Do (or can) AI Art Generation algorithms plagiarise or otherwise misuse protected intellectual property? This is something I recently changed my mind about;...
An artist takes 100 hours to produce a piece of art. That 100 hours comes from 20 years of practice and technique learning. An AI can produce the same quality art in seconds. They don’t learn the same way. One is stealing experience and the other is doing all the work. Trying to equate the 2 is just wrong.
The misconception that this is stealing is understandable, but it misses the mark. The model is used to create novel works, and it consists of original analysis of the training data in comparison with one another, not the images themselves. Neither analysis nor creation constitute theft.
While mechanisms for learning differ, denying that you can produce output that doesn’t appear in the set is unfair. If that’s not learning, what is?
We also don’t need to compare quality. Art’s value transcends technical skill. The subjective nature of quality and limitations of generative models make these comparisons pointless. Instead of a threat to tradition, I see this as a tool with unique challenges and possibilities.
You should check out this article by the EFF, and this one by the Association of Research Libraries. I think we can have a nuanced discussion without simplistic arguments.
An artist takes 100 hours to produce a piece of art. That 100 hours comes from 20 years of practice and technique learning. An AI can produce the same quality art in seconds. They don’t learn the same way. One is stealing experience and the other is doing all the work. Trying to equate the 2 is just wrong.
The misconception that this is stealing is understandable, but it misses the mark. The model is used to create novel works, and it consists of original analysis of the training data in comparison with one another, not the images themselves. Neither analysis nor creation constitute theft.
While mechanisms for learning differ, denying that you can produce output that doesn’t appear in the set is unfair. If that’s not learning, what is?
We also don’t need to compare quality. Art’s value transcends technical skill. The subjective nature of quality and limitations of generative models make these comparisons pointless. Instead of a threat to tradition, I see this as a tool with unique challenges and possibilities.
You should check out this article by the EFF, and this one by the Association of Research Libraries. I think we can have a nuanced discussion without simplistic arguments.