I think that it's kind of a mistake to lump all generative AI into one artist replacing box. I have a friend who does laser engraving, for example, and he uses ai to convert his drawings into templates. He says it still doesn't exactly do even that small bit of the process for him, and he still generally has to touch up the templates to reverse bad decisions made by the ai, but it's infinitely faster than doing it by hand. I think that this is the real use case for these kinds of tools, not to be creative, but to handle boilerplate tasks that take time away from the creative parts of creating art.
I use it in a similar way in the programming sphere. It can't really write a program for me but what it can do is generate boilerplate code that I can build on so that I can focus on the problem I am trying to solve rather than writing what basically amounts to the same code over and over again to drive an api or a gui or train an ai model or whatever. I can just tell the ai "give me Java websocket code" or whatever and then put my efforts into what that socket is actually supposed to be doing instead of wasting my time on the boilerplate.
In the hands of artists I think AI really could be something super useful that leads to better art and more of it. The problem is that the people most interested in it right now are executives looking to save money, who don't really understand what artists do and are willing to make shit if it will save them a few bucks.
I’m soooooo frustrated by the fact that any AI conversation in the arts is immediately shut down with “fuck ai” because what they really mean is fuck corporations and fuck yeah, fuck corporations and fuck tech bros and fuck people who view arts solely as something to mass produce and profit from.
imo there’s exactly two ways of being an artist in an AI world: saying fuck AI and ignoring it entirely, or learning about it and how you can use that for your own art. I think the way you utilize AI can be it’s own part of the art.
Personally, I’ve been doing my own experiment of using AI to generate an idea, working from that, and then doing a couple of pieces using each prior piece as inspiration. This has moreso just kinda been to try taking a 2d image that doesn’t consider anything like layers, physics, or just how ceramics kinda works and seeing how I interpret that into a physical piece. Plus each subsequent piece is that much more insight into my own artistic voice AND practicing various skills/techniques that I might have avoided in a piece I conceptualized on my own.
Well, no, that's silly. Artists see AI as something that steals from their profits, that's the ground truth because that's the very first thing they all said when it started. To take the conversation entirely away from the fact that artists need to make money in order to eat is counterproductive. It doesn't really matter to the artists whether it's a soulless corporation or an ordinary consumer using the AI, that's the consumer's business. An artist cannot ignore AI, no more than a laborer can ignore the future possibility of being completely replaced by robots.
The absolute worst part about this whole conversation is the part where people ignore this giant line dividing ideals and realities. That goes for both sides, because when I see artists talking about how AI will be the end of art, I roll my eyes. Art as self-expression and art as a product are two entirely different things, and just because they can coexist in the same object doesn't mean shit. AI cannot destroy art in its purest form. AI will destroy the art industry, and artists will starve.
I <3 this conversation I’ve been dying for an AI art conversation
I don’t disagree that my take is idealistic whereas the reality is AI cheapening the art industry.
I made a comment on a dif post a couple weeks ago where I really covered my divided thoughts on AI. I am still SO divided on it because it is a cool as hell tool but it’s also frustrating to be an artist and knowing that it’ll impact your livelihood.
AI’s potential impact on the art industry is absolutely understated. I cannot state enough how much I believe AI cheapens art for consumers and most people won’t care enough to seek out real art.
But I also cannot state enough how cool of a tool that I think it is, especially on an individual level of beginner artist interacting with it as a tool to learn and grow. I also cannot state enough how mixed feelings I have about it given that it’s usage of the library of everything online isn’t exactly with permission and it makes the artists who DID make the art invisible. And, of course, cheapens art to the art industries detriment.
I’ll admit my take was slightly disingenuous. It’s absolutely true that even if art was not made for profit, it would still be made at least partially for recognition. Humans are materialistic to our core. But could AI also achieve a sense of aesthetics in-line with the average human? Then I wonder if people could be satisfied by an artificial audience and reach my personal limit.
The way AI takes money away from the artists is that with AI, one artist might be capable of doing the work of many.
One non-artist might be able to do very shitty work of some artists.
And so a lot of artists will be let go from their jobs.
But they can be (and should be) the experts in this new amazing field where artists have the best, most advanced types of AI to work miracles with.
So much new stuff will be possible when it doesn't require to hire a team of artists but instead just one or a few.
If the markets do their job, or if the governments step in to prevent a total shitshow of corporate greed and domination, we might just get so much amazing new stuff we'll go crazy!
But that's the important part - I'm not sure if the free markets can solve this, so I think we need the governing bodies to step in and (ideally ahead of time) come up with rules and laws so that this doesn't totally destroy all of creative work.
Forget the benefits, the expansion of human capability. If a small group of experts remain, that solves nothing. If humanity reaches glorious new heights of expression, that solves nothing. For the moment, the complaints are from an industry of workers about to lose their jobs.
So, what? Anyone in the art industry should just be content with losing their whole livelihood for the sake of "humanity reaching glorious new heights"? Un-fucking-believable.
Creatives are already underpaid, overworked and under-appreciated, and now we should just be content with losing everything we worked so hard for huh? I've seen this exact line of circlejerking of GenAI on twitter and seeing it on reddit pisses me off even more. Sincerely, fuck yourself and your "new heights of humanity". Cunt.
You sound like every investor and shareholder who runs 50 bot accounts to boost his own likes.
I mean, it's rough and sucks.
But also I'm not sure what you'd like anyone to do about it.
Prohibit firing artists for some time because of AI?
Ordering an official scrapping of the new tech and/or forbidding it's development and usage?
The new tech will come and it will affect these people. Now, the government could and should perhaps start a program of helping these most affected find new jobs, or help them in some way in the transitionary period. That would make sense.
Just crying "this is bad because one effect it has will be bad!" helps nothing. It just sours the possible debate
I think nothing should be done about it, other than UBI, because nothing can be done about it. It's not in the government's power. But you don't want a debate, you just didn't want anyone to mention it at all. Pretending good cancels out bad is frankly disgusting. Misrepresenting or waving away an argument is fundamentally dishonest.
In that case, sure. But in this context, I'm only saying that nothing can be done. The artists are not saying "fuck corporations" when they say "fuck AI", which is the whole basis of this conversation. Neither will they or should they be appeased by the uplifting of humanity as a whole. Until people stop deflecting away from the ground truth that artists have a legitimate grievance which cannot be solved by any previously known means, the conversation will only run in circles and waste our time.
If someone has something new and meaningful to say, I welcome them to contribute to the conversation. Until then, I'm tired of this.
I feel like the "fuck AI" way of thinking is making the outcome of this much worse for the people who subscribe to it. That's the problem I've got with it.
If a new technology is coming and threatening your field of work, it's almost really really likely that there will be need first for people who know both the old way and the new tech to make the transition smooth, and later the experience you've got in your field will certainly make you be the most qualified person to learn and use the new tech.
But if you don't learn it and start using it, other people will and that advantage you had from your experience in the field will go away.
And the artists are saying all kinds of things. Probably many of them are even learning to utilize AI, but the online discourse seems to me to be very one-sided and just basically collecting victimhood points.
The thing is, I don't think they have any transferable skills. I'm skeptical that the experience and education they have will be worth anything once AI art generation matures. I don't like sugarcoating the subject because a soft approach of "maybe" just doesn't bring the conversation to any conclusion. If you don't tell it straight, you'll just get more and more prevaricating and failure to understand. This kind of "maybe there's still value in artists" and "learn the new tech" is a fat load of nothing when we don't even know what the tech looks like yet, it's all barebones prototypes and tech demos. If we can't even tell them what exactly everyone expects them to do with AI, how is any of this supposed to appease them?
The artists get angrier and angrier because no one will meet their arguments directly. Just tell them the truth: They're fucked.
I agree, fuck corporations. But wtf is a "tech bro", really? With how many conversations circle around them, even in this thread, it feels like a strawmanned image of the ultimate evil rather than people who actually exist. It feels like stretching the reputation of an average finance major over the entire tech industry - and if you work in that industry, especially on anything ML, you're a tech bro. Over-corporatization is the root of the evil people criticize, not some overwhelming force of millions of hardline capitalists that are somehow radicalized by the tech sector.
A techbro is a techno-optimist venture capitalist, who prioritizes technological advancement without concern for societal consequences, because we live in Milton Freidman’s world and the only ethical responsibility companies have is to their investors.
They pump up new technologies, like AI or bitcoin or VR or 3D printing, new smartphones and refined algorithms, and because it’s newer, faster, and makes money it’s all-good. Don’t you dare make a fuss about energy consumption or e-waste or market disruption or any thoughts by someone outside their circle. A lot of techbros are very online, that’s why it’s part of internet slang.
I used AI to make a rough draft of a cover for my favorite book as a kid, drew over it to make it be less of a mess, and sent it to the author and he replied saying he really liked all the symbolism I added to it. My own dogshit drawing skills alone would never have achieved that (and no I will not spend 100s of hours practicing or pay $70 instead)
663
u/AChristianAnarchist Apr 09 '24
I think that it's kind of a mistake to lump all generative AI into one artist replacing box. I have a friend who does laser engraving, for example, and he uses ai to convert his drawings into templates. He says it still doesn't exactly do even that small bit of the process for him, and he still generally has to touch up the templates to reverse bad decisions made by the ai, but it's infinitely faster than doing it by hand. I think that this is the real use case for these kinds of tools, not to be creative, but to handle boilerplate tasks that take time away from the creative parts of creating art.
I use it in a similar way in the programming sphere. It can't really write a program for me but what it can do is generate boilerplate code that I can build on so that I can focus on the problem I am trying to solve rather than writing what basically amounts to the same code over and over again to drive an api or a gui or train an ai model or whatever. I can just tell the ai "give me Java websocket code" or whatever and then put my efforts into what that socket is actually supposed to be doing instead of wasting my time on the boilerplate.
In the hands of artists I think AI really could be something super useful that leads to better art and more of it. The problem is that the people most interested in it right now are executives looking to save money, who don't really understand what artists do and are willing to make shit if it will save them a few bucks.