AI/LLMs AI art bans are going to ruin small 3rd party creators

[Retros_x]

I think they did not publish and sell nearly as much as they do now. The ones I know personally certainly didn't.

At the costs of the artists losing money. If you can't pay artists and you dont want to use free-art - you don't have the resources to be a publisher. Your business plan failed. If your business plan only succeeds when using AIs that are trained on copyright protected art, you don't deserve to succeed and honestly shouldn't even be able to legally. Unfortunately, legislation is behind, so I support the platforms themselves taking action and banning AI products.

Seriously, this discussion is bonkers. I cant wait for this bubble to burst.

 

[Older Beholder]

I'm sorry you have difficulty understanding that my premise that Andy Warhol used AI art tools wasnt literal. I will be much clearer and lay out the logic below...


In our universe, Andy Warhol traces a soup can and uses stamps, and other tools to produce a canvas that features an altered version of someone else's artistic output to craft his inner mental image of that work in a new context and calls it art.

In an alternate universe without an Andy Warhol, Evilguy Cringe uses iterative AI software, a silk screen printer, and a stolen base image of a soup can to produce a canvas that features an altered version of someone else's artistic output to craft his inner mental image of that work in a new context and calls it art.

Both canvases hang in a gallery and are indistinguishable from each other. How do you identify which one is art and which one is not?

Counter argument: an alternate reality where David Bowie is Andy Warhol

 

[Morrus]

A repository of AI art (not "slop", thanks)

Are you worried about ChatGPT’s feelings?

I’m going to have to get used to the plagiarism slopbots destroying the environment and my friends’ careers. You are going to have to get used to the unimaginable horror of hearing it called slop.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm sorry you have difficulty understanding that my premise that Andy Warhol used AI art tools wasnt literal. I will be much clearer and lay out the logic below...


In our universe, Andy Warhol traces a soup can and uses stamps, and other tools to produce a canvas that features an altered version of someone else's artistic output to craft his inner mental image of that work in a new context and calls it art.

In an alternate universe without an Andy Warhol, Evilguy Cringe uses iterative AI software, a silk screen printer, and a stolen base image of a soup can to produce a canvas that features an altered version of someone else's artistic output to craft his inner mental image of that work in a new context and calls it art.

Both canvases hang in a gallery and are indistinguishable from each other. How do you identify which one is art and which one is not?

1) Warhol’s soup cans were based on a product label that was not copyrighted, but trademarked (and possibly service marked)- IOW, different laws are involved. He projected, traced and hand painted those images in a way to mimic mass production (not someone else’s art). Over time, he used more machines to aid his production. If Evilguy Cringe does likewise via some kind of automation (including AI), it’s technically no different.

Artists like Mark Kostabi took Warhol’s methods and ultimately entirely removed himself from creating the physical art by hiring others to do it for him, instead becoming a performance artist who insulted his customers.

And Christian Seidler- creator of matricism (an evolution of pointillism)- also removed himself one step from the process by having UT create machines that would put onto canvases what he designed.

IOW, using mechanical processes is not the problem.

2) if, OTOH, Evilguy Cringe’s process involves copying from copyrighted material without permission, he runs the risk of legal action under those statutes. If he goes further and actually emulates another artist’s distinctive style, that’s going to earn another layer of backlash (not necessarily lawsuits, but reputational harm).

 

[BookTenTiger]

Even if that were the case--why should anyone work with one if they don't want to and most importantly, don't really need to anymore?

Because the community might hate them if they don't?

When faced with that, the creators might as well do what they want--whatever makes them happiest in terms of creation. And they should be able to do that without having morality and ethics they don't agree with crammed down their throats.

You seem to be seeking some kind of moral absolution for using AI in your work. You're not going to get that here.

If using AI makes you happy, go out and use AI. But don't expect folks to support you financially while doing so.

 

[Morrus]

And they should be able to do that without having morality and ethics they don't agree with crammed down their throats.

That’s not how morality and ethics work.