Comment

Comment on ‘Mass theft’: Thousands of artists call for AI art auction to be cancelled

chisels, brushes, and cameras don’t train on the existing work of humans and then “create” art. they are actual tools. ai is not able to do anything without training on and directly taking from the work of others.

if i’m inspired by dalí and rothko i can make work that references them, or even steals from them but my hand is also undeniably involved. ai is not inspired by works, it is trained on them for the purpose of copying. it’s stealing in the laziest possible way and can’t possibly include the hand of the maker because there isn’t one.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Randomgal@lemmy.ca ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
Under this logic you should pay royalties to the maker of your brush and the teachers who taught you. Maybe not everything is about owning shit.

source
- LANCESTAAAA@lemmy.ml ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  I mean typically you buy the brushes and pay for the teaching one way or the other. AI isn’t paying any artist for training upon their work.
  
  source
  - KeenFlame@feddit.nu ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    Who do you think has paid artists throughout history?
    
    (Patrons is the answer)
    
    source
jarfil@beehaw.org ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
There are three things to unpack there:

Tools don’t create art, neural networks wielding those tools create art.

Right now, human NNs are the most complex around the block, so our anthropocentric egotism tries to gatekeep art to humans… ignoring all the animal art out there, like for example birds building “beautiful” nests to attract mates (beautiful to each other, not necessarily to humans), all the art going on between fish, cephalopods, dolphins, whale songs, etc. There is also no guarantee that human NNs will remain supreme forever… and what then, will humans stop creating art, or will the ant tell the elephant that its art is not a thing?

Tools DO use existing human work, otherwise city photography could never be art, cultural photography could not be art, definitely a Campbell soup can could never be art… and so on.

Modern AI does way more than “copying”, it abstracts the underlying patterns, then integrates those abstractions with a prompt, to “make up” an output. Sometimes the output of the abstraction of an “A” looks like an “A”, other times it doesn’t. People keep putting AI down for “hallucinating”… but you can’t claim that it “hallucinates” and “copies” in the same sentence.

For an intro on how modern AIs work, I’d suggest checking: Neural Networks, by 3Blue1Brown

AIs have not been “copying” for several decades already, modern AIs are even farther away from that, and it’s just the tip of the iceberg.

source
Vivendi@lemmy.zip ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
Humans train on past art. Fundamentally speaking there is no new thing created without millions of predecessor context.

Materialistic analysis demands that nothing exists without context, thus your point is moot.

source