3 ms·

So your argument boils down to the idea that humans impart a magical, invisible mark on their own artworks, and though no one can measure this mark nor see it,

So your argument boils down to the idea that humans impart a magical, invisible mark on their own artworks, and though no one can measure this mark nor see it, the fact that it exists within your own imagination exempts them from overburdensome rules that you would mercilessly apply to one of the most exciting innovations of not only the 21st century, but even the 20th century before it?

coldpie 3y ago
(I emphasize again, that I don't know where I stand on the issue. But for the sake of argument...) Well, I think my argument is that the mark is not invisible or undetectable. Simply by nature of being human, we impart something of ourselves onto things we create. For example, maybe by how you choose to compose the objects within a work, in a way the artist whose style you are mimicking would not have done, or the context in which you present it. Or maybe in how you hold the tools, where it creates an unintentional but different effect in the work. Whereas with an AI model, it will always create the same output for the given inputs.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  > Well, I think my argument is that the mark is not invisible or undetectable. Simply by nature of being human, we impart something of ourselves onto things we create. You're one of those people who think that if you can imagine something and then describe it poetically, that this has any relevance to the real world that the rest of us inhabit.