Like, when you go and look at what people who are using AI art generators say about artists, their complete and total spite, hatred, and jealousy for the people and the process, their complete lack of respect for actual artistry, there is no way to reasonably walk away thinking this tool is good for artists.
I think if it really gets down to it and we really are plunged into that horrible dark world, competent artists could learn how to integrate AI stuff into their pipeline pretty easily. A couple of weekends of fiddling, maybe.
The AI stuff is specifically designed to be not much of a skillset.
Until then, you're better off not touching it and just drawing hands.
Because in the dark world, a lot of your commissions are going to pay double digits and involve correcting AI generated digits.
I think "learn whatever skills you have to to stay competitive!" is also forgetting that art is a creative endeavor. it isn't just churning out a product for money. I mean it can also be that, but ostensibly an artist is making things that they want to make, in the way that they want to do it. telling someone to stop doing things the way they want and only focus on what's going to keep them in some kind of market is a great way to burn people out and drive them away and, let's see, yes my notes say this is already a huge problem!
Nobody is telling anyone to stop making art. How many artists are making a profession out of their own creative fulfillment without having to adhere to any capitalistic pressure? Only the very fortunate few. Our society is not built to encourage that at all.
And these algorithms will only make it harder for artists to make a living as an artist. Are you trying to put forth the argument that art is somehow purer when it is divorced from being produced as a commodity? Because I have some news for you about the history of and current state of how art has been and continues to be produced.
Honestly not sure how you can make these sorts of statements about how hard it is for artists to make it, and also advocate for the propagation of these algorithms.
I'm not qualified to say what art is or is not "pure." If anything I think the opponents of AI are making a value judgment that the art is not pure unless a human makes the brush strokes. Personally I think what matters is the origin of the idea and the eye to detail in polishing the result. In my view, AI is an extremely powerful tool for putting creativity to paper - I think the basic "write a one-sentence prompt, get an image" interaction is only the most rudimentary form of this tech, the real work comes in the refinement.
As far as the workforce goes, there's no way to discuss that without discussing marketable skills. What skills are valuable to society changes over time with technological progress, and it is changing right now. What it means to work as an artist has changed a great deal since the advent of the computer, and that process is not over yet. It is true that we probably won't need as many artists in the workforce in the future, since fewer people can create more art. You can say the same of every white collar job. We have to figure out how to adapt to that as a society, not focus all our energy in denying it.
I think "learn whatever skills you have to to stay competitive!" is also forgetting that art is a creative endeavor. it isn't just churning out a product for money. I mean it can also be that, but ostensibly an artist is making things that they want to make, in the way that they want to do it. telling someone to stop doing things the way they want and only focus on what's going to keep them in some kind of market is a great way to burn people out and drive them away and, let's see, yes my notes say this is already a huge problem!
Nobody is telling anyone to stop making art. How many artists are making a profession out of their own creative fulfillment without having to adhere to any capitalistic pressure? Only the very fortunate few. Our society is not built to encourage that at all.
And these algorithms will only make it harder for artists to make a living as an artist. Are you trying to put forth the argument that art is somehow purer when it is divorced from being produced as a commodity? Because I have some news for you about the history of and current state of how art has been and continues to be produced.
Honestly not sure how you can make these sorts of statements about how hard it is for artists to make it, and also advocate for the propagation of these algorithms.
I'm not qualified to say what art is or is not "pure." If anything I think the opponents of AI are making a value judgment that the art is not pure unless a human makes the brush strokes. Personally I think what matters is the origin of the idea and the eye to detail in polishing the result. In my view, AI is an extremely powerful tool for putting creativity to paper - I think the basic "write a one-sentence prompt, get an image" interaction is only the most rudimentary form of this tech, the real work comes in the refinement.
