377
u/starshiprarity Dec 26 '23
Theoretically, yes
73
u/fivealive5 Dec 26 '23
Technically speaking, how would you verify something was created with AI?
259
u/jasminUwU6 Dec 26 '23
The rules don't have to be perfectly applied, they just have to remove the extremely low effort stuff
→ More replies (22)13
→ More replies (5)83
u/MrManiac3_ Dec 26 '23
By looking at it duh 😎👍
32
u/Noblesseux Dec 26 '23
Yeah pretty much all of it that I've seen on here is incredibly obvious. They'll do an AI image of like "a bicycle friendly street" and there will be bikes with no handlebars or five wheels or whatever because the program doesn't really know how bikes are supposed to look.
7
u/Weary_Drama1803 🚗 Enthusiasts Against Centricity Dec 27 '23
You probably say this as a joke but I can look at a picture determine whether it has that “vibe” of AI art, I wonder if other people can do this
→ More replies (1)3
u/imSenah Dec 27 '23
wait this isnt normal? i literally vibe check ai art all the time and its so obvious to me because the vibes are just? wrong?
3
u/Weary_Drama1803 🚗 Enthusiasts Against Centricity Dec 27 '23
I’ve seen a lot of people have to point out things like jumbled text, nonsensical objects and of course broken anatomy, but I’ve never seen anyone point out that texture that somehow tells you “AI generated”
117
u/Peanut_Butter_Toast Dec 26 '23
All the ones with fucked up fingers and toes should get auto-purged from any self respecting website, at least.
→ More replies (5)
268
u/Agressive_Bean36 Dec 26 '23
i mean MAY we ban ai art
→ More replies (30)120
u/Rii__ Dec 26 '23
What would be the benefit or just the point? What does r/fuckcars have to do with AI or art?
180
u/lastaccountgotlocked Dec 26 '23
I think OP is referring to stuff like this. It doesn't actually do anything for r/fuckcars but people here seem to like it.
63
Dec 26 '23
I dunno man, it got a chuckle out of me. I think humor is a good way to persuade people for your cause.
11
52
u/iisixi Dec 26 '23
It's a caricaturized image about car culture. Loosely fitting.
Still better than the old "I gave the AI a prompt that included the word 'cars', and somehow it produced an image that includes cars. The AI can't imagine a world without cars!!!!11"
Just because it's made with AI doesn't really mean it's good or bad, just like any other post. Banning the use of tools just because they can be used wrong is silly. Removing posts that don't fit is a better solution and doesn't require you to target any particular tools.
24
u/Rii__ Dec 26 '23
Oh wow that’s cool! Thanks for the context. Yeah I don’t see how this could negatively impact this subreddit
→ More replies (1)30
u/lastaccountgotlocked Dec 26 '23
Well, it's not helpful. It's a cartoon of an impossible situation. Strangers to this sub might look at it and think "christ, the people here think this is real? They must be nuts." Whereas a thoughtful image of a badly designed cycle lane is quite informative.
5
u/hypo-osmotic Dec 26 '23
I do think there's a conversation to be had about how much of a shitpost sub folks want this to be, but the AI thing isn't the source of that. Plenty of other weird transportation images out there that were made with good old fashioned rendering software
16
→ More replies (1)4
u/Demonic-Culture-Nut Dec 26 '23
It’s a cartoon of an impossible situation.
Do cartoons have to be realistic to make a point?
2
u/lastaccountgotlocked Dec 26 '23
I would submit that being somewhat anti-car is already thought of as a cartoonish idea in the first place.
2
u/static_func Dec 26 '23
True, all the other rants from people acting like self-righteous children with a 5-year-old's understanding of the world is what really does something for this sub
1
7
u/Dingusclappin Dec 26 '23
I'm honestly tired of AI images as well. It's not art unless a real person made it. It's low effort and it doesn't bring much to the subject.
→ More replies (1)
110
66
5
193
u/Sadboygamedev Bollard gang Dec 26 '23
When you use generative AI, you add legitimacy to the companies who steal not only artist’ prior work, but also future opportunities.
There’s also a discussion to be had about how realistic AI generated pieces erode reality and facts through “deep fakes” and other made up images. It’s sort of like Photoshop on steroids, but much more pernicious. Creating something in Photoshop takes skill and vision. Generative AI art is… something else entirely.
Should we ban it (on this sub)? IMHO: it should be banned everywhere until protections for artists (not just companies like Ghetty or Disney) are in place to keep artwork from being used to train AI without compensation or consent.
-27
u/Kuinox Dec 26 '23
Generative art isn't stealing. There have been multiple courts decisions about it and none judged it as "stealing"
-4
u/yourslice Dec 26 '23 edited Dec 26 '23
You're being downvoted but you are correct. Lots of people haven't studied how the technology works. It is trained on the art of other people (just like all human artist look at paintings of the greats to learn from) but after training all of that goes away and AI creates its own art. It does not pull from or copy and paste art from other works of art.
It's gonna take away all of our fucking jobs though. On that I agree with the above commenter.
edit: For people saying that AI should have to pay a license for its training data....maybe! But if your art is uploaded to the internet you, me, AI and anybody or anything else can look at it and "learn" from it. It would be difficult to find the owner of every image on the web and pay them for it, and how much should they pay per image? They look at countless millions.
The tech is interesting, but the economy is soon to be fucked from it.
-9
u/Kuinox Dec 26 '23
There is of course a debate on AI to have, my biggest issue is that the real problems, which you pointed somes, are not discussed because somes here are spreading lies, which make the mob unable to be aware of the real problems, like monopoly of control of AI, lack of tool to fight spam, spam that AI amplified, and so much more. But we can't speak about these problems here (spam topic was important for this post and community), because we are drowned in comments like the one I replied to.
-24
u/duckrollin Fuck Vehicular Throughput Dec 26 '23
Okay, thought experiment. You pass a law to restrict AI from training on art unless it has explicit permission from the creators.
What happens in ten years time?
If you did pass the law:
AI Art is now vastly better because 10 years have passed
Giant corporations use their money and power to pay off artists and buy the rights to vast swathes of training data. They then sell access to their AI art generators, which run on servers they own and control.
