4 ms·

> What would I start with? Something more like the MS Office software of the 1980s, only automated. I would have real-world applications that, wait for it, perf

> What would I start with? Something more like the MS Office software of the 1980s, only automated. I would have real-world applications that, wait for it, perform work so I don't have to. AKA automation. But that's what Stable Diffusion et al is: automation. It's just not automation for what you spend your time on, but it is automation for what a countless amount of people spend their time on, doing stock photos/drawings/clip art for endless amount of articles and other generic videos. I also think that the current "creative automation" comes from a perspective where many people have said for a long time that computers will of course be able to do boring, repeatable jobs like counting numbers and what not, but it will never be able to do the job of an "artist". But now, it seems like at least a subset of "artists" will be out of job unless they find a way to work with the new tools rather than against them.

kjkjadksj 4y ago
I think it depends on if you are a designer or an artist. In my mind a designer works on a specification for a client and produces it, they are interchangeable, they dont put their signatures on the work because its not theirs, its the clients. Artists however wont have to worry about ai. Ai music already exists but people still support mainly real artists on streaming platforms and go to concerts, because provenance matters for artists and it doesn't for designers. Could an ai make a warhol? Probably not because what made warhols art popular was that he essentially worked outside of the training set and provided something previously unseen. Machine learning is bound to the training set. You can make generic corporate bathroom art for hotels or filling empty picture frames with it, but there will still be real artists and galleries and concerts and museums, because often times people value the provenance of the artist much more than even the work itself.
- jefftk 4y ago
  > Ai music already exists but people still support mainly real artists on streaming platforms and go to concerts, because provenance matters for artists I don't think that's what's going on. The top pop singers are generally already singing things written by other people against accompaniment written by other people. I think by far the biggest reason few people are listening to AI music is it's just not as good as human music yet?
  - kjkjadksj 4y ago
    Thats true, but people are still listening for the artist and not the talent team. Drake is famous for having his writers live in tents in the studio. I bet songwriters desperate enough for work to live in a tent probably are cheaper than making a contract with whoever is trying to sell this stuff to major record labels.
    - jononor 4y ago
      So if the talent team becomes partly AI-based, no change on public perception. They still listen to "the artist".
      - kjkjadksj 4y ago
        That would depend on if its cheaper to have an AI team or a real team. For example mcdonalds had all the tech to replace burger flippers by the 1980s if not earlier. Just retool a robot that builds Fords to hold a spatula. The reason they still hire people is because its cheaper than what the maintenance contract on such a robot costs.
- pmoriarty 4y ago
  "Ai music already exists but people still support mainly real artists on streaming platforms and go to concerts, because provenance matters for artists" I don't listen to my favorite music because of who made it but because I like it. If music that I like started bring made by AI then it's listen to it without hesitation. In fact a lot of music bring made today is already a collaboration between humans and machines and had been so for a long time.
- Firmwarrior 4y ago
  That's a good point Just like how "Calculator" used to be a job title for humans who manually performed calculations.
agumonkey 4y ago
But I get what zack is pointing at, it's automating the wrong stuff. It's like still having to work in a coal mine but thank god you don't have to take care of kids at night because someone invented autosnatcher. A lot of world is grinding in pain due to extremely bad software and the money and brain power keeps pouring everywhere but there. Well not entirely.. there was a lot of money thrown on these bad applications, but it evaporated due to software services companies subpar engineering.
- zackmorris 4y ago
  Thank you, that's what I was trying to say. Tech innovation today is almost always some variation of let them eat cake. I had the fortune/misfortune of moving furniture for 3 years right out of college 20 years ago to support my internet business at the time. I saw how the vast majority of people toil away their lives to make rent and child support each month. That experience shattered my will to such a degree that I came out of it a different person. My concern is that the divide between working poor and techie riche is now so vast that they can't even see one another. If the wealthy and powerful could see, they would invest less in profitable schemes and more in shared prosperity. But they can't. So wealth inequality continues to grow unabated, with AI being just another tool to profit from another's labor or eat their lunch outright.
  - agumonkey 4y ago
    Its a big question I think about regularly. I have quite a lot to say about it. I think the whole structure is subtle and it's not as simple as rich/poor divide. I'll be back.

kjkjadksj 4y ago

I think it depends on if you are a designer or an artist. In my mind a designer works on a specification for a client and produces it, they are interchangeable, they dont put their signatures on the work because its not theirs, its the clients. Artists however wont have to worry about ai. Ai music already exists but people still support mainly real artists on streaming platforms and go to concerts, because provenance matters for artists and it doesn't for designers. Could an ai make a warhol? Probably not because what made warhols art popular was that he essentially worked outside of the training set and provided something previously unseen. Machine learning is bound to the training set. You can make generic corporate bathroom art for hotels or filling empty picture frames with it, but there will still be real artists and galleries and concerts and museums, because often times people value the provenance of the artist much more than even the work itself.

jefftk 4y ago
> Ai music already exists but people still support mainly real artists on streaming platforms and go to concerts, because provenance matters for artists I don't think that's what's going on. The top pop singers are generally already singing things written by other people against accompaniment written by other people. I think by far the biggest reason few people are listening to AI music is it's just not as good as human music yet?
- kjkjadksj 4y ago
  Thats true, but people are still listening for the artist and not the talent team. Drake is famous for having his writers live in tents in the studio. I bet songwriters desperate enough for work to live in a tent probably are cheaper than making a contract with whoever is trying to sell this stuff to major record labels.
  - jononor 4y ago
    So if the talent team becomes partly AI-based, no change on public perception. They still listen to "the artist".
    - kjkjadksj 4y ago
      That would depend on if its cheaper to have an AI team or a real team. For example mcdonalds had all the tech to replace burger flippers by the 1980s if not earlier. Just retool a robot that builds Fords to hold a spatula. The reason they still hire people is because its cheaper than what the maintenance contract on such a robot costs.
pmoriarty 4y ago
"Ai music already exists but people still support mainly real artists on streaming platforms and go to concerts, because provenance matters for artists" I don't listen to my favorite music because of who made it but because I like it. If music that I like started bring made by AI then it's listen to it without hesitation. In fact a lot of music bring made today is already a collaboration between humans and machines and had been so for a long time.
Firmwarrior 4y ago
That's a good point Just like how "Calculator" used to be a job title for humans who manually performed calculations.

agumonkey 4y ago

But I get what zack is pointing at, it's automating the wrong stuff. It's like still having to work in a coal mine but thank god you don't have to take care of kids at night because someone invented autosnatcher. A lot of world is grinding in pain due to extremely bad software and the money and brain power keeps pouring everywhere but there. Well not entirely.. there was a lot of money thrown on these bad applications, but it evaporated due to software services companies subpar engineering.

zackmorris 4y ago
Thank you, that's what I was trying to say. Tech innovation today is almost always some variation of let them eat cake. I had the fortune/misfortune of moving furniture for 3 years right out of college 20 years ago to support my internet business at the time. I saw how the vast majority of people toil away their lives to make rent and child support each month. That experience shattered my will to such a degree that I came out of it a different person. My concern is that the divide between working poor and techie riche is now so vast that they can't even see one another. If the wealthy and powerful could see, they would invest less in profitable schemes and more in shared prosperity. But they can't. So wealth inequality continues to grow unabated, with AI being just another tool to profit from another's labor or eat their lunch outright.
- agumonkey 4y ago
  Its a big question I think about regularly. I have quite a lot to say about it. I think the whole structure is subtle and it's not as simple as rich/poor divide. I'll be back.