• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

AI-generated Art and Copyright

Darat said:
:confused:

What argument? You asked some straightforward questions, and I answered them, they are yes/no questions. There isn't any "argument" to make about the yes or no. The AIs create new, never-been-seen-before images, and no they do not "cut and paste" pieces of other artwork together to make their images.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The question simply requested a y/n response, because that's how the language works.
Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP> for rule 0.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thermal said:
Absolutely. The question simply requested a y/n response, because that's how the language works.
Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP> for rule 0.
Click to expand...

You still have me confused. What else but the yes/no answer was you looking for? They weren't tricky questions, didn't raise anything novel or anything contentious, the answers could only be yes or no.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I assume hands are hard because they require a disproportionate amount of effort for something most people only notice when it looks wrong. AI shouldn't have that problem once they get the code right.
 
Darat said:
You still have me confused.
Click to expand...

No, you're not.

What else but the yes/no answer was you looking for? They weren't tricky questions, didn't raise anything novel or anything contentious, the answers could only be yes or no.
Click to expand...

Can we not play this ridiculous game? The question of whether an AI actually "creates" anything at all is not even clear. But you win. I obviously asked for a definitive y/n and you delivered. Done and done.
 
If you went back in time and put baby Rembrandt into a sensory depravation tank from the moment of his birth he would never be able to create anything either.

"Created" vs "Created by taking other things and making a new thing out of them" is a distinction without difference balanced on a rickety tower of semantics.

Human artists need input in order to create.
 
Thermal said:
No, you're not.
Can we not play this ridiculous game? The question of whether an AI actually "creates" anything at all is not even clear. But you win. I obviously asked for a definitive y/n and you delivered. Done and done.
Click to expand...

But it’s very clear, they do create. What they create is new, never been seen before unique pieces of artwork not based on cutting and pasting other artworks together.
 
JoeMorgue said:
If you went back in time and put baby Rembrandt into a sensory depravation tank from the moment of his birth he would never be able to create anything either.

"Created" vs "Created by taking other things and making a new thing out of them" is a distinction without difference balanced on a rickety tower of semantics.

Human artists need input in order to create.
Click to expand...

It’s not even that - the AIs do not scan artwork in as images and then recombine them, that’s why the lawsuit in the opening post is going after the scraper of the images from the internet and not what the AIs create. There really is no question - the AI images are new creations.
 
Darat said:
But it’s very clear, they do create. What they create is new, never been seen before unique pieces of artwork not based on cutting and pasting other artworks together.
Click to expand...

It's a machine. It doesn't create anything. It outputs programmed results. A paint gun that squirts different colors of paint at the wall is not Jackson Pollack. It's just a machine mindlessly doing what it was programmed to do. If you think the result is art, then everything is art and it's kind of a pointless discussion.

But what is art, anyway?

Art: noun

the expression or application ofhuman creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
"the art of the Renaissance"
synonyms: fine art, artwork, creative activity
the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.
"the visual arts"
subjects of study primarily concerned with the processes and products of human creativity and social life, such as languages, literature, and history (as contrasted with scientific or technical subjects).
"the belief that the arts and sciences were incompatible"
a skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice.
"the art of conversation"

Ya, sounds like a human thing.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
It’s not even that - the AIs do not scan artwork in as images and then recombine them, that’s why the lawsuit in the opening post is going after the scraper of the images from the internet and not what the AIs create. There really is no question - the AI images are new creations.
Click to expand...

Unique automated outputs, not art.
 
Thermal said:
It's a machine. It doesn't create anything. It outputs programmed results. A paint gun that squirts different colors of paint at the wall is not Jackson Pollack. It's just a machine mindlessly doing what it was programmed to do. If you think the result is art, then everything is art and it's kind of a pointless discussion.

But what is art, anyway?

Art: noun

the expression or application of[hilite ]human creative skill and imagination,[/hilite] typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
"the art of the Renaissance"
synonyms: fine art, artwork, creative activity
the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.
"the visual arts"
subjects of study primarily concerned with the processes and products of human creativity and social life, such as languages, literature, and history (as contrasted with scientific or technical subjects).
"the belief that the arts and sciences were incompatible"
a skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice.
"the art of conversation"

Ya, sounds like a human thing.
Click to expand...