As far as the workforce goes, there's no way to discuss that without discussing marketable skills. What skills are valuable to society changes over time with technological progress, and it is changing right now. What it means to work as an artist has changed a great deal since the advent of the computer, and that process is not over yet. It is true that we probably won't need as many artists in the workforce in the future, since fewer people can create more art. You can say the same of every white collar job. We have to figure out how to adapt to that as a society, not focus all our energy in denying it.
Adapting society is easy, we just need universal basic income, or to stop automating people out of being able to make a living.
The way our society "adapts" to that is you start fighting for one of the jobs that hasnt been automated out. Im not interested in being another rat scrambling over all the others to stay above the waterline.
There is not a single "skill" involved in using art-theft tech that couldn't be developed in another, less-predatory and malicious environment
You could get good with a knife by stabbing a bunch of people, or you could maybe get into whittling, you know
The only reason to prioritize that environment, that means of developing those "skills," is to willfully devalue human expression and connection because it's more profitable to do so
We cant stop this one particular implementation of a technology, thats unrealistic. Instead we have to fundamentally rework our entire economic model while also constantly retreating from capital interests.
The way our society "adapts" to that is you start fighting for one of the jobs that hasnt been automated out. Im not interested in being another rat scrambling over all the others to stay above the waterline.
I mean, yes, the fact is that we're running out of things for humans to do. This is the culmination of a process that started centuries ago, if not longer. Nobody thus far has been successful in slowing it. I think all of these same arguments were made about every stage of technological progress that came before. And yes I'm sure there were victims back then too that we should have taken better care of as we advanced. But I don't see a lot of ideas about that being advocated for, only full-throated opposition to the technology.
I am pretty sure I've said it before in this thread but you can really see how much someone knows about graphic design when they're insisting you can just automate levels of art to replace the work of an artist and have a couple employees churn out more art for less money, effectively acting as editors
When even the more corporate friendly art like logo design requires a pretty fucking competent artist to build a brand identity, design a small memorable and simple piece that people will associate with who you are and what you do, and that will integrate with business cards, web dev, printouts, etc
Automating even that is going to take away the human level of creativity required to make active decisions on what that look should be, and it would result in a vast difference in quality from purpose built design
Also if we're talking about technology that is failing because of groups of people actively shutting down the idea of it due to how poorly it is gonna treat artists, NFTs are right there
The way our society "adapts" to that is you start fighting for one of the jobs that hasnt been automated out. Im not interested in being another rat scrambling over all the others to stay above the waterline.
I mean, yes, the fact is that we're running out of things for humans to do. This is the culmination of a process that started centuries ago, if not longer. Nobody thus far has been successful in slowing it. I think all of these same arguments were made about every stage of technological progress that came before. And yes I'm sure there were victims back then too that we should have taken better care of as we advanced. But I don't see a lot of ideas about that being advocated for, only full-throated opposition to the technology.
The basic shortcoming in your position here is you want a better world on a wide scale while arguing for thr futility of changing it on a small one.
Anyway, most of the pro ai arguments miss what the entire argument for automation has been for over a century, to free us from time spent doing dangerous drudgery so that we could soebd time doing things like art. Now capitalism is gearing up to tell us to stop being artists and get back to the drudgery.
Automation has actually been involved with recreation for quite a while; chess is a good example but hardly the only one where machines have found a niche without destroying the concept.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
If these AI programs are creating original works, how is it theft?
They aren't creating original works, because the tech is built by and for theft
My understanding is that the images they create are unique, depending on prompts entered by users. They're not just copies of exist artwork.
How do you think they learn what stuff looks like? They're trained on huge volumes of existing images that are fed into them. They only know what they're shown, they can't create this art from their imaginations because they don't have them. They remix and morph and regenerate existing works. They may not be 1 to 1 copies but they have to be made up of elements that are already out there. There are plenty of examples of these programs generating images that still have the mangled remains of the artist's signatures on the images they were trained on
I think "learn whatever skills you have to to stay competitive!" is also forgetting that art is a creative endeavor. it isn't just churning out a product for money. I mean it can also be that, but ostensibly an artist is making things that they want to make, in the way that they want to do it. telling someone to stop doing things the way they want and only focus on what's going to keep them in some kind of market is a great way to burn people out and drive them away and, let's see, yes my notes say this is already a huge problem!
