Technology

For that, you need the human artist

Art isn't defined by the creator, but the observer. I can run a line through a piece of paper and call it art as a joke, but perhaps someone sees some form of message in the line and it impacts them. The meaningless becomes meaningful only because it is viewed through a being that can assign meaning to nonsense.

And even then, you can still make images that aren’t trees which will fool an ML model into saying they are

You can make an image that isn't a tree that will fool humans into saying they are. So what?

They work nothing like humans. The similarities are superficial, at best We do not shuffle our neurons around until we get it right.

Please explain to me how these two things are different.

a) human goes through and studies the more than 20,000 works of andy warhol. he is inspired and creates various different artworks in a similar style.

b) AI goes through and parses the same 20,000 works on andy warhol. it uses a statistical algorithm to pump out various different artworks in a similar style.

What is the difference? Because a) isn't copyright infringement. You are allowed to take a style and copy it. Only specific works can be copyrighted.

You are trying to claim the AI and human learning is different - and it IS different because we are biological and machines are statistical models. You can find a million similarities and a million differences. But specifically, in the context of using copyrighted works to make novel content - what is the difference? To me, it looks identical

1- take in data 2- use data to create new things

Why should a) be allowed and b) not be allowed?