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?

  • Libb@piefed.socialEnglish
    16·
    3 days ago

    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:

    1. Art is not limited to visual art. Far from it.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.

    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.socialEnglish
      21·
      3 days ago

      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.

      • Libb@piefed.socialEnglish
        3·
        3 days ago

        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.

        • KoboldCoterie@pawb.socialEnglish
          3·
          3 days ago

          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.)