Sec-Ops

[Hardwire]

Then any ship designed with a spreadsheet is AI, requiring no imagination.

I don't care what tools you use and how you use them. What I am tired of is people that come down on those that use a certain tool and they themselves use tools to do what they do. It is a very fine line between me telling an AI to draw a human arm connected to e robot body, and me telling the program give me a human arm and I connect it to the robot body.

Do you think that artists that take graphite and ink to paper looks at your work and says "Wow now the is art" It is all a matter of perspective. There will always be someone that does it a different way that can look down on anything someone else can do.

As far as changing definitions to win an argument, it changes the playing field and points out the hypocrisy of saying that AI art isn't are but moving objects around on a screen is.

 

[Hardwire]

You forgot architects. They use CAD, so they must not be artists either. /s

Also, being a purchaser of art does not make one an artist. If I commission an architect and give them My ideas and inspirations. An architect is an artist. They create from their own mind an interpretation of the instructions given. Once an architect is done creating the visual look and feel of the structure that I want and I approve it, it goes to an engineer who makes sure that it does not fall down. The architect is an artist. The engineer is an analyst. A computer AI "artist" is an analyst, not an artist. If you tell a computer to paint Joy, how will it interpret that? What makes a computer feel Joy? It has no frame of personal reference for the feeling of joy, so the computer can only use other peoples' ideas of joy. It has none of its own. You can tell any human to paint what makes them happy. Even the most horrifyingly bad painting done that group of humans painting Joy, is better than absolutely all of the results a computer could return. The humans can give you art. The computer can only analyze your request from the standpoint of other people's emotions.

Hope this helps to clarify things.

Before becoming a Network Engineer, I did Architectural Drafting on a Drafting desk without CAD. I did eventually move to CAD but I retain the ability to do it the old way. Progress and the computer made it faster and consequently a lot of old draftsman that didn't want to change lost there jobs.

 

[Hardwire]

To make a fine distinction, a program that ethically does this work that others then pay for isn’t bad. It’s when a company scours the internet and steals everything in sight to do it that a problem comes in.

Is it ethical to use a program to draw object , then move them around and call it your art?

 

[Arkathan]

Is it ethical to use a program to draw object , then move them around and call it your art?

Yes. It is not ethical to have something else sample the works of others, piece them together, and then charge for them as if it were an original work of your own.

I don't care what tools you use and how you use them. What I am tired of is people that come down on those that use a certain tool and they themselves use tools to do what they do. It is a very fine line between me telling an AI to draw a human arm connected to e robot body, and me telling the program give me a human arm and I connect it to the robot body.

Do you think that artists that take graphite and ink to paper looks at your work and says "Wow now the is art" It is all a matter of perspective. There will always be someone that does it a different way that can look down on anything someone else can do.

As far as changing definitions to win an argument, it changes the playing field and points out the hypocrisy of saying that AI art isn't are but moving objects around on a screen is.

Photography is art. A photographer does not draw the objects. If you put nothing in the studio and take a photo, you have a photo of nothing. If I license a model for use, and then modify that model, arrange similar items into a scene, adjust the lighting and render the image, I have created a virtual photograph of my own composition.
If you pay an artist to create an original work that you are incapable of making, and credit that artist, you are following acceptable business practices.
If you tell a machine to employ plagiarism to create an image, utilizing no skill of your own, then you are not only stealing credit from the sampled sources, but you have a tainted product that several jurisdictions would require you to pay those sampled upon selling the image.

 

[Sigtrygg]

How does the human artist learn to draw?
They copy others.

 

[Arkathan]

How does the human artist learn to draw?
They copy others.

Without selling it as an original work. Otherwise, it is called a forgery.

BUT, Andrew created the other thread for this side of the discussion, which has gone on too long on this thread and should move to the other one.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Is it ethical to use a program to draw object , then move them around and call it your art?

Perhaps a grey area, but it is definitely unethical to use programs that have stolen the work of so many people who are creators to produce what they produce. Trying to shift the goal posts does not make the latter better. It is still unethical and fruit of the poisoned tree. Nothing created with generative AI will ever be more than its roots: stolen property massaged to make a corporation money while robbing the creators they stole from to build their product.

 

[Geir]

How does the human artist learn to draw?
They copy others.

They copy what others have done, and may even redraw the same thing.

But if all they do is take a copy of an image and slap their name on it, then that's not art, but theft. Unless... it's 'sampling' or other fair use incorporated in an original composition... which is where the whole AI things gets really grey. But despite belonging to no organized religion, I would have to agree that AI art has no soul. It's the output of a rules-based random generator. I'd rather buy art made by a gorilla or elephant - at least they have some concept of what they're doing. And its going to be... original.

On the third hand... if your expected return on a product you produce is in the single digits... you can't even afford a bad artist (or simian or pachyderm). So what happens if you take the AI-generated image and mess with it in Paint Shop Pro (also a big fan and generally hostile to Adobe in principle), apply filters, cutting and pasting sections and moving it around - sampling the artificial soulless gunk to create something new? Not just a rhetorical question, but something I've actually considered as a 'accelerator'.

It's a problem organizations are struggling with... my employer is still 'evaluating the impact of artificial intelligence tools', but it's getting to be silly. You might as well be evaluating the impact of language compilers vs. writing machine code.

(edit - probably should have gone in the other thread, but that's what I get for reading from the bottom. Apologies for further thread pollution)