Nobody is telling anyone to stop making art. How many artists are making a profession out of their own creative fulfillment without having to adhere to any capitalistic pressure? Only the very fortunate few. Our society is not built to encourage that at all.
The way our society "adapts" to that is you start fighting for one of the jobs that hasnt been automated out. Im not interested in being another rat scrambling over all the others to stay above the waterline.
I mean, yes, the fact is that we're running out of things for humans to do. This is the culmination of a process that started centuries ago, if not longer. Nobody thus far has been successful in slowing it. I think all of these same arguments were made about every stage of technological progress that came before. And yes I'm sure there were victims back then too that we should have taken better care of as we advanced. But I don't see a lot of ideas about that being advocated for, only full-throated opposition to the technology.
The basic shortcoming in your position here is you want a better world on a wide scale while arguing for thr futility of changing it on a small one.
Anyway, most of the pro ai arguments miss what the entire argument for automation has been for over a century, to free us from time spent doing dangerous drudgery so that we could soebd time doing things like art. Now capitalism is gearing up to tell us to stop being artists and get back to the drudgery.
I think it depends what your definition of "drudgery" is. In my view, work being done in a more labor-intensive way than is necessary is drudgery. I can only find meaning in my work if I know that what I'm doing has a purpose, and that I'm making effective use of my own abilities. Work is different than a hobby in this way. If I knew that an AI can do in milliseconds what would take me hours, spending those hours would feel like drudgery. And the unavoidable reality is that yes, AI can do that, we know that now. So in my mind there's no putting that cat back in the bag. To keep living in a society where we continue to do things manually without AI would be the same as having intentionally regressed.
Let's say US lawmakers outlaw AI generated art. What about the other countries that are using it to the fullest? Nothing that we produce would be competitive. Our cultural output would be insignificant next to theirs. It would be like if we were writing books by hand while other countries had the printing press. Would we also outlaw the consumption of their work?
The way our society "adapts" to that is you start fighting for one of the jobs that hasnt been automated out. Im not interested in being another rat scrambling over all the others to stay above the waterline.
I mean, yes, the fact is that we're running out of things for humans to do. This is the culmination of a process that started centuries ago, if not longer. Nobody thus far has been successful in slowing it. I think all of these same arguments were made about every stage of technological progress that came before. And yes I'm sure there were victims back then too that we should have taken better care of as we advanced. But I don't see a lot of ideas about that being advocated for, only full-throated opposition to the technology.
The basic shortcoming in your position here is you want a better world on a wide scale while arguing for thr futility of changing it on a small one.
Anyway, most of the pro ai arguments miss what the entire argument for automation has been for over a century, to free us from time spent doing dangerous drudgery so that we could soebd time doing things like art. Now capitalism is gearing up to tell us to stop being artists and get back to the drudgery.
I think it depends what your definition of "drudgery" is. In my view, work being done in a more labor-intensive way than is necessary is drudgery. I can only find meaning in my work if I know that what I'm doing has a purpose, and that I'm making effective use of my own abilities. Work is different than a hobby in this way. If I knew that an AI can do in milliseconds what would take me hours, spending those hours would feel like drudgery. And the unavoidable reality is that yes, AI can do that, we know that now. So in my mind there's no putting that cat back in the bag. To keep living in a society where we continue to do things manually without AI would be the same as having intentionally regressed.
Let's say US lawmakers outlaw AI generated art. What about the other countries that are using it to the fullest? Nothing that we produce would be competitive. Our cultural output would be insignificant next to theirs. It would be like if we were writing books by hand while other countries had the printing press. Would we also outlaw the consumption of their work?
i don't understand what your relationship to art is that you can imagine being drowned in ai-generated art that resonates with you more than things a human being made
Checking my GDP spreadsheet under the "art" column, seeing how many arts I gotta sell to Australia to get outta the goddamn red in time for the Q2 shareholder meeting
If these AI programs are creating original works, how is it theft?
