3 ms·

> But substantially the same thing happens if the AI is trained on some other artist's work instead. You could take that further and say that "substantially th

> But substantially the same thing happens if the AI is trained on some other artist's work instead. You could take that further and say that "substantially the same thing" happens if the AI is trained on music instead. It's just another kind of artwork, right? Somebody who was going to have an illustration by [illustrator with distinctive style] might choose to have music instead, so the music is in competition, so all that illustrator's art might as well be in the training data, and that doesn't matter because the artist would get competed with either way. Says you.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
If you type "street art" as part of an image generation prompt, the results are quite similar to typing "in the style of Banksy". They're direct substitutes for each other, neither of them is actually going to produce Banksy-quality output and it's not even obvious which one will produce better results for a given prompt. You still get images in a particular style by specifying the name of the style instead of the name of the artist. Do you really think this is no different than being able to produce only music when you want an image?
- card_zero 2y ago
  This hinges on denying that artists have distinctive personal styles. Instead your theory seems to be that styles are genres, and that the AI only needs to be trained on the genre, not the specific artist's output, in order to produce that artist's style. Which under this theory is equivalent to the generic style. My counter-argument is "no". Ideally I'd elaborate on that. So ummm ... no, that's not the way things are. Is it?
  - int_19h 2y ago
    The argument here isn't so much that individual artists don't have their specific styles, but rather whether AI actually tracks that, or whether using "in the style of ..." is effectively a substitute for identifying the more general style category to which this artist belongs.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

If you type "street art" as part of an image generation prompt, the results are quite similar to typing "in the style of Banksy". They're direct substitutes for each other, neither of them is actually going to produce Banksy-quality output and it's not even obvious which one will produce better results for a given prompt. You still get images in a particular style by specifying the name of the style instead of the name of the artist. Do you really think this is no different than being able to produce only music when you want an image?

card_zero 2y ago
This hinges on denying that artists have distinctive personal styles. Instead your theory seems to be that styles are genres, and that the AI only needs to be trained on the genre, not the specific artist's output, in order to produce that artist's style. Which under this theory is equivalent to the generic style. My counter-argument is "no". Ideally I'd elaborate on that. So ummm ... no, that's not the way things are. Is it?
- int_19h 2y ago
  The argument here isn't so much that individual artists don't have their specific styles, but rather whether AI actually tracks that, or whether using "in the style of ..." is effectively a substitute for identifying the more general style category to which this artist belongs.