Kerr Avonsen (she/her)Supporters of AI "art" declare that the AI programs are "just learning like humans do". Okay, if that's the case, ask yourself WHAT are they learning?
They aren't learning how to make original art.
They are learning how to plagiarise art.
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.
ArtCoder (comms open)@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 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.