3 ms·
missing in all of this: "the new". Newness is what gives art, writing, news articles, discourse in general, its value. stable diffusion, GPT-3, etc are simply
by marstall 4y ago
missing in all of this: "the new".
Newness is what gives art, writing, news articles, discourse in general, its value. stable diffusion, GPT-3, etc are simply generating aimless rehashes of what's already been said and done.
example: check out a daily newspaper, online or off. most every sentence of its news articles are based on new facts personally witnessed by the writer in the past week, expressed with the maximum of economy. where's the room for an AI there?
Or fine contemporary art (the kind people pay for). This category of art inevitably incorporates things like commentary on previous generations of art, rejection of previous forms, questioning what an art form is, etc. None of these things can be done by Stable Diffusion's pastiche of genres and influences.
Quickly artists will begin incorporating Stable Diffusion and its implications into their work - but they will create value only by doing things like commenting on it, questioning it, perverting it and rejecting it. And doing so will quickly become passé after it has generated some eye popping art sales.
Of course nothing ever generated by Stable Diffusion will have a dollar value on its own, what it outputs is the very definition of a worthless commodity.
For an earlier example of this phenomenon, check out the work of 80s artist Mark Kostabi, who created his own Stable Diffusion-esque entity in the form of a studio of hack artists who created an endless conveyor belt of oil paintings based on his whimsical, banal specifications. They were terrible and Kostabi was variously viewed as a genius and a laughingstock.
- addisonl 4y ago>Of course nothing ever generated by Stable Diffusion will have a dollar value on its own, what it outputs is the very definition of a worthless commodity. Pretty bold statement based on nothing but your feelings, seriously doubt this will remain true across all AI-generated images.
- shostack 4y agoI'm curious what copyright issues exist around it. To your point of people finding to use it, I agree. But this is also why I believe it's value hasn't begun to be tapped yet. As the capabilities, tools, and abstraction layers grow, I suspect we'll see a surge in the value of how the outputs are utilized as it lowers the bar dramatically for creating high quality visuals. This is somewhat similar to how blogs lowered the bar for publishing text and images to the web. Same with YouTube and video. It's different in the sense that it is not a medium into itself per se, but from a creative production standpoint it has the power to be quite disruptive (case in point, art contests and Newgrounds starting to ban it). Once the copyright piece is made clear of course.
- dabbledash 4y agoI don't think "fine contemporary art" is the only kind people pay for. I'm not a visual artist, but just off the top of my head, illustrations in books, magazines, and ads, as well as a lot of video game art, might be producible using these tools. Of course, while that might reduce work for artists it might make it easier for other people to create things like games.
- genericacct 4y agoSome of those paintings sell for 5 figures each, hardly worthless