4 ms·

This is much less of a problem than people make it out to be. For a lot of people, art is a way to connect to other human minds. If you know there is no human

by dreen 4y ago

This is much less of a problem than people make it out to be. For a lot of people, art is a way to connect to other human minds. If you know there is no human mind directly involved in the piece, you might not value the art the same way. No amount of code will change that. Having said that, I think the current iteration of AI will be a fantastic tool for artists once it matures. Even if you're making some one-off disposable piece of visual/audio design for business purposes, you will want a professional to look it over.

simonbarker87 4y ago
You’ve summed up my issue with AI art. If no human was involved in creating the piece then as far as I’m concerned, it’s not art. It’s something but art it is not - and I’m not someone who is in to art at all, I just want to know that an actual person was trying to express an idea/opinion when making a piece. Once I know a human didn’t make something my brain just looses interest. Telling if something was human or AI made us the trick. To be clear, I’m only applying this thinking to art - if something is drawn or calculated by AI that solved a problem (circuit design, route planning etc) then I’m all for it.
- lwhi 4y ago
  The point for me is, how can you know if a human was involved?
  - FartyMcFarter 4y ago
    Indeed. How can you be sure that even if a human artist gave you a piece of art, they didn't generate it by using an AI?
  - jimnotgym 4y ago
    This might add value to art that machines can't do yet, like oil painting. A painter could film themselves creating the art. You could go and see them painting.
- jasmer 4y ago
  If you write an 'algorithm' that copies someone's art and distributes it - then you are infringing. It doesn't matter if you 'automated it' and the word 'art' doesn't really apply so much either.
  - danielbln 4y ago
    On the flip side, an artstyle can't be copyrighted. So if a model creates something that is similar, but not the same, and different enough, is it really infringing?
jasmer 4y ago
This is definitely the Marie Antoinette argument. It doesn't matter what 'a lot of people think art is' it matters what artists think, and what our rights are. I don't see how any corporation should be able to consume someone's copyrighted work without their permission and make something of it. AI will be fantastic for doing 'art' but it won't be good for 'artists' trying to make a living. If OpenAI wants to use some artists material they can pay for it. Otherwise, use the stuff that's not protected, make their own art, etc..
- docdeek 4y ago
  > I don't see how any corporation should be able to consume someone's copyrighted work without their permission and make something of it. I'm not quite sure where I stand yet on this issue. I wonder, though, if an individual artist studies another long-dead artist's work, practices that style of painting/drawing/whatever, and then produces something in that same vein that is clearly inspired by the artist...is there a copyright issue? My instinct would be to answer 'no' as this is what art and inspiration has always been about. No one had to pay to look at Da Vinci's work or study a Renoir - the art was publicly available. Now, with OpenAI, the capacity to 'study' an artist and produce something in their style is available to all. If the work is publicly available, is a machine studying/learning from it any different to an art student in a museum? And if OpenAI generates an image in the style of Da Vinci, should it be paying someone for doing so? Again, my instinct is 'no'. I can understand why an artist working today might see things very differently but unless the source material was locked up or otherwise not available for people to see, study and learn from, I am not yet convinced there is a big difference between thousands of humans studying and imitating a master artist and a machine studying and imitating a master artist.
- dreen 4y ago
  The article points to two problems, one being corporations profiting from other peoples copyrighted works with just an algorithm. Thats awful for sure, but the actual utility of content generated that way is questionable at best (Also, because it's new, there is a bit of a fad for it). The other is more existential and pertains to AI replacing humans in the cultural process. I don't think it's reasonble to assume this will happen anytime soon, given the state of technology which is just nowhere near enough capable for that. By the time it would be, you'd have a fully artifical human mind.
lwhi 4y ago
I have many friends who are artists and illustrators. They definitely disagree with your point of view.
thatguymike 4y ago
I agree with you for capital-A Art, but it turns out that most of content produced doesn't need to meet that bar - book covers, adverts, filler paintings, and so on. Those are the ways that a lot of people make their living. Is it OK that they'll become outdated? Maybe yes for the production of capital-A-Art, but it sure will suck for a lot of people who enjoy making their living from creative production.

by dreen 4y ago

simonbarker87 4y ago

You’ve summed up my issue with AI art. If no human was involved in creating the piece then as far as I’m concerned, it’s not art. It’s something but art it is not - and I’m not someone who is in to art at all, I just want to know that an actual person was trying to express an idea/opinion when making a piece. Once I know a human didn’t make something my brain just looses interest. Telling if something was human or AI made us the trick. To be clear, I’m only applying this thinking to art - if something is drawn or calculated by AI that solved a problem (circuit design, route planning etc) then I’m all for it.

lwhi 4y ago
The point for me is, how can you know if a human was involved?
- FartyMcFarter 4y ago
  Indeed. How can you be sure that even if a human artist gave you a piece of art, they didn't generate it by using an AI?
- jimnotgym 4y ago
  This might add value to art that machines can't do yet, like oil painting. A painter could film themselves creating the art. You could go and see them painting.
jasmer 4y ago
If you write an 'algorithm' that copies someone's art and distributes it - then you are infringing. It doesn't matter if you 'automated it' and the word 'art' doesn't really apply so much either.
- danielbln 4y ago
  On the flip side, an artstyle can't be copyrighted. So if a model creates something that is similar, but not the same, and different enough, is it really infringing?

jasmer 4y ago

This is definitely the Marie Antoinette argument. It doesn't matter what 'a lot of people think art is' it matters what artists think, and what our rights are. I don't see how any corporation should be able to consume someone's copyrighted work without their permission and make something of it. AI will be fantastic for doing 'art' but it won't be good for 'artists' trying to make a living. If OpenAI wants to use some artists material they can pay for it. Otherwise, use the stuff that's not protected, make their own art, etc..

docdeek 4y ago
> I don't see how any corporation should be able to consume someone's copyrighted work without their permission and make something of it. I'm not quite sure where I stand yet on this issue. I wonder, though, if an individual artist studies another long-dead artist's work, practices that style of painting/drawing/whatever, and then produces something in that same vein that is clearly inspired by the artist...is there a copyright issue? My instinct would be to answer 'no' as this is what art and inspiration has always been about. No one had to pay to look at Da Vinci's work or study a Renoir - the art was publicly available. Now, with OpenAI, the capacity to 'study' an artist and produce something in their style is available to all. If the work is publicly available, is a machine studying/learning from it any different to an art student in a museum? And if OpenAI generates an image in the style of Da Vinci, should it be paying someone for doing so? Again, my instinct is 'no'. I can understand why an artist working today might see things very differently but unless the source material was locked up or otherwise not available for people to see, study and learn from, I am not yet convinced there is a big difference between thousands of humans studying and imitating a master artist and a machine studying and imitating a master artist.
dreen 4y ago
The article points to two problems, one being corporations profiting from other peoples copyrighted works with just an algorithm. Thats awful for sure, but the actual utility of content generated that way is questionable at best (Also, because it's new, there is a bit of a fad for it). The other is more existential and pertains to AI replacing humans in the cultural process. I don't think it's reasonble to assume this will happen anytime soon, given the state of technology which is just nowhere near enough capable for that. By the time it would be, you'd have a fully artifical human mind.

lwhi 4y ago

I have many friends who are artists and illustrators. They definitely disagree with your point of view.

thatguymike 4y ago

I agree with you for capital-A Art, but it turns out that most of content produced doesn't need to meet that bar - book covers, adverts, filler paintings, and so on. Those are the ways that a lot of people make their living. Is it OK that they'll become outdated? Maybe yes for the production of capital-A-Art, but it sure will suck for a lot of people who enjoy making their living from creative production.