3 ms·

Does anyone have any input on a thought I've been kicking around? The Artist's Oath: AO0: I have used no AI AO1: I have used AI in a research or teacher role

by corobo 3y ago

Does anyone have any input on a thought I've been kicking around? The Artist's Oath: AO0: I have used no AI AO1: I have used AI in a research or teacher role AO2: AI has been used for structural components, but not the art itself AO3: AI has directly assisted in the creation process AO4: AI generated this entirely from a prompt specifically engineered by a human AO5: AI generated this entirely from a basic prompt Slightly expanded thoughts and a few examples: https://cohan.dev/the-artist-oath/ https://cohan.dev/the-artist-oath/ The thinking is that once established creativity unions could specify at what level of AI they will accept, and for what compensation. You could also stamp an [AO2] on the box/website as you would the content rating. At the individual level as an artist you can specify the level you use for a work, and someone commissioning you could specify at what level of AI they'd accept. The rating would be per-project, however the draft includes the addition of an asterisk [AO2*] indicates "and I've never used AI beyond this point in my art", and a + would indicate "however as soon as we reach sapience I welcome our new AI friends into the universe of creativity" :) Would love to see what smarter people than I can come up with!

satvikpendem 3y ago
But why, though? It's like stamping on the product whether Photoshop or Blender were used, they're all just tools, and customers, for the most part, don't care how something is made as long as the product itself is good.
- corobo 3y ago
  Because people don't have strong opinions on photoshop and blender, basically. I got nothing better for you there. For the record I agree with you that current gen AI is just another tool to be used. I even use photoshop and digital art as my example when this comes up too :) A lot of folks don't see it that way though, hence they are striking. Just want to bring about clarity as to what people want in a way everyone can have an easier reference point :) E: also in fairness they do stamp the products they use in the realm of TV and movies. It's in the credits usually towards the end where you see all the Dolby, Arri, THX, etc logos. I'm almost certain I've seen the Blender logo in a a non-buck-bunny film somewhere at least.
- johnnyworker 3y ago
  > customers, for the most part, don't care how something is made as long as the product itself is good Most people may also not care about the ingredients in their food, but that doesn't take away the right of others to know what's in their food. If you think it would make no difference, what's the harm? Not even giving people a choice while claiming to know what they want seems fishy to me. And art isn't just product. It's human communication, it means different things to different people, and "who made it and why" is part of that. You don't have a right to my attention and respect just by producing (or stealing) the same output as someone I care about. The stuff that can be quantified is not the stuff that matters.
codingdave 3y ago
This is interesting in that my gut reaction as an artist is that it completely misses the mark on how artists work, create, and choose from all available media and tools. Yet when I tried to write a comment saying so, I kept think about how yes - we do label works on gallery walls with what media was used. We do sometimes create works deliberately using new tools, and sometimes put arbitrary constraints around ourselves. So while I doubt this is going to become a standard in how artists present their work, and certainly won't be accepted as any kind of "Artist's Oath", there is some merit in helping communicate the choices made during the creative process.
- corobo 3y ago
  I'm absolutely fine with my bit being thrown out if it inspires the real one! I'm not tied to the first draft :) Chances are I've come at it from a far too technical standpoint for sure, it's not too far off looking like Geek Code haha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geek_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geek_Code
mips_r4300i 3y ago
One problem I see is that if compensation for the product depends on the level of AI users, then there will be an incentive to lie, making the self-rating pointless. Also, it's doubtful the rating would carry through to the final product since it would be likely used for intermediate products used in the final movie/art creation, which is a different market than the end user viewer.

by corobo 3y ago

satvikpendem 3y ago

But why, though? It's like stamping on the product whether Photoshop or Blender were used, they're all just tools, and customers, for the most part, don't care how something is made as long as the product itself is good.

corobo 3y ago
Because people don't have strong opinions on photoshop and blender, basically. I got nothing better for you there. For the record I agree with you that current gen AI is just another tool to be used. I even use photoshop and digital art as my example when this comes up too :) A lot of folks don't see it that way though, hence they are striking. Just want to bring about clarity as to what people want in a way everyone can have an easier reference point :) E: also in fairness they do stamp the products they use in the realm of TV and movies. It's in the credits usually towards the end where you see all the Dolby, Arri, THX, etc logos. I'm almost certain I've seen the Blender logo in a a non-buck-bunny film somewhere at least.
johnnyworker 3y ago
> customers, for the most part, don't care how something is made as long as the product itself is good Most people may also not care about the ingredients in their food, but that doesn't take away the right of others to know what's in their food. If you think it would make no difference, what's the harm? Not even giving people a choice while claiming to know what they want seems fishy to me. And art isn't just product. It's human communication, it means different things to different people, and "who made it and why" is part of that. You don't have a right to my attention and respect just by producing (or stealing) the same output as someone I care about. The stuff that can be quantified is not the stuff that matters.

codingdave 3y ago

This is interesting in that my gut reaction as an artist is that it completely misses the mark on how artists work, create, and choose from all available media and tools. Yet when I tried to write a comment saying so, I kept think about how yes - we do label works on gallery walls with what media was used. We do sometimes create works deliberately using new tools, and sometimes put arbitrary constraints around ourselves. So while I doubt this is going to become a standard in how artists present their work, and certainly won't be accepted as any kind of "Artist's Oath", there is some merit in helping communicate the choices made during the creative process.

corobo 3y ago
I'm absolutely fine with my bit being thrown out if it inspires the real one! I'm not tied to the first draft :) Chances are I've come at it from a far too technical standpoint for sure, it's not too far off looking like Geek Code haha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geek_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geek_Code

mips_r4300i 3y ago

One problem I see is that if compensation for the product depends on the level of AI users, then there will be an incentive to lie, making the self-rating pointless. Also, it's doubtful the rating would carry through to the final product since it would be likely used for intermediate products used in the final movie/art creation, which is a different market than the end user viewer.