I know there’s a fair amount of controversy about these tools too - potentially replacing jobs, and potential for how they use source data in a non copyright complaint way - but clearly these are here and staying around.
“Well, if the bar for being an artist on Fiverr is just realizing that the images are good, then you might as well go for it! Who knows, you could be the next Monet… or at least the next Fiverr sensation.”
“Wow, it sounds like ChatGPT is an incredibly powerful tool! I’m glad to hear that you’re finding it useful and that it’s able to assist you with such a wide range of tasks. It’s always exciting to discover new and efficient ways to work, and it sounds like ChatGPT is helping you do just that. Keep up the great work!”
(I asked Chat GPT to reply to you… rates itself highly)
Bear in mind that when it comes to research, it can make up very accurate sounding articles that are actually full of stuff and nonsense about things that do not exist.
I can’t find the Twitter threads now because it was before Christmas and I didn’t save it, but there was a scientist who asked ChatGPT to write articles in his special field, and they were really convincing, looked sound - and he found it really hard to spot the fact that the theories were made up and the citations not real, because it all looked so authentic at first glance.
I think this is the thing right (taken out of context of course) - it will accellerate a lot of areas - for the art side - will speed up the ideation process for non creatives to get concepts and ideas, or generate quick and dirty story boards, concepts, whatever, to act as inspo.
And on the counter side, will make all the negative bits faster too. Double edged sword.
I follow a few entrepreneurs on twitter and one of them is always talking about how if you write articles and enough of them, you’ll be able to monetize it.
Bot - Write 500 words about Monzo’s limits, then Starling’s cheque imaging, then Revolut’s app. I wonder how long before the content is poor enough that Google doesn’t rank it?
The important thing, I think, is to not be that guy who pays £0 to £5 for the AI art and then tries to hire an artist for £10 to fix it.
My biggest problem with AI art is the fact it has been trained on real art, meaning it’s effectively a copyright infringement factory. Googling something like “artist whose art was used to train ai” finds plenty of stories like this:
I think that’s fair - and our copyright and licensing laws are fairly antiquated - it’s not like we have the right mechanisms to properly deal with the future of this stuff yet, and how it should be / could be protected.
I don’t personally know where the distinction between “using artists source material to train an AI” vs “using an artists source material for inspiration” lies. Obviously, there is one, and effectively remixing other peoples work to make new works is how all genres of anything creative come about. (looking at you Pachelbels Canon in D).
I think there will be a lot of interesting case law in the future about trying to define that distinction though.
Pachabel’s Canon in D is in the public domain. If you want to make money with a derivative of Madonna’s Like a Prayer you are going to have to pay royalties to the owners.
There’s actually a music producing bot too, that is trained entirely on open source music because it would be too risky to train one on copyright material given how litigious the industry is, that says that even AI producers are very aware there could be big problems.
I agree there will be a lot of lawsuits, although I think a lot of this also relies on the fact that artists just can’t afford to protect their rights like musicians can.
But wouldn’t that be a case with a human artist who would have viewed however many copyrighted works and then created their own art? I’m not saying it’s okay, but why does the fact that it’s AI make it not okay?
:
