4 ms·

Still, it's a hard case to make that any AI-generated imagery lacks sufficient human input into the creation process. Both Midjourney and Stable Diffusion offer

by ssalka 3y ago

Still, it's a hard case to make that any AI-generated imagery lacks sufficient human input into the creation process. Both Midjourney and Stable Diffusion offer a number of parameters allowing the user to control how the generation will go (CFG, samplers, etc). So IMO there is necessarily some human input required to make the process work well.

nonethewiser 3y ago
Not just that but there are many iterations with pre and post processing. Im not sure about the process for this image and im not sure what I think is fair, but “AI generated” is a wide spectrum.
IKantRead 3y ago
As someone who has been doing a lot of work in SD, I just wanted to strongly second this. Stable Diffusion and the like are much closer to when photoshop first appeared than they are to than the completely automatic art generation machine people make them out to be. I remember well both digital cameras and photoshop receiving initial criticism from "real" artists... until they were both widely adopted by these communities. The critique of digital photography was that it's not really art because you can just take a bajillion pictures and then filter out the ones that don't look good. Photoshop users (especially web comic creators) got similar flack that it didn't take real artistic skill to make nice images in photoshop. For anyone young enough to always have photoshop and digital photography will likely be surprised that there was such resistance and snobbery around using these tools. There was also the same fear that these tools would ruin art by making "real" artists obsolete.
dahfizz 3y ago
> it's a hard case to make that any AI-generated imagery lacks sufficient human input The test is not "input", but "authorship". If you commissioned some art from an artist, you would have input on what they make but the artist would be the author and copyright holder of their work. Its hard for me to accept that the prompter "authored" the output of an LLM. The output of the LLM was entirely generated and authored by the LLM. It did so at your command, but that doesn't count as authorship.
- rnk 3y ago
  Artists can copyright their work no matter what. If they create a computer program to scatter paint, they can copyright the output. If I as a programmer do creative work (ie programming), it should have the same support. This was just a bad decision about copyright, the only reason to support this distinction is to protect art and artists.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Artists can copyright their work no matter what. If they create a computer program to scatter paint, they can copyright the output. Not if the computer program uses GenAI, at least without disclosing and disclaiming from copyright the GenAI contribution, under the current (absolutely ludicrous) Copyright Office interpretation. > If I as a programmer do creative work (ie programming), it should have the same support. It does: neither copyright law nor the copyright office defines classes of people (“artists” vs. “computer programmers”) with different effects on if they create artwork with the same type of automated tooling. The copyright office may make a spurious distinction between GenAI and other tools, but it doesn't distinction between classes of creator the way you seem to think is an issue that needs corrected.

by ssalka 3y ago

nonethewiser 3y ago

Not just that but there are many iterations with pre and post processing. Im not sure about the process for this image and im not sure what I think is fair, but “AI generated” is a wide spectrum.

IKantRead 3y ago

As someone who has been doing a lot of work in SD, I just wanted to strongly second this. Stable Diffusion and the like are much closer to when photoshop first appeared than they are to than the completely automatic art generation machine people make them out to be. I remember well both digital cameras and photoshop receiving initial criticism from "real" artists... until they were both widely adopted by these communities. The critique of digital photography was that it's not really art because you can just take a bajillion pictures and then filter out the ones that don't look good. Photoshop users (especially web comic creators) got similar flack that it didn't take real artistic skill to make nice images in photoshop. For anyone young enough to always have photoshop and digital photography will likely be surprised that there was such resistance and snobbery around using these tools. There was also the same fear that these tools would ruin art by making "real" artists obsolete.

dahfizz 3y ago

> it's a hard case to make that any AI-generated imagery lacks sufficient human input The test is not "input", but "authorship". If you commissioned some art from an artist, you would have input on what they make but the artist would be the author and copyright holder of their work. Its hard for me to accept that the prompter "authored" the output of an LLM. The output of the LLM was entirely generated and authored by the LLM. It did so at your command, but that doesn't count as authorship.

rnk 3y ago
Artists can copyright their work no matter what. If they create a computer program to scatter paint, they can copyright the output. If I as a programmer do creative work (ie programming), it should have the same support. This was just a bad decision about copyright, the only reason to support this distinction is to protect art and artists.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Artists can copyright their work no matter what. If they create a computer program to scatter paint, they can copyright the output. Not if the computer program uses GenAI, at least without disclosing and disclaiming from copyright the GenAI contribution, under the current (absolutely ludicrous) Copyright Office interpretation. > If I as a programmer do creative work (ie programming), it should have the same support. It does: neither copyright law nor the copyright office defines classes of people (“artists” vs. “computer programmers”) with different effects on if they create artwork with the same type of automated tooling. The copyright office may make a spurious distinction between GenAI and other tools, but it doesn't distinction between classes of creator the way you seem to think is an issue that needs corrected.