6 ms·

I think rather than a world described here where “creators” (what a nauseating term) are terrified of being upstaged by AI, most are terrified by a world where

by airza 4y ago

I think rather than a world described here where “creators” (what a nauseating term) are terrified of being upstaged by AI, most are terrified by a world where AI can produce images that are 80% as good as a human but cost 99.999% less. It seems easy to imagine a world where almost all _economic_ gain from artistic endeavors is captured by a few companies, which would be both dangerous from a material perspective and frightening to imagine from a cultural perspective. What would our world look like if almost all art was compressed into sensibilities and values that flatter software engineers?

Kiro 4y ago
Most people making art do not need a financial incentive to do so.
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  I say this in a parallel comment but there’s both commercial art and creative art and they’re separate things. Commercial art will be significantly affected by AI but creative art won’t be, or AI will be used as just another tool in the toolbox for creative artists.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Kiro 4y ago
    Absolutely. I also think there's a big sleeper group (the biggest) with people who make generic art but for themselves and only show it to their friends and family, or doesn't show it at all. I'm one of those. I make it for myself and this doesn't deter me the slightest. However, if you're only in it for the money I think you're in for a rough time.
  - krapp 4y ago
    >I say this in a parallel comment but there’s both commercial art and creative art and they’re separate things. They aren't separate things. Plenty of artists - even in purely commercial fields - are creative and passionate about their work. This bias is unfortunate and nearly omnipresent on Hacker News. It's assumed that to be a "true" artist, one must be willing to suffer, and any artist who makes any money must only be in it for the money. Meanwhile a lot of people here wouldn't so much as get out of bed for a salary with less than six figures, catered lunches, a gym membership, unlimited PTO and a pony, and yet they still consider themselves "knowledge workers" for whom only the purity of information and craftsmanship of code are priorities. But everyone else has be a slave to supply and demand and if that means they can't make a living, tough shit. Like as not, we live in a capitalist society and passion and talent are commodities like everything else. Good art takes time to learn, time to maintain, time to execute, materials, licenses, etc - all of which cost money. Artists need to eat, they need a roof over their heads, they need to pay taxes. That money can either be made doing what one is passionate about, which means being tainted by capitalism, or doing something else. In which case the art suffers.
TaylorAlexander 4y ago
> What would our world look like if almost all art was compressed into sensibilities and values that flatter software engineers? I suspect then artists would create art that goes against these trends. I don’t know much about art but I know there are sort of two kinds of art. Commercial art meant to be sold or to sell something. That stuff follows a lot of advertising trends and gives us stuff like Material Design and Marvel movies that all feel the same. That art is relatively uninspiring but it’s not really meant to be inspiring. That stuff will be significantly affected by AI because AI art is cheap and it looks kinda okay and it’s easy to copy popular styles. And then there’s art made by weird artists that buck trends and try to make some kind of statement that isn’t really being said. (Horrible over generalization but hopefully you get my meaning.) That art will thrive in a world where most commercial art is even more soulless than it already is.
- kazinator 4y ago
  Stable Diff will easily out-imagine most of the "weird artists" out there; they are in fact the first victims, rather than the last holdout.
  - prohobo 4y ago
    I agree, but only in the assumption that "weird artists" are not actually unique, but delusional. This is an opportunity for real artistic innovation to find a foothold, but first we'll have an existential crisis.
    - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
      My use of weird in this sense is tautological. I’m supposing you have to be in some sense weird in order to create art that moves people. This weirdness is what allows the creator to see what we’re all seeing in a slightly different way which makes their art meaningful.
      - prohobo 4y ago
        My only problem with what you're saying is that you seem to be coming from the perspective that there already is some kind of influence of artists that buck trends, or push the boundaries of art today, or simply provide a new perspective. I'm much more cynical, or idealistic, in that I don't believe that's the case. My argument is that currently we have no such artists, or they're buried under rubble. We do have a lot of people who claim to, or are claimed to, be pushing the boundaries of art, but they actually don't have any effect at all. What we have is a lot of smoke being blown up people's butts, when the truth is that we're culturally stagnant. Going to the Tate Modern in London is like a masochist challenge to see who can emerge from it with enough energy to say things like "wow, that's cool" and desperately try to find one piece of art where they can say "that's my favorite, it really made me think". I can tell you that personally I've already said these things about some AI generated art with real enthusiasm. I still have one AI painting burned into my brain because it showed something really new to me. That's why I believe it's exactly those ambitious artists who will be hurt the most, at first. It'll be a painful realization that they can't hide from anymore, and only then will truly "weird" artists emerge.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
gremlinsinc 4y ago
It's not just going to be artists though. Doctors and lawyers are also on the chopping block, ai can't do surgery for a long time probably, but it could do a lot of diagnosing and pre-flight checklist type things, where society maybe needs a fraction of the doctors, especially primary care physicians as an ai-enriched doctor could maybe handle 5x the caseload, without breaking a sweat. Lawyers will probably always be needed in court, but a lot of lawyering is done in writing contracts, and reading/deciphering this - again chatGPT excels here. Terrifyingly the military is already using ai to fly and fight dogfights with f16s. Package delivery will be disrupted in a similar fashion probably, etc.. Lots of industries, everyone who just says 'artisists' has no clue what's coming.
bayindirh 4y ago
As a person who also takes photographs (and made some music), the only word which describes the situation is hell.
tomjen3 4y ago
Why would you think it would be created to flatter software engineers, rather than to flatter their users? Many things have been said about TikTok, but nobody has ever said it does not attempt to show the user what will make them stick around; if anything, it has the reputation of being too good at it.

by airza 4y ago

Kiro 4y ago

Most people making art do not need a financial incentive to do so.

