Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal: And Generative AI Does The Marketing For Both
from the understanding-creativity-and-art dept
The attacks on generative AI started out claiming that it was all about protecting the creators whose works were being “stolen” in some mysterious way by virtue of software analyzing them. In some cases, that high-minded stance has already degenerated into yet another scheme to pay collecting societies even more for doing next to nothing. But beyond all this unseemly squabbling, there is a much deeper and more interesting question. It concerns not what goes into generative AI systems, but what comes out.
Generative AI finds subtle patterns in the works it analyzes, which it then uses to create new material, guided by the prompts that are provided by users. Some want to call that “theft”, but it’s a key element of all human creativity too. A fine post by Mike Loukides on the O’Reilly site acknowledges this, and goes on to make an important point:
It’s naive to say that creativity isn’t partly based on the work of predecessors. You wouldn’t get Beethoven without the works of Haydn and Mozart. At the same time, you don’t get Beethoven out of the works of Haydn and Mozart. An AI trained on the works on Haydn and Mozart wouldn’t give you Beethoven; it would give you some (probably rather dull) amalgam, lacking the creativity of either Haydn or Mozart. Nor can you derive the Beatles by mixing together Chuck Berry and Little Richard, though (again) there are obvious relationships.
Loukides explains how this kind of creative borrowing occurs in all the arts:
While borrowing in literature is usually more covert than overt, T. S. Eliot famously said, “Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different from that from which it was torn.”
And:
As in literature, copying in painting is usually covert rather than overt. Pablo Picasso also may have said “good artists copy, great artists steal,” joining Eliot, Wilde, and others. Copying paintings by great artists is still an exercise for aspiring artists – although most of us recognize that more paintings in the style of Vermeer aren’t interesting as works of art.
The examples mentioned by Loukides all underline the point that simply analyzing artistic works does not guarantee that the output will be art. In fact, there is already evidence that generative AI is struggling:
Creativity sets a high bar, and I don’t think AI meets it yet. At least one artist thinks that tools like Midjourney are being trained to favor photorealism, rather than originality. In “The Curse of Recursion,” a research group shows that generative AI that is trained on the output of generative AI will produce less surprising, original output. Its output will become pedestrian, expected, and mediocre, and that might be fine for many applications.
Rather than reflexively demanding a cut of what is likely to be very little revenue from the “pedestrian” and derivative material generated using AI, artists should see it instead as a superb advertisement for their unique creative skills that software algorithms simply can’t match.
Follow me @glynmoody on Mastodon. Originally published to Walled Culture.
Filed Under: ai, copying, copyright, creativity, culture, generative ai, homage, insipiration
Comments on “Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal: And Generative AI Does The Marketing For Both”
On the one hand, an amoral computer can generate a large number of images that are derivative works yet can’t be punished for it, because computers couldn’t know right from wrong.
On the other hand, the resulting artwork is so generic and bland, that nobody would want it
Re:
You forgot rule 34.
Re: Re:
I’ve seen enough AI-generated porn to know that unless procedural image generators are improved to the point where all the flaws of the autocomplete procedure don’t exist and the generators can replicate a mixture of styles to the point where it looks like an entirely new style, AI-generated porn won’t be replacing human-created porn any time soon. Only the most depraved porn-obsessed gooners will ever find pleasure in AI-generated porn—and like any addiction, they’ll be trying to chase, without ever again reaching, that initial high.
Re: Re: Re:
Spoken like a true porn-obsessed degenerate.
Re: Re: Re:2
Eh, I do my best. 😁
Re: Re: Re:3
Mmm, you really do. Fuck I’m going to cum!
Re: Re: Re:
I’m curious what the SWERF/anti-sex brigade would think of AI supplanting other forms of porn. No humans involved is probably a plus, but the… variety is likely a negative.
Re: Re: Re:2
If the recent react videos by Asmongold are anything to go by, anyone who expresses interest in AI girlfriends are by and large treated with mockery and derision for their inability or lack of desire to interact with an actual girl. But here’s how Asmon looks at it: if it gets incels to be less likely to unalive themselves or shoot up a school, isn’t that a net benefit?
What amuses me is all the people demanding that these losers talk to real girls, when they ignore that these losers might very well have tried and had bad experiences. In fact statistically, half of the users of AI lovers are girls, too, who want to have a boyfriend that meets their fantasies.
