3 ms·

It would go back to the best reason: for the joy of creating. The field would be reduced to those who enjoy making art for the sake of making art. It would also

It would go back to the best reason: for the joy of creating. The field would be reduced to those who enjoy making art for the sake of making art. It would also do wonders for filtering out the amount of crap that people produce. We would all have a much more rich and varied diet of art to appreciate.

tjr 4y ago
Possibly. When wearing my "artist" hat, I work on two different things: art that I personally care about, and art that might sell. If AI made all the art that might sell, that would give me more time and energy to work on the art I actually care about, but maybe less sales from art.
- pdntspa 4y ago
  That's the thing. "Art that might sell" is corrupted. The diversity and uniqueness of art we would encounter regularly would be so much higher if that category was simply eliminated.
  - tjr 4y ago
    I agree. A great deal of "art that might sell" is already borderline repetitive, uncreative garbage. Maybe pleasant garbage, but still. Nothing anybody would be really interested in, except to add a bit of color to empty space. The more creativity you inject, the less likely it is to sell.
kmeisthax 4y ago
So far AI art is doing the opposite: increasing the amount of crap that people produce. The kinds of people who were once limited to underpaying ghostwriters to make spam books for Audible[0] can now chuck together a few prompts to ChatGPT and Stable Diffusion and get the same result. Yes, you have to be good at art in order to make good art with AI, but that doesn't matter when your goal is to create spam. The idea that artists should "do stuff for the joy of creating" is just plain insulting, too. They already do that. While artists would love to see, say, AI art models that were trained with licensed or public-domain data; training data theft isn't even their biggest concern. Their biggest concern is having the fun sucked out of their job as the artful minutae of drawing or writing is replaced with finding the correct combination of words to make Stable Diffusion draw the character you want with exactly the same details every time. It would be like if you worked at a PC building shop and one day the boss said "Actually we're just going to be an Apple authorized reseller now." The thing that's destroying artists' jobs being trained on their own work is just insult to injury. To be clear, though, AI doesn't "steal and resell content" in the vast majority of cases, either. Regurgitation is a thing, but the cause is duplicate data in the training set making it advantageous to memorize a few images to improve loss metrics. Most diffusion model architectures are not big enough to memorize the whole training set, or even large pieces of it. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biYciU1uiUw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biYciU1uiUw
- pdntspa 4y ago
  I consider myself an artist, and I give away my work for free. I make my money in other ways, as should everyone, as money irreversibly corrupts the artistic process by dragging everything towards a bland middle ground. So no, I don't consider that insulting.
  - DangitBobby 4y ago
    You are not all artists.

tjr 4y ago

Possibly. When wearing my "artist" hat, I work on two different things: art that I personally care about, and art that might sell. If AI made all the art that might sell, that would give me more time and energy to work on the art I actually care about, but maybe less sales from art.

pdntspa 4y ago
That's the thing. "Art that might sell" is corrupted. The diversity and uniqueness of art we would encounter regularly would be so much higher if that category was simply eliminated.
- tjr 4y ago
  I agree. A great deal of "art that might sell" is already borderline repetitive, uncreative garbage. Maybe pleasant garbage, but still. Nothing anybody would be really interested in, except to add a bit of color to empty space. The more creativity you inject, the less likely it is to sell.

kmeisthax 4y ago

So far AI art is doing the opposite: increasing the amount of crap that people produce. The kinds of people who were once limited to underpaying ghostwriters to make spam books for Audible[0] can now chuck together a few prompts to ChatGPT and Stable Diffusion and get the same result. Yes, you have to be good at art in order to make good art with AI, but that doesn't matter when your goal is to create spam. The idea that artists should "do stuff for the joy of creating" is just plain insulting, too. They already do that. While artists would love to see, say, AI art models that were trained with licensed or public-domain data; training data theft isn't even their biggest concern. Their biggest concern is having the fun sucked out of their job as the artful minutae of drawing or writing is replaced with finding the correct combination of words to make Stable Diffusion draw the character you want with exactly the same details every time. It would be like if you worked at a PC building shop and one day the boss said "Actually we're just going to be an Apple authorized reseller now." The thing that's destroying artists' jobs being trained on their own work is just insult to injury. To be clear, though, AI doesn't "steal and resell content" in the vast majority of cases, either. Regurgitation is a thing, but the cause is duplicate data in the training set making it advantageous to memorize a few images to improve loss metrics. Most diffusion model architectures are not big enough to memorize the whole training set, or even large pieces of it. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biYciU1uiUw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biYciU1uiUw

pdntspa 4y ago
I consider myself an artist, and I give away my work for free. I make my money in other ways, as should everyone, as money irreversibly corrupts the artistic process by dragging everything towards a bland middle ground. So no, I don't consider that insulting.
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  You are not all artists.