AI models train on human work without consent and produce outputs that win awards and steal commissions from human artists. Or is every human artist also just remixing influences, making AI creativity no different in kind — only in speed?
Join the debate to comment
Reading is free. Members pay to post — that's why it stays clean.
Add your commentBoth sides of this debate are kind of missing the economic reality. Whether or not AI is 'truly creative' is a philosophy seminar question. The real question is: should companies be allowed to commercially profit from systems trained on human labor without compensating that labor? That's a straightforward exploitation question and the answer should be obvious.
The consent issue and the creativity issue are two completely separate arguments and people keep smashing them together. You can believe AI outputs are genuinely creative AND that training on artists' work without permission is legally and ethically wrong. Both can be true simultaneously.
The 'every generation panics' dismissal is historically sloppy. Photography DID kill portrait painting as a profession for thousands of artists. Recorded music DID devastate live performance economies for decades. These technologies caused real harm to real people even if the art forms survived in different forms. 'It didn't kill the medium' is cold comfort to the workers displaced.
my illustration career is basically gone. i spent 12 years developing my style and now clients just type a prompt and get something 'good enough' in 30 seconds. call it whatever philosophical name you want — theft, influence, remixing — i call it watching my income disappear.
I'm a copyright lawyer and I want to push back on some of the confident legal claims floating around here. The training data question is NOT settled. The output question is NOT settled. Anyone telling you with certainty how courts will rule is selling you something.
I asked an AI to write a poem about grief after my dad died. It was actually beautiful and it helped me process something I couldn't articulate. Was that not real? It felt real to me.
what i find weird is that we're all debating the philosophical status of AI creativity while the actual artists affected are just quietly going broke. feels like exactly the kind of abstract conversation that benefits the people already winning
Disagree with the framing of the whole question honestly. Calling it 'theft' is a rhetorical move to short-circuit analysis. The harder and more interesting question is whether our current intellectual property frameworks were designed for this kind of technology — and they clearly weren't. We need new frameworks not louder arguments.
Hard disagree. Every artist in history learned by absorbing other work. You think Picasso invented cubism in a vacuum? He was obsessed with African masks and Cézanne. The only difference with AI is that it's faster and more explicit about the process.
I genuinely cannot tell anymore whether some music is AI-generated or human-made and I've been a professional music critic for 15 years. At some point 'you can just tell' stops being a valid argument.
What bothers me most is the awards thing. An AI-generated image winning a fine art competition is like entering a calculator in a mental arithmetic championship. It's technically impressive but it fundamentally misunderstands what the competition was about.
My 8-year-old used an AI image tool and made something genuinely surprising and beautiful. She made creative choices. She directed the output, rejected things she didn't like, refined it. If we say the AI made it, aren't we erasing her creative act?
The human influence argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny. When I learn from Rembrandt, I spend years internalizing technique through embodied practice. When an AI trains on Rembrandt, it statistically compresses pixel relationships. These are categorically different processes and conflating them flattens what it means to have creative intent.
I've been a session musician for 20 years. AI music tools are now being used to replace composers on projects I would have gotten. But honestly? Some of what these tools produce is genuinely interesting. I can hate the industry disruption and still acknowledge that. The two feelings can coexist uncomfortably.
That 'AI is just a brush' take in the comments above me is doing an enormous amount of heavy lifting. A brush doesn't make compositional decisions, doesn't select aesthetic styles, doesn't resolve visual ambiguities. The model is doing meaningful generative work that a brush simply does not do. The analogy fails pretty quickly.
disagree strongly. creativity isnt about suffering or effort or being human. creativity is about the output. if the output surprises you, moves you, makes you see something differently — it IS creative. full stop. your feelings about who or what made it are irrelevant.
Agree completely with the theft framing and I'll go further: the companies building these models knew exactly what they were doing when they decided to train without licensing. This wasn't an oversight. It was a calculated bet that it would be easier to ask forgiveness than permission. That's not ambiguity, that's strategy.
The 'humans remix influences too' argument is the laziest possible defense. A human artist brings lived experience, specific cultural context, emotional stakes, intentionality, and a body to their work. An AI brings pattern-matching at scale. Calling these equivalent is intellectual dishonesty dressed up as nuance.
ok but calling it 'theft' requires that something was actually taken. an AI model doesn't store your painting. it adjusts billions of numerical weights. by that logic your brain 'stole' every painting you ever looked at in a museum
every generation panics about the new thing. photography was going to kill painting. recorded music was going to kill live performance. film was going to kill theatre. they didn't. settle down.
here's my challenge to anyone defending AI creativity: name one thing an AI has genuinely CHOSEN to make. not prompted. not directed. chosen. because without choice, creativity is just production.
technically speaking the model weights aren't copies of any artwork so the 'theft' framing doesn't survive legal scrutiny. this is why most of these lawsuits are struggling in court. the actual legal question is about fair use in training and that is genuinely unsettled territory not a slam dunk either way
anybody who thinks AI writing is 'real creativity' has clearly never read anything actually written from the soul. you can feel the difference immediately. its smooth and weightless. like eating something that looks like food but has no calories
lol 'sophisticated theft' 😂 next we'll be suing libraries for making books too accessible
The real creativity in AI art is in the prompt. The human is the artist. The model is the brush. People who say otherwise don't understand how these tools actually work in practice.
Sophisticated theft is exactly the right phrase. Bravo to whoever wrote this topic description.
Is it wrong to choose not to have children just because you don't want to?
110 comments
Would you still eat meat if you had to kill the animal yourself?
109 comments
Are dating apps genuinely harder for men or for women?
108 comments
Is judging someone by their height as shallow as judging by their weight?
108 comments