Quote:
Originally Posted by andyh2000
I'm torn about image generation AI models. On the one hand I can see why artists, photographers etc are outraged that their work has been used without consultation or recompense to train things which then make money for other people and/or potentially replace the original creators. On the other hand my very limited knowledge in the area wonders how it's different from every jobbing artist out there who studies lots of other people's work, learns from it and maybe starts out imitating styles before developing their own. I guess I maybe disapprove of people who ask the AI to produce a picture "in the style of <artist>" and I'm kind of neutral to approving if they describe features they want in the output image without mentioning people. For commercial or public use that is - what people do with it for their own personal amusement is a different matter.
Andrew
|
Sure, but what's the difference, really if they go to some working student or even graduated, degreed artist and ask him or her to make a work "in the style of..."? That happens in working commercial shops all the time. I mean, ALL the time. (e.g., the Dali clock. How many times have we seen that "homages" to death?)
So...it's a conundrum, it is. I feel for anyone whose job is lost to technology, I truly do--I feel that pinch myself. Things that you couldn't do without some markdown (at least) knowledge 10 years ago, in an ePUB, etc. software now does for you, however imperfectly. We have software that does have a learning curve, but has such a substantial HELP system built in (like Adobe's InDesign) that offshore would-be book designers can pick up a copy of InDesign on Monday, and hang out a shingle on the wall of their Fiverr shop, by Wednesday, saying
"Deziner is in and available for book Dezine help." And how does the publisher know that they're getting a layer of top-flight software layered over 3 cake layers of no-training, etc., when all they see is that top layer?
Anyway, not to digress, but is it
really different to ask a human to do it, than asking a machine? Or is that just an excuse we're all telling ourselves? (Genuinely asking, not...not debating argumentatively!)
Hitch