4 ms·

Why is it scary? It would become like books: A single author creates the entire work, except it's audiovisual instead of written. You can already do that now w

by ars 3y ago

Why is it scary? It would become like books: A single author creates the entire work, except it's audiovisual instead of written. You can already do that now with written text, audio (if you have a talent for voices), and animation (if you can draw), why does adding realistic video make it "scary"? Why is that bad? It seems great to me - way way way more stuff will be available, and it will be open to anyone (the cost is high now, but it will go down of course).

Dalewyn 3y ago
It's "scary" for present-day actors who will likely see their entire occupation erased by the end of the century. It's also "scary" for consumers today who, justifiably, don't want the temporary but inevitable drop in quality that the switch over to "AI" will create. But on the grander scale, I agree with you. It isn't scary. "AI" is poised to democratize art like we've never seen before, and if "AI" can replace human artists that points more to the brutal reality that art actually isn't as valuable as some of us want it to be.
- __loam 3y ago
  I disagree I think it is pretty scary that we're handing over the generation of cultural artifacts to algorithms. It's also pretty funny to see people like you talk about democratizing art, then in the next breath talk about art as if it has no value, despite that art being extremely valuable to the training of these models in the first place. Hell, this might even make human art more valuable as the price of autogenerated, samey, computer generated sludge goes to zero as the supply explodes.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    >I think it is pretty scary that we're handing over the generation of cultural artifacts to algorithms. Art has always been based on algorithms, the appeal of art is determined purely by the whims of society and the beholders without any regard for the process. Art that does not suit the algorithms of its time do not survive the test of time. >It's also pretty funny to see people like you talk about democratizing art, then in the next breath talk about art as if it has no value, despite that art being extremely valuable to the training of these models in the first place. When everyone can create art, art has no value. Value is always determined by supply against demand, and art is currently poised to see an absolute oversupply in the coming century. This is also discounting the fact that the real value of art has always been low, "Artists are destitute." isn't a stereotype for no reason. The brutal reality is art really isn't valuable in the first place (it is after all an unnecessary and inefficient luxury) and "AI" is only going to make that fact even further apparent. >Hell, this might even make human art more valuable as the price of autogenerated, samey, computer generated sludge goes to zero as the supply explodes. That assumes human art is somehow more valuable than "AI" art, but I don't necessarily believe that could be a constant forever. Photographs were considered inferior to illustrations when it was first invented, likewise the invention of block printing and then typewriting to calligraphy, and look where we are now.
    - __loam 3y ago
      Absolute tech bro hell comment. Art has always been based on algorithms? How absolutely conceited.
      - Dalewyn 3y ago
        Am I wrong, though? Artists who left their names in history did so because they successfully created art suitable for the algorithms of their time.
        JohnFen 3y ago
        I don't actually know what you mean by "algorithm" in this context. Do you mean it as the unique constraints that define a particular kind of art?
        Dalewyn 3y ago
        An algorithm is an algorithm. A problem to be solved, whether by human hands or computers. In this case, art that succeeds is whatever art is in demand from the people at the time and which the process involved best reflects the ultimate valuation of that art. It's a problem to be solved, aka an algorithm. Just like how the printing press and the typewriter democratized all forms of writing, where before writing was the sole domain of trained scribes and clerics (hence the terms "inscribing", "clerical error", etc.), so too will "AI" democratize whatever art forms it can satisfactorily produce. If "AI" ends up replacing artists and creators wholesale, that means the art products thereof were not particularly valuable in the first place. A prominent example would be tabloid and newspaper articles, which have actually been written by "AI"s for quite a long while now. Is any of this scary? Unless you have money or fame to lose in the shifting sands of time, no it is not. If you are such a person, well you certainly have my sympathy (unless you're a journalist; that occupation is a cancer upon society), but time waits for absolutely noone.
        satvikpendem 3y ago
        Impressionism, cubism, neoclassical art, these are all the "algorithms" of the time, people made art like that, otherwise they were shunned (at least, until society caught up to their artistic style, like Van Gogh).
  - ars 3y ago
    > I disagree I think it is pretty scary that we're handing over the generation of cultural artifacts to algorithms. The algorithms don't work for themselves, they are prompted, controlled, and guided by humans, who choose which output lives, which is lost, and which is modified. Nothing is handed over, it's just another tool.
Avshalom 3y ago
>It would become like books: A single author creates the entire work, The writers are also on strike.
- ars 3y ago
  On strike against the studios - they can still write for themselves. The model here is a writer writes a movies, hires a non-union digital model (since union models are not allowed), and then produces a movie by guiding an AI until it has the look the write likes. The entire thing is non-union by people working for themselves. Both the Studios and the actors union are essentially writing themselves out of relevance. And if the writers union prohibits personal AI writing (unclear if they want that) then they too will be left out. Actors could have a role here those - if they want it. Instead of providing the digital model (those would be easily made from anyone good looking) a new job for an actor would be AI guide, guiding the AI into a nice performance. This is the model of the future, the only question is if the current unions want to be part of it.
  - __loam 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - dang 3y ago
      > Fuck off scab. Whoa - you can't attack another user like that on HN, no matter how wrong they are or you feel they are. We have to ban accounts that post this way, so please don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - ars 3y ago
      > They're explicitly asking for it as part of the strike. No, they asked not to correct AI generated text, not to be prohibited from using it themselves. > I honestly hope they win so we can all rub it in the face of people like you who want Hillarious you say "want", this is coming no matter what anyone "wants". I don't have a "want", I'm simply explaining what is. > Fuck off scab. Aren't you nice. Someone takes the time to explain what's going on, and you just lash out? The future will leave you behind.
JohnFen 3y ago
I find it disconcerting because it represents the death of a unique form of art. A movie is much more than just the story. The actors interpret the roles and therefore add add an additional dimension/layer to the piece. That's one of the things that makes movies special. A movie is not just a book with visuals. They're completely different art forms. Although, personally, I tend to prefer live theater over modern movies, so am less attached to the movie as an art form. But it does threaten to be a loss of an art form, and that's rarely a good thing.
- ars 3y ago
  Live story telling still exists. No artform is lost, there are just more types that exist. This will be another one.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    I'm certainly not claiming that it would be the end of art itself. I'm just claiming it would be the end of this specific kind of art. If actors end up being replaced with simulacra in movies, then that particular form of art is indeed lost, in my view, because there will be no more actors in movies.
    - ars 3y ago
      People don't make paintings anymore because now we have cameras, right?
satvikpendem 3y ago
Indeed, it democratizes the storytelling experience. I'm not sure why, if I want to make a feature length film, and I have access to AI, I should also hire people just to even act in my film, much less produce and edit it. If I can make everything myself via AI, imagine the explosion in creativity by people all making their ideas come to life without having excess costs like productions currently take.

by ars 3y ago

Dalewyn 3y ago

It's "scary" for present-day actors who will likely see their entire occupation erased by the end of the century. It's also "scary" for consumers today who, justifiably, don't want the temporary but inevitable drop in quality that the switch over to "AI" will create. But on the grander scale, I agree with you. It isn't scary. "AI" is poised to democratize art like we've never seen before, and if "AI" can replace human artists that points more to the brutal reality that art actually isn't as valuable as some of us want it to be.

__loam 3y ago
I disagree I think it is pretty scary that we're handing over the generation of cultural artifacts to algorithms. It's also pretty funny to see people like you talk about democratizing art, then in the next breath talk about art as if it has no value, despite that art being extremely valuable to the training of these models in the first place. Hell, this might even make human art more valuable as the price of autogenerated, samey, computer generated sludge goes to zero as the supply explodes.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  >I think it is pretty scary that we're handing over the generation of cultural artifacts to algorithms. Art has always been based on algorithms, the appeal of art is determined purely by the whims of society and the beholders without any regard for the process. Art that does not suit the algorithms of its time do not survive the test of time. >It's also pretty funny to see people like you talk about democratizing art, then in the next breath talk about art as if it has no value, despite that art being extremely valuable to the training of these models in the first place. When everyone can create art, art has no value. Value is always determined by supply against demand, and art is currently poised to see an absolute oversupply in the coming century. This is also discounting the fact that the real value of art has always been low, "Artists are destitute." isn't a stereotype for no reason. The brutal reality is art really isn't valuable in the first place (it is after all an unnecessary and inefficient luxury) and "AI" is only going to make that fact even further apparent. >Hell, this might even make human art more valuable as the price of autogenerated, samey, computer generated sludge goes to zero as the supply explodes. That assumes human art is somehow more valuable than "AI" art, but I don't necessarily believe that could be a constant forever. Photographs were considered inferior to illustrations when it was first invented, likewise the invention of block printing and then typewriting to calligraphy, and look where we are now.
  - __loam 3y ago
    Absolute tech bro hell comment. Art has always been based on algorithms? How absolutely conceited.
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      Am I wrong, though? Artists who left their names in history did so because they successfully created art suitable for the algorithms of their time.
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        I don't actually know what you mean by "algorithm" in this context. Do you mean it as the unique constraints that define a particular kind of art?
        Dalewyn 3y ago
        An algorithm is an algorithm. A problem to be solved, whether by human hands or computers. In this case, art that succeeds is whatever art is in demand from the people at the time and which the process involved best reflects the ultimate valuation of that art. It's a problem to be solved, aka an algorithm. Just like how the printing press and the typewriter democratized all forms of writing, where before writing was the sole domain of trained scribes and clerics (hence the terms "inscribing", "clerical error", etc.), so too will "AI" democratize whatever art forms it can satisfactorily produce. If "AI" ends up replacing artists and creators wholesale, that means the art products thereof were not particularly valuable in the first place. A prominent example would be tabloid and newspaper articles, which have actually been written by "AI"s for quite a long while now. Is any of this scary? Unless you have money or fame to lose in the shifting sands of time, no it is not. If you are such a person, well you certainly have my sympathy (unless you're a journalist; that occupation is a cancer upon society), but time waits for absolutely noone.
        satvikpendem 3y ago
        Impressionism, cubism, neoclassical art, these are all the "algorithms" of the time, people made art like that, otherwise they were shunned (at least, until society caught up to their artistic style, like Van Gogh).
- ars 3y ago
  > I disagree I think it is pretty scary that we're handing over the generation of cultural artifacts to algorithms. The algorithms don't work for themselves, they are prompted, controlled, and guided by humans, who choose which output lives, which is lost, and which is modified. Nothing is handed over, it's just another tool.

Avshalom 3y ago

>It would become like books: A single author creates the entire work, The writers are also on strike.

ars 3y ago
On strike against the studios - they can still write for themselves. The model here is a writer writes a movies, hires a non-union digital model (since union models are not allowed), and then produces a movie by guiding an AI until it has the look the write likes. The entire thing is non-union by people working for themselves. Both the Studios and the actors union are essentially writing themselves out of relevance. And if the writers union prohibits personal AI writing (unclear if they want that) then they too will be left out. Actors could have a role here those - if they want it. Instead of providing the digital model (those would be easily made from anyone good looking) a new job for an actor would be AI guide, guiding the AI into a nice performance. This is the model of the future, the only question is if the current unions want to be part of it.
- __loam 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 3y ago
    > Fuck off scab. Whoa - you can't attack another user like that on HN, no matter how wrong they are or you feel they are. We have to ban accounts that post this way, so please don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - ars 3y ago
    > They're explicitly asking for it as part of the strike. No, they asked not to correct AI generated text, not to be prohibited from using it themselves. > I honestly hope they win so we can all rub it in the face of people like you who want Hillarious you say "want", this is coming no matter what anyone "wants". I don't have a "want", I'm simply explaining what is. > Fuck off scab. Aren't you nice. Someone takes the time to explain what's going on, and you just lash out? The future will leave you behind.

JohnFen 3y ago

I find it disconcerting because it represents the death of a unique form of art. A movie is much more than just the story. The actors interpret the roles and therefore add add an additional dimension/layer to the piece. That's one of the things that makes movies special. A movie is not just a book with visuals. They're completely different art forms. Although, personally, I tend to prefer live theater over modern movies, so am less attached to the movie as an art form. But it does threaten to be a loss of an art form, and that's rarely a good thing.

ars 3y ago
Live story telling still exists. No artform is lost, there are just more types that exist. This will be another one.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  I'm certainly not claiming that it would be the end of art itself. I'm just claiming it would be the end of this specific kind of art. If actors end up being replaced with simulacra in movies, then that particular form of art is indeed lost, in my view, because there will be no more actors in movies.
  - ars 3y ago
    People don't make paintings anymore because now we have cameras, right?

satvikpendem 3y ago

Indeed, it democratizes the storytelling experience. I'm not sure why, if I want to make a feature length film, and I have access to AI, I should also hire people just to even act in my film, much less produce and edit it. If I can make everything myself via AI, imagine the explosion in creativity by people all making their ideas come to life without having excess costs like productions currently take.