[1] https://www.riken.jp/en/news_pubs/research_news/rr/20250327_...
Edit: If you can't get past the fact that AI image generators are not equivalent as an artistic medium to different types of paint, think of it this way: if I describe something to an artist and have them paint it, is the resulting image my impression because I prompted the artist, or is it the artist's impression of what I described? Clearly it's the artist's impression. So just because an "AI artist" prompts an AI app, that wouldn't make it the prompter's impression; it's still the AI app's impression. And an AI app's not an "artist" itself by virtue of being a computer program and not a human (as you yourself admit by attempting to liken it to a tool such as paint).
I just made a similar reply, but I disagree with this. The artist iterates with their prompts to the AI tool to get what they wanted. So when they stopped tweaking the prompt, they were satisfied with the result to be their impression
"Yes, but is it not the intent of the artist to be ignorant and lazy?"
It is possible to repeatedly iterate AI art gen and get what you want, but that's not what happened here. And even so, it's not at all the same thing as drawing a picture: "iterating on what you want" is equivalent to curating art, not creating it. In the US you can copyright curation and that extends to curation of AI art - the US Copyright Office correctly said that tweaking prompts is the same thing as tweaking a Google Images search string for online image curation. But you can't copyright the actual AI-gen pictures, they are automatically public domain (unless they infringe someone else's copyright).
The US Copyright Office has, in fact, granted at least one copyright registration for an image created with the use of AI generation.
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/invoke-snags-first-ai-imag...
No, it doesn't. It describes artwork done on Invokeai, one of the popular hosted web frontends for Stable Diffusion (and some similar models), with a process very much like what many AI art hobbyists use (whether with hosted frontends or locally-hostable ones like A1111, Forge, ComfyUI, or Fooocus.)
I think it's best if I log off and ignore your replies.
Stable Diffusion is a series of models, not a service. There are various services (including the first-party Stable Assistant service from StabilityAI) and self-hosted frontends that use the models, most of which (including Stable Assistant) support considerably more interaction than simple text-to-image.
Is that actually true? What I’ve read is that AI can’t be credited with the copyright.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/ai-created-images-lose-us-copy...
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-copyright-office...
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-appeals-court-rejects-co...
See the other reply for a half-counterexample, but the major difference is the specific software is more like generative PhotoShop, and the final image involved a lot of manual human work. Simply tweaking a prompt is not enough - again you can get copyright for curation, just not the images."
Of course AI can't be credited with copyright - neither can a random-character generator, even if it monkeys its way into a masterpiece. You need legal standing to sue or be sued in order to hold copyright.
Yeah the intern is now an "artist" but I think lumping them together is muddling the discussion.
But after I’ve iterated with them N times, fixing their various misunderstandings of my impression, eventually the PM’s impression impact approaches zero, and it’s clearly representative solely of my impression.
Sufficient iterations and prompts against the model, and you can’t really say it’s the AI’s fault the result is erroneous. The first pass, sure, but not the 100th.
Except I guess in the aspects where you can’t fix the PM’s/AI’s understanding. Then you could say their impression isn’t fully removable
So your example makes no sense.
The question is whether their understanding still contributes to the end product, not who does the mechanical action of entering data or drawing images.
Because nothing of consequence can be done in a single pass.
The number of passes/reviews is directly tied to error rate. If the PM/AI is able to produce my impression at 100% success, then great, there’s no further work to do.
The only thing learning matters for is with sufficient learning, they might reach a state where they no longer need to be reviewed, because they’ve sufficiently learned to not inject their own interpretation of things into it. They are now a straightforward extension of my own being, and have generated their documents as I would have done (had I the requisite mechanical time/skill/interest for producing whatever is in question).
Both terms are acceptable to use; this argument is fundamentally about how lazy you should assume these users to be. So argue about that directly.
I'm not a materials scientist so I can't comment on this specific topic but based on my experience with pop science reporting errors and misinformation often come in multiples. The author has a "Bachelor of Arts in Professional Writing". RIKEN's press release is already written for a general audience and in English, so there isn't a good reason not to read the original source instead.
where are we disagreeing?
If the point was purely aesthetics, maybe they could at least use Midjourney or that new Ghibli style transfer thing instead of what looks about as good as old Dall-E? It's ugly. If the point was to convey information, they could have done that better with a 30-second pencil sketch, which would have also taken less effort than the AI-generated thing.