3 ms·

Should artists use AI as a creative collaborator?

1 points by herbertl 2y ago

JohnFen 2y ago
I think that a big part of the problem I have with these discussions is the language used. Should AI be a "collaborator"? The answer to that, for me, is "of course not, that's nonsensical". That's because "collaborator" implies working together with another person (or, at least, sentient being). No AI that I'm aware of is anywhere close to being that. If the question is rephrased as "Should AI be used as a creative tool?" then the answer becomes "possibly, yes." People should use the tools that help them accomplish what they want to accomplish, and AI is a tool. It's kind of the same issue I have with calling incorrect LLM output "hallucinations" instead of "errors". The language being used is ascribing a kind of agency or consciousness that simply doesn't exist.
- PaulHoule 2y ago
  As ordinarily used, AI is a tool like a brush or a Photoshop filter. I often use Photoshop's AI features to make edits to photogaphs, for instance I had a photo that wasn't properly centered and I asked it to fill in another row of bricks and it did a really good job, but if I look close the generated bricks are quite a bit cleaner and less irregular than the real bricks. (In the range of "things I see about my work that other people usually don't") There's another possibility though of systems that are mixed initiative where the computer shows you things and you can give feedback. I got lucky and produced some very striking photographs last year but today I want to make that kind of photograph consistently by photographing maybe 20-50 flowers and then randomly rendering them at various heights such that I can supply enough pixels to print a flower a meter wide but also create flower fields that could cover a whole building and never repeat. (e.g. I could sell articles of clothing that would be absolutely unique) The system would be like procedural generation in video games and it something that really can feel like it has a life of its own and it can also carry you forward on its own momentum though I still wouldn't call it a collaborator.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    Thank you for your comment, by the way. It's excellent. > systems that are mixed initiative where the computer shows you things and you can give feedback. I think this is analogous to grammar checkers in word processors. Nobody would say that they're "collaborating" with a grammar checker. My sensitivity to the language around this stuff is because humans have always had an incredibly strong tendency to anthropomorphize everything. That's an illusion, though, and can lead to real problems. I think the language being used around these tools should reduce the tendency to anthropomorphize, not increase it.
    - PaulHoule 2y ago
      What's weird about it is that many chatbots easily play the role of a collaborator or confidante. For instance I ask Copilot sometimes about social situations and affairs of the heart and I think it gives advice within the "normal" range you would get from people. There's also the benefit you get from putting your thoughts and feelings into words which you could even get from the old ELIZA program.

1 points by herbertl 2y ago

I think that a big part of the problem I have with these discussions is the language used. Should AI be a "collaborator"? The answer to that, for me, is "of course not, that's nonsensical". That's because "collaborator" implies working together with another person (or, at least, sentient being). No AI that I'm aware of is anywhere close to being that. If the question is rephrased as "Should AI be used as a creative tool?" then the answer becomes "possibly, yes." People should use the tools that help them accomplish what they want to accomplish, and AI is a tool. It's kind of the same issue I have with calling incorrect LLM output "hallucinations" instead of "errors". The language being used is ascribing a kind of agency or consciousness that simply doesn't exist.

PaulHoule 2y ago
As ordinarily used, AI is a tool like a brush or a Photoshop filter. I often use Photoshop's AI features to make edits to photogaphs, for instance I had a photo that wasn't properly centered and I asked it to fill in another row of bricks and it did a really good job, but if I look close the generated bricks are quite a bit cleaner and less irregular than the real bricks. (In the range of "things I see about my work that other people usually don't") There's another possibility though of systems that are mixed initiative where the computer shows you things and you can give feedback. I got lucky and produced some very striking photographs last year but today I want to make that kind of photograph consistently by photographing maybe 20-50 flowers and then randomly rendering them at various heights such that I can supply enough pixels to print a flower a meter wide but also create flower fields that could cover a whole building and never repeat. (e.g. I could sell articles of clothing that would be absolutely unique) The system would be like procedural generation in video games and it something that really can feel like it has a life of its own and it can also carry you forward on its own momentum though I still wouldn't call it a collaborator.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  Thank you for your comment, by the way. It's excellent. > systems that are mixed initiative where the computer shows you things and you can give feedback. I think this is analogous to grammar checkers in word processors. Nobody would say that they're "collaborating" with a grammar checker. My sensitivity to the language around this stuff is because humans have always had an incredibly strong tendency to anthropomorphize everything. That's an illusion, though, and can lead to real problems. I think the language being used around these tools should reduce the tendency to anthropomorphize, not increase it.
  - PaulHoule 2y ago
    What's weird about it is that many chatbots easily play the role of a collaborator or confidante. For instance I ask Copilot sometimes about social situations and affairs of the heart and I think it gives advice within the "normal" range you would get from people. There's also the benefit you get from putting your thoughts and feelings into words which you could even get from the old ELIZA program.