I don’t get this. AI bros talk about how “in the near future” no one will “need” to be a writer, a filmmaker or a musician anymore, as you’ll be able to generate your own media with your own parameters and preferences on the fly. This, to me, feels like such an insane opinion. How can someone not value the ingenuity and creativity behind a work of art? Do these people not see or feel the human behind it all? And are these really opinions that you’ve encountered outside of the internet?
It’s because AI enthusiasts are genuinely proud and in awe of their work, and those that are still staunchly pro-AI are unaware of how much damage they have already done.
Two key facts:
- Generative AI is powerful and amazing
- Generative AI was immediately sold to the capital-owning class and is now being developed and guided by the motivations of profit
Freya Holmér does excellent analysis at around the 43:00 mark. She notes that AI represents a story of human triumph, and the innate quality or “coolness” that lies in that. But on the other hand, she explains how generative AI has quite quickly become entirely devorced from positively amplifying human expression. Exceptions to this exist, where people use AI creatively as an extension of themselves, but are exceptions only and not the rule.
I see other threads here discussing “is there even demand for authentic human art?” And those discussions ignore that yes, there is, and that authentic human art was scraped from copyright holders on the internet without their consent. “Is there even demand for human art?” is what is being asked, when the technology in question was immediately bought up and exploited by billion-dollar companies who are gaining immensely more value from generative AI than even the most lucrative AI-artist.
I encourage “AI bros” reading this to look around and engage with the art world. Genuinely. If you have always wanted to be a screenwriter or painter hobbyist, go engage with those stories. Go and see the human experiences, training and techniques that are visible in every line and brush stroke. Creativity is quite a wonderful and powerful thing and I always encourage it.
Then, after you have experienced these works to a new degree, look back. Don’t even ask “is AI good”—because we all agree, it’s an amazing feat. Instead ask “do I want this technology to be monopolized by corporate interests?”
Wonderful answer.
The AI bros can’t draw, so they love the idea their computer can do it for them.
The AI bros can’t sing, so they love the idea their computer can do it for them.
The AI bros can’t write, so they love the idea their computer can do it for them.
The AI bros can only consume, and AI is great for generating a lot of endless content lacking any depth.
Everything about this just feels really depressing. I’m guessing many people in the world are similar about only caring about consumption. As long as they deem it “good”, they don’t care how/when/where and by whom it was produced by.
Eh, I make my own music and somewhat play guitar, I don’t even use samples because it feels personally a bit like cheating myself out of the most challenging and interesting part, though ofc plenty way more talented and successful musicians sample all the way, so it’s just a personal stance.
I’d say actually it’s that experience, just making art as self-expression that has thoroughly inoculated me against artbro talking points.
I’m not against creative industries, nor am I pro corpos, but AI is just a tool and now that anybody can make images, the drawing people seethe, sorry not sorry, I’d rather make creativity more accessible than please egos of a select few rich kid narcissists.
My guy, we live in a world where we are required to have a job to live. Most of those jobs are not essential for society to function. Some of these jobs make people happy and passionate, many others are soul grating and awful. This technology makes some of those enjoyable jobs much less lucrative while the product becomes worse. We simply lose things that bring people joy and for what? Like seriously, I cannot think of something an ai can bring to the table that a human cannot in terms of art.
Why would you want to remove the jobs people enjoy and are passionate about just for the sake of it? Why would you campaign to strictly make people less happy? If it wasn’t for the horrible system we live in I’d be all for this kind of advancement, but it does not make life easier, it does not get us better things, and it almost exclusively makes life worse for millions of people with nothing to show for it.
I think this is the big contention point. In a world without a need for jobs, AI would be a neat alternative method of art generation, and a fascinating advancement of technology as a whole…
but UBI is not yet real and jobs still need to be had. Without some form of life-securement for those who provided the art to be trained off of, we’re just using tech to really fuck people over. It’s definitely a moral grey area - very dark grey.
We simply lose things that bring people joy and for what?
Why would you campaign to strictly make people less happy?
I disagree completely. Idk but creating brings millions of people joy, anything that democratizes it more accessible is a good thing. AI has absolutely brought many more people joy.
A world where a technology exists that can query the sum of human knowledge and skill to translate ideas into form but is gatekept because few people like feeling special is a horrifying dystopia and I can’t imagine how someone could be so fucking evil as to really wish for that.
