Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ilrosewood t1_ixayl0g wrote

Reply to comment by darkstarmatr in This Copyright Lawsuit Could Shape the Future of Generative AI by Gari_305

I’d argue art and open source code are different.

Open source code I or a machine should be able to learn from.

Public art I suppose doesn’t have a license attached to it. But if I learned to paint by studying other paintings for years - am I as guilty as the computer in your mind?

(To be clear - I don’t have an answer. I find the topic interesting and I don’t firmly believe anything here yet. I know Reddit is full of trolls and bots and the like so please know I enjoy reading your replies. Thank you.)

2

darkstarmatr t1_ixb3xdc wrote

The difference between the computer taking actual data to learn, and a human using their time, effort and imagination to learn are the key differences here. Studying others art is a respectable way for beginning artists to learn, and it's advice that most professionals would give to a beginner. But that's because humans need patience and practice on their own, to learn this way.

I don't consider it the same as say, an algorithm scraping the internet for art, and using that data to generate art in similar styles. Because it's not human, and there's no time, effort or imagination to respect. That's my perspective anyway.

The AI art is kind of cool, somewhat. But the fact that it NEEDS real artists works to even function, is an issue. Artists should have been given a choice to opt into a program if they wanted their art used as data.

0