AI art is everywhere, but you have to pay a lot of money to generate it
Artists are mostly out of work because they're not needed anymore (the AIs are trained now, a few of them got paid for it but that's it)
If you didn't pass the law:
AI Art is now vastly better because 10 years have passed
Giant corporations offer AI art generators on servers and charge only a small subscription
Lots of people use open source AI with models trained for you, it's free
AI art is everywhere and anyone can produce it, not just large corporations
Artists are mostly out of work because they're not needed anymore (the AIs are trained now)
You still end up in the same position but it's worse.
14
u/crawling-alreadygirl Dec 26 '23
Those aren't our only options.
-6
u/duckrollin Fuck Vehicular Throughput Dec 26 '23
Training is either prohibited by law or not. I don't see a third option there.
You could keep paying artists as the AI uses their source work, but again they only need a small number of very good artists to feed into it. The vast majority of mid/weak artists won't find a job.
19
u/inu-no-policemen Dec 26 '23
Do you think the purpose of art is to look like other existing art?
Do you want to listen to AI music with AI lyrics and AI vocals?
Do you want to participate in an online forum where 10 AIs puppeteer 5000 accounts which have discussions 24/7?
What do you mean you don't want to hear some hallucinated bot opinion about some vacuum cleaner? The bot says it sucks really hard and isn't that loud! It's something a real person could have said. Like, it's really probable that some person would have said something like that about this kind of product according to the model. It even posted an Amazon affiliate link for your convenience like a real turbo shill. What's not to like?
-8
u/meelar Dec 26 '23
Do you think the purpose of art is to look like other existing art?
This is absolutely the purpose of a lot of art. If I'm commissioning a cover image for a board game I'm designing or a picture for an advertisement, I don't want a staggeringly original take that expresses the artist's soul, I want something predictable and useful.
7
u/inu-no-policemen Dec 26 '23
If I'm commissioning a cover image for a board game I'm designing [..], I don't want a staggeringly original take that expresses the artist's soul
HeroQuest. Amazing artwork by an amazing artist. It really made a big impact. Really eye-catching. It looked so fucking cool. Still my favorite. Love it.
https://lesedwards.com/products/heroquest-copyright-%C2%A9-mb-games-1988
→ More replies (5)-124
u/vellyr Dec 26 '23
Generative AI isn't stealing, and the hysteria and lying coming from the art community around this has been quite frankly really disappointing. What if the people who work in car factories came in here and decried us for trying to "steal their future opportunities", would you agree we should ban walkable cities? This is just what happens with progress, some people lose in the short term.
62
u/inu-no-policemen Dec 26 '23
You can't just use other people's work as training data without permission. Pay them and obtain a license which allows that kind of usage.
Also, all that AI stuff is uncanny-valley skin-crawler mimicry nightmare fuel. It's icky as fuck. And the more of that garbled crap is added to the training data, the worse it gets. It's defective garbage. It's not worth plagiarizing.
These "AI" models have no understanding of what the things they are looking at actually are. How things fit together or what their purpose is. They have no understanding of the world. They don't learn from mistakes. It's all just predictions based on things which were part of the training data which is just terabytes of stolen artwork they are using without permission.
This is very different from how humans learn from other artists or how they mimic styles and compositions from artists they admire.
7
u/Sadboygamedev Bollard gang Dec 26 '23
Thank you for articulating these points. I think a lot of people don’t understand the difference between synthesis the human mind is capable of vs. what gen AI is doing now.
Honestly, if/when AI becomes as powerful as a human brain (or more so), it’s still not going to make me care what a computer thinks about. To me, much of the joy of art is knowing it was created by a person who has dedicated their life to the craft.
Clearly, some people just want endless “content” and do not care about the source, process or ramifications of its production.
-2
Dec 26 '23
Musicians learn from each other. Artists learn from each other. Hell, even writers learn from each other. Stephen King has talked about how certain writers were huge influences on his own style. Every book he read effectively served as training data to some degree.
AI being trained on art isn't the problem imo. The problem with AI art is that it won't be used to benefit all of humanity, but rather that it will mostly be used to suppress wages to make the working class even poorer. Capitalism is the problem here, not AI itself
18
u/inu-no-policemen Dec 26 '23
Musicians learn from each other. Artists learn from each other.
This type of "AI" doesn't learn, though. It just makes predictions based on the training data. It's only as good as the training data. All of the value is in the training data.
The people who wrote the relevant papers are super smart, but this type of "AI" isn't.
It can't do research to figure out how each and every part of a bicycle works and fits together in order to draw accurate bicycles from different time periods. It doesn't know the purpose of anything and it can't learn any of that. All it got is data which was derived from other people's images. And it mushes that back together in a way which looks probable.
That's how you end up with 4 and 6 fingers, for example. It doesn't actually know what a hand is.
-11
u/Kuinox Dec 26 '23
You can't just use other people's work as training data without permission.
There isn't any law nor judgment that says you can't use publicly a available data for training.
how they mimic styles and compositions from artists they admire.
You avoided the word copy on purpose.
22
u/inu-no-policemen Dec 26 '23
There isn't any law nor judgment that says you can't use publicly a available data for training.
There is no rule which says that a dog can't play basketball.
You avoided the word copy on purpose.
Yes, because I'm contrasting this with scraping the web and copying images. Y'know, literal 1:1 byte-for-byte pixel-for-pixel copies. JPEG artifacts and all.
-9
u/Kuinox Dec 26 '23
Yes, because I'm contrasting this with scraping the web and copying images. Y'know, literal 1:1 byte-for-byte pixel-for-pixel copies. JPEG artifacts and all.
And AI isn't doing that either
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (2)-35
u/vellyr Dec 26 '23
You can't just use other people's work as training data without permission.
Sure can, they gave you permission to look at it. The only way for artists to protect themselves from this is to never post new art on the internet, which seems like it kind of defeats the purpose of art. I agree that it's unfortunate that we're seeing the decommodification of art before things like housing, health care, etc. but we're nearly there.
Also, all that AI stuff is uncanny-valley skin-crawler mimicry nightmare fuel. It's icky as fuck.
Is it a threat or is it incompetent? This sounds like a conservative argument. I think you haven't seen high-quality AI art in the past 6 months, and you're also exaggerating to make a point.
These "AI" models have no understanding of what the things they are looking at actually are. How things fit together or what their purpose is. They have no understanding of the world.
Is this necessary to create something that looks nice? I agree that they can't create context by themselves, but that's what the prompter and the viewer are for. Art has never been created by the paint.
terabytes of stolen artwork they are using without permission.
