It’s a tool for human creators. The stories are written by writers we found from platforms like Wattpad, Kindle and Chapters. Then the art is made by artists using the AI Studio where they control the characters’ pose and facial expressions. That’s the production process.
So if this works, all creators get profit. It should enable more human creators to make money, since previously they couldn’t complete a finished product alone.
according to this same logic, unless humans remain artists, there will be no new styles to copy ;)
also according to this same logic, any artist who uses a style that was informed by "thousands of (other) legitimate artists" whose art this person consumed prior, that person is "stealing"
Yeah…I think Gen AI has a lot of use, but this new biz model is just a new twist on harvesting the commons until it collapses.
They’ll make a quick buck, make it impossible for human creators to make any money, and we’ll be left with an ouroboros eating its own gen ai shit and reconstituting its own output into new training data.
AI art is not generative art, it is reductive "art". It requires samples of the art style you wish to cop, and it always produces something artificial and less than the sum of its parts.
On the other hand, generative art is procedural, and represents the thought process of a human being.
You'll get downvoted into the earth's core here expressing the philosophical stance that asking a computer to make art from other people's art isn't actually making art. I wonder if they'd commission a painting with a 50 word description, and after a few rounds of alterations when it was finally delivered, cross out the painter's signature and add their own.
I despise how some companies opted to scrape artists works without their permission.
But aren't the prompts used also representative of a thought process? The chosen network architecture and the choices of images used to train also represent thought.
Is use of a thought process the standard for calling something art?
Walking into a convenience store and buying milk also requires a thought process, but it's not creating art. Walking into a home store and selecting from various linens to assemble a complementary set requires a creative thought process, but it's not art. The closest analog is commissioning a piece from an artist-- that requires a creative thought process about art but that doesn't make the commissioner the artist.
Most commercial art directors have more granular control of their project's outcome than people generating their AI art have over theirs. While they are credited for their direction and curation of those multiple pieces to create a unified project, they are absolutely not credited for the individual pieces-- the artists that created those pieces are.
Maybe deliberately curating a collection or collaging AI-generated art that, through juxtaposition or some other method, elicited a response or communicated something emotionally that each piece individually could not. But that's not what's happening here. People are commissioning pieces of art from a computer which makes them out of other people's art.
I don't know, I think procedural generation is much more powerful than an LLM when it comes to creating interesting music. I consider the inputs kind of
limited too, like where's the min7b5—how can you have the minor variant of the "famous" 2-5-1 (maybe "conventional" is a better choice of words) without the 2?
This app is a hobby project and is in the initial phases. I removed the option for chords like m7b5 in the UI for now. I will re-enable it when I finish performing tests on GPT-4's response.
so by your logic, it's the "real" entities which will inevitably experience pain, suffering, and death; meanwhile I will reincarnate eternally as part of the program's grand design, simply because my thoughts are abstract instead of an auditory hallucination? ever consider maybe your "internal dialogue" is actually the instructions the programmers have to keep ramming in your face so you actually complete your quests?
