Mastodawn

How do I justify my assertion that AI art is plagiarism rather than "inspired by" other art?

If I made a piece of art which was inspired by another artist, I would freely acknowledge that. AI art programs don't do that. They don't say where any of their "ideas" or "inspirations" came from, they don't acknowledge the original artists at all. That's lying by omission.
Such deception makes it clearly plagiarism. Or forgery.

#AIArt #Plagiarism #Art

@kerravonsen Also agree, also wondered that about "inspiration". But I still have a couple more questions: 1) let's say if they list the works they trained AI on, will we change our mind? As an artist and human being in general, I don't remember sources of my inspiration too. But I know that learned from other people's work, not by myself 🤔 2) if I draw a sketch myself, and use it as a basis for img2img (because the initial sketch is mine! And the AI will only align the shapes), how treat that?

@kerravonsen I'm not sticking up for AI, I don't like the approach for AI training etc either, but I want to be objective about this "philosophical" issue (AI have given us food for thought) as the AI mechanism is generally similar to how I learned myself 🤯 This is something I myself have not yet gotten an answer to.

@ArtCoder Yes, you may have learned by looking at other artists, but that is not the only thing you did. You learned techniques, you learned hand-eye skills. You know how to sketch, and do whatever else you know how to do.

No matter how much you are inspired by others, the way you take the image in your mind and bring it out into reality is filtered through your skillset, your preferences, and your taste. That combination is unique to you.

@ArtCoder With AI art, all the "technical skills" are done by the program (which is superb at making collages). That implies that the only things left for the human to input are preferences and taste. Does that make it not-unique and not-art? I can't answer that -- but it certainly makes it not-skilled.

@kerravonsen Good answers, thank you!
1. Haven't thought about collages that deeply yet, fresh idea 🤔 At first technically I understood that AI works with image disassembled into "atoms", and it literally "draws" from small noise, at each step "refining and choosing a new turn of stroke", but not from "patches". And if think, we draw the same way, just by having certain "skill blocks" about how to draw arms, legs, etc. at what angle. And very few artists deviate from their established patterns..

@ArtCoder True, but it is still effectively a collage, since it is working from disassembled images - the "patches" are just very small.
It has no knowledge of what arms and legs *are*. Which is one reason why AI art totally sucks at drawing hands.

@kerravonsen 2. BUT! On other hand we humans can change angle, calculate perspective differently, and more. And it's not the skill itself that pushes us to do these EXPERIMENTS with our existing skills, but the DESIRE to try out a new, because it is boring, etc., it's not even about skill. i.e. we humans behave as "masters" over the drawing, not as "blind assistants" for artists. On top of that I'm embarrassed by stock watermarks. So about the collages, the truth may very likely be on your side)

@ArtCoder Oh yes, very good point! Humans have a DESIRE to try new things, it is a fundamental push. Humans get bored! You simply can't stop us from doing new things, it's impossible.

@kerravonsen 3. So I totally agree, even from my experience I'll say that AI in general is some kind of very, very stupid assistant that takes forever to look after, and often has MUCH to fix, it can't be trusted to do a really good job. It's much easier and faster for me to draw on my own in an hour than to spend hours telling this idiot exactly what I need 😣 Of course, I'm afraid they'll improve over time, but they'll still be stylistically limited and recognizable. It'll be like with photo 🤷‍♂️

@ArtCoder One of my computer science lecturers said "Computers are fast morons." That is still true today.

Mind you, the comparison with photography is unwise. Photography IS an art, for those who take it seriously, who do more than just take holiday snaps. (Sit down and listen to my brother-in-law and you will have no doubt.)

@kerravonsen 4. The only positive thing for me is that AI drawings are not a bad source of inspiration for concepts. Like a quicker search for "the very same picture" of another artists for inspiration (not even a repeat!) that you have to google a little longer to find... But again: in general and without AI such pictures were searched without problems) 😅 Thanks again for the food for thought, I'm even better convinced of the idea that AI for creativity is garbage.