Do you consider AI art “OC” ?

You're viewing a single thread.

159 comments

AI is trained by analyzing artists' work and then instructed to replicate art in a particular style, therefore, from the beginning of the process it wouldn't be original.
If an AI could create art without being fed galleries of images first and develop its own style that might be considered original.
- So any artist that went to art school isn't an original artist?
  
  Yeah, but one went to school to learn how to hone their skills and learn from the masters, the other stole it off of artists who will never see a dime off of it.
  Don't get me wrong, I have fun with AI art, but the moral question that hasn't been solved yet
  
  Why is it actually different?
  If I study a painting (train a model) and then replicate the style am I stealing the painting off of an artist?
  If I illegally obtained a copy of the painting that i studied, would the piece that I generated belong to the artist of the painting i studied?
  If I go to a wine and design thing and paint a picture after being instructed how and following specifically with a template, does that make my painting no longer mine?
  Is a person sitting in a free museum sketching in their notebook, a version of the painting that they see on the wall stealing?
  Ai is not copying, the work that it generates is novel. The training data may have been obtained illegally (debatable and not settled in law) but that doesn't make the generated work any less new or novel.
  In your own example, the people who 'went to school and learned from the masters" also don't pay the original artists. Art students aren't paying the Gogh estate for permission to study his paintings and they aren't paying royalties for making something that looks and feels like his paintings either.
  
  All of those the artist knew what they were doing and how their art could be used to inspire new people.
  Artists has no way of consenting to thos before it was done. Their art wasn't taken and used as inspiration for one person, it was taken and is now being mass produced for the masses in some cases.
  You're not sitting in a lecture absorbing what a professor is telling you and filling out an essay question. Your copying someone else's homework and changing it a little to come off as okay. In private and for private use I'm okay with that, but these big studios and content creators have no right to do that to artists. There's no way they could have consented to that.
  
  How you don't see that in principle AI data training and human learning is the same process, is fascinating to me.
  
  People like that surely do see it, they just deny it publicly because they feel threatened by the technology.
  No person with even a basic education can legitimately come to another conclusion and be honest. The only way I can see this happening legitimately is to not understand even the basics of how AI art works. Like, not even the first thing about it.
- What do you think human artists do, exactly? You think they just learn to create art in a vacuum? It just magically appears?
  
  Humans can, in fact, create art without having seen others do it first. (e.g.: cave paintings from several millennia ago)
  I don't understand why anyone would assume humans only have the same creative capabilities as a computer when we have free will and all that good stuff that comes with being a conscious, intelligent living being.
  
  Computers can create the equivalent of cave drawings without models as well.

159 comments