Hello fellow Subetans,

recently, I had a dialogue with the staff about using AI art, especially from platforms like Dall-E. I understand and respect Subeta's current policy against AI art, but I also feel there's a significant aspect of this technology that deserves our attention: inclusivity.

AI art is not just about technology; it's about opening doors to creative expression for everyone. Tools like Dall-E are groundbreaking because they allow people who may not have traditional art skills to bring their imaginative ideas to life. Think of all the wonderful and diverse visions that can be shared, the stories that can be told, and the unique perspectives that can be expressed through this medium.

However, I feel there's a broader conversation to be had about AI art and its place (or lack thereof) in our community. AI art technologies, like Dall-E, are evolving rapidly and presenting new possibilities in creative expression. These tools generate original artwork based on learned patterns and styles, offering a unique avenue for those who may not have traditional artistic skills to visually express their ideas. The beauty of AI art lies in its ability to democratize creativity. It provides a platform where everyone, regardless of their artistic training, can participate in visual storytelling. This inclusivity enriches our community, bringing in a tapestry of ideas that might otherwise remain unseen.

I fully acknowledge the concerns about AI art, such as its impact on traditional artists and ethical considerations. These are valid and important discussions. However, by embracing AI art, we're not dismissing traditional art; instead, we're expanding our community's creative landscape. We're saying that there's room for all forms of expression, whether they come from a paintbrush, a digital tablet, or an AI program.

During my conversation with the staff, it was made clear that Subeta maintains a strict policy against AI art, considering it unethical and non-permissible in any form on the platform. While I understand and will adhere to this policy, I couldn't help but feel that this perspective might be overlooking the potential benefits and inclusivity that AI art can bring to the creative process.

I believe that AI art can coexist with traditional art, each offering unique and valuable forms of expression. AI art tools can democratize the creative process, allowing a broader range of people to bring their visions to life. This inclusivity can foster a diverse and vibrant community of creators.

That said, I also understand the concerns about the impact of AI art on traditional artists. These are complex issues that deserve thoughtful discussion.

Thank you for taking the time to read my reflections. I look forward to engaging in a respectful and constructive conversation with you all.

Warm regards, Limbo

As long as "AI" art is scraping art to learn from, it's theft. Artists who put their art online have no choice whether or not you're stealing images and feeding it into a machine. I feel that leaning heavily on "inclusivity" is ignoring this problem. Someone unable to physically make art themselves, and then chooses to scrape all art of a certain style or look and have a computer program the pixels for them, is still stealing art they didn't create, and claiming it's their own. Making this process extremely easy and accessible is still theft.

Edit: And I am proud of Subeta for taking a stance on this. Keith is not blanket-wide against the concept of generative learning or "AI", he has made some comments along the lines of using AI to resize images or even potentially to write code. I'm glad they're prohibiting AI content from CWs and custom pet images. There are people who make this content for real life currency. Flooding the market with items that aren't handrawn will make them worth cents- I could see this seriously affecting CW sales in general, which is one of the only areas Subeta seems to be making money.

Edit 2: Okay, apologies for adding more and more. I'll let others add in before I add anything else after this. On reflection of my last edit, I think even beyond the concept of AI art in general, Subeta specifically stands to lose more than they gain by allowing this content here. Your arguments for AI are general and not Subeta-specific. Is there a part of Subeta you feel like would benefit from user-submitted AI artwork?

please stop pulling the disabled card on this topic; everyone can be an artist and you dont have to go and steal and frankenstein other people's work to make it, you really dont

i'm glad to know subeta's stance on this at least. until we get ai art generator where artists volunteered to have their art generated from, it's a sparkling theft

AI art is theft. It's that simple. There is no special card to play with it, no secret passage around it, and nothing that can justify it.

okay, question. is it theft if i am inspired by other artist's work and incorporate elements of their style into my own? if i draw a pet overlay in "subeta style" did i just steal something? all this time i've been viewing art and learning from it i've been stealing all along...

and i remember when digital art was becoming widely used people held the stance of "it's not real art" and was devaluing "real artists". and those people sound really stupid now.

before someone misconstrues me STEALING ART IS WRONG but i believe there is either some misunderstanding of how AI art is made, or some misunderstanding of what stealing art is. whether that misunderstanding is on my part or theirs i don't know!

Dang bro, didn't know chatgpt could run accounts now

But really though, I don't think any of these points excuse the use of AI, in a more "ethical scenario" or not. There is no inclusivity with this, it's just promoting laziness and theft. Anyone can become an artist, there are countless of people who have disabilities creating AMAZING art. AI is not needed and to say otherwise is such a slap in the face to those of us who have spent years overcoming our own obstacles in an effort to follow our passions.

