3 ms·

Only in the same manner that GPT-3 eliminates the need for writers. Or influencers remove the need for advertising. That is, a surface-level view might show th

by shakna 4y ago

Only in the same manner that GPT-3 eliminates the need for writers. Or influencers remove the need for advertising. That is, a surface-level view might show these things as equivalent, but the skills required to produce a decent result are not encapsulated in the averages that models contain.

mola 4y ago
I'm sure a lot of "content writers" for SEO spam will become obsolete. The content level is already rock bottom, so is easily replaced by brainless machines. But I'm more bothered by sociatal effects where art is automated. I believe it'll expedite the effects we saw when the internet short circuited the feedback loop for creators, killing any gaps where non revenue optimizing humane creative force could thrive. Not to mention the crazy mimetic positive feedback loops tearing the discourse apart.
kortex 4y ago
I dunno. I've read a lot of GPT output. It lacks a certain consistency over medium scales. The big picture checks out, and the word-by-word grammar checks out, but the sentence-by-sentence information often isn't cohesive, or certain entity references change over time. Text-to-image algos did the same thing for a while, but you look at the latest full-size DALL-E and it's pretty much flawless. https://openai.com/dall-e-2/ https://openai.com/dall-e-2/ If I were considering art school, I'd certainly be reconsidering my options. Maybe there are some defects in the output, but nothing photoshop can't fix. I think where humans win out (for now) is where a high degree of specificity/precision is needed (e.g. graphic design). Or certain legal requirements are present - AI art can't be copyrighted at this time - such as logo design.
- shakna 4y ago
  Or most places where art is displayed and/or sold, because those places generally disparage purely digital art, and method is part of what goes into the valuation of the piece. "Oil on canvas" is worth more than "AI-assisted digital print", especially because duplicating it requires considerable effort.

by shakna 4y ago

mola 4y ago

I'm sure a lot of "content writers" for SEO spam will become obsolete. The content level is already rock bottom, so is easily replaced by brainless machines. But I'm more bothered by sociatal effects where art is automated. I believe it'll expedite the effects we saw when the internet short circuited the feedback loop for creators, killing any gaps where non revenue optimizing humane creative force could thrive. Not to mention the crazy mimetic positive feedback loops tearing the discourse apart.

kortex 4y ago

I dunno. I've read a lot of GPT output. It lacks a certain consistency over medium scales. The big picture checks out, and the word-by-word grammar checks out, but the sentence-by-sentence information often isn't cohesive, or certain entity references change over time. Text-to-image algos did the same thing for a while, but you look at the latest full-size DALL-E and it's pretty much flawless. https://openai.com/dall-e-2/ https://openai.com/dall-e-2/ If I were considering art school, I'd certainly be reconsidering my options. Maybe there are some defects in the output, but nothing photoshop can't fix. I think where humans win out (for now) is where a high degree of specificity/precision is needed (e.g. graphic design). Or certain legal requirements are present - AI art can't be copyrighted at this time - such as logo design.

shakna 4y ago
Or most places where art is displayed and/or sold, because those places generally disparage purely digital art, and method is part of what goes into the valuation of the piece. "Oil on canvas" is worth more than "AI-assisted digital print", especially because duplicating it requires considerable effort.