4 ms·

The problem is these discussions are being had by STEM/tech people who don't respect or value art or the effort behind it, not by artists. They simply do not ge

The problem is these discussions are being had by STEM/tech people who don't respect or value art or the effort behind it, not by artists. They simply do not get the concerns that artists have. It truly boggles the mind that people equate machines that can output thousands and thousands of images in short time spans in any ingested style... with humans who have to hone styles and can only produce a result every so often.

hfuyf65 3y ago
Is it because it seems the value can be imitated so easily?
surgical_fire 3y ago
This is how technology works. Bulldozers effectively replaced people with shovels. Excel effectively replaced accounting clerks. Generative AI effectively replace artists (to some capacity). Most people care only about the output of a system, not about who the system replaces.
- emanuele232 3y ago
  yeah, we did not ask for farmers permission before producing Farming machines
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago
  We are able to create bulldozers without using any shovels. We can create Excel without accounting clerks. But we cannot create generative models without using existing artwork. Because existing artwork is so critical to the inventions replacing artists, it’s more exploitative. If we required workers consent to directly use their works, we would be able to build bulldozers and excel but not stable diffusion. It’s very different that way.
  - surgical_fire 3y ago
    I fail to see how so, outside of some ulterior desire to see "art" as something inherently superior. Manual labor was used to build bulldozers that replaced manual labor, to give an example. Using existing artwork for training model is only the process that generative AI came to be.
    - 6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago
      If you’re talking about the labor needed to build a bulldozer, it is paid consenting labor. That’s the point. It isn’t that art is superior, it’s that the required labor to create these things is going uncompensated and without consent.
ronsor 3y ago
If you had a conversation with a STEM person, they'd probably say everything is 100% fine, society and all. If you had a conversation with an artist, they'd probably say AI is pure evil theft and society is collapsing. If you solely listen to either side, you'll be blinded by madness. On that note, how many people respect or value the effort behind software? Most don't, not most artists either. That is the nature of life.

hfuyf65 3y ago

Is it because it seems the value can be imitated so easily?

surgical_fire 3y ago

This is how technology works. Bulldozers effectively replaced people with shovels. Excel effectively replaced accounting clerks. Generative AI effectively replace artists (to some capacity). Most people care only about the output of a system, not about who the system replaces.

emanuele232 3y ago
yeah, we did not ask for farmers permission before producing Farming machines
6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago
We are able to create bulldozers without using any shovels. We can create Excel without accounting clerks. But we cannot create generative models without using existing artwork. Because existing artwork is so critical to the inventions replacing artists, it’s more exploitative. If we required workers consent to directly use their works, we would be able to build bulldozers and excel but not stable diffusion. It’s very different that way.
- surgical_fire 3y ago
  I fail to see how so, outside of some ulterior desire to see "art" as something inherently superior. Manual labor was used to build bulldozers that replaced manual labor, to give an example. Using existing artwork for training model is only the process that generative AI came to be.
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago
    If you’re talking about the labor needed to build a bulldozer, it is paid consenting labor. That’s the point. It isn’t that art is superior, it’s that the required labor to create these things is going uncompensated and without consent.

ronsor 3y ago

If you had a conversation with a STEM person, they'd probably say everything is 100% fine, society and all. If you had a conversation with an artist, they'd probably say AI is pure evil theft and society is collapsing. If you solely listen to either side, you'll be blinded by madness. On that note, how many people respect or value the effort behind software? Most don't, not most artists either. That is the nature of life.