• AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I generally consider “OC” to mean specifically that it’s original - you didn’t get it from someplace else, so broadly yes if you’re the one who had it generated.

    But if it’s a community for art or photography generally, I don’t think AI art belongs there - the skills and talent required are just too different. I love AI art communities, I just think it’s a separate thing.

    • Amcro@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      But following that logic “OC” would mean you didn’t get it from “someplace else”, but since AI is trained by looking pieces made by other people to learn, it technically did get it from someplace else.

      • dill@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        by looking pieces made by other people to learn

        Humans do it it’s inspiration.
        Computers do it it’s theft.

      • DanteFlame@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Humans also look at other peoples art to learn, they might also really like someone else’s style and want to produce works in that style themselves, does this make them AI? Humans have been copying and remixing off of each other since the beginning of time.

        The fact that a lot of movie pitches are boiled down to “thing A, meets thing B” and the person listening is able to autocomplete that “prompt” well enough to decide to invest in the idea or not, is the clearest evidence of that, I personally don’t think that just because humans are slower and we aren’t able to reproduce things perfectly even though that’s what we are trying to do sometimes, means that we somehow have a monopoly on this thing called creativity or originality.

        You could maybe argue that it comes down to intentionality, and that because the AI isn’t “conscious” yet, it isn’t making the decision to create the artwork on its own or making the decision to accept the art commission via the prompt on its own. Then it can’t have truely created the art the same way photoshop didn’t create the art.

        But I’ve always found the argument of “it’s not actually making anything because it had to look at all these other works by these other people first” a little disingenuous because it ignores the way humans learn and experience things since the day we are born.

      • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You could make that argument about humans who look at other stories of art before creating one of their own, influenced by the others then.

        Let’s say I give an AI a prompt to create a picture of a cute puppy of about six weeks old, but as large as a building, and instead of paws, each leg ended in a living rubber ducky the size of a car, and the puppy is squatting to poop, but instead of poop coming out, it’s the great men and women of science like Mendel, Pasteur, Nobel, Currie, Einstein, and others, all landing in a pile. Oh, and if like the picture to be in the style of Renoir. I think we could agree that the resulting picture wouldn’t be a copy of any existing one. I think I’d feel justified in calling it original content. I’ve seen a lot of hand painted works that were more derivative of other work, but that people all agree is OC.

        • rufus@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Or someone who studies art, has a look at art by other famous painters and then becomes a painter themselves.