"AI art" is plagiarism and not an art at all.
"AI art" is plagiarism and not an art at all.
I feel like LLMs are not too dissimilar to humans. We listen to a lifetime of music, read text, watch videos, etc. and when we come to create something all of that influences what we produce.
Like if you’ve listened largely to western music, and you look for a note to complete a provided two-note sequence, your choice is informed by that listening history. A non-western trained person is likely to pick a different note. Similar analogies can be made for eg English phrases, or even topics for songs.
There’s clearly a boundary between influenced by and copied. Is it the same for generative AI as it is for humans?
You can do it, sure. But you'll probably also start to wonder why nobody really wants to listen to it, and you can count me out before I do.
I am however interested in the claim of plagiarism and how what generative AI does is different to what humans do. It’s not clear to me how it’s different.
Will it fill up 60mins for one album? Yes. Will you sell out the MSG when your audience finds out that it was all ChatGPT (or some other LLM)? No. Never.
Another metaphor/analogy is like the Friends episode "The One With Phoebe's Cookies" where the magic disappears because the 'grandma's cookies' end up being Nestle cookies. And the magic is gone, and your audience will be gone.
Good for you. Enjoy your AI generated art. By yourself. You've missed the whole point of art.
Could you expand on this? How does a baseball bat help you in songwriting?