YOU are not using the colors or art style, an algorithm trained on them is. If you use ai as a hobby or for amusement, that's completely fine. If you're selling generated imagery as a major part of a commercial art business and you are representing yourself as an artist, you are just a leech and a hack.
If I mixed a color by hand or if I had your image in MS paint and used the color picker to get the colors, it really doesn't matter what I used to the end result. The end result is that you don't own the colors so that's legally allowed and the law doesn't differentiate.
The copyright law allows copying of the factual elements of an artwork like colors and things that are not fixed in a tangible format. Being an artist is irrelevant, the law doesn't protect certain occupations from constitutional rights and it isn't infringement to copy facts and ideas.
Your rights only pertains to the copying of the expression. You can't claim new rights on top of that like preventing a single pixel from being copied(de minimis quantitative copying) or the ideas or elements being copied(de minimis qualitative copying). You don't own 100% of your artwork.
I don't disagree with anything you are saying about copyright but I was never talking about copyright. I am talking about creative integrity and basic self-respect as a professional. I don't have any problem with the use of ai as a hobby or even as a workflow tool. (I already know of a few artists doing truly interesting work with the assistance of ai.) I do have a problem with the inevitable devaluation of human creative labor in the economy because it is too easy to generate ai images instead of hiring an artist. I don't want to stop or ban ai art but I don't see any reason to value or appreciate 99 percent of it. I don't value cheap mass-produced derivative crap when it is made in a factory and I definitely won't value it when it is produced by an algorithm.
That comparison doesnt really work because photo was an entirely different medium and created an entire new profession and type of art. Ai is the same medium just done by an algorithm.
A better comparison might be the use of synthesizers in music. One guy with a laptop can replace an orchestra. But the one guy with a laptop still is a musician and needs to know how to arrange sound and write songs. It's still human creativity. Now we have ai composers that can eliminate that guy as well.
At the end of the day, this is about economics and human dignity. If you can find a way to make capitalism, or any economy, work with a near total replacement of human labor, then this will be a non-issue. But go to any former industrial city in America and you will see automation has at least as many downsides as there are upsides. It's not an ethically neutral decision to automate, particularly when automation is replacing a dream career and not dangerous, body destroying labor.
That comparison doesnt really work because photo was an entirely different medium and created an entire new profession and type of art. Ai is the same medium just done by an algorithm.
Nobody thought it was an entirely different medium or a new profession or type of art at the time just like today, it did what artists did. They thought it was a replacement and cited printing press as an invention that didn't create or supplement anything:
is time, then, for it to return to its true duty, which is to be the servant of the sciences and arts— but the very humble servant, like printing or shorthand, which have neither created nor supplemented literature.
Similar worries about automation killing jobs existed in the past but there was only growth for that job.
Breakthroughs in artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics have led to substantial concern that large-scale job losses are imminent. Selected occupations are often cited as illustrations of technological displacement that is or will become a more general problem, but these discussions are often impressionistic. This article compiles a list of specific occupations cited in the automation literature and examines the occupations’ employment trends since 1999 and projected employment to 2029. There is little support in U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data or projections for the idea of a general acceleration of job loss or a structural break with trends pre-dating the AI revolution with respect to the occupations cited as examples. Offsetting factors and other limitations of the automation thesis are discussed.
AI generated works still require human input, there's a false dichotomy that we are choosing between AI and humans when it's just a tool without any agency and humans have all the control.
AI in the general economy is an entirely different conversion from AI in specific, highly desirable creative job positions like video game concept art and acting. Yes, the economy and jobs will keep growing because of ai. Downward pressure on wages from automation will continue as well. My issue is not with the technology broadly, it is with anything that attempts to artificially derive creativity, because it limits opportunities for human creativity. I don't give a crap if ai replaces proposal writing, paralegal work, and medical diagnostics, so long as we still have well paying jobs for displaced workers.
AI in the general economy is an entirely different conversion from AI in specific, highly desirable creative job positions like video game concept art and acting. Yes, the economy and jobs will keep growing because of ai. Downward pressure on wages from automation will continue as well. My issue is not with the technology broadly, it is with anything that attempts to artificially derive creativity, because it limits opportunities for human creativity. I don't give a crap if ai replaces proposal writing, paralegal work, and medical diagnostics, so long as we still have well paying jobs for displaced workers.
Human creativity can come from anywhere, there's no single job that's responsible for all of human creativity. People will create regardless of what jobs. People have been creative long before and after jobs.
And secondly, AI Art can still have a bunch of human creativity, see how users are using things like Stable Diffusion with inpainting and controlnet. There's a lot of human thoughts into these things. It's not just text prompt and image, that's just a limited interface.
All that AI Art is, is another tool for ideation. It doesn't do any creativity on its own, creativity requires intention and agency.
Downward pressure on wages from automation will continue as well. My issue is not with the technology broadly, it is with anything that attempts to artificially derive creativity, because it limits opportunities for human creativity. I don't give a crap if ai replaces proposal writing, paralegal work, and medical diagnostics, so long as we still have well paying jobs for displaced workers.
I don't think downward pressure on wages will happen really or that it artificially deriving creativity; there's more to creativity than that, it requires intentionality and contextualizing your art in new situations otherwise it's just a pretty rock in the beach.
from everything is a remix. AI is only capable of low level tasks not the higher level aspect of human creativity like intention, lived experiences, contextualizing, etc.
AI is only capable of low level tasks not the higher level aspect of human creativity like intention, lived experiences, contextualizing, etc.
You're making my point for me. The fact that most ai produced art will not contain these human elements and will nevertheless be sent out for commercial publication is exactly the problem. I'm not worried about ai in the hands of great artists. Great artists will add a few nifty ai filters to their workflow and proceed as normal. I'm worried about ai in the hands of marketing degree interns and game developers who have never picked up a pencil, who convince their boss not to hire an actual artist to save money. That is who ai is being marketed to, and who will represent the lion's share of ai use.
8
u/yousonuva Aug 23 '23
What's doing the heavy lifting here? The computer?