-
Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
-
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
- Thread starter Puppycow
- Start date
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Agreed. But not all examples are clear-cut:
1. a pretty flower
2. a photograph of a pretty flower
3. a painting of a pretty flower
4. a pretty flower placed in a pot and put on a table
5. a pretty flower bred for generations by humans selecting traits to breed
6. a sculpture of a pretty flower done by a sculptor
7. a cat turd that happens to resemble a pretty flower
Some are so obviously art I can't see people arguing they aren't (3 and 6). Some are what most would consider art but I can see arguments being made against it (2 and 4). Some are pretty but not art (1 and 7). One is art in one sense but not in another (5).
Thermal
August Member
5 is tricky. Artistic engineering perhaps? I mean, even watering a plant is influencing and enhancing its beauty but I'm not sure that it is actually art.
7 certainly could be art, photographed or presented just so for appreciation of the observer. Might be an avant-guard commentary on standards of beauty, if the artist was suitably attired.
mumblethrax
Species traitor
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2004
- Messages
- 4,567
Retronym.
Ryan O'Dine
OD’ing on Damitol
I feel like it's within the realm that AI could go beyond simply mimicking human art and produce works that exceed it. So I'd be a little concerned about imposing limits either because there are copyright grey areas, or because some artists might be put out of work.
Do we really want to deprive ourselves of potentially deeper, more moving, more profound art in the future because we're being overly cautious in setting up the rules now?
Do we really want to deprive ourselves of potentially deeper, more moving, more profound art in the future because we're being overly cautious in setting up the rules now?
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Definition of art:-
1. the expression or application of human 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.
Ryan O'Dine
OD’ing on Damitol
From my perspective it doesn't matter whether you call it art or not. You could call it blickmergan. You put a piece of human generated art and a piece of AI generated blickmergan in a room and a person doesn't know one from another -- has the same sort of experience or interaction with both -- then the issues remain essentially the same.
Point already addressed earlier in the thread.
Thermal
August Member
But you denied that point flatly and without justification. Now you have me confused?
Art is a human creative activity and form of expression. What are you defining it as?
"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."
I don't think an artist has to be a human before you ask.
Thermal
August Member
Ok. If you saw our aforementioned pretty flower growing in the wild, would you consider it art?
Lothian
should be banned
Is Chris Ofili any more the artist than the elephant who **** on his pictures or the other animal artists
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
If the artist directed and chose and presented the work produced in such a fashion, then yes. The aesthetic merit may be debatable, but yes.
I once saw a piece in the Philadelphia Art museum which consisted of a wall with a thin vertical void in it revealing old lath and a bit of plaster on the floor, like a partition wall had been removed. While I consider it legitimate art, I found it somewhat stupid.
So ok. A guy makes the program for an AI image generator. Thermal does a massive bong rip and channels his inner Jeff Spicoli and types in "picture of a bodacious babe and a tasty wave" (it takes a few tries to spell it correctly). The machine mindlessly generates an unexpectedly beautiful image. Is it art, and if so, who is the artist?
Bikewer
Penultimate Amazing
In my dabblings in art, and in my somewhat limited study, it has always seemed to me that art is partly about communication. That the artist is communicating something to the viewer.
This may be an emotion, history, information, statement… Whatever. In many cases, the perceived intent of the artist by the viewer may be mistaken…. But it takes place nonetheless.
So, to my way of thinking, there is no intent on the part of the AI, or likely the elephant with a paintbrush…. (Though we may never know what’s going on in Dumbo’s little head…)
The AI is simply functioning according to it’s programming.
This may be an emotion, history, information, statement… Whatever. In many cases, the perceived intent of the artist by the viewer may be mistaken…. But it takes place nonetheless.
So, to my way of thinking, there is no intent on the part of the AI, or likely the elephant with a paintbrush…. (Though we may never know what’s going on in Dumbo’s little head…)
The AI is simply functioning according to it’s programming.
