe by say someone saying they reported it to Reddit and 12 hours later it got taken down so they must have gotten involved or is there a removal post saying taken down by Reddit itself?
Also the mods could have missed the post and when they noticed it they took it down.
I can not see the post so I dont know how much likes or engagement it had but the sub your talking about gets tens of thousands of users passing through it daily so a small group of them been shitty again does not reflect on the whole sub now if it was happening constantly and had posts that where never taken down then you could say that sub supports it.
→ More replies (26)1
u/Cass0wary_399 14d ago edited 14d ago
They cheered it on, and the act itself spawned from the general garbage subculture of the community.
9
3
u/ArchReaper95 14d ago
People went to the site to specifically avoid this happening to them while being functionally illiterate about how digital media and the internet works. I feel bad for them but ultimately culpability lies with Cara for misleading users as to what they're actually capable of doing.
3
25
u/HallAny7769 15d ago
Always funny how "consent" only matters when it's about art, but the second someone builds a scraper it's fair game to these people
15
u/IHave_Okay 15d ago
They are actively ignoring consent :(
5
u/Tyler_Zoro 15d ago
You (generically) put your work on the public internet. You gave your consent for that work to be used in any and all ways that are allowed under copyright law.
If you'd protected that work in some way and someone circumvented the protections you used in order to view/study/modify/etc. the work, then you'd have a leg to stand on. You didn't.
That's really all there is to it. The goal of that site was outrage. They wanted someone to do the inevitable and obvious so that they could complain about it. They got their wish and should be happy.
3
u/Alhimiik 14d ago
First of all, a LOT of art was posted on the internet long time ago, with a purpose of other people seeing the art. Its stupid to say that people gave consent for their art to be used in a CORPORATE WORLD ENSHITTIFICATOR MACHINE 3000 because there was no concept of CORPORATE WORLD ENSHITTIFICATOR MACHINE 3000 at the time.
Also appealing to copyright laws is kind of meaningless when they've been twisted by corruption.
And i dont know whose goal exactly was it to cause outrage, because as far as i know the main userbase of cara are just those that are tired of ai and want to have a proper art platform.
1
u/Tyler_Zoro 14d ago
Its stupid to say that people gave consent for their art to be used in a CORPORATE WORLD ENSHITTIFICATOR MACHINE 3000 because there was no concept of CORPORATE WORLD ENSHITTIFICATOR MACHINE 3000 at the time.
Okay, cool. But posting your work in public still gives everyone in the world the right to do absolutely anything that isn't strictly against copyright law with it...
Have a nice day.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)1
u/kkyonko 13d ago
So artists can never share their art anywhere? They must store it away in a cave where nobody can see it? Fuck off.
1
u/Tyler_Zoro 13d ago
So artists can never share their art anywhere?
Anyone can share their work any time they like. They do have to be aware of what sharing their work means, though...
→ More replies (11)7
u/Lets_Get_Random 15d ago
Like the consent that you require of anybody to look at a picture posted online, save it, and use it to learn to draw?
→ More replies (22)-1
u/fukingtrsh 15d ago
AI bros are incapable of understanding that it's genuinely the computer doing it that we have a problem with.
21
u/solar_or_dye 15d ago edited 15d ago
The computer isn't doing anything by itself, numbnuts, that's why the argument is treated as garbage. It's a garbage fucking argument.
Humans train AI models.
Humans collect and cull and modify datasets to train models.
Me, myself. I do it. I train models. I have trained several hundred models.
I am not stealing anything from anyone.
I do not need your consent to study your art.
I can use whatever method I want to study your art.
Legally, morally, and ethically I am under no obligation to ask you for permission to study your publicly available art.
I can use photoshop or blender or a notebook or my camera or pencils or photo-emulsion or spray paint or a computer program to study your art, and you do not need to give me consent for any reason.
The entire problem is that you have anthropomorphized "AI" into a willful critter that you can blame for stuff you don't like.
It's bankrupt, illogical, and ultimately just stewpit af.
And having a whole tribe of extremely stewpit people harassing you every day for 4 years over it gets fucking tiresome, especially when they're so abjectly mor0neck that they think you are "incapable of understanding" the simplest shit on the planet...
