Do you believe AI art is "stealing" artworks?

[Something Different]

I think this take is honestly a pretty flawed one but I see so many people sharing this opinion. By saying that AI is stealing art that makes it sound like the AI is just straight up copying the artwork and claiming that it made it. But this very clearly isn't the case, but it's the only case where the statement, "AI is stealing artworks," is true.

I know people are not claiming what I said before, what they are actually referring to is the AI using artworks to learn. But then where does the stealing part come into place? Stealing refers to taking a belonging away from someone without permission. When it comes to digital art though that definition doesn't quite work. So to steal digital art would be to copy it, then claim it as your own work, which we all know AI art generation doesn't do.

But that isn't my only problem with this take. My other problem is that what the AI is doing is essentially what a lot of other artists do as well. Artists will look at other artists' works, perhaps the artists like something about it, so they adopt it into their style. That is exactly what the AI does as well. The AI will take images, add it to it's knowledge database, then uses that knowledge to make better art. So to me it's kind of hypocritical of artists to say things like this because it's fine for them to do it, but not for AI to do it for some reason.

That is why I don't like this take all that much.

[Something Different]

Publicado originalmente por Holografix:

Publicado originalmente por agu:

Art is subjective anyway, it's foolish to discuss it as a concept. Everything can be art.

no. art is specific, it's not a generality.

Uhm, pretty sure it is, when referring to art you could be referring to a painting, a movie, a video game, literally anything that is made is art, so I would say art is a pretty generalized term

[Tommy Salami]

Publicado originalmente por Holografix:

Publicado originalmente por The Duce:

Yes. Cave drawings date back more than 60,000 years ago.

that's not what the OP wrote.

He said art is one of the most basic human things that's been around forever. That is true.

[Something Different]

Publicado originalmente por The Duce:

Publicado originalmente por Holografix:

that's not what the OP wrote.

He said art is one of the most basic human things that's been around forever. That is true.

Exactly

[Tommy Salami]

Publicado originalmente por Holografix:

Publicado originalmente por agu:

Art is subjective anyway, it's foolish to discuss it as a concept. Everything can be art.

no. art is specific, it's not a generality.

Wrong again

[OoOoOoooOOoOoorgle]

Publicado originalmente por Holografix:

Again, this thread is not about art, but about a machine AI that duplicates human art work.

Uh. Yes? That's patently clear to everyone who read the OP. Except for you, apparently.

I'm not sure why you're so invested in straw manning the entire thread as if the OP is trying to have a completely different discussion.

[DarkCrystalMethod]

Publicado originalmente por OoOoOoooOOoOoorgle:

Publicado originalmente por Holografix:

Again, this thread is not about art, but about a machine AI that duplicates human art work.

Uh. Yes? That's patently clear to everyone who read the OP. Except for you, apparently.

I'm not sure why you're so invested in straw manning the entire thread as if the OP is trying to have a completely different discussion.

Thats what he does. its his thing. Long chat history where everything is an argument. I just tend to step back and watch the show when he arrives.

[Irene ❤]

Hmm I don't think it's stealing.

For example a little girl cut out all the text font from 20 different magazines to make 1 book cover with different alphabets. That is not art but junk. She can't possibly be sue by 20 publishers. If it did happen, I'd say the 20 publishers are pathetic, because she knows no style, no talent, no skill and the "professional" artists and company are troubled by her junk.

The AI Art is overrated. It can't draw like an artist. It can't send you any message. The most it can do is to mix up random images, and it's just that 1 junk style forever. It is just image mix up fun for kids. The AI that won an award, I'd say boo to the judges. The classic themed roman art now has a circular time-wrap stargate like crap and they thought it's prize deserving.

[🍋 Lemonfed 🍋]

it's stealing because what A.I does is closer to cutting and pasting samples toguethers then creating brand new arts.

[Basho]

forgive me if i go on at length for a bit, but these things interest me.