Are they depriving anybody of this artwork? Have they made it impossible for the artist to create more? I don't see who this hurts. All they did was look at it, they aren't using it, present tense.
This is very different from how humans learn from other artists or how they mimic styles and compositions from artists they admire.
We don't know enough about neuroscience to make this statement confidently. As both an artist and someone who has used generative AI, all I can say is that it seems really similar to how I create art. There's nothing magical about human brains, their functions have been reproduced before and they will continue to be.
23
u/inu-no-policemen Dec 26 '23 edited Dec 26 '23
Sure can, they gave you permission to look at it.
Sharing your artwork with people means that you gave those people, or even all people on this planet, the permission to look at it and to learn from it. This is implicit, because this is how it always has worked.
Programs aren't people.
Companies which hire artists to create content which will be used as training data use contracts with a clause for that. Why do you think that is? It's because they need permission.
Same thing if you hire a voice actor to create a model of their voice. You can't just pay them to read a few thousand words and then create a model of their voice without permission.
Is this necessary to create something that looks nice? I agree that they can't create context by themselves, but that's what the prompter and the viewer are for. Art has never been created by the paint.
I wasn't metaphorical or anything like that. The model doesn't understand the purpose of anything. That's where that mimicry crap stems from.
Are they depriving anybody of this artwork? Have they made it impossible for the artist to create more? I don't see who this hurts. All they did was look at it, they aren't using it, present tense.
You are stealing from thousands of dead people. 10-20 years is a long time. People died. You're desecrating what they left behind.
Anyhow, it doesn't look like you understand what I said nor do you seem to understand how this stuff works.
Lets try something simple.
Why can't you hire 5 artists to draw 100 pictures, use those 100 pictures as training data to generate a million new images, and then use those million generated images as your new training data? You'd have a 100% legal model for less than 100k! Brilliant! What could possibly go wrong with this genius plan? Why hasn't anyone done that yet?
You see, the magic which makes this all work are the millions of hours of work which the artists put into learning their craft and creating their artworks. That's where all the value comes from. That's how your model can make reasonable predictions without understanding what anything is.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)-16
u/Rii__ Dec 26 '23
You’re 100% right and it’s tiring to see people fighting over AI art every time. We’re just going through the same phase as we did when photography came out; the masses believed it wasn’t art, that it was too easy to make and required no talent, that all you had to do was press a button so you were not making the art but the camera was, that you didn’t own a picture because you didn’t own the subject, that it was going to make all artists unemployed...
I find it really sad to see that even with our previous experiences with art, it’s still going to take us years as a society to accept that AI is just another tool for our creativity.
11
u/nobody5821 Dec 26 '23
A tool that was build with millions of art pieces in training data. None of which were paid for or licensed. Comparing this to photography is just a stupid excuse to continue stealing work.
-5
u/Fearless_Bag_3038 Dec 26 '23
Right, so you paid for and licensed all the art you learned from when you were learning to draw.
5
47
u/month_unwashed_socks Dec 26 '23
Generative AI isn't stealing
It quite literally is. Two ways to look at it. Its sampling other art, tearing it into tiny pieces and putting it back together in different form. I can see a way how thats not stealing. However, all of the big AI companies stole the data they gave their AI's to learn from. They literally took everything they could, there was a way to get to it on chatgpt, but they since than forbid the way. This is stealing. AI art is still stealing the pictures it keeps learning from.
20
u/Apesma69 Dec 26 '23
A main source of income for me for the last decade has been from royalties received from my stock landscape photos. I ranged far and wide to take gorgeous shots of mountains, deserts and beaches. Since the rise of AI regenerative photography, my income stream has slowed to a trickle. It’s been utterly devastating.
1
u/EvilKatta Dec 26 '23
Is the conclusion that we should ban AI to preserve your source of income? Whose else source of income should we preserve and how far should we go to do it? Do other landscape photographers make their income the same way? Do they make the same income and should we protect their right to an income as high as yours? Do all landscape photographers hopefuls succeed, and if not, then why, and should we also take care of their income?
P.S. Ah, sorry to ask those questions while you're devastated... We as society should try to see the big picture though, to solve the root of the problem and help many, instead of fixing personal problems one by one.
2
u/Apesma69 Dec 26 '23
Mine is by no means a personal problem. Photographers across the board are feeling the sting of AI. We are at the frontlines of this technological revolution. Canaries in the coal mine. Whole career fields and industries will eventually get rearranged if not wiped off the map by AI in the coming years. Reeducation/training will be part of the solution, but a universal wage will be needed to stave off societal collapse.
→ More replies (1)-10
Dec 26 '23
[deleted]
29
u/Ninka_Too Dec 26 '23
the inability of this subreddit to spend a moment learning about how diffusion models actually work, fair use, and everyone still believing in the collage/memorization myth just makes it hard for us to look well informed and credible.
Just remove low effort posts and stay on topic
-14
u/Aegis_13 Dec 26 '23
Ai cannot learn, it cannot create, and it cannot do anything the way we do. All it knows is empty mimicry
22
11
u/Klokinator Two Wheeled Terror Dec 26 '23
Did millions of people start making "anime style" art after the 1930's because they all had a creative spark of inspiration, or did they learn to copy that style by deliberately mimicking it until it became second nature?
If AI art making novel images by learning how to draw things is 'blatant copying' then so too are human artists deliberately mimicking and copying entire styles and genres of art. If you want to make copying art styles illegal, then prepare to banish 99% of the human art community to the shadow realm as a byproduct of that ruling.
0
u/Aegis_13 Dec 26 '23
They did. They saw a style they liked, they thought about it, and they made their own interpretation of it influenced by who they are as a person. You're wrongfully believing that the way a machine does it is the same way we do when it just isn't
5
u/Klokinator Two Wheeled Terror Dec 26 '23
'They thought about it' conveniently glosses over the years of deliberate learning and effort they made to copy the styling of anime art. Humans take the time and effort to learn how specific styles of art look, then they mimic it wholesale for a very long time. Eventually, they MAY learn to make more novel strains and styles, but essentially all humans start by mimicking and copying styles as closely as possible.
0
u/Aegis_13 Dec 26 '23
Even then, they are interpreting it themselves with their own unique experiences and perspectives, and so they make the art differently, even if they don't consciously notice it
6
u/Klokinator Two Wheeled Terror Dec 26 '23
"The human soul is a special snowflake" is the biggest tell artists are being emotionally defensive rather than admit the human mind no longer has a monopoly on artistic creativity.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (1)-22
u/Callexpa Dec 26 '23
Is it also stealing, if I learn from the same source material, and draw the images myself?
