Replaced
-
The flip side is that AI being able to create art democratizes art so that anyone with an idea can execute it. I don't need to have a steady hand to make a drawing of the idea I have and I don't need to be a software expert- I can describe what I want and what message I'm trying to convey and when the AI produces what I had imagined, I can share it with the world.
wrote last edited by [email protected]When I had a good idea for art I wanted for personal use I went to fiverr and paid someone to do it for me. AI is killing the already meager income streams of starving artists.
-
The flip side is that AI being able to create art democratizes art so that anyone with an idea can execute it. I don't need to have a steady hand to make a drawing of the idea I have and I don't need to be a software expert- I can describe what I want and what message I'm trying to convey and when the AI produces what I had imagined, I can share it with the world.
No it is not. Because at some point it is paywalled. That's not democraticed. That is blitzscaled.
-
The flip side is that AI being able to create art democratizes art so that anyone with an idea can execute it. I don't need to have a steady hand to make a drawing of the idea I have and I don't need to be a software expert- I can describe what I want and what message I'm trying to convey and when the AI produces what I had imagined, I can share it with the world.
Beethoven composed music while deaf and you are complaining about not having steady hands. If you really want to make art, just start doing it. It really is that simple.
-
The flip side is that AI being able to create art democratizes art so that anyone with an idea can execute it. I don't need to have a steady hand to make a drawing of the idea I have and I don't need to be a software expert- I can describe what I want and what message I'm trying to convey and when the AI produces what I had imagined, I can share it with the world.
-
Option in Boost, the app I use. There's an option "Tag User" when you click on a name, and whatever you type appears next to their name in all their comments.
Voyager too
-
Or you could pick up a pencil and put it to paper, actually expressing what's in your soul through your own efforts. I know which one I'd prefer to look at.
Also, saying AI "Democratizes art" ignores several million years of people making art with whatever was on hand, whether that be 3D modeling software, or charcoal on a cave wall. Art has always been Democratic and Free; AI, notably, isn't.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Yeah my artwork isn't the greatest https://billsaquarium.com/ but it's my artwork and can tell the stories I want to tell.
Also AI can't make original painting like the kind my wife paints. It's all digital.
-
I'm gonna get downvotes again, but: no I couldn't. Art class was mandatory for 9 years of school for me and I can still only draw shit with straight lines. Using a ruler. I can't do anything with a "free hand" as the teacher called it. If I had a project that required art on even a 3rd grade level I could choose between AI and hiring a person I can't afford.
That said, I hate what it does to professional artists. And luckily I don't have time to go through with the video game I wanted to create so I don't have to choose between AI and a real human with actual creativity right now.
You don't have to draw perfect art. I make a webcomic and it's not all straight lines shit. But it's true art that I did myself no AI needed.
Example
-
The flip side is that AI being able to create art democratizes art so that anyone with an idea can execute it. I don't need to have a steady hand to make a drawing of the idea I have and I don't need to be a software expert- I can describe what I want and what message I'm trying to convey and when the AI produces what I had imagined, I can share it with the world.
democratise art?
that's the most stupid thing I've heard.
everyone can do art, grab a pencil and a paper, or clay, or a stick and a knife, or....
Doing art is practically free. you cant have anything more democratised than art.
AI is simply not art, it is inherently unable to do anything creative and only makes cheap soulless slop.
If it's used as a fancy brush, an artist can do amazing stuff with it, but the creativity and art still comes from the artist, not AI itself.
-
I actually think the "it's soulless... FOR NOW" panel is pretty important.
People who believe in the value of human creativity have been pretty casual about saying that AI generated work isn't as good as work created by a person, but what happens if in another iteration or two it actually CAN produce "good" "art"? Like, what happens if it's cranking out screenplays and paintings that DO pass muster? We've got to be prepared for that possibility, and try to act now to make sure that our world is structured around preserving human dignity on its own merits. The existence of a faster work-doing machine shouldn't necessitate that all human workers must now starve.
-
I actually think the "it's soulless... FOR NOW" panel is pretty important.
People who believe in the value of human creativity have been pretty casual about saying that AI generated work isn't as good as work created by a person, but what happens if in another iteration or two it actually CAN produce "good" "art"? Like, what happens if it's cranking out screenplays and paintings that DO pass muster? We've got to be prepared for that possibility, and try to act now to make sure that our world is structured around preserving human dignity on its own merits. The existence of a faster work-doing machine shouldn't necessitate that all human workers must now starve.
what happens if it’s cranking out screenplays and paintings that DO pass muster?
It's inevitable. Eventually we will be able to ask for, and then refine, the perfect TV show for our particular tastes. Want 'Buffy' but set in the Fallout universe with Dumbledore and Boromir? Give it a minute and you'll have it.
-
I've started adding
or 
tags to people's usernames when they can't pull their head out of their ass.Gives me a heads up on what to dodge without falling victim to an overzealous admin wildly swinging the ban-hammer.
You mentioning tagging clowns just reminded me of someone I had tagged on my lemm.ee account for saying something phenomenally stupid. I decided to go back and retag him to find I already had tagged him again for another, different moronic thing.
-
AI should have been used to do work for us to give us more time for art. Not the other way around...
Star Trek universe, anyone?
-
I actually think the "it's soulless... FOR NOW" panel is pretty important.
People who believe in the value of human creativity have been pretty casual about saying that AI generated work isn't as good as work created by a person, but what happens if in another iteration or two it actually CAN produce "good" "art"? Like, what happens if it's cranking out screenplays and paintings that DO pass muster? We've got to be prepared for that possibility, and try to act now to make sure that our world is structured around preserving human dignity on its own merits. The existence of a faster work-doing machine shouldn't necessitate that all human workers must now starve.
What you're describing is Clarktech, technology sufficiently advanced to be indistinguishable from magic. We don't know remotely how to create an AI artist that can actually create original works of art with their own perspective, critique, and soul. A system like any we know how to design has to create art from what is essentially the averaging of the work of many artists. Everything they make is a work by committee. Any individual perspective is washed out in the generating process.
We simply don't have any idea how to create an AI that would exhibit the kind of individual perspective of a human artist. Until we at least have some plausible pathway for that, we might as well be arguing about what happens if it turns out magic is real.
-
what happens if it’s cranking out screenplays and paintings that DO pass muster?
It's inevitable. Eventually we will be able to ask for, and then refine, the perfect TV show for our particular tastes. Want 'Buffy' but set in the Fallout universe with Dumbledore and Boromir? Give it a minute and you'll have it.
It’s inevitable.
Nope. Think about the massive amount of computational grunt going into all these LLMs now, they're thrashing AI into every possible nook and cranny, desperate to find some place that makes actual profits. There's also a tremendous issue with gigo - AI learning on AI slop is never going to produce masterpieces.
Firmly in the dubious category here.
-
The flip side is that AI being able to create art democratizes art so that anyone with an idea can execute it. I don't need to have a steady hand to make a drawing of the idea I have and I don't need to be a software expert- I can describe what I want and what message I'm trying to convey and when the AI produces what I had imagined, I can share it with the world.
AI produces what I had imagined
nope. AI is producing what AI imagined. It is not some kind of magic brain reading machine and never will be. I'd rather see palsy-drawn shaky line stick figures than midjourney six finger abominations any day.
By choosing the path of least resistance you're cheating your own creativity and robbing the world of yet another human voice.
And training the machines to take other artists jobs.
Cute.
-
Option in Boost, the app I use. There's an option "Tag User" when you click on a name, and whatever you type appears next to their name in all their comments.
Wow I use boost and I had no idea!
-
Yeah my artwork isn't the greatest https://billsaquarium.com/ but it's my artwork and can tell the stories I want to tell.
Also AI can't make original painting like the kind my wife paints. It's all digital.
man we're all gonna be plastic crap eventually! dig the comic.
-
I actually think the "it's soulless... FOR NOW" panel is pretty important.
People who believe in the value of human creativity have been pretty casual about saying that AI generated work isn't as good as work created by a person, but what happens if in another iteration or two it actually CAN produce "good" "art"? Like, what happens if it's cranking out screenplays and paintings that DO pass muster? We've got to be prepared for that possibility, and try to act now to make sure that our world is structured around preserving human dignity on its own merits. The existence of a faster work-doing machine shouldn't necessitate that all human workers must now starve.
A computer-generated "Van Gogh" is not art any more than a mass-produced coffee mug is artisanal, no matter how "realistic".
This has all happened before. Take photography. People thought it was the end of visual art. If anyone can take a photograph, why would anyone spend years learning to paint?
Artists answered by pushing the medium beyond the limits of realism. Impressionism. This did not make photographs go away. But when I see a picture of someone's cat, I don't usually go "art!" – even though 200 years ago the mere existence of a photorealistic picture would have implied very impressive artistry.
The work that clankers are very quickly taking over is that which does not require art. Visual filler. Lorem ipsum. Corporate communications. Out with artisans, in with industrial machinery. This is the same story that has already happened to almost every artisanal trade, from scribery to pottery to smithing. Visual artists and writers thought themselves exempt from the industrial revolution; they aren't. It will be a worsening socio-economic crisis. But it won't "end" art. Clankers definitionally cannot, and will never do art. Not until they gain a conscience of their own.
-
wrote last edited by [email protected]
Gpt will probably replace a lot of jobs but creative ones it will not. Don't forget that it's a tool, it need input to "create". ...I hope
-
A computer-generated "Van Gogh" is not art any more than a mass-produced coffee mug is artisanal, no matter how "realistic".
This has all happened before. Take photography. People thought it was the end of visual art. If anyone can take a photograph, why would anyone spend years learning to paint?
Artists answered by pushing the medium beyond the limits of realism. Impressionism. This did not make photographs go away. But when I see a picture of someone's cat, I don't usually go "art!" – even though 200 years ago the mere existence of a photorealistic picture would have implied very impressive artistry.
The work that clankers are very quickly taking over is that which does not require art. Visual filler. Lorem ipsum. Corporate communications. Out with artisans, in with industrial machinery. This is the same story that has already happened to almost every artisanal trade, from scribery to pottery to smithing. Visual artists and writers thought themselves exempt from the industrial revolution; they aren't. It will be a worsening socio-economic crisis. But it won't "end" art. Clankers definitionally cannot, and will never do art. Not until they gain a conscience of their own.
wrote last edited by [email protected]+100. I wish I could pin this.
That being said, I think AI Bro existentialism and singularity hype has a lot of people on particular edge, beyond what the camera and other past innovations triggered, since it's pushed at such high levels of our world. But (speaking a fervent local ML tinkerer), the proof is not in their puddin', as professional, foundational researchers would tell you as well. Not just because of technical limitations, but because corporate enshittification is already taking effect.
