4 ms·

> AI can be used as another kind of brush. A prompt can be a masterpiece What a joke. No, AI is not a brush, it is a slop machine that spits out derivatives of

by mcmcmc 8mo ago

> AI can be used as another kind of brush. A prompt can be a masterpiece What a joke. No, AI is not a brush, it is a slop machine that spits out derivatives of the actual masters. If you go back and forth with a human artist about a commission where you keep nitpicking and wanting adjustments, does that make you the artist? No, it makes you the “ideas guy”

betaby 8mo ago
> spits out derivatives of the actual masters A brief history of art in general.
- camillomiller 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - Ajakks 8mo ago
    As someone who has actually studied art - right back at you. All the most famous paintings are done like a hundred times - certain scenes were done by ALL Masters, as like a rite of passage or proof of arrival - pretty much the whole time between the OG Masters and modern art. "Who is your favorite Sebastian?" Is a legit question, for example.
    - camillomiller 8mo ago
      And? Have we all already lost any ability for actual consequential thinking? Each one of those Sebastian is the living proof of a human experience, each with its subtleties, each unique. That is why you ask that question. How on Earth can you compare that to a series of shitty pictures done in a few seconds by a stochastic machine?
- array_key_first 8mo ago
  Sure, but at at least it's created by humans. I have an allegiance to humans. I have no allegiance to a computer program. That would be pathetic.
charcircuit 8mo ago
Let's say the AI prompt is "Make it black and white". Why does taking a photo and making it gray scale in photoshop result in a copyrightable piece of art, but using an AI model makes the resulting output slop? They seem equivalent to me.
- blackcatsec 8mo ago
  Because you're unable to understand art, honestly. Photography isn't just "taking a photo and making a grayscale image in Photoshop"; but rather a combination of a couple of different artistic expression styles that involve understanding how to use the tools you have (a camera, the lens, film or a sensor, and lighting) to capture an expression of an event. Technically speaking, a photo of a mountain isn't just a "photo of a mountain" that you would maybe throw into AI slop--but an actual, legitimate photo of a mountain and how it's captured and presented (no matter the post processing done) is an actual artistic expression of the capture of that mountain. Because absolutely nothing, nothing at all will capture actually standing there looking at the mountain. A photo is the best approximation, and sometimes doesn't even have to be, depending on what the artist wants to express with the image. In short, your inability to understand photography doesn't justify the use of AI slop to prompt "give me a grayscale image of a mountain" and assume that it's the same thing as a human being taking an actual photo. They're not even close to the same thing.
  - minimaxir 8mo ago
    The original comment is asking from a legal perspective in a very specific example, not an emotional one.
    - Ajakks 8mo ago
      They are describing the artistic qualities that something must posess to be actual artwork - which is relevant to copyrighting artworks, and is also that had been discussed, by Artists and Creators - the entire time They did not write an emotional comment, they were trying to teach you, bc they ascertained that you don't understand art. They were right.
vessenes 8mo ago
Wait till you learn about comparator mirrors. And renaissance artist studios.
Ajakks 8mo ago
You clearly only get sloppy from the machine -> hence your entire understanding, you did some googling, found others with the same experience and you took up this position. Meanwhile, random person, gets the exact same AI that you used to create literal DaVinci'esque, visibly masterpiece inspired - maybe not "masterpiece" but "masterpiece adjacent" - thats apparently, its not perfect art, but it could have been created in a workshop... You can't do that. Rather, you cant nake the AI do that. What is the difference between you and the random person with artworks in the style of the old masters? What do we call that gap? Isn't that gap normally stuff like talent, ability, skill, knowledge? All arguments made in this vein are just people whining about their personal lack of ability, as if its a machines fault.
- mcmcmc 8mo ago
  Thanks for the ad hominem. Subjective artistic value aside, do you not dispute that prompting AI to create an artistic image is functionally the same as outsourcing to another human? You input instructions and a commission fee; you get back a piece of artistic expression. You did not create the art, someone else did. And for AI output, the machine cannot claim a copyright on that original image. If you outsource the image creation, then throw it on a t-shirt design, or modify it, or do whatever, you can copyright the modified work that you Han a hand in creating, but you still are not the creator of the original.
  - freejazz 8mo ago
    > do you not dispute that prompting AI to create an artistic image is functionally the same as outsourcing to another human? From who's perspective? Fundamentally, in one situation a human is creating something and in the other situation, no human creates anything. You generally cannot copyright derivative works as if they are your own, fyi.