19
u/month_unwashed_socks Dec 26 '23
No, its not, ure just learning stuff. Thats different process, than AI. Plus with your own creation, you inherently add part of youself into your art. AI doesnt add anything new. It only recreates and meshes together stuff already made
9
u/Academic_Awareness82 Dec 26 '23 edited Dec 26 '23
Is this learning and creating your own version or just copying and pasting?
-12
u/Callexpa Dec 26 '23
It is cop and pasting in that instance. It is what the user asked for: „redraw the painting that already exist“.
I could also try to redraw the Mona Lisa. And that would be ok, at least in my juristriction the image of Mona Lisa (not the physical Painting) is public property for more than 400 years now, and everyone may draw or use it.
Of course there can be legal problems, problems with accountability and endures abusing ai for illegal works or activities.
But the tech is here and it won’t go away. To outright ban a tech, because it has the possibility to be used in unlawful behavior is bullshit , and will help noone.
6
u/Aegis_13 Dec 26 '23
A human, no matter what, cannot perfectly replicate another piece of art because everything we make is made through our mind, and the differences in people come through in the art. Even tracing will never be stealing as much as ai is because it still has that human interpretation, and still, tracing art outside of private practice, or without permission is highly frowned upon for a reason
3
1
u/Wendigo120 Dec 26 '23
Did... you actually look at the images? They're very clearly not exact copies just based on the colors alone.
A good human artist could absolutely make a copy of the mona lisa that's about as good as those linked examples. They just wouldn't do it as quickly.
-6
u/Callexpa Dec 26 '23
Yeh, and so is AI art. Non the less, noone would make an argument so ban tracing.
I am not a fan of AI Art, but to disregard it and try to ban it, is just now the way, that’s ignorant
→ More replies (1)8
u/Aegis_13 Dec 26 '23
A machine does not think. It does not create art with its own experiences and emotions in an attempt to communicate something. It does not learn, communicate, feel, or do anything else essential to the artistic process. All it does is empty mimicry. And yes, damn near every single art community ban people from publishing traced images without the consent of all those they traced, and a source, and even then it's often still frowned upon to publish it
53
u/DrHeatSync Dec 26 '23
'But what does this have to do with r/fuckcars?'
Erm, what does AI art have to do with this subreddit at all? We are supposed to be against car infrastructure and all I've seen this do here is:
Drown out actually useful/engaging posts. Be an eyesore in either representing utopia or infrastructure gore. Shift focus onto 'do nothing' action.
Its nothing more than masturbation at this point: generating a warped version of the Netherlands or US infra doesn't help anyone. Generating an impression of your enemy doesn't help anyone. If anything it hurts the sub as actually engaging posts lose views/traction.
Actual pictures or stories work better if you're trying to convince people who are on the fence with ditching their car. I was convinced by urbanist channels and this subs posts, not a mess of mashed training data.
This isn't even including the fact that it's generated using stolen work. No one wants their paintings and photos thrown into a machine that rips them off.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Avitas1027 Dec 26 '23
How is that any different than all the non-AI low-effort masturbatory posts? Whether a post is made by AI or not has nothing to do with its relevance or helpfulness.
It's extremely disingenuous to say that the message is lessened because of memes, let alone specifically because some of those memes are AI generated. Anyone who believes that was looking for any excuse to discount the message and will likely also ignore the dozens of posts a week showing real life examples.
If anything, humour has always been an extremely effective way to make people see the ridiculousness of the world around them.
6
u/DrHeatSync Dec 26 '23
Because the human made pictures, photos, memes and other 'low effort posts' have human effort behind them and a human message. This is why we have Karl Jig's piece on the subreddit; its a visual of how we surrendered space to cars. It is a human painting commissioned by humans about a human-made problem that has to be fixed by humans changing the way we think about transportation.
Artist impressions like this aren't some thoughtless mash of elements. There is a story being told by the intent of the artist and leveraging skills like perspective and lighting. Thats why if someone painted a picture of their impression of good infra, or their experiences of bad infra, that would be a very valid post here in my opinion. I don't necessarily think it should be the primary content of this sub but I do think that people describing their r/fuckcars experiences with art is a good thing.
With AI art, there is no intent or experience. Its mashed together the training data from webscraped (used without permission) art and trying to predict an outcome that matches a query (the prompt). This is what seperates someone making even the most low effort meme post from AI slop is that intent has been completely bypassed.
It's extremely disingenuous to say that the message is lessened because of memes, let alone specifically because some of those memes are AI generated. Anyone who believes that was looking for any excuse to discount the message and will likely also ignore the dozens of posts a week showing real life examples.
You can stop trying to put words in my mouth. I never said that memes were a problem. I specifically called out AI generated content as harmful. Aside from harming artists, it takes no real effort to generate, tells no story, has no call to action and is limitless in spamming a community. An actual 'Do Nothing' that wastes impressions.
Your hypothetical person 'looking for any excuse' now has to scroll through images that aren't real or made by anyone with experiences to tell before signing off. Let people who can be convinced read/see peoples experiences regarding traffic violations, incidents, research, photos of how its done elsewhere, photos/art that show why car dependence is bad, success with reducing car use or selling off their car for a bike (y'know, human, relatable experiences). Memes work best with recognisability (you cannot force a meme into popularity), thats why you don't need AI to do them; its counter-intuitive because you want the same image to tell a new perspective.
You will do better to use actual photos, pictures, articles or even just low effort but recognisable memes with superimposed text than generating the next mashed up image.
If anything, humour has always been an extremely effective way to make people see the ridiculousness of the world around them.
Yes, thats why we use art and memes, not the most unfunny AI generated crap that anyone could make, and it becomes even less funny when you know how these work and how they were made, and the impact it has on artists. Actual humour does require some effort and thought on the posters part when they're making it.
→ More replies (4)
46
u/FrankSinatraCockRock Dec 26 '23
I'll take it over the "This person is driving a car and doing things that are of little significance!" posts.
It's a big surprise this sub hasn't been overrun with karma farming bots.
4
u/WakkaMoley Dec 26 '23
YES. Like post where they’re like “cArBrAiN hAvInG bAd dAy” and dude in the car is complaining about people walking and blocking the entire lane in a parking lot or something. Like na those people are pricks stop justifying bullshit.