Or maybe the lesson everything is hurtling towards is that a human is nothing more than a machine outputting a programmed result.
 
Can we just jump right to "AI can't make art because it doesn't have a soul" and not spend 50 pages pretending like that's not where some people want us to wind up?

There is NOTHING special about humans. If a machine go learn to do the same thing, it will be the same thing.
 
My actual view is much more cynical, but if I strip away some of the gloomy shadows from my mind, I'd say that art isn't defined by the artist, but by its audience. A book or painting are just mediums, and it's the people experiencing them that create the art anew every time they read/observe them. The same would be true for "AI art". Or just a moon shrouded by clouds.

The actual author only matters in terms of compensation and prestige, but starving artists only have themselves to blame like every other starving person. Crap, my cynicism is back.
 
Last edited:
Olmstead said:
My actual view is much more cynical, but if I strip away some of the gloomy shadows from my mind, I'd say that art isn't defined by the artist, but by its audience. A book or painting are just mediums, and it's the people experiencing them that create the art anew every time they read/observe them. The same would be true for "AI art". Or just a moon shrouded by clouds.

The actual author only matters in terms of compensation and prestige, but starving artists only have themselves to blame like every other starving person. Crap, my cynicism is back.
Click to expand...

'S cool. We have cookies.
 
I really don't put it on the idealist/cynicism scale.

If art can be produced more cheaply/faster by AI... it will be. That's just one of those facts. You don't even have to factor cynicism into it.
 
Thermal said:
…snip...

But what is art, anyway?

Art: noun

the expression or application ofhuman creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
"the art of the Renaissance"
synonyms: fine art, artwork, creative activity
the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.
"the visual arts"
subjects of study primarily concerned with the processes and products of human creativity and social life, such as languages, literature, and history (as contrasted with scientific or technical subjects).
"the belief that the arts and sciences were incompatible"
a skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice.
"the art of conversation"

Ya, sounds like a human thing.
Click to expand...

Well yeah if you define it as being something only humans can do then yes it is. But humans have argued for millennia whether something is art or not.

You need to argue why it has to be human created that makes it art. (Plus of course the images are in fact created by humans.)
 
JoeMorgue said:
I really don't put it on the idealist/cynicism scale.

If art can be produced more cheaply/faster by AI... it will be. That's just one of those facts. You don't even have to factor cynicism into it.
Click to expand...

Yep. And artists like myself (to be pretentious) will continue to create art, because we like doing it using the tools at hand. Just like that Michael bloke who painted a ceiling.
 
Darat said:
Its outputs are not programmed results. That’s what is making these types of software so powerful.
Click to expand...

The means of producing them are absolutely programmed. Just like a calculator does not have the answer to your equation pre-progtammed, the AI doesn't have the finished product pre-progtammed. But it is not creating; it is mindlessly running its program.

Darat said:
Well yeah if you define it as being something only humans can do then yes it is. But humans have argued for millennia whether something is art or not.

You need to argue why it has to be human created that makes it art. (Plus of course the images are in fact created by humans.)
Click to expand...

Interestingly, I don't have to do a God damned thing. It's one of the perks of being me.

I'm using the word as it is used in the language. If you want to start redefining words, that burden is entirely yours, along with justifications. Off you go.
 
"The dictionary agrees with me!" is a bad argument.

Context and meaning change. "But it's defined as created by a person" might not be true forever.

You say "redefining words" in these hushed tones as if that literally isn't a process that not only happens all the time but is happening all the time.

Unless you want to argue the planets are the Sun, Moon, Venus, Jupiter, and Uranus because that's what the ancient Greek definition of the word was.
 
We are in the here and now, and that's what the ******* word means. We are not in ancient Greece or out in the future.

Here and now, that's what it means. Randomly making up new definitions to argue that you are right based on your new made up one is beyond ridiculous.
 
We're not doing it randomly. We're looking at the context of why the word has that definition now.

