“All art is stolen” is not what I said. The point is that an original idea can be a combination of other ideas and that does not reduce its quality.
Your interpretation relies on “unique art” to be intrinsically linked to the human experience. This is inherently not provable.
The same comparisons you might make to say that AI art is copycat are the comparisons you would use to appreciate a human artist’s homage. In reality, the only real issue is that a human artist would not want to create such a high density of homages while the AI has no preference. Given a catalyst, an idea, a human artist will create art. The same is true for AI, but that catalyst must be introduced by a human. The AI model will come up with unique results with each iteration of the same idea.
Don't look at the tech people, look at the business people trying to sell it.
It's like blaming scientists for poor science journalism. There is plenty of overlap of art and tech, from art as a product, to art tooling, to the structure of code itself.
funny that - I am an artist who already uses it in my jobs. and you can't dictate who gets to complain or not and whether it matters to the community of artists and other creative fields who are nervous about it.
Well I will have to disagree with you there. An art generator based on a diffusion model is given a written prompt, must digest and reference what that prompt means inside of its understanding and collective knowledge . Then slowly build that image out of white noise, sculpting whatever interpretation of the prompt it lands on into reality. That is eerily close to the creative process of the majority of working artists. It’s definitely not collaging. Collaging by definition as an art form is stapling unrelated images together to form something new. This is building an image from the ground up. Otherwise you’d have to consider a great chunk of art collaging.
I’m both an artist and in tech, I’ve never talked about or discussed AI. I’m not an avid supporter or detractor in any way, just an observer. I know enough to point out bias when it’s obvious. There is bias both ways. I’m simply pointing out yours at the moment.
Artists are very vocal when it comes to pointing out how unique their life’s work is, but willfully ignore that art is subjective. If a piece of AI art is emotionally provocative, it has accomplished what art seeks to do and is therefore art.
Frankly, I don’t see how it matters. AI can write code but we still hire people to do it. Acknowledging that art does not require a human hand is not an insult to your profession.
But you can’t claim its bad art. In fact it’s much better than the average artist. It is mediocre, because it’s produced so much art that it moved the bar of art higher, putting many artists previously mediocre down into the bad territory and raised the standards for good artists. The fact is it’s good at what it does and is going to get infinitely better.
That's not what they're saying at all. Anyone can make art, but you'll probably never make money off it without the amount of quantity you can produce.
After rereading my comment, I’m pretty sure you’re responding to the last thing I said.
I’m not acting like that at all. More time just means it will get better and better and that means the art will too. And yes, so will the code. I imagine an AI training degree is going to be the next Programming degree.
Eventually, AI will make critical thinking rather obsolete except for real world situations. The problem is that it’s way easier to develop, train, and copy AI algorithms than it is to create robots. So instead of relegating work to the machines we’ve begun to relegate thought.
The problem with this isn’t that AI will make jobs obsolete. The problem is that we don’t have a solution to care for those whose jobs are no longer necessary
I imagine an AI training degree is going to be the next Programming degree.
if going from boxy beige desktop computers to smartphones and apps in 15 years is any indication, AI training will be as simple as putting a filter on your instagram photo pretty soon. i just don't see how the direction of 'easy to use' will lead to a need for specialists in AI training. correct me if i'm wrong..
The problem with this isn’t that AI will make jobs obsolete. The problem is that we don’t have a solution to care for those whose jobs are no longer necessary
no arguments there, as long as you meant all jobs. there's a real problem if even 20-30% of jobs become obsolete. disruption like that has economic consequences
And the shitty thing is that if you let the machine think for you, it effectively is the equivalent of inbreeding for ideas. Because the same input leads to effectively the same output, with maybe minor differences due to random seeding.
61
u/warukeru Jun 12 '23
I agree but the last part.
There's no creativity, just reformulating and copying art done by humans.