So, what's your view on how we should legally think about AI art models that use copyrighted art for training data? I'm not sure there's a compelling analogy?
Clearly this is what human artists do all day long, of course. And the question is in what way is that different form having an AI do it. Any thoughts? I'm particularly interested in people familiar with the most relevant law.
I know a lot of artists are basically just opposed to this sort of thing, and part of that is the harm done to their lifestyle. To be honest I am torn. I don't like the idea of creativity being consolidated into powerful models held by a few corporations. But then most entertainment is already held by a few corporations.
More deeply... a world of really good AI art is kind of magical?
Like, I get it - if you're like me you've spent a ton of time getting decent at a craft and then to see an AI do it is upsetting. But if you'd told me in the abstract "in the year 2030 or so, you'll be able to make a feature film in your basement" I'd be in favor of it at almost any cost!
@ZachWeinersmith I think it's really hard to understand creativity. AI art seems to be too close to using a photo-copier. When a human ingests and reinterprets, something new is created. The insights, instincts and skills used are unique to that person.
I'm not sure AI (as it is now) approaches that level of uniqueness and distinction. It's new, but it's a soulless copy of the originals.
@Catelli @ZachWeinersmith I think you're painting humans with too narrow a brush. Do some of us add insight, instinct, and skill? Sure. But there are plenty of humans who are happy to make soulless copies too.
@LouisIngenthron @ZachWeinersmith Granted, there are copycats, but that's not the point about creativity and what adds to "newness"
I know it's an ongoing debate about specific human created derivative works already, and the debate has been going on forever. I don't aim to settle those arguments about those particular arts here.
But it is accepted that humans do create new art even when it is derived.
@Catelli @ZachWeinersmith Agreed. So why do people refuse to accept the possibility that computers can create new art, even when it's derived?
@LouisIngenthron @ZachWeinersmith Because there's no actual thought, emotion, or impulse. They are doing it because they are told to. There's no desire to create that fuels it.
It's a series of computations that create something that we anthropomorphize out of a desire to see "art"
I know this gets into the mysticism of "what is art?" In my books, it has to have emotion behind the creation.
You can disagree on that, but I won't agree with you. 😉
@Catelli @ZachWeinersmith@mastodon.so(A) Electrical impulses in silicon really aren't so different from electrical impulses in biological neurons.
(B) Many humans make art, not because they desire to, but because they were told to and they desire a paycheck (like making an actress 10 lbs thinner in every frame of a movie).
(C) Finally, I think the idea that only humans can make art, in a way, incorrectly anthropomorphizes art itself. When the whole of nature comes together to create a beautiful landscape, and a human comes along and takes a picture of that, who is really the artist?
@LouisIngenthron @Catelli Is art what is created by the artist, or what is interpreted by the viewer? (Or, of course, a combination of both.)