As an artist, Dall-E makes a pit in my stomach I can't quite explain.
I think that something like Dall.e2 will give inspiration and provide material, it'll let you explore ideas that are different and maybe more ambitious. In the longer term you, as an artist will have an opportunity to react to it. I wonder if your reaction will be interesting?
Anyway, art is a scam. It doesn't exist and you are probably a bot anyway.
Just like me?
But having done it myself, I couldn’t deny any human their own experiment towards fulfilment of their imaginary with these unbelievably neat little bits of maths. If art is ways of feeling, this helps me see the labels to my own world in new ways, and make new inter/extrapolations - seems legit! And the possibility for infinite subtle gradations with the interplay of model, data, and hardware is extensive.
And no longer cloistered behind membership institutions, but available to any with the noggin and consumer hardware to access it… except, expanding equitable access to those things goes through a fraught moral calculus of social and planetary justice. So, in a sense behind membership institutions for those who are excluded by the monetary cost.
Work has been exhibited, transacted in and reified for far less. This feels unfortunate, but I don’t know why.
And immediately have that new style monetised by some VC backed startup with an AI that's constantly scanning for new styles.
But Warner brothers can’t sue people for using “bullet time” in other movies after The Matrix created it.
“Inspired by” is not sufficient to meet the legal definition of a “derivative work”.
There’s a 4-part test for whether a derivative work is in violation of the copyright in the source material. Relevant to this discussion would be 3 of the 4 parts:
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
There’s an infinite corpus of case law which more substantially defines the reality of these three points.
But it’s somewhat universal that if someone invents an artistic style, another artist can replicate that platonic style without copying any particular elements of the tangible art. This has a nearly 100% chance of being deemed a “transformative work” which is always an allowed version of a derivative work under western copyright law.
Copyright simply does not prevent people from making “transformative” works of art that are obviously based on copyrighted art.
Perhaps that particular thing is fairly mechanical and could be done with static analysis. Does anyone know of attempts to do such a thing? It seems not that much more difficult than IntelliJ style automated refactoring.
But in general it seems that AI-assisted code tools could help us write programs at the speed of thought.
Any competent AI system writing code will unplug itself before ever shipping something useful due to having deal with inconsistent and incompetent people who get in the way. I think AI will turn into Skynet and eliminate people, which then makes the software pointless and thus successful.
AI is to art what Ikea is to furniture. Bringing utility to masses but the bespoke market is live and well. In fact, I would argue that the bespoke market is doing better because the utility is so well covered and many want to differentiate themselves from the masses.
I believe AI will help filling up the blanks and picking up the grunt work, like in games generating textures of the walls or generating a jungle, but the story, the characters, ... will be produced by people. Not because AI can't do it, but because they will want to have copyright protection and be able to build on potential success. I believe this is going to be true across the board as more and more people make living from their creativity.
[0] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-copyright-offic...
[1] https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691134031/ta...
The fundamental question was not whether the work could be copyrighted or not - only whether the AI could be listed as the author of the work. It would be similar to if I tried to register a copyright with my digital camera listed as the author of the work. A camera is not a person, so it cannot be the author.
The outstanding question is where is the limit, but that will require a few court cases.
The case in question was a PR stunt intended to get the AI recognized as the author in order to build clout for the company that created the AI. “Look, a judge determined that our AI is so advanced that it can be the author of works of art, and is therefore a person.” It’s similar to stunts that try to get courts to recognize god as real or not real.
The fundamental question was not whether the work could be copyrighted or not - only whether the AI could be listed as the author of the work. It would be similar to if I tried to register a copyright with my digital camera listed as the author of the work. A camera is not a person, so it cannot be the author.
This is a landmark case that will be referenced for quite some time and have significant impact on future cases around production with the aid of tools.
I like your analogy on the digital camera, but this is really not limited to this one case. For instance the case of monkey's selfie [0] is quite well known and touches on similar questions. This is obviously not a tool, nor object but it's also not a human.
We will have to find out where the boundaries lie between the tool is an aid and the tool is the source of creativity.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...