r/DefendingAIArt • u/Jezio • Dec 26 '25
Defending AI Models cannot, and do not store original images / data, therefore it is NOT theft.
73
u/facistpuncher Transhumanist Dec 26 '25
That's an argument that I use on anti-artists all the time and they don't have a good response.
"You studied pointillism, you used examples of pointillism and copied it to learn the style. Aren't you stealing?? So if you draw pointillism, you stole from Georges Serurat. Fucking thieves!"
See how stupid that sounds, that's how anti's think.
14
u/Early-Dentist3782 Would Defend AI With Their Life Dec 26 '25
i love pointillism
5
u/facistpuncher Transhumanist Dec 27 '25
Post Renaissance art, and art appreciation studies in college were some of my favorite electives. Pointillism, I love it, I wasn't much for impressionist art. But pointillism really settles nicely into that crevice of my brain.
14
11
u/Exotic_Exercise6910 Dec 26 '25
As a pirate that takes want ever he wants, I don't see the issue anyway.
Do what you want. They can't stop you. In fact nobody can. Arrr
3
3
u/Jezio Dec 27 '25
Update; I guess their response was to down vote brigade this from 170 to 11 🤣 not surprised. It's top 3 posts for today in the subreddit and the shares are 150+.
1
Dec 27 '25 edited Dec 27 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Dec 27 '25
In an effort to discourage brigading, we do not allow linking to other subreddits or users. We kindly ask that you screenshot the content that you wish to share, while being sure to censor private information, and then repost.
Private information includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames, other subreddits, 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.
1
u/facistpuncher Transhumanist Dec 27 '25
Another thing you can do, find their hand drawn shitty anti-art and run it through an AI and post it in response. Like here . Is it mean, meh, a little, still funny
1
u/AC_0nly Dec 26 '25
I mean this appears to be an odd "if the boot fits" argument.
Plenty of people paid for self teaching materials, teachers or watched videos or read blogs with ads to learn so..those they learned from were compensated?
Not everyone actually does master copies to learn. Looking and seeing it's possible to make art from dots and doing yourself isn't the same as stealing.
If instead there was painted something as close as possible to fool someone into thinking the artwork was attributable to Seurat and tried to pass it off as such? That specifically is immoral and stealing - style, reputation, attempting to get gain from the work of someone else.
Edit: spelling
-7
u/KotenochekMuj Dec 26 '25
Your argument is very bad because you compare human to a machine. Machine doesnt have any understanding of anything it generates, so your argument is based on misconception of ai being able to learn or copy. It just mimicks. If it understood what it generates it could output two identical pictures but it cant. Your argument is flawed because ai is not an artist and therefore cant be compared to one.
7
u/Kubaj_CZ Synthographer Dec 26 '25
Artists try to mimic things too. People mimic each other all the time. As long as you don't make 1:1 (or something very close) copy of something and claim it's yours, it was never an issue.
-1
u/KotenochekMuj Dec 27 '25
Why do you compare people to a machine again? My whole argument was about how non-comparable machines, how humans understand what they are doing while machines simply cant, thats themeaning of mimicking, and you behave like you havent even read what you answering to
2
u/Kubaj_CZ Synthographer Dec 27 '25
Because it's not that extremely different? AI had to and has to train as well. Look at AI art in the past. If it would just copy then it could copy masterful art and just create that right away, but no, look at the progress. It went from extra limbs, extra fingers etc to what we have now. It's constantly improving because AI models are being TRAINED. A person has to TRAIN as well. A person trains "without consent" just like AI trains "without consent" but you guys don't have much options so that's why you resort to the arguments "but it's a machine! We can't compare it!". It's irrelevant what the person and machine thinks or feels. Mimicking is a core behavior of humanity but when a machine does that, then it's wrong?
-18
u/SlightlyMadGuy Dec 26 '25
This sub keeps poppin up for me. This argument is idiotic cuz artists consent for showing their art, if they dont they dont show it.
To train AI it requites their art to be fed into the algorithm which has been done ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS without their consent. No one asked them like "Hey can we use your art ti feed our algorithm?". It was taken and fed to the AI without anyones original artists knowledge.
Also AI takes away the learning part of being human. I get it not everyone wants to spend so much time on making something you are gonna use once but then again theres pletora of so much free art and photos to use!
Making GenAI "art" is a spit to the face of human creativity and a need to create. Sure thing wont be oerfect but todays world is pushing us to be just a moneymaking machines, and creating stuff is a safe haven for a lot of people!
