4 ms·

To support the grand-post but reword it: we're on the verge of AI becoming a "great creativity equalizer". It used to be that each individual had a "skill level

by notfed 2y ago

To support the grand-post but reword it: we're on the verge of AI becoming a "great creativity equalizer". It used to be that each individual had a "skill level" on a scale from 0-100 for each practice, where very few people were above level 60. But now everyone can be a level 60+ artist, if they want to be. This lower limit will keep rising and, at a certain point (and maybe were talking 1000 years) it will be hard for anyone to differentiate any everyday media from human- vs AI-generated. Maybe equality is good? For utilities like locomotion, that sounds great. But for creativity? I think what will happen is a later generation will grow up bombarded by level-100 art and music. I guess that sounds net positive...right? As a musician, I can tell you one thing: part of what gives me drive to make music is knowing that what I'm creating is a scarce resource. (For example, if I realize one of my songs sounds like another existing song, it stops sounding good to me.) If it comes that AI can generate new songs for me, all of that value I assign to creating music is lost.

CamperBob2 2y ago
As a musician, I can tell you one thing: part of what gives me drive to make music is knowing that what I'm creating is a scarce resource. (For example, if I realize one of my songs sounds like another existing song, it stops sounding good to me.) If it comes that AI can generate new songs for me, all of that value I assign to creating music is lost. This dilemma came up before, as photography started to become practical. Artists didn't see the point in painting what the camera could render perfectly. So instead, we got Impressionism, and everything that grew out of it. There will always be room in art to do something different, something "out of distribution," so to speak. Great artists will still surprise us. Average ones can still have fun. Crappy ones will just have to find something else to do. Life will go on. As for the notion of a "creativity equalizer", that's laughable. It would take a god to do that, not a computer. AI is a tool, and some people will always be better than others at using the available tools. Those are the ones we will continue to call "artists," "musicians," and "writers."

by notfed 2y ago

CamperBob2 2y ago

As a musician, I can tell you one thing: part of what gives me drive to make music is knowing that what I'm creating is a scarce resource. (For example, if I realize one of my songs sounds like another existing song, it stops sounding good to me.) If it comes that AI can generate new songs for me, all of that value I assign to creating music is lost. This dilemma came up before, as photography started to become practical. Artists didn't see the point in painting what the camera could render perfectly. So instead, we got Impressionism, and everything that grew out of it. There will always be room in art to do something different, something "out of distribution," so to speak. Great artists will still surprise us. Average ones can still have fun. Crappy ones will just have to find something else to do. Life will go on. As for the notion of a "creativity equalizer", that's laughable. It would take a god to do that, not a computer. AI is a tool, and some people will always be better than others at using the available tools. Those are the ones we will continue to call "artists," "musicians," and "writers."