Lothian
should be banned
My art communicates. "This artist can't draw"
@Thermal, you have already been told that modern AI is not programmed, but I also want to tell you that they do their thing - be it chats, or art - through a learning process. They are programmed to learn, they are not programmed to do art.
How they learn, and how good they are at learning, is what is making big strides these days.
How they learn, and how good they are at learning, is what is making big strides these days.
Thermal
August Member
"Being told" is neither credible not persuasive, and is the weakest of weak T in terms of constructive discussion.
If it's a damned machine, it got damned programmed, full stop.
Weren't you just saying this didn't happen?
Yeah, I get that what they are programmed to do, and how it is done, and how the data does the work, is unique and groundbreaking. Pretty sure we all get that. But misleading blanket statements..."being told"...is not productive.
I wouldn’t.
Thermal
August Member
Why not? It was created by natural selection and forces of nature and chance. I mean, if human input isn't the standard, by what standard are you discriminating?
An autonomous robot painter would be like an autonomous robot tank: Who would want such a thing?
Answer: The schlock art industry. After all, mass-produced paintings don't hurt anybody, and they're already outside rational control.
Answer: The schlock art industry. After all, mass-produced paintings don't hurt anybody, and they're already outside rational control.
Sorry, I was not aware that I was touching a controversial subject. I only wanted to help clearing up a misunderstanding that you had made.
No, and I told you why, but it is obviously a case of definition for you, so further discussion is useless.
Thermal
August Member
Ok. What is the "misunderstanding that I made"? Recall please that I have already said the machine gets programmed to incorporate new data, and the new data then does the legwork of generating ever more complex matrices. The machine, keep inind, was programmed to do just this.
Just the opposite: further discussion would likely be illuminating. Insisting that a bald assertion must be taken as gospel is a bit annoying. Bit Bulverist, come to that. In the CT subforum, should one passively accept what they "are told" by a tin foil hatter, or should a reasonable fleshing out take place?
Note that you end again by declaring that "further discussion is useless". It is, if you expect to be automatically deferred to whilst others sit at your feet unquestioningly. I am honestly not even sure what you think warrants a correction here, as what I have been arguing is whether art is a human construction or if any kind of whatever that looks good is also art.
Like I was - it's nice to know you think I'm a piece of artwork! I might think a flower is beautiful, I may think it is sublime, but I wouldn't think it was a piece of artwork.
If a god existed that created all the flowers then I might think a flower was artwork. For me it requires a further manipulation beyond "nature" before I consider something art.
Thermal
August Member
Right, and that's exactly what I'm trying to pin down. I don't consider the wild flower art either. It may be quite beautiful, or not, but it's not art.
So you say it needs "further manipulation" to become art. Ok, agreed. But you also opine that this manipulation need not be human. So are you just expanding the human input to include "or via a machine made by a human"?
And ya man, you are certainly a piece of work.
Right, and that's exactly what I'm trying to pin down. I don't consider the wild flower art either. It may be quite beautiful, or not, but it's not art.
So you say it needs "further manipulation" to become art. Ok, agreed. But you also opine that this manipulation need not be human. So are you just expanding the human input to include "or via a machine made by a human"?
And ya man, you are certainly a piece of work.
Yep.
Humans were created by natural selection and forces of nature and chance, I don't think there is anything special about us that other creations of natural selection and forces of nature such as AI can't also do.
The human input is obviously the editor who looked through thousands of AI generated images and picked out the one that looked just right.
But, you might protest, anyone can look through thousands of pretty pictures and pick one of them. Well, anyone can splash some paint on a canvas, and I'd say most people can be taught to make it look pretty.
But, you might protest, anyone can look through thousands of pretty pictures and pick one of them. Well, anyone can splash some paint on a canvas, and I'd say most people can be taught to make it look pretty.
Last edited:
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
That's just the Turing Test ported into another domain. Which means that it suffers the same limitations.
I'm pretty sure I've recommended this to you before. If it wasn't you, it was someone else. It explains quite succinctly how and why an AI can learn without being explicitly programmed:
CGPGrey, "How AIs, like ChatGPT, Learn" (8:54)
Last time I checked it, this video had a different title.
