Photography is considered art. They make this art by pressing a button on a camera, not with the "stroke of a digital pen or brush." You could say that creativity is the main criteria for art. This is something the machine is incapable of, but writing interesting prompts could be considered a creative input. It could be argued that AI art generators are not any different than other programs or tools people used to make art. Of course, there is a lot of nuance to it, but that argument could be made.
I mean, if you want to move the goalpost, that's fine. But you know exactly I meant. Photos are still taken by a human, held by a human hand, planned and adjusted by the human mind, edited by the human eye. A machine, the camera, is doing nothing more than taking a picture. A tool. No different than a brush, mouse, or tablet. Everything is still coming from the mind of a person.
Humanity is intrinsic to creativity. If I'm writing fiction or shooting a movie, it's coming from my imagination. If I'm painting on canvas, it's me putting pressure on that brush. If I'm drawing something in Photoshop, it's my wrist doing the movements. If I'm manipulating photos, I'm buying the images and putting them together (or getting sued for copyright infringement.). All done by a human hand, by a human mind and imagination. While the prompt may be considered art in the sense of fictional writing (I guess, though most of it tends to be incoherent.), an AI isn't. It's set of algorithms scanning through and essentially stealing pieces of other people's work, and bashes work together - quite impressively - but still theft nonetheless.
The concerns about plagirism is one such nuance. The AI is trained on a huge database and can emulate styles, but as far as I know, they look for patterns from the huge database that is the internet and put out something similar. My knowledge in this tech is limited, but I don't believe anyone is gonna be able to tell that this and that part of this AI art used my art as a basis. In that case, could you really call it plagiarism? Humans are influenced by their peers/predecessors when it comes to art as well. Philosophically, it's not too different, although the method in which the AI takes "inspiration" is a bit more direct.
The thing is, it still essentially amounts to taking parts of other people's copyrighted work and therefore is still plagiarism. Just because I take 20 pages from a 100 different books and shove them all into one doesn't make it mine, right? So, why should that apply to images? Why should that apply to people unknowingly, and rather unfairly, having their artwork stolen for no compensation or even credit? Why should someone else make a profit off of their hard work? "BuT i PuT iN a Pr0mPt. i WoRk3d HaRd WrItInG tHaT PArAgRaPh. WaY mOrE ThAn Th3 5o-pLuS hOuRs H3 sP3nt PaInTiNG iT!"
It doesn't matter if you can't tell, nor does it matter if Jane can't tell. Influence isn't direct theft or what should be a violation of copyright. It's taking the best pieces of someone's work and morphing them to fit your array and style. People can call it inspiration all they want, but everyone knows what it is. It's plagiarism, and common sense says stealing makes you a shit person. Especially when you start selling it as your own work to others who have limited knowledge of it (not you, obviously, but the many who are.) under the guise of a 'comission'.
As for the artists singing doom and gloom, it's the same thing we've seen all the time when new tech emerges that threatens the old school. It's gonna happen, one way or another. You have to pivot and position yourself correctly so you don't become obsolete. Trying to block innovation, convenience, accessibility, and perhaps most importantly, the bottom line of corporations is gonna be a losing battle.
As I said, artists are traditionalists. Always have been, always will be. Is it going to happen? Maybe. Hard to say right now, seeing as every single artist-focused platform is basically banning it for any meaningful profit outside of showing off your fake art for equally fake clout. DA being the exception, but they've been a sinking ship for years, doubt that's changing.
You act like artists haven't moved with the times. Computers, graphic tablets, iPads, 2-in-1 Laptops, phones. But it becomes a different story when your livelihood is being threatened by a machine. So, let's say AI art does take over. As I said, this basically kills tens of millions of jobs (if not way, way more.) and around world along with all those freelancers out there. So, artists move on with their life and find a new living. Start moving forward, with no new art being made, that pool becomes smaller and smaller. Therefore, more and more repetitive. Until art ultimately dies (I mean, if you put that tinfoil hat on, that's exactly what the government wants. Creativity breeds independence and critical thinking, the exact opposite of what the one-percent of the one-percent want.). What's the point in innovation and convenience when it's just giving the medium a slow death?
The reality is that AI, currently, is ultimately going to be a fad. Will eventually be only allowed for personal use (short of the stuff you have to pay for.) and be effectively killed off. Why? Because the root of it is that AI art is made for lazy people and non-artists to abuse and make a quick buck off of. I think everyone understands that by killing the medium (or by which that artists are paid), you kill the artists, and thus, eventually, the art itself. But yeah, "accessibility".
We're clearly going to agree to disagree on this given your whole 'jerbs' comment. So, I'm just gonna bow out here.
