4 ms·
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 n
by 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 agoThe point for me is, how can you know if a human was involved?
- FartyMcFarter 4y agoIndeed. 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 agoThis 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 agoIf 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 agoOn 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?