It's... interesting to me how algorithmic proponents keep trying to phrase things like these algorithms are completely unique, uncharted territory.
But there's actually a long history already established concerning people taking existing, copyrighted works and creating new, original works with them.
Which is why, for example, you have to pay and credit music artists when you sample them.
The way our society "adapts" to that is you start fighting for one of the jobs that hasnt been automated out. Im not interested in being another rat scrambling over all the others to stay above the waterline.
I mean, yes, the fact is that we're running out of things for humans to do. This is the culmination of a process that started centuries ago, if not longer. Nobody thus far has been successful in slowing it. I think all of these same arguments were made about every stage of technological progress that came before. And yes I'm sure there were victims back then too that we should have taken better care of as we advanced. But I don't see a lot of ideas about that being advocated for, only full-throated opposition to the technology.
The basic shortcoming in your position here is you want a better world on a wide scale while arguing for thr futility of changing it on a small one.
Anyway, most of the pro ai arguments miss what the entire argument for automation has been for over a century, to free us from time spent doing dangerous drudgery so that we could soebd time doing things like art. Now capitalism is gearing up to tell us to stop being artists and get back to the drudgery.
I think it depends what your definition of "drudgery" is. In my view, work being done in a more labor-intensive way than is necessary is drudgery. I can only find meaning in my work if I know that what I'm doing has a purpose, and that I'm making effective use of my own abilities. Work is different than a hobby in this way. If I knew that an AI can do in milliseconds what would take me hours, spending those hours would feel like drudgery. And the unavoidable reality is that yes, AI can do that, we know that now. So in my mind there's no putting that cat back in the bag. To keep living in a society where we continue to do things manually without AI would be the same as having intentionally regressed.
Let's say US lawmakers outlaw AI generated art. What about the other countries that are using it to the fullest? Nothing that we produce would be competitive. Our cultural output would be insignificant next to theirs. It would be like if we were writing books by hand while other countries had the printing press. Would we also outlaw the consumption of their work?
Cultural Output isn't just by quantity, but by quality.
Also the US already pumps out a lot of art that is consumed around the world. We don't need the advantage.
The US is probably one of the least likely, if not the least likely, countries to ban ai art
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The way our society "adapts" to that is you start fighting for one of the jobs that hasnt been automated out. Im not interested in being another rat scrambling over all the others to stay above the waterline.
I mean, yes, the fact is that we're running out of things for humans to do. This is the culmination of a process that started centuries ago, if not longer. Nobody thus far has been successful in slowing it. I think all of these same arguments were made about every stage of technological progress that came before. And yes I'm sure there were victims back then too that we should have taken better care of as we advanced. But I don't see a lot of ideas about that being advocated for, only full-throated opposition to the technology.
The basic shortcoming in your position here is you want a better world on a wide scale while arguing for thr futility of changing it on a small one.
Anyway, most of the pro ai arguments miss what the entire argument for automation has been for over a century, to free us from time spent doing dangerous drudgery so that we could soebd time doing things like art. Now capitalism is gearing up to tell us to stop being artists and get back to the drudgery.
I think it depends what your definition of "drudgery" is. In my view, work being done in a more labor-intensive way than is necessary is drudgery. I can only find meaning in my work if I know that what I'm doing has a purpose, and that I'm making effective use of my own abilities. Work is different than a hobby in this way. If I knew that an AI can do in milliseconds what would take me hours, spending those hours would feel like drudgery. And the unavoidable reality is that yes, AI can do that, we know that now. So in my mind there's no putting that cat back in the bag. To keep living in a society where we continue to do things manually without AI would be the same as having intentionally regressed.
Let's say US lawmakers outlaw AI generated art. What about the other countries that are using it to the fullest? Nothing that we produce would be competitive. Our cultural output would be insignificant next to theirs. It would be like if we were writing books by hand while other countries had the printing press. Would we also outlaw the consumption of their work?
i don't understand what your relationship to art is that you can imagine being drowned in ai-generated art that resonates with you more than things a human being made
See now you're making the complete opposite argument - that human work has unique properties that AI can't replicate. If this is the case, then why are we concerned about artists losing their jobs? Is it everyone else who is wrong to be satisfied with something that an AI made?
Let's say US lawmakers outlaw AI generated art. What about the other countries that are using it to the fullest? Nothing that we produce would be competitive. Our cultural output would be insignificant next to theirs. It would be like if we were writing books by hand while other countries had the printing press. Would we also outlaw the consumption of their work?
I'm sorry but this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard, and also one of the saddest. The cultural output of a country being greater or more significant because they can do more, faster, is so wrong-headed I don't even know where to start. it misses the point of art completely.
The way our society "adapts" to that is you start fighting for one of the jobs that hasnt been automated out. Im not interested in being another rat scrambling over all the others to stay above the waterline.
I mean, yes, the fact is that we're running out of things for humans to do. This is the culmination of a process that started centuries ago, if not longer. Nobody thus far has been successful in slowing it. I think all of these same arguments were made about every stage of technological progress that came before. And yes I'm sure there were victims back then too that we should have taken better care of as we advanced. But I don't see a lot of ideas about that being advocated for, only full-throated opposition to the technology.
The basic shortcoming in your position here is you want a better world on a wide scale while arguing for thr futility of changing it on a small one.
Anyway, most of the pro ai arguments miss what the entire argument for automation has been for over a century, to free us from time spent doing dangerous drudgery so that we could soebd time doing things like art. Now capitalism is gearing up to tell us to stop being artists and get back to the drudgery.
I think it depends what your definition of "drudgery" is. In my view, work being done in a more labor-intensive way than is necessary is drudgery. I can only find meaning in my work if I know that what I'm doing has a purpose, and that I'm making effective use of my own abilities. Work is different than a hobby in this way. If I knew that an AI can do in milliseconds what would take me hours, spending those hours would feel like drudgery. And the unavoidable reality is that yes, AI can do that, we know that now. So in my mind there's no putting that cat back in the bag. To keep living in a society where we continue to do things manually without AI would be the same as having intentionally regressed.
Let's say US lawmakers outlaw AI generated art. What about the other countries that are using it to the fullest? Nothing that we produce would be competitive. Our cultural output would be insignificant next to theirs. It would be like if we were writing books by hand while other countries had the printing press. Would we also outlaw the consumption of their work?
i don't understand what your relationship to art is that you can imagine being drowned in ai-generated art that resonates with you more than things a human being made
See now you're making the complete opposite argument - that human work has unique properties that AI can't replicate. If this is the case, then why are we concerned about artists losing their jobs? Is it everyone else who is wrong to be satisfied with something that an AI made?
Artists will lose their job because people would much rather pay the AI company $8 a month rather than commissioning an artist because it's faster and cheaper because the AI doesn't have the time invested the artist did to learn all the skills that makes their art look good and they can't pump out a mediocre portrait in seconds.
The way our society "adapts" to that is you start fighting for one of the jobs that hasnt been automated out. Im not interested in being another rat scrambling over all the others to stay above the waterline.
I mean, yes, the fact is that we're running out of things for humans to do. This is the culmination of a process that started centuries ago, if not longer. Nobody thus far has been successful in slowing it. I think all of these same arguments were made about every stage of technological progress that came before. And yes I'm sure there were victims back then too that we should have taken better care of as we advanced. But I don't see a lot of ideas about that being advocated for, only full-throated opposition to the technology.
The basic shortcoming in your position here is you want a better world on a wide scale while arguing for thr futility of changing it on a small one.
Anyway, most of the pro ai arguments miss what the entire argument for automation has been for over a century, to free us from time spent doing dangerous drudgery so that we could soebd time doing things like art. Now capitalism is gearing up to tell us to stop being artists and get back to the drudgery.
