4 ms·

> a future where artists don't make original art, musicians don't make music, book writers don't write, and so on, all because AI companies can replicate 1000 d

> a future where artists don't make original art, musicians don't make music, book writers don't write, and so on, all because AI companies can replicate 1000 different copies in their style This argument is assuming its own conclusion, that such a situation must be bad. But I don't think that's necessarily true. If somebody can make 1000 different derivatives that the public likes as much as the originals, then it must be that in whatever criteria the public is interested in, these works are just as good. If they were inferior, the public wouldn't accept them as substitutes. The fact that they are (hypothetically) accepted indicates that the public is OK with them. For my own personal aesthetics, I would like to think that today's popular music, which is written by some combination of algorithm and committee, and produced through tools that correct the performance via autotune, quantization, etc., is inferior to the music that I enjoy. But given that the public seems to like this music (and indeed, they like music generated this way even though it's not even cheaper for them to consume) seems to say that we as a society are getting what they want, and who am I to put a normative judgment on that?

haswell 4y ago
This reduces the motivation to create art to a monetary one, and the value people derive from art to a purely aesthetic one. In our future AI-infested world, I'll personally seek out "certified non-AI" creators because part of what inspires me is not just the content, but the creation of it. Art is not just a destination.
- CWuestefeld 4y ago
  I think when most people consume art, they're really treating it as entertainment regardless of its artistic merit. And as I mentioned above, I think the current music industry is already there: the vast majority (by sales) of music entertainment, produced by algorithm and by a committee in order to drive sales. Despite this, in the genres I care about, at least, the volume of high-artistic-merit music (by variety) that is probably at its highest point in decades, if not ever. To be sure, this has meant that fewer artists are able to make a living purely off their music. But this is a return to the norm: the rise of the "star" in the late 20th century has been an aberration. On the other side of the coin, AI assistance will be (I expect) a huge democratizing force. Recently we've seen computational photography enabling people to take photos of astounding quality with just their phones. And the results of machine learning is allowing artists to make huge improvements in post production as well. I imagine that the stuff we've been seeing over the past year, with ChatGPT, Stable Diffusion, and such technologies, will be purposed towards (among other things) tools that enable greater productivity for the serious artist, and putting the means in the hands of those who would be otherwise unable to get to table stakes. I've started working on a short story myself, using ChatGPT to help me work through some plot points. So yeah, we'll get a lot of meritless dreck suitable only for base entertainment. But we'll also see a proliferation of art and of artists, as productivity increases and new entrants are enabled.

haswell 4y ago

This reduces the motivation to create art to a monetary one, and the value people derive from art to a purely aesthetic one. In our future AI-infested world, I'll personally seek out "certified non-AI" creators because part of what inspires me is not just the content, but the creation of it. Art is not just a destination.

CWuestefeld 4y ago
I think when most people consume art, they're really treating it as entertainment regardless of its artistic merit. And as I mentioned above, I think the current music industry is already there: the vast majority (by sales) of music entertainment, produced by algorithm and by a committee in order to drive sales. Despite this, in the genres I care about, at least, the volume of high-artistic-merit music (by variety) that is probably at its highest point in decades, if not ever. To be sure, this has meant that fewer artists are able to make a living purely off their music. But this is a return to the norm: the rise of the "star" in the late 20th century has been an aberration. On the other side of the coin, AI assistance will be (I expect) a huge democratizing force. Recently we've seen computational photography enabling people to take photos of astounding quality with just their phones. And the results of machine learning is allowing artists to make huge improvements in post production as well. I imagine that the stuff we've been seeing over the past year, with ChatGPT, Stable Diffusion, and such technologies, will be purposed towards (among other things) tools that enable greater productivity for the serious artist, and putting the means in the hands of those who would be otherwise unable to get to table stakes. I've started working on a short story myself, using ChatGPT to help me work through some plot points. So yeah, we'll get a lot of meritless dreck suitable only for base entertainment. But we'll also see a proliferation of art and of artists, as productivity increases and new entrants are enabled.