You’d think that these people who’ve been calling these game-addicted, porn-gooning nerds risks to society would be happy with a system that prevents them from harassing actual women. “No one is being hurt,” goes the mantra to justify things like f-list. And somehow it only starts garnering negative attention when it turns out that annoying neckbeards might benefit.
Re: Re: Re:3
It’s easier for Sisyphus to finish his task than trying to please everyone on the internet.
Re: Re: Re:4
The thing is, the people bitching about neckbeards getting virtual avatars to talk to aren’t even people who’d be on the Internet often enough to start with. They’re literally complaining because someone they hate gets to feel like less of a loser.
Of course they dress it up under Karen-level screeching like “But you’re not enjoying REAL human interaction! I’m only trying to help by making you feel ashamed, because I really care!” If those people actually cared about integrating nerds into society, they’d have got to the geeks long before they decided that the only humans worth talking to were projections on a screen.
Re: Re: Re:3
That’s a loadbearing if. Why would access to fake porn do anything access to real porn hasn’t?
Re: Re: Re:4
Not fake porn, the video was on AI girlfriends, and Asmon was reacting to people who reacted poorly on nerds possibly getting AI girlfriends.
Re: Re: Re:5
How do “AI girlfriends” (by which I assume you mean chatbots that breathe heavily?) address or reduce animosity towards or resentment of real women? Especially since the existence of sex workers seems only to heighten said resentment.
Re: Re: Re:6
So the incels interact with bots and stay satisfied, instead of bothering real ones?
Then instead of interacting with sex workers at which resentment could be directed, incels interact with bots that keep them engaged.
It’s not as though virtual companionship is something that lacks precedent. Give the tech a few years.
Re: Re: Re:3
Where did you find that statistic?
Re: Re: Re:4
Perhaps the term was used hyperbolically, but I was going off of Asmongold’s observations. You can check out the original video if you’d like.
There’s nothing new under the sun. The only reason people are down on generative AI is that, like all forms of art, 99.99% of it sucks.
Re:
Why do people keep accusing tech enthusiasts of being philistines when we’re willing to acknowledge that a whole 0,01% of art is good?
Re: Re:
But my 0.01% is likely different from yours, and when you add up all those 0.01%’s, most art is appreciated by somebody.
Re: Re:
LOL, did not occur to me at all that non-techies would disagree with that. I guess we can just pretend art is all awesome if it hurts humanitiesbrained people’s feelings less.
Re: Re: Re:
I mean, we’ve been pretending that computer science is an academic discipline for years now, so what’s a mini marshmallow on that tanker of bullshit?
Re: Re: Re:
There are dicks scratched into middle school desks that have contributed more to humanity than whatever poker website or freemium mobile game you do server configuration for ever will.
Re: Re: Re:2
u mad
Re: Re: Re:2
See, this sort of attitude is precisely why the arts get a terrible rep. Because its proponents intentionally put themselves forward as snobbish, elitist jerks who think that anything they do is the equivalent of God telling Moses what Ten Commandments to write, when – as you said – it might as well be a dick scribbled onto a middle school desk. That’s what gets you mocked and not taken seriously by others who have to work an actual 9 to 5.
Abolish Copyright.
Re:
Yeah, totally. You weren’t expecting to get paid for your work anyway. And who needs to eat?
Re: Re:
And people wonder why singers and artists continue to tour despite having C O P Y R I G H T
I’m pretty sure it’s not because of the labels trying every fucking trick in the book to not pay royalties…
Re: Re: Re:
Well, live performance has the advantages of almost always paying better than the labels, and enabling a long career as a musician. The labels expect new works on every record, while live audiences expect the songs they know.
Re: Re: Re:2
That’s very simplistic. I can name some artists who released live and cover albums just to get out of their major label contracts and creative artists whose labels demanded they got less creative after a cover got popular, for example.
Re: Re:
You’ve been thoroughly bamboozled by the copyright industries if you think copyright is the main reason why people pay artists for their content.
Re: Re:
I like this version of copyright where it’s a welfare program for artists. Nice dream, very creative.
Re: Re: Re:
I like this world you live in, in which corporations pay artists for their work without copyright. I mean, it’s probably diagnostic of some kind of mental illness, but it is very pretty.
Re: Re: Re:2
I like this world you’ve constructed where corporations have to exist to pay artists for artists to get paid for their work.
In the real world, artists can get paid directly by their fans, though.