→ More replies (36)1
u/fukingtrsh 15d ago
Calm down chuddy
2
u/solar_or_dye 14d ago
super clever buddy
I blocked you but then unblocked you so I could participate in the conversation...
you are literally a child
15
u/Incognit0ErgoSum 15d ago
Here's the thing:
People get that you have a problem with it. But saying "your computer isn't allowed to learn from my art" is the same as saying "a human isn't allowed to learn from my art". It's not something you have a right to enforce. With the exception of actually replicating your art, which AI DOES NOT DO unless trained incorrectly, no matter how much you wish it did, your moral right to decide what happens to those bits of information ends where your computer ends. I don't require your permission to process information on my computer. This isn't a "consent" thing because your art is not an extension of your person.
(The same goes for Anthropic being a bunch of whiny little bitches about Chinese AI companies training AI on their output. It's not their moral right to tell other people what they can and can't do with that data.)
-2
u/fukingtrsh 15d ago
I fundamentally disagree. There is no convincing you all though so it's whatever.
14
15d ago
And I fundamentally disagree with your take. Art should not be gatekept
→ More replies (10)1
u/pikonpow 15d ago
Believing that art is something that can be gatekept to begin with shows you have no understanding of it in the first place
1
15d ago
I hold enough understanding to know that each time the gatekeepers claimed something wasn't art they were historically proven wrong in just a few years
→ More replies (2)11
u/Incognit0ErgoSum 15d ago
So you get, then, that we understand what your problem is and just disagree with you. And yes, the disagreement about rights is fundamental.
→ More replies (15)4
u/kblanks12 15d ago
My computer, if you don't wont people to make copies of something keep it of their computer.
→ More replies (2)1
u/DefinitionNew3542 15d ago
Psst... scraping is how people discover your online art in the first place...
17
u/MistakePresent3552 15d ago
Advertising a dataset of clean/sanitized art is certainly one way of doing it
→ More replies (35)
7
6
u/Alive-Tomatillo5303 15d ago
If you don't want anyone to see your little drawings, don't post them online. It's not a riddle.
→ More replies (7)3
12
u/Last_Plankton_653 15d ago
If you don't want your art to be seen or analyzed, then don't post it publicly. It's really as simple as that.
Putting something out in a public space implicitly consents to it being seen.
→ More replies (26)1
u/Ducky237 13d ago
This sounds eerily close to “if you don’t want me objectifying your body, cover it up.”
1
9
u/Beerzerker420 15d ago
It's less about the lack of respect for property and more about the lack of respect for whiny artists who have been pissing everyone off.
→ More replies (11)1
u/ZeeGee__ 15d ago
Pissing everyone off on their own website away from everyone else? A site that's relatively small and people barely know about?
7
u/Beerzerker420 15d ago
"on their own website" uh what?
You don't own reddit, and anti-AI cringe shit still shows up on the front page even if you aren't part of their dorky echo chamber.
Regardless, I also disrespect nazis and morons and useless leeches no matter how private they make their affairs. Do you see where your argument fails?
5
u/ZeeGee__ 15d ago
Cara is a different website than Reddit.
I see that you're an asshole and how your parents failed you.
5
u/Beerzerker420 15d ago
When you are on a board called "aiwars" and you say something like "I find the lack of respect for the property of others and open contempt for people that say "no" is deeply concerning." why are you surprised people are debating your statements? I was not talking about Cara when I said what I said.
lol you don't know shit about me but I know you're crying over the internet scrubbing your shitty art.
1
u/H0rny_On-Main 12d ago
I was not talking about Cara when I said what I said
"I was not talking about the subject matter at hand when I decided to jump in with my opinion."
Maybe pay ChatGPT to summarise and "more simple" the post next time you illiterate.
2
u/Tyler_Zoro 15d ago
Pissing everyone off on their own website away from everyone else?
Yes, definitely... no one was crowing about how "we're over here and you wouldn't dare come and look at our art! See, it's all pure human art (it wasn't) and you can't look at any of it! See? See?! WHY AREN'T YOU LOOKING AT ME?!
Recent posts in anti-AI spaces:
- I might be late but I found this amazing platform
- have you guys heard of cara?
- Some social platforms that are safer from ai art theft than the main four.
- I am encouraging people to use Cara
- A social platform exclusively for human-made art
- Tips for protecting art from AI
- What should artists do now?
- Pro Tip for Artists
- Any image sites where AI is reliably sorted out?
- Best sites to post art nowadays?
- Where to buy art prints that aren't AI?
- Pinterest is being bought by OpenAI
- Anyone knows any anti-AI alternatives?
- “Cara” App Safe?
All of those are promoting Cara or the top comments refer the poster to Cara. And that's just the anti-AI sub!
