That’s not how AI works. For example, just a while ago I was generating one image for fun (which I don’t claim is art, by the way), it’s this:
The prompt was quite simple, “anthropomorphic bean standing in a field of beans”.
This is not created from a bunch of pictures, this is created from the AI understanding what a bean is, what anthropomorphic means, what a field is and so on. Try to find me any one image this is created from if you claim it’s just slapping together parts of images. This is an original image (which presumably was never done before, at least I don’t think anyone would create something like that very often), I can’t find any that looks enough like the one I created to claim it was copied from that. I looked for visually similar images using Google, Bing and Yandex.
That leads me to believe, that it’s indeed the same process as a human would do - take an inspiration (from real world or different paintings) and create something new.
That’s what I was trying to get at with this comment. OP asked if it can be considered “original content,” but a lot of people seem to be arguing about whether it’s “art.”
I for sure agree that you can use AI as a tool to generate something that’s original. When photography was new, people argued about whether a photograph could be considered art because it didn’t require the same kinds of skills and talent as drawing and painting. Now people don’t argue about it, but they also don’t tend to commingle paintings and photography - they’re separate categories.
That’s the way I feel about AI generated images. They’re cool and can take skill, but the skills are fundamentally different and those images are in a different category.
deleted by creator
What people make is not original as well, you’re always inspired by something.
deleted by creator
That’s not how AI works. For example, just a while ago I was generating one image for fun (which I don’t claim is art, by the way), it’s this:
The prompt was quite simple, “anthropomorphic bean standing in a field of beans”.
This is not created from a bunch of pictures, this is created from the AI understanding what a bean is, what anthropomorphic means, what a field is and so on. Try to find me any one image this is created from if you claim it’s just slapping together parts of images. This is an original image (which presumably was never done before, at least I don’t think anyone would create something like that very often), I can’t find any that looks enough like the one I created to claim it was copied from that. I looked for visually similar images using Google, Bing and Yandex.
That leads me to believe, that it’s indeed the same process as a human would do - take an inspiration (from real world or different paintings) and create something new.
That’s what I was trying to get at with this comment. OP asked if it can be considered “original content,” but a lot of people seem to be arguing about whether it’s “art.”
I for sure agree that you can use AI as a tool to generate something that’s original. When photography was new, people argued about whether a photograph could be considered art because it didn’t require the same kinds of skills and talent as drawing and painting. Now people don’t argue about it, but they also don’t tend to commingle paintings and photography - they’re separate categories.
That’s the way I feel about AI generated images. They’re cool and can take skill, but the skills are fundamentally different and those images are in a different category.