7 ms·

Some of these are very obviously trained on webtoons and manga, probably pixiv as well. This is very clear due to seeing CG buildings and other misc artifacts.

Some of these are very obviously trained on webtoons and manga, probably pixiv as well. This is very clear due to seeing CG buildings and other misc artifacts. So this is obviously trained on copyrighted material. Art is something that cannot be generated like synthetic text so it will have to be nearly forever powered by human artists or else you will continue to end up with artifacting. So it makes me wonder if artists will just be downgraded to an "AI" training position, but it could be for the best as people can draw what they like instead and have that input feed into a model for training which doesn't sound too bad. While being very pro AI in terms of any kind of trademaking and copyright, it still make me wonder what will happen to all the people who provided us with entertainment and if the quality continue to increase or if we're going to start losing challenging styles because "it's too hard for ai" and everything will start 'felling' the same. It doesn't feel the same as people being replaced with computer and machines, this feels like the end of a road.

sshine 1y ago
It’s great that you have sympathy for illustrators, but I don’t see a big difference if the training data is a novel, a picture, a song, a piece of code, or even a piece of legal text. As my mom retired from being a translator, she went from typewriter to machine-assisted translation with centralised corpus-databases. All the while the available work became less and less, and the wages became lower and lower. In the end, the work we do that is heavily robotic will be done by less expensive robots.
- earthnail 1y ago
  Here’s the argument: The output of her translations had no copyright. Language developed independently of translators. The output of artists has copyright. Artists shape the space in which they’re generating output. The fear now is that if we no longer have a market where people generate novel arts, that space will stagnate.
  - briansm 1y ago
    Makes me wonder if the generous copyright protections afforded to artists had not become so abhorrent (thanks, Disney) then this kind of thing might not have happened.
  - wongarsu 1y ago
    I don't think the Berne Convention on Copyright was meant as a complete list of things where humans have valuable input. Translators do shape the space in which they generate output. Their space isn't any single language bit rather the connecting space between languages. Most translation work is simple just as the day-to-day of many creative professions is rather uncreative. But translating a book, comic or movie requires creative decisions on how to best convey the original meaning in the idioms and cultural context of a different language. The difference between a good and a bag translation can be stark
  - imiric 1y ago
    > The output of artists has copyright. Copyright is a very messy and divisive topic. How exactly can an artist claim ownership of a thought or an image? It is often difficult to ascertain whether a piece of art infringes on the copyright of another. There are grey areas like "fair use", which complicate this further. In many cases copyright is also abused by holders to censor art that they don't like for a myriad of unrelated reasons. And there's the argument that copyright stunts innovation. There are entire art movements and music genres that wouldn't exist if copyright was strictly enforced on art. > Artists shape the space in which they’re generating output. Art created by humans is not entirely original. Artists are inspired by each other, they follow trends and movements, and often tiptoe the line between copyright infringement and inspiration. Groundbreaking artists are rare, and if we consider that machines can create a practically infinite number of permutations based on their source data, it's not unthinkable that they could also create art that humans consider unique and novel, if nothing else because we're not able to trace the output to all of its source inputs. Then again, those human groundbreaking artists are also inspired by others in ways we often can't perceive. Art is never created in a vacuum. "Good artists copy; great artists steal", etc. So I guess my point is: it doesn't make sense to apply copyright to art, but there's nothing stopping us from doing the same for machine-generated art, if we wanted to make our laws even more insane. And machine-generated art can also set trends and shape the space they're generated in. The thing is that technology advances far more rapidly than laws do. AI is raising many questions that we'll have to answer eventually, but it will take a long time to get there. And on that path it's worth rethinking traditional laws like copyright, and considering whether we can implement a new framework that's fair towards creators without the drawbacks of the current system.
- kouteiheika 1y ago
  > As my mom retired from being a translator, she went from typewriter to machine-assisted translation with centralised corpus-databases. All the while the available work became less and less, and the wages became lower and lower. She was lucky to be able to retire when she did, as the job of a translator is definitely going to become extinct. You can already get higher quality translations from machine learning models than you get from the majority of commercial human translations (sans occasional mistakes for which you still need editors to fix), and it's only going to get better. And unlike human translators LLMs don't mangle the translations because they're too lazy to actually translate so they just rewrite the text as that's easier, or (unfortunately this is starting to become more and more common lately) deliberately mistranslate because of their personal political beliefs.
  - GoblinSlayer 1y ago
    Maybe for dry text. Translation of art is art too and there's no such thing as higher quality art.
    - taneq 1y ago
      I’m intrigued by this statement. It seems obvious to me that some artworks are ‘higher quality’ than others. You wouldn’t, I’d presume, consider the Sistine Chapel or the Mona Lisa to be the same quality as a dickbutt scribbled on a napkin?
      - Ylpertnodi 1y ago
        >You wouldn’t, I’d presume, consider the Sistine Chapel or the Mona Lisa to be the same quality as a dickbutt scribbled on a napkin? To paraphrase Frank Zappa...Art just needs a frame. If you poo on a table...not art. If you declare 'my poo on the table will last from the idea, until the poo dissappears', then that is art. Similarly, banksy is just graffiti unless you understand (or not) the framing of the work.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
- emsign 1y ago
  You can't compare translation to creating new works of art. Sorry mom, but that's apples and oranges. A dangerously false comparison.
  - sshine 1y ago
    As noted in another sub-thread, translations are indeed works of art. As evidence, my mom has received royalties for her translations for decades, both from sales and from library lending. And she could sue for copyright infringement if someone stole her translation. The only difference is that she needs permission to distribute the translation, unless it’s translated from the public domain.
  - anton-c 1y ago
    If you speak more than one language(esp something like Chinese or Japanese) you understand how subjective some choices are. It certainly takes creative decision making.
    - numpad0 1y ago
      I speak Japanese natively and hell, I'm just going to say, there is no such thing as translation, there is just foreign language ghostwriting. I'm not even sure if bilingualism is real or if it's just an alternate expression for relatively benign forced split personality. Could very well be.
- idiotsecant 1y ago
  My prediction: It will be like furniture. A long time ago, every piece of furniture was handmade. It might have been good furniture, or crude, poorly constructed furniture, but it was all quite expensive, in terms of hours per piece. Now, furniture is almost completely mass produced, and can be purchased in a variety of styles and qualities relatively cheaply. Any customization or uniqueness puts it right back into the hand-made category. And that arrangement works for almost everyone. Media will be like that. There will be a vast quantity of personalized media of decent quality. It will be produced almost entirely automatically based on what the algorithm knows about you and your preferences. There will be a niche industry of 'hand made' media with real acting and writing from human brains, but it will be expensive, a mark of conspicuous consumption and class differentiation.
  - collingreen 1y ago
    This prediction implies that people will value consuming tailored media, knowing 100% that it was generated because they wanted it (as opposed to because someone wanted to express something), with no deeper story or connection or exploration to it. If people instead care about the creation story and influences (the idea of "behind the scenes" and "creator interviews" for on demand ai generated media is pretty funny) then this won't have much value. Time will tell - it's an exciting, discouraging time to be alive, which has probably always been the case.
    - idiotsecant 1y ago
      I think the proportion of people who care about 'the making of' type content is vanishingly small. Almost everyone is looking for a dopamine hit and that's it.
  - sshine 1y ago
    > There will be a niche industry of 'hand made' media with real acting and writing from human brains, but it will be expensive, a mark of conspicuous consumption and class differentiation. This addresses one axis of development. Meanwhile, there's lots of people around willing to express themselves for advertisement money. Like with translation: We're going to see tool-assisted work where the tools get more and more sophisticated. Your example with furniture is good. Another is cars: From horses to robotaxis. Humans are in the loop somewhere still.
wordpad 1y ago
Artists push the envelope. With AI tools artists will be able to push further, doing things that AI can't do yet.
- numpad0 1y ago
  Audiences too. People loses interest fast for anything that something faceless can provide, whether the thing is machines or humans, or whether the act is drawing art or assembling iPhone.
- GoblinSlayer 1y ago
  Push further can only artists that weren't crippled by AI.
  - falsaberN1 1y ago
    What do you mean? How can AI cripple an artist? Even if the AI can do stuff better than I can in less time, it doesn't affect my art at all. It's the same thing as human artists better than them existing. Then again, I've seen people who get jealous to a raging degree because artist X can do better than them, so... Every artist worth anything strives to be better at their craft on the daily, if that artist gets discouraged because there's something "better", that means that artist is not good because those negative emotions are coming from a competitive place instead of one of self-improvement and care for their craft or the audience. Art is only a competition with oneself, and artists that don't understand or refuse this fact are doomed from the start.
    - JoeAltmaier 1y ago
      Nice idealistic view. It doesn't pay the bills. Artists quit doing art when they have to flip burgers instead. And AI is absolutely unconditionally a competitor in that arena.
      - numpad0 1y ago
        Online artists are more likely to be consultants and marketing experts. They "flip burgers", or rather make PowerPoints and lays out magazine articles, 12 hours a day for 8 days a week anyway. So AI only "financially" hurts them in the sense that it hurts their dopamine income.
earthnail 1y ago
I find it interesting that you echo the concerns of people who defend artists’ copyright claims, while stating that you are very pro AI in terms of copyright. It’s a very emotionally loaded space for many, meaning most comments I read lean to the extremes of either argument, so seeing a comment like yours that combines both makes me curious. Would be interesting to hear a bit more about how you see the role of copyright in the AI space.
