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

[Maxperson]

Did you change the picture, or did you ask the AI to do it?

Neither. And there is a very real and significant distinction between building and creating. Just because the AI builds what I direct(not ask) it to, doesn't make it the creator. If it's my vision, it's my creation.

When an architect designs a house, it's his creation, even though he doesn't do an iota of actual building.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't think its the pixels at all that make it art. I think its the intention behind it, the desire that this will be art.

Ironically that was precisely my original point and position before we got off on this tangent.

 

[Maxperson]

Nope.

"...whether the end result is my creation or not," is a legal question of ownership and rights. The provenance of the tools, and the nature of the creation with respect to other works, very much bears on who gets those rights, and has done since before generative AI.

I don't agree with you. If I use my hands and knowledge to make the first of something, I have created it regardless of legal rights or social acknowledgement. That's the reality. The reality can also be that the creation is stolen to me and someone else gets the credit and legal rights, but that person can never have created it.

 

[FrogReaver]

Nope.

"...whether the end result is my creation or not," is a legal question of ownership and rights. The provenance of the tools, and the nature of the creation with respect to other works, very much bears on who gets those rights, and has done since before generative AI.

That’s not what being the creator of a thing means. Society and the law could say you get no rights to your artistic works and you would still have been the creator.

 

[bsss]

Neither. And there is a very real and significant distinction between building and creating. Just because the AI builds what I direct(not ask) it to, doesn't make it the creator. If it's my vision, it's my creation.

When an architect designs a house, it's his creation, even though he doesn't do an iota of actual building.

You are incorrect. The design is his design. The house was never his.

 

[FrogReaver]

Did you change the picture, or did you ask the AI to do it? You've glossed over the critical part.

Both? Asking the ai to change the picture is one of many ways I can change a picture.

 

[FrogReaver]

You are incorrect. The design is his design. The house was never his.

Creation does not equal ownership…

How that keeps being conflated by so many is baffling.

 

[bedir than]

Not clear why AI being trained matters in regards to using AI to make exactly what one envisions through a process of gradual refinement until the image perfectly matches the vision. AI can be used in more ways than - give me a single image I’m going to use whatever it spits out.

Because outside of very specific circumstances the training still influences its action.

It will not "know" how to do what you tell it without that illicit consumption of protected works, which included in some cases setting fire to books after they were used, torrenting videos and watching porn

 

[bedir than]

I am the creator, even if the law doesn't recognize it.

but you aren't the creator!

You are telling a thing to create your desires. You have placed a multitude of orders, just like a grumpy restaurant patron who keeps sending the plate back

 

[bsss]

Both? Asking the ai to change the picture is one of many ways I can change a picture.

Oh, we're back to the "I asked the five-star chef to make me a dinner, so it's the same as me doing it" phase of your ridiculous position? I'll refer you back to the many previous posts ridiculing that position, and let you loop through that.