Like really, I want to keep giving y’all benefit of the doubt that you simply don’t consider a perspective outside your own, but you don’t make it easy.
This technology makes some of those enjoyable jobs
Technology is what made those jobs enjoyable and accessible to those who do them now in the first place.
Nobody is forcing you to use AI or any technology, you can still farm goats and use them to make drums before you lay out a beat, people will probably be pretty impressed if you did that.
Why would you want to remove the jobs people enjoy and are passionate about just for the sake of it?
If they are passionate about their craft for the sake of it they will keep doing it, if they are doing it as a job then like with any other job market when new technologies or trends arrive they will have to adapt.
To put it in perspective with an analogy: It’s an absurd notion for instance that new programming languages should be banned not for their quality but simply because not every developer will learn them, and it’s an absurd notion that someone who loves programming in C for the sake of it cannot do so just because Java exists.
Having DAWs did not make it illegal to mess around with an old rompler and a step sequencer for the sake of it, nor did orchestra plugins eliminate violins, but market demands orchestral music done quicker, you either do this or don’t.
If it wasn’t for the horrible system we live in
This would be the case for every system that still has some market demands, even something like anarcho-communist cooperative based market economics would favour technological advancement and efficiency every time and some jobs would simply not be in demand any more.
There is simply no economic system that makes any sense where someone would need to hire an orchestra for every sting on kitchen nightmares instead of using a VST or sample library or now in the not too distant future - generating one.
I fully agree that we need to change the system to ensure when these technological advancements happen that people don’t end up on the street.
However, I’m sure most would agree that even though it was not fair to e.g. human computers, the move to electronic calculators is a net positive for society.
Similarly endlessly distributable digital copies of books etc. democratized media to a massive degree even if it put libraries at risk.
but it does not make life easier,
It definitely does make life easier for many artists, for instance you can upscale old media or restore media where the original was lost to time, game devs can use AI-generated assets for background stuff like adding nigh-infinite variety to textures that would be impractical for an indie dev to do or a sole dev can compensate for whatever skills they lack manually etc.
it does not get us better things
I think with regards to quality it’s completely value neutral, I’ve seen plenty of dogshit AI art, but also some really good unique stuff. I think it just follows Sturgeon’s Law as everything.
Maybe the real problem is the AI slop, which is really just humans being lazy.
In my immediate neighborhood there are two pastry bakeries. One has lines of people summoned by the TikTok/Instagram, who take videos of themselves eating. The other is known to locals, but never self promotes.
You can imagine, that the non-promoting one has amazing pastries. The best I’ve ever had. The TikTok one does have a trendy fancy interior, made for videos.
People want to be seen at a pastry place. That fake pastry place wants to be seen as an awesome bakery, even though really, without the marketing they are below average. Some guy wants to be seen as writing pop music, even though he can’t. Another wants to draw, even though I won’t spend the thousands of hours required.
Art is really about understanding the effort. Human effort.
Somehow, I can just imagine having AI slop music, and AI slop movies, and AI slop everything.
If a movie house is going to be Steve Jobs Pixar, they are going to hire the best real artists and the best real writers, and do something that means something to be human. They aren’t interested in slop.
If a movie house is going to be just for profit, are they going to even pay for the generative AI to do a few more iterations. I think they will keep it at slop.
Anyhow, a bit too much babble. Must sleep.
This is truly my exact worry.
deleted by creator
I’d rather make creativity more accessible
I’ve seen beautiful artwork done with charcoal on paper, some of the most timeless beautiful pieces ever written were made on a deathbed, creativity will always flow from someone talented regardless of their financial limitations. AI doesn’t make creativity more accessible, AI uses an absurd amount of power and stolen work to make you feel better pretending the prompt you generated means that creativity is yours.
But the prompt is the creative aspect. It’s always the idea, and the rest is convention and form. And lol, modern poor aren’t going to have access to charcoal, paper, time or a deathbed, but they’re going to have a smartphone, hence it does indeed make creative expression more accessible.
I’d never have even tried music if I couldn’t pirate a DAW, plugins etc etc. Sure, cheap eBay fender clones and bargain bin amps help too, but like AI, piracy met me where I was.
