‘It’s too powerful a technology’

  • millie@lemmy.film
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You’d be making a mistake there. AI elements can’t be copyrighted, but human-created elements can. There’s also a line somewhere at which point AI generation is used as a tool to enhance hand-made art rather than to generate entire pieces wholesale.

    Like, let’s look at this Soul Token for my Planescape themed Conan Exiles server (still in development).

    https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1097400802764664843/1110453997413867560/image.png

    I went into GIMP, drew a simple skull based on a design I found on google image search, slapped it on a very simple little circle, and popped it into NightCafe for some detail work. The end result is something I composed myself, with the most significant visual elements created by hand and spiced up a bit essentially using a big complicated filter. The result saved me hours and gave me one of many little in-game items to mod into my server that I never would have had the resources to produce in bulk otherwise as an independent developer.

    Who owns it?

    Well, I drew the skull after training myself on google image search data, but presumably my hand drawing of a fairly generic object still belongs to me. I drew the circle that makes up the coin itself, but NightCafe added some nicely lit metallic coloring, gave it a border, and turned my little skull into a gem. This, of course, requiring some prompt engineering and iteration on my part.

    So is adding a texture and a little border detail enough to interfere with my ownership? Should it be? If I didn’t hand-create enough of the work to constitute ownership, surely there’s some point at which a vanishingly small amount of AI detail being added to the art doesn’t eliminate the independent creation of the art itself. If I were to paint an elaborate landscape by hand and then AI generate a border for it, surely that border shouldn’t eliminate the legitimacy of my contributions.

    At some point, the difference between the use of AI and the use of a filter in an image editor becomes essentially non-existent. Yes, an AI can create a lot more from scratch, but in practical terms it’s much easier to get it started with a bit of traditional art than it is to spend hours engineering prompts trying to get rid of weird extra eyeballs and spaghetti fingers.

    I’d love to see a more elaborate discussion on this topic, but so far all we get is some form of ‘AI bad!’ and then some artists dropping a little bit of nuance without it really seeming to go anywhere.

    This technology has the potential to elevate independent artists to the sort of productivity that only corporations, with their inherent inspiration-killing bureaucracy, could previously achieve. That’s a good thing.

    • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Seems like even if someone could in theory legally reuse some aspect of AI generated/assisted art, it would be prohibitively difficult or impossible to separate it out from the manually created components or know exactly where the line is legally, so it would be completely impractical to use.

      • millie@lemmy.film
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Artists aren’t lawyers and don’t want to be. Except for the ones that are. But that isn’t most of us.

        Artists make art. If you want to look for the people who like to make policy, look to the jackasses in suits who sit around having meetings about meetings all day to justify scalping the work made by actual artists. The same kinds of people who fund stories like this blatantly uninformed hit piece.

        Fuck them and the horse they rode in on.

        At some point the line will have to be discovered, because the use of AI for art isn’t going away. Suits can whine about it all they want. Art doesn’t really care.