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

[bsss]

No. I get the initial picture back based on whatever prompt I have given. Then I direct it as a tool to make the many, many changes I want. That's instruction. There's no way that it can go out and keep finding art on the internet that has all the changes I want to make to the initial picture. It MUST act as a tool.

The amount of hoops you have to jump through is irrelevant. Your creativity, your labor, the thing you did that you are asking others to respect and/or pay for is not what you are delivering. The result of the prompt is not yours. Your "direction" was fed into an elaborate transformation engine that you did not control. It's a tool in the abstract only. You want credit for your effort, for your "direction"? Send people the prompt you wrote and let them enjoy your actual creativity. The image that the engine spat out is not yours to claim, so it's no surprise people don't want to pay for it, especially when that engine plagiarizes and harms the environment.

 

[Morrus]

There's no way the AI would get all that close to my vision with what it first grabbed.

Interesting choice of words there.

 

[Maxperson]

Interesting choice of words there.

Not really. I am fully aware that the first prompt causes AI to grab from artists and am against using that art as it would be theft.

That said, if I then change it radically(I'm not talking about small things like shading and color) such that it is no longer that artists creation and is instead my vision, it's no different than if I looked at a piece of art in a magazine and was inspired to draw my vision. The initial "grab" is the same as looking at a piece of art in a magazine. So long as that artist's art is not used by me, I am not stealing or violating any copyright laws.

 

[BenjaminPey]

It's no different than if I looked at a piece of art in a magazine and was inspired to draw my vision. The initial "grab" is the same as looking at a piece of art in a magazine. So long as that artist's art is not used by me, I am not stealing or violating any copyright laws.

Open a magazine, then. And draw.

 

[bsss]

And before you say "I can't draw, so I use gen AI", know that leads right back to "I can't draw, so I ask the computer to do all the work for me (and steal for me) instead".

 

[Bill Zebub]

As to "ideas" vs "process" I have to fall onto the side of agreeing that ideas are easy and cheap.

I'm most definitely not an artist, but I used to work in venture capital/private equity, and I wholeheartedly agree. I can't tell you how many college professors I met with a cool (patented) invention who thought somebody else should build a company around their idea while they retained majority ownership.

 

[Maxperson]

The amount of hoops you have to jump through is irrelevant. Your creativity, your labor, the thing you did that you are asking others to respect and/or pay for is not what you are delivering.

Apparently you don't realize it can take hours, perhaps many hours to get to your vision through directing the AI. Quite a lot of work is involved, so yes I would be giving MY creativity, as it's my vision, and also MY labor, since it would take hours to complete.

The result of the prompt is not yours.

Are you going get past the prompt strawman? I'm not arguing about prompts, as prompts are not where the picture gets left by any stretch.

Your "direction" was fed into an elaborate transformation engine that you did not control. It's a tool in the abstract only. You want credit for your effort, for your "direction"?

Quick! You need to get this to the Oscars so that they can remove the best director award. You need to let them know that direction isn't art and doesn't deserve credit!

Upthread @Morrus gave ordering food at a restaurant as an example of giving a prompt and then getting back what the chef gives, which is not your creation. As far as it went, it is correct. When I go to a restaurant, when I look at the prompts on the menu and order, that is the same as what most folks are using AI for.

Now, what if instead of just sitting there and waiting for my order to come back, I get up and follow the waiter back into the kitchen? We're going to assume for this example that I won't get kicked out, beat up and/or arrested.

Once back there I tell the chef exactly which ingredients to use. How to slice or dice those ingredients, making him start over if he gets it wrong. Make sure he uses exactly the amounts of the ingredients I desire, and in what order to add them. Direct him as to the temperature of the cooking, changing it as I direct down to the exact amount of degrees I want. Tell him which types of pans to use and for which ingredients. And so on.

What has happened there is that I've now reduced the chef to just being a tool used to achieve my vision of the dish. It's not his vision at all. The resulting dish is my creation. My vision. The only difference between that and AI art is that while I could learn to cook really well if I wanted, I just don't have the talent for picture art. If I ever want to create picture art myself, it would have to be through AI, or micromanaging an artist to such a degree that no artist would actually do it.

 

[Maxperson]

And before you say "I can't draw, so I use gen AI", know that leads right back to "I can't draw, so I ask the computer to do all the work for me (and steal for me) instead".

It only leads there if you put blinders on and ignore all the other stuff that goes into it. Your False Dichotomy/Slippery Slope/Strawman there is false, slippery and a complete twisting of all of my arguments here. Getting three fallacies into one sentence is quite impressive.

 

[bsss]

Apparently you don't realize it can take hours, perhaps many hours to get to your vision through directing the AI. Quite a lot of work is involved, so yes I would be giving MY creativity, as it's my vision, and also MY labor, since it would take hours to complete.

Your labor is writing sentences and throwing them over the wall and getting a different representation of those sentences, yet you want credit, respect, money, whatever for that different representation. Instead, do the work. The actual work. Or deliver what you did instead.

Quick! You need to get this to the Oscars so that they can remove the best director award. You need to let them know that direction isn't art and doesn't deserve credit!

I never said such a thing. If you want to credit yourself as an "art director" of a project built on art that isn't yours and can't be credited to any human, come back to us later and tell us how many artistic awards you win for doing so.

 

[BenjaminPey]

Once back there I tell the chef exactly which ingredients to use. How to slice or dice those ingredients, making him start over if he gets it wrong. Make sure he uses exactly the amounts of the ingredients I desire, and in what order to add them. Direct him as to the temperature of the cooking, changing it as I direct down to the exact amount of degrees I want. Tell him which types of pans to use and for which ingredients. And so on.

Thing is, without doing the work, you can't know which ingredients to use and how to slice those, and you can't know how and if the chef is wrong or right. You don't know which is the good temperature either, and which pan he should use. How could you? You don't know how to cook, and all of that is pretty much cooking, is it not? And in cooking like in drawing, there's no magic trick that will realize your "vision" without a complete understanding of the underlying processes, without knowing the brushes, the techniques, the know-how and the legerdemain. Without even knowing your style, without the art, without your practicing the art and what makes this art your art.
There's no cooking without cooking, I'm afraid. Maybe you think there is, maybe you think you know how to cook without having ever cooked anything, that your "vision" will somehow be enough because, after all, you eat from time to time, but that's the AI which makes you think that, and that's pretty much a lie.