[jwestbury]

I'm still not convinced by this argument. All human-generated art is also a result of the artist's experiences, and is strongly influenced by other art they have consumed. So why should GenAI not be allowed to blend the work of other artists?

If you want to argue that we should fundamentally treat machine- and human-generated works differently, that's fine -- but it's a different argument from "looking at a bunch of art and then synthesising ideas is bad," because that's exactly what many (most?) human artists do.

[__loam]

There's a pretty big fucking difference between the organic experience of a human being and a massive VC funded hellsystem that can process 400 million exact copies of images and generate thousands per day.

I honestly can't believe people are still making this dishonest, bad faith argument. It's obviously problematic if you think about it for more than 3 minutes.

[drewgross]

If you want to talk about bad faith arguments, calling the AI a "hellsystem" is showing your bias just a bit.

[dwaite]

I believe the expectation is that there is a difference between new creative work by humans and the output of tools. Tools are not 'artistically influenced' by their inputs.

Also, a human can take a work, modify it, and create a derivative work. They do not have copyright to the original material, and the degree of derivation is a winding blurry line through the court system to determine if they fully own the new work.

I suspect these to dominate the arguments for the first court cases around generative AI art - that the artist (operator) is the one who has to justify that they provided enough creativity in the process to create an independent work.