5 ms·

Who talked about "real" here? Photographers do manipulate cameras, and rework afterwise the images to develop. Digital artists do manipulate digital tools. T

Who talked about "real" here? Photographers do manipulate cameras, and rework afterwise the images to develop. Digital artists do manipulate digital tools. Their output is a large function of their informed input, experience, taste, knowledge, practice and intention, using their own specific tools in their own way. Same with developers: the result is a function of their input (architecture, code, etc.). Garbage in, garbage out. With AI prompters, the output is part function of the (very small) prompt, part function of the (huuuuuuuge) training set, part randomness. If you're the director of a movie, or of a photo shoot, you're the director. Not the photographer, not the set painter, not the carpenter, not the light, etc. If you're the producer, you're not the artist (unless you _also_ act as an artist in the production). Do you feel the difference?

luckylion 2y ago
> With AI prompters, the output is part function of the (very small) prompt, part function of the (huuuuuuuge) training set, part randomness. With photographers, the output is part function of the (very small) orientation of the camera and pressing the button, part function of the (huuuuuuuge) technical marvel that are modern cameras, part randomness. Let's be realistic here. Without the manufactured cameras, 99.9% of photographers wouldn't be photographers, only the 10 people who'd want it enough to build their own cameras, and they wouldn't have much appeal beyond a curiosity because their cameras would suck.
- Juliate 2y ago
  Ludicrous rebuttal. Reducing this to "orientation of the camera" is such a dismissive take on the eye and focus of the person that decides to take a picture, where/when he/she is; this is really revealing you do not practice it. And... before cameras were even electronic, back in the early 2000, there were already thousands and more of extremely gifted photographers. Yes, cameras are marvellous tools. But they are _static_. They don't dynamically, randomly change the input. Generative AI are not _static_. They require training sets to be anywhere near useful. Cameras _do not_ feed on all the previous photographies taken by others.
  - luckylion 2y ago
    > Reducing this to "orientation of the camera" is such a dismissive take What's more important: the person behind the camera or the camera? Show me the photos taken without the camera and then look at all the great photos taken by amateurs. > They require training sets to be anywhere near useful. And the camera needs assembly and R&D. But when either arrives at your door, it's "ready to go". > Cameras _do not_ feed on all the previous photographies taken by others. Cameras do feed on all the research of previous cameras though. The photos don't matter to the Camera. The Camera manufacturers are geniuses, the photographers are users. It's really not far off from AI, especially when the cameras do so much, and then there's the software-tools afterwards etc etc. Yeah, yeah, everybody wants to feel special and artsy and all that and looks down on the new people who aren't even real artists. But most people really shouldn't.
    - Juliate 2y ago
      You’re confusing the tools (which are their own marvels) and the practice (which is art, using the tools). However good or not is the camera, it’s not the camera that dictates the inner qualities of a photograph, there is _something else_ that evades the technicalities of the tools and comes from the context and the choice of the photograph (and of accident, too, because it’s the nature of photography: capturing an accident of light). The same camera in the hands of two persons will give two totally different sets of pictures, if only because, their sight, their looking at the world is different; and because one knows how to use the tools, and the other, not in the same way, or not at all. It’s not a matter of « feeling artsy » or special, it’s a matter of « doing art ». Everyone is an artist, if they want to: it’s a matter of practicing and intent, not a matter of outputting. Art is in the process (of making, and of receiving), not in the output (which is the artefact of art and which has its own set of controversial and confusing economics and markets). Generative AI on the contrary of tools that stay in their specific place, steals the insight from previous artists (from the training set) and strips the prompter from their own insights and personality and imprint (because it is not employed, but only through a limited text prompt at an interface). Generative AI enthousiasts may be so. They have every right to be. But not by ignoring and denying the fundamental steal that injecting training sets without approval is, and the fundamental difference there is between _doing art_ and asking a computer to produce art. Ignoring those two is a red flag of people having no idea what art, and practice is.
fc417fc802 2y ago
So AI tools take you from "artist" to "art director". That's an interesting thought. I think I agree.
jhbadger 2y ago
Historically, it took a long time for traditional artists (painters and sculptors) to see photographers as fellow artists rather than mere technicians using technology to replace art. The same thing was true of early digital artists who dared to make images without paint or pencils.
- Juliate 2y ago
  Not the same thing again. That comparison would be fair if the generative AI you use is trained exclusively on your own (rightfully acquired) data and work. Existing generative AIs are feeding on the work of millions of people who did not consent. That’s a violation of their work and of their rights. And that should also alert those that expect to use/benefit of their own production out of these generators: why would it be 1/ protectable, 2/ protected at all. It is no coincidence that these generators makers’ philosophy aligns with an autocrat political project, and some inhuman « masculinity » promoters. It’s all about power and nothing about playing by the rules of a society.
  - squigz 2y ago
    > That comparison would be fair if the generative AI you use is trained exclusively on your own (rightfully acquired) data and work. > Existing generative AIs are feeding on the work of millions of people who did not consent. There are LLMs that are trained on non-copyright work, but apparently that's irrelevant according to the comment I replied to.
  - jhbadger 2y ago
    As people have mentioned, people are still against legally-sourced generative AI systems like Adobe's, so concern over IP rights isn't the only, or I suspect, major, objection to generative AI that people have.
    - Juliate 2y ago
      It's not the only objection, but it's one of the major and blocking ones, because how do you _prove_ that you do not have unconsented copyrighted contents in your training set? The other objections, in the economic range (replacing/displacing artists work for financial gain, from the producers point of view) are totally valid too, but don't rely on the same argument. And my point above is not really an objection, it's a reminder: of what are AI generators, and what they are not (and that AI generators promoters pretend they are, without any piece of evidence or real argument). Of what their output is (a rough, industrial barely specified and mastered product), and what it is not (art).

luckylion 2y ago

> With AI prompters, the output is part function of the (very small) prompt, part function of the (huuuuuuuge) training set, part randomness. With photographers, the output is part function of the (very small) orientation of the camera and pressing the button, part function of the (huuuuuuuge) technical marvel that are modern cameras, part randomness. Let's be realistic here. Without the manufactured cameras, 99.9% of photographers wouldn't be photographers, only the 10 people who'd want it enough to build their own cameras, and they wouldn't have much appeal beyond a curiosity because their cameras would suck.

Juliate 2y ago
Ludicrous rebuttal. Reducing this to "orientation of the camera" is such a dismissive take on the eye and focus of the person that decides to take a picture, where/when he/she is; this is really revealing you do not practice it. And... before cameras were even electronic, back in the early 2000, there were already thousands and more of extremely gifted photographers. Yes, cameras are marvellous tools. But they are _static_. They don't dynamically, randomly change the input. Generative AI are not _static_. They require training sets to be anywhere near useful. Cameras _do not_ feed on all the previous photographies taken by others.
- luckylion 2y ago
  > Reducing this to "orientation of the camera" is such a dismissive take What's more important: the person behind the camera or the camera? Show me the photos taken without the camera and then look at all the great photos taken by amateurs. > They require training sets to be anywhere near useful. And the camera needs assembly and R&D. But when either arrives at your door, it's "ready to go". > Cameras _do not_ feed on all the previous photographies taken by others. Cameras do feed on all the research of previous cameras though. The photos don't matter to the Camera. The Camera manufacturers are geniuses, the photographers are users. It's really not far off from AI, especially when the cameras do so much, and then there's the software-tools afterwards etc etc. Yeah, yeah, everybody wants to feel special and artsy and all that and looks down on the new people who aren't even real artists. But most people really shouldn't.
  - Juliate 2y ago
    You’re confusing the tools (which are their own marvels) and the practice (which is art, using the tools). However good or not is the camera, it’s not the camera that dictates the inner qualities of a photograph, there is _something else_ that evades the technicalities of the tools and comes from the context and the choice of the photograph (and of accident, too, because it’s the nature of photography: capturing an accident of light). The same camera in the hands of two persons will give two totally different sets of pictures, if only because, their sight, their looking at the world is different; and because one knows how to use the tools, and the other, not in the same way, or not at all. It’s not a matter of « feeling artsy » or special, it’s a matter of « doing art ». Everyone is an artist, if they want to: it’s a matter of practicing and intent, not a matter of outputting. Art is in the process (of making, and of receiving), not in the output (which is the artefact of art and which has its own set of controversial and confusing economics and markets). Generative AI on the contrary of tools that stay in their specific place, steals the insight from previous artists (from the training set) and strips the prompter from their own insights and personality and imprint (because it is not employed, but only through a limited text prompt at an interface). Generative AI enthousiasts may be so. They have every right to be. But not by ignoring and denying the fundamental steal that injecting training sets without approval is, and the fundamental difference there is between _doing art_ and asking a computer to produce art. Ignoring those two is a red flag of people having no idea what art, and practice is.

fc417fc802 2y ago

So AI tools take you from "artist" to "art director". That's an interesting thought. I think I agree.

jhbadger 2y ago

Historically, it took a long time for traditional artists (painters and sculptors) to see photographers as fellow artists rather than mere technicians using technology to replace art. The same thing was true of early digital artists who dared to make images without paint or pencils.

Juliate 2y ago
Not the same thing again. That comparison would be fair if the generative AI you use is trained exclusively on your own (rightfully acquired) data and work. Existing generative AIs are feeding on the work of millions of people who did not consent. That’s a violation of their work and of their rights. And that should also alert those that expect to use/benefit of their own production out of these generators: why would it be 1/ protectable, 2/ protected at all. It is no coincidence that these generators makers’ philosophy aligns with an autocrat political project, and some inhuman « masculinity » promoters. It’s all about power and nothing about playing by the rules of a society.
- squigz 2y ago
  > That comparison would be fair if the generative AI you use is trained exclusively on your own (rightfully acquired) data and work. > Existing generative AIs are feeding on the work of millions of people who did not consent. There are LLMs that are trained on non-copyright work, but apparently that's irrelevant according to the comment I replied to.
- jhbadger 2y ago
  As people have mentioned, people are still against legally-sourced generative AI systems like Adobe's, so concern over IP rights isn't the only, or I suspect, major, objection to generative AI that people have.
  - Juliate 2y ago
    It's not the only objection, but it's one of the major and blocking ones, because how do you _prove_ that you do not have unconsented copyrighted contents in your training set? The other objections, in the economic range (replacing/displacing artists work for financial gain, from the producers point of view) are totally valid too, but don't rely on the same argument. And my point above is not really an objection, it's a reminder: of what are AI generators, and what they are not (and that AI generators promoters pretend they are, without any piece of evidence or real argument). Of what their output is (a rough, industrial barely specified and mastered product), and what it is not (art).