Krita Looking More At GPU Acceleration & AI In 2024

[byteabit]

Why should human artists be allowed to scrape other artists' work and take inspiration from them, using tools such as the web browser (e.g. on an artist site), but human developers who created an AI to automatically scrape it (just a different tool than a web browser...) should not be allowed to use their tool?

Because that's not the same. Automated scraping is not the same as a human learning and getting inspired by.That's a human right. A tool that does scrape the web and save it in a database does not have the same rights. And no, an AI tool is not just a different tool than a web browser. You have some wild claims that are nonsense to me and lack of basic rights and copyright. The difference is, that the human who uses the tool does not have full control and knowledge about what is truly happening, and cannot lookup the source where the scraped data comes from. An AI does not learn like a human and does not understand.

I've used generative AI tools and they are filled with copyright infringing stuff. Just like a human would have stolen art and made some adjustments. I am not against the AI technology, but against scraping and using others work without proper credit. If every generated art would include credit for everything it is using, then this would be at least an attempt to be okay, because not every art has a license that allows this.

[rabcor]

They're fucking late with the gpu acceleration, they are so fucking late...

[cj.wijtmans]

is the AI local or is it in the cloud, AKA, spyware?

[Vistaus]

poor Krita devs have to spend most of their time porting to new things

Less so than GIMP devs, lol.

[Weasel]

Because that's not the same. Automated scraping is not the same as a human learning and getting inspired by.That's a human right. A tool that does scrape the web and save it in a database does not have the same rights.

Why not? It's merely a tool for its creator to do the same.

Just stop, your arguments are beyond luddite level.

"Mom, I hate it that the new tool replaces my job. Please ban it" basically. And some idiots in some countries comply.

I've used generative AI tools and they are filled with copyright infringing stuff.

Ok, if a human is not allowed to get inspiration or use that image, then I agree, AI shouldn't either. After all, the AI creator should have the same rights—not more—than an artist. This is the case with Microsoft's Copilot which uses GPL code. A normal human developer can't, and so the AI shouldn't be allowed to, either.

In this case, I do agree. But again, if human artist is allowed to, so should the AI.

Not more rights. And not less. The same.

[byteabit]

Why not? It's merely a tool for its creator to do the same.

"Mom, I hate it that the new tool replaces my job. Please ban it" basically.

You didn't understand anything. Our discussion has absolutely nothing to do with replacing jobs. It's like, at your level of thinking, when I would have argued "Look there is free content I can use to monetize". See how you look with such and argumentation?

the AI creator should have the same rights—not more—than an artist. This is the case with Microsoft's Copilot which uses GPL code.

No, because there is no source for the used GPL code produced by the AI. The creator using an AI tool should not have the same rights as someone who writes code or creates arts on its own. It's like taking Mario 3d files and making (random) adjustments.

But again, if human artist is allowed to, so should the AI.

No, because AI does not have same rights as a human. It's like telling me "if a human is allowed to do this, then the dog should too, because the dog is doing what the human tells him". With an AI tool we lose control, no human can control where the source came from, that's not even possible with hidden AI mechanics and data (from end user perspective). We should not create tools to "encourage" infringements of rights. And making themselves slaves of AI tools, instead being creative.

I am not against AI in general:

Mind you, I am not against AI, as you misinterpret my replies. I am against AI that is trained on data they don't have the rights to. If the repositories of images, videos and code is disclosed as being allowed to train AI, then I am not against it (even though it would have problems on its own). Especially when we are talking about generative AI. Supportive AI like understanding code passages and listing files or searching files, comparing images and such is fine for me for the most part.

[ssokolow]

No, because there is no source for the used GPL code produced by the AI. The creator using an AI tool should not have the same rights as someone who writes code or creates arts on its own. It's like taking Mario 3d files and making (random) adjustments.

There is already work in that direction via avenues like Retrieval Augmented Generation... though I think it's generally more concerned with ensuring that things like ChatGPT can cite their sources.

Mind you, I am not against humans, as you misinterpret my replies. I am against humans that are trained on data they don't have the rights to. If the repositories of images, videos and code is disclosed as being allowed to train humans, then I am not against it (even though it would have problems on its own). Especially when we are talking about painters. Academics like professors is fine for me for the most part.

Does the minimal degree of search-and-replace here help to show why Weasel disagrees with you?

Copyright already has a distinction between infringement and inspiration, and yet human neural networks are clearly "being trained on" the works they learn from... especially when they're trying to replicate an existing art style rather than deciding to be avant garde and try to create a new one ex nihilo.

Hell, there are entire court battles over whether someone knowingly copied someone else's song and whether those songs are similar enough for it to count. That's a big part of why I don't experiment with making music. Too risky.

[Weasel]

You didn't understand anything. Our discussion has absolutely nothing to do with replacing jobs. It's like, at your level of thinking, when I would have argued "Look there is free content I can use to monetize". See how you look with such and argumentation?

WTF are you talking about? We're talking about the AI training on such data versus an artist looking at it and "learning" it. Nobody gives a shit about the generation that comes afterwards.

No, because there is no source for the used GPL code produced by the AI. The creator using an AI tool should not have the same rights as someone who writes code or creates arts on its own. It's like taking Mario 3d files and making (random) adjustments.

You obviously completely missed the point. I said the AI should not be allowed to look at GPL code unless the resulting code it spits out is under the GPL.

I don't see what's hard for you to grasp? Just replace the damn AI in my sentence with "human" and see what happens. Is a human allowed to look at GPL code and then write it back identically and place it under a different license?

No.

So why should the AI or its creator be?

I said same rights. Not more. Not less. i.e. Microsoft's Copilot is illegal, in my opinion.

No, because AI does not have same rights as a human. It's like telling me "if a human is allowed to do this, then the dog should too, because the dog is doing what the human tells him". With an AI tool we lose control, no human can control where the source came from, that's not even possible with hidden AI mechanics and data (from end user perspective). We should not create tools to "encourage" infringements of rights. And making themselves slaves of AI tools, instead being creative.

The developer of the AI has the same rights as a fucking artist. If the dog in your analogy truly was able to follow orders exactly then yes, the dog should have the same rights. Or rather, it would just be considered a tool for the owner.

When a dog bites someone, who takes responsibility? The owner. Nobody cares about the dog. The owner is a freaking human.

Get the hell over it.

Mind you, I am not against AI, as you misinterpret my replies. I am against AI that is trained on data they don't have the rights to. If the repositories of images, videos and code is disclosed as being allowed to train AI, then I am not against it (even though it would have problems on its own). Especially when we are talking about generative AI. Supportive AI like understanding code passages and listing files or searching files, comparing images and such is fine for me for the most part.

I mean I agree with that, if by "rights to" you include other humans. Same as with GPL code.

If a human artist does not have the rights to take inspiration from something and produce similar results, then the AI (or rather its developer) shouldn't be allowed to, either. I never said the AI dev should be privileged.

Here's a super simplified analogy of what I said I'm against: I copy paste manually so I'm allowed to do that because I do it manually like a true artist, but a tool doing it automatically is not!!!!

[byteabit]

Just replace the damn AI in my sentence with "human" and see what happens..

That's the thing you don't understand. Humans aren't replaced by AI, because the AI does not operate on its own. It requires a human to be used. And that's the problem. A human using an AI have no control, no source, no knowledge where the data come from and if it is allowed to be used. The problem is not the fucking AI, it's the data it is trained on.

If a human artist does not have the rights to take inspiration from something and produce similar results, then the AI (or rather its developer) shouldn't be allowed to, either.

No, because a human has human rights, the tools don't have. We are allowed to read as many books as we want, but photographing all magazines and books in a shop and then at home to use whatever parts you want is not allowed. That is what an AI does, just even worse with a much greater scale. Tools that automate processes do not have the same rights as a human doing it manually and this should not change with AI.

[Weasel]

That's the thing you don't understand.

No, that's the thing YOU don't understand as always. I asked you to press CTRL+R on your freaking text editor in my post and search for "AI" in my sentence and replace it with "human".

Do you need special rights to do that?

No, because a human has human rights, the tools don't have.

The user of the tool does.

We are allowed to read as many books as we want, but photographing all magazines and books in a shop and then at home to use whatever parts you want is not allowed. That is what an AI does, just even worse with a much greater scale. Tools that automate processes do not have the same rights as a human doing it manually and this should not change with AI.

I don't know where you live, but that's the dumbest law I have ever witnessed if that's true.

In normal cases, note that photographing it is an issue because it makes a copy. You're allowed to read the book for entertainment but you are NOT allowed to write the same book yourself after from your own memory, so your argument has no standing, because reality literally proves my point. That's what "copyright" is about. Note that it's "copyright" not "humanright". Derp.