4 ms·
If a human looked at her art and then made new illustrations in the same style would that be ok? If so, why is it not ok for a computer to do it?
by kurtreed 4y ago
If a human looked at her art and then made new illustrations in the same style would that be ok? If so, why is it not ok for a computer to do it?
- lukasb 4y agoIf a human artist sold work created by copying her style, they would definitely get called out by other artists.
- Cthulhu_ 4y agoI'm not a moral philosophist, but I'd say the difference is effort. I mean no shade on the illustrator herself, but her style looks derived itself from other styles. Anyway, another illustrator would need to put in the effort to learn the style, and then X hours to create each piece. An AI, once trained, can churn out thousands of artworks in that style per second (with enough computing power); it makes the illustrator obsolete, and like mass production of low cost knockoff products, it forges competition and cheapens the brand / style. Is that good or not? I don't know, again I'm not a moral philosophist.
- maegul 4y agoI appreciate the argument. It made me think that we might have a “photographs steal your soul” kind of moment here with new technology. Nonetheless, the difference is pretty clear here I think. An AI makes the artists style infinitely reproducible by all. A single artist copying an artist’s style is basically what copyright is all about, including the relative straightforwardness of enforcement through ordinary litigation. Whether copyright is or is not being breached by the AI, there’s a paradigm shifting difference in the nature of said AI, perhaps not unlike downloadable digital music on the internet compared physical media.