• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Artificial Intelligence

Dr.Sid said:
AI assisted

The point is it's creating original content, but based heavily on the content it was trained on. Collage analogy is not perfect, but it's pretty good I think.
Click to expand...
I disagree. A collage is taking snips of original works and pasting them together without altering them. That's not what generative AI does.
 
arthwollipot said:
I disagree. A collage is taking snips of original works and pasting them together without altering them. That's not what generative AI does.
Click to expand...
If you copied and pasted a snip of my original work, and then fussed with it until it no longer looked quite like what it was, and passed it off as your own original work, I'd consider you a thief and a charlatan. Doubly so if you outsourced the work to a robot.
 
theprestige said:
If you copied and pasted a snip of my original work, and then fussed with it until it no longer looked quite like what it was, and passed it off as your own original work, I'd consider you a thief and a charlatan. Doubly so if you outsourced the work to a robot.
Click to expand...
And that's entirely fair enough. Collages don't fuss with the images, they just put them next to other images. Generative AI takes a digital fingerprint of an image and produces a new image that has a similar digital fingerprint.

This is the basis of the Midjourney defence, going by the LegalEagle video. They're not actually stealing the image. They're using a digital fingerprint of the image.
 
arthwollipot said:
And that's entirely fair enough. Collages don't fuss with the images, they just put them next to other images. Generative AI takes a digital fingerprint of an image and produces a new image that has a similar digital fingerprint.

This is the basis of the Midjourney defence, going by the LegalEagle video. They're not actually stealing the image. They're using a digital fingerprint of the image.
Click to expand...
"This isn't aesthetic plagiarism, it's mathematical plagiarism!"
 
The funny thing about a fingerprint is that it's a sufficient reproduction of the original.

Even more so, when the storage medium is digital rather than analog. Then the reproduction becomes complete, as well as sufficient.
 
arthwollipot said:
Undoubtedly this forms part of Disney's counterargument.
Click to expand...
Can't know that until Midjourney responds. And I doubt it, Disney and Universal are very clear their claim of copyright breaches are in the outputs, that's why Midjourney hasn't got a leg to stand on, whichever way you slice it their generative AI produces artwork which breach D&U's copyrights. And since Midjourney can and demonstrably do censor their outputs for different reasons it shows it has decided not to do so for outputs that contain copyrighted elements. In other words it is deliberately breaching copyright.
 
Darat said:
Can't know that until Midjourney responds. And I doubt it, Disney and Universal are very clear their claim of copyright breaches are in the outputs, that's why Midjourney hasn't got a leg to stand on, whichever way you slice it their generative AI produces artwork which breach D&U's copyrights. And since Midjourney can and demonstrably do censor their outputs for different reasons it shows it has decided not to do so for outputs that contain copyrighted elements. In other words it is deliberately breaching copyright.
Click to expand...
Either way it goes, it'll be interesting to watch. And I believe that whichever way it goes, it will become legal precedent and change the way generative AI is used into the future.
 
arthwollipot said:
Either way it goes, it'll be interesting to watch. And I believe that whichever way it goes, it will become legal precedent and change the way generative AI is used into the future.
Click to expand...
The big boys, the likes of OpenAI, have already taken action so that they couldn't be subject to such a lawsuit. They have several layers of censorship, from simply censoring the entry prompt, as I showed earlier to now also checking the output image for possible infringements.
 
Bu
arthwollipot said:
And that's entirely fair enough. Collages don't fuss with the images, they just put them next to other images. Generative AI takes a digital fingerprint of an image and produces a new image that has a similar digital fingerprint.
Click to expand...

I posted the link above the - we've had the first legal judgement in the USA in determining whether the AIs "analysis" and distillation of copyrighted material is in itself a breach of copyright, and the judgment correctly said it wasn't. For that to be a breach of copyright would have involved significant and novel interpretation of current copyright legislation. If people want to make such distillations to be illegal they need to be pushing for new legislation.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
tools and ideas are fuel for new expressions of creativity. AI doesn't need to be in opposition to human creativity, it can be useful to make up for lack of skill in certain areas as well as generate a lot of variations quickly on which to base the final work.

I find it also useful to get away from the idea that something has to be A Masterpiece. It perfectly enough if it manages to invoke strong and new emotions and thoughts.
Click to expand...
This is where I am at the moment. AI generative art is opening up art, what was once something only the wealthy could do is now available to pretty much all of us.
 
Darat said:
This is where I am at the moment. AI generative art is opening up art, what was once something only the wealthy could do is now available to pretty much all of us.
Click to expand...
The well-known phrase "starving artist" would tend to contradict this assertion.
 
Darat said:
Just so folk don't misunderstand my position, I hope Disney and Universal's lawsuit is successful, AI should not be used to breach copyright.
Click to expand...
I guess I'm leaning toward "it's just a tool" at the moment. Ie. depends what you do with the picture. Personal use = fair use, no problem. Commercial use, it's on the user to acquire license. Question is what about silly funny meme going viral on social media. But when I do that using literal screencap from the movie with some added text, nobody is suing anybody.

But that's only for the Disney case, which is about specific subjects. Not about style. Lot of artists suffer by having their style copied. That's quite different worm of cans.
 
Darat said:
This is where I am at the moment. AI generative art is opening up art, what was once something only the wealthy could do is now available to pretty much all of us.
Click to expand...
I've been able to print out more real art than I could ever go through and put it on my wall for decades, spending a pittance. You're arguing for the benefits of a glorified toy that is at the mercy of mindless algorithms, which will by design always pander to the lowest common denominator.
 
Last edited:
Olmstead said:
I've been able to print out more real art than I could ever go through and put it on my wall for decades, spending a pittance. You're arguing for the benefits of a glorified toy that is at the mercy of mindless algorithms, which will by design always pander to the lowest common denominator.
Click to expand...
Serious question how much did you pay the artist (or artists) to create your commissioned works?
 
Darat said:
Serious question how much did you pay the artist (or artists) to create your commissioned works?
Click to expand...
My point is that I didn't need commissioned works. The very concept is so strange to me, as if having an artist make me something to order will be better than an affordable copy of something an artist actually chose to make. And now the great solution is supposed to be to have a machine make something to order, but it's not even truly to order, because it's algorithmic slop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom