4 ms·

> Why does anyone post anything at all anywhere ever? I think you'll find the majority of the artwork community still favors, pen and paper, pencil (maybe oils

> Why does anyone post anything at all anywhere ever? I think you'll find the majority of the artwork community still favors, pen and paper, pencil (maybe oils). They do this because, at least in part, they appreciate the challenge, it makes them better as people, in some fashion. I use tablet, sure, some use 3D modeling, even. People don't create pencil drawing because they are good, or sell, they do it for personal reasons. I think you're assuming this is going to solve some problem, it's really not - the people interested in content creation for content creations' sake are not likely to benefit. > Nope. TikTok, YouTube, kids making Minecraft mods as a labor of love and hobby. You're assuming because content platforms like TikTok exist now, that something similar must continue into the future... I see this as a flawed assumption. Regarding monetization, my point hold well here, though. For every "successful" Youtuber raking in millions, there are hundreds, thousands for whom it just didn't work out. The content on these platforms is already often mundane, you don't see the promised plethora of content creators, because the system for the most part favors the few, not the many. Sure, everyone can upload, that doesn't mean most people do. > If we went back in time just ten years and showed ourselves this stuff, we'd think it was magic. I remember ten+ years ago, there was content on the web. Now, it's extremely centralized, most of it is not that good. So yeah I can time travel a bit, and things got worse. The reasons for this aren't all AI, but as trends go creating a program to do photoshop or video automatically isn't going to make things better. You're not solving the right problem here, and the people who stand to benefit are not the people you seem to think will.

echelon 4y ago
> I think you'll find the majority of the artwork community still favors, pen and paper, pencil (maybe oils). A field that has existed for centuries versus something in its larval stage that is still growing legs. Calculators reached more than slide rule users. > They do this because, at least in part, they appreciate the challenge, it makes them better as people, in some fashion. I would love to do art, but life is full of opportunity cost. You can't do everything. This technology will enable so many people to create art without having to devote thousands of hours to practice. That's a good thing! I'm sure many artists used to say the same to artists that utilized tablets when they first came about. Or C programmers joking about early Perl and Javascript programmers. It's rhymes a bit with the Luddite argument. We're seeing the emergence of new workflows. Few people hand wash their clothes anymore, and we're not worse for it. > the people interested in content creation for content creations' sake are not likely to benefit. I'm telling you that I would directly benefit. I love creating content, but I can't draw. I don't have the time to learn. These tools will empower me, and they'll only get better with time. > For every "successful" Youtuber raking in millions, there are hundreds, thousands for whom it just didn't work out There are more people making money creating content now than in any time in history. These tools and platforms have democratized access. People now have a path where there wasn't one before. These platforms and tools don't, however, remove the requirement to be good at what you do and to find, understand, cater to, and grow your audience. > Sure, everyone can upload, that doesn't mean most people do. 90% rule. There are still more creators today than in the past, and the field will only grow from here. > Now, it's extremely centralized That's orthogonal. I agree with you about platforms and centralization being a bit of a problem, but for what it's worth, the platforms do make it easier for most people.
- smaudet 4y ago
  > I'm telling you that I would directly benefit. I love creating content, but I can't draw. This, as you put it, orthogonal. The question is not whether some small set of individuals, such as yourself stand to gain or not. That is in fact what I surmise a very few will actually gain, on the whole this is not a boon. Other orthogonal arguments could be made regarding other orthogonal avenues you have brought up e.g. Javascript being good (terrible for the environment, in part responsible for a large amount of e-waste). Bringing the term luddite into the equation rhymes something with sensationalist.... Being not OK with inappropriate technological uses is not synonymous with being anti technology, tools have purpose, but if you murder someone with a knife and then claim people are luddite for decrying your actions, because progress and being able to cut things... >These tools and platforms have democratized access. Or at least have created the illusion of such. > I don't have the time to learn. No pain no gain, as the saying goes. I don't think this will even be as useful to yourself as you think, you will as you put it, need to still be good, but your unwillingness to put effort into something you otherwise claim to value indicates you are unlikely to benefit at all, your work is likely to be subpar compared to those of your peers. It's OK to not be good at everything, and rely on others, that's the foundation of a society. But claiming you will benefit from something that a tool does is like claiming that you will become rich from hammers putting nails into wood - sure we benefit from not smashing the nails into wood ourselves, maybe society benefits from better constructed houses, even, but the hammer itself does not make you a carpenter or even a construction worker. It will not benefit you in that fashion. Which is my point, the tool in question does not democratize making movies, I bring relevant issues in the realm of current video distribution, and you want to claim it is orthogonal... I'm not sure you understand just how much it won't benefit you... Another way to think about it, if something is a problem, e.g. "I cannot draw", think "Maybe it's much worse than that", and you might begin to uncover the root causes of your issue. Acting prematurely, much like premature optimization, is the root of all evils, if you will. To bring it back to topic, if you create something like an image AI without properly examining what it is you are trying to accomplish, you are liable to create more harm than good. A lot of tech is like this, knee jerk scratch-an-itch, and it shows. Not an Apple fan, but they are a good example in industry, they took time to design well and the result is a more stable, more power efficient system. Android, as much as I love the platform, suffers from a million knee jerk decisions across industry, resulting in a much higher proportion of digital garbage, some virtual some literal landfill.

echelon 4y ago

> I think you'll find the majority of the artwork community still favors, pen and paper, pencil (maybe oils). A field that has existed for centuries versus something in its larval stage that is still growing legs. Calculators reached more than slide rule users. > They do this because, at least in part, they appreciate the challenge, it makes them better as people, in some fashion. I would love to do art, but life is full of opportunity cost. You can't do everything. This technology will enable so many people to create art without having to devote thousands of hours to practice. That's a good thing! I'm sure many artists used to say the same to artists that utilized tablets when they first came about. Or C programmers joking about early Perl and Javascript programmers. It's rhymes a bit with the Luddite argument. We're seeing the emergence of new workflows. Few people hand wash their clothes anymore, and we're not worse for it. > the people interested in content creation for content creations' sake are not likely to benefit. I'm telling you that I would directly benefit. I love creating content, but I can't draw. I don't have the time to learn. These tools will empower me, and they'll only get better with time. > For every "successful" Youtuber raking in millions, there are hundreds, thousands for whom it just didn't work out There are more people making money creating content now than in any time in history. These tools and platforms have democratized access. People now have a path where there wasn't one before. These platforms and tools don't, however, remove the requirement to be good at what you do and to find, understand, cater to, and grow your audience. > Sure, everyone can upload, that doesn't mean most people do. 90% rule. There are still more creators today than in the past, and the field will only grow from here. > Now, it's extremely centralized That's orthogonal. I agree with you about platforms and centralization being a bit of a problem, but for what it's worth, the platforms do make it easier for most people.

smaudet 4y ago
> I'm telling you that I would directly benefit. I love creating content, but I can't draw. This, as you put it, orthogonal. The question is not whether some small set of individuals, such as yourself stand to gain or not. That is in fact what I surmise a very few will actually gain, on the whole this is not a boon. Other orthogonal arguments could be made regarding other orthogonal avenues you have brought up e.g. Javascript being good (terrible for the environment, in part responsible for a large amount of e-waste). Bringing the term luddite into the equation rhymes something with sensationalist.... Being not OK with inappropriate technological uses is not synonymous with being anti technology, tools have purpose, but if you murder someone with a knife and then claim people are luddite for decrying your actions, because progress and being able to cut things... >These tools and platforms have democratized access. Or at least have created the illusion of such. > I don't have the time to learn. No pain no gain, as the saying goes. I don't think this will even be as useful to yourself as you think, you will as you put it, need to still be good, but your unwillingness to put effort into something you otherwise claim to value indicates you are unlikely to benefit at all, your work is likely to be subpar compared to those of your peers. It's OK to not be good at everything, and rely on others, that's the foundation of a society. But claiming you will benefit from something that a tool does is like claiming that you will become rich from hammers putting nails into wood - sure we benefit from not smashing the nails into wood ourselves, maybe society benefits from better constructed houses, even, but the hammer itself does not make you a carpenter or even a construction worker. It will not benefit you in that fashion. Which is my point, the tool in question does not democratize making movies, I bring relevant issues in the realm of current video distribution, and you want to claim it is orthogonal... I'm not sure you understand just how much it won't benefit you... Another way to think about it, if something is a problem, e.g. "I cannot draw", think "Maybe it's much worse than that", and you might begin to uncover the root causes of your issue. Acting prematurely, much like premature optimization, is the root of all evils, if you will. To bring it back to topic, if you create something like an image AI without properly examining what it is you are trying to accomplish, you are liable to create more harm than good. A lot of tech is like this, knee jerk scratch-an-itch, and it shows. Not an Apple fan, but they are a good example in industry, they took time to design well and the result is a more stable, more power efficient system. Android, as much as I love the platform, suffers from a million knee jerk decisions across industry, resulting in a much higher proportion of digital garbage, some virtual some literal landfill.