Why shouldn’t we question the unique value of human creativity? When a musician is asked what their influences are, aren’t they revealing theft in the same way? The Campbell Soup Cans from Warhol were an overt form of copying. Generative learning tools can generate a track like Glen shared the other day about curl -- type in the text, get music. The art is in the selection of the text tied to the style of music. If it isn’t clear copyrighted material is revealed directly, a human wouldn’t get called on it either. Why should they?
Marcus From: Friam <[email protected]> on behalf of Pieter Steenekamp <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 8:37 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] In praise of neural nets Artificial intelligence has come a long way, and today it’s even part of the art world. With AI, we can now create paintings, music, poetry, and even films that look or sound just like they were made by people. In some ways, this is amazing because it shows how far technology has come. But it also raises some tricky questions, especially when people take art made by AI and pretend they made it themselves. This can make us wonder about honesty and the value of human creativity. The art that AI can create is really impressive. AI programs, or “neural networks,” learn by studying tons of images, music, and other creative works that humans made. After training on this information, AI can now create new works that seem as beautiful or interesting as things made by humans. Some people even say that AI might be able to create things that go beyond what people can imagine because it doesn’t have the same limits that humans do. AI can mix and match ideas in ways we might not think of. This gives us a new kind of “artist”—one that isn’t human but that can still surprise and inspire us. But when people use AI art and claim it as their own, it can feel dishonest. Claiming AI work as human-made can make people doubt the value of real art, which often takes years of practice and emotion to create. Human artists put effort, time, and a lot of themselves into their work. When someone passes off AI art as their own, it ignores the hard work and creativity that real artists put into their creations. It can also lead people to question if what they’re seeing or hearing is truly unique or simply something that a computer was told to make. From a cultural point of view, art is a way for people to connect, express themselves, and share experiences. Art feels personal, and it creates a bond between the artist and the audience. When people falsely claim they created AI art, it breaks this bond of trust. If people start doubting where art comes from, it could make them feel disconnected from the art they see. So while AI can add something special to the creative process, it becomes a problem when people hide the fact that AI was involved. The real question isn’t whether AI should be used in art—because it definitely has a place—but how we should give credit where it’s due. One way to do this is by being honest and open about how art is created, even if AI played a part. If artists and creators are clear about when AI helped them, it helps the audience appreciate the work for what it really is. Just like how we credit both the photographer and the subject in a photo, we can credit both the AI and the human in a piece of AI art. This honesty lets us celebrate the work as a team effort—AI’s technical skills mixed with the human’s creative vision. In the end, AI is a powerful tool that can open new doors in art, but it’s important to use it in a way that’s fair and truthful. AI art is impressive, and we should appreciate it for what it is, but pretending it’s human-made is unfair to real artists. By being open about AI’s role, we can make sure this new technology makes the art world more interesting without taking away from the genuine work of human creators. Art made with both AI and human effort can be something new and exciting—a mix of technology and creativity that we can enjoy, as long as we’re honest about where it comes from. On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 at 05:45, Jon Zingale <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: biological or otherwise... Pneuma https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FssULNGSZIA <_blank> Echoes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGLo8tl5sxs <_blank> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam <_blank> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <_blank> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <_blank> archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <_blank> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <_blank>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
