WotC So it seems D&D has picked a side on the AI art debate.

[FrogReaver]

It isn't, though. It never can be. An AI's art will inevitable be souless, other images mashed together into a single form.

IMO, it's up the viewers of the art to provide the meaning - and it always has been.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, the algorithm is taking the artist’s work without paying for it. Just because you aren’t directly receiving a direct copy of any individual artist’s work doesn’t mean they haven’t done uncompensated labor. That algorithm could not have created whatever image it gave you without countless artists having worked to produce the images it’s creating a composite of.

I've yet to see this argument applied to other human artists. If an artist studies another artists works and creates something in that style, he didn't steal anything. Which for me is the coup de grace for this particular argument.

We don’t yet know how this technology is going to impact copyright law, so “as long as it doesn’t infringe on copyright” isn’t an effective defense. Moreover, what some judge decides is or isn’t an infringement of copyright doesn’t ultimately change the underlying fact that by training these algorithms on artists’ works, those artists’ labor is going into the product that algorithm produces. They are being made to work in order to enable the algorithm to function, more often than not unknowingly, unwillingly, and without compensation. It’s slavery with extra steps.

This already occurs with other artists. That it's part of the human process may cause you to not notice it occuring, but it's as real a process as the AI process.

Everyone deserves fair compensation for their labor. Artists, lamplighters, everyone. If algorithms manage to make art (of any quality), it is only because artists’ labor was exploited to “teach” them how to do that. They deserve fair compensation for that work, and currently? They aren’t getting that.

Do you raise the same concerns about teaching human artists from other artists works how to do that?

 

[Charlaquin]

I've yet to see this argument applied to other human artists. If an artist studies another artists works and creates something in that style, he didn't steal anything. Which for me is the coup de grace for this particular argument.

This already occurs with other artists. That it's part of the human process may cause you to not notice it occuring, but it's as real a process as the AI process.

Do you raise the same concerns about teaching human artists from other artists works how to do that?

I mean, if we want to be consistent, the point of comparison shouldn’t be an artist studying another specific artist’s work and trying to imitate it (which depending on how directly they copy it could actually be considered forgery), because that’s not remotely analogous to what these algorithms do. It should be an artist studying a huge swath of different artists’ works and letting what they learn influence their own style. But if we do that, it becomes clear what the difference is: algorithms do not have their own style to influence. They do not have their own ideas that the “study” of other artists’ work can influence, nor do they truly study in the way we do. What they do is build databases of different images and directly copy elements of different images from that database. The artist has a concept in their own brain, which they came up with, no doubt affected by a combination of things they learned from studying other artists and their own individual tastes and experiences, and they then apply their learned technical skills to try to bring that idea into being as best they can. Algorithms don’t do any of that. They assemble whatever bits and pieces of the works in their database their programming predicts is most likely to satisfy the prompt they are given, and arrange them in a new way.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

So callous. This AI Art thing isn't some noble "march of progress" situation. It's not improving any quality of life, for instance. And you're happy to say "oh, they can just learn another job lol" as if that doesn't take time and effort (also, consider that maybe they'd be happy selling commissions and doing art and don't want to be potentially pushed out of that?). Plus, where does it end? How many more jobs does automation and AI have to encroach upon before we finally think, "Hey, maybe we should think this out beforehand?"

AI art has already improved my quality of life by a smidgen by letting me generate custom illustrations of locations and NPCs for my D&D sessions, increasing the quality of the game for my players and I.

 

[FrogReaver]

I mean, if we want to be consistent, the point of comparison shouldn’t be an artist studying another specific artist’s work and trying to imitate it (which depending on how directly they copy it could actually be considered forgery),

I don’t think anyone has suggested this. The suggestion is it ‘studies’ many works in a similar style and produces a new image in that style.

because that’s not remotely analogous to what these algorithms do. It should be an artist studying a huge swath of different artists’ works and letting what they learn influence their own style. But if we do that, it becomes clear what the difference is: algorithms do not have their own style to influence.

Artists can do art in their style or mimic another style. Say Impressionism. They may develop their own subset style of Impressionism, though I think it’s too early to tell if AI is capable of similar. From what I’ve seen, it very well could depending on whether feedback on its images could be fed back into it and then be used by it to influence the images it creates.

They do not have their own ideas that the “study” of other artists’ work can influence, nor do they truly study in the way we do.

I’m not sure that matters.

What they do is build databases of different images and directly copy elements of different images from that database.

I’d suggest that’s also how humans do art. If I want to art a man holding a sword, I need to know what the images of men and swords looks like, probably some random background elements I will choose as well. I then generate my art based on 1) all the different images of men and swords I’ve seen (database), perhaps I even become focused on a certain style of man or sword and 2) my capabilities to create the desired image in the chosen format.

