![]() | |||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
0272 - Dragons - 2022.12.19 |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Comment: AI art is a hot topic right now (at least, among my fellow artists), and one of the big problems with it is that most of these algorithms pull their "inspiration" directly from a Google image search with little concern for IP rights. There have even been cases of the AI-wranglers typing in prompts for art in the style of specific artists, and the algorithm obliges, turning out jpegs in that artist's style, complete with a garbled signature at the bottom corner. (Yes, the AIs can't handle text or backgrounds or hands... YET. Pointing at their current limitations and scoffing that they'll never take the place of human artists because they don't know how anatomy works is kind of like boasting that cars will never replace horses because the rudimentary automobile you're currently looking at is slower than a horse. Give it time.) Of course, humans pull their inspiration from other artists as well - try as you might, you can't create in a vacuum, you can only hope to absorb enough varied material that your output looks like something new. In art, as in science, we stand on the shoulders of giants. One can clearly see the influence of Dragonball and Sailor Moon on Steven Universe, for example, but few would call the latter plagiarized. What if you could trace the inspiration directly, though? Ever since Operation Slit Throat, AIs in Forward aren't black boxes of inscrutable machine learning - they're required to be able to show how and why they come up with the ideas that they do. If we could open up Rebecca Sugar's brain and trace the specific neural pathway from Goku to Steven, would we still call it "inspiration"? |
||
Transcript: --------------------------------------------------------------- |
||