4 ms·

Steven King writes "I have said in one of my few forays into nonfiction (On Writing) that you can’t learn to write unless you’re a reader, and unless you read a

by adolph 3y ago

Steven King writes "I have said in one of my few forays into nonfiction (On Writing) that you can’t learn to write unless you’re a reader, and unless you read a lot. AI programmers have apparently taken this advice to heart." Reminds me of: After his father angrily asks him how he learned to use drugs, the son shouts, "You, alright?! I learned it by watching you!" As the father recoils from realizing the error of his own ways, a narrator then intones, "Parents who use drugs, have children who use drugs." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_learned_it_by_watching_you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_learned_it_by_watching_you!

IKantRead 3y ago
I do find it interesting how little in the larger AI art conversation the idea of borrowing already exists in various art forms and each art forms unique culture of accepting this comes up. In folk music for example, performing someone else's work is not disparaged at all historically. It was common for most musicians to travel around and teach each other songs. In pop music we see sampling has increasingly become a major part of the art, and only really controversial when someone tries to avoid paying the original artist their fair share (which is itself a topic of debate). In the visual arts it's much different. There is of course the famous Picasso quote: 'Good artists copy, great artists steal.' But even in the tone of that quote you can tell there's a different cultural acceptance of reusing work. Writing is tricky because referencing or quoting another author without attribution is a common feature of "high brow" works. T.S Eliot for example borrows heavily form past authors, often without attribution, but assuming an audience which knows enough to not require attribution. However at the other extreme you can get in trouble for plagiarizing your own work. Personally I think Diffusion models and LLMs are just bringing up an issue in the visual and literary arts that was already forced to the attention of musical artists during the rise of early hiphop djs who showed that you can genuinely create something new nearly entirely by cut and pasting existing works. One thing I would point out: It seems to me that copying/borrowing/reusing are equally present in all creative fields, they just are willing to admit it to different degrees.
- __loam 3y ago
  I think the frustrating thing about this when people being up that "good artists steal", they don't really understand why artists are upset by this technology. Artists are happy to teach other people how to make art. They're generally fine with people looking at their work to develop their own skills because that's how the field sustains itself. Art is a skill and a culture. You become an artist by participating. AI art systems are alienating in comparison. A group of people who are not artists basically showed up without talking to anyone and is trying to displace the original culture, by using work that they extracted from that culture. The entire attitude from the AI art community is hostile. "Why would you keep drawing now that we've automated it?" It's a gross viewpoint that devalues an entire cultural enterprise and a major portion of human experience.
  - Ferret7446 3y ago
    > The entire attitude from the AI art community is hostile. That's a gross mis-generalization. I expect the community response breakdown to be the same to most other examples in history: most people don't care, a small minority are hostile, and a small minority are supportive. If you like making art, keep doing it. From an economic perspective however, you really should consider if your job is at risk from being eliminated by automation, if you depend on it to survive. No hate, just pragmatic advice.
    - __loam 3y ago
      > If you like making art, keep doing it. From an economic perspective however, you really should consider if your job is at risk from being eliminated by automation, if you depend on it to survive. No hate, just pragmatic advice. I mean you've basically described why people are upset over this. These systems could displace them, using their own work to do it. It's perverse. What happens to art if people can't practice it professionally? Isn't valuable to our society to have people who are able to master this skill and make a living doing it? The AI community seems to not think so.
      - 3y ago

by adolph 3y ago

IKantRead 3y ago

I do find it interesting how little in the larger AI art conversation the idea of borrowing already exists in various art forms and each art forms unique culture of accepting this comes up. In folk music for example, performing someone else's work is not disparaged at all historically. It was common for most musicians to travel around and teach each other songs. In pop music we see sampling has increasingly become a major part of the art, and only really controversial when someone tries to avoid paying the original artist their fair share (which is itself a topic of debate). In the visual arts it's much different. There is of course the famous Picasso quote: 'Good artists copy, great artists steal.' But even in the tone of that quote you can tell there's a different cultural acceptance of reusing work. Writing is tricky because referencing or quoting another author without attribution is a common feature of "high brow" works. T.S Eliot for example borrows heavily form past authors, often without attribution, but assuming an audience which knows enough to not require attribution. However at the other extreme you can get in trouble for plagiarizing your own work. Personally I think Diffusion models and LLMs are just bringing up an issue in the visual and literary arts that was already forced to the attention of musical artists during the rise of early hiphop djs who showed that you can genuinely create something new nearly entirely by cut and pasting existing works. One thing I would point out: It seems to me that copying/borrowing/reusing are equally present in all creative fields, they just are willing to admit it to different degrees.

__loam 3y ago
I think the frustrating thing about this when people being up that "good artists steal", they don't really understand why artists are upset by this technology. Artists are happy to teach other people how to make art. They're generally fine with people looking at their work to develop their own skills because that's how the field sustains itself. Art is a skill and a culture. You become an artist by participating. AI art systems are alienating in comparison. A group of people who are not artists basically showed up without talking to anyone and is trying to displace the original culture, by using work that they extracted from that culture. The entire attitude from the AI art community is hostile. "Why would you keep drawing now that we've automated it?" It's a gross viewpoint that devalues an entire cultural enterprise and a major portion of human experience.
- Ferret7446 3y ago
  > The entire attitude from the AI art community is hostile. That's a gross mis-generalization. I expect the community response breakdown to be the same to most other examples in history: most people don't care, a small minority are hostile, and a small minority are supportive. If you like making art, keep doing it. From an economic perspective however, you really should consider if your job is at risk from being eliminated by automation, if you depend on it to survive. No hate, just pragmatic advice.
  - __loam 3y ago
    > If you like making art, keep doing it. From an economic perspective however, you really should consider if your job is at risk from being eliminated by automation, if you depend on it to survive. No hate, just pragmatic advice. I mean you've basically described why people are upset over this. These systems could displace them, using their own work to do it. It's perverse. What happens to art if people can't practice it professionally? Isn't valuable to our society to have people who are able to master this skill and make a living doing it? The AI community seems to not think so.
    - 3y ago