I think it depends what your definition of "drudgery" is. In my view, work being done in a more labor-intensive way than is necessary is drudgery. I can only find meaning in my work if I know that what I'm doing has a purpose, and that I'm making effective use of my own abilities. Work is different than a hobby in this way. If I knew that an AI can do in milliseconds what would take me hours, spending those hours would feel like drudgery. And the unavoidable reality is that yes, AI can do that, we know that now. So in my mind there's no putting that cat back in the bag. To keep living in a society where we continue to do things manually without AI would be the same as having intentionally regressed.
Let's say US lawmakers outlaw AI generated art. What about the other countries that are using it to the fullest? Nothing that we produce would be competitive. Our cultural output would be insignificant next to theirs. It would be like if we were writing books by hand while other countries had the printing press. Would we also outlaw the consumption of their work?
Cultural Output isn't just by quantity, but by quality.
Also the US already pumps out a lot of art that is consumed around the world. We don't need the advantage.
The way our society "adapts" to that is you start fighting for one of the jobs that hasnt been automated out. Im not interested in being another rat scrambling over all the others to stay above the waterline.
I mean, yes, the fact is that we're running out of things for humans to do. This is the culmination of a process that started centuries ago, if not longer. Nobody thus far has been successful in slowing it. I think all of these same arguments were made about every stage of technological progress that came before. And yes I'm sure there were victims back then too that we should have taken better care of as we advanced. But I don't see a lot of ideas about that being advocated for, only full-throated opposition to the technology.
The basic shortcoming in your position here is you want a better world on a wide scale while arguing for thr futility of changing it on a small one.
Anyway, most of the pro ai arguments miss what the entire argument for automation has been for over a century, to free us from time spent doing dangerous drudgery so that we could soebd time doing things like art. Now capitalism is gearing up to tell us to stop being artists and get back to the drudgery.
I think it depends what your definition of "drudgery" is. In my view, work being done in a more labor-intensive way than is necessary is drudgery. I can only find meaning in my work if I know that what I'm doing has a purpose, and that I'm making effective use of my own abilities. Work is different than a hobby in this way. If I knew that an AI can do in milliseconds what would take me hours, spending those hours would feel like drudgery. And the unavoidable reality is that yes, AI can do that, we know that now. So in my mind there's no putting that cat back in the bag. To keep living in a society where we continue to do things manually without AI would be the same as having intentionally regressed.
Let's say US lawmakers outlaw AI generated art. What about the other countries that are using it to the fullest? Nothing that we produce would be competitive. Our cultural output would be insignificant next to theirs. It would be like if we were writing books by hand while other countries had the printing press. Would we also outlaw the consumption of their work?
People in other countries can write code and yet there's plenty of people in the US fully employed to write software
Comparing AI art to a fucking printing press is so absolutely laughable I barely know how to confront the idea on a serious level. There isn't going to be some kind of renaissance because AI art exists, it's just going to replace people who post logo design competitions and put up $50 as the grand prize
Let's say US lawmakers outlaw AI generated art. What about the other countries that are using it to the fullest? Nothing that we produce would be competitive. Our cultural output would be insignificant next to theirs. It would be like if we were writing books by hand while other countries had the printing press. Would we also outlaw the consumption of their work?
I'm sorry but this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard, and also one of the saddest. The cultural output of a country being greater or more significant because they can do more, faster, is so wrong-headed I don't even know where to start. it misses the point of art completely.
You are making a value judgment that art produced with the assistance of AI is somehow worse, "sadder", than art drawn by hand. Why would that be the case? AI is a tool. Those countries have artists too, they're just using much more powerful tools than us.
Let's say US lawmakers outlaw AI generated art. What about the other countries that are using it to the fullest? Nothing that we produce would be competitive. Our cultural output would be insignificant next to theirs. It would be like if we were writing books by hand while other countries had the printing press. Would we also outlaw the consumption of their work?
