/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6903023
art is fundamentally derivative.
yes the AI cannot nearly innovate to the degree that humans do. because humans can have many more inputs to draw from than only visuals.
we can also "train freely", anytime we experience or see something new. we're even essentially training on our own work as it comes out on the page. and that is probably a huge part of why we can innovate.

but the AI can innovate to an extent as well. see >>6899727
that piece is also stealing an other artists style. but it adds its own painting style and other flairs. it is combining different to create something original.
(even though the facial style is strongly derivative of hiroaki samura)
and at least this is something that AI can fundamentally do as well. because it learns all kinds of techniques and styles and it will inevitably combine it all in order to create new images.

>And no this is not how human art is made, if that were the case we'd still be talking in ye olde Shakespearean English or listening to traditional folk songs or making paintings of Jesus.
we were. for a long time. and things only developed slowly.

now we're in the age of information so things move a lot quicker. but even if you look back a few decades, for every skilled artist, you could still clearly see or hear about their influences.
nowadays there is so much good art out there that things get a lot muddier, but that doesn't mean that art is suddenly not derivative anymore.

>the fraudulent representation of another person's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions as one's own original work.
you think this sentence makes any sense?
either it is a real idea or it's not. what is a "fraudulent" idea or expression?

see pic related. i prompted for something showing a "fraudulent idea".
is this fraudulent? do you think someone else made this image or idea and the AI is merely stealing it?

if so then like many others, you don't understand how AI fundamentally works.