4 ms·

1) Humans learn from existing art, but they mainly draw on their experience and perception of the physical world when creating new art. AI doesn't have access t

1) Humans learn from existing art, but they mainly draw on their experience and perception of the physical world when creating new art. AI doesn't have access to the real world, so it's art is 100% based on existing work, not just inspired by it. 2) We still don't know exactly how much the models memorise. I'm sure you'll agree that something like Google image search retrieval doesn't qualify as original art, and copyright is still an issue. If you photoshop two images together, you probably also still have to give credit to the original images. We have to draw the line somewhere on the scale from "100% derivative to 100% original". It's not yet clear where AI image generation falls on this.

spywaregorilla 4y ago
> Humans learn from existing art, but they mainly draw on their experience and perception of the physical world when creating new art. AI doesn't have access to the real world, so it's art is 100% based on existing work, not just inspired by it. Ok so let's just feed the ai some dashcam footage and this argument is null. > I'm sure you'll agree that something like Google image search retrieval doesn't qualify as original art, Yes > and copyright is still an issue No
- tomatotomato37 4y ago
  If the AI researchers actually go through the effort of strapping a bunch of go-pros to people for a year as they experience life and used that as the majority of training data than I'm fine with calling anything it generates original art. But for now when the training set is 100% others work and you can see the AI literally trying to inject a jumbled artist name/trademark into "original" art I can't see it as anything more than extreme photobashing
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    Seems like an impressive amount of mental gymnastics to me
- thomasahle 4y ago
  >> I'm sure you'll agree that something like Google image search retrieval doesn't qualify as original art, > Yes >> and copyright is still an issue > No You don't think I'll get trouble with copyright infringement if I start using images I find on Google commercially? "But officer, I came up with the keyword for this image all by myself!!" Or do you just mean you don't think copyright should exist in the first place?

spywaregorilla 4y ago

> Humans learn from existing art, but they mainly draw on their experience and perception of the physical world when creating new art. AI doesn't have access to the real world, so it's art is 100% based on existing work, not just inspired by it. Ok so let's just feed the ai some dashcam footage and this argument is null. > I'm sure you'll agree that something like Google image search retrieval doesn't qualify as original art, Yes > and copyright is still an issue No

tomatotomato37 4y ago
If the AI researchers actually go through the effort of strapping a bunch of go-pros to people for a year as they experience life and used that as the majority of training data than I'm fine with calling anything it generates original art. But for now when the training set is 100% others work and you can see the AI literally trying to inject a jumbled artist name/trademark into "original" art I can't see it as anything more than extreme photobashing
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  Seems like an impressive amount of mental gymnastics to me
thomasahle 4y ago
>> I'm sure you'll agree that something like Google image search retrieval doesn't qualify as original art, > Yes >> and copyright is still an issue > No You don't think I'll get trouble with copyright infringement if I start using images I find on Google commercially? "But officer, I came up with the keyword for this image all by myself!!" Or do you just mean you don't think copyright should exist in the first place?