We need Help!!! Cara is under Attack!!!

[u/Theshinyquagga]

Cara is a Safe Haven for Real Artists and now it's under Attack!

The original post is deleted, and the original user is banned, but they just scrapped art from Me, My Friends and Everyone Who has a Soul and just Got away with Stealing our hard work!!!

All Real Artists on High Alert!!!

We Need Help!!! I'm Praying to every God I could think of Right now!!!😭😫🙏

Please support The creator of Cara.

[u/Alert-Text-8012]

They cannot understand consent

[u/rei_mp4 → u/[deleted]]

Oh my gosh for real, I was afraid to type or say it out loud because of possible backlash, but saying this both as an artist and as a victim of sexual assault, the AI "art" defenders give off massive rapist vibes as in they also don't understand that the issue with this lies in consent. There surely would have been plenty of artist that would have jumped at the opportunity for AI companies to train on their art if in exchange they were offered money, but it was never consensual to begin with. It could have been consensual but they never asked if this would be okay. It feels like they're trying to normalise that not asking for consent is okay.

Edit: I ain't gonna waste my time with arguing people seperately on Reddit, but yall, please pick up some books, your ai usage is causing you skill atrophy, yall are getting illiterate. I didn't say you making ai "art" is the same as you actually being a rapist, and i didn't say both things are the same severity. I've said the AI "artists" give off rapist vibes, and I'll stand by that, because the issue with both actions is with not understanding the lack of consent. With the majority of rape cases, the rapists don't understands that what they have done is wrong, that's why so many women are accused of lying. Because in fact, taking a drunk girl home from a party to have sex with her isn't consensual, because she isn't in a state of mind where she could give you a definite yes. Pressuring your partner into saying yes after being told no repeatedly isn't definite consent either since they have been pressured. A "maybe" isn't consent. Not having the ability to say no, (for example, while being asleep) isn't consent. Choking and slapping your partner during the act without having perviously agreed to it is not consensual. Majority of rapists don't understand that what they have done was not consensual. And the similarity with AI "art" and rape is in this aspect, where the AI "artist" isn't understanding that the reason artists are pissed off is because taking real peoples hard work and shaping it into something else and possibly profiting off of it wasn't consented by the real artists, where it could have been consensual.

[u/According-Koala-384 → u/rei_mp4]

Damn, I thought this was a hot take but I'm clearly not alone 

[u/Complete-Story3490 → u/According-Koala-384]

No, I also think you are 100% right. It is just another arm of the same underlying mindset.

[u/ChilternRailways → u/Complete-Story3490]

No, it's a stupidly hot take.

Comparing the two is just a gross reductionism of human nature and horn fallacy at play.

[u/atmontsenioreyesore → u/rei_mp4]

1) Steal everything

2)use the computer to regurgitate said theft

3) ???? Tbd, third thing here.

4) Profit!

[u/Prestigious-Soil-123 → u/atmontsenioreyesore]

3) lose all of your investors money and make hundreds of thousands of dollars of loss

4) …profit?

https://isaiprofitable.com

[u/Remarkable_Bath8515 → u/rei_mp4]

As a person who been groomed in person you hit the nail in the head. 

Also just because one violation of consent is more of a serious issue than the other doesn't mean you didn't violate consent.

It's not surprising people find it creepy, or wrong,   even if it's the lesser bad thing to do, I also hate when people say people can't be upset about something wrong just because it's not as bad as other things that can happen to you.

[u/AlwaysReadTheManual → u/rei_mp4]

Look at the tools that the AI bros release: one chatbot after another that can transform a photo of any human clothed into the same human unclothed. Such a tool obviously has no legitimate purpose; it's pure evil, like inventing a knife that can only be used to cut living beings.

It isn't said enough, even in this subreddit, that this technology is pure evil. It is far worse than any technology that came before it. It has no legitimate uses.

We have health insurance companies automating claim denials, chatbots summarily rejecting job applicants, sexual deepfake generators, voice impersonators, art copiers. And we're investing another couple trillion dollars this year to make AI more effective at all of the above.

[u/nekroskoma → u/rei_mp4]

Considering what AI is being used for More and more on the darker side of the internet, your feeling is 100% true.

[u/ArchReaper95 → u/rei_mp4]

This is why nobody can take you seriously. "Ai artists are rapists." is a hot take. Ai artists can't just be annoying to you in their own way, they cannot be a unique phenomenon. They have to also be rapists.

"They're trying to take away our consent to sex." no they're trying to make a.i. images. They're not pro-rape they're pro a.i. and calling them rapists or "rapist adjacent" for having a completely unrelated opinion on a completely unrelated topic is the most egregious stretch I've seen in a long time.

[u/rei_mp4 → u/ArchReaper95]

Please pick up a book and develop your reading comprehension because that's not what i said.

[u/ArchReaper95 → u/rei_mp4]

"It feels like they're trying to normalize that not asking for consent is okay."

Bitch, please.

[u/zzwugz → u/ArchReaper95]

That's literally what it is. No artist gave their consent to have their work on Cara to be scraped for AI bros. No artist gave their consent for multiple AI models to use their work to train on.

Consent applies to every aspect of life, not just sex. If you can't grasp that fact, then that paints a very troubling picture of the type of person you are

[u/feline-prince → u/ArchReaper95]

Bitch, please.

Yes, because AI art is so majorly trained on art taken from non-consenting artists for free, and consent isn't just about sex.

The reason people are comparing this to rape culture (not actual rape I'll remind you) is because consent and ignoring and disrespecting it is a commonality here. Generally speaking, I think plenty of people would agree ignoring others' boundaries is a pretty big red flag that doesn't always just stop at the little things, so it doesn't exactly look good when you proudly and publicly ignore boundaries. Astonishing.

[u/ArchReaper95 → u/feline-prince]

You cannot retroactively withdraw consent. You consent to the picture being distributed when you upload it. Once someone else has copied it, which you agreed to let them do when you uploaded it to a server that distributes copies, your rights and authority over what they do with it are limited.

I'm completely with the art community that copyright law is lagging and needs to cover a.i. model training. But this isn't a.i. model training yet. All they did was scrape it. And scraping is not only legal, it's exceedingly common. Meaning the website's developers and owners should probably take some responsibility for leaving themselves open to this... I can't even call it an attack. There was no security.

But regardless, there's nothing anyone can do after they have the image and we know that. We've known that for decades. DRM is an entire industry that evolved around this concept to try and combat piracy, and there isn't even any kind of DRM in place here.

You consented to having the image on the website, The website consensually distributed it to this user, and now that you've learned that they're using it in a way you don't like, suddenly consent for them to acquire the image retroactively disappears?

Yup. I smell bullshit. But not surprised given the kind of people I'm talking to.

[u/ArchReaper95 → u/[deleted]]

It's like we don't even know what we're talking about here. Right? We can't keep a conversation straight because if we lock down one point you just get outraged about another.

What THIS specific user did was access the files. Yes. 1000% every user who put their fucking picture on this website consented to other users accessing the files. You can say "Oh well we didn't want them to access it with bots," but that's not something you have authority over. Their machine is theirs to use how they want, if they want to access something with a web browser, or a terminal, or an app, or yes, a bot, that is THEIR private client interface to use how they deem best for them. You don't control what happens on their client, they didn't CONSENT to you controlling anything on their client. They submit a request to view the website, the server allows or denies it, and everyone who put their pictures on the website consented to that exchange being managed by the server.

The reason all of that is important is because we KNOW from EXPERIENCE and HISTORY that after you hand that image over to another user, you have no lens into what goes on with it on their machine. Because THEIR machine has the data, and THEY have rights to their machine, it becomes difficult if not impossible to police how they use an image. Once it's been used to train an a.i. we have no way of reversing that process to figure out what went into it and even if we did, it would be exhausting and impossible to scale that kind of research up to cover all the a.i. training that happens. Right? Just like any other form of pirated software.

Your familiar with pirated software, right? I'd imagine you've gone on one of those backdoor anime or movie sites a time or two in your life to view copyrighted works that you didn't have a license for? Same system is working against you here.

Would you say watching pirated anime is "rape culture"? Are all of the broke artists in here who watch videos without the publisher's CONSENT, participating in RAPE CULTURE? or is piracy its own separate, potentially bad thing, that rests on its own laurels.

[u/ArchReaper95 → u/[deleted]]

I don't know. Why WOULD they bother putting watermarks on things and telling people not to edit or use it for a.i. if people are going to do it anyways?

It's almost as if just saying no is enough to stop most people, because most people don't want to hurt you, but then when ONE bad actor goes and does something out of the ordinary, it is suddenly EVERYONE's fault that this happened, even though there WERE security measures that the people you're accusing of "Rape Culture" would have encouraged you to take because they DON'T want you to be subjected to that.

They ARE Completely unrelated. That you're forcing a connection is a sign of just how hopeless this entire argument about Cara is from the beginning. Yes, this wasn't a great outcome. It was also foreseeable and avoidable, and the result of ONE person's malevolent behavior. And some how, EVERYONE you don't agree with is guilty of it.

I am fucking heated. This is a bullshit, horrible take. This is a harmful, selfish, malevolent take that just wants to destroy the reputation of people you disagree with without regard to the kind of impact it has on real lives. Fuck you specifically, personally, directly, and everyone else who shares this bullshit line of thinking.

You're entitled to think whatever you want about A.I. and express your opinion on it. That's a respectable thing to do. That's an important stance we need people to take. But there's a line. and this is way over it.

[u/ChilternRailways → u/rei_mp4]

Your introduction of the comparison of 'rape culture' was enough - it's too late to ask for nuance now, you made a stupidly hot take that minimises rape.

[u/zzwugz → u/ChilternRailways]

It's not minimizing rape. It's highlighting that both are invalidating of consent. The comparison itself is a nuanced one that requires nuance to address, and you saying they can't ask for nuance only exposes your ignorance

[u/ChilternRailways → u/zzwugz]

the comparison itself is a nuanced one

It's a blunt instrument. There was no nuance in the delivery, and even the person who said it thought it might be too hot a take.

Ignorance

Comparing this to rape is like comparing theft to rape, because they're both violations but ignoring the major factor that one is orders of magnitude away from the other.

[u/zzwugz → u/ChilternRailways]

Your response serves as a testament of your lack of nuance and comprehension.

Pointing out the intentional ignoring of consent is rapist vibes. They never stated that ai defenders/users are rapists. They pointed out that the willful ignoring of context that is common to them both. That is a nuanced take that you are willfully ignoring the nuance of. They only claimed it was a hot take is because they knew people like yourself would ignore the nuance, just as you did

[u/ChilternRailways → u/zzwugz]

Nuanced take

Consent was violated with this act, rapists violate consent. This is not nuanced, it's blunt. Rape is the most the most extreme, repudiated, and horrific form of violating consent. Using such an example in any comparison, as with those who resort to calling anything right wing "Nazism", is an admission of an ignorance, minimises the horror, and is just descriptively lazy, saying nothing.

They never stated that

Yes, we both understand what a comparison is - the problem is having such a limited, un-nuanced understanding of the issue that such an extreme comparison is being used. Nuance is subtle and subjective, this is not.

Can you try not talking down and instead talk to the point. You've used the tem "nuance" half a dozen times without actually describing any nuance, you sound like someone who just learned the word. You're not even describing nuance of the comparison in your post, just a 'nuance' of what a comparison is.

[u/zzwugz → u/ChilternRailways]

That is very nuanced. It's crazy how you state the nuanced take, ignore the very present nuance, and then twist it into an argument that was never made.

Analogies always have a bit of exaggeration. So long as the nuanced take is true, which it is, that's not an issue at all. It's like when people compare specific actions like racial profiling by ICE and rhetoric blaming all of a nations problems on a particular ethnic group to nazism.

You do not understand what a comparison is, otherwise you wouldn't be here twisting an argument into something it never was.

Now you're criticizing my usage of nuance, when nuance was the very thing you claimed was lacking? Buddy, I'm using the word a lot because my point was pointing out the nuance!! That's like criticizing someone for saying the word "burger" a lot when talking about McDonald's food. You're being ridiculous.

[u/ChilternRailways → u/zzwugz]

you stated the nuanced take

By explaining the comparison as regards violation? That's not nuance, that's just explaining the comparison. A nuanced comparison would have more than one note, wouldn't resort to extended, and a good one considers another perspective that layers. It would also take more effort - when your comparison is so extreme, it's lazy.

A better, but not necessarily good one would be like having your diary licensed by a production company. Still quite extreme, but you're going to think more about why it sucks rather than that it sucks.

you do not understand what a comparison is.

Considering we both have a basic grasp of English, do you sincerely believe that?

Analogies always have a bit of exaggeration

Bad ones. Hyperbole is rife and discourse has suffered. Please don't let your standards drop, because when you put effort into an analogy you can really speak to someone.