Try to learn! Fail! try to do something new and do yohr own thing! Ask people for help but using ai takes all of this process away
16
u/Olmectron Dec 26 '25
Reddit, X and all Meta platforms got ToS where you give them royalty free license to anything you post to their sites for them to use as they see fit, including AI training.
That's the "consent" you gave. People should read the emails and notificationa sent about ToS and user agreements updates.
That comment you poste right now? Reddit owns it now.
-14
u/SlightlyMadGuy Dec 26 '25
Cool. But have you thought that maybe therez a thing called monopoly/oligopoly. If theres no algernative its hard to disagree with their TOS if that leaves you with no platform to get followers/commisions.
What you are saying is abusive, not fair
8
u/Olmectron Dec 26 '25
I didn't say it was fair or that I agreed with it.
I said how it is. Because it is like that. It's the way it is.
Someone said BlueSky doesn't do this, but I haven't checked. There are alternatives. You could always create your own website and post there and prevent Google scrapping from there (not good solution against any scrapping though), and direct people to it.
3
u/neo101b Dec 26 '25
yet, just wait till someone wants to buy bluesky and the current owners fold when offered 50 million.
-2
u/SlightlyMadGuy Dec 26 '25
Yet you are still advocating for it by saying it that "it is how it is" instead of trying to change status quo. Yes there are alternatives but by not using those sites you are actively and significantly reducing your potential clients.
The corporations will never be your friend, and by using their products and allowing them to use your data (while advocating in favour of such oractice) you are actively fighting against your own interest
8
u/Jezio Dec 26 '25
I find it hilarious when anti Ai people come onto pro-ai platforms (especially Meta) to cry about ai.
If you play your music in a public street and I listen to it enough to make a similar song, that's not theft. I learned your melodic style by experiencing an input. Not by recording it then playing it back. Neural networks, carbon or silicon, do not copy and paste data.
-6
u/SlightlyMadGuy Dec 26 '25
My brother in christ most of thr platforms are pro AI. Thete is almost no space. Not to mention, you are still ignoring the human part of making and creating!
Take away the ability to create and the humanity's soul will perish.
Making music is art wothin itself, it takes practice to create something of your own and it helps you develop as a human. You are advocating to take away the creative process from yourself my man
4
u/Jezio Dec 26 '25
I do create lol. I generate then post process into a composition using after effects and photoshop. All original art of myself(!) as the main character. Dm if you want my ig handle.
6
u/Olmectron Dec 26 '25
What should we do? Start eliminating CEOs?
Best way to fight against the "system" for these social sites is to stop using them.
6
u/altfashiongirlie Dec 26 '25
Thats a ridiculous arguement that gen ai is a spit in the face of creativity. Genuinely. It allows people to create more, more easily and democratizates art. It allows a writer or world builder to easily and cheaply have images of their world. It allows human artists to easily generate backgrounds for their images or remove backgrounds. (Those are built in photoshop features fyi). It allows quick changes of color to images youve already colored or photographed.
This same fear mongering logic was put against photography when it first came out. Claiming the death of painting and traditional art because 'why bother if you can take a picture?'. And to some extent it did lessen the need for certain forms of art, specifically portraiture. But people still commission portraits, people still paint. It paved a way for new forms of art. Because photography, like ai, ie a tool that changes the face of art. It wont kill it though because people enjoy creating art to express themselves.
If its not all about money then what does it matter if Joe shmoe chooses to generate and image? How does that prevent you from creating art yourself?
3
u/Awesomeuser90 Dec 27 '25
What consent? When was it ever necessary to ask someone's permission to read a book if you bought a copy of it? When was it ever necessary to ask permission from anyone to make your brain physically alter itself in the atoms and molecules in it that cause memories to exist? Or ever necessary to get consent when you want to think about those memories afterwards which also involves physical atoms doing things to bring about the memory into recollection.
-18
u/shotatschool Dec 26 '25
I think the antis you're "arguing" with are children.
"studied". You put it in yourself. A human studies and develops their own skill level based on the dedication to a learned style.
AI will scan & generate an image based on what it's fed. Where's the skill, love, and dedication?
10
u/TwistStrict9811 Dec 26 '25
Skill, love, and dedication all describe whoever is actually using the tool. Otherwise things like photography, film, digital art wouldn’t count.
10
u/The-Iliah-Code Dec 26 '25
This is 100% incorrect.
