To answer your point, creating an object using a machine is not a creative process by the definition used in this context, unless you put your creativity in it too. It’s the difference between creating a dress based on your own design and making it based on someone else’s. The ownership comes from the ideation, not the machanical process used to make the dress.
The key difference between AI and other tools is that it replaces the creative part of the process, thus removing the human factor.
As a side note, most of the time the end product contains both elements generated with AI and others done by humans. How much human contribution is required for it to be considered a creative work will probably be up to courts and lawmakers I’m afraid.
On a more ideological note, one could argue that AI models were created using basically the entirety of humanity works, often without compensating the ones holding the rights to such works, and thus should be owned by all humanity.
“creativity” is not as easy to define as you seem to imply. When photography replaced a lot of portrait painters, does that mean it wasn’t creative work? I mean sure painters can still paint other things, but likewise, coders can still code without AI. Does this just mean that there is “non-creative” code (the code that AI can generate) and “creative” code?
I said in my reply that determining whether something that was made with both AI and human contributions should be deemed a work of human creativity is not trivial. That being said, I can’t consider a piece of code entirely written by AI to fit the criteria for copyright protection.
And, dude, photography is 100% creative work and recognized as such everywhere. Yes, the machine takes the picture, but there’s a human who decided the subject, how to frame it, light, composition, not to mention the artistic intent, what he means to convey with that picture.
Then is AI code creative because the human wrote the prompt or guided the agent? But as you already said you agree that creativity is hard to define, I’m ok with us disagreeing on the exact boundary.
criteria for copyright protection.
honestly copyright was already BS as is. “Fair use” is such a mess
Then is AI code creative because the human wrote the prompt or guided the agent?
That’s something that is and will be argued about to the death. I don’t think that a prompt is enough to say the person writing it had a part on the creation of the thing, but I know someone will disagree. I see it as someone commissioning a portrait from a painter. No matter how detailed the request is, no one would say that the customer painted the picture.
Aside from that, I guess what I’m trying to say is that, in my view, creativity is something inherently human, and so can’t be attributed to a machine or software by definition.
I like the comparison the other use made to GUI tools like Wix or Squarespace. If a user creates a page on Wix, they design the layout, the color palette, the content, etc. which is all undoubtedly up to the creativity of the user. How is prompting an llm to build the same website any less creative? The user is going through almost the same steps, designing the layout and all that, but because they’re using natural language instead of a drag and drop tool, suddenly it’s not a creative task?
Maybe neither of them are. I wouldn’t expect someone who made a website using one of those tools to claim some form of copyright on that and suing other similar websites.
How about photoshop then? Or music creation tools like Garage Band? Does any assistance by software invalidate the creative pursuit of the user? By extension you could argue that all 3rd gen programming languages are the same, you’re not writing the 1s and 0s for your code, the machine is doing it for you.
This sounds like no true scotsman. Because I think AI prompting can take just as much creativity as shooting a photo, I must not be a true photographer…
How do you measure creativity so that we can decide if using AI is creative or not? And no, you can’t just claim “creativity = not using AI”, since that would create a circular argument
So what you’re saying is that there’s a tipping point in “intellectual property” where after a certain amount of creative help from a machine it stops being your idea/property?
My mind goes to real play DND podcasts. There is a framework that allows them to tell their story, but the story still belongs to them.
So like if an LLM writes a function to make the program work properly, like to avoid a logic error you didn’t forsee without you asking it too. You don’t own that function? Would it be different if you asked it to fix that bug, or do you have to say how to fix the bug?
Well, probably? I’m by no means an expert, so I don’t know how that could be defined or work in practice. And I think it’ll take us a long time to figure this one out
I probably could have worded it better.
To answer your point, creating an object using a machine is not a creative process by the definition used in this context, unless you put your creativity in it too. It’s the difference between creating a dress based on your own design and making it based on someone else’s. The ownership comes from the ideation, not the machanical process used to make the dress.
The key difference between AI and other tools is that it replaces the creative part of the process, thus removing the human factor.
As a side note, most of the time the end product contains both elements generated with AI and others done by humans. How much human contribution is required for it to be considered a creative work will probably be up to courts and lawmakers I’m afraid.
