Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ZhugeSimp t1_jaag9jr wrote

Reply to comment by LiberalFartsMajor in AI Art Just Got Slapped With A Crucial And Devasting Legal Blow by Skullpt-Art

So if someone goes to a artschool, views art, or interacts with a creative property in any form, thier art is tainted by those preconceived works and therefore is not truly a creative work? All art is plagiarism but reconstructed and applied in small enough parts that you cannot tell it is.

4

Kromgar t1_jaayqwi wrote

So... what the ai does?

Because it learns what a concept looks like and that's how it will generate an image from pure static. It doesn't have images saved inside the model it has knowledge of what something looks like and how to make that from static. Essentially it knows how to draw a thing but doesn't have images of the thing saved in its data.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90649913/the-unusual-creative-process-of-the-artist-behind-the-little-mermaid-and-beauty-and-the-beast

Aphantasia prevents the generation of mental images based on knowledge of what things look like, but it does not prevent that knowledge serving as the basis for an image made with pencil and paper. Keane can draw a picture of Ariel because he knows what humans (and fish) look like, and that information—plus the skills acquired through study and practice—steers his hand accordingly.

This is the best explanation i can think of for this.

0

LiberalFartsMajor t1_jablgkv wrote

It doesn't matter if it creates it from something or from "nothing" the reason a computer can't be creative is that it lacks initiative, a person must direct it to create for it to happen.

No free will = no creativity

A person will always be the one responsible for the works existence because they will have to initiate it somehow.

−3

Ronny_Jotten t1_jacx0a6 wrote

No, because plagiarism is when you copy something verbatim, without creating your own authentic interpretation and expression. All art has elements of borrowing, but it's inventiveness, imagination, and some originality, that makes it art and not plagiarism.

The question is whether a machine is capable of inventiveness, imagination, originality, thinking, feeling, etc., or not, since those things have generally been acknowledged throughout history as being necessary elements of art. Wind and rain may carve patterns that are as beautiful as the most beautiful painting, but we don't call it art. Some people believe, or want to believe, that computers are capable of those things, and so we should call the patterns they produce, original, creative art. Others think that those things are not actually necessary, and we should call it art anyway. Personally, I think it's neither art nor plagiarism, but something else, that we don't have words for yet, and we're not sure how to deal with. It's a necessary discussion to work it out, but trying to fit dramatically new things into old categories is usually less successful than creating new categories.

0