This is not about any specific case. It’s just a theoretical scenario that popped into my mind.
For context, in many places is required to label AI generated content as such, in other places is not required but it is considered good etiquette.
But imagine the following, an artist is going to make an image. Normal first step is search for references online, and then do the drawing taking reference from those. But this artists cannot found proper references online or maybe the artist want to experiment, and the artist decide to use a diffusion model to generate a bunch of AI images for reference. Then the artist procedes to draw the image taking the AI images as references.
The picture is 100% handmade, each line was manually drawn. But AI was used in the process of making this image. Should it have some kind of “AI warning label”?
What do you think?
To me, pardon the term, but hysteria about AI generated content as some sort of cooties that taints whatever it touches is silly.
AI content generally not art because there is not the same intentionality behind it in an ontological sense, in the same way pretty patterns that naturally occur are not art. You can be inspired by whatever, I’d just call you a shit artist if you trace some AI content and call it your art.
You could argue that it is possible to be art in the same way that guided natural processes can be art, using tools does not immediately make something not art, but looking like art also does not necessarily make something art – it is an interplay between an artisan and their tools to shape the world with intentionality. I think its just a higher bar to clear with tools that could possibly make some of the “creative decisions”.
No, though I think the right thing for the artist would be to disclose that the references were ai.
Most places I’m aware of will mention if AI is used in the creation of some product, whether it is directly displayed in the end result or not
deleted by creator
This is like in the 00s when every comic book artist was obviously using 3D modeling software but none of them would admit to it. You can’t expect artists to be honest about this sort of stuff because they’d just be putting themselves at a disadvantage to the ones who lie about it. Furthermore, it doesn’t really matter, does it
Why not do it the opposite way? Mark all the artisanal hand drawn images with some artisan guild marker that marks their “pureness”. If the creator of the image is found to have ever looked at an image made by a mere peasant, kick them out of the guild.
Isn’t that literally how art guilds in the middle ages operated? Like if you weren’t part of the guild and tried to sell art you made, a mob from the guild would come along, destroy all your works, and probably beat the shit out of you for good measure?