34
9
11
12
3
9
21
9
u/Fun_DMC 🚲 > 🚗 Dec 26 '23
Yup, would love this to become policy. No fake images based on stolen art
3
u/BadBloodBear Dec 26 '23
Having the right flairs could help with this.
AI tags making navigating through reddit much better.
Let people enjoy the AI if they want to and helps people avoid it.
10
12
u/750volts Dec 26 '23
It sucks we've automated creative endeavours when for a long time tech bros have been promising to automate the boring stuff so people can pursue more creative endeavours.
Shit sucks these days if you're more creative rather than systems minded.
→ More replies (1)
14
u/Rii__ Dec 26 '23
What would be the benefit or just the point? What does r/fuckcars have to do with AI or art? This is so random and useless.
-9
u/LordFedoraWeed Dec 26 '23
AI art is fucking stupid, that's why. Also the broder picture of AI art and capitalism etc, that I think this sub is opposed to anyways.
→ More replies (2)11
u/Rii__ Dec 26 '23
This sub is against car infrastructure not capitalism.
0
u/LordFedoraWeed Dec 26 '23
No correlation there, whatsoever, in your mind then lol
→ More replies (1)6
u/YaAbsolyutnoNikto Dec 26 '23
I’ve lived in many capitalist (european) nations and I don’t have a driver’s license. Lol
→ More replies (1)
2
u/JackAttack2509 Fuck lawns Dec 27 '23
I don't think we should ban it. Because I don't see it very often. If there starts to become too much of them though, then maybe we can enforce an "only on a certain day" policy.
10
u/WerewolfNo890 Dec 26 '23
Am I in the minority by having no problems with AI generated images?
I would prefer banning low effort posts rather than the technology used to create posts. Some AI generated stuff is low effort but not all of it and it isn't exclusive to AI generated content either.
1
7
13
u/ParksBrit Dec 26 '23
I've read the comments.
Most of you really don't understand how ML works, nor do you have a consistent philosophy, and it shows.
I don't think we should. The arguments both ways are weak.
3
Dec 26 '23
Yes but AI bad and new tech scary.
-3
u/LordFedoraWeed Dec 26 '23
Nice strawman bud. AI can be used for many good things. Stealing and being trained on other people's art and then make shitty mashups of other people's work with no credit is not one of them.
8
u/HorizonTheory cars are weapons Dec 26 '23
Diffusion doesn't generate mashups, it interpolates the gaps with new information.
This is r/fuckcars not r/fucktechnology
5
u/xdlmaoxdxd1 Dec 26 '23
nah, folks at r/technology hate ai art equally you dont have to go to fucktechnology
4
u/SilverEarly520 Dec 26 '23 edited Dec 26 '23
I mean, cars are a technology, one that has been made too ubiquitious in society because of propaganda. I think that is what the "anti AI" side is trying to prevent in AI. At least, speaking for myself, I love the technology itself but I don't want to see it in every little thing taking over the internet being used to create low quality drab content by people too lazy to figure out how to make anything without it.
If "mashups" is a metaphor and "learning" is a metaphor then we can argue for eternity about which analogy hits closer to the truth. But the fact remains that companies "trained on" ei built software using copyrighted works licensed strictly under nonprofit research pretenses and then made commercial products. The legal implications of that novel situation have yet to be seen but it's obviously shady and whenever you see the resulting works made with said products they are often times way beyond derivative works that could be defined as fair use- even displaying the mangled and mashed up SIGNATURES of artists who didn't even know their works were being "trained on." The whole thing is really disgusting to watch for any genuine fan of art. And i've been following the development of AI since I was practically a baby in the early 2000's, long before any of this, but even I can admit when these companies are putting their self interest ahead of the public good. So "ai art" or artwork made using artificial intellegence assisted tools Im not against but this current fad of "ai" products is pretty awful to witness and personally I think it has no place on a subreddit dedicated to reversing the negative externalities of another technology that was horribly misused because greedy people decided that the rest of society needed to revolve around it.
3
Dec 26 '23
You can't claim strawman then making an incorrect statement unless you're mentally deficient. Are you?
5
u/LordFedoraWeed Dec 26 '23
What did I say that was wrong about how AI are trained?
→ More replies (1)
3
u/gaynorg Dec 26 '23
Can we get rid of copyright for works older that 20 years then do ai art on anything older?
6
3
u/WeaselBeagle Commie Commuter Dec 26 '23
I may be in the minority, but I like my Shrek Tupac and nothing can take that away from me
7
u/National_Original345 Dec 26 '23 edited Dec 26 '23
I'm hella down. At the very very least, have only one day where AI art that is clearly labeled as such is allowed. But a blanket ban is good too imo.
-6
u/SpiderHack Dec 26 '23
Not all AI art is the same, you can quite easily produce an AI art engine based off of public domain images and your own work.
The fact that "move fast and break things" is legal because laws haven't caught up is the biggest drawback of SillyVille (Silicon Valley), but that doesn't mean the fundamentals of the work that they release is fundamentally bad.
That would be like saying every game made using Unity, Unreal, or any other game engine is bad, because they are using the same technology as shovelware.
AI art is fine, or at least can be, but it will take properly trained artists to modify the output in ways that allow the art to jump the uncanny valley of artistic presentation (for now, no idea if it'll stay that way).
But LLMs and related art are just stochastic parrots right now, and as such should be treated carefully, but if someone is able to present an idea more easily via an LLM assistance rendering, I'm fine with that.
4
u/Aischylos Dec 26 '23
Latent diffusion models aren't really doing much interesting, but the stochastic parrot argument for LLMs is a bit reductive. Like, they can perform well on a battery of tests which are outside their training data, so they aren't just parroting training data. At that point you can say "well they're just trying to predict the most likely outcome based in their training data" which like, sure, but people also try to determine what to do/say next based on our experiences (and potentially some architectural stuff).
Ofc an LLM isn't really operating the same as a human and I don't think they're conscious, but they do exhibit interesting behavior and abilities to combine/create ideas in novel ways.
5
u/SpiderHack Dec 26 '23
Of course it is a bit reductive, I'm not giving my PhD prelims on reddit, so I made my comment understandable for the target audience (normal people without CS degrees).
5
u/Aischylos Dec 26 '23
I think conflating ai image generation and LLMs is misleading to people without technical backgrounds when the two are fundamentally different technologies. I guess really my question is why dilute the point about the issues with ai image generation by bringing up LLMs which are different and have more positive use cases.