Definitions aren't laws. The idea that AI could create art has only popped up in the last few years. The fact that dictionary hasn't caught up with that change yet means exactly diddly and squat.
 
But even beyond that if you can draw an mascot for the the local pizza place in an afternoon for 150 bucks and www.QuickNEasyAiArt.com do it in 5 minutes and 30 bucks you are not going to win the argument by going "But that's not real art!" You still aren't getting the job 99% of the time.

Okay so it's not "Art." Fine whatever keeps you off a pointless hill defending. It will fill the same role and accomplish the same tasks. Distinction without difference.

We don't have to define art to have this discussion, or least not in the way you think we do.

People will have zero problem replacing art with AI art while while you're sitting there going "No we have to define art first!"

Society waits on definitions to be clarified before it makes change far less frequently then your style of argumentatives would have us believe.
 
Last edited:
Words don't actually have to.mean anything...on a flipping discussion forum...is certainly....something.
 
Thermal said:
The means of producing them are absolutely programmed. Just like a calculator does not have the answer to your equation pre-progtammed, the AI doesn't have the finished product pre-progtammed. But it is not creating; it is mindlessly running its program.
Click to expand...
This is a tremendously simplistic representation of what AI does. A human programmer can write an AI to produce art. The programmer then has zero input into how that AI performs that task, and what the end result is. That's why it's AI and not just a regular algorithm.

An AI is not a calculator. It is a lot more sophisticated than a calculator.
 
Most* of the works created are in fact novel, and not merely copies of existing works.

*in some rare cases it does appear to produce results that are almost exactly the same as existing copyrighted images.

This seems to happen about 0.3% of the time. So 99.7% of what is produced is in fact novel.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I really don't put it on the idealist/cynicism scale.

If art can be produced more cheaply/faster by AI... it will be. That's just one of those facts. You don't even have to factor cynicism into it.
Click to expand...

Especially any commercial art, that's why there are many animated cartoons which are "created" in the USA but produced in China and other such countries. Why I can buy a bloody fantastic copy of an old master from China https://www.made-in-china.com/multi...production/F2--CD_Oil-Painting-Catalog/1.html

Art really isn't an arty-farty elite thing, it's a business.
 
Thermal said:
The means of producing them are absolutely programmed. Just like a calculator does not have the answer to your equation pre-progtammed, the AI doesn't have the finished product pre-progtammed. But it is not creating; it is mindlessly running its program.
Click to expand...

Yes they are mindless but no the outputs are not programmed - that is what is at heart of the latest generations of AIs that interact with people.

Thermal said:
Interestingly, I don't have to do a God damned thing. It's one of the perks of being me.

I'm using the word as it is used in the language. If you want to start redefining words, that burden is entirely yours, along with justifications. Off you go.
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised that you can't support your claim that it is only humans that create artwork especially given how you don't seem to have any knowledge of what the latest AIs are, how they work and so on.
 
Thermal said:
We are in the here and now, and that's what the ******* word means. We are not in ancient Greece or out in the future.

Here and now, that's what it means. Randomly making up new definitions to argue that you are right based on your new made up one is beyond ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Nope. You've been left behind, the world has changed around you.
 
Some very thoughtful thoughts by Nick Cave on AI generated art. In this case was a ChatGPT song in the style of "Nick Cave"

For me AI art is just fine. Like a clever illustration, but it definitely lacks the human element or "soul" if you will.
It's like Christian rock music. 4-4 beat, electric guitar, bass, drums...but something is definitely missing.

"It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque."
-Nick Cave
 
Darat said:
Yes they are mindless but no the outputs are not programmed - that is what is at heart of the latest generations of AIs that interact with people.
Click to expand...

I know. It's not what we are talking about.

I'm not surprised that you can't support your claim that it is only humans that create artwork especially given how you don't seem to have any knowledge of what the latest AIs are, how they work and so on.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, I just did support it. Here, I'll do so again. The first line of Wikipedia's entry on art: "Art is a diverse range of human activity, and resulting product, that involves creative or imaginative talent expressive of technical proficiency, beauty, emotional power, or conceptual ideas."