- gabriel666smith 1y ago
  Not GP, though I agree with their views, and make my money from copyrighted work (writing novels). The role of the artist has always been to provide excellent training data for future minds to educate themselves with. This is why public libraries, free galleries, etc are so important. Historically, art has been ‘best’ when the process of its creation has been heavily funded by a wealthy body (the church or state, for example). ‘Copyright’, as a legal idea, hasn’t existed for very long, relative to ‘subsidizing the creation of excellent training data’. If ‘excellent training data for educating minds’ genuinely becomes a bottleneck for AI (though I’d argue it’s always a bottleneck for humanity!), funding its creation seems a no-brainer for an AI company, though they may balk at the messiness of that process. I would strongly prefer that my taxes paid for this subsidization, so that the training data could be freely accessed by human minds or other types of mind. Copyright isn’t anything more than a paywall, in my opinion. Art isn’t for revenue generation - it’s for catalyzing revenue generation.
  - blaeks 1y ago
    "The role of the artist has always been to provide excellent training data for future minds to educate themselves with." We are not aware of the implications of this sentence. This is it. The only "source" is play. Joyful play.
- kachapopopow 1y ago
  At first it will obviously make it easier for artists to create what they want at the expense of doing everything yourself which will take the fun out of it. At first we might see some raise in the money some people can make, but as I said the choice artists will have in the end is being someone who draws pictures for a machine to be trained on. I also think AI is the next evolution of humanity.
wodenokoto 1y ago
I think the “paper rock cross blade” short films by Corridor is absolute great and can by all accounts be called art and if they make a 3rd they will probably use this model. In terms of losing styles, that is already been happening for ages. Disney moved to xeroxing instead of inking, changed the style because inking was “too hard”. In the late 90s/early 2000s we saw a burst of cartoons with a flash animation style on TV because it was a lot easier and cheaper to animate in flash.
- latexr 1y ago
  I disagree with the positive characterisation. Those videos have a funny schtick of exaggerating anime tropes for a couple of minutes and that’s the extent of it. The animation is all over the place, reactions, expressions, mouth movements often fail, style changes from frame to frame. It maybe kind of works precisely because it’s a short exaggerated parody and we have a high tolerance for flaws in comedy, but even then the seams are showing. Anything even remotely more substantive would no longer have worked.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - wodenokoto 1y ago
    I think it’s a successful creative endeavor for two reasons: They took the weaknesses of last years style transfer models and used them as a style, working around and with it’s shortcomings and weaknesses. That is a far cry from “type a prompt and be do e with it”. Secondly I think the story is fun and the whole thing is fun, not in a will smith eats spaghetti kind of why but fun as in an actually fun short film. I think it shows that AI can be a tool that empowers creativity and creative work and more than a power point stock photo generator.
    - latexr 1y ago
      > I think it’s a successful creative endeavor Fair. But I wouldn’t say that automatically translates to “absolute great” or that it “by all accounts be called art”. Though there is a high degree of subjectivity there, which why I simply said I disagree. > actually fun short film Sure, you like what you like, no judgement. But again, “it’s a short exaggerated parody and we have a high tolerance for flaws in comedy”. Had they tried to make something more substantial, serious, provocative, emotional, or slower paced, I believe they would’ve fallen flat. > I think it shows that AI can be a tool that empowers creativity and creative work Plenty of actual artist disagreed, though. And the backlash wasn’t just limited to the end product, but Corridor Crew’s attitude to it (creator intentions matter a lot when defining something as art) and lack of understanding on the very real and very negative impacts on the industry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOwxXj1EIXM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOwxXj1EIXM
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
rhubarbtree 1y ago
I think many artists will see that if they publish anything original then AI companies will immediately use it as training data without regards to copyright. The result will be less original art. They will simply stop creating it or publishing it. IMO music streaming has similarly lead to a collapse in quality music artistry, as fewer talented individuals are incentivised to go down that path. AI will do the same for illustration. It won’t do the same for _art_ in the “contemporary art” sense, as great art is mostly beyond the abilities of AI models. That’s probably an AGI complete task. That’s the good news. I’m kinda sad about it. The abilities of the models are impressive, but they rely on harvesting the collective efforts of so many talented and hardworking artists, who are facing a double whammy: their own work is being dubiously used to put them out of a job. Sometimes I feel like the tech community had an opportunity to create a wonderful future powered by technology. And what we decided to do instead was enshittify the world with ads, undermine the legal system, and extract value from people’s work without their permission. Back in the day real hackers used to gather online to “stick it to the man”. They despised the greed and exploitation of Wall Street. And now we have become torch bearers for the very same greed.
