Type B: First ChatGPT, Then Me ChatGPT’s take Prompt: Howdy ChatGPT, can you write a 250-word […]
Type B: First ChatGPT, Then Me ChatGPT: Prompt: Can you write a 250-word blog post about […]
Type B: First ChatGPT, Then Me ChatGPT’s Take: Prompt: Howdy ChatGPT, can you write a 250-word […]
Type A: Me, then ChatGPT My Take: I’m sure you’ve heard these a million times: “Video […]
Type A: First Me, Then ChatGPT My Post: When I first started taking digital humanities classes, […]
Responses to “Remix, Reimagination, or Just Plain Stealing”
It’s interesting that ChatGPT described what AI art does as remixing, reimagining, and reinterpreting. Remixing is fair, but it’s uncomfortable for me to use the words ‘imagine’ and ‘interpret’ when the AI isn’t really doing either of those things. It’s using a data set to generate something new, but it doesn’t actually know what it’s doing. Just like with AI text generation, where the AI can spout responses without actually understanding what it’s saying, AI ‘artists’ aren’t capable of interpreting what any of it means, the art they take in or the art they put out.
A good observation about the prevalence of the term “generated,” Elijah. But given Ferguson’s argument about the origins of creativity, should we be thinking about how humans “generate” art rather than “create” it?
I like your distinction between the use of “generated” and “created”. I’ve always thought of creation and creativity as things unique to humans (though there are probably exceptions), but I can definitely see how AI is starting to blur the line between what it means to create something new and to “generate” something that already is.
It’s interesting how AI calls what it does creation, while also defining inspiration as a component of innovation. Is it really inspired if you just train an art AI to include certain components in its creations? Is a remix even worth that much if there’s no meaning behind it?