2 ms·

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, jus

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.

__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.