And yet so many of the debates around this new formation of media and creativity come down to the grey space between what is inspiration and what is plagiarism.

Even if everyone agreed with your point, and I think broadly they do, it doesn't settle the debate.

[–] wetnoodle@sopuli.xyz 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The real problem is that ai will never ever be able to make art without using content copied from other artists which is absolutely plagiarism

[–] SleepyPie@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

But an artist cannot be inspired without content from other artists. I don’t agree to the word “copied” here either, because it is not copying when it creates something new.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, unless they lived in a cave with some pigments, everyone started by being inspired in some way.

[–] wetnoodle@sopuli.xyz 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

But nobody's starts by downloading and pulling elements of all living and dead artists works without reference or license, it is not the same.

[–] SleepyPie@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

I’m sure many artists would love having ultimate knowledge about all art relevant to their craft - it just hasn’t been feasible. Perhaps if art-generating AI could correctly cite their references it would be more acceptable for commercial use.