8 ms·

I don’t even think the moat is the issue here. We are giving the enjoyable parts of life to a computer. And we are left with the drudgery. I’m sure some peopl

I don’t even think the moat is the issue here. We are giving the enjoyable parts of life to a computer. And we are left with the drudgery. I’m sure some people would be more ok to work a shitty job with the hope that they might make it as an artist. Now that it’s becoming more and more obvious they will not be an artist that’s better than AI, what do they have left to hope for ?

erichmond 3y ago
Interestingly, I think that's for us to choose. I'm leaning into AI specifically for this reason. I want to build tools to that reduce the drudgery. But I agree, there's going to be a "war" around this and if could go wrong, if we are not careful.
- richrichie 3y ago
  Isn’t the constant building out tools another form of drudgery?
- moneywoes 3y ago
  what are you building
salty_biscuits 3y ago
It's not that long ago in human history that basically none of the jobs we do now existed. So it is kind of myopic to think that any current career is a calling. Art can become a craft again, not a career. There is nothing wrong with that.
- dandelany 3y ago
  Also not that long ago electricity and clean drinking water weren't a thing. The fact that people can make a career as an artist now, and couldn't before, is something I'd consider an advancement! "Nothing wrong with that" is a conclusion that simply doesn't follow from the rest of your post.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  It takes a lot of time to develop that craft, which won't be available to you if you have to do drudgery to keep a roof over your head. You're arguing for art to be at best a hobby, and full-time pursuit of it to be limited to rich kids. Also I take issue with your argument about 'none of the jobs we do now' existing through most of history. Farming, construction, fighting, bookkeeping, cooking, transport, security are all jobs that have been around as long as people have lived in settlements. Sure, you could point to the long history of nomadic hunting and gathering prior to that, but that's like expanding your argument back to the origin of cellular life or forward to the heat death of the universe in order to make your interlocutor's arguments look insignificant on a cosmic scale. It's not a helpful contribution to addressing the real challenges of the present.
  - vunderba 3y ago
    There hasn't been any money in the arts in a long long time so I'm not sure where this is coming from. For every one musician that's able to pay the bills, there's 1000 equally talented musicians that can't even get noticed.
    - anigbrowl 3y ago
      How long of a time are we talking about here? It was a lot easier to make a modest but steady living in the arts 30 or even 15 years ago. It's probably easier to have a breakout hit today on YouTube or Tiktok and maybe make a lot of money fast, but not to making a living consistently without sweatshopping content or being extremely personally attractive or similar.
    - nirvdrum 3y ago
      There’s also loads artists that do web and graphic design, make videos for product demos, ad campaigns, and so on. It’s perhaps not the purest form of art, but it is one way in which artists can apply their craft and still put a roof over their heads. A lot of these AI tools seems squarely aimed at eliminating those positions. For what it’s worth, I think we’re going to see a slide in quality. Maybe there will be a niche for some. But, I think companies will settle for 70% quality if it means eliminating 100% of a full-time position.
- brenoRibeiro706 3y ago
  Exactly
- bobsomers 3y ago
  > Art can become a craft again, not a career. This sounds nice, but having worked with many artists in the past a lot of them do it because they're good at it, it's enjoyable enough, and it pays their bills so they can eat. Telling them, "You're now free to make the art you really wanted to make!" doesn't bring much comfort when you're taking away their ability to put food on the table.
  - suyash 3y ago
    Exactly, there are lot of arm chair experts in the forum today who have no clue about the reality of the industry, people do it because they are passionate about it and devote thier whole life to get good at it, this is just taking food from thier mouth.
- sydd 3y ago
