3 ms·

This is true - but such artists can't create a new one every few seconds. A change in scale is a change in kind. Such "democratization" is, in my view, rather d

This is true - but such artists can't create a new one every few seconds. A change in scale is a change in kind. Such "democratization" is, in my view, rather demeaning to an artist, who doubtless worked hard to develop a new style, only to have their work digested by the machines and a million imitators pop up almost immediately.

peteGodonn 2y ago
Selling art to pay rent isn’t making art. Most of these artists are appropriating existing style elements and composing them; that itself isn’t new. Someone think of the first world artist reliant on sweat shop labor to serve their real needs so the artist can master science fiction comic book art Story mode economic feudalism is the last barnacle of history to wash out. It’s from religious times but stripped of the metaphor and analogy. Automation and physical statistics can keep enough stuff on shelves we don’t riot, communities can solve their last mile problems as their daily work, and noodle on their own artistic thing without having to sell it.
- taylorius 2y ago
  But artists create for a reason. You can take away the financial component, but the artist will still hope to get something out of it for themselves. Consider a band releasing a new album they've spent 9 months writing and recording. In our post-financial brave new world, they give it away for free. But they'll read the reviews, and get excited if their music is well received. In short, they are hoping to be "paid" in public acclaim. Now imagine that the minute they release it, some AI system digests all their new tracks, and a thousand randoms start making songs that are similar to the style and aesthetic they have spent time creating. In short order, the number of synthetic AI tracks will dwarf the originals, and the recognition will go to whoever markets their synthetic tracks the best, rather than the original creator. The only hope I see for artistic creativity is in training custom, boutique AI systems that accurately encompass the Artist's style. But that's not really creativity to be honest, it's more akin to licensing.

peteGodonn 2y ago

Selling art to pay rent isn’t making art. Most of these artists are appropriating existing style elements and composing them; that itself isn’t new. Someone think of the first world artist reliant on sweat shop labor to serve their real needs so the artist can master science fiction comic book art Story mode economic feudalism is the last barnacle of history to wash out. It’s from religious times but stripped of the metaphor and analogy. Automation and physical statistics can keep enough stuff on shelves we don’t riot, communities can solve their last mile problems as their daily work, and noodle on their own artistic thing without having to sell it.

taylorius 2y ago
But artists create for a reason. You can take away the financial component, but the artist will still hope to get something out of it for themselves. Consider a band releasing a new album they've spent 9 months writing and recording. In our post-financial brave new world, they give it away for free. But they'll read the reviews, and get excited if their music is well received. In short, they are hoping to be "paid" in public acclaim. Now imagine that the minute they release it, some AI system digests all their new tracks, and a thousand randoms start making songs that are similar to the style and aesthetic they have spent time creating. In short order, the number of synthetic AI tracks will dwarf the originals, and the recognition will go to whoever markets their synthetic tracks the best, rather than the original creator. The only hope I see for artistic creativity is in training custom, boutique AI systems that accurately encompass the Artist's style. But that's not really creativity to be honest, it's more akin to licensing.