Creativity isn’t to be gatekept and those select few privileged enough to practice it in lieu of something more materially useful aren’t to be put on a pedestal, there’s no such thing as talent for most people, just barriers to entry and accessibility.
People being able to enjoy art and artistry, especially not just by brainless consumption, but by producing it themselves will always be a good thing in my book.
All the artbros seething are just landlords of the art world feeling their houses lose value to new buildings.
All the arguments about power are null and void because if it wasn’t this it’d be something else, most advances in computing would require more power, we need to solve that problem with nuclear & renewables, not by artificially placing a cap on scientific advancements.
But the prompt is the creative aspect.
Please add a warning before typing such non-sense, I was drinking coffee and almost spit it out in my monitor.
So do you have a rebuttal or? Because this is the way I see it, using music because it’s what I know more:
I get an idea in my head for a melody or piece of music -> I either lay it out on an instrument or in a DAW piano roll or on paper -> I tweak and refine and add/remove elements -> I export the file and upload to a website.
The actual creative spark is the first step, the rest is a matter of speaking the language and skills at using the tools of choice to convey ideas clearly. Both are skills in and of themselves but one is about technique, the other is about a well-trained imagination and analytical mindset.
Prompts in that case are just another language like notes and scales. Then you add onto that LoRAs, controlnets, refiner models, custom refines of existing models, embeddings, weights, sampling steps, classifier-free guidance scale, and it’s quite a lot to actually learn and use effectively.
I don’t see how it’s any less creative whatsoever. Less skilled? Sure, absolutely, it can be. No denying there.
Maybe you could say it’s also less intentional, but plenty of art has unintentional elements which doesn’t make it any less creative.
If I commission a human artist to paint me a picture or write me a song, did I create it? I gave them the prompt to generate the work with their skills, so I must be as creative and skilled as any work they return, right?
You’ve asked something else to make your art, and then claimed that because you were really specific with your request that you deserve the kudos for the creativity and skill of the art. Pick up a pen and stop stealing existing artists’ work in order to force a computer to stroke your delusional ego.
So do you have a rebuttal or?
Sure! According to your terrible argument, using AI is being creative, so I have a totally original, creative, full credit to me, reply generated with ChatGPT for you:
"Ah, yes, the old “I get an idea, I play with some tools, and voilà, creativity!” argument. How wonderfully simplistic. Let’s break this down, shall we?
First of all, your analogy between music composition and AI image generation is… well, cute. But it misses the mark in every way imaginable. You claim that prompts are “just another language like notes and scales.” Sure, in theory, they both help convey an idea—but one requires years of training, understanding of harmony, rhythm, texture, and the emotional weight of every note, while the other requires you to type a few words and hope for the best. That’s a little different, don’t you think? One requires mastery of an art form, and the other just needs a dictionary.
You mention using DAWs and instruments, where you “refine and tweak” to get the perfect sound. That’s great! But last time I checked, a piano doesn’t generate random melodies for you based on some keyword you type in. It doesn’t spit out a bunch of garbage until you say “oh, that’s close enough.” There’s a bit more finesse in playing an instrument or composing than clicking a button to “refine” a half-baked prompt until you get something that looks vaguely close to your idea. It’s like saying cooking a 5-star meal is no different than microwaving a frozen dinner because they both involve food at the end.
And then there’s the whole “not all creativity needs to be intentional” bit. Sure, there’s room for happy accidents, but when you’re typing in a prompt, it’s not about the accident—it’s about how many times you can hit the “regenerate” button until something pops out that looks vaguely like what you intended. If that’s your idea of “creative spark,” I’m afraid you might be confusing convenience with artistry.
Let’s not even get into the long list of terms you threw in there like “LoRAs” and “sampling steps,” which—spoiler alert—don’t actually make you an artist. They just make you someone who’s trying to sound like they’re mastering something complicated, when in reality, you’re just a user, not a creator. This isn’t about understanding the “tools of choice” or “learning to use” anything. It’s about what you’re producing with those tools. If all you’re doing is pushing buttons and waiting for software to do the heavy lifting, I’m not sure I’d call that “creativity” so much as “optimizing the use of someone else’s work.”
In the end, the best track isn’t the one where you typed in a prompt and got something halfway decent. It’s the one you built from the ground up, where you sweat the small stuff, honed your craft, and put heart into what you made. Sure, there’s no denying that learning the technical aspects of music is challenging—but at least it’s a real challenge, not just following the whims of an algorithm until you get something “good enough.”
