I literally said in exact words that it has no purpose.
Comment on Microsoft Copilot falls Atari 2600 Video Chess
Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 3 days agoSo what you are saying is that it has a purpose. Also if an artist is inspired by another artist, and they have a generally similar art style as the artist they are inspired by, are they stealing? Was HP Lovecraft stealing from Lord Dunsany when he imitated his style? Where all those monks that transcribed Greek works stealing from the Greeks?
I will say that most AIs are unethical because they have been trained on pirated works. But an AI trained on publicly available works (ie news articles, blogs etc) and movies, books and music for which access to was paid for is as ethical as you or me emulating an artist or building on an idea that we read to create something new. And if that’s unethical then all human art in history is unethical because all artists are inspired by other artists, no one creates in a vacuum.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 3 days ago
thedruid@lemmy.world 3 days ago
A. I does not create, it regurgitates and clarifies inspiration,? Sure anything can be used for inspiration. But unless a person puts hands and heart to it, it’s not art.
Following a recipe on a box does not a chef makr
Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 3 days ago
Art has no rules my man.
You can do all kinds of mental gymnastics you want but there’s no difference between an artist looking at Frank Frazetta’s art and basing their style off of it and an AI doing the same thing. You might not like it, but it’s the truth.
Do I think the art has the same value? Not necessarily. But I also never thought that all art has the same value. There has always been trash production line art and good art.
But also I have to say that I’ve already seen some people use AI as a tool for art and make some really cool stuff that I don’t think any other artist would have made and it’s more unique than most of the stuff out there. You can use it as the tool it is or complain and cry about it to no avail.
thedruid@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Fuck that. I’ll prove you wrong right now.
I want you to paint me picture of a cow in a field.
Did I do that,?
Nope. I commissioned you to.
Now if you the commissioned guy used a. I to make the item , how much credit should you get? None. … describing what you want to a machine is a child’s play game.
Humans adults create. Machines mimic.
Humans who think a. I is art are liars and con men afraid of being caught.
Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 3 days ago
What you are describing has nothing to do with the tool. It’s dishonesty which is different.
The idea is that instead of commissioning the cow on the field, you go to the AI and ask it for that and it gives you a cow in the field. If you claim you made it, you are lying but that would be true even if you paid an artist and then claimed the same.
So with AI made art you’ll say “this art was made by an Ai” and no one will be confused as to who takes the credit, because it belongs to the algorithm.
Have you ever made art in your life? Because a big part of art is mimicking. Like 98% of it is mimicking. I draw, write and make music. You can’t learn these skills without mimicking. And most artists don’t ever do anything truly original, that’s a rarity and even when it happens you can trace the influences to other artists if you know how to look.
You could argue that AI has not developed its own style yet but that’s bullshit too imo because everyone knows the default AI art style when they see it, so that means that AI has a distinctive style. Is it unique? Maybe not, but neither is the art style of most artists or writers or even musicians.