We live in a strange time. Only 1984 predicted books written by machines, and no one predicted art done by machines. None of us expected to live through a reboot of what happened to portrait artists when photography was invented, and none of us have any idea what is coming.
There's plenty of images in the public domain. AI absolutely doesn't need to copy existing protected art. On the gripping hand, how many versions are there of 'David' or the 'Pieta' are there? How was one artist influenced by another? The courts will protect those with money, as always.
The question isn't whether or not to use AI or boycott AI, it's moot. AI is happening the pope can ban the use of crossbows or square bullets but it's meaningless. We can all detect AI in writing, and art, for how long and once the mark one eyeball is unable to see it at a glance, what's left to argue about? Let's ban those horseless carriages they'll put buggy whip makers out of business.
There is no comparison, in my humble opinion, between me looking at David and trying to make my own, and you actually scanning my picture and having your computer use the actual work I did in its database to copy my art style.
And there's no reason not to legally differentiate between those two.
I suspect in the long run, AI art will be completely accepted and everybody will get used to it. But in the short term it's very hard on many authors that if they use an AI cover, there are a lot of readers who will boycott them.
Some will readers will boycott. How many more will be attracted to the cover and buy the book? The top artists will still have work for a while. Someday no one will care about the difference.
I was recently discussing fake snow with a friend, and how some people wouldn't lower themselves to ski on it when it was a new thing. Today, no one seems to really care...at least not any large portion of the population.
I think the same thing will happen with AIs. There will be an initial fuss...which I sympathize with. But evnetually, no one will think of it one way or another...and many artists will use AIs to do part of the work for them.
Mirrors a lot of my thoughts. And like you said, I'd love to support artists, but often can't afford to depending on circumstances.
I've played around with it and can confess that sometimes you would just rather work with a human and explain things. Though sometimes I have also worked with artists that were about as easy to communicate with as an A.I. Also IMO, A.I. has a problem with dynamism compared with people. It is perfect for things like a book cover which is more still-life oriented, but if you want more variety or action or even to tell a story in picture - humans still have an edge.
I definitely want to do right by artists, but like you said, we're not made of money either.
I expect in the long run that there will be people who are AI whispers, so to speak, who will be able to offer bookcovers and such...and that some actual artwork by a human will probably be needed in many cases.
But that is a bit different from whether or not it is legal or acceptable l, so I didn't go into that part. :-)
oh yeah, I was also talking to some tech heads trying to explain, "however you THINK courts and law should go is no guarantee that is how they will go. It could be even dumber than you fear."
And yeah, I think there is room for artists to figure out A.I. as another in their toolbox. I could see hiring some artists who could create a seed, and then use A.I. to crank out several more artworks we require.
That was one of my first thoughts when I heard about the AIs. That one would still need to get art and then have the AI help you make it exactly what you want it to be. Or as you say ,make variations.
As the courts, that's why emphasized if it had been done a while ago. Today? Anything could happen!
There's plenty of images in the public domain. AI absolutely doesn't need to copy existing protected art. On the gripping hand, how many versions are there of 'David' or the 'Pieta' are there? How was one artist influenced by another? The courts will protect those with money, as always.
The question isn't whether or not to use AI or boycott AI, it's moot. AI is happening the pope can ban the use of crossbows or square bullets but it's meaningless. We can all detect AI in writing, and art, for how long and once the mark one eyeball is unable to see it at a glance, what's left to argue about? Let's ban those horseless carriages they'll put buggy whip makers out of business.
There is no comparison, in my humble opinion, between me looking at David and trying to make my own, and you actually scanning my picture and having your computer use the actual work I did in its database to copy my art style.
And there's no reason not to legally differentiate between those two.
I suspect in the long run, AI art will be completely accepted and everybody will get used to it. But in the short term it's very hard on many authors that if they use an AI cover, there are a lot of readers who will boycott them.
Some will readers will boycott. How many more will be attracted to the cover and buy the book? The top artists will still have work for a while. Someday no one will care about the difference.
I was recently discussing fake snow with a friend, and how some people wouldn't lower themselves to ski on it when it was a new thing. Today, no one seems to really care...at least not any large portion of the population.
I think the same thing will happen with AIs. There will be an initial fuss...which I sympathize with. But evnetually, no one will think of it one way or another...and many artists will use AIs to do part of the work for them.
Just my guess.
Mirrors a lot of my thoughts. And like you said, I'd love to support artists, but often can't afford to depending on circumstances.
I've played around with it and can confess that sometimes you would just rather work with a human and explain things. Though sometimes I have also worked with artists that were about as easy to communicate with as an A.I. Also IMO, A.I. has a problem with dynamism compared with people. It is perfect for things like a book cover which is more still-life oriented, but if you want more variety or action or even to tell a story in picture - humans still have an edge.
I definitely want to do right by artists, but like you said, we're not made of money either.
To date, AIs are really bad at expressions.
I expect in the long run that there will be people who are AI whispers, so to speak, who will be able to offer bookcovers and such...and that some actual artwork by a human will probably be needed in many cases.
But that is a bit different from whether or not it is legal or acceptable l, so I didn't go into that part. :-)
oh yeah, I was also talking to some tech heads trying to explain, "however you THINK courts and law should go is no guarantee that is how they will go. It could be even dumber than you fear."
And yeah, I think there is room for artists to figure out A.I. as another in their toolbox. I could see hiring some artists who could create a seed, and then use A.I. to crank out several more artworks we require.
That was one of my first thoughts when I heard about the AIs. That one would still need to get art and then have the AI help you make it exactly what you want it to be. Or as you say ,make variations.
As the courts, that's why emphasized if it had been done a while ago. Today? Anything could happen!