P1CA550 or Picasso?
February 12, 2023 12:38 PM Subscribe
Calling all roboticist philosophers.... For the sake of argument, if one can program AI to suggest random prompts to itself and then have it use Midjourney to create unique art based on those random prompts, how is the computer not considered the artist? I'm curious about the specific arguments around this new technology re: what counts as "art" if the creator is not human but still generating, technically, the original prompts to generate new imagery in the first place.
(Also if you have articles for me to read around this subject, please link them!) Thank you!
(Also if you have articles for me to read around this subject, please link them!) Thank you!
If there's not an intent behind it, it's still just random effects from other peoples' input. It's unique in the same way a dune pattern at the beach is.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 1:06 PM on February 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 1:06 PM on February 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
IMHO the situation you describe is closer to the situation where monkeys* can't own copyrights.
*As non humans.
posted by oceano at 1:08 PM on February 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
*As non humans.
posted by oceano at 1:08 PM on February 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
Did you see the lawsuit (mentioned in this NPR show) where animators are suing Midjourney and others because their work is being used to train the AI?
posted by pinochiette at 1:12 PM on February 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by pinochiette at 1:12 PM on February 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
People have been using random number generators and programs to create generative art for a long time. These new tools are much more powerful but the dynamic is basically the same, and assigning authorship to the tools used hasn't been a thing.
posted by BungaDunga at 1:16 PM on February 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by BungaDunga at 1:16 PM on February 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
The thing is that it's not creating unique art, no matter where the prompts come from. It's algorithmically remixing other people's art, most of it used without permission.
posted by heatherlogan at 1:17 PM on February 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by heatherlogan at 1:17 PM on February 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
Response by poster: Not to threadsit, but does it make a difference if the AI is generating its own randomized prompts for Midjourney, rather than a human entering in a prompt? And does it make a difference that the algorithmic remixing may be so subtle as to not be a clear rip-off of any particular artist?
I went to art school and can't help but think of the ways students incorporate the techniques or motifs of their favorite artists, whether or not it's intentional.
To be clear -- I'm not arguing that it is art -- but I do find the subject increasingly interesting as these programs become more self-directed and nuanced in their "creations."
posted by egeanin at 1:22 PM on February 12, 2023
I went to art school and can't help but think of the ways students incorporate the techniques or motifs of their favorite artists, whether or not it's intentional.
To be clear -- I'm not arguing that it is art -- but I do find the subject increasingly interesting as these programs become more self-directed and nuanced in their "creations."
posted by egeanin at 1:22 PM on February 12, 2023
The real question underlying this, along with all the other recent questions about the recent AI stuff, is "can the AI be ascribed agency, and thus personhood". My answer is no. The AI is nothing more than a pile of linear algebra. (The "self-generated" prompts are just a second, smaller pile of linear algebra bolted on to the first which algorithmically remixes prompts that humans have entered in the past.)
posted by heatherlogan at 1:32 PM on February 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by heatherlogan at 1:32 PM on February 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
It seems to me that you are focusing on the secondary question about prompts but the primary issue is that these AI are *trained* on copyrighted art and photography content. Unless there is an AI that is trained only on public domain and copyright-free content, in my opinion the current crop of AI such as stable diffusion or Midjourney are not generating original content. See also: this lawsuit from Getty images.
posted by thewildgreen at 1:51 PM on February 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by thewildgreen at 1:51 PM on February 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
Are you interested in philosophical arguments or legal arguments?
Legally, it seems that copyright protection does not extend to non-human authors under US law.
Continuing to think legally, what would it mean? How would the Midjourney software or model enter into a contract to let its copyrighted work appear on a demand-printed coffee mug? Or signal that it absolutely didn't want that to happen? The software .. doesn't care, can't care. It's not constructed that way.
Philosophically or morally? That's harder because honestly I'm not sure how you put copyright on sound footing. One possible line of inquiry is to consider that copyright is really a moral right of the creator of a work. Another is to consider that perhaps copyright is a useful mechanism for creating good outcomes within a social system.
Starting with the second one: The US constitution gives the purpose of copyright as "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Leaving aside the narrow scope of "science and useful Arts", copyright provides an incentive to creators, but the end goal is to promote Progress that is shared by all. However, Midjourney's software and model function the same no matter whether it has a legal incentive to create an image. So, there's no reason to grant Midjourney's software or model copyright on its outputs.
OK, so what of moral rights? Again, Midjourney's software and model just aren't the sort of thing that are accorded moral rights. The software and model have no agency. No identity or self which is maintained over time. No ill befalls to the software or model when it is not given a copyright to a generated image, and no good comes to it if it were instead granted copyright over an output.
