The question about the legal and moral aspects of training on works of other artists is related, but a different discussion.

  • macniel
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    by extension this would make the comissioner of an art piece an artist as well? Sorry but thats just a wrong assumption. The LLM would be the “artist” in this case as it pieced together the collage, blended it together and then presented it to the prompter for refinement.

    • Thorny_Insight@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      This is slightly off topic because we’re now discussing who the artist is, not wether it’s considered art.

      My personal opinion on the matter is that artist is not a tool so by prompting them it’s still them whose creating the art piece. At best it would be considered a collaboration. The output is still art. I argue that the output of human and AI collaboration is also art.

      • macniel
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I didn’t went for “what is considered art” though?

        For the commissioner the artists is well for this process a tool. For the prompter the LLM is also considered in this process as a tool. The commissioner didn’t do the art and neither did the prompter; they simply recieve the end/in progress art.

        • Thorny_Insight@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          What I hear you saying is that generative AI is the artist, not the one writing the prompt.

          I’m fine by that. It’s not exactly how I see it but I have no argument against. It’s not what this thread is about.