That would be possible, in an abstract way.

Let’s say the artist, first creates all the input that is fed to the AI for training.

Let it be sounds, films, objects, drawings, literature. Everything has to be created by the artist exclusively.

This will be a model that only knows the artist’s work and will generate output based on the work by the same artist.

Now, let’s do that in a community. Everyone is free to share their models with others. Every art created from there would list all models used.

Maybe someday we will have something like this. But we will only have this, if someone actively works on it, based on the way AI needs input. Something we are still learning and will sure change. We have to think of the AI we have now, like the first steps of humans actually building a functioning flying object. We are now at the step of the first set of wings, that keep us for 1 minute in the air, before failing and falling. That’s a long way until the first passenger airplane takes off.

I have a feeling that we will have to come up with new definitions of copyright in the future.

I want to see someone develop an original ML model with an original training set that can generate something impossible by any other method.

That Machine Learning model will learn… from what?

Brian Eno, Terry Riley, and John Cage are names that come close to doing what you are describing. The idea of “generative” or “stochastic” or “aleotoric” music has been around for longer than this current AI boom has.

I also found this fascinating bit of music on wiki:

viral symphOny is a collaborative electronic noise music symphony created by the postconceptual artist Joseph Nechvatal. It was created between the years 2006 and 2008 using custom artificial life C++ software based on the viral phenomenon model.

There are possibilities, but there are 99 lazy and uncreative people who just want to press the “make music now” button for every 1 person that wants to spend hours building and training their own models/sequences. (Those 99 have absolutely ruined the lofi/study beats on YouTube…)

Using multiple AI tools, he has built an incredible universe of consistent characters.

He hasn’t, though. He’s done some rudimentary work and then turned the lion’s share of the design/development over to an algorithm that supplants his designs with work harvested from other professionals.

You can spend hours trying to get AI systems to produce the exact effect you’re aiming for—but few people are truly searching for something specific.

I think part of the problem with the “AI is Art, aktuly” discourse is that people who aren’t professional artists really believe art is a commodity and meeting volumetric need is the artist’s end goal. This isn’t about an individual synthesizing personal memories, ideas, and technique to produce an experience for an audience. This is about individuals within an audience stating their desires, and some random assortment of artists throwing out tropes that fall somewhere in between their collective demands.

There is no concept of originalization. Everything is just a commercialized composite of prior works, created first and foremost to meet an immediate stated economic demand. Execs barking “I want a guy who looks like the Halo guy, but with long hair and a sword instead of a rifle” instead of some guy with family in the military and a talent for 3D rendering envisioning what a futuristic commando would look like.

‘An Overwhelmingly Negative And Demoralizing Force’: What It’s Like Working For A Company That’s Forcing AI On Its Developers

OK but now do that without stealing other people’s art.

Photography involves shot composition and timing. You don’t just point and press a button. That’s why people typically hire photographers for things like weddings - it’s an actual skill, and not something you want to just trust some random who doesn’t know at least stuff like the rule of thirds with. What to include in the frame, not cropping things out awkwardly, dealing with moving people, trying to catch flattering angles…

That’s not even getting into post processing and editing.

Your example would only make sense if someone was going around claiming they were an “artist” because they went around a museum taking full frame pictures of the pictures.

Machine learning is a net positive for technology and society, IF used wisely. The people who consume art are distressed that they can no longer filter for AI. AI images would be less controversial if we didn’t have so much of it masquerading as human art.

This technology is not the issue, it’s how people use it to the detriment of society and the environment.

at some point you just have to stop arguing and punch them in the face.

Careful now, Lemmy is the most anti AI echo chamber there is

Edit: case in point

Oh no, we made talentless duschebro sad by dissing his favourite slop creating forestburner. Whatever we will do

Dude. DUDE. Really?