  > Art can become a craft again, not a career The issue is that those jobs that got automated to "become a craft again" have mostly vanished, except for high-end stuff. Some examples: shoe making, artisan furniture, tailors, watchmakers. Unless you are the best of the best these are hobbies now not something you make money from. Nowadays most people make money in bleak half-automated jobs (e.g. construction, factory workers) or in white collar jobs sitting in front of a computer in some cubicle doing some mind numbing task for a megacorp. I'm usually hyped about technological advancement, but very bleak about AI. I think it will just bring more sublte propaganda for state actors, more subtle advertising for megacorps, the dieing of creative jobs like graphic artists or actors is just a sad sideeffect (these will still exist, but only as high end -- we will always have real AAA actors, but the days of extras on movie sets are counted -- lots of the Hollywood protests were because studios started doing contracts for noname actors that stated that the studio will regain rights of the actor's digital likeness)
  - fasterik 3y ago
    When is a time in history when everyone had really great jobs? Before the industrial revolution, you had most people doing subsistence farming. During the industrial revolution, you had 14 hour a day exploited laborers working in factories. Maybe there was a brief period after World War II where you had a large middle class with stable careers and affordable housing. That's not the norm for the millions of years of history of human evolution.
    - afthonos 3y ago
      Ok, but like…that’s a bug, not a feature.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - fasterik 3y ago
        To me, this reflects a perfectionist mindset. Life is better today for billions of people than it has been at any other point in the history of the human species. If you consider it a "bug" that we don't live in some sort of utopia where everyone's dreams are fulfilled, maybe you need to change your expectations and view things in a larger historical perspective.
MattGaiser 3y ago
Is the artist the person drawing or the person who decides what is drawn? The AI only impacts the former.
T_MacThrowFace 3y ago
[flagged]
ptoo 3y ago
There will always be things humans can do that AI cannot. And if there ever comes a point when that's not the case, there will be no need to distinguish the two.
fastball 3y ago
Film/video editing isn't exactly known as the industry where everybody loves their job and doesn't want to kill themselves. I made a twitter thread[1] with weird metal cybertrucks using Midjourney a couple days ago. I personally enjoyed the process and do not have the talent nor the time to do that without generative AI. There are people who do have that talent, but honestly I doubt anyone else would've put in the time. I think you might have it a little backwards. For most people, the fun part is "making a movie", not "watching hundreds and hundreds of hours of footage picking between 10 different shots". That's the drudgery, and that's the part generative AI can eliminate. [1] https://twitter.com/acnebs/status/1757641901438894338 https://twitter.com/acnebs/status/1757641901438894338
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  I've made my living that way and absolutely loved it. What I did not love (and partly why I left the industry) was the difficulty of getting paid decently at the bottom tier; I had the bad timing to come in right as the bottom was beginning to fall out of the indie market and making straight-to-video b-movies 3 or 4 times a year ceased to be a viable business model. I think you might have it a little backwards. For most people, the fun part is "making a movie", not "watching hundreds and hundreds of hours of footage picking between 10 different shots". That's the drudgery, and that's the part generative AI can eliminate. No, that's the craft, and solving problems where the continuity doesn't line up, or production had to drop shots, or the story as shot and written sucks in some way, is where the art comes in. The drudgery is things like ingesting all the material, sorting it into bins, lining up slate cues, dealing with timecode errors, rendering schedules, working your way through long lists of deliverables and so on. You have literally confused the logistics part with the creative act.
  - notpachet 3y ago
    I also used to be in this line of work, and I just wanted to say how much I appreciated this comment. 100% accurate.
  - fastball 3y ago
    I have not confused it, I'm simplifying to make a point. Yes, of course there are many people who love the art of editing, or taking the right shot, or acting, or directing, or special effects, or all of the 100s of things that go into making a movie or TV show or other video. But many of those things involve a lot of drudgery, and the drudgery is what these "AI" solutions are best at. If you want to go above and beyond and craft the perfect shot, that opportunity would still be available to you. Why would it not? When we invented machines that make clothes, did that reduce the number of jobs in the clothing industry? When we got better and better at it, did that make fashion worse? No. If you want a machine made suit for $50, you can find one. If you want a handmade suit for $5000, you can find one. Tech like this expands opportunities, it does not eliminate them. If and when it gets to the point where Sora is better at making videos than a human in every conceivable dimension, then we can have this discussion and bemoan our loss. But we're not even close to that point.
atleastoptimal 3y ago
99% percent of people, before AI art, couldn't make good art. AI allows mediocre people to make good art now.
- akprasad 3y ago
  Yes, much in the same way that hiring someone to cater a dinner party makes me a great chef. (edit to give some body to my comment above: Hosting a great dinner party is hard work and requires coordination between food, decor, seasonality, people attending, etc. It is akin to a director coordinating the parts of a film. So I do think hosting a good dinner party can count as artistic expression. I don't know the parent comment's intended reading, but I was reacting to the idea that typing a Sora prompt makes someone a good artist. If the parent means instead that AI allows people to coordinate multiple media in a broader expression that was not possible otherwise, then I fully agree. )
  - atleastoptimal 3y ago
    Not an apt analogy. I didn't say "AI art makes you a great artist" I said it helps you make great art Tools allow people to express themselves at a higher aesthetic level without needing the extreme technical skills.
    - tzarko 3y ago
      Great art ≠ pretty pictures
  - throw_nbvc1234 3y ago
    So everyone at your dinner party gets to eat "better" food? Unless the point of the party was for you to cook then it's an improved experience. GenAI is a tool that lets creators of one medium expand to other mediums without much effort. Like having transcripts auto-generated for a visual podcast, just in the other direction. Low budget (or amateur) poems/songs can turn into short videos; or replace generic album art with better quality generic album art. The draw will be the primary medium, the rest will just be an extra bonus.
suyash 3y ago
This use case is a direct threat to actors when AI can create realistic footage with human and non human subjects, add to this generated speech, you have totally replaced hiring actors and killed thier employability.
- samus 3y ago
  Sorry, that's like claiming that the cinema has killed the theater, or that computer games have killed movies. Or that photorealistic 3D games have killed 2D slider games. Blockbuster movies depend to a large extent on the pedigree and abilities of their cast. For the big studios, these models are therefore quite useless apart from bringing dead actors alive again. If publishing material created from living actors without isn't illegal already, in a few years it will be. This might actually save the movie industry and force it to improve the quality of its output. There will be a huge indy scene of movie makers using models that can only compete via the content of the movies they produce. The realism of the characters won't matter because everyone can have those now. The current big studios will be forced to make very good use of human actors to compete with them though, and become innovative again.
  - suyash 3y ago
