Quote:
Originally Posted by BBB
Do we say the photographer is really more of an art assistant... So what makes it art or just an overdesigned copy machine could come down to originality: did the creator add something significant? If so, call the result art.
|
I think the photography example is the most apt:
I expect that the park service put in about a thousand times as much effort into this as I did - simply building the road to get here is a major undertaking. And I expect that a thousand people have taken photos indistinguishable from this. (I deliberately picked something rather bland for discussion's sake.) But it is still my art and my copyright, for whatever that is worth.
Part of the reason for that is the impossibility of placing an objective legal distinction between the above pic, and something truly valuable.
I think AI will end up rather like that. If you put a hundred carefully chosen words into your request, and pick the best out of 20 results, well that IS some effort. But if someone else gets a virtually identical result with a two word input, well you have to give them that too.
=======================
What if there was a person who was no more creative than an AI? All they ever did was remember the art of others, and recreate bits and pieces of them with minor changes. What fraction of real artists today could reasonably be accused of being this? How could they prove themselves otherwise?