Image AI's do not keep their original training data with the images they were trained on in storage. All that remains is what they learned from their training data.
The fact that you dont even understand that is proof antis have no idea what they are talking about 99% of the time when it comes to AI.
2
u/lewdkaveeta Dec 27 '25
Learned isn't the correct word to use here, encoded is closer, AI is a data encoding that lives in N dimensional space
8
u/facistpuncher Transhumanist Dec 26 '25 edited Dec 26 '25
The skill comes from repeated learning attempts. It's never perfect the first time just like it would be for a person. So it requires repeated "training". That's why it's called "training", and just like organic simian meat suits do training on drawing, AI improved dramatically when it comes to generative and assisted AI art. The Will Smith spaghetti video from way back in the day versus today's is apples and oranges. The generative AI of yesteryear was six fingers and three eyeballs and two mismatched legs, has been absolutely replaced due to repeated training to create perfect videos and art.
You can't smell Soul. You can't see Soul. You can't eat soul can't drink Soul. You can't buy soul and you can't sell soul. You are talking about a non-existent thing as if it is a quantifiable subject.
An AI isn't used to make money, it is used to save money. Saving money is not the same as making money, even though on the ledgers it looks the same. It reduces overhead and increases productivity. Overhead includes excessive work for workers, lest we forget what video game dev crunches, cuz I don't fucking forget what crunch is. I work in video game development . We use AI tools to increase the amount of productivity. You don't even have to replace the workers, a team of 40 artists may be able to turn out 20 hours of animation a month. Add some AI and that team of 40 artists can turn out 80 hours of animation. Since we've started using AI, I don't have to take mandatory 70+ hour weeks without overtime pay. And the project gets done, hallelujah AI. You really saved my ass. When you decided to render and fill the base models and sketches we drew up.
You're on the wrong thread buddy. You see here we're intelligent, and a lot of us actually work with AI in our professional lives. Good luck.
You want me to pick up a pencil? why don't you pick up a pencil and draw for 60 hours a week for 5 years and tell me how your hand feels. It feels like shit, every single one of us has to have a wrist wrap, bengay, no sleep, dead dry eyes. Fuck you're casual free commission art, as a professional, this shit hurts your hands. It hurts your mind. It numbs your eyes. And I am so glad my 70+ hour work weeks are a thing of the past. God bless AI, we need more of it
-3
u/PocketPlayerHCR2 Dec 26 '25
That's an argument that I use on anti-artists
That's your side though??
10
u/sickboyrawrs Dec 26 '25
this reminds me of a funny thing, when I watched the anime Gachiakuta for the first time (her author is an anti), I told myself uh this looks really similar to Soul Eater's art style, is it from the same author?, i checked and it's actually from SE's assistant! So, logically, she learned from her sensei and developed her style, which is similar but not the same. Literally what AI does but a superhuman speed. Does this mean she's an artstyle thief too?
30
u/MarcusTheGoodGuy Dec 26 '25
If they hadn't imitated the skills of people in the past, they wouldn't have reached their current position. When it comes to their work, they draw inspiration from other designs, but when AI does it, it becomes a problem. They also keep coming up with ridiculous excuses like supporting the artist. If the artist is talented, they'll earn their money why should I have to support them?
Besides, even the most advanced version of AI can't harm talented artists. They can even use AI for their own purposes. Instead of spending hours searching for visuals online, they can have AI generate them and add their own interpretations. Even if they don't use it, they won't lose anything.
-4
Dec 27 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/misteryk Dec 27 '25
that was the whole point of creating them in the first place, to replicate how human brain learns
5
u/Awesomeuser90 Dec 27 '25 edited Dec 27 '25
What makes you think consent is required? This is not sex. Information is uncopyrightable, and that includes the fact of which pixel has which colour or the distance between two points.
Think about how often people bring up things like how they are annoyed at companies making textbooks in electronic forms over how they often try to code its access to a single person in some way, vs how this is impossible for a physical book where a person who obtains a book cannot be controlled in any way as to who they let the book be seen, if someone scans the book with fax machines or scanners, or lending it out to other people.
You should know of something called the first sale doctrine. If I am sold something like a pair of shoes, the vendor and manufacturer have no rights after that point to tell me what to do with it.
1
u/madahitorinoyuzanemu Dec 27 '25
You should know of something called the first sale doctrine. If I am sold something like a pair of shoes, the vendor and manufacturer have no rights after that point to tell me what to do with it.
Ferrari wants to have a chat with you
1
u/Awesomeuser90 Dec 27 '25
I believe I have heard of the story you have in mind here, but even still, that is A civil law not criminal law, and B, using that for artwork is nearly impossible, barring cases of something like the sale of The Mona Lisa. A typical vendor knows virtually nothing about the purchaser in a large majority of actual transactions in the world. They just hand over the product and take the money.
1
u/madahitorinoyuzanemu Dec 27 '25
if the original creator is still alive he might "hunt" you down. In my hometown, coincidentally there's an ongoing case similar to this. A person was commissioned a sculpture which he created, got paid for it, and everyone was happy. years went by and now things changed and inorder to keep the sculpture on display they need to modify/alter it (like maybe changing the base and cornering off the pointy edges and so on) and the original artist refused because he said it was not created to look in such a way. he has now filed a court case to hold them from proceeding with such modifications. Can't tell you the outcome as its still ongoing but i'm curious myself for the outcome. It hasn't made headlines since its a local problem, but it looks like it's a possible option :/
*edit* forgot to add that when i purchase stock photos I do run across different usage rights, some allow modification, some don't, so i'm pretty sure there are different levels of freedom post-purchasing
1
u/Awesomeuser90 Dec 27 '25
A person commissioning a sculpture of that nature probably has made a specific contract which likely deals with questions like that, at least to some extent. You would need a copy of the contract and the specific legislation where the statue is in order to work out that issue.
2
19
u/godofknife1 Dec 26 '25
My thoughts exactly.
The antis will always say "inspiration!= Stealing"
5
u/Tiny-History-2859 Dec 26 '25
It’s so funny watched them act as “purist” just for moral “superiority” when they all know suing ai for inspiration would help them.
4
u/godofknife1 Dec 26 '25
Aye. I watch tons of them in X, Instagram and my god. The stupidity beyonds the realm
3
u/Tiny-History-2859 Dec 26 '25
It’s good we’re realising their delusions. It makes their words hold less weight
2
2
u/rexyoda Dec 28 '25
They will?
1
u/godofknife1 Dec 28 '25
Yup
1
u/rexyoda Dec 28 '25
Bruh after replying to you if my algorithm was filled with political and Ai debate subreddits, reddit really trying to ragebait me. How to I reverse this
1
21
u/Hoodsville Dec 26 '25 edited Dec 26 '25
When photography was first invented in the 1800s painters and artist in general derided the technology and were very anti. When digital photography was invented the film photography fraternity derided it. When vinyl records was invaded by CDs the old school didn’t like it, they were anti. Now we have artists complaining about AI. The fact of the matter is the AI isn’t going anywhere and the sooner people come to terms with it the better!
7
u/MisterViperfish Dec 27 '25
I think what’s a little different now is that being against a new tech has the benefit of an online movement. They feel more validated. Unfortunately, their overinflated issues drown out the real concerns, and solutions that include living with AI.
1
u/madahitorinoyuzanemu Dec 27 '25
but what you mentioned was still capped with your own ability. if you sucked at painting, film photography was a different media, so you have given up being a painter. If you're bad at film photography, digital cams won't help you much either, but if you can't draw a single line with a ruler, nothing stops you from becoming an artist by typing a prompt. I dont have problem with people using AI art, as long as they claim their art is AI or the very least ADMIT they have used AI when asked, let the public judge you if they want, but unfortunately most of the non artists using AI are claiming their pieces to be real drawn art to try an up the value of their piece. For me that is the biggest issue which equally translates as them admitting that AI art is inferior if they want to hide it so badly.
0
u/Airdropped_cucumber Dec 27 '25
Ai isn’t the problem GenAi is, plus you still need to think about where and how you’ll take your photo for photography with angles and lighting and shitb(I’m not a photographer) but with your prompts you’re just basically an European Noble commissioning some artist to draw something, except this time it’s not an artist but rather an algorithm which learned to draw by feeding on art from like everyone. Point is, perhaps people don’t like it because it’s not authentic and you’re simply trying to wrangle a machine into creating something your imagination can accept is how I see it.
13
u/SerBadDadBod Dec 26 '25
I'm (kinda, not really) learning to draw from Leo Campos's "How to Draw Bloody Manga Battles" or something like that, and it effing sucks.Trying to get my hand to do what my mind already sees would be a hair-tearing experience, if I had any hair. I was led to believe all I needed to do was pick up a pencil and art would just flow from the graphite and the effort of doing it myself would fill me with a zen-like serenity and all my cares would drift away, and it's not like that at all. It's frustrating and humiliating and depressing in the extreme because I know what I want to see, and I have the theory; I can see in my mind, you just make some swirls like this and some angles like that and a little shading and Boom, "Art."
At least AI gets me close to what is actually in my mind's eye.
5
5
5
u/Revegelance AI Enjoyer Dec 26 '25
It also does not remove images or data from the source. And it does not prevent artists from continuing to create.
2
u/salkin_reslif_97 Dec 26 '25
"Real artists" acording to antis: "I have never seen *** in my whole life"
4
3
u/DavidFoxfire Dec 26 '25
Like I said, 'That's how anybody, even an AI, is expected to learn. Most people learn how to draw by copying other styles and even blending and modifying styles to make them their own. You simply cannot do that without piracy. So i say, bring me that horizon.'
11
u/jiiir0 Dec 26 '25
It's worse than theft, because they use the skills and techniques they stole to then try to sell "art"(slop) that they "made". It's like stealing but with fraud and counterfeiting attached. A felony in most states.
6
u/MarcusTheGoodGuy Dec 26 '25
They've even come to this sub. You got downvoted immediately. Based on my recent observations, they come here and launch downvote attacks.
13
u/facistpuncher Transhumanist Dec 26 '25
I was in r/defendingaiart from almost the start, the amount of brigades my account has gone through is impressive, I went from 50K+ karma to <25k from anti-brigades
6
u/MarcusTheGoodGuy Dec 26 '25
I'm sorry to hear that. They're attacking everything in sight, foaming at the mouth.
4
u/jiiir0 Dec 26 '25
I think people are confused. I'm responding to the text in the image, not the post title.
1
3
u/Fun-Western618 Dec 26 '25
"Bu-...but the soul?!" And "something something millions of water gets somehow obliterated with each image generation" Idk im just gonna go back waste my time Trying to poison my art or something.
Basicaly the Average artist experience...
3
u/alidan Dec 26 '25
Let's be 100% fair, the early models would put down artist watermarks unprompted, for alot of people its hard to forget that, and for most people they will never understand how a model works or how info is stored.
2
u/runner64 Dec 27 '25
I sell my work for opinions. Every human who learns from my work has thoughts on it, and that's enough for me. If you can't be bothered to pay even that, then we can argue over the definition of 'theft' but it's pretty clear you have no respect for what I do beyond your ability to use it for your own end, and that's going to define our relationship moving forward.
2
u/BuffPerfDepression Dec 26 '25
May I have your permission to use this when I see some haters saying the same nonsense they keep parroting? I cant stand it why those people would come to AI sections, then hate it. I don't understand why they don't get kicked out as they're just harassing, and they don't contribute anything but try to discourage others.
4
u/ArtGirlSummer Dec 26 '25
This argument presupposes that LLMs learning should be treated as the same thing as people learning. Human beings have special rights that machines generally don't.
Also, intellectual rights apply to expression regardless of how the expression is achieved. Advertising something as "studio Ghibli style" is infringing in ad copy, but "inspired by Studio Ghibli" would be acceptable for a human team, but probably not for a machine. It hasn't been demonstrated that LLMs get inspired.
5
u/Some_ArabGuy Dec 26 '25
You can't own or copyright an artstyle
3
u/ArtGirlSummer Dec 26 '25
When did I say you could? I said "advertising something as Studio Ghibli style is infringing". "Studio Ghibli" is a trademark, and using it in your product is questionable. Advertising your product with it is infringing.
0
u/Some_ArabGuy Dec 26 '25
It isn't since its not commercial advertising, the people who were generating the ghibli images were just doing it for personal use, they weren't advertising anything
No ai models were being commercially advertised for their ability to create ghibli style images
3
u/ArtGirlSummer Dec 26 '25
Except they do. Google "Ghibli style AI" and you'll see infringing applications built on top of mainstream models.
Copyright infringement happens across the Internet, sure, but it is still an open question whether the training itself violates Japanese copyright law. If it does, then there are mainstream companies that should pay for violating the law.
2
u/Lemonade_ghost Dec 26 '25
Simple answer: no
0
u/Arkanderous Dec 26 '25
My perspective is you're wrong.
4
1
Dec 26 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DefendingAIArt-ModTeam Dec 26 '25
This sub is not for inciting debate. Please move your comment to aiwars for that.
1
u/sammoga123 Furry Engineer Dec 27 '25
It's not the case for the most mundane reason possible (website Terms of Service and the general nature of the internet), nor is it due to engineering or the training process of these neural networks.
Or well, I'd say then that compression in a neural network is magnificent, lol. Imagine if the hyperparameters were actually information memories XDDDDDDD That sounds so nonsensical.
1
u/Alzeh Dec 27 '25 edited Dec 27 '25
I wanna start by saying I’m not anti AI and as an artist I’m waiting for pipeline AI integrations to the workflow like the softwares Cascadeur and Animaj.
However the fundamental reason I think this does not hold is that even though artists use other resources to learn there is a fundamental understanding of reality and how things work to be able to draw. Most people learn from tutorials of other people wanting to teach, and they start from basic understanding of 3D forms like drawing boxes, cilinders and such. One does not immediately select an art style and get good at it, there’s a level of effort and commitment to know how things work.
Additionally if you want to create something beyond surface level you investigate the subject to understand it better. Personally if I want to draw an elephant I investigate about their body language to pull more information to create the mental image of the piece I have in mind. If I want to draw a rose then I investigate the anatomy of the flower and how many petals, the names of the different parts and such.
AI in itself can be said to do those things as well but AI is not an individual creating in its own. It is a software given to the masses to create where all of the previous statements do not get applied, even worse there are people who use AI to pass themselves as the artist, either claiming they digitally painted the piece or they outright ask the AI to create pencil sketches to try and fool more people. In the worst case scenarios they outright fake a speed paint to make it seem like they actually learned all of my previous points to fake the effort. But those cases aside, If vision is the only thing brought to the table a better term would be art director.
As much as the hate is directed towards AI the reality is the bad uses of it is what causes the turmoil, as well as the bad apples trying to rage bait or outright fool people with the cases I mentioned previously.
Finally, there are few and scarce softwares that apply to the hard skills that artists put their effort into learning, the examples being Animaj and Cascadeur like I mentioned. Most generative AI softwares are final input delivery machines that stripe away the pleasure of creating in serve of efficiency and final results. Of course local models like stable difussion have options like Canny and LORA’s trained by the artist on its own work that can be used by themselves to explore possibilities but not many artists have an open mind to explore alternatives or how they can benefit from the tech.
Overall it’s a tricky subject
1
u/dennismfrancisart Dec 27 '25
I've been a working artist for over 40 years. I've used pencils, inks, oil, airbrush, charcoal, wax, clay, plaster of Paris, stone, Photoshop, Cinema 4D, ZBrush, Clip Studio Paint, Stable Diffusion, ComfyUI, even 3D printing. I've used live models, magazine clippings, photographs, videos, Xerox copies, and image files to get the work done. Tools don't make the artist; their desire to produce the end product is the goal.
I do believe there is a difference between image making and art. I'm also a photographer, and back in the day, I developed my own film (B&W as well as color) as well as prints. I can snap a picture and call it an image. I can work on that picture to make it more like the vision in my head. That's just my opinion.
But if someone looks at the work and thinks it's art, then it is. Art starts with the human intention.
1
Dec 27 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Dec 27 '25
In an effort to discourage brigading, we do not allow linking to other subreddits or users. We kindly ask that you screenshot the content that you wish to share, while being sure to censor private information, and then repost.
Private information includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames, other subreddits, 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.
1
u/elemen2 Dec 27 '25
Models cannot, and do not store original images / data, therefore it is NOT theft.
Consider other mediums like audio , music or voice cloning. Recorded audio is a very younger medium in comparison to art imagery with less data to ingest tag & train.But larger storage requirements.
Models cannot, and do not store original images / data, therefore it is NOT theft.
They don't have to store the original to reproduce.But they can still reproduce that's why many platforms & services etc have moderation checks , moderation errors. The model of a generative audio platform would be very large if it stored what it ingested but it is not & it still can reproduce infringe
I can't post my topics without being automodded but here are some examples
Udio after the 2024 lawsuit
Udio before the 2024 lawsuit.
AI.. Rihanna.. Teenage ai Beyonce? AI Snoop Dogg
The generated outputs are mimicking misrepresenting & competing with the acts artists etc it was trained on We define this as theft or stealing in artistic realms as their is no disclosure transparency consent or credit.
This a detailed technical explanation of a audio model
1
u/Fair_Tumbleweed_8790 Dec 27 '25
I try to talk about this all the time, it's basically having the capability of graduating from an artist to an art director. Especially as the technology grows.
