Also, goodness knows, I know artists who use machine learning as a tool in making art. And some of it is great! (Some of it isn’t, but that’s the way of all things). But notably, the machine bit of that art is incidental. It’s technical.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
I can’t really imagine why AI would change my strong feeling that The Specials should be compensated despite not making a thing that is specifically at the outer bounds of creativity/innovation. Or why I would not see it as a real loss that fewer people can be so compensated now.
I get that my thread here is about a separate issue, to a degree, but I think it’s relevant. I think we ought to have wide understanding of what constitutes a kind of “citation” in making art that should not trigger a compensation to the cited.
But inasmuch as this seems to revolve around a combination of knowledge and innovation/creativity, it seems like a problem that despite a long tradition of thinking about it in both theory and practice, I don’t think there’s a really satisfying account of what innovation or creativity is in art.
Yeah, no, I also don’t. I think maybe it does operate differently, but I’m not certain of that. I can say that I enjoy more iterations of very similar art than iterations of very similar scholarship. But not in a categorical way. My guess is if there is a difference it is of degree, not kind.
Comments
I don’t know. But I also don’t think I know for sure that originality works in a very different way in, say, fiction & music than it does in research.