But hey, you keep telling yourself that pushing the button is just as creative as composing an entire symphony. If it makes you feel better, go for it!"
I have to say, I’m actually impressed at how well it captured how I’d want to reply to your comment, the snark is on point… Maybe you are right in the end, generative AI is a very creative way of replying to bad comments online!
I honestly find it fascinating that you view artists as the “rich kid narcissists” in comparison to AI proponents as more of an everyman. My personal experience is those the most engaged in AI stuff are college educated, often in STEM fields, silicon valley with money types, whereas the generally the working artists I know come from middle income or poor backgrounds. I don’t say this trying to attack you, or invalidate your experience, I’m genuinely curious. Would you be willing to elaborate on why you view them this way?
My experience is simply the polar opposite of yours.
Most artists I’ve known are extremely upper class, at the very least they come from very privileged backgrounds, and usually had the safety net required to take gap years for unpaid apprenticeships or to start bands, have capital to invest and can afford to lose it, can live with parents and rely on them financially waiting for publishing deals or comissions money or adrev etc etc.
Come to think of it IRL I actually have never heard of a “working class” artist, other than in the strict Marxist sense in that they’re not an owner class.
Even if they work a low paying or shitty job part-time they almost always have very high QoL due to those privileged backgrounds. One guy who went into the arts I know has a day job that paid half mine out of the gate, but he had way more disposable cash because his parents paid his rent and bills.
A friend of mine who’s in theatre just bailed out after school, took a gap year, did an unpaid apprenticeship and later got a day job as a theatre tech, now swimming in cash from being a manager and her published plays, she’s the second richest person I know.
I’m not saying that arts are just a passtime of the rich mind you, (though I do think the rabidly anti-ai types have a “fuck you got mine” streak) I think it’s survivorship bias ultimately, those who can be full-time or even decently part-time professional artists in some capacity are the ones who have privilege.
Meanwhile 99.9% of “Techbros” aka people in CompSci at uni were the hustler-grindset type working folks trying to escape poverty or otherwise move up the ladder, either real career chasers who are all about networking or grifters/scammers/shady characters you’d see betting on horses and hanging out in money laundering candy/barbershops.
They were in it for the money alone because they heard the money is good and that’s because they def needed the money.
Most people had at least 1 job just to afford rent, many had 2 (uni is pretty much free here in the UK).
The only rich people were drug dealers in blacked out BMWs and Chinese immigrants with Rolexes and extremely strong spice vapes and no knowledge of English.
The remaining 0.1% were genuinely gifted kids who pursued PhDs or less talented nerds (me) and they were all usually not super well off locals or they were immigrants from shithole countries of families who could afford to send their kids overseas and not much else, where they prolly didn’t need to work semester time but they couldn’t fuck around either (also me).
Idk about Silicon Valley, I’m not American nor have been, from what I’ve seen people who talk about the “bay area” on Mastodon are either insufferable cunts or some kind of weird internet people/hacking savants/furries though.
deleted by creator
Everyone already can be creative and make images you moron
Neither is true.
Elaborate
Why don’t they then? And why do they now that AI is around?
Almost as if there’s a barrier to entry there for most people that’s been removed.
People do make art and be creative still so I don’t know why you’re asking why they don’t.
And people still do it because making art is a thing humans do and like to do. People still sew even though they can just buy clothing.
Acting like there’s a barrier for entry to make art is a flat out delusion. Humans were making art on caves with chalk and dirt they found. You can make art with a stick. Acting like artists are rich elitists is the most ignorant and incorrect thing I’ve ever read on the Internet.
You do realise a barrier to entry doesn’t mean that something is literally impossible for everyone, but that it’s an obstacle for some?
It’s disingenuous comparing art someone would want to look at produced today to literal caveman drawings.
And yes artists are absolutely rich elites, the often very literal top 10%, feel free to look at my other comments ITT for why I’ve found this to be the case.
Dude artists are some of the most broke people out there, to the point where the starving artist is a trope, what are you smoking?
I only
smokeconsume nicotine, water and food, cheers. I’ve heard of the trope but have never seen a contemporary example IRL or even otherwise.See my response to a similar question here: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/15822412
I understand it’s “common knowledge” but I’ve been questioning it for a while.
