17 ms·

>"AI" that would reduce or commoditize human intelligence. Computer generated art (DALL-E~), fiction literature, music et al. It wouldn't really reduce human i

by chank 4y ago

>"AI" that would reduce or commoditize human intelligence. Computer generated art (DALL-E~), fiction literature, music et al. It wouldn't really reduce human intelligence, but it will definitely commoditize creative crafts even further. Which I think is what the OP is mostly referring to.

version_five 4y ago
I was in a gift shop recently that had what looked like oil paintings for $40-100, all imported from china or somewhere they were made cheaply, all of some uninspired beach or flowers or something. We also have muzak, we have online "content" that's really just some outsourced minimum to try and do seo. It's already all a commodity. Having ML that can streamlines that changes nothing. It's still not doing anything creative. Even the Kermit pictures I joked about above were really "made" by the person who thought of the cool prompts for the model. It's that creativity that's the human part. ML can be an idiot savant, like a calculator can multiply numbers fast, but it doesn't "create" the ideas or inputs. So it could change the economics of listicles and lower-end gift shop art, etc, from off-shore to computer generated. Maybe for some people that will be enough to call it a kind of industrial revolution. But there is no risk to creativity, anymore than a loom was a risk to creativity in fabrics.
- wnkrshm 4y ago
  Also, I feel the core of art is some promise of meaning pertaining to human experience. Look at some abstract art and what do you think about? You think about the meaning and what it might represent, inevitably assigning your own meaning to it in some way. Then you get told by the artist "oh I just threw some paint at the wall because people liked my previous experiment", I bet the piece instantly loses the majority of its luster. (Edit: Same goes for representative art, mostly, as in illustration. There is a promise of an entire world hidden behind the painting, which offers a glimpse into it. If it's just an incoherent one-off, that's not that interesting, just like the commercial muzak art you mentioned.) A painting generated entirely by an algorithm is more like looking at a flower, which is also aesthetic but not necessarily art. I feel that the 'real' AI-tools for artists will be more sophisticated and more focused, like "take my catalogue of the last 10 years and train on that" - being able to go back to a former style (which is difficult for artists) and re-experimenting with that, with actually stylistically coherent output. I think we'll see a lot of art made from mashing historic styles with modern subjects in the coming years.
xigoi 4y ago
If your artwork can be generated by an AI, are you really creative?
- chank 4y ago
  If you use AI in your process, why do I need to pay you so much for it. Hence commoditization. Where do we draw the line for them meaning of human interaction if not the value.
encrux 4y ago
I don't think we should somehow limit the use of AI for creative purposes. What the internet showed on the last 10 years is that there's an abundance of content. This won't change with AI, it'll just be even more content. What we need IMHO is a way or a method to naturally let novel and intriguing approaches float to the top. Obviously there are methods currently (algorithms, votes, impressions, etc.), so I don't see how we couldn't develop a new approach to tackle an increasing amount of AI-content
barrysteve 4y ago
Some guy remade the droid and gungan battle scene from Star Wars Episode 1 in Unreal Engine 5. The original tool hundreds of people and millions of dollars in budget. The UE5 take looks better than the original and took one guy with nearly no budget. 'Traditional' tools are on the same path to devalues cultural outputs, AI is just another nail in the coffin.
- rg111 4y ago
  Can I please have a link?
  - barrysteve 4y ago
    https://youtu.be/iKTBaF7kpBI https://youtu.be/iKTBaF7kpBI
notahacker 4y ago
I think DALL-E is really, really great and can definitely replace someone spending a lot of hours photoshopping ideas for (say) an ad brief even in its current form. But I'm not seeing it as a bigger step change than the invention of the camera, the gramophone or the music sequencer, all of which made access to the arts ubiquitous rather than valueless. DALL-E is more likely to make meme and fan art really good than Pixar or even ad agencies redundant

by chank 4y ago

version_five 4y ago

I was in a gift shop recently that had what looked like oil paintings for $40-100, all imported from china or somewhere they were made cheaply, all of some uninspired beach or flowers or something. We also have muzak, we have online "content" that's really just some outsourced minimum to try and do seo. It's already all a commodity. Having ML that can streamlines that changes nothing. It's still not doing anything creative. Even the Kermit pictures I joked about above were really "made" by the person who thought of the cool prompts for the model. It's that creativity that's the human part. ML can be an idiot savant, like a calculator can multiply numbers fast, but it doesn't "create" the ideas or inputs. So it could change the economics of listicles and lower-end gift shop art, etc, from off-shore to computer generated. Maybe for some people that will be enough to call it a kind of industrial revolution. But there is no risk to creativity, anymore than a loom was a risk to creativity in fabrics.

wnkrshm 4y ago
Also, I feel the core of art is some promise of meaning pertaining to human experience. Look at some abstract art and what do you think about? You think about the meaning and what it might represent, inevitably assigning your own meaning to it in some way. Then you get told by the artist "oh I just threw some paint at the wall because people liked my previous experiment", I bet the piece instantly loses the majority of its luster. (Edit: Same goes for representative art, mostly, as in illustration. There is a promise of an entire world hidden behind the painting, which offers a glimpse into it. If it's just an incoherent one-off, that's not that interesting, just like the commercial muzak art you mentioned.) A painting generated entirely by an algorithm is more like looking at a flower, which is also aesthetic but not necessarily art. I feel that the 'real' AI-tools for artists will be more sophisticated and more focused, like "take my catalogue of the last 10 years and train on that" - being able to go back to a former style (which is difficult for artists) and re-experimenting with that, with actually stylistically coherent output. I think we'll see a lot of art made from mashing historic styles with modern subjects in the coming years.

xigoi 4y ago

If your artwork can be generated by an AI, are you really creative?

chank 4y ago
If you use AI in your process, why do I need to pay you so much for it. Hence commoditization. Where do we draw the line for them meaning of human interaction if not the value.

encrux 4y ago

I don't think we should somehow limit the use of AI for creative purposes. What the internet showed on the last 10 years is that there's an abundance of content. This won't change with AI, it'll just be even more content. What we need IMHO is a way or a method to naturally let novel and intriguing approaches float to the top. Obviously there are methods currently (algorithms, votes, impressions, etc.), so I don't see how we couldn't develop a new approach to tackle an increasing amount of AI-content

barrysteve 4y ago

Some guy remade the droid and gungan battle scene from Star Wars Episode 1 in Unreal Engine 5. The original tool hundreds of people and millions of dollars in budget. The UE5 take looks better than the original and took one guy with nearly no budget. 'Traditional' tools are on the same path to devalues cultural outputs, AI is just another nail in the coffin.

rg111 4y ago
Can I please have a link?
- barrysteve 4y ago
  https://youtu.be/iKTBaF7kpBI https://youtu.be/iKTBaF7kpBI

notahacker 4y ago

I think DALL-E is really, really great and can definitely replace someone spending a lot of hours photoshopping ideas for (say) an ad brief even in its current form. But I'm not seeing it as a bigger step change than the invention of the camera, the gramophone or the music sequencer, all of which made access to the arts ubiquitous rather than valueless. DALL-E is more likely to make meme and fan art really good than Pixar or even ad agencies redundant