(none of that is to say that I think no non-human should ever be permitted to have a copyright; an extraterrestrial alien, for instance, or even an AI that is a person first and an artist second. And given the track record of humanity in general and of colonizing europeans in particular, I do worry that we run the risk of insisting a newly discovered alien species is "just a clever animal" or not noticing when our software crosses the invisible line into personhood, even as I'm confident that Midjourney and GPT3 aren't it yet)
I think an important question to consider is: why, when we look at model-generated images does it sometimes (or even often) feel SO CLEARLY like a creative work of art? Well, most human brains are structured so that they can look at pixels but see a painting; and so that when they look at a painting they can not only see a landscape but also have an emotional reaction to the landscape.
But it's all interpretation, which can break down at any step of the process. For instance, it's hard these days to tell if the pixels that look like an apple were a photograph or a 3D rendering, because 3D rendering has been made really good at looking like a photograph, due to decades of research work. Or now maybe it's a model-generated image from the prompt "apple (fruit), photorealistic, studio lighting, product photo". But—it's not an apple. It's not even the pixels of a digital photograph of an apple. It's pixels that did really good at maximizing their "appleness" according to the model. And, the software model turned out to be a good match for your own brain's model of an apple.
It seems like the same thing happens but for the "creative" or "artwork" or "copyright-worthy" models inside your own brain. But it's not, it's just a mirage of creativity.
posted by the antecedent of that pronoun at 1:52 PM on February 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
Legally, it seems that copyright protection does not extend to non-human authors under US law.
Continuing to think legally, what would it mean? How would the Midjourney software or model enter into a contract to let its copyrighted work appear on a demand-printed coffee mug? Or signal that it absolutely didn't want that to happen? The software .. doesn't care, can't care. It's not constructed that way.
Philosophically or morally? That's harder because honestly I'm not sure how you put copyright on sound footing. One possible line of inquiry is to consider that copyright is really a moral right of the creator of a work. Another is to consider that perhaps copyright is a useful mechanism for creating good outcomes within a social system.
Starting with the second one: The US constitution gives the purpose of copyright as "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Leaving aside the narrow scope of "science and useful Arts", copyright provides an incentive to creators, but the end goal is to promote Progress that is shared by all. However, Midjourney's software and model function the same no matter whether it has a legal incentive to create an image. So, there's no reason to grant Midjourney's software or model copyright on its outputs.
OK, so what of moral rights? Again, Midjourney's software and model just aren't the sort of thing that are accorded moral rights. The software and model have no agency. No identity or self which is maintained over time. No ill befalls to the software or model when it is not given a copyright to a generated image, and no good comes to it if it were instead granted copyright over an output.
(none of that is to say that I think no non-human should ever be permitted to have a copyright; an extraterrestrial alien, for instance, or even an AI that is a person first and an artist second. And given the track record of humanity in general and of colonizing europeans in particular, I do worry that we run the risk of insisting a newly discovered alien species is "just a clever animal" or not noticing when our software crosses the invisible line into personhood, even as I'm confident that Midjourney and GPT3 aren't it yet)
I think an important question to consider is: why, when we look at model-generated images does it sometimes (or even often) feel SO CLEARLY like a creative work of art? Well, most human brains are structured so that they can look at pixels but see a painting; and so that when they look at a painting they can not only see a landscape but also have an emotional reaction to the landscape.
But it's all interpretation, which can break down at any step of the process. For instance, it's hard these days to tell if the pixels that look like an apple were a photograph or a 3D rendering, because 3D rendering has been made really good at looking like a photograph, due to decades of research work. Or now maybe it's a model-generated image from the prompt "apple (fruit), photorealistic, studio lighting, product photo". But—it's not an apple. It's not even the pixels of a digital photograph of an apple. It's pixels that did really good at maximizing their "appleness" according to the model. And, the software model turned out to be a good match for your own brain's model of an apple.
It seems like the same thing happens but for the "creative" or "artwork" or "copyright-worthy" models inside your own brain. But it's not, it's just a mirage of creativity.
posted by the antecedent of that pronoun at 1:52 PM on February 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
The argument would be that if the AI generates its own prompts, it is bringing ‘something out of nowhere’ the way a creative artist would do? But I don’t think being something new is enough to make it art. I agree with people above that intention (and understanding) are required to be an artist. AI does increasingly good imitations, but absolutely does not deal in meaning. It is just producing stuff that can be mistaken for art. You can mistake a waxwork for a human being: that doesn’t mean waxworks are underperforming humans or on the path to humanity or could properly be seen as human for some purposes.
posted by Phanx at 2:10 PM on February 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Phanx at 2:10 PM on February 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: (To answer your question, I am more interested in philosophical arguments -- but this is all fascinating.)
posted by egeanin at 2:31 PM on February 12, 2023
posted by egeanin at 2:31 PM on February 12, 2023
Just wanted to add one more thought— until an AI achieves sentience (with self awareness), I don’t think it can truly “create” something. Until then, it is just a tool — a sophisticated tool, yes, but still a tool without intent.
posted by thewildgreen at 2:42 PM on February 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by thewildgreen at 2:42 PM on February 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
First off, in many ways, law is applied philosophy. Plato, Locke, Rousseau, Bentham, Rawls, Arendt, Crenshaw, etc. So, legal considerations of new issues will draw upon established law and established interpretations, as well as reach back to the philosophical debates and considerations that led to those laws to decide how to approach a uniquely new situation that encompasses aspects of previously settled considrations.
