• SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Generative AI is incapable of contributing new material, because Generative AI does not sense the world through a unique perspective. So the comparison to creators that incorporate prior artists work is a false comparison. Artists are allowed to incorporate other artists work in the same way that scientists cite other’s work without it being plagiarism.

    In art, in science, we stand on the shoulders of giants. AI models do not stand on the shoulders of giants. AI models just replicate the giants. Society has been fooled to think otherwise.

    • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Generative AI is a tool. It is neither a creator nor an artist, any more than paintbrushes or cameras are. The problem arises not with the tool itself but with how it is used. The creativity must come from the user, just like the way Procreate or GIMP or even photography works.

      The skill factor is certainly lower than other forms of artistic expression, but that is true of photography vs painting as well.

      I am not trying to say all uses of generative AI are art, anymore than every photograph is art. But that doesn’t mean it cannot be a tool to create art, part of the workflow as utilized by someone with a vision willing to take the time to get the end product they want.

      Generative AI doesn’t stand on the shoulders of giants, but neither does a camera.