Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

gurenkagurenda t1_jabflgo wrote

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

This sounds like you’re confused about how these models work. It’s not just a big database of art that the model is clipping pieces out of.

11

SlyRaptorZ t1_jabhdts wrote

I've had it explained to me quite well. The AI isn't drawing or painting anything. It's extrapolating. If you didn't feed all of those drawings of a horse into it to spit back out, you wouldn't be able to ask it for a horse and it would draw a horse.

There are a lot of you who are wistfully telling yourselves bullshit to side step the fact that you're nothing but thieves asking a computer to do your work for you like a monkey.

−1

gurenkagurenda t1_jabikll wrote

The model does not need to see drawings of a horse to produce a picture of a horse. It needs to see pictures of horses, sure, but those could be photographs, drawings, whatever. As a human, you also would not be able to draw a picture of a horse without ever seeing a horse, so I’m not sure what your point is.

Also, how do you know that you’ve had it explained to you well? Unless you’ve attempted to apply the knowledge, you can only tell if you’ve had it explained convincingly

10

SwagginsYolo420 t1_jabu0rv wrote

Ok but see why my example of photography in particular applies here.

A photographer can use a specific camera with a specific lens, specific camera settings, shutter speed, film stock etc. They can photograph a specific city skyline from a specific angle and distance and elevation at a certain time of day/night with specific weather and visibility etc. They could then take a unique picture.

The photographer has made all of those creative choices and hardware selection to compose the shot, which is a primary argument as to why a photograph is copyrightable and art.

The exact same photographer could also use a popular imaging-creation AI, and almost perfectly re-create the real photograph they took via AI by carefully using all of those same exact creative choices down to the lens type, in the software prompt.

So the same person would have created a nearly identical image from two different methods. Yet one is currently copyrightable and one is not - despite the same creator putting the same effort and knowledge into composing both versions of the final image.

3