    Your analogy doesn't quite make sense. The reality of the TV/Film production is that most of what we watch are created by big production houses and not indie creators. These companies will do whatever it takes to reduce thier costs, biggest of that is salary for hundreds of staff that they currently employ. Now with such AI tools, you can write scripts, create art work, crate footage, record voice overs and dialogues. All of this means less need for labor - creative that will not only cause huge employment in the sector but also lead to protests, it already happened last year in Hollywood, it's going to get louder and louder unless we put regulations to prevent job disruptions.
    - samus 3y ago
      But those tools can also be used by the very employees that got laid off. They be would become part of the indie scene. The film studios will be left with their trademark portfolio that will be milked for profit. We might see an Avenger movie every month. There will be an absolute glut of such productions, to the point that people might not be interested in it anymore. Can't tell what happens next. We might lose ourselves in the holodeck, or we might again appreciate media produced with more human touch. I like going to theater or opera. Even for famous pieces, the performance will be slightly different and unique every time. Imperfect, but with changing and nevertheless accomplished actors, singers, musicians, and dancers. Many people feel the same and that's why they watch live performances of singers, bands, and DJs.
echelon 3y ago
> I don’t even think the moat is the issue here. There is no moat. This will all be commonplace for everyone soon, including with a rich open source community. OpenAI won't let you do nudity or pop culture, but you can bet your uncle that models better than "Sora" will be doing this in just a few months. > We are giving the enjoyable parts of life to a computer. And we are left with the drudgery. No. This means that the tens of thousands of people working in entertainment building other people's visions can now be their own writers, actors, and directors. This is a collapse of the Hollywood studio system and the beginnings of a Cambrian explosion of individual creators.
al_borland 3y ago
What does “better” mean in this context? The camera was a better at capturing realism than any painter who ever lived. While we still have people who paint in that style, there aren’t nearly as many, and art took new shapes and forms. Most “good” art isn’t just what you see, it’s also the story behind it. Why was it made? What is the story of the artist? What does it make you feel? AI might allow more people to tell some of those stories they may have lacked the raw skills to tell before. And for those who have the skills, they can make exactly what they envision, without being limited by some of the randomness in the AI. I think there will always be a place for that, and at the top of the market, that’s what people want.
Tade0 3y ago
There will always be demand for people breaking new ground - which happens to be something AI can't really do. An AI capable of this would likely also be able to e.g. flip burgers and bring us to Fully Automated Luxury Communism.
boppo1 3y ago
I still like to paint. If you stop painting because Dall-E can do it, maybe you didn't like painting.
- great_psy 3y ago
  My point is not that I stop liking to paint. My point is that I am an aspiring artist, who is waiting tables and I invest all my spare cash and time to get better at my craft and hopefully allow my craft to support me financially. Any hope of financial benefit coming from my craft is quickly taken away by Dall-e. This has nothing to do with how much I enjoy my art.
namrog84 3y ago
> We are giving the enjoyable parts of life to a computer Are we though? People still do plenty of things out of interest or hobby, despite it being fully automatable? e.g. blacksmithing or making certain homemade things? While these are non digital things, why can't we apply the same thing here? Some people still hand write assembly out of the novelety and interest of it. Despite there being better tools or arguably better ways of writing code.
llm_trw 3y ago
>We are giving the enjoyable parts of life to a computer. And we are left with the drudgery. Yesterday I asked a local llm to write a python script to have a several multimodal llms rank 50,000 images generated by a stable diffusion model. I then used those images to train a new checkpoint for the model and can now repeat the process ad infinitum. In the olden days of 2020 I would have had to hire 5000 people each working for a day to do the same.

erichmond 3y ago

Interestingly, I think that's for us to choose. I'm leaning into AI specifically for this reason. I want to build tools to that reduce the drudgery. But I agree, there's going to be a "war" around this and if could go wrong, if we are not careful.

richrichie 3y ago
Isn’t the constant building out tools another form of drudgery?
moneywoes 3y ago
what are you building

salty_biscuits 3y ago

It's not that long ago in human history that basically none of the jobs we do now existed. So it is kind of myopic to think that any current career is a calling. Art can become a craft again, not a career. There is nothing wrong with that.

dandelany 3y ago
Also not that long ago electricity and clean drinking water weren't a thing. The fact that people can make a career as an artist now, and couldn't before, is something I'd consider an advancement! "Nothing wrong with that" is a conclusion that simply doesn't follow from the rest of your post.
anigbrowl 3y ago
It takes a lot of time to develop that craft, which won't be available to you if you have to do drudgery to keep a roof over your head. You're arguing for art to be at best a hobby, and full-time pursuit of it to be limited to rich kids. Also I take issue with your argument about 'none of the jobs we do now' existing through most of history. Farming, construction, fighting, bookkeeping, cooking, transport, security are all jobs that have been around as long as people have lived in settlements. Sure, you could point to the long history of nomadic hunting and gathering prior to that, but that's like expanding your argument back to the origin of cellular life or forward to the heat death of the universe in order to make your interlocutor's arguments look insignificant on a cosmic scale. It's not a helpful contribution to addressing the real challenges of the present.
- vunderba 3y ago
  There hasn't been any money in the arts in a long long time so I'm not sure where this is coming from. For every one musician that's able to pay the bills, there's 1000 equally talented musicians that can't even get noticed.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    How long of a time are we talking about here? It was a lot easier to make a modest but steady living in the arts 30 or even 15 years ago. It's probably easier to have a breakout hit today on YouTube or Tiktok and maybe make a lot of money fast, but not to making a living consistently without sweatshopping content or being extremely personally attractive or similar.
  - nirvdrum 3y ago
    There’s also loads artists that do web and graphic design, make videos for product demos, ad campaigns, and so on. It’s perhaps not the purest form of art, but it is one way in which artists can apply their craft and still put a roof over their heads. A lot of these AI tools seems squarely aimed at eliminating those positions. For what it’s worth, I think we’re going to see a slide in quality. Maybe there will be a niche for some. But, I think companies will settle for 70% quality if it means eliminating 100% of a full-time position.
brenoRibeiro706 3y ago
Exactly
bobsomers 3y ago
> Art can become a craft again, not a career. This sounds nice, but having worked with many artists in the past a lot of them do it because they're good at it, it's enjoyable enough, and it pays their bills so they can eat. Telling them, "You're now free to make the art you really wanted to make!" doesn't bring much comfort when you're taking away their ability to put food on the table.
- suyash 3y ago
  Exactly, there are lot of arm chair experts in the forum today who have no clue about the reality of the industry, people do it because they are passionate about it and devote thier whole life to get good at it, this is just taking food from thier mouth.
sydd 3y ago
> Art can become a craft again, not a career The issue is that those jobs that got automated to "become a craft again" have mostly vanished, except for high-end stuff. Some examples: shoe making, artisan furniture, tailors, watchmakers. Unless you are the best of the best these are hobbies now not something you make money from. Nowadays most people make money in bleak half-automated jobs (e.g. construction, factory workers) or in white collar jobs sitting in front of a computer in some cubicle doing some mind numbing task for a megacorp. I'm usually hyped about technological advancement, but very bleak about AI. I think it will just bring more sublte propaganda for state actors, more subtle advertising for megacorps, the dieing of creative jobs like graphic artists or actors is just a sad sideeffect (these will still exist, but only as high end -- we will always have real AAA actors, but the days of extras on movie sets are counted -- lots of the Hollywood protests were because studios started doing contracts for noname actors that stated that the studio will regain rights of the actor's digital likeness)
- fasterik 3y ago
  When is a time in history when everyone had really great jobs? Before the industrial revolution, you had most people doing subsistence farming. During the industrial revolution, you had 14 hour a day exploited laborers working in factories. Maybe there was a brief period after World War II where you had a large middle class with stable careers and affordable housing. That's not the norm for the millions of years of history of human evolution.
  - afthonos 3y ago
    Ok, but like…that’s a bug, not a feature.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - fasterik 3y ago
      To me, this reflects a perfectionist mindset. Life is better today for billions of people than it has been at any other point in the history of the human species. If you consider it a "bug" that we don't live in some sort of utopia where everyone's dreams are fulfilled, maybe you need to change your expectations and view things in a larger historical perspective.

MattGaiser 3y ago

Is the artist the person drawing or the person who decides what is drawn? The AI only impacts the former.

T_MacThrowFace 3y ago

[flagged]

ptoo 3y ago

There will always be things humans can do that AI cannot. And if there ever comes a point when that's not the case, there will be no need to distinguish the two.

fastball 3y ago

Film/video editing isn't exactly known as the industry where everybody loves their job and doesn't want to kill themselves. I made a twitter thread[1] with weird metal cybertrucks using Midjourney a couple days ago. I personally enjoyed the process and do not have the talent nor the time to do that without generative AI. There are people who do have that talent, but honestly I doubt anyone else would've put in the time. I think you might have it a little backwards. For most people, the fun part is "making a movie", not "watching hundreds and hundreds of hours of footage picking between 10 different shots". That's the drudgery, and that's the part generative AI can eliminate. [1] https://twitter.com/acnebs/status/1757641901438894338 https://twitter.com/acnebs/status/1757641901438894338