I'm going to ask you to think really hard about this analogy you just made.
Can you spot a big reason as to why it is flawed?
Rhetorical question, of course. A book, whether copied by hand or copied by printing press, is still originally written by a human with conscious, deliberate process undertaken in the creation of the work.
A work deliberately made by a human being is fundamentally different than a work generated unthinkingly by an algorithm, following opaque processes that are inscrutable and unexplainable.
This is entirely removed from any philosophical debate about how one defines "art."
Algorithmic proponents have taken a liking to acting like all technology throughout human history is somehow comparable and equivalent, but that falls apart under pretty basic scrutiny, as above.
Let's say US lawmakers outlaw AI generated art. What about the other countries that are using it to the fullest? Nothing that we produce would be competitive. Our cultural output would be insignificant next to theirs. It would be like if we were writing books by hand while other countries had the printing press. Would we also outlaw the consumption of their work?
I'm sorry but this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard, and also one of the saddest. The cultural output of a country being greater or more significant because they can do more, faster, is so wrong-headed I don't even know where to start. it misses the point of art completely.
You are making a value judgment that art produced with the assistance of AI is somehow worse, "sadder", than art drawn by hand. Why would that be the case? AI is a tool. Those countries have artists too, they're just using much more powerful tools than us.
You're honestly just showing how little you know about art, as a form or an industry, with these posts
I've tried to write like five different responses but at the end of the day, I don't know. You've got multiple people going "I don't even know where to begin to refute this". Your conception of reality is so far afield of the lived world that the rest of us are in that it's very difficult to approach. Treat that how you will.
Posts
The AI stuff is specifically designed to be not much of a skillset.
Until then, you're better off not touching it and just drawing hands.
Because in the dark world, a lot of your commissions are going to pay double digits and involve correcting AI generated digits.
I'm not qualified to say what art is or is not "pure." If anything I think the opponents of AI are making a value judgment that the art is not pure unless a human makes the brush strokes. Personally I think what matters is the origin of the idea and the eye to detail in polishing the result. In my view, AI is an extremely powerful tool for putting creativity to paper - I think the basic "write a one-sentence prompt, get an image" interaction is only the most rudimentary form of this tech, the real work comes in the refinement.
As far as the workforce goes, there's no way to discuss that without discussing marketable skills. What skills are valuable to society changes over time with technological progress, and it is changing right now. What it means to work as an artist has changed a great deal since the advent of the computer, and that process is not over yet. It is true that we probably won't need as many artists in the workforce in the future, since fewer people can create more art. You can say the same of every white collar job. We have to figure out how to adapt to that as a society, not focus all our energy in denying it.
Adapting society is easy, we just need universal basic income, or to stop automating people out of being able to make a living.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
You could get good with a knife by stabbing a bunch of people, or you could maybe get into whittling, you know
The only reason to prioritize that environment, that means of developing those "skills," is to willfully devalue human expression and connection because it's more profitable to do so
Simple as.
I mean, yes, the fact is that we're running out of things for humans to do. This is the culmination of a process that started centuries ago, if not longer. Nobody thus far has been successful in slowing it. I think all of these same arguments were made about every stage of technological progress that came before. And yes I'm sure there were victims back then too that we should have taken better care of as we advanced. But I don't see a lot of ideas about that being advocated for, only full-throated opposition to the technology.
When even the more corporate friendly art like logo design requires a pretty fucking competent artist to build a brand identity, design a small memorable and simple piece that people will associate with who you are and what you do, and that will integrate with business cards, web dev, printouts, etc
Automating even that is going to take away the human level of creativity required to make active decisions on what that look should be, and it would result in a vast difference in quality from purpose built design
3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
Anyway, most of the pro ai arguments miss what the entire argument for automation has been for over a century, to free us from time spent doing dangerous drudgery so that we could soebd time doing things like art. Now capitalism is gearing up to tell us to stop being artists and get back to the drudgery.
