Hacker News Reader

I have a hard time with the art being attributed to an 'artificial intelligence' Instead, I would attribute it to the developer/creator of the algorithm that was able to produce those pieces of art. It's hard to argue that it's not another evolution of the paintbrush.

View on HN

Agree. There seems to be a consensus in the art world about that. Do you think though that at some point the creators of the algorithm and people whose images are used as training sets etc should get some value out of it?

I think that there is a precedent for it, mainly in pop art and even more in film. You can't use other people's work to enhance your own work without giving credit.

I think that the gray area is if it's considered inspiration? We can't quantify how much we 'steal' from others in our own work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com