Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dave2008" data-source="post: 9646096" data-attributes="member: 83242">While I generally agree and don't like or purchase AI art (heck I typically "unlike" an image on the art platforms I frequent if I discover after the fact it is AI - and typically call out AI art that is not listed as such). It is, however, debatable if it is "theft" in the traditional sense.4 days ago I went to a lecture by the artist Alexis Rockman about his 1992 painting "Evolution," see below. Which was commissioned for $70,000 and took him 6 months to paint (it is 8' x 24'). In his lecture he pointed out several creatures and the previous work he "stole" (his words) them from, including the dragon in the middle of the painting (Vermithrax from Dragonslayer) and most of the prehistoric creatures (many direct copies of Charles Knight's famous works). These were direct copies (but in his style), much more so than what AI does.AI images sample in much the same way that Alexis does, but completely digitally and at a much more grand and yet less direct manner. Artist have always copied other artist and, IMO, there is not a lot of difference with what AI is doing to produce its images. The ethical issue for me, is not that act of using AI to create an image, but the idea of replacing people (writers. artist, etc.) with AI generated work. This is, IMO, more a large company / corporation issue, and as much the small indie producer who would normally higher artists to begin with. Heck I could, but will not, make an argument how a small indie publisher using AI art could benefit actually artist.[ATTACH=full]403580[/ATTACH]Alexis Rockman. Evolution, 1992. Oil on wood. 96 x 288 in</blockquote>

Verification