4 ms·

All advances in creative tooling are automating creativity. What are you on about? Look at photoshop color selector automates mixing paint, digital filters for

All advances in creative tooling are automating creativity. What are you on about? Look at photoshop color selector automates mixing paint, digital filters for audio automate analog mixers. This attitude towards AI creative tools is gatekeeping.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
legutierr 4y ago
The people who wrote the Photoshop source code were paid for their contributions with full consent that their work would be included in the product and sold for a profit by Adobe. The artists whose work was fed into these systems did not consent, nor were they paid for their contribution. In fact, I have seen a few reports of people using these systems to generate lookalike artworks intended to resemble the work of specific working artists—artists whose livelihoods depend on client commissions. The only way that these systems could produce knock-off artwork after receiving a prompt containing that artist's specific name is if the artist's own copyrighted work was used in the training data. Do you have any doubt that many working artists' copyrighted work was included in the the training data that produced these systems, without those artists licensing their work for that purpose? It's not gatekeeping to insist that a project obtain a voluntary license from the people who contribute their work to a project. And it's not gatekeeping to point out the fact that these platforms have only been successful by using working artists' copyrighted work in violation of their rights, without asking permission or providing compensation.
- scrollaway 4y ago
  Be real, copyright/attribution is only one complaint, a tiny part of the sudden hatred against AI art/creativity. When somebody brings up the invention of photoshop, they're not trying to disprove a point about paying salaries to the devs, and I am sure you knew that.
  - Quarrelsome 4y ago
    > Be real, copyright/attribution is only one complaint, a tiny part of the sudden hatred against AI art/creativity. When the artists whose work was stolen to train these models are compensated for that work then maybe its a "tiny part". Until then it is taking peoples work and using it to create an ultimate competitor in their own market that they cannot compete with. They now have to compete against themselves and they haven't even been paid for that "privilege".
    - makoto12 4y ago
      beautifully put
    - newswasboring 4y ago
      This kind of wording reminds me of a very old (probably outdated) argument about theft of digital goods. In meatspace when you steal something you are depriving someone of a thing. If I steal your biscuit, you don't have the biscuit. But if I copy a picture of the biscuit you are still left with your own picture, perfect and identical in every way. If I'm not reselling that image to everyone, you lost on that one sale. I wonder if openAI goes and pays retail price for each image they used, would this discussion finally end?
  - legutierr 4y ago
    No, your perspective on this is all wrong. The outrage about AI art is not about how it empowers its users. Rather, the problem is that these systems only exists today because of the involuntary contributions of the very same people who are likely to be put out of business. It really is about the how the contributors to these systems are being treated. The coders that contributed to Photoshop are analogous to the artists whose work was used to train these models. The difference between them is that the former gave their consent to the contribution, and the latter did not.
    - scrollaway 4y ago
      So, my perspective on this is all wrong, despite the fact that the original poster wrote, pretty damn specifically, "Automating creativity is so gross. Never mind the fact that these models are trained on stolen artwork and texts." That's it, that's the entire post. Never mind the "stolen artwork" argument, you still have people upset about "automating creativity". So, like I said, it's one part of it.
- oytis 4y ago
  This is a legit complaint, but is realistic to overcome in future I think. There have been reports of OpenAI hiring software engineers to train AI models to write code in their language. Can be done with art as well, just will take time. It's an impressive demonstration of what is achievable though.
- newswasboring 4y ago
  We are talking past each other. I am not talking about, and indeed am not interested in, the compensation discussion. I will let other people battle it out. I was just responding to calling automation of art gross. I don't know who you are talking to.
nemo44x 4y ago
It’s not gatekeeping to value the outcomes of work created this way less than you would from the mind of a human. Saying that I agree with you in that I see this technology as a tool that can be used by humans to make amazing things. No one really has yet as the outputs have just been blunted, sloppy things. But if I’m an artist I see these tools as the latest tool to help make things.
- newswasboring 4y ago
  > It’s not gatekeeping to value the outcomes of work created this way less than you would from the mind of a human. There is a difference between saying something is less than and calling it gross. Also, imho, value of art is usually the art not the process. Sometimes it is the process, like someone showing off a new method but that is of interest to very, very few people. Just like academic papers' methodology section. Even within the larger community, it's useful to only a few people. (Apart from just checking someone's work)
Jataman606 4y ago
What is wrong with gatekeeping? It's not like everyone needs to be able to make art. Also, i don't know much about Photoshop, but most digitatl filters usually act the same as analog mixers. They do not automate anything.
- 5040 4y ago
  It's not like everyone needs to make photographic reproductions, why not delegate the task to photorealistic painters? Now that we've gotten used to the convenience of having a camera in our pocket, who would suggest banning photography?
  - the_af 4y ago
    Most people don't make good photographic reproductions. They have mobiles with cameras, sure, but they cannot take an interesting or even technically good photo. Good human photographers are still a thing. They can even get a job out of it! There are books about photos by photographers of renown. AI automation here would be more like AI deciding which photos to take, and taking them for you, with your interaction limited to "take some nice photos of my vacation". Then some other AI could give likes to the photo, closing the loop so that humans need not be involved at all in that silliness of photography!

