Netflix Under Fire for Using AI-Generated Art in New Anime

Tsing

The FPS Review
Staff member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Messages
11,756
Points
83
AI has made plenty of artists mad for allowing just about anyone to generate art with relatively little effort, and Netflix seemingly wants to be part of that growing controversy. The world's leading streamer recently launched a new anime short called the Dog & The Boy, and while the content seems innocent enough (robot dog with boy), it's drawn a lot of controversy because it uses AI-generated artwork for its backgrounds. Netflix says that it decided to try AI because of a labor shortage in the anime industry.

See full article...
 
Luddites be luddites. AI is a tool, a tool's purpose is to make things easier for people. It does not make people suddenly artists. The amount of crap AI art is proof enough of that. You still need a sense for the aesthetics to be able to put out decent AI generated art.

Some "artists" are mad cauze it will be harder for them to monetize their stuff, but if you are truly in it for the art and not to get rich kvik then you can contine making art the old fashioned way.

As for the naysayers who have not made a single piece of art before, but are now complaining, go ahead be an artist if you think it is so easy now.
 
AI art has a huge future, no question. I see no problems with Netflixs actios tbh.
 
I'm not really an AI fan, but I can see the appeal, as long as the end product is good.

The differences between industries sure are interesting.

If AI was used to generate 3d artwork for games, and I mean the whole thing, not just the backgrounds, no one would care as loing as the results were good, but in Anime it is apparently a problem.
 
I don't get the HC anime crowd, they also hated on Ghost in The Shell SAC2045 for being 3D computer animated instead or regularly drawn. Who gives a **** how is it made as long as the end product is good? Anime aren't sausages.
 
I guess its just that people like it, and want to ' maintain' the culture or some such. Same as anything really, meh. Humans move on, its no disrespect or whatever, its just life I guess. I do the same criticism here and there, but in the end I know what's what and normally don't start or join any internet fuss.
 
I don't know anything about this Netflix controversy, but there are copyright issues involved when AI models are trained from human-created content, and those appear anything but resolved. We've already seen this in other domains with projects such as GitHub CoPilot.

As a viewer, I couldn't care less how the art is produced, and I see nothing unethical about the use of AI-generated images per se.

The most fitting way to deal with legal issues that stem from the use of AI is of course to hire a lawyer... a robot lawyer!
An AI robot lawyer was set to argue in court. Real lawyers shut it down. — NPR.org
(The link is not relevant to the Netflix controversy, but too funny not to post.)
 
As a viewer, I couldn't care less how the art is produced, and I see nothing unethical about the use of AI-generated images per se.

The only potential qualm I could think of is that AI doesn't create anything on its own. It uses materials that are fed to it (usually stuff on the Internet) and as such it is a form of derivative work using art made by others which might be copyrighted and who I am guessing have not been compensated for it.

But that is probably not what the Anime fans are complaining about.
 
The only potential qualm I could think of is that AI doesn't create anything on its own. It uses materials that are fed to it (usually stuff on the Internet) and as such it is a form of derivative work using art made by others which might be copyrighted and who I am guessing have not been compensated for it.
Right, and that is exactly the issue I was referring to in my first sentence. ;) But without further information than what is provided from the FPS article, how it applies to the Netflix situation is left as a question mark.
 
Right, and that is exactly the issue I was referring to in my first sentence. ;) But without further information than what is provided from the FPS article, how it applies to the Netflix situation is left as a question mark.

Yeah, I meant to express that comment more along the lines of "I agree, ..." but somehow I left that out :p

Maybe I should comment less from my phone when in the middle of other things :p
 
The only potential qualm I could think of is that AI doesn't create anything on its own. It uses materials that are fed to it (usually stuff on the Internet) and as such it is a form of derivative work using art made by others which might be copyrighted and who I am guessing have not been compensated for it.
That's actually incorrect, but a common misconception. AI software does not contain any of the images, and it does not use the copyrighted images to generate its own. It only uses the abstract latent data what it has learnt during training.

If we replaced the AI with any human artist the accusation of copyright breach would be utterly stupid: "You looked at the Mona Lisa before painting your own picture, you thief!"
 
That's actually incorrect, but a common misconception. AI software does not contain any of the images, and it does not use the copyrighted images to generate its own. It only uses the abstract latent data what it has learnt during training.

