4 ms·

I don't quite understand the "art" comment. I've seen it several times so this is not aimed at you. The point of art art is that it is created by a human or gr

I don't quite understand the "art" comment. I've seen it several times so this is not aimed at you. The point of art art is that it is created by a human or group of humans. Artists (performance or visual) will be out of a job when runners are all replaced by race-cars, and pro golfers, tennis players, football players, and basketball players by robots.

satvikpendem 4y ago
There is a difference between artists who create for their own sake, and commercial or professional artists who make a living off art. The latter is what many people worry about with AI. Of course, it's more an indictment on a lack of UBI than on AI itself; to blame it on AI is a Neo-Luddite-esque argument that confuses the root cause the root cause with the more proximal cause. It's akin to people being mad at immigrants taking their jobs than the forces of globalism.
murderfs 4y ago
The point of art is that it's consumed by humans, not produced by humans.
- SyzygistSix 4y ago
  Quite the opposite. Art is a form of communication. Illustration however, is not always. Or the message is simple enough that non-human level AI can do it, as is the case with much commercial illustration.
matkoniecz 4y ago
> The point of art art is that it is created by a human or group of humans. Not for me as a consumer of art. If I read a fictional story, or admire a graphic I do not really care about author. Except as something that hints at quality. Maybe in extreme cases I would want to avoid some due to unrelated issues[1]. It is different for nonfiction, but I would read engaging story that was entirely automatically generated. I admired fractals despite that human effort that went into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set#/media/File:Mandelbrot_sequence_new.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set#/media/File:Man... was only part of outcome. If AI would find other interesting parts of fractal - it also would be enjoyable. ---------- Yes, it is different for nonfiction and author can add relevant context that can increase or dimmish the art, but in vast majority of cases of fiction/music/graphics I know nothing about author and I am not really interested in them. ---- [1] I would not hang in my room landscape painted by certain painter who become the leader of Germany. Even if landscape would be pretty.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  > > The point of art art is that it is created by a human or group of humans. > Not for me as a consumer of art. There's a sense in which you don't really get to say that. Artists are the people who define art, much as scientists get to define what science is. So if someone said, "The point of science is that it is conducted according to the principles of reason and scientific method", and you responded; "Not for me as a consumer of science", then you'd be in a sticky position. You could certainly believe that amethyst rays will cure your gout. But really you'll be a consumer of something else, something that's not science even if you insist on calling it that.
  - matkoniecz 4y ago
    Then artists may discover that art defined in this way is only part of what is considered as art nowadays. It is quite curious - is it half of it? 1%? 75%? 0.1%? Also: > Artists are the people who define art, much as scientists get to define what science is. Not really, that is not how language works. As far as language goes, it is defined by more wider community. See poor cryptologists and meaning of word "crypto", one more victim of other bunch of events.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    Judging the quality of art is subjective to a vastly larger degree than the quality of science. If you threw away all the art and literature and waited 250 years, what you ended up with wouldn’t be a regeneration of that art. If you threw away all the science knowledge and waited 250 years, most of the same science would regenerate.
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    And in that sense, there is no threat. People will still be able to make any of the things they do now as a form of self expression. But much of art is created as a commercial work, and it is that market that AI may threaten. This is true of any field where workers are at risk of being replaced. People aren't going to be prevented from engaging in that activity, but it will become harder or impossible to do so commercially.
PhasmaFelis 4y ago
That may be true of the kind of art that people go to galleries for, or hang on their walls and admire. But most professional artists make a living off of commercial work. If AI image generation advances far enough, many of those people could be out of a job. The purity of art won't save them.
dotnet00 4y ago
Yeah, I don't really get it either. If the artist didn't matter, there would be a huge market for people who can simply copy the most popular artist's style and yet, from my perspective from the anime industry (where AI generation has been especially controversial), that just isn't the case. Companies still pay large amounts of money to get stuff done from the most popular artists despite there being plenty of people who can imitate the style. Similarly, fans tend to be able to recognize the artist and follow their work too. AI isn't going to fill that hole because the artist does matter. AI won't replace artist jobs, although it'll make new kinds of art possible.

satvikpendem 4y ago

There is a difference between artists who create for their own sake, and commercial or professional artists who make a living off art. The latter is what many people worry about with AI. Of course, it's more an indictment on a lack of UBI than on AI itself; to blame it on AI is a Neo-Luddite-esque argument that confuses the root cause the root cause with the more proximal cause. It's akin to people being mad at immigrants taking their jobs than the forces of globalism.

murderfs 4y ago

The point of art is that it's consumed by humans, not produced by humans.

SyzygistSix 4y ago
Quite the opposite. Art is a form of communication. Illustration however, is not always. Or the message is simple enough that non-human level AI can do it, as is the case with much commercial illustration.

matkoniecz 4y ago

> The point of art art is that it is created by a human or group of humans. Not for me as a consumer of art. If I read a fictional story, or admire a graphic I do not really care about author. Except as something that hints at quality. Maybe in extreme cases I would want to avoid some due to unrelated issues[1]. It is different for nonfiction, but I would read engaging story that was entirely automatically generated. I admired fractals despite that human effort that went into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set#/media/File:Mandelbrot_sequence_new.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set#/media/File:Man... was only part of outcome. If AI would find other interesting parts of fractal - it also would be enjoyable. ---------- Yes, it is different for nonfiction and author can add relevant context that can increase or dimmish the art, but in vast majority of cases of fiction/music/graphics I know nothing about author and I am not really interested in them. ---- [1] I would not hang in my room landscape painted by certain painter who become the leader of Germany. Even if landscape would be pretty.

nonrandomstring 4y ago
> > The point of art art is that it is created by a human or group of humans. > Not for me as a consumer of art. There's a sense in which you don't really get to say that. Artists are the people who define art, much as scientists get to define what science is. So if someone said, "The point of science is that it is conducted according to the principles of reason and scientific method", and you responded; "Not for me as a consumer of science", then you'd be in a sticky position. You could certainly believe that amethyst rays will cure your gout. But really you'll be a consumer of something else, something that's not science even if you insist on calling it that.
- matkoniecz 4y ago
  Then artists may discover that art defined in this way is only part of what is considered as art nowadays. It is quite curious - is it half of it? 1%? 75%? 0.1%? Also: > Artists are the people who define art, much as scientists get to define what science is. Not really, that is not how language works. As far as language goes, it is defined by more wider community. See poor cryptologists and meaning of word "crypto", one more victim of other bunch of events.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  Judging the quality of art is subjective to a vastly larger degree than the quality of science. If you threw away all the art and literature and waited 250 years, what you ended up with wouldn’t be a regeneration of that art. If you threw away all the science knowledge and waited 250 years, most of the same science would regenerate.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  And in that sense, there is no threat. People will still be able to make any of the things they do now as a form of self expression. But much of art is created as a commercial work, and it is that market that AI may threaten. This is true of any field where workers are at risk of being replaced. People aren't going to be prevented from engaging in that activity, but it will become harder or impossible to do so commercially.

PhasmaFelis 4y ago

That may be true of the kind of art that people go to galleries for, or hang on their walls and admire. But most professional artists make a living off of commercial work. If AI image generation advances far enough, many of those people could be out of a job. The purity of art won't save them.

dotnet00 4y ago

Yeah, I don't really get it either. If the artist didn't matter, there would be a huge market for people who can simply copy the most popular artist's style and yet, from my perspective from the anime industry (where AI generation has been especially controversial), that just isn't the case. Companies still pay large amounts of money to get stuff done from the most popular artists despite there being plenty of people who can imitate the style. Similarly, fans tend to be able to recognize the artist and follow their work too. AI isn't going to fill that hole because the artist does matter. AI won't replace artist jobs, although it'll make new kinds of art possible.