this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2023
85 points (91.3% liked)
Asklemmy
43626 readers
1407 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
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.
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.
How you don't see that in principle AI data training and human learning is the same process, is fascinating to me.
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.