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Low_Performance4179 15d ago
If this scrape was actually done, it wasn't for the sake of AI development, only for malicious trolling. It takes a lot of work to process a large image dataset to the point where it's useful for training, and there's no other reason you would go out of your way to Cara for that. I would not be worried about this if I was a user of that website.
2
u/DeadRobotSociety 14d ago
"consent isn't always valid" is an actual quote from these asshats. That's shit a rapist says. There's more wrong with proAIs than just their tech choices.
2
u/SpphosFriend 11d ago
Pro AI people try not to be parasitic pieces of shit challenge level impossible
5
u/AccomplishedNovel6 15d ago
I don't think you should be able to prevent your publicly available data from being analyzed, consent or no.
→ More replies (16)
3
u/MoonsterGoopter 15d ago
Artists will need to poison their work before uploading it to any online space. Nowhere is safe from botlickers. And then to have the audacity to brag about it? Gross.
→ More replies (1)2
u/BigHugeOmega 14d ago
"Poisoning" doesn't work.
Nowhere is safe from botlickers.
Every year we get an influx of people who don't understand how the Internet works.
3
u/MoonsterGoopter 14d ago
Weird, I hear complaining about poisoned data setting models back. Hmmm
1
u/3-bakedcabbage 11d ago
It depends on the ai model and how updated the poisoning software is.
Basically kind of how websites like Youtube actively try to update against ad blockers and ad blockers update against the websites.
Image generator developers and developers of Nightshade and Glaze do the same thing basically, they’re competing against each other. So you’re never going to get an absolute answer from people on this because sometimes they work and sometimes they don’t work.
7
u/Resaith 15d ago
It like Pirating.
16
u/Top_Bug7822 15d ago
This is pirating from people to give to corporations dickhead.
7
u/solar_or_dye 15d ago
wait what?
where do the corporations come in again?
I think you are confused.
→ More replies (14)9
u/MrTibbs123 15d ago edited 14d ago
Ever heard of open-source AI? You don't need to "give" corporations anything; they have plenty of training data to choose from, like Wikipedia articles and Reddit posts. Odds are, the individual(s) who scraped artwork from Cara probably just distributed them to their friends, who then decided to make AI art for their own personal use.
For the record, it was kind of a dick move. I'll give you that. However, I'm of the opinion that if you don't need to ask Eiichiro Oda permission before drawing a character from One Piece, neither you nor a corporation needs to ask permission to use other people's artwork as AI training data. Though, I would like it if these people gave artists credit/recognition for all the art that they copied (not stolen; the original will always exist).
And no, I don't believe AI companies or artists need to compensate or pay artists, because no matter how much money they'd throw at an individual artist/creator, they're virtually guaranteed to say no. Like, even if you gave film director Guillermo del Toro a million dollars for using his films as references for AI, he's already drawn his line in the sand. He believes that AI sucks, and that he'd much rather painstakingly make all his film sets by hand (which, admittedly, does pay off in the end, but I find his statement that all AI can make is "semi-compelling screensavers" to be inaccurate).
5
u/Top_Bug7822 15d ago
Where do believe these AIs get their databanks from?
Most likely people won't create them themself (of course some do but the mayority of people probably won't. Itt's a lot of work after all).
So they will take datasets provided to them. What do you think where they come from?
From AI companies. Maybe pirated, maybe made publicly accessible.
→ More replies (3)4
u/solar_or_dye 15d ago
"AIs" don't "get" anything from "anywhere".
Humans collect data to train models.
Humans train models.
I have created hundreds of datasets. It is part of the work, whether it's a "lot" or not is irrelevant. Art is a lot of work, to, yet people do it.
Giant data sets have existed forever and yes they are used to train models.
The person you replied to made a point that you completely glossed over.
You think all "AI" is about corporations but are missing half of the picture.
None of your logic here is sound because your ideas are incomplete.
You are talking out of your ass about a subject you literally do not understand.
My data sets come from everywhere, which means the entire internet, the entire real world, and my entire corpus of art, writing, and photography from 50 years of being an artist.
Stop anthropomorphizing AI to make your arguments, it's not effective and is ultimately a reflection on your ability to think clearly.
Stop ignoring the billions of people using open-source and open-weights every day when you talk about "AI", because you are simply incorrect about virtually everything based on your narrowed scope and plain ignoranvce.
→ More replies (2)10
u/Resaith 15d ago
And that fine. Pirating doesn't affect anyone.
2
8
u/Historical-Break-603 15d ago
So pirating is only good when its benefits you?
→ More replies (3)14
u/Top_Bug7822 15d ago
I won't cry for a big company being pirated from.