by mcmcmc 8mo ago

betaby 8mo ago

> spits out derivatives of the actual masters A brief history of art in general.

camillomiller 8mo ago
[flagged]
- Ajakks 8mo ago
  As someone who has actually studied art - right back at you. All the most famous paintings are done like a hundred times - certain scenes were done by ALL Masters, as like a rite of passage or proof of arrival - pretty much the whole time between the OG Masters and modern art. "Who is your favorite Sebastian?" Is a legit question, for example.
  - camillomiller 8mo ago
    And? Have we all already lost any ability for actual consequential thinking? Each one of those Sebastian is the living proof of a human experience, each with its subtleties, each unique. That is why you ask that question. How on Earth can you compare that to a series of shitty pictures done in a few seconds by a stochastic machine?
array_key_first 8mo ago
Sure, but at at least it's created by humans. I have an allegiance to humans. I have no allegiance to a computer program. That would be pathetic.

charcircuit 8mo ago

Let's say the AI prompt is "Make it black and white". Why does taking a photo and making it gray scale in photoshop result in a copyrightable piece of art, but using an AI model makes the resulting output slop? They seem equivalent to me.

blackcatsec 8mo ago
Because you're unable to understand art, honestly. Photography isn't just "taking a photo and making a grayscale image in Photoshop"; but rather a combination of a couple of different artistic expression styles that involve understanding how to use the tools you have (a camera, the lens, film or a sensor, and lighting) to capture an expression of an event. Technically speaking, a photo of a mountain isn't just a "photo of a mountain" that you would maybe throw into AI slop--but an actual, legitimate photo of a mountain and how it's captured and presented (no matter the post processing done) is an actual artistic expression of the capture of that mountain. Because absolutely nothing, nothing at all will capture actually standing there looking at the mountain. A photo is the best approximation, and sometimes doesn't even have to be, depending on what the artist wants to express with the image. In short, your inability to understand photography doesn't justify the use of AI slop to prompt "give me a grayscale image of a mountain" and assume that it's the same thing as a human being taking an actual photo. They're not even close to the same thing.
- minimaxir 8mo ago
  The original comment is asking from a legal perspective in a very specific example, not an emotional one.
  - Ajakks 8mo ago
    They are describing the artistic qualities that something must posess to be actual artwork - which is relevant to copyrighting artworks, and is also that had been discussed, by Artists and Creators - the entire time They did not write an emotional comment, they were trying to teach you, bc they ascertained that you don't understand art. They were right.

vessenes 8mo ago

Wait till you learn about comparator mirrors. And renaissance artist studios.

Ajakks 8mo ago

You clearly only get sloppy from the machine -> hence your entire understanding, you did some googling, found others with the same experience and you took up this position. Meanwhile, random person, gets the exact same AI that you used to create literal DaVinci'esque, visibly masterpiece inspired - maybe not "masterpiece" but "masterpiece adjacent" - thats apparently, its not perfect art, but it could have been created in a workshop... You can't do that. Rather, you cant nake the AI do that. What is the difference between you and the random person with artworks in the style of the old masters? What do we call that gap? Isn't that gap normally stuff like talent, ability, skill, knowledge? All arguments made in this vein are just people whining about their personal lack of ability, as if its a machines fault.

mcmcmc 8mo ago
Thanks for the ad hominem. Subjective artistic value aside, do you not dispute that prompting AI to create an artistic image is functionally the same as outsourcing to another human? You input instructions and a commission fee; you get back a piece of artistic expression. You did not create the art, someone else did. And for AI output, the machine cannot claim a copyright on that original image. If you outsource the image creation, then throw it on a t-shirt design, or modify it, or do whatever, you can copyright the modified work that you Han a hand in creating, but you still are not the creator of the original.
- freejazz 8mo ago
  > do you not dispute that prompting AI to create an artistic image is functionally the same as outsourcing to another human? From who's perspective? Fundamentally, in one situation a human is creating something and in the other situation, no human creates anything. You generally cannot copyright derivative works as if they are your own, fyi.