I’m happy to be proven wrong if you’d be willing, but so far I’ve not been and as such I’m not sure this trope has any resemblance to reality in the modern day.
The invention of production lines didn’t mean that nobody appreciated hand-built cars any longer - it just meant a cheaper option was now available to more people.
The invention of phonographs, records, cd etc, didn’t mean that nobody appreciated live music anymore - it just meant that there was now a more accessible option available.
Every job in arts and engineering can, has and will be automated to some extent - it doesn’t mean the death of those industries, or a lack of appreciation for the creativity involved.
I think the real benefit comes from when the creatives use the tools to do the heavy lifting. Every new innovation sees a glut of low-effort money-saving cash-ins. After a while, however, these fall to the wayside as the people who actually have the skills take over again.
More than ten years ago, I wrote a song for my daughter. I recorded it, animated a little video, and uploaded it to youTube. I’d written several more songs for her, but had never found the time necessary to actually record the songs and create videos for them. Because of AI tools, I’ve finally been able to make significant headway on a couple of songs/videos that I’ve had rattling around in my head for years.
We’re just in a transition period. Like George Lucas’s over-reliance on CG in the prequels - although it looked pretty great at the time but now looks thoroughly artificial.
The invention of phonographs, records, cd etc, didn’t mean that nobody appreciated live music anymore
I’ll argue with this one. The only live music anyone appreciates now is going to see world famous commercial artists made popular by their records, cds, etc. And half of those shows is preprogrammed.
Live music used to be: if you have some friends over and want to liven it up, one of them plays the piano, or a pub has a live set of musicians who can read the room and play what people want at the tempo they want depending on if they want to dance or not. Read Little House on the Prairie and pay close attention to the scenes where Pa gets out his fiddle. Pure magic.
You can say that people still appreciate live music because some of them still go out to Taylotlr Swift concerts, but the world of handmade music from before was absolutely killed off by radio, records, etc. That world is alive in tiny pockets at best.
Remind me how much electricity production lines, phonographs and CGI use, or how much they rely on art theft simply to exist, or how they pose as an expert on a subject and feed people misinformation, or how they allow people to literally stop thinking and let it write everything and form every opinion for them?
They absolutely do all those things though? Like render farms consume fucktons of electricity and they absolutely rely on theft because every artist uses references not to mention asset packs etc. and you are absolutely posing as an expert on the subject feeding people misinformation without any AI (probably). I’m sure someone editing film would consider your optimised premiere stream deck a device for someone who’s “stopped thinking” as well, without any AI at all.
None of the things I mentioned are even close to as horrible as AI is in those ways. Either you’re being disingenuous bc you think you need chat gpt to think for you, or you just have no idea at all what “AI” is and really need to do a lot of research on how harmful it is. Comparing CGI render farms to AI servers? Comparing human inspiration and paid for asset packs to a computer rearranging existing, stolen art? You’re not serious are you?
bc you think you need chat gpt to think for you, or you
Woah woah turn down the projection man. I don’t use gippity lol.
or you just have no idea at all what “AI” is
I think I do, but feel free to enlighten me.
need to do a lot of research on how harmful it is
Are you a “do your own research” type, or are you going to state your case?
Comparing CGI render farms to AI servers?
Yes.
Actually I only advocate for locally run FOSS AI models because I’m anti-commercial-AI and broadly anti-capitalist as a whole.
So do tell me, how does my one gayming RTX GPU that can just about accommodate an LLM or SDXL compare to a render farm for Netflix/Hollywood slop powered by coal in third world country sweatshops they outsource to?
Comparing human inspiration and paid for asset packs to a computer rearranging existing, stolen art?
“Our glorious inspiration” “Their stolen art”
You don’t come off as mentally stable my friend, maybe log off and calm down for a bit?
Hey if you can’t actually make a solid argument for why “AI” is actually fine, there’s always calling the other person insane :D your use of an LLM isn’t any better or less cringe just bc you don’t use chat gpt, you’re still outsourcing your thinking and decision making to a computer, and you still use a fuck of a lot more power than you should on something that is ultimately stupid and pointless. Your life was fine before “AI”, why are you acting like this is some good or helpful or necessary thing at all?
I’m not outsourcing anything, why would you assume so? Do you?
