this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2024
748 points (92.5% liked)
196
16766 readers
2590 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, you need to be the right kind of neural network before you're allowed to learn from other artists.
Unironically yes. Art is a part of the human condition. If you think that's something that should be automated, then you don't understand why art has value. Doubly so considering you feel keen on dehumanizing the people who make it. Humans have hopes and dreams. Computers don't.
Art can have value to both its creator and its viewer. Present-day AIs have no self-awareness and cannot derive any value of that sort from the art they create, but that art's human viewers can still derive value from it. Humans already derive value from viewing beautiful things (sunsets, flowers, etc.) which have no self-aware creator (unless you're religious).
With that said, the topic here is plagiarism, with the implication (if I understand you correctly) that an AI cannot create anything truly original because it does not experience the human condition. I don't think that's the case, but even if it is then "truly original" is still a very high standard that most human art does not meet. If I paint a ballerina in the style of Degas, I have created something with little artistic worth but that doesn't imply that I have plagiarized Degas. Why should an AI be held to a higher standard than that?
Because it's not a human and possesses no self awareness. Humans take inspiration, machines copy. When people tell stories, they have to think about what they're doing and why. Everything in a work of fiction is intentionally put there by the author. Computer programs do what they are programmed to do, which in this case is copy shit other people made. That's what it's designed to do. You're speaking about the technology as if it were anything more than that, as if it were a person who were capable of knowing the difference. It doesn't know the meaning of terms like "homage" or "adaptation". It does not think about what it spits out at all. It's sole function is to do what you ask of it, and it does that using data stolen from other people. That's not even getting into the whole spyware thing tech bros keep trying to normalize.
You cannot be both pro-art and pro-"AI". Full fucking stop.
To create an AI image there must be a human being with an idea. The human being wants to create a Degas style ballerina. The idea was created by their organic brain. Then they take some tool and make the idea come true. The tool can be a brush with paint or AI.
I'll add that the way art is made is craft, not art. Art is the idea behind the craft. AI skips the crafty part, not the art part.
Why not both?
Because its gatekeeping. Making blanket statement that a piece can't be considered art because of certain tools used in its making goes against the whole principle imo.
My comment above is sarcastic btw, I'm not sure if it came off that way. I'm mocking his "you can't be pro ai and pro art" bit and his whole rant in general. I find it completely asinine when people try to define art to suit their purposes and draw lines between what is or isn't.
Ah, the artist's favorite pastime, drawing arbitrary lines.