If we replaced the AI with any human artist the accusation of copyright breach would be utterly stupid: "You looked at the Mona Lisa before painting your own picture, you thief!"

I disagree. Without human input there can be no original content. It's just an algorithm that mashed together existing stuff and attempts to pass it off as it's own.

It is a fact that it was created by a human that makes it real. Anything a machine algorithm does is just reusing that humans creation in increasingly abstract ways.

As opposed to what its name would suggest, artificial intelligence has no Intelligence, and never will have any integgilgence. It just gets increasingly better at mimicking intelligence. Turing got that one wrong. Fooling a human that it is real does not make it real, no matter how convincing it gets.
 
I disagree. Without human input there can be no original content. It's just an algorithm that mashed together existing stuff and attempts to pass it off as it's own.
I just explained how AI works, you can dislike it, but that won't change the fundamentals of it. When a human artist learns to paint he/she also looks at thousands of works from others, that is not theft, that is learning and getting inspiration.

There is no such thing as truly original content, humans are also incapable of making something from nothing, they can only mix and match what they seen elsewhere. Take our depictions of an "alien" for example. We can not make something truly alien, we can only take elements we already saw in the animal kingdom and mix and match them. This is exactly how AI art works also.
It is a fact that it was created by a human that makes it real.
I don't know what that means. AI art is real and it is here to stay whether some people like it or not. There is no putting the genie back in the bottle. They can put up roadblocks preventing AI assisted art from being copyrighted or monetized, but that only prevents its use in professional circles, but it can no longer be taken away from hobbyists.
Anything a machine algorithm does is just reusing that humans creation in increasingly abstract ways.
I told you it does not reuse anything. After it has been trained, the original imagery that it has learnt from is discarded, poof, gone, no longer there.
When you see AI art that looks almost the same as an original traditional artwork, that is not normal, that was manipulated by a human to make it look similar. And thus it is the human's fault for trying to steal someone else's art. If you just use the AI normally with no malicious intent, it can not accurately recreate any original art that was used in its training. It's like you trying to draw something you saw once from memory.
As opposed to what its name would suggest, artificial intelligence has no Intelligence, and never will have any integgilgence.
And I've been saying that for a decade to doomsday fearmongers. AI has no will or ambitions, outside of what the human controller programs into it.
It just gets increasingly better at mimicking intelligence. Turing got that one wrong. Fooling a human that it is real does not make it real, no matter how convincing it gets.
Yes, but this has nothing to do with AI generated art or whether AI generated art is stealing other people's work.
 
Last edited:
It is a fact that it was created by a human that makes it real. Anything a machine algorithm does is just reusing that humans creation in increasingly abstract ways.
Hmm, this is a good comment.

Could one consider a sunset "art"? Or only a photograph or painting of a sunset?

Aren't humans just reusing creation from nature, in increasingly abstract ways?
 
That's actually incorrect, but a common misconception. AI software does not contain any of the images, and it does not use the copyrighted images to generate its own. It only uses the abstract latent data what it has learnt during training.

If we replaced the AI with any human artist the accusation of copyright breach would be utterly stupid: "You looked at the Mona Lisa before painting your own picture, you thief!"

Well, I guess Valve disagrees:

FB_IMG_1688142894868.jpg

And honestly, if I had my way we would force the industry to destroy all AI models trained on user data without those users explicit consent. (No, an EULA or privacy policy that everyone just scrolls past anyway, wouldn't count)
 
Well, I guess Valve disagrees:

View attachment 2560

And honestly, if I had my way we would force the industry to destroy all AI models trained on user data without those users explicit consent. (No, an EULA or privacy policy that everyone just scrolls past anyway, wouldn't count)
 

Totally missed that one.

It's weird, I look at the news page almost daily, and I did not see that story shared on the front page.

I think the news would be easier to follow if the news page were more linear and chronological.
 
Last edited:
Lawyers scared of AI doing their job and doing whatever they can to prevent it.
Artists pissed that AI can do "art" and want to prevent it.

Pretty sure this story has been written before in the past. Only instead of AI. [insert any industry where a robot/machine replaced it's work force] and we all know how that eventually ended.

AI is the future.
 
Become a Patron!
Back
Top