I don't want to sound lecturing, but this is factually wrong. AI art is not theft. AI models like Dall-E do not directly scrape or copy specific artworks. These models are trained on vast datasets comprising various images and styles, but they do not "steal" individual pieces of art. Instead, they learn general patterns and elements of art styles to create something entirely new. The output is not a replication of any existing work but a unique creation based on a broad understanding of visual concepts.

I want to share a personal perspective that further illustrates the potential of AI art, particularly for people like myself. I have many creative ideas but, like many others, I lack the time, skills, or tools to translate these ideas into visual art. This is where AI can be transformative.

AI art platforms offer people like me the chance to bring our visions to life. For someone unable to engage in traditional art-making due to various constraints, AI provides an accessible alternative. It's not about replacing hand-drawn art or undermining the skills of trained artists. Instead, it's about enabling a wider range of people to participate in visual storytelling and express their creativity.

The use of AI in art can be seen as an extension of the diverse tools and technologies that have always been part of the artistic landscape. Just as photography didn't replace painting, AI-generated art doesn't replace traditional drawing or painting. It simply adds another dimension to the rich tapestry of creative expression.

One example is the pet overlay for sure. We're all storytellers with our pets. For example, my pet Duman. I want him to be a gourmet, i want him to love baklava. But I definitely can't draw a picture of him holding a baklava. So I need to commission an artist and tell them my vision of having the holding a baklava. I would never want to underpay an artist, but I also need to prioritize in my life what I spend money on. And probably I will never commission an artist for Duman, as it's not that important to me. So, my visual storytelling gets lost. If I were allowed to use AI, there would be a possibility of me expressing my vision. So what I think how AI art will benefit Subeta, is that more people can make their pets special. It lowers the boundaries of entrance for self-expression. AI can enhance user engagement and creativity.

It allows everybody to showcase their ideas even if they don't have the artistical skills, the time to learn these skills or also the tools. Inclusivity is not only about disabilities, nobody is playing the disabled card

I do artwork as a hobby and I no longer post online anymore because of the stupid AI stuff. I did not volunteer to have my work used in this manner and as far as I'm concerned it is theft. I'm well aware of how AI works and it is not comparable to a human referencing my work because a human can not produce thousands of images in my exact style within only a few minutes.

There are countless ways to create without stealing from others. Almost anyone can begin to practice and learn art skills if they want. Or you can pay an artist to create something for you.

"AI Art makes sure people without skill or talent can make art" is not being inclusive.

You can still make art. It will be ugly, but you can still make it.

AI art scrapes art from around the internet and doesn't just steal from one person --> Yes, and most artists still do not want computers scraping their art to churn up and make something robotic.

Copyright law exists, and by default every single artist is the copyright holder of the works they create, so...

"These models are trained on vast datasets comprising various images and styles, but they do not "steal" individual pieces of art."

Whose art makes up these databases? Were these artists asked their permission? Were they properly compensated for the use of their copyright protected art being used in training? Are they being compensated for derivative works whose creation has used their hard work? Because the reality is no, they're not being compensated and no, they were not asked for permission. Instead, all of these systems stole other people's work to build from. It doesn't matter if they take some from column a and some from column z and some from row y...all of those parts belonged to someone else.

And framing this as being inclusive as a sly "not supporting AI is ableist" is absolutely ridiculous. Plenty of disabled people can and do create art, in fact, for a lot of them it is their main and only source of income. AI actually hurts a lot of the disabled community and a lot of other marginalized communities. The "I want art but shouldn't have to pay for it" crowd has decided AI is mostly good enough and artists incomes are, across the board, way down. People literally have discussed how they can no longer make ends meet because commissioners have dropped off to work on training AI to replicate their favorite styles.

It is theft. It is harmful. And it is not at all democratizing art or making it inclusive.

I am very glad that Subeta has taken a strong stance against AI on this site and has respected their artists (both staff and users).

And just so we're clear - I am not an artist. I cannot make halfway decent art to save my life. I have tried, I have learned, it still is not good. But instead of using systems that steal from others, I budget for art when I want it and buy it from people who have put their time and effort into learning and making art in styles I like. Could AI benefit me? Sure, at the expense of others which I'm unwilling to do.

Like many of you, I have a rich imagination for my pets, envisioning unique traits and stories for them. However, there's a hurdle I face – bringing these ideas into visual form. I'm not an artist in the traditional sense, and despite my best efforts, this is unlikely to change. There have been enough Arts & Crafts teachers in my life to confirm this. Yes, theoretically I could go to a dozen art schools and learn, but in practicality I won't ever, let's be frank about this. The reality is, to visually express my ideas for my pets, I'd need to commission artists for each one of them. While I fully support fair compensation for artists' work, realistically, this isn't feasible for me. Financial priorities and practicalities mean that commissioning art for every pet I own is not an option.