The artist has a concept in their own brain, which they came up with, no doubt affected by a combination of things they learned from studying other artists and their own individual tastes and experiences,

I would argue that’s exactly what the algorithm is doing or could be doing. I’m not sure we are quite there yet, but an AI having different experiences and tastes when compared to another seems a small step from where we are currently.

and they then apply their learned technical skills to try to bring that idea into being as best they can. Algorithms don’t do any of that. They assemble whatever bits and pieces of the works in their database their programming predicts is most likely to satisfy the prompt they are given, and arrange them in a new way.

I think you are viewing the human process as some sort of black box where things magically happen when that’s not really the case. On that basis There’s no wonder you view AI art and human created art soo differently. But I would challenge that assumption.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It is now art because I is human.

This seems to be the crux of the argument. People are saying that the definition of Art is "something created by a human", ergo, it is impossible, by definition, for an AI to create art.

The counter to that is the AI is created by humans, and in that respect is no different to a paintbrush. The humans who created the AI are the creators of the Art.

Personally, I don't think there is a commonly accepted definition of what is and is not Art, and therefore arguing about it is a pointless waste of time, so I will post no further in this thread.

 

[FrogReaver]

In more practical terms -

AI Art currently requires human generated art to seed their creations. It’s feasible that ai art generators may pay artists to provide seed images. This would be the expanding business model - ai art would become cheaper but mass market appeal could actually help artists by making it cheap for companies to obtain focused art from their works - something that can be incredibly expensive now.

Of course the other possibility is that ai art starts developing new and interesting styles faster than human anrtists and thus ends up being able to act as seeds for other ai art.

I think the first will likely be what we see first and then a gradual improvement until ai art fully replaces human art, save for the novelty of human produced works.

 

[Charlaquin]

Artists can do art in their style or mimic another style. Say Impressionism. They may develop their own subset style of Impressionism, though I think it’s too early to tell if AI is capable of similar. From what I’ve seen, it very well could depending on whether feedback on its images could be fed back into it and then be used by it to influence the images it creates.

No, it couldn’t, because algorithms work by copying existing things. There is nothing in how it works that could allow for the creation of individual style.

I’m not sure that matters.

I am.

I’d suggest that’s also how humans do art. If I want to art a man holding a sword, I need to know what the images of men and swords looks like, probably some random background elements I will choose as well. I then generate my art based on 1) all the different images of men and swords I’ve seen (database), perhaps I even become focused on a certain style of man or sword and 2) my capabilities to create the desired image in the chosen format.

But in step 1, your “database” is filtered by your unique perceptions and memory, which is not the case with an algorithm. What you perceive and how you recall it is an inexact approximation of what is, and it is unique to you. Also, an algorithm doesn’t do step 2. The creation of the images has already been done by artists, the algorithm only recombines what has already been created.

I would argue that’s exactly what the algorithm is doing or could be doing. I’m not sure we are quite there yet, but an AI having different experiences and tastes when compared to another seems a small step from where we are currently.

Then you have been bamboozled by language like “artificial intelligence” and “machine learning.” It’s not actually intelligent, even artificially so. An algorithm is nothing but a mathematical formula, it is not capable of having experiences or tastes. It functions in a fundamentally different way than living animals’ brains.

I think you are viewing the human process as some sort of black box where things magically happen when that’s not really the case. On that basis There’s no wonder you view AI art and human created art soo differently. But I would challenge that assumption.

No, humans’ (and other animals’) brains are not magical black boxes. But nor are they mathematical formulae. They are complex networks of cells, which work by forming webs of connections and communicating with each other and other parts of our bodies through electrical and chemical signals. This is a fundamentally different process than how algorithms function.

 

[Charlaquin]

This seems to be the crux of the argument. People are saying that the definition of Art is "something created by a human", ergo, it is impossible, by definition, for an AI to create art.

The counter to that is the AI is created by humans, and in that respect is no different to a paintbrush. The humans who created the AI are the creators of the Art.

Personally, I don't think there is a commonly accepted definition of what is and is not Art, and therefore arguing about it is a pointless waste of time, so I will post no further in this thread.

I’m making no claims about what is and isn’t art. Is an image generated by an algorithm art? It could be argued either way, and I don’t think the answer is relevant here. Whether it’s art or not, its content is stolen from existing works of art.

 

[Charlaquin]

AI art has already improved my quality of life by a smidgen by letting me generate custom illustrations of locations and NPCs for my D&D sessions, increasing the quality of the game for my players and I.

Well, yes, the exploitation of human labor does tend to improve the quality of life of the beneficiaries of that labor. Naturally, getting art for free is going to benefit you, at the expense of the people who did the work that went into creating that art.