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
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
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.
Sorry, I hope I didn’t sound combative, I’m just genuinely curious about how people bifurcate these ideas. If anyone else wants to give their perspective I’d be glad to hear it.
In my mind, the use of tools has no bearing on the creativity of the user. I don’t really see a difference between coming up with an idea for a beautiful website and then creating it by writing react vs creating it by writing prompts. Just like i dont think writing vanilla javascript is better than writing react, or assembly better than javascript.
The creation is the important part, coming up with an idea for something that could improve the world around you, and then bringing that thing into existence.
I can’t promise I’ll get back to you on the hour, or whatever, but you can play against me.
A key disconnect I’m noticing is that, and this is common with STEM people, you do not view the programming itself, that is the software as written, as an expression of art or creativity. You lack a degree of respect for the profession and the work it produces.
I think, because you are only concerned with the end product. A website can be beautiful for more reasons than just the colors it chooses, you know.
I also see you trying to reduce this to a binary decision on the matter, that if you can prove an iota of creativity, then the entire project is creative, but that’s not really how people think about these things.
There is a spectrum of effort. Everyone can cook, but not everyone is a cook. And not every cook is a chef. There are varying levels of skill and application being described here.
To borrow someone else’s creativity, with a recipe, or pre-seasoned meat, or a javascript library, might leave people with the feeling that the project is still wholistically creative because the parts you had not touched were still touched by someone. But this only goes so far: people are good at subtracting others’ efforts from your own, and if you’re work is too derivative, people will not feel as if you’ve added anything.
The problem with referencing something like Wix is that Wix already represents a diminished creative effort. You as a Wix user make fewer decisions; there are fewer opportunities to express your creativity and skill.
This doesn’t mean a Wix website isn’t creative whatsoever. It just depends on what you’re measuring.
You use this word, ‘better’, but I don’t know what this word means. Is writing vanilla javascript better than writing React? Better in what way?
With regard to creativity, I would argue that vanilla JS is more creative: the brainwork of React’s pre-made solutions can’t be used, so new ones must be thought up.
If you’re following, you should be able to see where the argument that AI isn’t creative comes from. The more decisions it makes for you, the fewer decisions you are making.
Art and creativity are affects of the social realm. For something to be creative, you have to be involved. You have to be able to show what it is that you did and why you did it, what thoughts and feelings you had while making it—otherwise, no one will care.
Nor should they. You understand the frustration people feel when calling a customer support line and getting an automated system instead of a real person, yes? Art isn’t that different.
Art is conversational. If you listen to high-end art people talk about it, they use this term a lot. They don’t mean that art inspires conversation, they mean that it is conversation, like body language.
I would not seriously argue that an AI user has never been creative, that an iota cannot be found. But, generally speaking, they tend to let the AI make so many decisions that I do not think they are involved in the conversation of their own work. I could not ask them and they could not tell me.
And this poses a problem even for work that isn’t meant to be consumed publically, like software code. If a person isn’t much involved in the coversation of their own work—if they don’t know the words they’re using or why—then I can’t trust their work.
Don’t worry, comments threads aren’t really the best medium for complex and in depth discussions.
Maybe where we don’t agree is on the role of AI and the difference between AI and other types of tools.
The way I see it, other tools perform are “dumb”, as in they do exactly what you tell them to and nothing else. AI, on the other hand, does more than that, making decisions instead of leaving them to the user.
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
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 you can’t come up with a valid argument so you just resort to name calling? Please, you don’t speak for the community
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.
Sorry, I hope I didn’t sound combative, I’m just genuinely curious about how people bifurcate these ideas. If anyone else wants to give their perspective I’d be glad to hear it.
In my mind, the use of tools has no bearing on the creativity of the user. I don’t really see a difference between coming up with an idea for a beautiful website and then creating it by writing react vs creating it by writing prompts. Just like i dont think writing vanilla javascript is better than writing react, or assembly better than javascript.
The creation is the important part, coming up with an idea for something that could improve the world around you, and then bringing that thing into existence.
I can’t promise I’ll get back to you on the hour, or whatever, but you can play against me.
A key disconnect I’m noticing is that, and this is common with STEM people, you do not view the programming itself, that is the software as written, as an expression of art or creativity. You lack a degree of respect for the profession and the work it produces.
I think, because you are only concerned with the end product. A website can be beautiful for more reasons than just the colors it chooses, you know.
I also see you trying to reduce this to a binary decision on the matter, that if you can prove an iota of creativity, then the entire project is creative, but that’s not really how people think about these things.
There is a spectrum of effort. Everyone can cook, but not everyone is a cook. And not every cook is a chef. There are varying levels of skill and application being described here.
To borrow someone else’s creativity, with a recipe, or pre-seasoned meat, or a javascript library, might leave people with the feeling that the project is still wholistically creative because the parts you had not touched were still touched by someone. But this only goes so far: people are good at subtracting others’ efforts from your own, and if you’re work is too derivative, people will not feel as if you’ve added anything.
The problem with referencing something like Wix is that Wix already represents a diminished creative effort. You as a Wix user make fewer decisions; there are fewer opportunities to express your creativity and skill.
This doesn’t mean a Wix website isn’t creative whatsoever. It just depends on what you’re measuring.
You use this word, ‘better’, but I don’t know what this word means. Is writing vanilla javascript better than writing React? Better in what way?
With regard to creativity, I would argue that vanilla JS is more creative: the brainwork of React’s pre-made solutions can’t be used, so new ones must be thought up.
If you’re following, you should be able to see where the argument that AI isn’t creative comes from. The more decisions it makes for you, the fewer decisions you are making.
Art and creativity are affects of the social realm. For something to be creative, you have to be involved. You have to be able to show what it is that you did and why you did it, what thoughts and feelings you had while making it—otherwise, no one will care.
Nor should they. You understand the frustration people feel when calling a customer support line and getting an automated system instead of a real person, yes? Art isn’t that different.
Art is conversational. If you listen to high-end art people talk about it, they use this term a lot. They don’t mean that art inspires conversation, they mean that it is conversation, like body language.
I would not seriously argue that an AI user has never been creative, that an iota cannot be found. But, generally speaking, they tend to let the AI make so many decisions that I do not think they are involved in the conversation of their own work. I could not ask them and they could not tell me.
And this poses a problem even for work that isn’t meant to be consumed publically, like software code. If a person isn’t much involved in the coversation of their own work—if they don’t know the words they’re using or why—then I can’t trust their work.
Don’t worry, comments threads aren’t really the best medium for complex and in depth discussions.
Maybe where we don’t agree is on the role of AI and the difference between AI and other types of tools.
The way I see it, other tools perform are “dumb”, as in they do exactly what you tell them to and nothing else. AI, on the other hand, does more than that, making decisions instead of leaving them to the user.