Is generative AI going to ruin the art industry?

[imhim88]

Will generative AI ruin the art business?

 

[Hopeful Rub]

Fun fact: A judge once said that art created under AI cannot be copyrighted because there is no producer or artist behind it.

 

[Matthias Kehrer]

Fun fact: A judge once said that art created under AI cannot be copyrighted because there is no producer or artist behind it.

Fun fact: Judge Beryl Alaine Howell didn't say that, Judge Beryl Alaine Howell said that AI as an entity can't hold copyright. So if AI creates an image without any human input, it can't hold copyright. In the same case, she said, and I quote: "We are approaching new frontiers in copyright law as artists add AI to their toolbox to create new visual and other artistic works. So in effect, anyone can create an image and claim copyright if there is enough human input on it.

 

[Fluffy Babe]

There is a huge loophole: as long as the author does not disclose the use of AI, or simply claims that it is not AI, it can be copyrighted.

 

[Cyrus Julians]

Art is human, that's it. An artificial thing can't make art because it doesn't really express the human experience. AI just replicates patterns, that's all.

 

[Arnold Longford]

AI images are not art, they're just images.

 

[Frank Cohen]

AI images are not art, they're just images.

Pictures can be art though. I mean, look at the drawings on the internet (especially fan art), they may have been made by human hands, but they're just as close to art as AI is, the only difference is the tool used (after all, AI was made by humans, so just like a brush or a graphics table, it's just as valid to be used to make art as anything else).

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

Art is human, that's it. An artificial thing can't make art because it doesn't really express the human experience. AI just replicates patterns, that's all.

They said the same thing about old film cameras, then instant cameras, then digital cameras, then digitally manipulated pictures.

 

[Primary Emphasis]

Generative artificial intelligence isn't ruining art. People who use AI as "their content" are ruining art.

 

[raineStar]

Generative artificial intelligence isn't ruining art. People who use AI as "their content" are ruining art.

There are already actual artists using Gen AI for ideas/inspiration with great results. If anything, however morally dubious it may be, the tools have the potential to greatly enhance art.

 

[Edward Ludlam]

I think artists should have to give consent if they want to train an artificial intelligence model with their work. That said, no artist I know wants their work to be used in this way, literally no one.

 

[Jamie Jones]

The problem is more the fact that ethical training isn't the norm. That's why so many people want regulations, it wouldn't be such a big problem if the grifters weren't running these programs right now.

 

[Pastafarian]

It's a new culmination of the contentification of art; a further erosion of what makes art so intrinsic and special to the human experience, based on an illiteracy of it fueled by greed and arrogance.

 

[Dancing Panda]

The delusions of grandeur these people get when they claim to be creative people with lots of talent and an eye for aesthetics when all they did was type a few words into the prompt line and pick the AI sludge they liked best. Maybe they added a tiny bit of Adobe Photoshop work to it, but it was way out of proportion to their demands for recognition.

 

[Goodspeak]

Not everyone has the years to create art that is not even as good as what AI can create in seconds, nor do people have the money to do so.

 

[WhoWasHere]

I honestly use the AI to give me ideas and I just try to make art out of the imperfections. It's quite relaxing and fun. My art teacher likes it too. I also like to make AI rolls out of some of the photos I take with my Nintendo Switch.

 

[SuperGeek]

There is no reason for generated AI art to exist other than to make money for MNCs.