Post #2605973

2022-12-12 23:03 UTC

@Manigarm@mastodon.social This is an interesting point, and certainly correct. It's also exactly how humans learn to become artists and writers - by studying, mimicking, and eventually adding to the existing body of work. We don't generally consider that theft, unless the copying is exact or deceptive. Yet AI feels somehow different, much more like plagiarism. Perhaps it's that the ONLY input an ML system has is others' art, with no real-world human experience of its own to contribute.

Replies (2)

@byterhymer@mastodon.social 2022-12-12 23:12

@mattblaze@federate.social In my high school arts classes, when we did reproductions of renowned art, it was known as a "Master's study" to attempt to learn, first hand, how the original creator may have gotten to an end product by attempting to mimic their output as precisely as possible. I do not know if that nomenclature is widespread? Steve Jobs uttering "good artist copy, great artists steal" can be attributed at least as far back as Picasso. Others cite T.S. Eliot: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/03/06/artists-steal/ @Manigarm@mastodon.social

Open ##2605974
@mattblaze@federate.social 2022-12-12 23:12

@Manigarm@mastodon.social I think part of it is that we expect art and literature to have a creator, an actual person whose work expresses a human point of view, one that encompasses something beyond the literal work itself. By lacking an author who stands behind it, is AI-generated art somehow inherently fraudulent? Maybe.

Open ##2605975