contest

It seems like an eternity has passed, but in 2022, AI image generation tools were already achieving the most convincing results. And if not, tell the participants in the Colorado art contest, who saw how An image created with Midjourney took first prize in the ‘digital art’ category. The controversy was afoot: can we call something that an AI does art? Its author is very clear about this and has gone to court to defend it. What has happened? Jason Allen, the author of the image (or rather, the prompt), tried to register ‘Théâtre D’opéra Spatial’ a month after winning the contest, but was not allowed. According to the US Copyright Officethe image contains “more than a minimal amount of artificial intelligence-generated content.” Allen began a legal battle to get the image registered. According to what they say in 404medialast August they filed a request in court defending that it is a work of art and Allen an artist. The prompt. Although it was created by software, Allen states that the creation of the prompt is an artistic process in itself and therefore should be considered an artist. In the text presented to the court, his lawyers defend that “he created the image by providing hundreds of iterative text prompts (…) to help express his intellectual vision.” However, for the copyright office, just providing the instructions was not enough and they repeatedly rejected his request. Art or not. The news unleashed a wave of criticism on networks and brought to the table the debate of whether images generated with AI should be considered art. This controversy has polarized the artistic and technological community, creating two marked and opposing positions: on the one hand, those who They consider that it cannot be considered art because it lacks human intentionality, on the other hand those who defend that AI is one more tool with which the artist expresses himselfjust like a brush, a graphics tablet or a camera. It’s not the first time. Art has faced more debates like this and there is a very clear example. The same thing is happening with AI that happened with photography in the 19th century; was rejected by defenders of drawing and paintingwho saw their jobs threatened by new technology. More than a century later, photography is considered art and fills galleries and museums. And most importantly, the painting still exists. The intention. The debate arises when mechanical means come into play. In the case of photography it was the camera and with AI it is software, very complex but software nonetheless. If we accept that photography, digital illustration or 3D modeling are art, AI can be too. The key that makes the difference is the intention behind it. Setting any prompt and sticking with the first result that comes to mind is not the same as having a clear idea, a story to tell, a feeling to express, and looking for the result that captures it as best as possible. Of course, it would be fair that those works compete in their own category. The problem. AI has turned the art community against it from the beginning. Image generators, especially the first ones, were trained with countless works of art by authors who received nothing in return. Some authors they began to “poison” their works for AI to go crazy and there are several initiatives that artists can join to prevent your jobs from ending up training AI. Image | Jason Allen and Midjourney In Xataka | Either you pay or we will use your works to train AI: the threat of hackers to an artists’ website