I think AI art is best when its a collaboration between human and AI. Look at Stelfie and how his workflow involves planning, photoshop, iteration, and intent of the artist to create the final work. Absolutely this is a form of art. However, I don't actually place a ton of weight onto that word. A child's crayon scribble is art too, but who really cares.
AI models that have been trained on public domain work is legally problematic, yep for sure,I think calling the OUTPUT plagiarism is a bit of a stretch but I'm not going to defend that position here because ultimately the right thing is to move towards models that have been trained with consent (which Adobe has at least made steps to do)
I think the legal outcome that AI art is not copyrightable unless substantial transformative work has been done to/with it is a pretty good legal take and makes it limiting on how it will effect traditional artists.
A lot of AI art can be classified as "low effort" and USUALLY you can tell, because it'll have artifacts, flaws, and issues that the person hasn't bothered to edit with in-painting, or make a manual edit that they then use AI to refine. It does not require a ton of skill, no, but it can require some skill and some effort to do well. I think these low-effort submissions should be looked down on and deterred.
There absolutely is the danger that we will get flooded with low effort AI art, though the community backlash against it has seemed to largely stifle that reality. I think people SHOULD be careful to post something unless they have actually spent effort in refining or at least very heavily cherry picking their generations and spamming it should not be allowed. I think people also need to be TRANSPARENT they use AI tools, but that ultimately, it should be something that people are ALLOWED to use (in the right circumstances, with transparency), without immediate derision.
I think AI art is best when its a collaboration between human and AI. Look at Stelfie and how his workflow involves planning, photoshop, iteration, and intent of the artist to create the final work. Absolutely this is a form of art. However, I don't actually place a ton of weight onto that word. A child's crayon scribble is art too, but who really cares.
AI models that have been trained on public domain work is legally problematic, yep for sure,I think calling the OUTPUT plagiarism is a bit of a stretch but I'm not going to defend that position here because ultimately the right thing is to move towards models that have been trained with consent (which Adobe has at least made steps to do)
I think the legal outcome that AI art is not copyrightable unless substantial transformative work has been done to/with it is a pretty good legal take and makes it limiting on how it will effect traditional artists.
A lot of AI art can be classified as "low effort" and USUALLY you can tell, because it'll have artifacts, flaws, and issues that the person hasn't bothered to edit with in-painting, or make a manual edit that they then use AI to refine. It does not require a ton of skill, no, but it can require some skill and some effort to do well. I think these low-effort submissions should be looked down on and deterred.
There absolutely is the danger that we will get flooded with low effort AI art, though the community backlash against it has seemed to largely stifle that reality. I think people SHOULD be careful to post something unless they have actually spent effort in refining or at least very heavily cherry picking their generations and spamming it should not be allowed. I think people also need to be TRANSPARENT they use AI tools, but that ultimately, it should be something that people are ALLOWED to use (in the right circumstances, with transparency), without immediate derision.