Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Clint_L" data-source="post: 9080109" data-attributes="member: 7035894">There is an interesting distinction that a lot of posters seem to be making re. AI art: images and music on the one hand, and writing on the other. I suspect this will be reflected in eventual laws and court results, as well.I suspect that this is because we tend to factor in &quot;skill&quot; and &quot;originality&quot; as part of our value assessment in the former more than in the latter, where writing is often more rated on utilitarian grounds. Folks might debate the question, &quot;Is all writing art?&quot; in a way that they would not with images and music.On the other hand, images and music often directly or indirectly incorporate or copy other artists' work, and there is a robust legal history dealing with such. For example, given that everyone is more or less using the same basic steps, how long and elaborate does a dance sequence have to be for someone to claim ownership of it? How unique does a song have to be? With visual arts, we are quite lax in many respects - if I am really good at painting mimicking the style of Frank Frazetta, there is nothing stopping me from making my fortune painting vans.Edit: In teaching, the rise of ChatGPT is forcing us to confront the issue that human creativity might not work at like we thought it did. It is not at all clear to us that what Chat is doing is fundamentally different from what humans do. In other words, when we thought we were teaching creativity, we may well have been teaching mostly mimicry. The fact is that not only do we not fully understand how Chat does what it does, we also don't understand how humans do what they do. So it is very hard to make make distinctions like &quot;human art is this but AI art is that.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Clint_L, post: 9080109, member: 7035894"] There is an interesting distinction that a lot of posters seem to be making re. AI art: images and music on the one hand, and writing on the other. I suspect this will be reflected in eventual laws and court results, as well. I suspect that this is because we tend to factor in "skill" and "originality" as part of our value assessment in the former more than in the latter, where writing is often more rated on utilitarian grounds. Folks might debate the question, "Is all writing art?" in a way that they would not with images and music. On the other hand, images and music often directly or indirectly incorporate or copy other artists' work, and there is a robust legal history dealing with such. For example, given that everyone is more or less using the same basic steps, how long and elaborate does a dance sequence have to be for someone to claim ownership of it? How unique does a song have to be? With visual arts, we are quite lax in many respects - if I am really good at painting mimicking the style of Frank Frazetta, there is nothing stopping me from making my fortune painting vans. Edit: In teaching, the rise of ChatGPT is forcing us to confront the issue that human creativity might not work at like we thought it did. It is not at all clear to us that what Chat is doing is fundamentally different from what humans do. In other words, when we thought we were teaching creativity, we may well have been teaching mostly mimicry. The fact is that not only do we not fully understand how Chat does what it does, we also don't understand how humans do what they do. So it is very hard to make make distinctions like "human art is this but AI art is that." [/QUOTE]

Verification