They have been the same for most of history. People could openly copy titles, plots, parts, phrases, etc from prior work. Same for mechanical designs. The only thing preventing them was obscurity (e.g. the inventor trying to make it hidden) not any law or ethical idea that it's bad (there wasn't any). That's how things from math to gears to tunes got better (or changed over time, in the case of art, as better/worse is subjective there).
E.g. globally and historically folk music has been basically taking whatever you want from tunes and songs where everybody does the same with no "permission" asked or needed to be given.
Like 4 verses but want to add a fifth or change some part? Go ahead. Want to play it exactly like you've heard it? Go ahead again.
The idea of "theft" in that regard came in the last 2 or so centuries, and was enforced with artificial legal barriers and new "ethical" concepts that are neither "natural", not present for the vast majority of history (including golden ages of art production).
Not sure why I'm being downvoted here - I agree that this idea has been the same for most of history.
Your example of folk music is an odd one, for exactly that reason - it largely repurposes existing art. For example, Wagner wrote extensively about why we shouldn't respect folk music for this reason. I mostly disagree with him, but his comparison at least illuminates that this isn't so black and white. And that's really just scratching the surface of a complex topic.
I sense that if someone came along 2400 years ago with the exact play that Sophocles had just produced and claimed they had just composed it themselves, immediately after a public performance, someone would claim that theft had occurred. Do you disagree?
>I sense that if someone came along 2400 years ago with the exact play that Sophocles had just produced and claimed they had just composed it themselves, immediately after a public performance, someone would claim that theft had occurred. Do you disagree?
Yes. They would say it was "plagiarism", which is different than theft.
>because nobody gives a sht about art created by AIs. And nobody will.*
You'd be surprised. Especially if people don't care/are told/whether it's "created by AI or not".
Whether in "high art" or lowly pop, "generative music" (and fine art) has long been a thing. And people do attach to it (e.g. to Brian Eno's generative works made by rule based systems he programs).
No, I will not be surprised. Outliers are outliers.
"Art" created by AIs will just have price (and cost) of ~0 and, like everything that has a price/cost of 0, nobody will give a sh*t about it. The only real question is how will human artists (provided they exist in your preferred dystopia) will prove that they have created something themselves.
>No, I will not be surprised. Outliers are outliers. "Art" created by AIs will just have price (and cost) of ~0 and, like everything that has a price/cost of 0, nobody will give a sht about it.*
Art doesn't touch people because it has cost.
In fact, for ages certain types of art had no cost - poetry, public festivals, and so on. And many still don't (e.g. free punk/underground/indie/etc public performances), Soundcloud music, and so on.
Most movies and series seen on TV are also ~0 (and for kids, everything is ~0, as their parents foot the bill), but they're still touched by them.
>The only real question is how will human artists (provided they exist in your preferred dystopia) will prove that they have created something themselves.
Note the loaded words "your preffered dystopia" (who says whether I prefer it or not? I merely describe what's the case. You have some ethical/political point to make).
As for the answer to the question, they wont have to. People respond to the quality of the work, not who made it (and whether they used AI or chance - another popular method - or not).
In fact tons of genius artists have described themselves not as the creators but as "mere conduits", and say the music/words/etc come from "elsewhere" (implying god, some muse, some spirit, etc). Especially when they fell the most "inspired" (the word itself means "visited by the spirit").
None of those things had zero price and zero cost. The fact that the consumer didn't pay directly for them is irrelevant.
You can try testing your theory by trying to sell a "painting" created by DALLE/whatever for more than a third-rate amateur painter can sell one of his. Good luck with that, especially when access to the model becomes easy.
>People respond to the quality of the work, not who made it
This is so painfully incorrect and naive (and contra anything we know about the value of everything which creation has been automated before) that I think it's meaningless to continue this conversation.
>You can try testing your theory by trying to sell a "painting" created by DALLE/whatever for more than a third-rate amateur painter can sell one of his. Good luck with that, especially when access to the model becomes easy.
As if that proves anything? Sale price is irrelevant. There are paintings sold for millions that 99.9% of the people could not give less fucks for, and "amateur painter" stuff that touch most people who see them.
It's also not like a $2 million in production costs Michael Jackson song with $50M sales is "better" artistically (as opposed to commercially) than a song composed and played by some random guy on an acoustic for ~0.
>This is so painfully incorrect and naive (and contra anything we know about the value of everything which creation has been automated before) that I think it's meaningless to continue this conversation.
It was meaningless to begin with, as you don't discuss, you present your "ultimate truth" ("contra anything we know", lol).
In fact there are tons of works where the creator is anonymous (from folk music and art to early house, techno and rave music, a scene with cherished anonymity), and people respond to it just fine...
> The idea of "theft" in that regard came in the last 2 or so centuries, and was enforced with artificial legal barriers and new "ethical" concepts that are neither "natural", not present for the vast majority of history
This is true for other forms of property as well, like land ownership.
They have been the same for most of history. People could openly copy titles, plots, parts, phrases, etc from prior work. Same for mechanical designs. The only thing preventing them was obscurity (e.g. the inventor trying to make it hidden) not any law or ethical idea that it's bad (there wasn't any). That's how things from math to gears to tunes got better (or changed over time, in the case of art, as better/worse is subjective there).
E.g. globally and historically folk music has been basically taking whatever you want from tunes and songs where everybody does the same with no "permission" asked or needed to be given.
Like 4 verses but want to add a fifth or change some part? Go ahead. Want to play it exactly like you've heard it? Go ahead again.
The idea of "theft" in that regard came in the last 2 or so centuries, and was enforced with artificial legal barriers and new "ethical" concepts that are neither "natural", not present for the vast majority of history (including golden ages of art production).