I'm supporting. You are handwaving. Ball still in your court.

Darat said:
Nope. You've been left behind, the world has changed around you.
Click to expand...

C'mon, Humpty. You need more than bald assertions here.

The product of an AI generated work might well be unique and beautiful. It's just not art. You could argue that it is a work of art produced by the human that put in the order. Say, "make a panda portrait in the style of Renoir". That idea may be hers, but it's execution, unique and jazzy though it may be, is a mechanical mimic. Like a cubic zirconia, it doesn't become a diamond because it fools you and passes superficial standard.
 
Thermal said:
I know. It's not what we are talking about.



Interestingly, I just did support it. Here, I'll do so again. The first line of Wikipedia's entry on art: "Art is a diverse range of human activity, and resulting product, that involves creative or imaginative talent expressive of technical proficiency, beauty, emotional power, or conceptual ideas."

I'm supporting. You are handwaving. Ball still in your court.

...snip...
Click to expand...

Nope you are not supporting your claim that art can only be produced by a human - you are simply asserting it.
 
Darat said:
Nope you are not supporting your claim that art can only be produced by a human - you are simply asserting it.
Click to expand...

I've both argued it and provided two widely recognized definitions which specify human activity and talent expressive of technical proficiency and beauty, etc. You respond with "nope lalala can't hear you" and dead zero else. I suppose you've made your point.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Especially any commercial art, that's why there are many animated cartoons which are "created" in the USA but produced in China and other such countries. Why I can buy a bloody fantastic copy of an old master from China https://www.made-in-china.com/multi...production/F2--CD_Oil-Painting-Catalog/1.html

Art really isn't an arty-farty elite thing, it's a business.
Click to expand...

Which goes again to how you are defining "art". Is anything decorative art? Are there different levels of art, some of which is merely decorative and others of which are something more?

These conversations always go back to "what is art?" but I don't see how that step can be skipped: defining the terms being used in an argument is hardly a unfamiliar concept in fields far sterner than the humanities.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Which goes again to how you are defining "art". Is anything decorative art? Are there different levels of art, some of which is merely decorative and others of which are something more?

These conversations always go back to "what is art?" but I don't see how that step can be skipped: defining the terms being used in an argument is hardly a unfamiliar concept in fields far sterner than the humanities.
Click to expand...

In the construction trades, we ready dealt with this a bit, like centuries ago. Work that straddles the line a bit between being art and being functional/commercial is lumped into "artisan" work. It may be beautiful and artfully done, but it has an asterisk tacked on to it.

What bugs me is blurring the line between what is real, and what is a facsimile. For some, a Xerox of the Mona Lisa is the same as the original, or a fake Rolex just as good (if it is a decent clone). This line-blurring is culture wide, and disturbing.

The AI generated stuff has been called Art-ificial. Works for me.
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
Which goes again to how you are defining "art". Is anything decorative art? Are there different levels of art, some of which is merely decorative and others of which are something more?

These conversations always go back to "what is art?" but I don't see how that step can be skipped: defining the terms being used in an argument is hardly a unfamiliar concept in fields far sterner than the humanities.
Click to expand...

I'd go back to really what Olmstead said to paraphrase "it's in the eye of the beholder" - if you think something an artist has created is art then it is art.
 
There's a concept in language and I'm my brain is black holing the term but I know it exists.

It's when you have to referring to something with a modifier because another version of it comes along and you have to clarify.

Like term black and white TV or dial telephone. All TVs and Telephones used to be that so those terms didn't exist, but as color TVs and touch tone phones came along you had to.

The thing is terms would not have been nonsensical if you used them earlier. If used the phrase Black and White TV in 1933 someone might have gone "Well that's stupid, all TVs are black and white" but the base concept of the distinction you would making wouldn't have broken their brain.
 
Darat said:
I'd go back to really what Olmstead said to paraphrase "it's in the eye of the beholder" - if you think something an artist has created is art then it is art.
Click to expand...

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Whether art is beautiful is subjective.

A tree or flower might be beautiful, but it's not art. Art is when the human interjects her creativity and recreates or modifies it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom