Why I think AI-generated art is not art

To write with dice (as I understand it), the dice produce a series of prompts from which to write a story. It is, therefore, completely different from writing with dice because it's the exact opposite with AI. The 'musician' creates a series of prompts and the AI does all the real work. When writing with dice, the writer still needs to know how to create a narrative structure from the prompts and still needs to have the skill to write in an interesting and entertaining way.

When people say they wrote a song using AI, they don't need to know anything about music (although no doubt some will) and claim to have written a song with next to zero input. They don't need to know anything about melody, chords, keys or scales. I'm sure it will all be built into the AI.

I'm not against the use of AI as such but I think there should be a legal requirement for it to be declared on publication. People have the right to know if a song was created by a real musician (and some song compositions take years to mature) or if it was created in a few seconds by AI - because I still stand by my point that the person inputting the prompts did not create the music coming out, he/she merely gave the AI guidelines and it is the software that is the true author.
 
Another question. As a person who has spent decades trying to perfect my playing, why on earth would anybody even bother to learn a musical instrument in a future where you could claim to write a song just by sticking a few prompts into a computer programme?
The same thing that happened to painters, photographers, sculptors, actors, and any other artisans, professionals, and workers whose work was copied or performed by machinery.
 
The same thing that happened to painters, photographers, sculptors, actors, and any other artisans, professionals, and workers whose work was copied or performed by machinery.
Machinery operated by other people. Bit of a difference.
 
Jeff Koons might be the tip of an iceberg - maybe there are hundreds of artists who do things the same way that he does, but he’s the most famous/infamous of them.


EAD98EDE-13B7-4950-B580-3630D2EB5CE9.jpg
 
There was an exception to the blanket rule that AI work can't be copyrighted.
""The Office will consider whether the AI contributions are the result of 'mechanical reproduction' or instead of an author's 'own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form,'" said Shira Perlmutter, director of the Copyright Office." "Essentially, copyrighted work will depend on how the person uses AI to generate content."

A comic book or graphic with AI generated images can be copyrighted if a person wrote the text that goes with it. The images can't be copyrighted.

If a person uses AI to create a series of pictures and then uses the collage process to create a single image is that able to be copyrighted? Or if a single picture was created, then cut up, and reassembled is that able to be copyrighted? Collage is art.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top