Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SumpCrab t1_izaqmuy wrote

Reply to comment by HeinrichTheWolf_17 in What do you think of all the recent very vocal detractors of AI generated art? by razorbeamz

The debate I see is about attribution not necessarily about the existence of AI art. There are many people sharing AI art without saying it is AI generated. It should be treated no different than any other piece of art, we expect a piece to be labeled with the medium and the artist.

As a hobby artist, I'm excited about AI art, but there still is something to be said about a piece that a human being has spent hours or days to create using their earned skill and talent. Things should be labeled as such.

Edit:https://www.reddit.com/r/lotr/comments/zeoweh/gandalf_paper_art/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Here is an example.

10

Artanthos t1_izcmvky wrote

They want attribution, which would lead to royalties, on all art used as training material.

Which is not how it works with human artists. We, as humans, learn from others and use that knowledge to develop our own way of doing things. A human artist does not assign attribute to every other artist he learned from or was inspired by.

3

SumpCrab t1_izcp20j wrote

Even with human artists there is a line that can be crossed between "inspired by" and plagiarism. Some AI work has fully cut and pasted actual artwork with a bit of embellishments. That is wrong and if used in a commercial way, may require royalties.

But that isn't the gut reaction people are feeling when encountering AI artwork.

The real issue is ensuring that man-made art is appreciated and that AI art is labeled as such. There will always be people who create art. With a singularity there are going to be many folks without work and they will choose to push paint around a canvas for fun. I think there is value in maintaining separation between man-made and Computer generated.

Personally, I also have issues with digital artists calling pieces "paintings". It suggests a certain medium has been used when it hasn't and the way an image is created is often as interesting as the piece.

5

SwipesAndCrappiness t1_izgsyc6 wrote

> The real issue is ensuring that man-made art is appreciated and that AI art is labeled as such.

From everything I have seen the major issue is attribution and financial compensation. I personally see no direct connection between AI art and human art in how it makes me feel. I have seen some AI art that has touched me very deeply just as I have seen some human art that has done the same.

I have some good friends who are artists and honestly feel for them. And I am an aspiring fiction writer looking at the same issue for myself (although thus far these tools have also been hugely helpful for my own productivity so its not all bad). But I think the reality is that when anything changes from being difficult/rare/expensive -> easy/common/cheap it changes everything about that area of life.

2

Artanthos t1_izdtqf7 wrote

Yes, there is a line that can be crossed, and I would expect AI to be held to the exact same line as a human.

If the art is substantially different, it should not matter what training data was used,

As for appreciation: that is up to the beholder. It’s not something that should be legislated.

1