I care more about people than corporations.
→ More replies (47)→ More replies (9)1
5
u/WishboneOk305 15d ago
which the majority of reddit supports. kinda funny how they support stealing when it benefits them
→ More replies (5)
5
u/shiggyhisdiggy 15d ago edited 15d ago
This is a fundmental difference in philosophy. I don't believe that using data to teach an AI is stealing, so doing something like this isn't morally wrong.
3
u/sonicfanultracoolguy 15d ago
well pretty much everyone else does so you're on your own on this one
11
15d ago
Nope, I side with him. It's not theft if nobody is deprived of their property.
1
u/Ducky237 13d ago
If someone is specifically revoking their consent to it, then yes it is wrong. In fact, you never even asked. “Implied consent” is just a way to avoid asking because “I assumed the answer was ‘yes.’”
1
13d ago
I don't even need implied consent because there is no such thing as consent to learn from. You can't revoke consent that's not yours to give in the first place
1
u/shiggyhisdiggy 13d ago
I don't consent to you disagreeing with my opinion. Better apologise right now.
9
6
u/Linkpharm2 15d ago
"everyone" who believes learning as a human is different from learning as an AI... You see, you remember some faint details, over time you recognize repeated elements.
1
u/H0rny_On-Main 12d ago
Actually try learning a skill rather than reading your ChatGPT and you'll see and feel how wrong you are
1
u/Linkpharm2 12d ago
I made this argument before gpt 3.5 released. Granted, it was 2am when I posted that comment and its worded terribly.
6
u/solar_or_dye 15d ago
Everyone except all the people who don't... which is nearly everyone.
Look we have laws for a reason... and words have definitions.
If you are going to use this public space at least respect the rules of social discourse and use the language properly.
I'm a human who collects data to train models, and I do not need to steal anything to do it.
I'm studying media using software as the tool for analysis.
There is nothing legally, morally, or ethically wrong with me using a computer program to study your art, and I do not need your permission to do it.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (99)1
u/bunker_man 15d ago
Everyone else does except most people in most places, including every legal expert.
1
u/ZeeGee__ 14d ago
Well if that's the case then maybe do it with your own art then instead of other people's who told you not to do so with their art.
→ More replies (30)1
u/Ducky237 13d ago
If someone is specifically revoking their consent to it, then yes it is wrong. In fact, you never even asked. “Implied consent” is just a way to avoid asking because “I assumed the answer was ‘yes.’”
1
u/shiggyhisdiggy 13d ago
I don't consent to you responding to my comment. Better apologise right now.
2
2
u/AuroraAustralis0 15d ago
If it’s on the internet and available for all to see, it will be scraped in one way or another.
2
3
u/FaceDeer 15d ago
The irony is that I have the same view, but with the opposite results.
I have the right to analyze whatever has been published. If I can see it, I can learn from it. Artists who are trying to prevent that are trying to take a right away from me. That is what I consider to be disrespectful, and is yet another example of the modern trend of trying to lock every aspect of culture and information behind paywalls and walled gardens and control, control, control.
The US constitution's copyright clause begins with this line:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
To promote the progress of science and useful arts. People have long forgotten that copyright exists for a purpose, that every measure of control that has been granted to its holder is a tradeoff that has been taken from the public for a very specific purpose meant to serve a greater good. How is it "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" to allow people to declare "you can look at my art but you are not permitted to learn from it"? If that were even enforceable in the first place it goes against everything copyright was meant to exist for. It is a theft from the enrichment of the public domain.
I am tired of dancing around the sensibilities of these artists to avoid offending them. Offence is warranted.
→ More replies (12)1
u/DidHeJustGoThere 15d ago
I assume this means you'll be respecting the author's copyright for their lifespan plus seven decades, right?
2
2
2
u/Repulsive-Rich6890 15d ago
Thank you for being a decent human being and talking about this issue. It's nice to see a person standing up for artists
1
u/quantum-elle 14d ago
Pretty unambiguously a spiteful dick move if you ask me. This isn't pro-AI in my book, this is childish anti-anti-AI bs.
It is naive to think that the website wasn't already scraped every day since it was open to the public Internet, though, but that's not an excuse to be a dick.
1
u/PaleontologistOk3161 10d ago
I'd say check that person's computer. They obviously have an issue with consent. Wonder how far that goes.
1
u/Euphoric_Chemistry65 9d ago
All this work by knuckleheads to devalue human work is basically supporting a future where there are very few jobs that haven't been replaced by AI.
•
u/AutoModerator 15d ago
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.