I don’t really use LLMs at all and I haven’t used SD in ages. Are you trying to say art is stupid and pointless?
It was wrong of me to assume you were using it in the wasteful, mindless ways a lot of people use “ai” stuff, I’m sorry for being an asshole about it. Afaik you running stuff like that sometimes isn’t any more wasteful than you spending that time playing games that push your hardware to the max, and I hadn’t thought about that before those replies.
I’ve been really worried about how shady and powerful open ai is and how many people are starting to use it to write science papers and cheat through med school and shit, but other than all the ways corporate “AI” is horrible there’s a lot of cool and fun applications imo, and I’m sorry for assuming you were supporting sam altman’s shenanigans
BTW if you unironically think that original art inspired by previous works is actually comparable to a computer scraping and slapping random bullshit together, you don’t know jack shit about art or the “AI” you so desperately need
More projection. Why even respond if you have no counterpoint? If I’m such a nitwit gippity user, it shouldn’t be hard for you to enlighten us all, should it?
I’m no AI expert, but I understand the basic principles behind diffusers and I’ve written a few tiny image classifiers in python for fun before. Surely an expert like yourself can do better?
Removed by mod
There seems to be two ways of viewing generative AI. The first, which many anti-AI people take is that Generative AI will be captured by big business and will decimate the creatives financial streams. The outcome will be less art with less meaning and shallow profit seeking art will rule the world.
Then there is the flip side. Everyone in them has a story they want to tell. Everyone has a artistic vision they want to produce. Everyone has a song they want to write and sing. Everyone, if given enough time, talent, practice, resources, and yes, money, could produce something beautiful, deep, and unique to themselves. But they don’t. Why? Because there are barriers. Barriers among barriers. It is the hope of the “AI bros” that AI will tear down those barriers and allow more people to create.
But because these people have never created before, their work will obviously not be up to pair with professionals. Just give it time. In the words of Randall Munroe: If we want to write Ulysses, our generation might not be sexting enough.
AI can only replace creative industries if the content it produces is better in which case it’s a win for the people consuming that content. When it comes to creators themselves, it’ll be harder to earn a living that way but on the other hand, none of the artists I know are making it for the money and they would continue making it even if AI was better. Myself included.
However, I don’t think it’s either-or situation. AI will just come alongside human made content. There’s a ton of content creators I’d continue following no matter how good AI would get.
Is it really a win for people to consume soulless AI poetry or prose? Even if the objective qualities (of which are hard to define anyway) makes it “better”, in the eyes of the masses than a human author like Baudelaire or Mary Oliver? One could say it’s up to the consumer, if they’d rather buy an AI work, then that “decides it”, but market forces are really bad at deciding what’s worth consuming or not.
These are the things I’m worried about, especially when I see the act of creative creation being based on everything that have made us and shaped us in the past. Our experiences, memories and the paths we’ve taken. I feel like what makes something art, is the humanness poured into it.
deleted by creator
I still hear you implying that, in one way or another, AI content wouldn’t be as good as - or better than - human-made content. If that’s the case, I agree with you: replacing human artists with AI would be a net negative. However, my point is that when the day comes that AI content genuinely surpasses human-made work on every metric we care about, resisting it simply because it’s AI-generated doesn’t make much sense to me.
I still empathize with human artists who may no longer be able to compete, but I see that as part of human evolution - some professions inevitably become obsolete.
That said, as I mentioned, this wouldn’t prevent anyone from continuing as an artist for the joy of it. It would just make it harder to monetize their work.
The general scene can do much more now. It’s a tool and silly to stick your head in the sand and pretend it doesn’t exist. Understandably, it brought up the bar for entry level work but it will bring up the quality and the sheer amount eventually.
All facets of gen ai are a real boon for things like indie video games and animations once you get past the constant pessimisme. I’m insanely excited for llm driven npcs and things of that nature as well.
I’ve seen LLM NPC’s and whilst they’re still far from being convincing, I don’t imagine it’ll take too long for them to get there.
I can’t wait for a GTA style game (maybe even GTA itself) where I can just walk by someone on the street and have a completely normal dialogue with an NPC. Or even just start shit by yelling at people or causing beef between two of them by suggesting one insulted the other.
Why do people who post loaded questions approve of pedophilia and torturing kittens?
approve of pedophilia and torturing kittens?
what the actual fuck?
