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

[dead]

Fashion designers use sewing machines to automate stitching. Architects use computer programs to create blueprints. Sculptors use automatic tools to get to rough shapes in the stone they are working on. Street artists use spray cans to automate much of their painting. And so on.

That's just automation though. Not generative AI (or LLMs).

That doesn't change anything. The AI artist can also do that. They can make changes on the spot to bring the art together as they feel is right.

But you're not drawing on skill from your own mind.

This doesn't matter. The end result will be 100% the artists vision, since the artist will make the AI tool keep changing things until it matches the artists vision, whether that vision was there from the outset or grew organically as the artwork progressed.

If you worked with a human artist - giving them prompt after prompt - "make those eyes bigger", "make that nose smaller" (that would be a really annoying art director, by the way...), would you claim credit for their work?

 

[Maxperson]

That's just automation though. Not generative AI (or LLMs).

All the generative AI or LLM does, though, is automate the drawing of the picture, not the vision behind it. It's a different kind of automation, sure, but it's still effectively just automation the way I'm suggesting that AI be used as a tool.

But you're not drawing on skill from your own mind.

But I am drawing on the creativity and unique image. You don't need skill at drawing to create something.

If you worked with a human artist - giving them prompt after prompt - "make those eyes bigger", "make that nose smaller" (that would be a really annoying art director, by the way...), would you claim credit for their work?

Yes. If they contributed nothing of their own to the design and end resulting image other than being there as an automated tool for me, it would be my creation.

 

[dead]

All the generative AI or LLM does, though, is automate the drawing of the picture, not the vision behind it. It's a different kind of automation, sure, but it's still effectively just automation the way I'm suggesting that AI be used as a tool.

It's different enough that someone decided to call them two different things.

But I am drawing on the creativity and unique image. You don't need skill at drawing to create something.

You need skill for any work of art I would hope - how to make an evocative composition, understanding of light, etc.

Yes. If they contributed nothing of their own to the design and end resulting image other than being there as an automated tool for me, it would be my creation.

That would be treating that person like a... well, like a machine. It is probably good you stick to AI tools.

 

[zakael19]

Yes. If they contributed nothing of their own to the design and end resulting image other than being there as an automated tool for me, it would be my creation.

They still contributed their knowledge and skill in actually arting. If you could draw exactly what they did, you wouldn't give them instructions.

Drawing good art is hard, actually, as somebody who has dabbled in it.

 

[Morrus]

That would be treating that person like a... well, like a machine. It is probably good you stick to AI tools.

Also, the law disagrees--vehemently. As does pretty much everybody who is an artist or who has worked with one. But there's no point in debating this one; that's one opinion which is set in adamantine. It ain't changing, it's just repeating over and over like a... uh... machine. One without input ports, just a 10 PRINT... GOTO 10 routine.

 

[SableWyvern]

Beyond that, it is unclear why folks are harping on the concept's age. What is the purpose of trying to emphasize this point?

In my case, the point is to highlight my belief that we're talking about artificial rights introduced to deal with changing technological circumstances, not natural rights that we've always recognised.

Inportantly, this also means I don't believe in defending the ongoing existence of the right for its own sake. Instead, we need to constantly assess whether it's doing what it was intended to do, and if there are better ways to achieve the same goal.

 

[Maxperson]

They still contributed their knowledge and skill in actually arting. If you could draw exactly what they did, you wouldn't give them instructions.

Drawing good art is hard, actually, as somebody who has dabbled in it.

They were nothing but a tool if I dictate every last detail of what is to be done. I can't cut a tree in half with my arm, but an axe can do it and if I use the axe to chop down the tree, I'm the one who did it.

If they contribute nothing but their skill at drawing, they are still just a tool. Not the artist. They did nothing creative.

 

[Maxperson]

It's different enough that someone decided to call them two different things.

Sort of like an axe, sword and saw, but all three are sharp tools. It doesn't matter if they have different names, they still all function as a form of automation.

You need skill for any work of art I would hope - how to make an evocative composition, understanding of light, etc.

Not really. For example, I have a really good intuitive grasp of what looks good. I can't draw it, but I could get there via directing someone else. Maybe that's intuitive skill.

That would be treating that person like a... well, like a machine. It is probably good you stick to AI tools.

That's what they would be volunteering to be. It's not something I would ever do or expect someone else to agree to do, but it was your hypothetical.

Edit: Two things.

First, the whole comparison of a living artist to a machine tool like AI is a False Equivalence(An AI isn't a person or artist) and a Red Herring. It's nothing more than a distraction from the real discussion.

Second, nobody is going to do your hypothetical. A person with the creative idea isn't going go to an artist, direct him every step of the way, and let the artist control the creation, so it simply won't be done. That or the person with the creative idea will talk a friend who is willing to let the creative person also have control of the final product, or pay the artist for the final product. Nobody is going to be treated like a slave in this distraction hypothetical of yours.

 

[Older Beholder]

In my case, the point is to highlight my belief that we're talking about artificial rights introduced to deal with changing technological circumstances, not natural rights that we've always recognised.

Inportantly, this also means I don't believe in defending the ongoing existence of the right for its own sake. Instead, we need to constantly assess whether it's doing what it was intended to do, and if there are better ways to achieve the same goal.

Just because a right hasn’t always been recognised doesn’t make it artificial.

Would you say the same things about say, a woman’s right to vote, which is an even more recent development than copyright law?

 

[dbolack]

terrible opinion. gatekeep fun and knowledge because some people are crying that AI makes good art. boo hoo

Gatekeeping is the go-to lazy criticism these days...