3 ms·

Yes, it can be wielded as a tool, but it isn’t just a tool - the brush was not trained on the work of masters, but the model is. It used to require that the hu

Yes, it can be wielded as a tool, but it isn’t just a tool - the brush was not trained on the work of masters, but the model is. It used to require that the human had practiced in using the brush. Now, a human without art training can talk to a machine that has far more than the equivalent. Working with a model is closer to commissioning a piece than authoring a piece. The twist is that prompt engineering can take effort, and that hasn’t been reconciled with the decrease in required effort that the model allows. There’s also the whole “you can commission the model to make you a picture so that you don’t have to commission the artist.” That’s an unresolved mess that neither side seems to want to approach honestly.

jqpabc123 4y ago
If I commission a unique work of art, I own the copyright to it. Noone can legally copy it without my permission. Back to my original post, I don't understand why this is a persistent issue? Regardless of how it was produced, the legal owner of a unique work has copyrights. Using an AI tool to produce a work of art is no different than using a camera to produce a photograph. In either case, whoever used or controlled the *tool* used to produce the work is the legal owner of it.
- catchnear4321 4y ago
  > Using an AI tool to produce a work of art is no different than using a camera to produce a photograph. This is stated rather boldly as if it were fact. Unfortunately, that’s, like, just your opinion, man. A lot of the control of the model was done prior to the user touching it. Please don’t ask if the painter should make the brush. The brush wasn’t made of existing paintings. It’s hair. They are not the same.
  - jqpabc123 4y ago
    A lot of the control of the model was done prior to the user touching it. Just like any modern camera. The focus, flash, aperture, shutter speed can all be driven by the control of a computer model done prior to the user touching it.
    - catchnear4321 4y ago
      Like when my camera knows to use a flash in low light, yes yes, someone assisted me. I know professionals would love the auto-flash. You do see how that’s not the same as storing model weights for massive numbers of images, right? Or do you just not want to?

jqpabc123 4y ago

If I commission a unique work of art, I own the copyright to it. Noone can legally copy it without my permission. Back to my original post, I don't understand why this is a persistent issue? Regardless of how it was produced, the legal owner of a unique work has copyrights. Using an AI tool to produce a work of art is no different than using a camera to produce a photograph. In either case, whoever used or controlled the *tool* used to produce the work is the legal owner of it.

catchnear4321 4y ago
> Using an AI tool to produce a work of art is no different than using a camera to produce a photograph. This is stated rather boldly as if it were fact. Unfortunately, that’s, like, just your opinion, man. A lot of the control of the model was done prior to the user touching it. Please don’t ask if the painter should make the brush. The brush wasn’t made of existing paintings. It’s hair. They are not the same.
- jqpabc123 4y ago
  A lot of the control of the model was done prior to the user touching it. Just like any modern camera. The focus, flash, aperture, shutter speed can all be driven by the control of a computer model done prior to the user touching it.
  - catchnear4321 4y ago
    Like when my camera knows to use a flash in low light, yes yes, someone assisted me. I know professionals would love the auto-flash. You do see how that’s not the same as storing model weights for massive numbers of images, right? Or do you just not want to?