I'm not sure anyone really knows the full impact that AI is going to have. We have a number of historical parallels this entire discussion (and ban) can be compared to. When the automobile was first proposed similar arguments against it were made - that it would put the leatherworkers out of business who made riding gear and saddles (which it did). It also created a whole host of unplanned industries and businesses that no one had predicted.
The music industry is probably the closest analogy to this discussion, as it is also a creative art that has been influenced and affected by new technology. I once had visited Fry's Electronics (if you know, you know) and when it had first opened they had a full-sized grand piano with a real person playing it during the holidays. It was classic and nice. The next year during the same period that piano was now automated - playing the same music but by itself without a player there. A roommate had commented she was disgusted by that and offended- piano's should be played by people and not a machine.
AI artwork seems to be the same. Humans created the original art (like writing music) and machines can replicate it, and by mixing and matching human things they can create new(ish) versions, much like the human who made the IJN Yamato into the space-going battleship Yamato from the Star Blazers series. Now AI could take the theory and make a space-going version of the Fletcher, or a space-going version of the Town-class light cruiser (maybe with the wave motion gun and fighter squadron omitted).
My personal drawing skills end with crayons. I cannot hope to replicate myself the beautiful works by some of the artists that we've seen grace the pages of some of the MGT and other publishers - artists like Ian Stead or the Keith brothers. For those who have seen/read the Terran Trade Authority, we've seen how Stewart Cowley took multiple pieces of art and put together a series of books. Was this wrong for an artist to curate a story based of multiple other artists work?
Is this a B-A-D thing? Well, to be honest I don't think anyone actually knows. Everyone is speculating and offering (heart-felt) opinions on the direction this MAY take us. Like many other types of transitions, the people of today can only speculate where it may take us because it could be all hype, or it could be a total face plant. Fairness is an interesting question - who should get paid for the original idea? Who should get to control the possibilities that art gives us once it is shared? Do we all need to drop a pfennig in the mail to the estate of Shakespeare or Plutarch? Does Shakespeare need to drop some pfennig's to the estate of Plutarch for his works? Where do we begin and/or end that?
Nearly all art is derivative of someone else's work. AI, at present at least, is a derivative of others. That is no different than pretty much the beginning of any artwork issue - someone originates a type or theme and others duplicate it, add to it, and build something new.
Whether this policy is good or bad is up to each of us to decide for ourselves. I think one thing is for certain - now that the genie is out of the bottle one can only try to tame it and learn how to best live with it. Humanity has proven time and again putting a genie back into a bottle is generally a fruitless exercise in annoyance and frustration.
The music industry is probably the closest analogy to this discussion, as it is also a creative art that has been influenced and affected by new technology. I once had visited Fry's Electronics (if you know, you know) and when it had first opened they had a full-sized grand piano with a real person playing it during the holidays. It was classic and nice. The next year during the same period that piano was now automated - playing the same music but by itself without a player there. A roommate had commented she was disgusted by that and offended- piano's should be played by people and not a machine.
AI artwork seems to be the same. Humans created the original art (like writing music) and machines can replicate it, and by mixing and matching human things they can create new(ish) versions, much like the human who made the IJN Yamato into the space-going battleship Yamato from the Star Blazers series. Now AI could take the theory and make a space-going version of the Fletcher, or a space-going version of the Town-class light cruiser (maybe with the wave motion gun and fighter squadron omitted).
My personal drawing skills end with crayons. I cannot hope to replicate myself the beautiful works by some of the artists that we've seen grace the pages of some of the MGT and other publishers - artists like Ian Stead or the Keith brothers. For those who have seen/read the Terran Trade Authority, we've seen how Stewart Cowley took multiple pieces of art and put together a series of books. Was this wrong for an artist to curate a story based of multiple other artists work?
Is this a B-A-D thing? Well, to be honest I don't think anyone actually knows. Everyone is speculating and offering (heart-felt) opinions on the direction this MAY take us. Like many other types of transitions, the people of today can only speculate where it may take us because it could be all hype, or it could be a total face plant. Fairness is an interesting question - who should get paid for the original idea? Who should get to control the possibilities that art gives us once it is shared? Do we all need to drop a pfennig in the mail to the estate of Shakespeare or Plutarch? Does Shakespeare need to drop some pfennig's to the estate of Plutarch for his works? Where do we begin and/or end that?
Nearly all art is derivative of someone else's work. AI, at present at least, is a derivative of others. That is no different than pretty much the beginning of any artwork issue - someone originates a type or theme and others duplicate it, add to it, and build something new.
Whether this policy is good or bad is up to each of us to decide for ourselves. I think one thing is for certain - now that the genie is out of the bottle one can only try to tame it and learn how to best live with it. Humanity has proven time and again putting a genie back into a bottle is generally a fruitless exercise in annoyance and frustration.
