> Would you say that the person who made the machine/software at least has claim to the title of artist? Here a machine has memorized/trained on millions of ar

> Would you say that the person who made the machine/software at least has claim to the title of artist? Here a machine has memorized/trained on millions of art works. Then you ask it make something out of what it knows (understands?). This in its own right is like an artist who see other people's artwork and creates his own out of some idea. If you are a good painter and I ask you to paint something for me because I can't. I will only be claiming that idea not the artwork you created. It's like GPT-3 which can write article based on some initial idea/prompt. Can I claim the whole thing it generated for me based on the initial prompt? I recently read that "unicorn who speak English" text that it generated and its amazing. It's a generated text but it's amazing. It won't be fair to claim ownership because it was trained on millions of texts written by other humans. But again that's also how writers train. They read lots of text written by other people. If you write something for me, you are the writer. This is how I think about art/text generated by machines that learned that specific domain. EDIT: writing code to draw a line and then drawing a line is different from training on millions of lines drawn by other people to explain what a line is and then asking to draw something that looks like a line. So to answer your original question, we still can't say the person who wrote that software is the artist. He can be if he feeds it his own artwork only but that's not the case here.