Submitted by thebestmtgplayer t3_104ax4x in Futurology
IcyyWizard t1_j3681f9 wrote
The problem is with AI art specifically, not change/advancement in general. Art is a fundamentally crucial thing for humans - it gives more meaning to our existence as a means to express ourselves and leave our lasting mark on the world. Even right now with how it's being generated en masse, the world of art is quickly becoming over-diluted, expressionless and without purpose. It's essentially like an insult to humanity itself, like saying "there's no point for you to create any more".
You say that we should be perceiving this as a positive thing, and yet we are already seeing the results, and people are very much not "enjoying the thrill of discovery".
Fifthhorseman1 t1_j37x8iy wrote
I think human made art will always hold intrinsic value, they’ll be 2 distinct camps and human art will always be more ‘valuable’.
That, and, just like human art, only the best of the best AI art will be of any value to people.
I would argue that there’s already a virtually infinite mass of human made art in the world, by virtue of the explosion in population over the last generation or so. The argument that AI will flood the world with endless amounts of tat I find to be a bit weak, I think we’re already at that point?
Quanlib t1_j38k0cj wrote
The difference is what someone is willing to pay for it. Yes it’s flooded, but yes AI can flood the market more; for less money. You must see the problem with this. The term “starving artist” has been around for over 250 years and it’s just getting worse with the industrialized commodity model.
Fifthhorseman1 t1_j38lt5r wrote
I do get your point, but at the same time, are we not already past the point of human comprehension? Google Images for example, search for anything and put ‘art’ at the end, at this moment in time (or at least a year or so ago) the vast majority of the uncountable search results would be human made digital art, or an image thereof - my point being, I still feel we’ve already reached that point in my opinion, AI will definitely add to that 100x over, but it’s already incomprehensible volume.
I’m just a filthy casual philosophy wise, but I’m super interested in postmodern ideas; I’ve heard people refer to the present day as ‘The End of History’ - culture has disintegrated into infinite niche groups / bespoke experience for each individual, all music is a remix, rehash, or is fundamentally unoriginal at its core, and I think what we’re describing here is just another symptom of the world we’ve been delivered to, culture wise - quite mind blowing that we’ve born now to witness such profound changes to everything.
clevelanders t1_j38obow wrote
Yeah but i think this is where philosophy meets the real world in terms of use licenses. So for designs and art used for business or anything that will be sold there are strict rules around what’s fair use and what’s not. Most creative projects and businesses alike are forced to work with artists to create unique designs because of those rules, as it’s not legal to just pull from Google images and release something for profit. So what AI art will do is make it way cheaper to get small artwork created, and our price current “starving artists” while also driving going rate in the market down tremendously.
It’s not about the art itself or the proliferation of art in the world, but the humane aspects of how AI’s creation and distribution model will impact the humans in the same creative space
Fifthhorseman1 t1_j38p3ge wrote
For sure, I completely agree. It’s not ‘right’ (? Perhaps wrong word) but it’s just one of many industries that will be majorly disrupted by AI, albeit one that we all rightfully hold very close to our hearts - in our capitalist world, this is clearly now unavoidable for the reasons you’ve stated, every penny counts when it’s time for a corporation to get artsy.
EDIT: adding to this, I just want to emphasise how dearly humans hold art in their hearts, and when coupling this with the idea that perhaps (or maybe just me) art wasn’t what people were probably expecting to be the first major public victim of AI (over vehicles, law, accounting etc), I think this explains the strong public response.
clevelanders t1_j38p7i8 wrote
Yep very well put
thebestmtgplayer OP t1_j38n2fd wrote
It might even become more interesting to actively investigate the residuals (what hasn't been depicted by humans yet). Or mess around with terrible AI that's so overfit it might produce quirky fun stuff :D
thebestmtgplayer OP t1_j36ei3p wrote
I get the point that art is more important in terms of philosophy.
However, how is AI helping in solving technical solutions any different? Finding this 'solution' could be phrased as "our creation/purpose", which makes the individial discovery "expressionless" and "ridding" us of purpose as humans.
While I agree that there's currently many concerns and negative responses to AI art, I see it more as proof for human fear of change; due to not wanting to adjust and fear of the unknown.
AI is - currently - not going to replace artists. It is going to change the entire sector, how and what people work. Many mundane tasks will become redundant and people focusing on that will lose their jobs (hence reducing these opportunities for creativity). However, AI cannot reinvent art (as it is now), always leaving this hole of "new" which has to be filled by artists, and there will be an unchanged demand for that - although I have to agree that it the overall demand will decrease (or shift to AI-Art-Engineers).
I just realized that my response is the photography discussion all over again :D
Quanlib t1_j3894h8 wrote
Boy you sure like quotations marks huh? The problem here is that you’re still suggesting that throwing an idea into an ai algorithm is equivalent to art. This is a false equivalency. Sure- the end product may seem similar to most (consumers), but the creative process is the defining line that divides them.
As it stands, many artists have been plagiarized (or at least their ip has been infringed upon) in DALL-E, simply by inputting their names… this isn’t at all ethical, nor should it be allowed. Why pay for the real thing if you can get a representation of it for free(ish)?
AI should be focused on larger scale objectives, like automating industries and mundane tasks within an industry that no one would choose to or at all want to work in/on, or more pressing issues like maybe trying to help humanity thwart our environmental crises. Churning out AI representations of art is doing nothing but flooding an already flooded market with it’s version of fast fashion. It’s trying to fix an industry that isn’t broken (yet), while simultaneously cheapening a craft.
The other problem with the potential replacement of artists with AI is perspective. What biases have been plugged into AI algos? How many people have been involved in the initial base build of this AI? This leaves a LOT of social and cultural blind spots, or at least grey areas, on how certain cultures are represented- mostly by a handful of people. Cultures that have historically been oppressed will have the most to lose and be hurt by AI art.
Examining potential risks of something is not equivalent to fearing it. I’d argue that the main concerns about AI art aren’t exclusively based off of fear of the future at all- it’s about what’s already happening with these crude versions of AI and the potential issues surrounding them. As the technology advances it will have even more impact on art through it’s effect on the philosophy of art, societal impact of art, financial viability of being a career artist, projected falsities within AI art etc etc…
The real question is- If there was currently an AI companion/sex doll, do you suggest we embrace that as the societal equivalency of having a human partner? Or are we not “waking our inner child’s curiosity” enough for you?
thebestmtgplayer OP t1_j38lyn5 wrote
Just the right mix of provocation and input to deserve a reply instead of a shaking head! And mind you, I do like quotation marks.
I would like to answer your last questions with a question: why would I not choose an AI companion for certain interactions, like chores, given I don't rejoice in mundane daily interactions (and accept I don't leave space for special moments)? If I do not enjoy the hassle for bonding sexually, i can have my sexual fulfillment artificially while seeking social interaction for other reasons (i.e. platonic connection). Similar to this, I'd argue there's many forms of art which can be reduced along the lines of "a cool, colorful sticker for this wall" of some sort, likely a re-scrambled version of artwork that's already been made.
Still, I absolutely agree on the bias topic and over/underrepresentation. I did not consider this while writing up the thread! I do absolutely have to disagree on "AI should be focused on larger scale objectives" (why should a powerful tool be used for one thing alone?).
Just a thought: wouldn't 'underrepresented' communities actually benefit from the rise of AI art? Given their style will be more unique as it isn't easily mass-produced? In that sense, it would push artists to beyond great and average, in a way not observed before (or wielding AI properly for the best results), transforming the occupation as I pointed out already.
World_May_Wobble t1_j376cl3 wrote
>"there's no point for you to create any more".
If you were confronted by a robot that cycled oxygen through an air sac, would you give up breathing?
I've enjoyed writing poetry for decades, since before AI could do it, but it was a dead art since before I was born. The market for it is small and the barrier to entry is low, so I was never going to make money from it, and practically no one would ever see it, but I still do it for me.
Visual art is going to the same place, just much more suddenly.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments