Not when it copies the art style from real artists
this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2023
84 points (91.2% liked)
Asklemmy
49290 readers
200 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
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 6 years ago
MODERATORS
I think so, there's still a lot of creativity that goes into designing the prompts from what I've seen. AI is just another tool for artists to use and I think it could honestly be considered it's own medium, like oil painting or wood burning. But I do also understand the hesitation people feel around AI art and calling it OC.
No, it is it's own designation. It's halfway between OC and a repost.
I could consider it OC if the training set is known, but not "art".
It can be. Thereβs a lot of human controlled variables involved. ai is a medium for art and can generate stuff never before possible on this planet. Of course that depends on how itβs used. If you train a mode to copy an artist thatβs obviously no bueno. If you train a model to generate nightmare fuel that can create videos from detailed prompts then go ahead
I do not.
I'm sure there's plenty of people who just want to play around with art generators to see what wacky stuff they can get and that's fine. But anyone who bends over backwards trying to convince others that AI generated images are genuine art are ultimately just resentful of the fact that there are people who can create things that they can't.
AI is trained by analyzing artists' work and then instructed to replicate art in a particular style, therefore, from the beginning of the process it wouldn't be original.
If an AI could create art without being fed galleries of images first and develop its own style that might be considered original.
What do you think human artists do, exactly? You think they just learn to create art in a vacuum? It just magically appears?
Humans can, in fact, create art without having seen others do it first. (e.g.: cave paintings from several millennia ago)
I don't understand why anyone would assume humans only have the same creative capabilities as a computer when we have free will and all that good stuff that comes with being a conscious, intelligent living being.
Computers can create the equivalent of cave drawings without models as well.
load more comments
(6 replies)
It's new, but not original. With the recent influx of AI content that doesn't seem to be slowing down, I'd say we should make a new designation of GC - generated content.
What people make is not original as well, you're always inspired by something.
Inspiration isn't the same. It's more like if I found a bunch of pictures I liked, then traced my favorite parts from each one onto a single piece of paper to make one image made up of lots of small copied pieces of other people's work.
That's not how AI works. For example, just a while ago I was generating one image for fun (which I don't claim is art, by the way), it's this:
The prompt was quite simple, "anthropomorphic bean standing in a field of beans".
This is not created from a bunch of pictures, this is created from the AI understanding what a bean is, what anthropomorphic means, what a field is and so on. Try to find me any one image this is created from if you claim it's just slapping together parts of images. This is an original image (which presumably was never done before, at least I don't think anyone would create something like that very often), I can't find any that looks enough like the one I created to claim it was copied from that. I looked for visually similar images using Google, Bing and Yandex.
That leads me to believe, that it's indeed the same process as a human would do - take an inspiration (from real world or different paintings) and create something new.
Depends on how it's synthesized. Some programs, like Midjourney, allow you to use to your own art as material to synthesize new art.
Aside from that, no. It's not OC.
If anything it's credit goes to the AI generator or the company that produced the AI generator, not the person who asked it to create something. Unless they only used it for a backbone and then adjusted and detailed it from there.
load more comments
(3 replies)