Doesn’t sound like a denial - I thought so!!!
Probably put the TP on backwards, too.
How can someone not value the ingenuity and creativity behind a work of art?
Their point of view is that if people do actually value this then there will always be a market for it.
If they don’t, there won’t.
I suppose a long time ago the radio and gramophone looked like they’d been the end of live performing musicians but they still exist, everything’s just continually changing…
I can appreciate a sunset or a flower without needing these things to have “a human behind it all”.
With that said, art is far from the most important potential application of AI. I am merely amused that right now I can ask a computer to draw a cow in the style of Monet and get a pretty good result. The amazing thing is not present-day capability (which is remarkable but not world-changing) but rather what the rate of progress implies about the near future. I think that a computer better than any human at everything (or at least at every intellectual task) is likely within my lifetime.
It’s the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
Hello,
Let me chime in as someone who would probably fall under your definition of an AI defender.
How do I defend AI? Well, I think AI really flips the world on it’s head. Including all the good and the bad that comes from it. I still think the industrialization is a good metaphor. Things changed a lot. A lot of people were pissed. Now we don’t mind as much anymore, because it’s the new normal, but at the time, most people weren’t happy about it.
Same with AI. I think overall it’s a plus, but obviously it comes with new pitfalls. LLM hallucinations, the need for more complex copyright and licensing definitions, impersonation, etc. . It’s not entirely great, but I totality, when the dust settles, it will be a helpful tool to make our lives easier.
So why do I defend AI? Basically, because I think it will happen, whether you like it or not. Even if the law will initially make it really strict, society will change their mind about it. It might be slowly, but it’s just too useful to outlaw.
Going back to industrialization metaphor, we adapted it over a longer period of time. Yes, it forever changed how most things are made, but it wasn’t necessarily a bad thing. It’s just a thing. And even though lots of logistics chains are streamlined, there’s always gonna be handmade things and unique things. Ofc, not everything is handmade, but some important things still are. And for both of them, there’s some stuff that’s totally fine to be automated, and then there’s some stuff that just loses it’s value if we just gloss over with automation.
Now I don’t want AI to just roam free (ofc not, there’s some really bad stuff happening and I’m not pretending that it’s not) but what we need is laws and enforcement against it, and not against AI.
Imagine if most countries outlawed AI. It would make all AI companies and users move operation to that one country that still allows it, making it impossible to oversee and enforce against. So we better find a good strategy to allow it for all the things where it doesn’t do damage.
Now let me address some specific points you brought up;
In the near future no one will “need” to be a writer
But isn’t this already how it’s going? Only people who wanna be a writer are one, anf it’s good that way.
Also, AI can only remix the art that’s already there, so if you’re doing something completely unique, AI won’t ever be able to replace you. I find that somehow validating for the people who make awesome and unique art. I think that’s how it should be.
Do these people not see or feel the human behind the art at all?
I do. And that’s the exact reason I’m not concerned. Everyone who puts in the work to make something very particular to them should not be impacted in any way.
Now there’s an argument to be made how consent for training data is given (opt-in / opt-out) and what licensing for the models can and should look like, but this is my very basic opinion.
Are these really opinions you have encountered outside of the internet?
I may have about one friend out of 30 who thinks like me.
I mean I am living proof we exist, but I can’t say this is a popular opinion, which is fair.
I don’t want people to mindlessly agree, I want them to come their own opinions because of their own research and presumptions.
I also don’t expect you to agree with me, but I hope some people will understand my perspective and maybe this brings a bit more nuance to this bipolar conversation.
Completely agree, I think of industrialization as well when comparing it.
Steel plow comes to mind.
I absolutely don’t agree with your perspective.
AI is just another way to ensure control of the means of production stays in the hands of capitalists.
It empowers the techno-feudalist monopolies to put further pressure on more industries. Not content to own a portion of every retail purchase, every digital payment, every house, and every entertainment property. They now get to own a portion of every act of creation, every communication that could possibly challenge their power.
They can subvert any act of independent impactful art by copying it and remanufacturing lesser versions over and over until the original’s impact is lost. And they can do it faster than ever before, cashing in on the original creative’s effort and syphoning returns away from creators into their own pockets.
You might think it’s inevitable and inescapable, but that’s what people once thought of the divine right of kings.
