I wonder what the copyright implications of that could be. If the program claims the plagiarism bot with no copyright protection did it, is it harder to defend copyright even if it was actually done by a human?
To me it sounded like Adobe is pointing out that all digital art has an "art of the programmer upon a processor" layer. AI is a very indistinct term, so its poetic license is relatively unrestricted.
@johntinker Yes, I've read and quite enjoyed my Baudrillard, but no average person would ever believe that that was Adobe's intent, and frankly it's wildly improbable that a public relations team at a large public company would ever mean something like what you claim NY that statement.
Mark Hurst
in reply to Sarah Brown • • •Sorro
in reply to Sarah Brown • • •Sensitive content
Asbestos
in reply to Sarah Brown • • •FoolishOwl
in reply to Sarah Brown • • •ShadowInTheVoid
in reply to Sarah Brown • • •John Tinker
in reply to Sarah Brown • • •Eleanor Saitta
in reply to John Tinker • • •I can't imagine anyone actually believing that.
John Tinker
in reply to Eleanor Saitta • • •Simulacrum: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacr…
Simulacrum - Wikipedia
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Eleanor Saitta
in reply to John Tinker • • •Yes, I've read and quite enjoyed my Baudrillard, but no average person would ever believe that that was Adobe's intent, and frankly it's wildly improbable that a public relations team at a large public company would ever mean something like what you claim NY that statement.