Publicado originalmente por Something Different:

Reading about this just makes me hate copyright laws in general... I mean you can't copyright everything made otherwise we will run out of things to make

of course, but here we are.

but it is also trickier than just abolishing copyright law, because then there is nothing stopping wealthier people from literally copying other peoples artwork outright and selling it off in whatever form without the original creator seeing any profit at all from their works.
could be t-shirt designs and such for instance.

copyright laws are well-meaning in essence, but they have been twisted by greed.
at their worst they become a means of attack rather than defence so to speak.

there's an interesting theory about expensive fashion like gucci and why many consider it to be ugly:
if they made designs that "everyone" wants to wear, then a clothing company with bigger means of production/distribution could simply make a similar design and churn it out by the thousands for much cheaper.
so making designs that few people want to wear and selling them at high prices (for wealthy people to show off in their circles) means the bigger companies can't justify the production cost of a design few people want to purchase.

i also think it is worth mentioning that there are people who believe applying a photoshop filter onto someone else's creation will render it an original work now under their ownership.
this is a rather crude and clear-cut example, but i believe AI art in some cases borders on this phenomenon.

tangent:

after looking at some more AI art, i am starting to feel my convictions change a bit in regards to "what makes art".
i usually dont like the attitude that "art need to send a message", and i still dont.
but what strikes me when looking at much of the AI generated works is the lack of any real meaning/intent behind it.
some works are pleasant to look at for sure (and i do love abstract art in general) but with the AI works i get the feeling that something is just "missing" most of the time.
like if a human would have produced a work along the same visual idea, there would have been something more to it to enjoy and/or think about.

take the art of Simon Stålenhag for instance.
presumably the visual style could be replicated by AI means, but the element of storytelling by implication is what really makes his art come alive imo and that "spark" is usually missing in the AI generated/assisted works i have seen.

thats not directly related to originality (though i suppose indirectly it may be, seeing as the works may or may not be considered derivative) and i suppose we will see what future developments bring, but for now there just feels like something is missing.

thats some worrying implications considering big budget movie productions often give off the feel of having been crafted by means of algorithm and formula rather than by creative vision.
pairing this outset with automated production makes for a rather bleak prospect.

all that said, regardless of what the future may or may not bring i have no doubts that AI assistance even in its current state can be a wonderful creative asset, making in seconds tasks that would have taken manual human effort hours.
i believe Far Cry 5 used some sort of assistance in placing foliage, rocks, and such according to some set of rules (things like slope angle, proximity to water, etc) to give a natural feel to the world without having to manually place every rock and tree.

[Azza ☠]

AI aren't stealing, it's taking and questioning the errors in human illogical ways and their repeated mistakes... while others just follow them blindly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpUpVznI4Yc

(each frame is AI generated)

[Something Different]

Publicado originalmente por Lemonfed:

it's stealing because what A.I does is closer to cutting and pasting samples toguethers then creating brand new arts.

If that was the case then not every single art piece would be unique, yet whenever an AI makes art it is unique somehow, that means it's making something of it's own. Perhaps it took inspiration from other artwork, but artists do that. As long as the end result is something new and unique then it isn't stealing anything. In order to steal something, something must be stolen first.

[Something Different]

Publicado originalmente por Irene ❤:

Hmm I don't think it's stealing.

For example a little girl cut out all the text font from 20 different magazines to make 1 book cover with different alphabets. That is not art but junk. She can't possibly be sue by 20 publishers. If it did happen, I'd say the 20 publishers are pathetic, because she knows no style, no talent, no skill and the "professional" artists and company are troubled by her junk.

The AI Art is overrated. It can't draw like an artist. It can't send you any message. The most it can do is to mix up random images, and it's just that 1 junk style forever. It is just image mix up fun for kids. The AI that won an award, I'd say boo to the judges. The classic themed roman art now has a circular time-wrap stargate like crap and they thought it's prize deserving.

Those roman arts are drawn to capture that era with great expression and environment. They are suppose to appreciate the artist's message - what the people are thinking, are doing, and experience that era - yet they award that stargate crap.

AI can make some pretty great looking art pieces tho

[Something Different]

Publicado originalmente por Azza ☠:

AI aren't stealing, it's taking and questioning the errors in human illogical ways and their repeated mistakes...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpUpVznI4Yc

(each frame is AI generated)

Even in this instance the AI can't even copy itself for each frame, let alone someone else's artwork lol

[s w e k]

Yes, some AI programs are stealing artist's works and using it without their permission.

[nullpo]

Publicado originalmente por agu:

No, regular artists also steal every idea they have and they call it "inspiration". They just want to do everything in their power to stop AI art from getting more popular because nobody will ever hire them when it's good enough. They say stuff like AI will never surpass human art and it has no merit because it has no qualities like "beauty" and "soul" that they aren't able to describe and wouldn't even be able to recognize. It's just a big cope as a survival mechanism.

Human art will always find a niche imo. People will still become fans of specific artist and follow them for art. Also those AI just cobble multiple art into one. It still needs original art to be pumped out,. then those AI merge them together.