On a more ideological note, one could argue that AI models were created using basically the entirety of humanity works, often without compensating the ones holding the rights to such works, and thus should be owned by all humanity.
“creativity” is not as easy to define as you seem to imply. When photography replaced a lot of portrait painters, does that mean it wasn’t creative work? I mean sure painters can still paint other things, but likewise, coders can still code without AI. Does this just mean that there is “non-creative” code (the code that AI can generate) and “creative” code?
I said in my reply that determining whether something that was made with both AI and human contributions should be deemed a work of human creativity is not trivial. That being said, I can’t consider a piece of code entirely written by AI to fit the criteria for copyright protection.
And, dude, photography is 100% creative work and recognized as such everywhere. Yes, the machine takes the picture, but there’s a human who decided the subject, how to frame it, light, composition, not to mention the artistic intent, what he means to convey with that picture.
Then is AI code creative because the human wrote the prompt or guided the agent? But as you already said you agree that creativity is hard to define, I’m ok with us disagreeing on the exact boundary.
honestly copyright was already BS as is. “Fair use” is such a mess
Haha I totally agree that copyright is a mess!
That’s something that is and will be argued about to the death. I don’t think that a prompt is enough to say the person writing it had a part on the creation of the thing, but I know someone will disagree. I see it as someone commissioning a portrait from a painter. No matter how detailed the request is, no one would say that the customer painted the picture.
Aside from that, I guess what I’m trying to say is that, in my view, creativity is something inherently human, and so can’t be attributed to a machine or software by definition.
I like the comparison the other use made to GUI tools like Wix or Squarespace. If a user creates a page on Wix, they design the layout, the color palette, the content, etc. which is all undoubtedly up to the creativity of the user. How is prompting an llm to build the same website any less creative? The user is going through almost the same steps, designing the layout and all that, but because they’re using natural language instead of a drag and drop tool, suddenly it’s not a creative task?
Maybe neither of them are. I wouldn’t expect someone who made a website using one of those tools to claim some form of copyright on that and suing other similar websites.
How about photoshop then? Or music creation tools like Garage Band? Does any assistance by software invalidate the creative pursuit of the user? By extension you could argue that all 3rd gen programming languages are the same, you’re not writing the 1s and 0s for your code, the machine is doing it for you.
Sorry man, it seems we’re at an impasse here.
Either I can’t articulate my point via comments or you’re determined not to get it no matter how I explain it.
I think it’s time to call it quits and use our time more productively. Cheers.
Am I a chef because I ordered a pizza and modified some toppings?
are you an artist because you framed a photo while shooting it?
Point being that if you’re going to call photographers creative, then prompting is arguably just as creative
No it absolutely isn’t, and this hot take marks you as someone very obviously completely ignorant of photography.
At its very best, slop creation is art direction. And most of it doesn’t even reach that level of artistry.
It’s slop. Pure and simple. Anybody calling it art is an ignorant jackass.
No but this was the exact criticism levelled by painters against photographers when cameras became more widespread. It’s absolutely a valid argument.
This sounds like no true scotsman. Because I think AI prompting can take just as much creativity as shooting a photo, I must not be a true photographer…
How do you measure creativity so that we can decide if using AI is creative or not? And no, you can’t just claim “creativity = not using AI”, since that would create a circular argument
Why is a slop-monger even in a group literally called “Fuck AI”?!
Piss off, sea lion.
So what you’re saying is that there’s a tipping point in “intellectual property” where after a certain amount of creative help from a machine it stops being your idea/property?
My mind goes to real play DND podcasts. There is a framework that allows them to tell their story, but the story still belongs to them.
So like if an LLM writes a function to make the program work properly, like to avoid a logic error you didn’t forsee without you asking it too. You don’t own that function? Would it be different if you asked it to fix that bug, or do you have to say how to fix the bug?
Well, probably? I’m by no means an expert, so I don’t know how that could be defined or work in practice. And I think it’ll take us a long time to figure this one out
Sounds like prompt logs need to be tracked in git with reference. But also it sounds basically unenforceable.