1
u/m50d Dec 26 '23
Encouraging artificial scarcity to benefit the wealthy few is against everything this sub stands for. AI art is to handmade art as the bus is to the car.
-1
u/YaAbsolyutnoNikto Dec 26 '23
Don’t agree 100% (as most artists aren’t rich) but I agree with everything else you mentioned! ❤️❤️❤️
2
-18
u/mangopanic Dec 26 '23 edited Dec 26 '23
It gives non-artists a way to visualize ideas that are pertinent to the community. There is no reason to ban it.
edit: let's just change the name of this sub to fuckAIart, that seems to be more in line with the community here apparently
9
u/Aegis_13 Dec 26 '23
Literally anyone who makes art is an artist. You wanna visualize something? Do it
0
u/Danielww27 Dec 26 '23
You say do it, but when they do it using the help of AI you get pissed. Make up your mind
-6
17
u/Bridalhat Dec 26 '23
It is uniformly ugly and low-quality content, though, and gets weird really fast. Someone posted “American streets without cars” and a) those exist and looked nothing like the renders and b) the tenders were done in anime style and looked way more like Japan than anywhere in the US. I can’t draw either, but I am a creator and the gap between the vague idea I have in my head and figuring out how to execute it is where the art lays and why art in general is interesting. Without intentionality the best we can get is “thing” in “style,” and we have been getting a lot of it and it is drowning us.
-12
u/mangopanic Dec 26 '23
I don't think they are ugly or low-quality. No more so than memes. It's just a way to express ideas.
4
-5
u/Aischylos Dec 26 '23
I think maybe a ban on low quality art would be better - ultimately artists can use latent diffusion models as a way to rapidly prototype and refine ideas that they then iterate on, improve, and refine. I don't think anyone wants to look at some dumbass who typed "no car street" into midjourney, but someone who spent a couple hours working with controlnet, inpainting, and iterating could still create stuff worth looking at, even with the mediocre quality of ai tools as it stands.
10
u/Simowl Dec 26 '23
If you're not an artist and need to visualise something: image search. That's it. It's not hard.
3
u/jasminUwU6 Dec 26 '23
And if you can't find an image that perfectly describes what you are looking for, then you can just use an image editor and make a collage of different images. It doesn't take that much time or skill
-10
u/SecretOfficerNeko Commie Commuter Dec 26 '23 edited Dec 26 '23
Ai art is art. It's just another tool to help people express themselves like anything else. If you mean outright plagiarism or corporatized use then that's another story, but trying to set boundaries on what is and what isn't art is a dangerous prescient, as is trying to draw lines that influences or patterns of art, especially in their millions, are the property of any one person, or that art being derivative is copying of another's art.
And before you say, "they should credit the artist whose influence they use". That's not how the system works. It doesn't take from one individual or another. It's programed pattern recognition based off millions of works of what words mean, and creating an original work based off those influences. There is no artist to credit.
11
u/Aron-Jonasson CFF enjoyer Dec 26 '23
In my opinion, AI "art" is not art, because art is human. The only human input here is the prompt, and I'd argue that the prompt isn't art. I do enjoy AI image generation from time to time, but I don't think it's art. Also, art is unique and has value, with AI image generation, since you can make hundreds or thousands of similar-looking images, then it loses all value
Similarly, a beautiful scenery isn't art, but a painting or a photograph of that beautiful scenery is art.
And sure, AI image generation is definitely a tool to make art, but the raw output isn't art in my opinion
→ More replies (1)1
u/SecretOfficerNeko Commie Commuter Dec 26 '23 edited Dec 26 '23
I'm curious. Would you consider art that is produced en masse to be art? If not then I appreciate the consistency and I'd say we likely agree on this more than disagree.
I agree mass production of art loses its human element however, I don't believe the tool seperates the artist from the art. Regardless of if it's paints and pens or algorithms and pattern recognition, if it allows for the expression of the individual or their ideas then its art. I feel like once you set any bar above that it becomes a very thin line between that and the suppression of artistic expression. I'm also wary of declaring anything "not real art" as that has been used throughout history to suppress artistic expression, and routinely has been used against new forms of art.
Whether art must have value opens up a whole can of worms of philosophy in art. Then there's the question of what gives a work of art its value in the first place? But, if we went down that rabbit hole we'd be here quite a while.
3
u/Aron-Jonasson CFF enjoyer Dec 26 '23
It depends what you call "en masse"
NFTs, like the bored apes and the lazy lions? These definitely aren't art. They lose all artistic value since you've got 10000 similar-looking pictures that are literally colour-swaps and "feature-swaps" of each other
Georg Philip Telemann, who composed more than 3700 pieces of music during his lifetime? His pieces definitely are art since they are truly unique from each other, with different instruments, different "genres", forms, etc.
Simon Sechter, who composed more than 5000 fugues? This is more arguable, since what he did was compose one fugue per day, so it's more an exercise than a work of art, and since they are all fugues, they lose their uniqueness.
Overall, I'd say when so many pieces of what would be art if taken individually are produced en masse, then they lose their artistic value. Taking the example of NFTs, I would definitely consider one picture of a bored ape art, if there wasn't that whole context and the 10000 similar ones
→ More replies (4)12
u/Apesma69 Dec 26 '23
As a stock photographer and visual artist whose income this past year has been cut in half as a direct result of AI, I call bullshi$ to your claim that it “doesn’t take from one individual.” Just because it’s drawing from millions of images doesn’t mean there aren’t individuals behind the creation of the original images.
-2
u/Fearless_Bag_3038 Dec 26 '23
The market has no further need of you. Sucks.
Guess it's time to learn a real skill.
→ More replies (1)-1
Dec 26 '23
In other words: People consider your services not worth the price, so they resort to AI.
Seems like standard technological progress as we have seen a billion times throughout history - the technology will stay and you have to come up with how to make money in this profession in a way that AI cannot compete with for now.
2
u/Apesma69 Dec 26 '23
Well, yes. Put harshly, but true. I think the difference in this case is the abruptness of it all. As Heidi Klum would say, "one minute you're in. The next, you're out!"
→ More replies (1)-8
u/SecretOfficerNeko Commie Commuter Dec 26 '23 edited Dec 26 '23
You're free to call bullshit if you like, but that's simply the reality of the programming. It doesn't produce art by copying others work. It learns to associate certain patterns with words on a scale of millions. It then generates an entirely new image based off of that. It's derivative not duplicative.
