4 ms·

Because that makes no damn sense.

FeepingCreature 2y ago
There's literally a saying that explicitly spells out "great artists steal." Art is imitation plus adaptation, and everybody used to know this, artists included, until they all spontaneously forgot about a year ago, around the time when the artificial imitation machines started becoming commercial threats.
- seanhunter 2y ago
  Yes. That saying probably[1] started life with the quote from TS Elliot, who said "Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different." The composer Igor Stravinsky "took" that and changed it to “A good composer does not imitate; he steals.” and after that quote was further changed in the LaTex documentation (believe it or not), Steve Jobs took it and changed it to be Pablo Picasso saying "Lesser artists copy, great artists steal". It doesn't seem there's any evidence of Picasso saying it although Steve Jobs said a lot that Picasso said it. [1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/03/06/artists-steal/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/03/06/artists-steal/
  - richard_todd 2y ago
    It’s amusing that the sequence of events in that story makes a great example of prior art getting regurgitated and altered by humans. If he were an AI bot, we would say Steve Jobs “hallucinated” a fact about Picasso.
- chx 2y ago
  Yeah. Still there is a human mind and effort between the original and the copy or we wouldn't care that much. That's the fundamental difference. Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40475364 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40475364
  - FeepingCreature 2y ago
    Sure so call it dehumanized art, but don't call it stolen art just because that sounds more severe. It's just the '24 version of "You wouldn't download a car."
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Max-q 2y ago
If you go to art school, what you do is study and analyze what artists have done before you. We humans learn much in the same way as an AI. We study what has been made by others. I think accusing AI generated work to theft, is a based on the wrong assumptions. It's not just art. What do you do in computer science courses? Or math, language, physics, or any other subject? You study what has already been made. What you produce based on that knowledge is not considered theft. Have you ever seen an AI image that, if a human made it, would be considered a theft?
- thfuran 2y ago
  >If you go to art school, what you do is study and analyze what artists have done before you. You don't have to go to art school to produce art. Even if you do go, there's nothing stopping you from producing art unlike what you studied. >We humans learn much in the same way as an AI. We study what has been made by others. I think accusing AI generated work to theft, is a based on the wrong assumptions. What assumptions? >It's not just art. What do you do in computer science courses? Or math, language, physics, or any other subject? You study what has already been made. Most of "what has already been made" is not "copyrighted work for which you have no license or exception" >What you produce based on that knowledge is not considered theft. It certainly can be. >Have you ever seen an AI image that, if a human made it, would be considered a theft? I've certainly seen AI produce things that would be considered copyright violation or misappropriation of likeness or similar offences if they were to be used commercially.
  - FeepingCreature 2y ago
    > You don't have to go to art school to produce art. Even if you do go, there's nothing stopping you from producing art unlike what you studied. Sure, but also you do, presumably, have to see to paint. The overwhelming majority of our training corpus is just visual observation.
    - thfuran 2y ago
      What are you trying to suggest is the significance of that?

There's literally a saying that explicitly spells out "great artists steal." Art is imitation plus adaptation, and everybody used to know this, artists included, until they all spontaneously forgot about a year ago, around the time when the artificial imitation machines started becoming commercial threats.

seanhunter 2y ago
Yes. That saying probably[1] started life with the quote from TS Elliot, who said "Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different." The composer Igor Stravinsky "took" that and changed it to “A good composer does not imitate; he steals.” and after that quote was further changed in the LaTex documentation (believe it or not), Steve Jobs took it and changed it to be Pablo Picasso saying "Lesser artists copy, great artists steal". It doesn't seem there's any evidence of Picasso saying it although Steve Jobs said a lot that Picasso said it. [1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/03/06/artists-steal/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/03/06/artists-steal/
- richard_todd 2y ago
  It’s amusing that the sequence of events in that story makes a great example of prior art getting regurgitated and altered by humans. If he were an AI bot, we would say Steve Jobs “hallucinated” a fact about Picasso.
chx 2y ago
Yeah. Still there is a human mind and effort between the original and the copy or we wouldn't care that much. That's the fundamental difference. Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40475364 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40475364
- FeepingCreature 2y ago
  Sure so call it dehumanized art, but don't call it stolen art just because that sounds more severe. It's just the '24 version of "You wouldn't download a car."

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Max-q 2y ago

If you go to art school, what you do is study and analyze what artists have done before you. We humans learn much in the same way as an AI. We study what has been made by others. I think accusing AI generated work to theft, is a based on the wrong assumptions. It's not just art. What do you do in computer science courses? Or math, language, physics, or any other subject? You study what has already been made. What you produce based on that knowledge is not considered theft. Have you ever seen an AI image that, if a human made it, would be considered a theft?

thfuran 2y ago
>If you go to art school, what you do is study and analyze what artists have done before you. You don't have to go to art school to produce art. Even if you do go, there's nothing stopping you from producing art unlike what you studied. >We humans learn much in the same way as an AI. We study what has been made by others. I think accusing AI generated work to theft, is a based on the wrong assumptions. What assumptions? >It's not just art. What do you do in computer science courses? Or math, language, physics, or any other subject? You study what has already been made. Most of "what has already been made" is not "copyrighted work for which you have no license or exception" >What you produce based on that knowledge is not considered theft. It certainly can be. >Have you ever seen an AI image that, if a human made it, would be considered a theft? I've certainly seen AI produce things that would be considered copyright violation or misappropriation of likeness or similar offences if they were to be used commercially.
- FeepingCreature 2y ago
  > You don't have to go to art school to produce art. Even if you do go, there's nothing stopping you from producing art unlike what you studied. Sure, but also you do, presumably, have to see to paint. The overwhelming majority of our training corpus is just visual observation.
  - thfuran 2y ago
    What are you trying to suggest is the significance of that?