And for the text to art AI systems it requires a human to create the text input.
Thermal
August Member
It wasn't me, but thanks. However, it was basically a 8+ minute version of my two sentences summary above: the data compiles into ever more complex matrices to the point where we don't even entirely understand how they are doing it anymore. Which is fine. That's literally what we programmed them to do.
But that's my sticking point here: posters want to personify these things, and say that they "learn". They are mindless, and mindless things don't learn. Unimportant distinction to some, all the same to others.
Thermal
August Member
Well...human consciousness is without question unique. I don't know if "special" means anything important here.
So ok. Back to whether human input has anything to do with whether or not it is art. Say you make a Rube Goldberg machine that squirts paint at a canvas. Thermal can walk up to it and ask for an artwork with neons, or pastels, or earthtones. Mindlessly, the machine delivers, based on other works preloaded into it's databanks. Is the resulting Jackson Pollack thing art, and if so, who is the artist, and why? Are you the artist, or me, or the machine, or the artists/works the machine based it's novel creation on?
Last edited:
Does it matter?
Even capitalism doesn't truly care. It just wants to know who is getting paid.
Thermal
August Member
Capitalism is business, not art. And I think it does matter, in terms of whether or not it is even art, rather than a mindless accidentally pretty thing. Art, to me, requires a consciousness which is conveying a message to other consciousnesses. Its a uniquely human endeavor. "Just being jazzy looking" is not enough, unless you subscribe to the school of thought that thinks freaking anything is art.
Well, it's a collaboration then, both in your Rube Goldberg machine and in AI art. The fact that some of the collaborators are nebulous and others have been involved in the creation completely against their will is of little concern to me, the art enjoyer, as long as I'm willing to ignore the ethical implications.
On a more meta level, the artist is whoever can convince art critics that they deserve the credit.
No it ain’t.
What if I showed you three pieces of what I claim are artwork, how would you identify which one was produced by a human, by a programme and by an AI? What will be unique about the human artwork that sets it apart from the other two?
Thermal
August Member
That's kind of what I mean. Accidentally beautiful isn't art, to me. It just looks nice, which is fine in its own right. But art is about meaning, and what the artist is expressing. In an AI art, the programmer/developer wasn't saying anything. Not was the machine, nor it's algorithms. Nor was Thermal ripping his bong. No one meant anything. It's an empty output. Maybe Thermal, a little.
I personally have little patience for the junk that qualifies as art nowadays, but at least I will try to figure out what the artist is saying, and weigh that with the finished product, regardless of the actual artistic skill presented. In that sense, only bong ripping Thermal is the artist. The rest were just his tools. But it sure doesn't feel like he should be the artist. He just had an idea.
Last edited:
So at what level of human input does AI assisted "art" become art in your opinion? There will obviously be a spectrum from a person simply selecting an AI generated image to having complete control over the entire process. Any sort of line seems completely arbitrary.
Maybe I'll draw a cosmic monstrosity, but I'll let an AI handle the background of dreamscape madness, possibly selecting it from among a hundred different options. Is my image now only half art? That sounds ridiculous. Someone else might take an AI generated image and completely change it. Another person might change it only very little.
The very fact that there is no objective line simply brings us back to the subjectivity of art. It will be art if an observer accepts it as art.
Thermal
August Member
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm getting at, but with a different conclusion. If almost anything qualifies as art, well fine. Anything (and subsequently nothing) is actually art. Maybe assisted or enhanced art? I dunno. The stuff I've seen produced is not exactly gallery level work. A bit cheesy even. I think Renoir's legacy is safe for the time being.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Only if you define "learn" as something that only organic minds can do. It analogises very well indeed to complex computer systems - so much so that the entire field of "machine learning" is predicated on it.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Definitionally so, yes. Human consciousness is unique to humans. But if you say "consciousness" without the qualifier, it is absolutely not unique.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I think you're wrong
Edited by sarge:
removed uncivil content
Last edited by a moderator: