3 ms·

>AI is not at all "creative" just derivative. And humans are not derivative? Every image human artists make is based off of something that artist has seen or ex

• kmeisthax 4y ago
  Derivative is a term of art with several different overloads. Critics will reach for the term to describe something that doesn't seem to do anything new; while lawyers further use it to describe a work that owes some kind of economic debt to the original[0]. The inverse of the legal sense of this word is "transformative". If you are making something new, then that debt goes away to the extent that such a debt would prohibit the creation of that work. Generalizing from these concepts... we don't care so much that literally every bit of art is "based on" or "influenced by" something. We care if the end result is novel or not. This is very much an "I know it when I see it" kind of standard, so it might sound like I'm just talking in circles, but there is a difference. Currently, it's difficult to get an AI system[1] to generate more novel images. There are certain patterns it knows how to do very well, and if you ask it for something that violates those patterns it gets confused because nobody's drawn that before. This puts us closer to "derivative" rather than "transformative", because it's harder to use the system for the latter purpose. [0] Existing precedent and law specifically names a few categories of work that are assumed to be derivative; such as sequels and translations. [1] I have only tried Craiyon / DALL-E Mini, and a handful of very primitive systems, both of which are not the most powerful image generators available.