Re:On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train...
by bluefirebrand on Wednesday January 17, 2024 @08:29AM
(#39027356)
> We don't know what percentage is independent inspiration for a person using the AI to create art
The person using the AI doesn't matter in the equation. They aren't an artist, they're a monkey with a typewriter.
We're talking about the AI here, because it can generate the same images no matter which monkey with a typewriter is typing the prompts.
Re:On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train...
by mlyle on Wednesday January 17, 2024 @12:26PM
(#39030678)
> The person using the AI doesn't matter in the equation. They aren't an artist, they're a monkey with a typewriter.
That's an opinion.
Does your opinion hold in all circumstances? If I spend 20 hours with an AI, iterating prompts, erasing portions of output and asking it to repaint and blend, and combining scenes-- did I do anything creative?
Re:On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train...
by Aeolun on Wednesday January 17, 2024 @08:53PM
(#39036514)
Of course the person using the AI matters. It's literally the same as holding a brush. You can give it a prompt, get a result and be unhappy with it, modify it or remove it, and proceed doing that until you are happy with what you have.
No matter how great the AI is, a monkey with an AI will never generate anything useful.
Once upon a time it was a contentious idea that humans had significant authorship in photographs, which merely mechanically captured the world. What % is the camera's independent inspiration?
Here, we have humans guiding what's often a quite involved process of synthesis of past human (and machine) creation.