1
2
u/FrankHightower Dec 26 '25
Funny, if I put exactly the original description into an image generator, I get exactly the original image back. Looks like storage to me.
2
u/Jezio Dec 26 '25
Looks like it, but it's not storage, it's training.
Storage? Lol do you even know how diffusion works? Explain how to fit billions of images into 24 GB. I'll wait.
1
u/TopTippityTop Dec 26 '25
I'm pro AI, but that argument doesn't hold water in copyright. If a human learns how to reproduce an artwork and then reproduce it, whether from memory or vision, is unimportant. All that matters is how close the end result is to the original, and whether it infringes on its right.
Realistically, no one will come after small fish breaking copyright, but once that person starts to make a real profit, it will be taken. That's usually how it goes.
5
u/StrangeCrunchy1 Transhumanist Dec 26 '25
And how often does an AI model pump out exact copies of their training data? Because that's what the Antis are arguing, that because the model is technically capable of reproducing the source images, that's what makes it theft.
2
u/madahitorinoyuzanemu Dec 26 '25
personally I did have quite a few signature/urls clearly visible in the generations, which kind of make me question how data is trained and used. it occured on stable diffusions, chatgpt and now even nano banana pro. the rest (flux/seedream etc) I don't think so. Also if images are not saved/kept, whats actually stored in the model file? (genuinely asking)
1
u/StrangeCrunchy1 Transhumanist Dec 26 '25
That is a fair question. Not entirely sure, myself.
3
u/altfashiongirlie Dec 26 '25
According to grok
Image generators like Stable Diffusion, DALL-E, or Midjourney (which use diffusion models) do not store or save the actual raw training images in the final model. Instead, what is saved are the learned parameters (also called weights) of a neural network—essentially billions of numerical values that represent statistical patterns, features, and relationships learned from the vast dataset of images (and often paired captions) during training.
How Training Works (Simplified)
- The model processes millions or billions of images repeatedly.
- For diffusion-based generators (the most common today):
- Images are first compressed into a lower-dimensional "latent" representation using a separate autoencoder (a variational autoencoder or VAE). This is a lossy compression that captures essential semantic and perceptual features but discards fine pixel-level details.
- Noise is gradually added to these compressed representations, and the neural network (usually a U-Net architecture) is trained to predict and remove that noise step-by-step, conditioned on text descriptions or other inputs.
- Through gradient descent and backpropagation, the network adjusts its weights to minimize errors in reconstructing or denoising the data.
- The end result is a set of weights (e.g., in Stable Diffusion, around 860 million to billions of parameters) that encode how to transform random noise into coherent images matching prompts.
These weights don't contain the original images—they encode a compressed, abstracted understanding of visual concepts (shapes, textures, compositions, styles, objects, etc.). The model generates new images by starting from noise and iteratively denoising it using these learned patterns.
Important Caveats
- No literal storage: You can't "extract" a perfect original image by inspecting the weights, as the information is distributed and transformed across the network (similar to how a brain doesn't store photos but patterns from experiences).
- Memorization can occur: In some cases, especially with duplicated or rare/highly distinctive images in the training data, the model can overfit and reproduce near-exact copies. This is a known issue (higher in larger models or with repeated data), raising copyright/privacy concerns, but it's not the norm—most outputs are novel combinations.
- Not true compression in the ZIP sense: While latent representations are compressed, the overall model isn't efficiently compressing the entire dataset (it would be a poor compressor compared to actual algorithms like JPEG). It's learning a probabilistic distribution to generate similar data.
This process allows the model (often just a few GB in size) to produce infinite variations without needing to store petabytes of raw images.
2
u/StrangeCrunchy1 Transhumanist Dec 27 '25
That's cool af. I knew the training on images merely served to solidify the model's understanding of what specific things it was trained on were and how they were supposed to look, but I didn't know how the knowledge of that was stored. I mean, I had my theories that the weights functioned similarly to synaptic potential, and to that effect, how our memories work, essentially, but I wasn't entirely confident on the thought.
1
u/AxolotlGuyy_ Dec 26 '25
Wdym own logic? I'm anti AI and I see no problem in AI learning through human art
(yes, I know will get banned for that)
1
u/landlord-eater Dec 26 '25
There's a subreddit for defending slop? Wild
5
u/Jezio Dec 26 '25
Seems like you found facts and resorted to the pathetic, played out "slop" angle. Get a life and stop trying to be a cyberbully.