In practice, all of these current AI constructions depend on ingesting an enormous number of images to "train" and whatever they come up with is not just inspired by, but mathematically and statistically related to what has been ingested, to the point where the Getty images watermark can be recognized in the output.
At what point can the output be considered new? Philosophically, this reminds me of the "Ship of Theseus" paradox.
posted by Maxwell_Smart at 2:45 PM on February 12, 2023
In practice, all of these current AI constructions depend on ingesting an enormous number of images to "train" and whatever they come up with is not just inspired by, but mathematically and statistically related to what has been ingested, to the point where the Getty images watermark can be recognized in the output.
At what point can the output be considered new? Philosophically, this reminds me of the "Ship of Theseus" paradox.
posted by Maxwell_Smart at 2:45 PM on February 12, 2023
To me, art is not an intrinsic property of an object, but a method of engaging with it (I feel the same way about a lot of concepts such as "game", "job", "chore", "toy", "tool", "advertisement", etc). So something can be art for some people or in some contexts but not for other people in other contexts. To illustrate this, look at Duchamp's Fountain. Putting it in a gallery asks/forces people to engage with it as art, though the people who designed and manufactured it didn't have as lofty aspirations (though industrial design is absolutely a creative process and should not be pooh-poohed, especially for a urinal).
So in light of that interpretation, I would say images produced by processes (whether it's generative abstract pattern design, Google street view images, GAN "AI" images like Midjourney, or whatever, are "art" when people relate to them as "art". Having a human with a good sense of aesthetics curate the potentially infinite stream of output will definitely go a long way to making that a practical and appealing way to engage with this stuff, but curating itself is a creative process, so then it gets complicated as to who to credit.
posted by aubilenon at 3:05 PM on February 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
So in light of that interpretation, I would say images produced by processes (whether it's generative abstract pattern design, Google street view images, GAN "AI" images like Midjourney, or whatever, are "art" when people relate to them as "art". Having a human with a good sense of aesthetics curate the potentially infinite stream of output will definitely go a long way to making that a practical and appealing way to engage with this stuff, but curating itself is a creative process, so then it gets complicated as to who to credit.
posted by aubilenon at 3:05 PM on February 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
The AI is not a legal person. It cannot sign a contract, cannot benefit from a sale, can't even own a bank account, has no heirs, cannot be punished for plagiarism or anything else. Assigning it ownership of the product makes no sense except as a stunt; it's like saying that your painting was actually created by your box of paints.
This isn't to say it couldn't create a beautiful thing. So can trees, rivers, and erosion, but we don't call them artists. (Well, except as a metaphor.)
There are moral issues with creating intelligent machines, but to my mind they can't be treated as legal agents unless they also have legal rights. If they are really sentient artists, they can't also be unpaid slaves of tech corporations.
(FWIW corporations are legal persons— but they can do all of the above: sign contracts, own property, be punished, etc.)
posted by zompist at 3:33 PM on February 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
This isn't to say it couldn't create a beautiful thing. So can trees, rivers, and erosion, but we don't call them artists. (Well, except as a metaphor.)
There are moral issues with creating intelligent machines, but to my mind they can't be treated as legal agents unless they also have legal rights. If they are really sentient artists, they can't also be unpaid slaves of tech corporations.
(FWIW corporations are legal persons— but they can do all of the above: sign contracts, own property, be punished, etc.)
posted by zompist at 3:33 PM on February 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
An artist is a person, so a computer cannot be an artist. It has nothing to do with intent or originality, since artists do commissioned works and assignments all the time. Randomness and uniqueness have nothing to do with it either. Nothing is truly random or unique in the macroscopic world, whether from a computer or from a human. Can ChatGPT + Midjourney create art? Sure, art is what you make of it, from Andy Warhol's soup cans to Andy Kaufman's Mighty Mouse routine. But the programming, data and hardware that created that art is not an artist.
posted by jabah at 5:34 PM on February 12, 2023
posted by jabah at 5:34 PM on February 12, 2023
Yes. What Jabah said.
