I clarify my question:
How do you feel about the fact that art created by AI this year is not much different from art created by humans? I think those who have seen it themselves understand what I mean.
How do you feel about the fact that now and in the future, AI will do most of the creative work 80-90% instead of authors and humans, doing it at the highest level better than any human, and people will just train their AI models and create content with prompts?
I have no opinion about it. Vaguely interested to see where it leads and patiently waiting for people to stop bitching so much about it. It’s just annoying at this point.
not much different
Source?
creative
A CPU is not creative.
How do you feel about the fact that art created by AI this year is not much different from art created by humans? I think those who have seen it themselves understand what I mean.
I would say It’s quite… challenging to hope to hold any discussion about an hypothesis that requires all participants to already agree on it. That’s more akin to entering a cult.
But here are a few remarks worth keeping in mind imho:
- Art is not limited to visual art. Far from it.
- Visual art is not about portraying something in such or such specific manner (be it realism, surrealism, or whatever else) it is about sharing an experience (which no AI can do, as it doesn’t live and can’t experience shit by itself) and it is about sharing an emotion that can be ranging from the pure emotional one to the most cerebral. Things that no AI, no matter how sophisticated it is, can experiment either as it certainly has no soul and it has no mind. At best, an AI is a complex set of statistical textual analyses. At best. Hence it’s ability to spit out pure non-sense with the same seriousness as it will spit out factual data.
- Randomly copying and iterating randomly is not ‘creating’ anything it’s playing with volumes of data (and violating copyright). Art is all about making decisions and following one’s own path.
- AI art is boring. Like reading an address book would be (edit: still, even boring it can be useful like an actual address book). People are more then welcome to enjoy boring, like they’re more than welcome to watch shit shows on the TV, if that’s really what they want to get out of their life. I’d rather not and therefore I focus my time on less boring (and human made) art.
How do you feel about the fact that now and in the future, AI will do most of the creative work
If by creative you mean mimicking/monkeying what human do, well… AI can ‘do’ all the ‘creative’ work it can. It won’t make me enter any art gallery or museum to look at it and it will certainly not make me willing to spend a cent accessing it either.
No more than, say, good (bad?) old Microsoft Clippy ever pushed me to enter a bookshop in order to check if it had published anything under its name.
How do you feel
And you, how do you feel about asking questions that aren’t questions? And what do you get out of trying to portray AI as what it is not?
Edit: some clarifications + typos.
I’m going to play devil’s advocate and present a hypothetical alternative here…
Visual art is not about portraying something in such or such specific manner (be it realism, surrealism, or whatever else) it is about sharing an experience (which no AI can do, as it doesn’t live and can’t experience shit by itself) and it is about sharing an emotion that can be ranging from the pure emotional one to the most cerebral.
AI art is boring.
I’d argue that in some applications, this is fine. For example, corporate logos, the equivalent of clip art in presentations, etc. You can argue that that isn’t really ‘art’ in the sense that you’re describing it, but whatever you want to call it, personally, I don’t care if no artist has to do that BS. I highly doubt many artists really want to be doing that stuff. The problem isn’t that AI is being used to generate soulless art for soulless projects, it’s that it’s taking work away from real artists (and that we as modern humans, as a whole, put so much weight on employment).
If we gave UBI to creatives that covered all of their expenses and let them pursue whatever projects they wanted to work on (and thereby we still, as a species, got to enjoy the actual art by actual artists), would it be so bad that the shitty work is being done by a computer? Theoretically there’d be more ‘real’ art, since artists wouldn’t have to waste their time on the bullshit. Let’s go back to a system of patronage, where society as a whole become the patrons.
I’d argue that in some applications, this is fine.
It sure can be. Like I said, a bit like an address book has its purpose. But even if it has pages and printed text in it, an address book is not a book anyone would want to read, it’s just a stack of pages.
I have not considered UBI to be honest, maybe I should give it more consideration.
What I worry a lot more about is the way ‘creativity’ (as the OP tried to frame it) is being hijacked and privatised by very few corporations/private interests. The same that pillaged so many of our art history and creations in order to make their own version of it they want to sell us back.and privatised
Completely agree with you here. If the technology was being developed and made available to everyone for non-commercial use, while they charged for the commercial use cases, I’d have less of an issue with it (aside from the obvious and serious objection that they’re functionally stealing creatives’ work and profiting off of it - but again, I think this objection could be invalidated with UBI.)
Agreed.
This feels more like an opinion than a question.
I oppose all use of AI in the arts - it is an aggregation of human creative endeavours stolen and regurgitated to us, debasing our humanity for the profit of the few.
That said, given the new chip developments, especially the quantum chip breakthrough in the future, after the AI bubble, there’s a risk that AI will be able to create content like this, pretending to be human so well that you’ll start trusting it.
I have sources, but I won’t show them, as I’ve noticed that people on Lemmy are very negative and unlikely to understand anything even if they see it with their own eyes, they probably think that after the AI bubble, the AI will stop developing.
This feels more like an opinion than a question.
You’re right here, but in fact, if you noticed, it’s a mixture of question and opinion.
I have sources, but I won’t show them
Okay buddy
I have sources, but I won’t show them
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHA
sorry
I have sources, but I won’t show them, as I’ve noticed that people on Lemmy are very negative and unlikely to understand anything even if they see it with their own eyes
🤔
We live in a funny world.
I wonder what the fuck you call “art”.
Even if you’re right and in the future AI produces 80 to 90 per cent of creative work, by volume. That doesn’t mean that it will be any good or that anyone will want any of that.
But again, I really wonder kind of art you like.
Call me a luddite but I still hate it unequivocally
No matter how good the output, it’s still using tons of power and water, it’s still taking work away from real artists, it’s still stealing copyrighted content from real artists, LLMs and image convoluters can and never will be creative, just distilled and derivative of everything they’ve been fed in training
deleted by creator
fact
fact
[citation needed]
Stop making up “facts”.
There is now just a large gap between what "profesional’ (read: corporate) art is and what is relegated to “hobbyists”.
In the corporate world, time-to-deliver matters. It matters that creating a logo, an ad, or a t-shirt design can be made faster with AI.
However, AI isn’t likely to be used very widely in what people consider “fine art”. Fine art is more about something intangible that AI can’t really assist with.
What current image generation models can do is reproduce shapes, forms and color mixes that are similar to what they’ve seen before. For the high-volume, high throughput world of corporate art, AI image generation is reducing the cost of goods down to something barely above the cost of electricity. For the fine art world, it means the barrier to entry is a bit steeper and a whole lot fewer people will be capable of spending the time creating it.
AI is making some creative jobs into something akin to blacksmithing or horse-based transportation is today. Making things with older technologies still exists, even though most of modern society has moved on. But it’s something that only a handful of people can do professionally anymore. For most people, it’s a hobby or a fun tourist attraction.
For me AI images simply aren’t interesting. AI made me prefer traditional art over digital
Found in my PM for some reason because PMs are stupid but anyway:
over time they will also begin to create creative things.
How? Please explain mathematically.
I hope you understand what I mean
I certainly don’t.
Mathematically? Well, I’ll try: AI can create art that will replace human art so quickly, thanks to the quality data collected and the huge influx of money. Not exactly convincing, patterns also play an important role: for example, most people draw this way, or most shadows in 2D are depicted this way, and over time, based on patterns and carefully selected data, the AI would learn to create content in the same way as humans, only without fatigue mode, which means that the quality will not drop even if the AI stops learning as if time had stopped. This is a simple explanation that I can give because I don’t want to waste time looking for and checking articles that support my opinion.
Art comes from humans in order to provoke a feeling.
Pictures from CPUs that do not need or want to share anything cannot be called art by definition.
Use another word, but stop that silly appropriation.
deleted by creator
I’ve seen some impressive articles about non-western AI.
deleted by creator
