Forum - View topic

INTEREST: Shinchosha Publishes AI-Drawn Manga

SHD wrote:

....?? "Or what" should be my question, my friend. How exactly did you go from "AI doesn't interpret creatively, it's like a dog blindly responding to commands"

Because I feel it's a moral judgment, that's all.
From my own point of view it's a technological achievement and should be praised, not vilified. Again, it's the use that matters.

Stealing = physically remove the item/whatever from circulation. Best case (but the law is not up to par) would be unauthorized use or reproduction, not stealing.

If it doesn't have any success, nobody will use it to sell something made with it. But we need a law that says that they need to have a BIG RED STICKER "An AI has been used to create this work" on their work.

If you think that "AI is a machine that doesn't have any inspiration or creativity of its own and thus is not doing a conscious effort at producing art, instead it's mechanically mixing elements according to a set of triggers and an algorithm, ergo any result it produces cannot be regarded as the same as an artist being inspired by others' art" is a moral judgement then I think I have to remind you that as far as we are aware AI are not considered a sentient lifeform yet, no matter what certain Google developers may think.

Hell, it has less creative vision than those zoo animals who produce "art" by randomly smashing a brush against a white canvas, because at least those animals can make a conscious decision to say, use the red paint instead of blue, because for whatever reason that appeals to them more. AI doesn't understand the concept of "this appeals to me".

tl;dr: MT/AI translation has evolved enough that it's capable under the right circumstances(!!!) but what it's doing is not the result of any creative and conscious work. It's a dog bringing toys to its trainer, but it can't tell why it's doing it, what the trainer wants, or whether it's even doing a good job without being explicitly told so.

We didn't just grab a database of text lying around and used it without its owners' permission (or without any quality check, for that matter).

Sophism = what you just did above.

ATastySub wrote:

Stealing others work is not a groundbreaking new achievement. Unethically, and illegally, using others work for their own profit is an extremely old practice and it sure is weird how many people want to view that as praise worthy while shitting on the work that was stolen.

Stealing = physically remove the item/whatever from circulation. Best case (but the law is not up to par) would be unauthorized use or reproduction, not stealing.
It's actually the same fallacy as piracy = stealing.

Aside from all the arguments about whether this is morally acceptable or the death of art as we know it or whatever, I'm kinda surprised it got published, given it looks... quite bad, even by AI art standards. They tried to disguise it by using an indistinct and mushy art style, but even the sample pages (presumably some of the best ones) are full of bizarre shapes and general weirdness. Just look at this one. Disintegrating arms and feet, a nose that looks like it was glued on, some sort of incomprehensible device vaguely shaped like a gun, and what is even happening in that last panel? Was she shot by a melt-ray?

Unethical training sets aside(and yes they ARE unethical), AI works have been ruled to not be able to be copyrighted in the USA. Honestly many companies might not want to go this route because it'll be open season on piracy.

I can see this being useful for people who can't draw but have stories in their head and want to produce comics.

Then they should write a novel.

Aside from all the arguments about whether this is morally acceptable or the death of art as we know it or whatever, I'm kinda surprised it got published, given it looks... quite bad, even by AI art standards. They tried to disguise it by using an indistinct and mushy art style, but even the sample pages (presumably some of the best ones) are full of bizarre shapes and general weirdness. Just look at this one. Disintegrating arms and feet, a nose that looks like it was glued on, some sort of incomprehensible device vaguely shaped like a gun, and what is even happening in that last panel? Was she shot by a melt-ray?

Most likely, this was published because it's AI art--it's a hot new gimmick, and controversy is, as always, free advertising. Making something good and consistent--and not freaky unintentional surrealism--with AI remains extremely difficult, because none of the current techniques use anything like "intelligence." They're just blending existing artworks together using word association, with no comprehension of what the words mean or what art is meant to depict. Apps for morphing multiple faces into one existed 20 years ago; this is just a more advanced version, with more inputs and more potential for copyright infringement.

OK, I think people are mixing up why exactly AI art is bad. It's not that "AI is a machine so anything it creates is soulless," because, as others have mentioned, plenty of artists use machines/technology to create their art.

Just like how you see a lot of translation companies nowadays choosing to underpay their translators by hiring them as "editors" to edit terrible machine translations (when doing so is actually more taxing on the translator since they have to fix all the mistakes compared to just translating themselves), you're seeing the same thing in the art world now where big corporations are choosing to go with AI art as a cost cutting measure. They do not actually think AI art is better, they just know it's cheaper.