anigbrowl 3y ago
I've made my living that way and absolutely loved it. What I did not love (and partly why I left the industry) was the difficulty of getting paid decently at the bottom tier; I had the bad timing to come in right as the bottom was beginning to fall out of the indie market and making straight-to-video b-movies 3 or 4 times a year ceased to be a viable business model. I think you might have it a little backwards. For most people, the fun part is "making a movie", not "watching hundreds and hundreds of hours of footage picking between 10 different shots". That's the drudgery, and that's the part generative AI can eliminate. No, that's the craft, and solving problems where the continuity doesn't line up, or production had to drop shots, or the story as shot and written sucks in some way, is where the art comes in. The drudgery is things like ingesting all the material, sorting it into bins, lining up slate cues, dealing with timecode errors, rendering schedules, working your way through long lists of deliverables and so on. You have literally confused the logistics part with the creative act.
- notpachet 3y ago
  I also used to be in this line of work, and I just wanted to say how much I appreciated this comment. 100% accurate.
- fastball 3y ago
  I have not confused it, I'm simplifying to make a point. Yes, of course there are many people who love the art of editing, or taking the right shot, or acting, or directing, or special effects, or all of the 100s of things that go into making a movie or TV show or other video. But many of those things involve a lot of drudgery, and the drudgery is what these "AI" solutions are best at. If you want to go above and beyond and craft the perfect shot, that opportunity would still be available to you. Why would it not? When we invented machines that make clothes, did that reduce the number of jobs in the clothing industry? When we got better and better at it, did that make fashion worse? No. If you want a machine made suit for $50, you can find one. If you want a handmade suit for $5000, you can find one. Tech like this expands opportunities, it does not eliminate them. If and when it gets to the point where Sora is better at making videos than a human in every conceivable dimension, then we can have this discussion and bemoan our loss. But we're not even close to that point.

atleastoptimal 3y ago

99% percent of people, before AI art, couldn't make good art. AI allows mediocre people to make good art now.

akprasad 3y ago
Yes, much in the same way that hiring someone to cater a dinner party makes me a great chef. (edit to give some body to my comment above: Hosting a great dinner party is hard work and requires coordination between food, decor, seasonality, people attending, etc. It is akin to a director coordinating the parts of a film. So I do think hosting a good dinner party can count as artistic expression. I don't know the parent comment's intended reading, but I was reacting to the idea that typing a Sora prompt makes someone a good artist. If the parent means instead that AI allows people to coordinate multiple media in a broader expression that was not possible otherwise, then I fully agree. )
- atleastoptimal 3y ago
  Not an apt analogy. I didn't say "AI art makes you a great artist" I said it helps you make great art Tools allow people to express themselves at a higher aesthetic level without needing the extreme technical skills.
  - tzarko 3y ago
    Great art ≠ pretty pictures
- throw_nbvc1234 3y ago
  So everyone at your dinner party gets to eat "better" food? Unless the point of the party was for you to cook then it's an improved experience. GenAI is a tool that lets creators of one medium expand to other mediums without much effort. Like having transcripts auto-generated for a visual podcast, just in the other direction. Low budget (or amateur) poems/songs can turn into short videos; or replace generic album art with better quality generic album art. The draw will be the primary medium, the rest will just be an extra bonus.

suyash 3y ago

This use case is a direct threat to actors when AI can create realistic footage with human and non human subjects, add to this generated speech, you have totally replaced hiring actors and killed thier employability.

samus 3y ago
Sorry, that's like claiming that the cinema has killed the theater, or that computer games have killed movies. Or that photorealistic 3D games have killed 2D slider games. Blockbuster movies depend to a large extent on the pedigree and abilities of their cast. For the big studios, these models are therefore quite useless apart from bringing dead actors alive again. If publishing material created from living actors without isn't illegal already, in a few years it will be. This might actually save the movie industry and force it to improve the quality of its output. There will be a huge indy scene of movie makers using models that can only compete via the content of the movies they produce. The realism of the characters won't matter because everyone can have those now. The current big studios will be forced to make very good use of human actors to compete with them though, and become innovative again.
- suyash 3y ago
  Your analogy doesn't quite make sense. The reality of the TV/Film production is that most of what we watch are created by big production houses and not indie creators. These companies will do whatever it takes to reduce thier costs, biggest of that is salary for hundreds of staff that they currently employ. Now with such AI tools, you can write scripts, create art work, crate footage, record voice overs and dialogues. All of this means less need for labor - creative that will not only cause huge employment in the sector but also lead to protests, it already happened last year in Hollywood, it's going to get louder and louder unless we put regulations to prevent job disruptions.
  - samus 3y ago
    But those tools can also be used by the very employees that got laid off. They be would become part of the indie scene. The film studios will be left with their trademark portfolio that will be milked for profit. We might see an Avenger movie every month. There will be an absolute glut of such productions, to the point that people might not be interested in it anymore. Can't tell what happens next. We might lose ourselves in the holodeck, or we might again appreciate media produced with more human touch. I like going to theater or opera. Even for famous pieces, the performance will be slightly different and unique every time. Imperfect, but with changing and nevertheless accomplished actors, singers, musicians, and dancers. Many people feel the same and that's why they watch live performances of singers, bands, and DJs.

echelon 3y ago

> I don’t even think the moat is the issue here. There is no moat. This will all be commonplace for everyone soon, including with a rich open source community. OpenAI won't let you do nudity or pop culture, but you can bet your uncle that models better than "Sora" will be doing this in just a few months. > We are giving the enjoyable parts of life to a computer. And we are left with the drudgery. No. This means that the tens of thousands of people working in entertainment building other people's visions can now be their own writers, actors, and directors. This is a collapse of the Hollywood studio system and the beginnings of a Cambrian explosion of individual creators.

al_borland 3y ago

What does “better” mean in this context? The camera was a better at capturing realism than any painter who ever lived. While we still have people who paint in that style, there aren’t nearly as many, and art took new shapes and forms. Most “good” art isn’t just what you see, it’s also the story behind it. Why was it made? What is the story of the artist? What does it make you feel? AI might allow more people to tell some of those stories they may have lacked the raw skills to tell before. And for those who have the skills, they can make exactly what they envision, without being limited by some of the randomness in the AI. I think there will always be a place for that, and at the top of the market, that’s what people want.

Tade0 3y ago

There will always be demand for people breaking new ground - which happens to be something AI can't really do. An AI capable of this would likely also be able to e.g. flip burgers and bring us to Fully Automated Luxury Communism.

boppo1 3y ago

I still like to paint. If you stop painting because Dall-E can do it, maybe you didn't like painting.

great_psy 3y ago
My point is not that I stop liking to paint. My point is that I am an aspiring artist, who is waiting tables and I invest all my spare cash and time to get better at my craft and hopefully allow my craft to support me financially. Any hope of financial benefit coming from my craft is quickly taken away by Dall-e. This has nothing to do with how much I enjoy my art.

namrog84 3y ago

> We are giving the enjoyable parts of life to a computer Are we though? People still do plenty of things out of interest or hobby, despite it being fully automatable? e.g. blacksmithing or making certain homemade things? While these are non digital things, why can't we apply the same thing here? Some people still hand write assembly out of the novelety and interest of it. Despite there being better tools or arguably better ways of writing code.

llm_trw 3y ago

>We are giving the enjoyable parts of life to a computer. And we are left with the drudgery. Yesterday I asked a local llm to write a python script to have a several multimodal llms rank 50,000 images generated by a stable diffusion model. I then used those images to train a new checkpoint for the model and can now repeat the process ad infinitum. In the olden days of 2020 I would have had to hire 5000 people each working for a day to do the same.