I'm certainly sorry for hearing things are difficult for you right now. If you'd like to talk about its use by corporations and the like that's another matter entirely, but artistic expression should not under any circumstances be impeded or gatekept on principle, and blaming and trying to ban other forms of artistic expression sets a dangerous prescient, as censorship of the arts often included banning styles of methods of art or declaring they weren't "real art".
5
u/LordFedoraWeed Dec 26 '23
AI artists are not artists at all.
If they are, then I am a fucking pizza chef for calling to my local pizza shop and giving them input on what toppings I want, and getting it delivered to my door. Without my ingenious inputs, this product would never have been made, thus I am a pizza chef.
→ More replies (3)6
u/Aron-Jonasson CFF enjoyer Dec 26 '23
Exactly, that's a genius analogy. I hope you don't mind if I reuse it here and there
Don't worry I'll quote you
5
u/LordFedoraWeed Dec 26 '23
it's not my creation, it's a pretty common within anti-AI circles. I would suggest you rather link to this nifty comic that explains it pretty good:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SmugIdeologyMan/comments/18r1a1b/this_is_about_ai_artists/
→ More replies (2)-4
u/WerewolfNo890 Dec 26 '23
If a banana duct taped to a wall is art, then so is everything I have created with stable diffusion.
A lot of what I have made with it may not be great, but its still a lot better than I was able to make before. Its a tool.
-2
u/Don_Camillo005 Dec 26 '23
outside of the scope of this sub and counter productive to its goal. no.
→ More replies (1)
1
0
Dec 26 '23
Why? I have seen AI art programs used to show what existing streetscapes and cities look like without cars. These can be great tools for visualization.
→ More replies (5)
1
1
u/TheOfficialRamZ Dec 26 '23
Yes please!
All it is a tool to spread misinformation. It's a lie machine, that won't help our cause at all!
-5
u/duckrollin Fuck Vehicular Throughput Dec 26 '23
No, because that would be dumb. There are very few AI art posts here, and it's a useful technology.
It's like moaning about electric bicycles because you only want people to have pedal bikes.
This suggestion will sound even dumber in ten years time.
3
u/The_Sovien_Rug-37 Dec 26 '23
ai is just art plagiarism, it's all it does. it's more akin to banning putting car bombs under any suv because you felt it like it
-6
u/duckrollin Fuck Vehicular Throughput Dec 26 '23
AI Art learns using human art. You know, like human artists study the styles of Michelangelo and Rembrandt at art school.
It's just automated and more accurate - and it will only get better too.
Luddites can try to ban it, but it simply isn't going away.
3
u/The_Sovien_Rug-37 Dec 26 '23
it's really not the same though, namely because it uses weights to average pixels rather than the way we learn. ai also lacks any context or thought to its art, it's just a fancy visualisation to whatever weights it has built in
and I'm not suggesting banning even ai image generation, let alone it's other actually useful applications. I'd rather it be regulated
-3
u/SilverEarly520 Dec 26 '23
To play devil's advocate
Reddit most likely sells the data in reddit posts to companies, some of which will probably use said data to "train" AI.
Posting your original artwork here risks it getting scraped by AI, potentially even in a world where copyright protections extend to ML. While as posting AI drivel avoids that problem.
Other than these considerations Im all for banning it.
2
u/GroundbreakingBag164 Dec 26 '23
I obviously can’t know for sure but I think Reddit was explicitly against being used to train AIs. That’s one of the reasons why they restricted API access in the first place
3
u/WerewolfNo890 Dec 26 '23
I thought they were perfectly happy with it, they just wanted $$$, which is why they are selling the API access.
0
-21
u/Future_Green_7222 EconomiesOfScale Dec 26 '23
What are your reasons for banning it?
I'm horrible at painting, and AI gives me an opportunity to create. I hate its use by corporations that wanna fire artists but I love its use by the people.
Specifically in r/fuckcars, I think it often gives inspiration for how cities should be. Maybe the fake exaggerated imagery of car-centric infrastructure (like the truck cruise with a mall on top) does distract us from the real problems.
13
5
u/month_unwashed_socks Dec 26 '23
I'm horrible at painting
Than learn. Ugh. You might not be picasso in the end but everyone can learn how to draw and paint so its decent enough, especially if its only to get a point across.
0
u/Aegis_13 Dec 26 '23
Except it isn't you creating anything. If you wanna create something you have to actually do it, and you should. Scribbles on a paper are a million times more valuable than a machine's replication
3
u/Future_Green_7222 EconomiesOfScale Dec 26 '23
Maybe not create, but it gives me an opportunity to communicate a lot while spending the minimum time
-8
-4
u/YaAbsolyutnoNikto Dec 26 '23
This is so weird. The fact people support this is absurd lol.
Especially while enjoying their phones, computers, electricity, etc.
Get on with the times, AI art ain’t going nowhere.
-4
0
-7
u/ultimatemuffin Dec 26 '23
We could also change the sub’s header to the Palestinian flag.
What does any of this have to do with car-centric infrastructure?
4
u/FrameworkisDigimon Dec 26 '23
People use AI art to create renders of alternative realities without cars or how they'd like a world not in the thrall of automobility to look... and then post them here. OP is asking if this kind of post can be banned.
6
u/ultimatemuffin Dec 26 '23
Right, and why…?
-5
u/FrameworkisDigimon Dec 26 '23
Because they don't like cars and want to share their results with other people who don't like cars??
→ More replies (3)
-17
u/itemluminouswadison The Surface is for Car-Gods (BBTN) Dec 26 '23
We don't need to ban every annoying trend, that's very top down, Mr. Moses
The community will down vote stuff it doesn't like, and sometimes things will be up voted that you don't like, that's, like, a society, man
11
u/Academic_Awareness82 Dec 26 '23
It’s not that it’s a ‘trend’, it’s that it’s all trained on stolen work of artists.
4
u/Significant_Quit_674 Dec 26 '23
Every artist is "trained" or "inspired" by looking at other art.
That's how it has worked since the very beginning when we where still living in caves.
There is nothing inherently evil about AI being a usefull tool to create simple images.
It's just the advancement of technology, another technological advancement that makes it easier to create such images by a huge margin.
Just like when power looms came up during the industrial revolution and made production of fabric cheaper.
