• weew@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    So any artist that went to art school isn’t an original artist?

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, but one went to school to learn how to hone their skills and learn from the masters, the other stole it off of artists who will never see a dime off of it.

      Don’t get me wrong, I have fun with AI art, but the moral question that hasn’t been solved yet

      • Takumidesh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why is it actually different?

        If I study a painting (train a model) and then replicate the style am I stealing the painting off of an artist?

        If I illegally obtained a copy of the painting that i studied, would the piece that I generated belong to the artist of the painting i studied?

        If I go to a wine and design thing and paint a picture after being instructed how and following specifically with a template, does that make my painting no longer mine?

        Is a person sitting in a free museum sketching in their notebook, a version of the painting that they see on the wall stealing?

        Ai is not copying, the work that it generates is novel. The training data may have been obtained illegally (debatable and not settled in law) but that doesn’t make the generated work any less new or novel.

        In your own example, the people who 'went to school and learned from the masters" also don’t pay the original artists. Art students aren’t paying the Gogh estate for permission to study his paintings and they aren’t paying royalties for making something that looks and feels like his paintings either.

        • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          All of those the artist knew what they were doing and how their art could be used to inspire new people.

          Artists has no way of consenting to thos before it was done. Their art wasn’t taken and used as inspiration for one person, it was taken and is now being mass produced for the masses in some cases.

          You’re not sitting in a lecture absorbing what a professor is telling you and filling out an essay question. Your copying someone else’s homework and changing it a little to come off as okay. In private and for private use I’m okay with that, but these big studios and content creators have no right to do that to artists. There’s no way they could have consented to that.

          • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            How you don’t see that in principle AI data training and human learning is the same process, is fascinating to me.

            • HamSwagwich@showeq.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              People like that surely do see it, they just deny it publicly because they feel threatened by the technology.

              No person with even a basic education can legitimately come to another conclusion and be honest. The only way I can see this happening legitimately is to not understand even the basics of how AI art works. Like, not even the first thing about it.