You’re basically saying AI can’t be used in any other way than it’s being used right now. I think you are the one who’s taking the current state of things as inevitable and inescapable.
I mean, he basically said industrialization is bad. Not sure why he’s saying that online, via his computer.
In addition to this, the current state of AI is basically just advanced algorithms. Id would be extremely difficult, but in theory you could still trace the connections between bodes and run the optimization calculations yourself.
Soon enough, we will have AGI. Im not a big fan of LLMs, because theyre a fundamentally flawed idea. The only way to get that much data is without consent, and they will always be prone to hallucinations. AGI on the other hand is fundamentally different. It’s capable of learning just like a human, and capable of doing tasks just like a human. By all measurements it will be able to do anything a human can do, and by most measurements, it will do it better.
The issue most people have is that they do not understand that the current state of AI is like the OG printing press. It’s crazy to a layperson, and it has its uses, but since most everyone is illiterate farmers, its not that useful. But to claim that transcribing text is pointless is ignoring an entire world of possibilites, to the point where people who rail against AI almost seem malicious or willfully ignorant. Why do you not want us to be able to almost instantly diagnose new diseases? Or have a nursebot babysitter that is literally a better parent than you are, and doesnt have to sleep or eat? Whats the issue with making cars safer, making construction more efficient, and taking corruption out of the government? Why do people hate the idea of people no longer having to be alone, or having a therapist that is available at all times, perfectly tailored to help you with your specific issues and no biases?
Yes, these things are impossible with modern AI. But to claim that AI is useless… It’s either malice or ignorance.
Everyone’s frame of reference is their own IQ…
So for some people AI seems as smart as their frame of reference, or even better.
They assume their frame of reference is everyone’s, so we’re in that weird period where dumb people are super excited about AI, and smart people still think it’s a gimmick.
Those people who find AI impressive, see it as a means to level the playing field, and it will eventually.
It just means the smarter you are, the longer it’s going to take to be impressive. Because your frame of reference is just a higher standard.
They’d never be as creative as a creative person, so to them it’s switching from relying on a person they have no control over or influence on, to a computer program that will do whatever is asked. To them it generates the same quality as a person, don’t forget the most popular media caters to the lowest common denominator, this is the same thing.
Like, it makes sense from their perspective. You just need to realize everyone has a different perspective.
It’s human variation
Pretty good points there, though i’d argue it’s not just pure numerical IQ, but mostly life experience. The more variety of life you experience, the more you know of human history, different cultures, ways of thinking and seeing the world - the harder it is for you to get impressed by something as shallow as AI.
Tech bros live in a bubble of their own creation and don’t understand the true richness of the human condition.
it’s not just pure numerical IQ,
We talk about IQ like it’s a single number, but it’s like SAT/ACT, a bunch of different specific scores averaged into one number. So yeah it’s not as simple as a single number. I was thinking mostly processing speed and associative memory, but obviously you need the general knowledge as well.
The more variety of life you experience, the more you know of human history, different cultures, ways of thinking and seeing the world - the harder it is for you to get impressed by something as shallow as AI.
This is a very specific and easily fixable problem. It’s trained by a certain class of people, so it’s going to regurgitate stuff from that class and ignore everyone who hadn’t trained it.
Tech bros live in a bubble of their own creation and don’t understand the true richness of the human condition.
Nobody is gonna argue with that tho
These are people without talents who have to pay creatives for cool things. All they are thinking is that they’ll be able to get the creative assets themselves for free from now on, to run their businesses or whatever. That’s it. They don’t care about the cow when they believe they’re going to get the milk for free.
What would be the point of AI replacing people to create art?
The essence of art is that it came from the mind and talent (or skill) from another human being. It’s a thread connecting our humanity through time and space.
No one will be looking back at AI art the same way we look back hundreds or thousands of years at paintings, sculptures, musical compositions, or even real photographs.
We might enjoy some AI generated content for the novelty, but it’s soulless.
Fully agree, but I’m afraid market forces will just allow the most common AI slop to exist. And I’m sure people will still consume it, and like it. Unfortunately.
Becau$e rea$ons.
That’s hype. AI is just another sort of hammer. In the hands of a talented artist, they can churn out masterpieces in hours instead of days. Polarising people is modern marketing. Threating peoples bread and butter is a good way to do that.