Someone tell me who Hieronymus Bosch was stealing from, and I’ll accept the premise that great artists steal. Certainly many stole from him, but I submit that the man was a true original…a visionary. Take a gander at his rather limited body of work, and I suspect that you will concur. Start with “The Garden of Earthly Delights”…
Re:
The Bible? Centuries of religious art? Flemish painters?
Re: Re:
The 1989 Denver Broncos?
Re: Re: Re:
No, the 1989 Dallas Cowboys.
That was certainly a glimpse into hell, but within a few years all their fans got to experience four years of heaven on earth.
Re:
You’re thinking way too literally. “Great artists steal” just means “I can do whatever the fuck I want”.
I agree with the above theory , ai is not original in that it just takes existing art and produces art based on prompts by a user .computers are getting faster every year .ai might replace some human artists in the future ,maybe it could replace some artists in some applications in the future eg in creating backgrounds in cartoons or creating 3d objects or buildings to be used in games and motion pictures
Devs will still need human programmers and artists and animators but some artists could be replaced by ai programs .
It,LL probably be a year or 2 before we see if there’s a major impact on employment eg will there be 1000s or people who lose their job as their work is being done by ai programs
Re:
My cousin is an animator. Half his coworkers have been laid off and his workload has doubled with no increase in pay. But sure, lets wait until it affects one of you superstars.
Re: Re:
Oh, and it’s a safe assumption that their portfolios are also gone.
Unless they made copies.
Re: Re:
What’s the deal with AI here? You just told us a story about a cousin working for a shitty company. Shitty companies will always place profit over employees regardless of what technology exists.
Re: Re:
Is he one of the animators who got replaced by sweatshops of Asian animators in the 60s, or are you hallucinating that the problem is a new thing?
Copywriters are already being put out of business by AI.
Re:
Oh noooo! I sure hope AI doesn’t put the people who make those quasi-Pixar 3D commercials out of work next. That would be AWFUL.
Re: Re:
Yeah, lets create another segment of the despised underclass. That’s always worked out well.
Re: Re: Re:
It’s working out well now, isn’t it?
“Listen, don’t think of it as me robbing you, think of it as me paying you the ultimate compliment to your taste in home cinema equipment.”
Sure.
Re:
Copyrightists understand ideas are not physical property challenge: impossible
Re: Re:
AI dipshits understand metaphors challenge: eating the sun would be easier.
Re: Re: Re:
Did you perhaps consider saying what you mean instead of expecting others to intuit what you’re trying to say?
Poetry and metaphor are great, but they don’t lead to great conversation in tech and science forums when you’re trying to discuss specifics.
Re: Re: Re:2
Tech nerds learn to read for meaning challenge: lol, nope
Re: Re: Re:3
Nice try, John Smith.
Re: Re: Re:
The law isn’t run on metaphors. If you’re going to charge someone with something you can’t just pull up a figure of speech for the same of dramatization because it helps your case, then backpedal when you’re asked to back it up with a “it’s just a metaphor, bro”.
Re:
It’s not robbing, though. It’s not even copying.
I love when these AI goons trot out “BuT pEOplE lEaRN FrOM EaCh OtheR” as if copying, plagiarism, forgery and misattribution aren’t taken seriously by actual artists, authors and composers.
Re:
Okay, charge those crimes under plagiarism, not copyright.
But you won’t, because copyright law has become the vector by which you shut down negative reviews of content, and allow you to terrify people with fines of 150k per infringement.
Re:
I look very poorly at anyone shilling random content generators, and I use that fucking line of argument.
There is a massive difference between education and those forms of not doing the fucking work to get a quick buck.
Still not something for copyright to enforce.
But then again, when education is for the rich and the poor need to pack off their kids to work at a meatpacking plant…
That’s how you get a revival of Marxism, folks. The violent, bloody kind.
Re:
That’s a poor strawman. Plagiarism, forgery and misattribution is as serious when an AI does it as when a person does it, but those things are handled with whatever laws apply. They’re not copyright infringement. There is no inherent copying taking place.
Re: Re:
From Cornell’s Legal Information Institute:
Re: Re: Re:
Fair point. How would you sue an AI company for infringement by plagiarism, though?
Re: Re: Re:2
Reasonable people would propose doing so with proof and evidence, standards which copyright enforcement has historically, regularly and constantly struggled with.
Re: Re: Re:
Does plagiarism cover art style? Because those can’t be copyrighted, so I’m curious to see what you think this is going to achieve.
The thing about marketing is that it usually includes the name of the person or product being marketed somewhere.