3 ms·

The more worrisome aspect for me isn’t that it’s already going to replace some artists. I always thought in my head that this level of creativity would remain

The more worrisome aspect for me isn’t that it’s already going to replace some artists. I always thought in my head that this level of creativity would remain our domain for centuries. Even as of like two or three years ago I thought that. It’s insane to me that today some artists feel they’re going to be replaced soon. The idea of centuries is completely shattered for me and now I don’t know if we’re a year or 50 years away from AI replacing humans entirely in the creative domain. I spent the other day completely in an existential crisis, tbh.

astrange 4y ago
The only reason an artist would think they’re being replaced is someone told them they would. So the solution is to not tell them that, as it’s not true. (The main instigator on Twitter is a guy who draws “realistic Pokemon” and hates that an AI may have stolen the art he already stole from The Pokemon Company.)
moonchrome 4y ago
>I always thought in my head that this level of creativity would remain our domain for centuries. From what I've seen these networks are rehashing learning set images into something matching some criteria to produce visually pleasing results. Not to belittle the results - it's impressive - but the stuff I'm not seeing here is understanding of generated material - nonsensical z-order, scale/proportions, configuration. Fantasy images are an easy target because it's all about visually pleasing nonsense.
girvo 4y ago
From what I've seen, these tools aren't making _new_ styles (yet? I guess they will eventually, now that would be existentially fascinating/horrifying) -- so my worry with them is that they'll basically lock us in to what we have today. But then that's sort of a self-limiting factor: it means theres still space for human creativity in creating new things, new styles (as not every style exists yet!) -- at least until said new style gets loaded into the model, I suppose? Fascinating stuff, really.

astrange 4y ago

The only reason an artist would think they’re being replaced is someone told them they would. So the solution is to not tell them that, as it’s not true. (The main instigator on Twitter is a guy who draws “realistic Pokemon” and hates that an AI may have stolen the art he already stole from The Pokemon Company.)

moonchrome 4y ago

>I always thought in my head that this level of creativity would remain our domain for centuries. From what I've seen these networks are rehashing learning set images into something matching some criteria to produce visually pleasing results. Not to belittle the results - it's impressive - but the stuff I'm not seeing here is understanding of generated material - nonsensical z-order, scale/proportions, configuration. Fantasy images are an easy target because it's all about visually pleasing nonsense.

girvo 4y ago

From what I've seen, these tools aren't making _new_ styles (yet? I guess they will eventually, now that would be existentially fascinating/horrifying) -- so my worry with them is that they'll basically lock us in to what we have today. But then that's sort of a self-limiting factor: it means theres still space for human creativity in creating new things, new styles (as not every style exists yet!) -- at least until said new style gets loaded into the model, I suppose? Fascinating stuff, really.