3 ms·
We are on the verge of "A picture is worth a thousand words" being deterministically quantifiable and testable. I think the politics of art are about to get ver
by cwkoss 4y ago
We are on the verge of "A picture is worth a thousand words" being deterministically quantifiable and testable. I think the politics of art are about to get very weird and interesting.
Solid blue is superlative example, but I think the amount of creativity in different artworks has a HUGE amount of variance. You can kind of "score" any artwork using and AI Art engine in terms of "what is the minimum number of terms in a prompt that I can use to recreate a substantially similar image (that wasn't a part of the training set)"
Some artists' styles can probably be articulated in no fewer than 600 words. Other artists can probably be articulated in 6. The quantifiable amount of interesting decisions in a piece of art has orders of magnitude of variance.
If someone (manually) copies your style and lets AI train on their works, your 600-word masterpiece could instantly drop to 15-words once (human created non-copyright infringing) derivatives are in the training set.
We are explorers of the frontiers of latent space, and theres going to be all sorts of new things for people to get mad about along the way.
- tsimionescu 4y agoSure, the amount of entropy in a piece of art that is an interesting concept, but it is entirely irrelevant to the definition of copyright. Copyright rests entirely on whether you are copying someone else's artwork, regardless of how low entropy that art work is. The only place where entropy comes in is when discussing either specific non-copying claims (such as in my previous answer) or questions of what constitutes derived works. Consider that even cooking recipes (the particular descriptions) are copyrighted, even though they are mostly technical descriptions of a simple process (the recipe itself is not copyrighted, the specific wording is).