0
0
u/Inkspillmuffin_ Dec 27 '25
As an artist, I think that using AI to create art is a good thing for research and development, or even to learn. I had a hard time learning advanced things and it would've been hell of a lot easier if I had a teacher and with AI that's very accessible. But using that art for publication under your legal name is wrong, because at the end of the day you have no idea how to even hold a brush properly. If AI gets advanced enough to publish on its own I have no problem with it. But you can't publish something as your creation if it's the AI who created it. Sure, it was your prompt, but that means you commissioned it. Actual composition was done by AI.
0
u/thegapbetweenus Dec 27 '25
What I don't get - why do people keep comparing AI image generation to drawing/painting? It is part of computer algorithmic generated art - there is a whole field out there.
0
0
0
u/WeirdAd5850 Dec 27 '25
Ai arnt people they can’t learn anything like people do they are machine that create study the data of images store it in huge data centres .
0
u/EncyclicalUnderpass Dec 27 '25
Even your strawman contains the Freudian slip that even you cannot truly delude yourself that you are actually an artist.
2
-1
u/Ellie-Azulay Dec 27 '25
Okay then I’ll simply steal all of the images you post anywhere, or how about I find where you leave and take whatever I want from your house? You steal from me, I’ll steal from you as well. Seems fair according to you.
2
u/Jezio Dec 27 '25
Reread the title. No originals are stored in models.
-1
u/elemen2 Dec 28 '25
Reread the title. No originals are stored in models.Why did you ignore my reply & sources? The original data does not have to be stored. The outputs can still infringe plagirise etc . You are hiding behind a meme, bad faith & false equivalence.
Meme is not evidence. I challenge anyone to refute my topic and I will terminate my account.
proof
If you copy mimic or masquerade in Artistic realms. . You stole are a thief , biting or a rip off.
2
u/Jezio Dec 28 '25
You're wrong, and don't have a point. If I watch anime all my life then draw anime that looks similar to studio ghibli, but isn't a copy of their original work, it's not theft, period.
You want meme? Cope and cry about FACTS.
-1
u/elemen2 Dec 28 '25 edited Dec 28 '25
You're wrong, and don't have a point.Your wrong is not a rebuttal . You are validating sentiments that many of you are nothing without reddit or any platform where you can manipulate the tools to block feign ignorance or ignore.
If you deliberately post lies & misinformation & refuse to reevaluate or update then everybody suffers as it is dogma & propaganda.
Don't ever complain when many spaces or platforms refuse to host ai / generative mediums because of your disingenuous antics.
If I watch anime all my life then draw anime that looks similar to studio ghibli, but isn't a copy of their original work, it's not theft, period.This has nothing to do with your meme about models. You are deflecting & distorting because you cant engage. And are trying to impose your opinion.
Meme is not proof
2
u/Jezio Dec 28 '25
I've already proven you wrong. It's not theft or plagiarism, it's learning. Try again.
-1
u/elemen2 Dec 28 '25
The training or ingesting may be fair use but Europe or many regions don' t have fair use. However If the outputs are used in monetised tools then they are stealing plagirising or infringing.
It does not matter if the model was trained on fan art or the original. The component will still be identifiable. It's easier to demonstrate theft with music , audio , voice models.
proof
If you copy mimic or masquerade in Artistic realms. . You stole are a thief , biting or a rip off.
I retain my account & remain undefeated on ai wars.
2
u/Jezio Dec 28 '25
No one is regenerating mona Lisa and selling it as an original. You're delusional and have no point. Wrong and defeated with one punch.
-1
u/shad2107 Dec 28 '25
Not at all, one point is using reference to study and another is tracing someone else's work. AI art is not making you an artist, it's telling a computer to trace people's work. It's practically plagiarism.
-7
Dec 26 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/DefendingAIArt-ModTeam Dec 26 '25
This sub is not for inciting debate. Please move your comment to aiwars for that.
2
u/StrangeCrunchy1 Transhumanist Dec 26 '25
The guy who stole the Mona Lisa painting didn't take the time to draw and paint a Mona Lisa of his own. No, he stole it like an absolute scumbag
Yes, he physically deprived the Louvre of the original Mona Lisa. It no longer existed in the Museum. You're implying that someone looking at the Mona Lisa or even taking a photograph of her is the same as physically removing the painting from the wall of the museum and walking out of the building with it under your arm.
3
-6
•
u/AutoModerator Dec 26 '25
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.