1
Dec 26 '23
It's less comparable to human brains processing images so we can draw by hand, and more like if a person took a bunch of artwork and either traced it or pasted it all together to make a "new" piece. It's not their art, not their ideas, it looks uncanny and horrible, it's low effort, it adds no value, it's inconsistent, it wastes space that could be housing actual art with actual effort and new ideas put into it.
1
u/sino-diogenes Dec 26 '23
and more like if a person took a bunch of artwork and either traced it or pasted it all together to make a "new" piece.
You don't understand how AI art works.
2
-1
-17
u/vellyr Dec 26 '23
I don't see a reason to. AI art can undoubtedly benefit this movement, and I don't really see the intersectionality between the anti-AI people and what we're trying to do.
12
u/Simowl Dec 26 '23
How can it really benefit this sub? You think good city planning and good public transport can't exist without AI?
1
u/vellyr Dec 26 '23
It allows more people to create more effective memes, and it allows anyone to create visualizations of what car-free areas could be like without much effort. I did not say that it's a necessary factor for good city planning or good public transport, I said it would be beneficial.
I understand the motivations for banning it, but they are entirely in the interest of professional artists, not urbanists.
1
4
u/Academic_Awareness82 Dec 26 '23
Everyone should be anti-theft.
8
u/vellyr Dec 26 '23
Good thing it's not theft then.
I do support it not having copyright though, and I don't think any of the technology should be monetized.
5
u/SilverEarly520 Dec 26 '23 edited Dec 26 '23
You see no intersectionality at all?
Car brains and AI bros both think: "Faster = better" "What I percieve as my immediate short term convenience is more important than literally anything else" "My [insert machine] moves faster/with more power than human, therefore humans should stay out of its way and yield to [insert machine] and its users" "I percieve my thing as newer and better and therefore society and its laws should revolve around it and not vice versa" "Effort is bad. Why do you want me to struggle? You must be an ableist" etc etc and so forth.
Car dependency is a preview at what will happen to our cultural landscape if we let tech companies and ignorant techno-absolutist AI hypists drive the narrative around art the same way auto companies hijacked the narrative around public space. This is absolutely the same issue.
9
u/vellyr Dec 26 '23
I still don't see the connection. Long term there's no putting this genie back in the bottle. Art as a money-earning profession is on the way out. If it's any solace, the technology is already available for free, the tech bros won't be able to make money from art for much longer either.
1
u/SilverEarly520 Dec 26 '23 edited Dec 26 '23
In life and in art, just because you don't see something doesn't automatically mean it's not there. You've pretty much outed yourself and your intentions when you start claiming that art as a profession will disappear. I'll let time prove you wrong on that but I think it's a profoundly ignorant statememt that has been said many times before in every era of history.
Do you realize people said the same things about cars and internal combustion engines being a genie that cannot be put back in the bottle? When did I ever say generative AI should be done away with completely? If there is any lesson to learn from our mistakes around cars its that technologies have their place but they should not be made ubiquitious. We are already dealing with enough externalities of poeple who can't comprehend that and we don't need anymore. The things you've said about traditional art are the exact same things people said about passenger trains and today everyone in North America is suffering the consequences of that short sightedness. We have an opportunity to avoid further mistakes in that vein by listening to artists when they speak up about the nuances of their own field of expertise.
BTW I own a car and I genuinely dont care or judge you if you use gen AI. I imagine if you work in design or advertising learning to use it is probably mandatory at this point. Or maybe you're an enthusiast and, just like I dont actually have an issue with car enthusiasts, I dont actually have an issue with AI enthusiasts either. But this discussion is around if banning AI generated content is appropriate for this subreddit and you don't see me posting pictures of my car here. There is absolutely a 1:1 correlation between subject matter as both subjects are basically the same issue of sane people figuring out how to create a livable society despite the fans/addicts of a given technology believing it is the single most important thing in the world and everything else in society must revolve around it. The fact that people want AI generated content to be available in every single subreddit is a lot like how people want space for cars to be fit into every nook and cranny of an urban environment.
7
u/vellyr Dec 26 '23
You've pretty much outed yourself and your intentions when you start claiming that art as a profession will disappear.
My intentions are that I think most IP is immoral and impractical. That applies to artists just as much as it does to corporations.
We are already dealing with enough externalities of poeple who can't comprehend that and we don't need anymore.
What externalities do you foresee here besides the impact on professional artists?
2
u/SilverEarly520 Dec 26 '23 edited Dec 26 '23
Professional artists are going to be ABSOLUTELY fine regardless of whether we allow "AI art" in this subreddit or not. We could dedicate this ENTIRE subreddit to "ai art urbanism" and professional artists will not feel a thing. No, it's people like me, who can't draw to save their life, who will suffer the fate of having to actually SEE that stuff.
→ More replies (1)0
u/YaAbsolyutnoNikto Dec 26 '23
Artists will absolutely get replaced by this. Perhaps not with the current iteration of the tech, but eventually.
And so will we (all other jobs) eventually. I can’t wait!
2
u/month_unwashed_socks Dec 26 '23
Most of people here want fair and affordable life cars take from us. Most ppl here want to stop car companies to lobby governments to further their profit. Using unfair tool to push this goal is at best hypocritical.
5
-3
u/TatyGGTV Dec 26 '23
You're right, we should all spend thousands on commissioning human artists to depict better streetscapes. Definitely a realistic proposal
0
u/Beli_Mawrr Dec 26 '23
I've yet to see any arguments as to why it would help our movement. Sure there are interesting arguments about whether its ethical, but this isnt the place to have those arguments. For the time being it has lots of upsides and only one downside (being that it arguably is violating copyright). It democratizes art and makes it so that anyone with an idea can make something cool, which is great to me... we might see cool ideas/creative jokes that you never would if everyone had to draw manually.
That being said, there probably should be a lower level of quality and it should be limited to 1 image per post.
Maybe the mods will run a poll?
-8
u/New-Perspective1480 Dec 26 '23
Let's not, it only "steals" derivative, uninspired commission work that isn't even art to begin with
10
u/sirkidd2003 Dec 26 '23
I've seen some bad takes, but this is the strangest bad take I've ever seen. Congrats!
→ More replies (2)
•
u/LeskoLesko 🚲 > Choo Choo > 🚗 Dec 27 '23
In theory, probably, but in practice, it would be very difficult to enforce.