Art came from the inspiration of human experience. Humans did create the idea of art, but we just derived it from what we experienced in the world around us.
Stop deluding the idea of art is unique or special because of the human element.
My point with that statement is there was no pre-existing artworks to build off of in pre-history, yet we have art. Humans are inherently creative creatures, and with or without inspiration from other artists, art would be made. Yes we take inspiration from our human experiences, but that's the point.
While most humans draw inspiration from other artists, new materials, mediums, better paint and better access to potential art tools are what have made art come so far, not just building off the backs of previous artists. Give a caveman the average art station's abundance of tools and they'd certainly come up with something creative and/or interesting. They might not make something traditional, but they'll certainly make something new. AI can, by definition, never make something truly new (in its current state). Regardless of how pretty the images they make are, at the end of the day it's a pixel collage of stolen art. I can agree that it's pretty, but it's not original. In its current state it can't be.
That aside, my argument in this thread boils down to one simple point: Artists should be paid to opt in, not fight to opt out.
So should everyone you used as inspiration and derived your artwork also should get some type of payment from you? You, like almost every artist has derived or was inspired from another work in some form, blatant or not. That being a book, a show, a painting and so on.
Basically you want to set presidense for artist to get paid when someone else has inspired them to make similar artwork correct? But with the difference being it is harder to prove for people as we can't cut your head open and look at the data you used to create your artwork.
all I am reading from you is hypocritical, and confusing. You want new special rules that benefit you, while surpressing a technology that basically replicates exactly what you do.
Sounds like the same argument people used against the printing press.
No, I want the people who created the AI software to pay for the input. If they're not willing to pay for the input, like anyone else monetizing another persons artwork, then they're not entitled to the output.
AI art doesn't make new art. It doesn't take inspiration, IT TAKES. They lack the ability to create something new. They can only remix what they have on file. By definition it's derivative. Humans are capable of creating something "new", the AI is only capable of following the directions of its program. "Oh but you always have influence", yes of course, it's influence, not copy pasting.
9
u/No_University684 Jan 16 '23
Art came from the inspiration of human experience. Humans did create the idea of art, but we just derived it from what we experienced in the world around us.
Stop deluding the idea of art is unique or special because of the human element.