Nothing really matters except that we don't instinctively believe that an inanimate object can be an artist. Everything else is just people trying to settle something with legal arguments because that's the only avenue that remotely fits, even though it doesn't. If a chair could paint it wouldn't be an artist, because a chair isn't a person. No matter what anyone says, a computer is not self aware and it's not a person.
It's amazing that people have made programs that nobody remotely thinks are self-aware, but which can draw pretty pictures. It's amazing because they can approximate what people can do, but they're absolutely not people.
It's a problem because we don't have a definition for art - it's not a concept we can define, and I don't think a definition is possible. We can't say whether a computer generated image is art, so people get hung up on that.
It doesn't matter. An object with no self-awareness can't be an artist. A camera isn't an artist. A camera with a timer can take pictures nobody planned. It's not an artist. A spray can with a hole in it will make marks, but it's not an artist.
If you want to try for a formal definition of art, you probably can't come closer than, "Something made by an artist."
That's trivial, but I don't think you can do better, and it settles the computer art question in a way that agrees with what's perfectly obvious to both intuition and logic. A computer can't make art because there is no case you can make that says a block of switches with no trace of awareness can be an artist.
posted by AugustusCrunch at 7:25 PM on February 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
Nothing really matters except that we don't instinctively believe that an inanimate object can be an artist. Everything else is just people trying to settle something with legal arguments because that's the only avenue that remotely fits, even though it doesn't. If a chair could paint it wouldn't be an artist, because a chair isn't a person. No matter what anyone says, a computer is not self aware and it's not a person.
It's amazing that people have made programs that nobody remotely thinks are self-aware, but which can draw pretty pictures. It's amazing because they can approximate what people can do, but they're absolutely not people.
It's a problem because we don't have a definition for art - it's not a concept we can define, and I don't think a definition is possible. We can't say whether a computer generated image is art, so people get hung up on that.
It doesn't matter. An object with no self-awareness can't be an artist. A camera isn't an artist. A camera with a timer can take pictures nobody planned. It's not an artist. A spray can with a hole in it will make marks, but it's not an artist.
If you want to try for a formal definition of art, you probably can't come closer than, "Something made by an artist."
That's trivial, but I don't think you can do better, and it settles the computer art question in a way that agrees with what's perfectly obvious to both intuition and logic. A computer can't make art because there is no case you can make that says a block of switches with no trace of awareness can be an artist.
posted by AugustusCrunch at 7:25 PM on February 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
we don't have a definition for art
"Anything created at least partially for the purpose of aesthetic appreciation."
There you go.
I didn't say "created by a human" but that's implied because, at present, AI, like a dog or a monkey or a spray can with a hole in it, doesn't do things for that purpose.
posted by mmoncur at 9:15 PM on February 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
"Anything created at least partially for the purpose of aesthetic appreciation."
There you go.
I didn't say "created by a human" but that's implied because, at present, AI, like a dog or a monkey or a spray can with a hole in it, doesn't do things for that purpose.
posted by mmoncur at 9:15 PM on February 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
Personally, I consider art to be a form of communication. Art should be trying to say something to the viewer, even something as simple as "look how beautiful I found landscape" or "this is how I imagine this".
AI art isn't trying to communicate anything. The AI has nothing to tell you, it has no feelings to express or a point of view it believes in. If it generates a beautiful landscape, it does not do so because it was moved, or because it is trying to convey the sound of trees in the wind through imagery. It is just mixing a bunch of landscape objects together that seem likely to go together, and having it generate its own prompts doesn't change that.
On the other hand, a person could use AI generation to try express something themselves, and once curating or image editing gets involved, then it might be art.
But an AI image alone is not art, just like finding a rock that happens to look like a cat is not art.
posted by stillnocturnal at 2:46 AM on February 13, 2023 [4 favorites]
AI art isn't trying to communicate anything. The AI has nothing to tell you, it has no feelings to express or a point of view it believes in. If it generates a beautiful landscape, it does not do so because it was moved, or because it is trying to convey the sound of trees in the wind through imagery. It is just mixing a bunch of landscape objects together that seem likely to go together, and having it generate its own prompts doesn't change that.
On the other hand, a person could use AI generation to try express something themselves, and once curating or image editing gets involved, then it might be art.
But an AI image alone is not art, just like finding a rock that happens to look like a cat is not art.
posted by stillnocturnal at 2:46 AM on February 13, 2023 [4 favorites]
You might be interested in this article on Nelson Goodman’s philosophy of aesthetics, particularly the discussion in section 4.3 about autographic vs allographic art and the role of notational systems. It doesn’t touch on AI or any sort of computational/generative art, but it’s interesting to try to think about your question within Goodman’s framework.
posted by yarrow at 2:33 PM on February 13, 2023
posted by yarrow at 2:33 PM on February 13, 2023
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by restless_nomad at 1:06 PM on February 12, 2023 [4 favorites]