atzanteol

"Industry leaders"

In my eye Jackson Pollock is a no-talent hack who created meaningless crap that looks like somebody left a 2yr old unsupervised in the arts and crafts room at school. And I think it's an insult to other artists that his work is so heavily prized.

But we're talking about the quality of the work here aren't we? Not whether it is a work at all. You're effectively saying that you don't value the work because it was easy. Which is fine - that's your value call. But to deny that it's a creative work at all is an entirely different thing.

AI can be an excellent shortcut or a great tool, and help us make our work easier and products better, but it is not a creator of original creative works

An AI image doesn't just pop into the universe apropos of nothing. I don't think you can say there is zero creativity in the process. A human sat down, conceived of an idea, and used a tool to create it. What is at the core of debate is whether the result is a creative work made by the human or not.

I agree that the AI is not the creator of the work. But I'm not so quick to say that the person wasn't either... Cameras have a lot of stuff they do for the human. You can't credibly say that you create any photo you take with your phone. The billions of transistors and image processing algorithms do that. You chose what to point it at and when. And maybe some technical parameters. And when you prompt an AI you have full creative control over what goes into it as well. Hell - you could probably even copyright the prompt if it's sufficiently creative! But not the resulting artwork?

We may not value AI art as much as we do traditional arts. But I'm very hesitant to say that it is not art at all.

I didn't say a good art. But a work sufficiently creative as to be covered by copyright at the least.

Egad - they didn't even get free TV out of it or something.

But at least that has a sort of "old west" kinda name to it. Like "death valley" or "last chance saloon".

If a skillless child can reproduce it with no training but a command of their language of origin, it’s not art.

The art is in the eye, not the device. People made the same or similar claims about photography. "It's just reproduction not creation!" "It's just operating a machine that does all the work!"

AI is a tool - the person is the creative.

You may not like the art - but that's not to say it's not art. Either way I think it's a creative work and worthy of at least the option to be considered art.

Right, learning their techniques, not cutting out pieces of said master art and pasting it onto someone else’s work

Tell me you know nothing of art without telling me...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colored_Mona_Lisa

https://www.artsy.net/artwork/yasumasa-morimura-sen-cun-tai-chang-portrait-futago

And AI doesn't just "copy paste". Have you not seen anything created by AI? People act like it's just re-creating existing works for some reason.

That has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of. On both sides...

Yes, photographers, who held their camera, who spent years honing their craft, learning the ins and out of the art of photography, who put their bodies in the field to capture real life, yes, they should be able to copyright their work.

Pull out your phone. Open the camera app. Click the button. You just did an art.

A child cannot be given a camera and be tasked to produce the exact same quality photo of a professional photographer- and succeed.

Um. A macaque did. And every photo a child takes with a smartphone is considered to be sufficiently creative as to be a copyrightable work. It doesn't need to be "good" to be art.

"What is art" can be a difficult question. But "how difficult was it to create it" is not the answer.

That sounds pretty awesome.