TaylorAlexander 4y ago
I say this in a parallel comment but there’s both commercial art and creative art and they’re separate things. Commercial art will be significantly affected by AI but creative art won’t be, or AI will be used as just another tool in the toolbox for creative artists.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Kiro 4y ago
  Absolutely. I also think there's a big sleeper group (the biggest) with people who make generic art but for themselves and only show it to their friends and family, or doesn't show it at all. I'm one of those. I make it for myself and this doesn't deter me the slightest. However, if you're only in it for the money I think you're in for a rough time.
- krapp 4y ago
  >I say this in a parallel comment but there’s both commercial art and creative art and they’re separate things. They aren't separate things. Plenty of artists - even in purely commercial fields - are creative and passionate about their work. This bias is unfortunate and nearly omnipresent on Hacker News. It's assumed that to be a "true" artist, one must be willing to suffer, and any artist who makes any money must only be in it for the money. Meanwhile a lot of people here wouldn't so much as get out of bed for a salary with less than six figures, catered lunches, a gym membership, unlimited PTO and a pony, and yet they still consider themselves "knowledge workers" for whom only the purity of information and craftsmanship of code are priorities. But everyone else has be a slave to supply and demand and if that means they can't make a living, tough shit. Like as not, we live in a capitalist society and passion and talent are commodities like everything else. Good art takes time to learn, time to maintain, time to execute, materials, licenses, etc - all of which cost money. Artists need to eat, they need a roof over their heads, they need to pay taxes. That money can either be made doing what one is passionate about, which means being tainted by capitalism, or doing something else. In which case the art suffers.

TaylorAlexander 4y ago

> What would our world look like if almost all art was compressed into sensibilities and values that flatter software engineers? I suspect then artists would create art that goes against these trends. I don’t know much about art but I know there are sort of two kinds of art. Commercial art meant to be sold or to sell something. That stuff follows a lot of advertising trends and gives us stuff like Material Design and Marvel movies that all feel the same. That art is relatively uninspiring but it’s not really meant to be inspiring. That stuff will be significantly affected by AI because AI art is cheap and it looks kinda okay and it’s easy to copy popular styles. And then there’s art made by weird artists that buck trends and try to make some kind of statement that isn’t really being said. (Horrible over generalization but hopefully you get my meaning.) That art will thrive in a world where most commercial art is even more soulless than it already is.

kazinator 4y ago
Stable Diff will easily out-imagine most of the "weird artists" out there; they are in fact the first victims, rather than the last holdout.
- prohobo 4y ago
  I agree, but only in the assumption that "weird artists" are not actually unique, but delusional. This is an opportunity for real artistic innovation to find a foothold, but first we'll have an existential crisis.
  - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
    My use of weird in this sense is tautological. I’m supposing you have to be in some sense weird in order to create art that moves people. This weirdness is what allows the creator to see what we’re all seeing in a slightly different way which makes their art meaningful.
    - prohobo 4y ago
      My only problem with what you're saying is that you seem to be coming from the perspective that there already is some kind of influence of artists that buck trends, or push the boundaries of art today, or simply provide a new perspective. I'm much more cynical, or idealistic, in that I don't believe that's the case. My argument is that currently we have no such artists, or they're buried under rubble. We do have a lot of people who claim to, or are claimed to, be pushing the boundaries of art, but they actually don't have any effect at all. What we have is a lot of smoke being blown up people's butts, when the truth is that we're culturally stagnant. Going to the Tate Modern in London is like a masochist challenge to see who can emerge from it with enough energy to say things like "wow, that's cool" and desperately try to find one piece of art where they can say "that's my favorite, it really made me think". I can tell you that personally I've already said these things about some AI generated art with real enthusiasm. I still have one AI painting burned into my brain because it showed something really new to me. That's why I believe it's exactly those ambitious artists who will be hurt the most, at first. It'll be a painful realization that they can't hide from anymore, and only then will truly "weird" artists emerge.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

gremlinsinc 4y ago

It's not just going to be artists though. Doctors and lawyers are also on the chopping block, ai can't do surgery for a long time probably, but it could do a lot of diagnosing and pre-flight checklist type things, where society maybe needs a fraction of the doctors, especially primary care physicians as an ai-enriched doctor could maybe handle 5x the caseload, without breaking a sweat. Lawyers will probably always be needed in court, but a lot of lawyering is done in writing contracts, and reading/deciphering this - again chatGPT excels here. Terrifyingly the military is already using ai to fly and fight dogfights with f16s. Package delivery will be disrupted in a similar fashion probably, etc.. Lots of industries, everyone who just says 'artisists' has no clue what's coming.

bayindirh 4y ago

As a person who also takes photographs (and made some music), the only word which describes the situation is hell.

tomjen3 4y ago

Why would you think it would be created to flatter software engineers, rather than to flatter their users? Many things have been said about TikTok, but nobody has ever said it does not attempt to show the user what will make them stick around; if anything, it has the reputation of being too good at it.