Tag: Sandra Aistars

On AI Removing Creative Constraints

constraints

A paper by Eleonara Rosati titled The future of the movie industry in the wake of generative AI: A perspective under EU and UK copyright law states the following:

…some have stressed the opportunities presented by the implementation of AI, including by advancing claims, like those made by AI video studio The Dor Brothers that at AI tools ‘are actually a purer form of expression, offering the most direct link between the artist’s brain and the end result, without the compromises required in large productions or the constraints that come with complex shoots’

The quote by The Dor Brothers raises a question I imagine many creators ask all the time—why use generative artificial intelligence (GAI) to produce anything? The answers will vary depending on the medium of expression—from the sculptor who says “never” to the audio-visual producer who says “all the time”—because beyond the legal issues triggered by GAI, the technology reframes the question of what it means to create works of expression in the first place. And this includes the question as to whether removing “constraints” is either conducive or harmful to the creative process.

Although motion picture production entails more non-creative constraints (e.g., large investments and complex logistics) than all other media, I would caution that even in filmmaking, constraints are generative of creativity. In the same way that working around copyright constraints tends to produce new creative expression, this is also true of the limitations inherent to each medium. Moreover, the idea that an artist does not want to confront the constraints of her chosen medium is misguided, and the passion to confront those challenges is not a matter of mere nostalgia.

I get what the Dor Brothers are saying, of course. The AV producer can go from script to screen without any of the costly and cumbersome production work that will frustrate, if not substantially alter, the original vision. Screenplay material becomes prompts, and the GAI outputs the AV material without the need for cameras, actors, sets, etc. Still, the extent to which the outputs more “purely” represent the mental conception in the “artist’s brain” is both a question of copyrightability and artistic integrity. How much control the AV prompter has over the resulting material will determine the extent to which he owns the rights in that material, but even with extensive control, the “purity” of the expression is not necessarily preserved by the removal of constraints.

Notwithstanding many useful applications of AI, including for various aspects of artistic work, all the talk about “democratizing” creative expression (i.e., without developing skills in various crafts) reprises that question Why? for many artists. If you don’t enjoy dealing with the constraints of clay, paint, words, light, sounds, etc., then you probably don’t really like the process of creative expression. Again, that’s not just luddite’s nostalgia. Creative expression (art) results when the unique, imperfect human confronts, learns from, and eventually masters the constraints of a chosen medium. As my friend Sandra Aistars, copyright professor and, recently, a fine art student, writes about the distinction between AI “training” and human learning:

… instead of predicting “what comes next,” artists studying masterworks are taught to unlock “how” the original artist has conveyed what is foundational to an image’s storytelling. This requires patience, humility and empathy on the part of the artist asking to learn. But it ends in developing one’s own aesthetic judgment and voice.

Aistars describes engaging with the constraints of visual artmaking by retracing the steps of masters in order to discover her own aesthetic. The process is physical, intellectual, and emotional at the same time, and most artists would ask why a creator would want to avoid engaging with the medium in this way. It is the act of confrontation and the artist’s unique mode of problem solving where the meaningful act of creating occurs for the individual.

Using GAI as a cheap or free assistant to write a boilerplate email or report makes sense, but the hyped-up marketing of these products, challenging users to push AI to “write poems or novels” is asking people to fool themselves. You might have a brilliant idea for a premise, but if you don’t want to grapple with the constraints of writing, you’re not a novelist any more than you’re the “boyfriend” of an AI companion.

Turning back to the Dor Bros.’ comment, because motion picture production entails thousands of constraints that are not necessarily generative of creativity, their point has some merit in certain applications of the medium. Specifically, a lot of their work appears to be commercial advertising at this time, and the utilitarian nature of marketing material, combined with the attraction of low-cost, fast-turnaround production cannot be ignored. Nevertheless, I would caution against the idea of a “pure” link between an artist’s “mental conception” and the end result by means of removing constraints.

Motion picture production still entails many constraints that are generative of creative expression. Just as Aistars chooses to wrestle with the possibilities and limitations of a particular pencil in her hand, the filmmaker has a complex set of “tools” that include the constraints of physical space, light, camera and lens characteristics, performers, writing, time, which must be confronted to find the film’s unique voice. And as any film student can tell you, working around constraints has often resulted in moments considered to be works of cinematic genius.

Naturally, GAI is already used to reduce or eliminate certain drudgeries in creative production, and although this also implies reducing or eliminating various jobs, that is a separate matter from the philosophical premise to which this post responds. In general, I am skeptical that a seamless, constraint-free transition from mental conception to creative expression is desirable, even if it is achievable. Constraints define the various artistic media, and it seems more likely that expression through GAI will evolve as its own medium with its own constraints. Otherwise, if GAI’s only purpose is to synthetically displace the creative process in all media, the results will likely be as bloodless as the computers that made them.

Photo by: Ponsulak

Techdirt’s Masnick reveals own irrelevance.

Mike Masnick, editor and founder of Techdirt often writes like a smug frat boy, substituting scorn for ideas, and is frequently careless about fact-checking. This may be be why his mantra sounds sillier every day, as he bangs on about all that is wrong with just about anyone who believes copyright still plays a role in the digital age.  Seriously, other than die-hard myrmidons, is anyone still listening to what he’s saying?  Because he’s in danger of becoming the poster child for everything that is wrong with the very things he purports to defend.

Most recently, Masnick revealed his capacity for carelessness when he wrote this blog post about an event he did not attend, focusing on two words taken way out of context, and then making no effort to confirm the basis of his tantrum.  The subject was a recent conference hosted by the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, which included panelist Sandra Aistars, CEO of Copyright Alliance. (I have worked with both organizations.) Masnick claims in his post that Aistars was “insisting that the efforts for copyright reform are really coming ‘from criminal elements’ and that no one in ‘any sort of innovative sector’ is actually on board with copyright reform.”  Had Mike bothered to wait for the video of that meeting, he might have heard  the following, in which Aistars adds to her recap of 40 years worth of debate and discussion on copyrights thus:

And an element that goes a little bit further than what we’ve heard before and almost seeks the entire elimination of intellectual property protection, and that element I think is coming in its most aggressive form not from any sort of innovative sector in any business, but is coming more from the, I’ll call them “criminal elements,” cyberlockers, entities like that who support and benefit from cyberlockers, and they are not interested intellectual property in any way, and I think those of us who rely on intellectual property in our business lives are just collateral damage. 

So, in case any Techdirt readers (or editors) need that simplified, Aistars is making a very clear distinction between real innovators — whose voices she welcomes and has always welcomed to any discussion — and actual criminals who really don’t deserve a seat at the table.

And speaking of not deserving a seat at the table, people who are incapable of presenting ideas that challenge the imagination beyond cheap sarcasm and false reporting have clearly lost contact with the nuanced evolution of this ongoing debate.  In other words, when you just start making shit up as an excuse to keep calling everyone who supports copyright a “maximalist” (whatever the hell that means), it might be a sign you’ve run out of things to say.  By coincidence, I happen to be on my way to attend a similar event hosted by CPIP as I write this, and all of the topics for discussion are written humbly in the inquisitive and not in the conspiratorial imperative that guys like Masnick like to imply.  Experienced adults are trying to solve problems and come up with new ideas; and all the sniping from the kids’ table doesn’t speak well  for the cause of the Internet as a medium for enlightened discourse.

UPDATE:  It looks like while I was writing the above, Mike updated his own post in order to both reveal the full quote in context and then stand by his bizarre assertion.  All I can say is that perhaps what Aistars ought to have said is that the copyright debate is being skewed by a criminal element and also some really stupid people.