I guess, but thats kind of misleading. AI literally studying and storing the data of billions of pieces of art to find patterns is not equivalent to a human creating art after a lifetime of seeing or being inspired by art.
AI literally studying and storing the data of billions of pieces of art to find patterns is not equivalent to a human creating art after a lifetime of seeing or being inspired by art.
But how is it different? The “brain” of the AI doesn’t really contain the art it was trained on. Instead it has simply learned some patterns that are common in some source material.
What if, instead of using AI to create lookalikes of known art, emergent behavior was exploited to create art, where you could not deduce what the inspiration was? For example completely new styles of art that yet do not exist? Would that still be plagiarizing?
Where is the line that defines that some content is original and another is not?
Add comment