4 ms·

Takes like this confuse me. ChatGPT is not stopping anyone from making art. It may stop you from profiting off of your artistic labors. Though, if you need a pr

by fnovd 3y ago

Takes like this confuse me. ChatGPT is not stopping anyone from making art. It may stop you from profiting off of your artistic labors. Though, if you need a profit motive to make art, were you really making anything truly expressive and creative to begin with? We're seeing the same thing with the actors and writers striking. Sorry folks, if you're making me choose between embracing neoluddism or living with some artsy folks not having their dream job, I'm going to pick you being out of a job. I do not care that background actors are going to be replaced by AI and I do not care that AI is going to let 1 writer do the work of 5. Background acting is not anyone's passion and writing predictable soapy sitcom stories is probably not anyone's passion, either. AI is going to give us better creative work not because AI will become super creative, but because people who actually have creative thoughts worth expressing will just do that instead of being crowded out by humans chasing the lowest common denominator. Now we have computers chasing the lowest common denominator, something they are very good at, and we have humans who will create when they feel compelled to create, not because they want to make money but because their creativity compels them to act, make, and do. If a songwriter is being replaced by an AI, their skills are not something we're going to miss. Sorry, not sorry. Artistic sensibilities have arguable never been the driver of what music is popular and I don't see the issue in having AI replace the bubblegum rubberstamp dime-a-dozen trash that the modal artists must produce to make money. Again, now you are totally outmatched by the AI and you can actually focus on creating an authentically human work without being distracted by the needs of industry. If there is no market for that then it is not because of AI but because of our own preferences. The "human spirit" is just a story we tell ourselves to justify our dominion over everything we see. I'd be more than happy to see it die. Humanism is great if you're a human, but life is moving in other directions and we can either adapt to the notion that our primate brains aren't magical engines of wonder or die alongside our brittle egos.

buildsjets 3y ago
There is nothing un-artistic about wanting to both make art and to be able to afford rent, dinner, and pants.
- fnovd 3y ago
  There is a difference between "making money and making art" and "making money by making art". No one is entitled to having other people value their artistic output. I would argue that art created for the marketplace is less creative than art produced by a human's need to create for creation's sake. It's not un-artistic, but it is the kind of art that an AI can make better, faster, and cheaper.
  - krapp 3y ago
    Give an example of a work of art produced by a human's need to create for creation's sake alone, and not at all for the marketplace, that outclasses any classical works of art, music, literature or anything else that the creator was paid for. Michaelangelo didn't paint the Sistene Chapel ceiling for free. The Rolling Stones and the Beatles didn't perform for free. Shakespeare didn't write for free. That indie band you like so full of passion and verve would probably kill to be able to at least make ends meet on tour, because if they don't, they just break up and get "real" jobs. Even Banksy sells his work. All art is work. Any art worth doing is work. It's time and experience and probably student loans and equipment and people. And under capitalism, work must either be done in the service of profit or else it doesn't get done. To expect artists alone to suffer for the purity of their craft and do everything they do for free is perverse. Although you are correct - AI will put a lot of those people out of business. But not because they let themselves be tainted by commercialism. Rather the opposite, because commerce no longer finds value in the artist.
    - fnovd 3y ago
      Simply look at the career of Van Gogh or any "Bohemian starving artist". Listing only the most popular, most influential artists proves my point: for most people art is an untenable career. In that regard AI, has virtually no impact on those who want to create. They will find a way to make something unique and valuable or they will fail like millions of artists already do in the world we have today. There are many artists in my family and all of them have day jobs to support their creative passions. Mosts artists fail to make money; it really should go without saying that not everyone can be Helen Mirren or Paul McCartney. If requiring a day job makes you give up art, you probably didn't have the drive to create anything people really wanted. For most artists creation is a need, not something that is pursued for monetary reasons. Everyone tries to make money on their art, but again, even without AI the vast majority of artists fail to do so.

by fnovd 3y ago

buildsjets 3y ago

There is nothing un-artistic about wanting to both make art and to be able to afford rent, dinner, and pants.

fnovd 3y ago
There is a difference between "making money and making art" and "making money by making art". No one is entitled to having other people value their artistic output. I would argue that art created for the marketplace is less creative than art produced by a human's need to create for creation's sake. It's not un-artistic, but it is the kind of art that an AI can make better, faster, and cheaper.
- krapp 3y ago
  Give an example of a work of art produced by a human's need to create for creation's sake alone, and not at all for the marketplace, that outclasses any classical works of art, music, literature or anything else that the creator was paid for. Michaelangelo didn't paint the Sistene Chapel ceiling for free. The Rolling Stones and the Beatles didn't perform for free. Shakespeare didn't write for free. That indie band you like so full of passion and verve would probably kill to be able to at least make ends meet on tour, because if they don't, they just break up and get "real" jobs. Even Banksy sells his work. All art is work. Any art worth doing is work. It's time and experience and probably student loans and equipment and people. And under capitalism, work must either be done in the service of profit or else it doesn't get done. To expect artists alone to suffer for the purity of their craft and do everything they do for free is perverse. Although you are correct - AI will put a lot of those people out of business. But not because they let themselves be tainted by commercialism. Rather the opposite, because commerce no longer finds value in the artist.
  - fnovd 3y ago
    Simply look at the career of Van Gogh or any "Bohemian starving artist". Listing only the most popular, most influential artists proves my point: for most people art is an untenable career. In that regard AI, has virtually no impact on those who want to create. They will find a way to make something unique and valuable or they will fail like millions of artists already do in the world we have today. There are many artists in my family and all of them have day jobs to support their creative passions. Mosts artists fail to make money; it really should go without saying that not everyone can be Helen Mirren or Paul McCartney. If requiring a day job makes you give up art, you probably didn't have the drive to create anything people really wanted. For most artists creation is a need, not something that is pursued for monetary reasons. Everyone tries to make money on their art, but again, even without AI the vast majority of artists fail to do so.