A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
AI is trained by analyzing artists' work and then instructed to replicate art in a particular style, therefore, from the beginning of the process it wouldn't be original.
If an AI could create art without being fed galleries of images first and develop its own style that might be considered original.
What do you think human artists do, exactly? You think they just learn to create art in a vacuum? It just magically appears?
Humans can, in fact, create art without having seen others do it first. (e.g.: cave paintings from several millennia ago)
I don't understand why anyone would assume humans only have the same creative capabilities as a computer when we have free will and all that good stuff that comes with being a conscious, intelligent living being.
Computers can create the equivalent of cave drawings without models as well.
Depends on how it's synthesized. Some programs, like Midjourney, allow you to use to your own art as material to synthesize new art.
Aside from that, no. It's not OC.
If anything it's credit goes to the AI generator or the company that produced the AI generator, not the person who asked it to create something. Unless they only used it for a backbone and then adjusted and detailed it from there.
If you take the art and just trace and polish it and nobody is any the wiser, in that situation yes. At least until that is found out, in which I will refer to it as derivative work over original content. It's why I am calling some of the digital art I am working on AI derivative rather than full-on original content.
If all you do is generate an image, do no edits whatsoever, and then act like you did it, then I couldn't in good faith considering "OC" since you did nothing but type a few words and maybe click a few buttons or moved a slider 3 pixels to the left.