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

legutierr 4y ago

The people who wrote the Photoshop source code were paid for their contributions with full consent that their work would be included in the product and sold for a profit by Adobe. The artists whose work was fed into these systems did not consent, nor were they paid for their contribution. In fact, I have seen a few reports of people using these systems to generate lookalike artworks intended to resemble the work of specific working artists—artists whose livelihoods depend on client commissions. The only way that these systems could produce knock-off artwork after receiving a prompt containing that artist's specific name is if the artist's own copyrighted work was used in the training data. Do you have any doubt that many working artists' copyrighted work was included in the the training data that produced these systems, without those artists licensing their work for that purpose? It's not gatekeeping to insist that a project obtain a voluntary license from the people who contribute their work to a project. And it's not gatekeeping to point out the fact that these platforms have only been successful by using working artists' copyrighted work in violation of their rights, without asking permission or providing compensation.

scrollaway 4y ago
Be real, copyright/attribution is only one complaint, a tiny part of the sudden hatred against AI art/creativity. When somebody brings up the invention of photoshop, they're not trying to disprove a point about paying salaries to the devs, and I am sure you knew that.
- Quarrelsome 4y ago
  > Be real, copyright/attribution is only one complaint, a tiny part of the sudden hatred against AI art/creativity. When the artists whose work was stolen to train these models are compensated for that work then maybe its a "tiny part". Until then it is taking peoples work and using it to create an ultimate competitor in their own market that they cannot compete with. They now have to compete against themselves and they haven't even been paid for that "privilege".
  - makoto12 4y ago
    beautifully put
  - newswasboring 4y ago
    This kind of wording reminds me of a very old (probably outdated) argument about theft of digital goods. In meatspace when you steal something you are depriving someone of a thing. If I steal your biscuit, you don't have the biscuit. But if I copy a picture of the biscuit you are still left with your own picture, perfect and identical in every way. If I'm not reselling that image to everyone, you lost on that one sale. I wonder if openAI goes and pays retail price for each image they used, would this discussion finally end?
- legutierr 4y ago
  No, your perspective on this is all wrong. The outrage about AI art is not about how it empowers its users. Rather, the problem is that these systems only exists today because of the involuntary contributions of the very same people who are likely to be put out of business. It really is about the how the contributors to these systems are being treated. The coders that contributed to Photoshop are analogous to the artists whose work was used to train these models. The difference between them is that the former gave their consent to the contribution, and the latter did not.
  - scrollaway 4y ago
    So, my perspective on this is all wrong, despite the fact that the original poster wrote, pretty damn specifically, "Automating creativity is so gross. Never mind the fact that these models are trained on stolen artwork and texts." That's it, that's the entire post. Never mind the "stolen artwork" argument, you still have people upset about "automating creativity". So, like I said, it's one part of it.
oytis 4y ago
This is a legit complaint, but is realistic to overcome in future I think. There have been reports of OpenAI hiring software engineers to train AI models to write code in their language. Can be done with art as well, just will take time. It's an impressive demonstration of what is achievable though.
newswasboring 4y ago
We are talking past each other. I am not talking about, and indeed am not interested in, the compensation discussion. I will let other people battle it out. I was just responding to calling automation of art gross. I don't know who you are talking to.

nemo44x 4y ago

It’s not gatekeeping to value the outcomes of work created this way less than you would from the mind of a human. Saying that I agree with you in that I see this technology as a tool that can be used by humans to make amazing things. No one really has yet as the outputs have just been blunted, sloppy things. But if I’m an artist I see these tools as the latest tool to help make things.

newswasboring 4y ago
> It’s not gatekeeping to value the outcomes of work created this way less than you would from the mind of a human. There is a difference between saying something is less than and calling it gross. Also, imho, value of art is usually the art not the process. Sometimes it is the process, like someone showing off a new method but that is of interest to very, very few people. Just like academic papers' methodology section. Even within the larger community, it's useful to only a few people. (Apart from just checking someone's work)

Jataman606 4y ago

What is wrong with gatekeeping? It's not like everyone needs to be able to make art. Also, i don't know much about Photoshop, but most digitatl filters usually act the same as analog mixers. They do not automate anything.

5040 4y ago
It's not like everyone needs to make photographic reproductions, why not delegate the task to photorealistic painters? Now that we've gotten used to the convenience of having a camera in our pocket, who would suggest banning photography?
- the_af 4y ago
  Most people don't make good photographic reproductions. They have mobiles with cameras, sure, but they cannot take an interesting or even technically good photo. Good human photographers are still a thing. They can even get a job out of it! There are books about photos by photographers of renown. AI automation here would be more like AI deciding which photos to take, and taking them for you, with your interaction limited to "take some nice photos of my vacation". Then some other AI could give likes to the photo, closing the loop so that humans need not be involved at all in that silliness of photography!