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

[dbolack]

I'm still not getting this 'AI is theft' argument and never have.

Probably because we've never needed a proper word for the derivative-works blender that is GenAI.

 

[bsss]

There have been multiple times...

I wish I could like this post twice, because both parts of it I agree with completely.

 

[dbolack]

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.

So.

No consequences either, I guess?

 

[dbolack]

There’s a lot of people in this world who have creative impulses but have limitations that inhibit their expression of them.

Thank you for this. I was failing to find a tactful way to express this particular sentiment.

 

[dbolack]

It also gave us kanban in software engineering, which despite its misapplications and oft-misunderstood nature, allows for a lot of the same decision-making and humans-owning-the-process --- at risk of summoning terrible project management demons --- agility.

Or hisss. SAFe

 

[FrogReaver]

There have been multiple times in my life when I've wanted to see a physical reference image for something I can picture in my head, and I've found a perfect match by conducting iterative Google image searches using carefully-worded search terms. Not just, "That image I found is good enough," but, "That image I found is exactly what I was picturing in my head!" (If your wondering how that's possible, it usually happens when I'm imagining how something I read in a book would look, and I discover a visual artist who read the same book and pictured it exactly the same way I did.)

Sounds reasonable enough.

I'd never say my ability to extract the exact image I'm looking for from a repository of existing image data constitutes me creating that image. I was being creative in my use of search terms and in the curation I performed, but my search terms didn't create the image I curated. (Compare to a photographer, who creates a 2D-image that didn't previously exist in that form anywhere in the world.) All the data points needed to display the exact image on my screen were already present in the data set I was querying before I started entering any search terms into my browser.

I agree here but ai images arent just the ai pulling out an existing image from a repository of already existing images.

This seems to be the fundamental difference in positions. AI’s do create new images even though they require a bunch of existing images to train on. If you want to say that new image isn’t actually art that’s a different discussion, but it is unique, and so compared to the outcome of picking an existing image from google image search your efforts are yielding a new and unique image, though possibly very similar to an existing one.

Likewise, I wouldn't claim to be the sole creator of an image I spliced together from several existing images I retrieved from the internet. At most, I did some creative editing of other artists' work in doing so. I wouldn't want to distribute the composite image I cobbled together from their work without getting all necessary permissions from those other contributing artists. I can't rightfully claim to have created all the visuals appearing in that image.

I think you’re putting alot of weight into the adjective sole there.

So I ask, in AI ‘art’ or whatever you want to call it, who or what is the creator of the unique image that gets produced?

 

[ART!]

I don't think you can separate the idea from the execution like that. If you come up with a cool rhyme, you thought up and put together every bit of that rhyme. If you come up with an idea for a cool picture, there are a billion data points in the implementation of that idea that you haven't filled in. Thinking up 'Heh, a painting of a woman with a slight smile' is not the same as painting the Mona Lisa.

Even having the idea for the cool rhyme in the first place means you had all kinds of stuff in your head, which your mind - consciously or unconsciously - put together to form the idea.

That's why I hate the "Here's such a cool idea! No go and do all the tedious work to make it work at the table!" school of writing. I love cool ideas. But they should be the beginning of a human process of exploration and refinement. I believe in human ingenuity, but I'm not a follower of the cult of genius - believing that it's enough to throw an AI your idea to make you a creator is just that. You don't create by having an idea. You create by doing the work.

Yeah - even if you write a 1000-word prompt for an "AI" to write a 20,000 word novel, you did not write that novel - you did not create it, you did not make that "art".

Same. My first thoughts, aside from doing silly things, was "this would be so much better than my art notes for the artists" since I can't really draw to speak of and sometimes my notes were... lacking. But after a little better understanding of the under-the-hood - I decided it would be better to improve my art note skills.

Right. Even if you're an editor or art director who creates no art themselves, you still need to develop the skills necessary to let the artists working for you know what you want them to do, in such a way that you get the results you want/need. Of course, before that you need to know what you want, at the very least by pointing at existing art and saying "I want something like this, but with more X and less Y".

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Presumably at the very least you are functioning as director and final editor of that endeavor.

 

[FrogReaver]

Even having the idea for the cool rhyme in the first place means you had all kinds of stuff in your head, which your mind - consciously or unconsciously - put together to form the idea.

Yeah - even if you write a 1000-word prompt for an "AI" to write a 20,000 word novel, you did not write that novel - you did not create it, you did not make that "art".

Fundamental question here. Who did create that novel? Unless AI is sentient, with intention and will then surely the creation must ultimately be attributable to a person or at least multiple people?

Right. Even if you're an editor or art director who creates no art themselves, you still need to develop the skills necessary to let the artists working for you know what you want them to do, in such a way that you get the results you want/need. Of course, before that you need to know what you want, at the very least by pointing at existing art and saying "I want something like this, but with more X and less Y".

That sounds very similar to letting the AI know what you want and developing the necessary skills to do that? Is there something fundamentally different there?

 

[Brendan Byrd]

So I ask, in AI ‘art’ or whatever you want to call it, who or what is the creator of the unique image that gets produced?

The work “created” is derivative, if I understand correctly.
In such case, the creators are all the artists who’s works were drawn upon, and the person who designed the prompt for the AI/LLM.

—

To bring that idea back home:


2e
This is a derivative work based on the original ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Players Handbook and Dungeon Masters Guide by Gary Gygax and Unearthed Arcana and other materials by Gary Gygax and others.


3e
BASED ON THE ORIGINAL DUNGEONS & DRAGONS® RULES CREATED BY E. GARY GYGAX AND DAVE ARNESON


5e (2024)
Based on the Player's Handbook (2014) designed by Jeremy Crawford (lead), Bruce R. Cordell, Tom LaPille, Peter Lee, Mike Mearls, Robert J. Schwalb, Rodney Thompson, James Wyatt

Building on the original game created by
Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson and then developed by many others over the past 50 years