They aren't creating original works, because the tech is built by and for theft
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
By feeding a bunch of images you dont have use rights to into the software in its creation.
My understanding is that the images they create are unique, depending on prompts entered by users. They're not just copies of existing artwork.
"Unique" and "original" are not interchangeable words
How do you think they learn what stuff looks like? They're trained on huge volumes of existing images that are fed into them. They only know what they're shown, they can't create this art from their imaginations because they don't have them. They remix and morph and regenerate existing works. They may not be 1 to 1 copies but they have to be made up of elements that are already out there. There are plenty of examples of these programs generating images that still have the mangled remains of the artist's signatures on the images they were trained on
THEN BREAK IT GODDAMIT
I think it depends what your definition of "drudgery" is. In my view, work being done in a more labor-intensive way than is necessary is drudgery. I can only find meaning in my work if I know that what I'm doing has a purpose, and that I'm making effective use of my own abilities. Work is different than a hobby in this way. If I knew that an AI can do in milliseconds what would take me hours, spending those hours would feel like drudgery. And the unavoidable reality is that yes, AI can do that, we know that now. So in my mind there's no putting that cat back in the bag. To keep living in a society where we continue to do things manually without AI would be the same as having intentionally regressed.
Let's say US lawmakers outlaw AI generated art. What about the other countries that are using it to the fullest? Nothing that we produce would be competitive. Our cultural output would be insignificant next to theirs. It would be like if we were writing books by hand while other countries had the printing press. Would we also outlaw the consumption of their work?
Something made up of stolen images can’t be an original work
i don't understand what your relationship to art is that you can imagine being drowned in ai-generated art that resonates with you more than things a human being made
It's... interesting to me how algorithmic proponents keep trying to phrase things like these algorithms are completely unique, uncharted territory.
But there's actually a long history already established concerning people taking existing, copyrighted works and creating new, original works with them.
Which is why, for example, you have to pay and credit music artists when you sample them.
Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Cultural Output isn't just by quantity, but by quality.
Also the US already pumps out a lot of art that is consumed around the world. We don't need the advantage.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
See now you're making the complete opposite argument - that human work has unique properties that AI can't replicate. If this is the case, then why are we concerned about artists losing their jobs? Is it everyone else who is wrong to be satisfied with something that an AI made?
I'm sorry but this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard, and also one of the saddest. The cultural output of a country being greater or more significant because they can do more, faster, is so wrong-headed I don't even know where to start. it misses the point of art completely.
Artists will lose their job because people would much rather pay the AI company $8 a month rather than commissioning an artist because it's faster and cheaper because the AI doesn't have the time invested the artist did to learn all the skills that makes their art look good and they can't pump out a mediocre portrait in seconds.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
We must not allow an OC gap
People in other countries can write code and yet there's plenty of people in the US fully employed to write software
Comparing AI art to a fucking printing press is so absolutely laughable I barely know how to confront the idea on a serious level. There isn't going to be some kind of renaissance because AI art exists, it's just going to replace people who post logo design competitions and put up $50 as the grand prize
3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
You are making a value judgment that art produced with the assistance of AI is somehow worse, "sadder", than art drawn by hand. Why would that be the case? AI is a tool. Those countries have artists too, they're just using much more powerful tools than us.
I'm going to ask you to think really hard about this analogy you just made.
Can you spot a big reason as to why it is flawed?
Rhetorical question, of course. A book, whether copied by hand or copied by printing press, is still originally written by a human with conscious, deliberate process undertaken in the creation of the work.
A work deliberately made by a human being is fundamentally different than a work generated unthinkingly by an algorithm, following opaque processes that are inscrutable and unexplainable.
This is entirely removed from any philosophical debate about how one defines "art."
Algorithmic proponents have taken a liking to acting like all technology throughout human history is somehow comparable and equivalent, but that falls apart under pretty basic scrutiny, as above.
Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
You're honestly just showing how little you know about art, as a form or an industry, with these posts
3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786