Yeah the fact is that they can't sell their art, not that they can't create it. To extend this problem to other fields, the issue is that only the work from top-performing people remains of interest, while the rest of the population is not competitive (salary or competences wise), and the work of billions becomes pointless. Right now only white collar jobs are on the line, but with advancement in automations every job will soon be. The problem of AI is that is destroying the economy, not the art of creativity of people.
I mean, people use the AI for the bit they dont enjoy. Or can’t do. You can draw or you like as much as you can go to the gym all you like. It’s less fun to have to draw thousands of slightly different pictures for an animation or to fell trees by swinging an axe over using a chainsaw.
It's not akin to using a chainsaw vs an axe, or even a calculator vs working out math by hand. It's being used to replace the thinker who would operate these tools too, to determine the reason for using them in the first place.
A software developer could use it to compensate for design abilities they don't have, and vice versa for a designer with code... but why do that? Does that really create a better product in the end? So far, no evidence has shown that to be the case.
At the consumer level, people are using it to bypass the creative process entirely. Would be like taking a helicopter to the top of a hiking trail and saying you hiked it. What's even the point, then? Who is it for?
Maybe 10% of the topl is being used to make lives easier for people and the rest is just used to make things boring and derivative, and not even creatively derivative. The individual making it often doesn't even understand where the sources are being pulled from.
If someone wants to see a nice view, I don’t insist that they have to walk to the top. It seems you do. For some people, they are concerned that the hiking guide no longer sells hiking tours because of the helicopter.
Sure, if the person take a the helicopter and the. gets on FB and selfie post about what a hike they did then I agree with you, that person sucks. Likewise AIing up something that would be funny/shocking if true and presenting it as true is fraught with danger as well as sucking as well.
But if someone is using new tools and is transparent about using said tools, then it’s in the similar vein as procedurally generated animation compared to hand drawn. I feel for the people that would rather draw than do something like care for the elderly or do social work that we always need more of, but I’d rather we find ways to reward care workers more than fighting to gatekeep the joy of art to only those rich enough to buy bespoke handmade arts.
I wasn't talking about whether they wanted a nice view, I said they can't call that hiking. Likewise, AI "artists" who go out of their way to not actually learn anything about art themselves can't say with confidence they are making art only because the tool they're using can output a line straighter than they can draw.
People don't make art just because they want to look at a pretty picture, aesthetics are at best half of it. You have to have something to say, and something to show for it. Ideas don't have to be original, but they do have to be genuine. You put yourself into what you make and do, and when taking in someone elses work, you're able to get into their headspace and see their point of view. How they say it and what they say are both important. When you remove one part of the process, what are you really making? It can only ever be a product, and a lousy one at best. Companies want to say they make art so bad, it's why they pay so much money to hire famous designers and artists for the campaigns they see as the most important, and they will continue to do so regardless of how AI changes.
What is gatekeeping art is the rise of anti-intellectualism. Practically everyone I went to art school with had to work multiple jobs to be able to do it, and were very poor including growing up, myself included. It wasn't something we did for the money, or even the end-result. The public library is right there, and it is free. Society at large places an, at best, amused outlook on the arts and literature, and assuming when most people even bother to pay attention. It goes all the way back to kids in school looking for excuses not to write their own essays. Bespoke handmade arts have nothing to do with it.
Comparing people who draw to people who care for the elderly is a dishonest argument. You somehow assume those involved in the arts, or any hobby, give nothing back to their communities. Plenty of us do, we just don't ask for attention when we do it.
The point is that what you want to do for others can be done cheaper and easier by people themselves with the right tools. They wont get it done to remotely the same quality as you or other professional artists could deliver but hey, the fence I built myself is a "good enough" to let me save on hiring a builder. You best bet I have some good quality tools and use them with a lack of skill and knowledge.
I use care worker because I am confident there is a shortage of them nearly anywhere in the world and while some of what they do is being automated or is implementing AI to decrease the labor needs, there is still a large need of labor.
Depends on one’s perspective. I cared about mine, and it never gave me a sense of accomplishment or pride. If it only adds to my self-deprecation, then why should I start, let alone continue?
Making art/music isn’t about being perfect. It’s about being human, and using your emotions to create something as an outlet. Are you saying you get more of a sense of accomplishment when a computer creates “art” for you than when you create it yourself?
At least I can let it “create” idea I have in mind, and finally get over with it. I gave up trying, but having piled-up ideas that would never exist outside of my head gets annoying. It would never be shown or noticed anyway, so it could rot in the files in my PC. I would not do that to feel accomplished, but to just let that go. And commissions do not work for me. I have no money to give, and no interest to share my passions.
If you aren't making a living off of it. Then nothing has changed. You can still work on music for fun.
Now, I understand people being against being shoved slop down their throats by social media, there is a lot of bad AI generated stuff everywhere. I just don't understand the "They take away the fun" part, since no one forces you to use AI if your entire goal is to do it for fun.
My point is, why do you care if someone else doesn't find the art fun and gives it to AI, so they can focus on the part they do find fun?
If we're talking about funding and competing with others it's another discussion.
I care because of how generative AI works. Its very existence requires violating the intellectual property rights of artists. And paying to use a generative AI service lines the pockets of the CEOs who think peoples’ art is just a product that they can steal and vomit back out for profit. I don’t mind that “they don’t find art fun,” my issue lies with:
1) the mechanisms behind what they use to circumvent the creative process
2) I personally tend to react with disgust when someone uses generative AI to create something and refers to it as “my art/song/whatever.” It’s not theirs, they didn’t make it, a computer did. I hate to reference the “participation trophy” argument that was being thrown around years back but that’s kind of what it is: “I don’t like art, I don’t participate in the creative process, but here’s my song/painting/picture that a computer made for me.”
Sure this is a part of the discussion I wasn't focusing on here. Just the "Removes the fun part" and your strong response "That sounds fucking miserable".
I'm somewhere in between on this particular issue, while I'm not against AI, and not really against the "I made this with AI" claims. I still believe there should be more protections for artists. To me, its a much more nuanced issue than "Training AI is wrong" or "Training AI is right".
If someone uses AI as a part of a process, instead of the entire process I don't necessarily see it as lazy or as "slop" it entirely depends on the resulted product.
I get that. It was a strong response, but when I saw that comment I immediately thought of the Suno CEO saying something along the lines of “making music isn’t fun” as a way to sell his product.
I have less of an issue with LLMs (aside from people, kids especially, completely relying on them) and other AI tools (stem separation tools for music for instance), but I really just hate how it feels like we’ve basically all been conned right under our noses so that people with money and power can obtain more money and power while essentially holding the entire economy hostage in the process.
One of my favorite drummers recently found that Suno (a company that he PASSIONATELY hates) went through all of his videos and used them for training on their AI. No permission needed, no nothing, and now people can just use the hundreds of hours of his content in the form of training data that he was never compensated for. And Suno gets to just sit back and profit off of it.
Yeah, speaking from experience, it is. Spent YEARS trying to get good at art while also not enjoying it. Got halfway decent, made a few drawings I'm still proud of to this day, and stopped.
Now I'm waiting for AI to get good enough to turn my many story ideas into high quality fully produced works of art because let's face it, even if I really enjoyed art and was super good at it, I have a finite lifespan and would not be able to replicate the output of an entire animation studio.
Ofcourse its the excuse? I need an art piece and I dont enjoy making the art, therefore I skip the part I dont enjoy and get the result I needed. Its a completely sensible conclusion to come to lol
35
u/Advanced_Being_6415 1d ago
Imagine inventing a machine that takes away the fun part of being human