DeviantArt Is Launching Its Own AI Art Generator

DeviantArt is launching an AI art generator called DreamUp, promising "safe and fair" generation for creators. Engadget reports: The website says one of artists' main concerns about AI art is that their work may be used to train artificial intelligence models, which means the generator could spit out pieces in their style without their consent. In an attempt to give artists control over their work, DeviantArt is giving them the ability to choose whether or not the tool can use their style for direct inspiration. Further, the website is giving them the power to declare whether or not to allow their work to be used in datasets used to train third-party AI models. If they choose not to be included in those datasets, their content pages' HTML files will contain a "noimageai" directive. Also a "noai" directive protects their artwork when media files are directly downloaded from DeviantArt's servers.

"DeviantArt encourages other creator platforms to adopt this approach in order to ensure artists remain able to share their work with online audiences while retaining control over non-human usage," the website wrote in its announcement. Those directives, of course, won't be added to their pages' HTML files if they're cool with their work being used to train AI models. And if they choose to allow DreamUp to use their style as a direct inspiration, they will be "clearly credited" on the output when it's published on DeviantArt. Engadget notes that "all DreamUp submissions will be automatically tagged as #AIArt, and users will be able to choose to see or to hide posts under the topic."

The generator is available for DeviantArt's paid Core subscription plans, but all users can sample the tool with up to five free prompts.

Re: AI is Future

[Type44Q]

AI is Future

It sure as fuck isn't grammar.

Re:

[Tablizer]

AI Grammer Is Best Grammer!

Copyright violation?

[iAmWaySmarterThanYou]

Wouldn't using someone's art without permission to train an "AI" or do anything else) be a copyright violation?

I don't see how having one well behaved "'AI" protects against others' abuse, though.

Re:

[fibonacci8]

Is it any different than rebroadcasting someone else's signal with a high degree of inaccuracy, no attribution, and no license?

Re:

[Gibgezr]

>Is it any different than rebroadcasting someone else's signal with a high degree of inaccuracy, no attribution, and no license?
Yes, completely. There's no storage of the pictures at all. The model is trained on literally BILLIONS of images, and it's just 4Gb. The images are not stored in the model.

Re: Copyright violation?

[hacker_news_rocks]

(Unless it overfit. But we can measure that.)

Re:

[Gibgezr]

Nope, that is EXACTLTY what the model is doing: learning by looking. Just like humans. If your art is open to view on the interne, you have no moral nor legal claim to make against the AI looking at it and learning. The only ethical claim to be made would be if your art was never publicly displayed at all and yet somehow was used for training.

Re:

[alvinrod]

Considering a lot of the stuff on DeviantArt is people posting drawings based off of someone else's original creation or art, I don't know if they'd have a whole lot of room to complain. Also, DeviantArt can change their terms to give them the right to use content hosted in their site in that manner. Otherwise they're just training a computer program to do what their users already do on a regular basis, look at someone else's creation and produce an imitation with their own spin on it.

Re:

[sixsixtysix]

Oddly enough, they'll host all that derivative art, but the minute you try to get them to print it, they'll claim they can't because of copyright.

Re:

[narcc]

You'd think so, but it's a really hard case to make. You don't need second-rate philosophy here, just some basic arithmetic.

A quick back-of-the-envelope: divide the parameters in the model by the number of images in the training set and you'll see that for any of these image generators, almost none of the information in any individual image could possibly be retained. Just a few bytes. The size of the model is fixed, so the more training images you have, the less each can individually contribute.

What end

Re:

[CaptQuark]

I'm thinking the training will be a little more discerning than that. For example, lets say someone wants an AI generated image of a Valkyrie on a blue dragon with lightning in the background. There are only so many images in the AI's training pool to pull "inspiration" for what a Valkyrie looks like. There might be more samples for blue dragons and a huge number for lightning.

If everyone that requests a generated image of a Valkyrie on a blue dragon with lightning in the background ends up with the same

Re:

[narcc]

There are only so many images in the AI's training pool to pull "inspiration" for what a Valkyrie looks like. [...] If everyone that requests a generated image of a Valkyrie on a blue dragon with lightning in the background ends up with the same person's stylized blue dragon,

Having fewer images of a thing just means that the program is less likely to convincingly produce the thing requested.

Remember that there's only room in the model for a few bytes worth of information from any given training image. What ends up being encoded are the similarities between training images, not differences. If there is only one Valkyrie image in the training data, there isn't going to be enough information encoded to produce anything similar, let alone anything you'd call a Valkyrie.

That's why

Re:

[Gibgezr]

Is it a copyright violation if I look at your art (that you publicly posted on the internet) and am inspired by it to paint my own painting?
Legally you can train your AI with any information that is normally publicly available. As far as I can tell, writing "don't use my art for training AI" is not legally binding.
Not that it isn't nice for DeviantArt to do so.

Re:

[Waccoon]

DA doesn't care about copyright. Their TOS specifically says that while artists retain the copyright on their art, DA reserves the right to "use" the art for marketing and promotional purposes, among other things. They don't have to ask for permission to use your art because you already granted it as soon as it was uploaded.

This AI nonsense is just part of a larger problem.

Who's responsible

[khchung]

When these AI generator created child porn, who will be locked up to "protect the children"?

Re:

[alvinrod]

Unless it's creating some very photorealistic images that are confused for an actual human being, probably no one. You can already create a hand drawn doodle of someone raping a baby and despite the fact that it depicts a person having sex with a minor you won't be arrested because there's not any victim.

The more interesting flip side of what you propose is creating an AI that can recognize child exploitation. It would have to be able to in order to reproduce it. There are people who have to moderate soc

Re:Who's responsible

[Iamthecheese]

>You can already create a hand drawn doodle of someone raping a baby and despite the fact that it depicts a person having sex with a minor you won't be arrested because there's not any victim.

This just isn't true. Many people have been arrested for drawing or even writing about sex with children, in various countries including the US. linky [wikipedia.org]

These laws and their enforcement aren't about protecting children, it's been well proven that availability of porn reduces incidents of rape and there's no reason to think CP is different. So anyone who actually cares about children should be welcoming artificially created CP with open arms, the more realistic the better. Instead society continues to fan the flame of the witch hunt, forbidding even honest science around these topics. Children are being harmed RIGHT NOW because of these laws. Not to mention the other laws that make it mandatory to report crimes like viewing CP, thus keeping pedophiles from seeking help. It's about having an other. A two minute hate. An acceptable target for dehumanization. And on the government's side lots of excuses to enforce laws that would otherwise be considered tyrannical. This is where I get downvoted and called a pedo for daring not to participate in the witch hunt.

Re:

[sound+vision]

The guys using the AI will be locked up.

Re:

[dfm3]

It's Deviantart. You can be guaranteed that the users are going to try to generate furry art with "rule 34" solidly in play. Most queries will probably include "Sonic" or "Pokemon".

FINALLY!

[Gravis Zero]

I can't wait for "furry orgy photorealistic" to become an option! ;)

Re:

[dvice]

Copyright does not hold if you create work that is substantially different from the original, even if you used "noai". And if someone claims that you used AI to make your picture, just tell AI to take your picture as input and draw it like a sketch. Then you can show people that you really made is yourself as a original picture, you even have early sketches to show as a proof.

And.....

[drew_92123]

......it sucks.

They have a LONG way to go before it even comes close to what's currently available.

pay the artists a % of the generated art

[elcor]

based on how much it's used in training