It's the equivalent of subcontracting your work to another person and then taking the credit.
1. Draw a house freehand.
2. Draw a house using a ruler so your edges are a bit straighter and things line up.
3. Draw a house after constructing a base grid on the page with measurements and vanishing points.
4. Draw a house after blocking out the structure using a 3D package and outputting an image as basically a very advanced base grid, complete with lens curvature and angle of view. But you have still made all the choices and done all the groundwork yourself.
5. Tell a computer to draw you a house, using prompts that you know will get an appropriate output. It will probably ape someone else's style without their permission, and look slightly "off" if you spend any time studying it.
Levels 1 to 4 are art, using varying amounts of assistance to save time and get everything as technically correct as possible. Level 5 is briefing another individual to do the art for you.
(
Turtle Power & Knuckles, Thu 20 Apr 2023, 18:22,
Reply)
Ancient artists working with twigs and dirt may have scoffed at the development of charcoal, brushes and dyes, hammers and chisels, etc., etc.
Progress can feel like cheating to those whose status and sense of purpose is rendered obsolete by new technology.
I'm frankly amazed by some AI music I've heard. I'm excited to work with AI music tools, and I'm excited to work with AI visual art tools too, once they become, you know, good. Contextual selection tools would be so useful and time-saving. Typing (or speaking) instructions to perform laborious and repetitive tasks would be wonderful.
I understand the fear surrounding AI, but right now I'm quite optimistic about it all. Without AI this could be a lonely galaxy. If we can't have the Star Trek future at least we can have Battlestar Galactica.
(
brb Monkhouse Stampede, Thu 20 Apr 2023, 19:28,
Reply)
Except that the charcoal and brushes replacing the twigs and dirt would be regarded as a refinement/progression of the artistic media an entirely different technique to produce said art.
An argument could certainly be made that a traditional artist's status will eventually be rendered obsolete by AI, but only because the vast majority of consumers are looking at the final product and give not a shit about the process involved.
The same goes for AI music. The tracks that I've heard have been astonishingly authentic (although, considering that contemporary pop and rap are already based largely upon algorithms and largely written/produced by third parties, it's not that much of a leap).
Either way, I wouldn't really regard it as progress. Especially if the value of human art is subsequently depreciated.
(, Fri 21 Apr 2023, 7:16, Reply)
Music is one area where AI is yet to impress beyond it sounding 'authentic'
but this will certainly improve. AI will eventually be able to emulate the creative process without having to rely on human input for good ideas .
There might be a backlash against AI generated art, with people using authenticated human body fluids to paint on cave walls.
(
Mudface The web isn't callipygian, Fri 21 Apr 2023, 11:54,
Reply)
I remember reading a blog post by a pixel artist
showing you their thought processes in designing a simple game graphic. Stage one looked okay (a point where many people would think it was finished - the sort of thing AI can generate), but then they tidied it up and stylised it so by the end it was undeniably a far superior image.
I wish I could find that post, because AI art always seems to be at the "it looks about right" stage, when the real depth of knowledge seems to come after that. The article really made you focus on the subtleties of such work.
Whilst AI art tools are impressive/scary, it does seem another massive leap for it to understand creativity in any way. By design, it feels like it will always head toward the average, when interesting art needs something unique.
(
monkeon schmonkeon, Fri 21 Apr 2023, 12:49,
Reply)
I wonder if growing up in an age where most imagery has been generated by AI will further blind people to the flaws of AI art, not unlike the way many have become deaf to the lifelessness of autotuned vocals in pop
(
Mudface The web isn't callipygian, Fri 21 Apr 2023, 21:15,
Reply)
It only has to be good enough to 'fool' us,
like a mimic in nature only has to look close enough to the real thing from the perspective of its prey. I think it could do this within a decade, and without achieving/suffering consciousness. Plants can mimic.
(
brb Monkhouse Stampede, Sat 22 Apr 2023, 0:17,
Reply)
In nature mimicry exists in the context of the 4 Fs
And when it comes to matters of life and death, evolution seems to favour erring on the side of caution.
My point was about the effect of exposure on aesthetic preferences
(
Mudface The web isn't callipygian, Sat 22 Apr 2023, 5:47,
Reply)
If you look at movies or music now
and how they use things like cgi or autotune, then you can see both interesting use, practical use, and lazy use. The good stuff is still there.
Unfortunately the lazy use seems the most popular with the public, though.
(
monkeon schmonkeon, Sat 22 Apr 2023, 9:14,
Reply)
Very few people ever gave a shit about the process involved in anything. Most of those who find out wish they hadn't.
See also the history of tea, cotton/clothing, the food industry, etc.
IMO an artificial intelligence producing art does nothing to devalue art produced by a biological intelligence, and vice versa. The widespread availability of previously archaic elite knowledge doesn't devalue the product of that knowledge to me. It may diminish the value of the previously privileged elite's skill set in an economic sense, but that will hopefully matter less and less as we head towards post-capitalist Utopia.
(
brb Monkhouse Stampede, Fri 21 Apr 2023, 19:59,
Reply)
