Viewing last 25 versions of comment by Elly Catfox on image #213252

AI art is a complex issue. It's not black and white. People have always been inspired and copied parts of others' works to make something new. Finding where the line gets drawn and is "too far" is a balancing act, not a blanket statement lacking nuance. Yes, I'm aware of the methods and training that AI uses to create the art in the first place, but it's still a case by case basis. Humans also base their art off others' work all the time. Look at Mondrian and Renoir and especially Claude Monet being heavily influenced by William Turner, even though they swore up and down they weren't. We think of these painters as some of the greatest of all time, but they copied certain elements of others' work very clearly. Fair use is a balancing act.

What we need is another AI that checks the completed image at the end of each generation for visual similarity to things in the database and the things it is most similar to get "green flagged" and shown to the person prompting the AI art. Then the promptedr or a team of promoters votes on whether they believe the AI art basically ripped off someone else or if it created something distinct enough to be a new work. If it's too similar, it gets rejected as plagiarism. If it's original enough, it is a complete work and is allowed to exist publicly and freely. This method requires discipline and self-policing admittedly, so perhaps it should include some sort've policing from the art community at large as well, and maybe some more AI tools.

This wouldn't solve everything, but it would be a step in the right direction. Any blanket statements completely for or against AI art are ultimately not helpful for either side and lack a fundamental understanding of what art is, what it means to be an artist, and what is AI art. History will show this someday: not *all* AI art is theft- far from it. ~