@LP2Lily
Exactly. I rarely peruse AI art, although I do find it fun now and then. I even prompted some myself and really enjoyed the creative process of it. Was it much in the way of talent on my part? Not really. But I made some really greateven stuff with a message behind it rather than meaningless drivel. Why is that so bad? If something takes away your livelihood and makes you poor, don’t get mad at it, get mad at capitalism.

Obviously some of the AI art is ripping off people completely. But it’s not cut and dry.

Yeah it’s not that simple. By that definition, you drawing Spyro when you aren’t his original creator makes you in violation of the IP.

@Elly Catfox
Very well put…
I whole heartedly agree. I am not fond of AI art myself due to it possibly hurting “Graphic Designer,” carears. Yet, there will always be the individuality in originality of a “hand made” through “emotionally,” artistic design. AI is after all artifical.

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 is a balancing act, not a blanket statement. 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 prompter 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. ~