Art can have value to both its creator and its viewer. Present-day AIs have no self-awareness and cannot derive any value of that sort from the art they create, but that art’s human viewers can still derive value from it. Humans already derive value from viewing beautiful things (sunsets, flowers, etc.) which have no self-aware creator (unless you’re religious).
With that said, the topic here is plagiarism, with the implication (if I understand you correctly) that an AI cannot create anything truly original because it does not experience the human condition. I don’t think that’s the case, but even if it is then “truly original” is still a very high standard that most human art does not meet. If I paint a ballerina in the style of Degas, I have created something with little artistic worth but that doesn’t imply that I have plagiarized Degas. Why should an AI be held to a higher standard than that?
Because it’s not a human and possesses no self awareness. Humans take inspiration, machines copy. When people tell stories, they have to think about what they’re doing and why. Everything in a work of fiction is intentionally put there by the author. Computer programs do what they are programmed to do, which in this case is copy shit other people made. That’s what it’s designed to do. You’re speaking about the technology as if it were anything more than that, as if it were a person who were capable of knowing the difference. It doesn’t know the meaning of terms like “homage” or “adaptation”. It does not think about what it spits out at all. It’s sole function is to do what you ask of it, and it does that using data stolen from other people. That’s not even getting into the whole spyware thing tech bros keep trying to normalize.
You cannot be both pro-art and pro-“AI”. Full fucking stop.
Art can have value to both its creator and its viewer. Present-day AIs have no self-awareness and cannot derive any value of that sort from the art they create, but that art’s human viewers can still derive value from it. Humans already derive value from viewing beautiful things (sunsets, flowers, etc.) which have no self-aware creator (unless you’re religious).
With that said, the topic here is plagiarism, with the implication (if I understand you correctly) that an AI cannot create anything truly original because it does not experience the human condition. I don’t think that’s the case, but even if it is then “truly original” is still a very high standard that most human art does not meet. If I paint a ballerina in the style of Degas, I have created something with little artistic worth but that doesn’t imply that I have plagiarized Degas. Why should an AI be held to a higher standard than that?
Because it’s not a human and possesses no self awareness. Humans take inspiration, machines copy. When people tell stories, they have to think about what they’re doing and why. Everything in a work of fiction is intentionally put there by the author. Computer programs do what they are programmed to do, which in this case is copy shit other people made. That’s what it’s designed to do. You’re speaking about the technology as if it were anything more than that, as if it were a person who were capable of knowing the difference. It doesn’t know the meaning of terms like “homage” or “adaptation”. It does not think about what it spits out at all. It’s sole function is to do what you ask of it, and it does that using data stolen from other people. That’s not even getting into the whole spyware thing tech bros keep trying to normalize.
You cannot be both pro-art and pro-“AI”. Full fucking stop.