I heard about C2PA and I don’t believe for a second that it’s not going to be used for surveillance and all that other fun stuff. What’s worse is that they’re apparently trying to make it legally required. It also really annoys me when I see headlines along the lines of “Is AI the end of creativity?!1!” or “AI will help artists, not hurt them!1!!” or something to that effect. So, it got me thinking and I tried to come up with some answers that actually benefit artists and their audience rather that just you know who.

Unfortunately my train of thought keeps barreling out of control to things like, “AI should do the boring stuff, not the fun stuff” and “if people didn’t risk starvation in the first place…” So I thought I’d find out what other people think (search engines have become borderline useless haven’t they).

So what do you think would be the best way to satisfy everyone?

  • MxM111@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    The AI has particular styles because the current AIs are trained in a particular way. As we go further, there is no reason to assume that AI would not be able to copy/mimic any stile. While photography is distinguishable from painting, the AI painting can be indistinguishable. That’s, I think, is fundamental difference.

    • fiat_lux@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      A painting can be distinguished from a photo from its physical dimensions and attributes like texture. If I take a photo of a painting, almost nobody is going to file a court case against me for putting it in a book or website or tv. We’re collectively ok with that level of reproduction.

      An AI work can currently be determined by looking for ‘errors’ that aren’t likely to be drawn in by artists or found in reality. Inconsistent shadows, exact repetition of organic pattern details, extra limb bits, doesn’t construct language fluently, etc. We’re not necessarily ok with that level of reproduction though because it is slightly less obvious at first glance.

      Just like photos are a lossy format for paintings, AI is a lossy reproduction tool. While it will definitely be harder to distinguish with time, we’re sort of still left with the core problem. What fidelity reproduction is necessary for something to no longer be original? And what does the originality actually matter when people don’t need to rely on producing it to eat?

      Hell, people even bought NFT apes with cut and pasted Mr. Potato Head parts for thousands. People have photocopied photos of the Sistine Chapel in books for close to free. Maybe it’s just cool that the imagery is resonating with people regardless of the medium.

      Also, we should feed people without the expectation of financial return, thanks for coming to my tired tedx talk.

    • aebrer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      If AI gets to the point where it can truly replicate anything, even so it won’t be the end of human creativity, so I expect humans will still be making new things and new forms of art.

      • MxM111@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        If AI can replicate everything, it will be able to replicate that as well. The only way to get around is to have something like “sertifiably human”. Like today, most chess competitions are for humans only.