this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2023
85 points (91.3% liked)

Asklemmy

43989 readers
634 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. 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.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 3) 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (7 children)

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.

[โ€“] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What do you think human artists do, exactly? You think they just learn to create art in a vacuum? It just magically appears?

[โ€“] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Computers can create the equivalent of cave drawings without models as well.

load more comments (6 replies)
[โ€“] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What people make is not original as well, you're always inspired by something.

[โ€“] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[โ€“] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago

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.

[โ€“] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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)
[โ€“] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If you take the art and just trace and polish it and nobody is any the wiser, in that situation yes. At least until that is found out, in which I will refer to it as derivative work over original content. It's why I am calling some of the digital art I am working on AI derivative rather than full-on original content.

If all you do is generate an image, do no edits whatsoever, and then act like you did it, then I couldn't in good faith considering "OC" since you did nothing but type a few words and maybe click a few buttons or moved a slider 3 pixels to the left.

load more comments
view more: โ€น prev next โ€บ