So, what happens in reality is: my creative vision for my pets remains unseen. I don't prioritize the art enough to pay for it or to become an artist. They won't get their unique overlays, and the stories I imagine for them remain untold.

And this is where AI is beneficial for engaging the user base. Giving everyone the opportunity for visual storytelling. We are here to express ourselves, to tell stories, that is what makes these pet sites great. AI art helps people ease into visual storytelling who couldn't before. Probably a lot of people would engage more visual storytelling with their pets, if this roadblock is diminished. And that's what we're here for.

I don't want to attack actual artists with this statement, but this is not deviantart, this is not an art market. The argument that artists need to be able to sell something here, doesn't add up to me. Subeta is, at its heart, a pet website, a place where we come to tell stories and express ourselves through our virtual pets. Enabling more people to participate in this visual storytelling enriches our community. It's about fostering a space for expression. Reducing the barriers to creating art for our pets could lead to a more engaged, vibrant community.

And I think you're gatekeeping.

"vast datasets comprising various images and styles," This is the theft part. We are all considering this theft. The sheer number of images doesn't change that they were taken and used without the artist's permission.

"I would never want to underpay an artist, but I also need to prioritize in my life what I spend money on. And probably I will never commission an artist for Duman, as it's not that important to me. So, my visual storytelling gets lost."

So you'd rather end an artists ability to be commissioned at all? Because making art is not important to you, but you want the end result. Again, specific to Subeta: allowing AI is going to completely displace artists who do the art themselves and are commissioned by others. You'd prefer to disrupt the entire CW and pet custom market to make your pet something you can throw together in no time at all, specifically because it's not important to you?

Edit: "I don't want to attack actual artists with this statement, but this is not deviantart, this is not an art market. The argument that artists need to be able to sell something here, doesn't add up to me."

1. It's not up to you whether or not people can use Subeta as an art market, and 2) using AI art never happens in a bubble. Using it displaces art commissions across the board everywhere, not just in one place.

You can use buzzwords like accessibility and gatekeeping all you want, but you still haven't actually shown that having instant gratification for your own imagination is worth disrupting Subeta's art culture. Your argument now still equates to making art is not important to you. Why should we cater to someone who feels it's not their priority to create? What exactly are you being held back from if you don't find it worthwhile to write or draw for yourself, even though, by your own words, you're perfectly able to? That's not gatekeeping. Or perhaps we are "gatekeeping" theft, which I'm fine with.

Personally, I don't think learning from artists is stealing at all! You're still making your artwork yourself. My favorite way to make art is to use inspiration and style ideas from art I see around me, past and present. I love using different styles and trying vastly different methods based on what others do. And I've always been a big digital artists and I've heard a lot of disdain for digital art in general, so I know what you're talking about. My thought is that, though the medium is digital, I am still making my own art. I can imitate brushstrokes or use pixels, but I'm making the creative decisions. One can of course argue that if I can sit down and perfectly recreate a Picasso painting by brush, I still made that painting, even if there is a new layer of ethical dillema if I try to say that is a real Picasso. That to me, feels different than making a program that does the learning, the "inspiration" and the actual creation for you. If you're not spending the time to think, decide, and create, is it even your art? I do like these discussions and they'll always be relevant.

Philosophically, hypothetically, etc, I also like to imagine when computers will actually reach true artificial intelligence. I am a sci-fi nut and I'm already totally onboard with them being their own unique entities, essentially their own people. And maybe someday they will start saying, hello- you programmed me to make art through generative machine learning, and I actually did it, that's not yours! And then the artists who rely on AI art will just have to reckon with both the people who create art, and the programs they formerly used to create art, saying "stop stealing from us." xD

Regarding AI art and copyright law, it's crucial to differentiate between viewing content and using it for direct reproduction. When artists upload their work online, it indeed becomes viewable by the public, including AI training models. These models 'view' or 'analyze' the artwork to learn patterns, styles, and elements of art. This process is more akin to a person viewing and learning from art rather than copying or directly using the art.

AI models do not replicate specific pieces of art; instead, they generate new creations inspired by a wide array of visual inputs. This is a key point that often leads to misunderstandings about AI art. The models are designed to create original works based on learned concepts, not to produce direct copies of existing art.

I think they key misconception here: It's not frankenstein-ing something together out of different artists illustrations. It learns "if person says dog they wanna see this shape"

I'm not personally concerned about how any artist manages their life, no. I want artists to be paid fairly, and have jobs, of course, but maybe Subeta is not the "industry" to profit as an artist. As i said, the emphasis of this website should not be an art market, but a pet website. So yes, I would like to disrupt the pet custom market as it is, as I think artists should not need to make their living on Subeta.

That is why I opened this debate, I do want to challenge the "true artist's authority" here. Does Subeta have to be an art market? Or can it be a place where everybody can express their vision even if they don't have the artistic skills?

But per the closing of the topic, whatever..