- varelse 1y ago
  [dead]
- xyzal 1y ago
  It is a fluke visual training sets are far less amenable to sabotage than textual ones. Not that I suggest engaging in such a horrible, terrible, very bad manners, do I?
  - falsaberN1 1y ago
    I'm sorry to inform you that the mere automated pre-processing used in building of a training set will most likely disable any form of poisoning because the image is being altered before training. All popular training tools do this. Art stealing is a thing. I've had by art stolen regularly. Multiple Doom mods use sprites I made and only one person (the DRLA guy) asked for permission. I've had my art traced and even used in advertisements with me only finding out by sheer chance. I've had people use it for coloring without crediting the source. This has happened for more than thirty years. You can only learn to live with it, lest you risk going absolutely insane. If you are popular, people will do stupid stuff with your stuff. And if you aren't popular, you art is not going to be used to train, anyway (sets are ordered by popularity and only the top stuff gets used. The one with 3 upvotes is not going in.)
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
exe34 1y ago
> Art is something that cannot be generated like synthetic text 10 years ago: "real real text cannot be generated like stock phrases, so writing will be nearly forever powered by human writers."
- card_zero 1y ago
  I think "text" is irrelevant, the distinction is between art and the synthetic, where art might be written or visual. It's a vague term that's often used to mean "graphics", confusing matters, and the meaning of art is endlessly debated, like the meaning of intelligence. Obviously we have synthetic graphics (like synthetic text). So something else must be meant by "art" here.
  - exe34 1y ago
    If somebody comes up with a new pun, is that art?
    - card_zero 1y ago
      Atelier later.
      - exe34 1y ago
        What?
        card_zero 1y ago
        I tried to invent a new pun, it seemed a crime not to make the effort.
        exe34 1y ago
        how did you come up with it?
        1y ago
protocolture 1y ago
>So this is obviously trained on copyrighted material. Is it? I have no knowledge of this product, but I recall Novel AI paid for a database of tagged Anime style images. Its not impossible for something similar to have happened here.
- raincole 1y ago
  If you believe NovelAI is only trained on legally acquired content, I have a bridge to sell you.
  - protocolture 1y ago
    The argument they made, at least for the 1.0 of their image model, is that the database of images they purchased was heavily tagged reducing the work they had to do. That isn't to say that they purchased everything they have ever used. Nor do I care if they have.
- layer8 1y ago
  That wouldn’t change the fact that the images are copyrighted material.
sschueller 1y ago
The problem I have with the whole copyright AI thing is that the big ones benefit. If you reference any famous Copyright in chatgpt etc. you will get blocked but a small artist's stuff is not. Open it for all or nothing.
- dughnut 1y ago
  We probably should just stop enforcing copyright. “Stealing” my idea doesn’t deprive me of its use. Think about what the US market might look like if scaling and efficiency were rewarded rather than legal capture of markets. That large companies can buy and bury technology IP to maintain a market position is a tremendous loss for the rest of us.
- rchaud 1y ago
  "Might makes right" is how we got here. Airbnb and Uber can break hotel and taxi regulations openly, but if you start your own ride-for-cash service, the state will shut you down for any number of by-law violations. They have law firms and lobbyists on retainer and you don't. Similarly, copyright infringement could be a jail sentence for you, but a "legal gray area" for them.
latexr 1y ago
> So it makes me wonder if artists will just be downgraded to an "AI" training position, but it could be for the best as people can draw what they like instead and have that input feed into a model for training which doesn't sound too bad. Doesn’t sound too bad? It sounds like the premise of a dystopian novel. Most artists would be profoundly unhappy making “art” to be fed to and deconstructed by a machine. You’re not creating art at that point, you’re simply another cog feeding the machine. “Art” is not drawing random pictures. And how, pray tell, will these artists survive? Who is going to be paying them to “draw whatever they like” to feed to models? And why would they employ more than two or three? > it still make me wonder (…) if we're going to start losing challenging styles (…) and everything will start 'felling' the same. It already does. There are outliers, sure, but the web is already inundated by shit images which nonetheless fool people. I bet scamming and spamming with fake images and creating fake content for monetisation is already a bigger market than people “genuinely” using the tools. And it will get worse.
- taneq 1y ago
  Surely we’re way past the point now that models could be improved via RLHF using upvotes, or something equally banal?
  - latexr 1y ago
    The situation will get worse, not the models.
- TeMPOraL 1y ago
  > You’re not creating art at that point, you’re simply another cog feeding the machine. That's the definition of commercial art, which is what most art is. > “Art” is not drawing random pictures. It's exactly what it is, if you're talking about people churning out art by volume for money. It's drawing whatever they get told to, in endless variations. Those are the people you're really talking about, because those are the ones whose livelihoods are being consumed by AI right now. The kind of art you're thinking of, the art that isn't just "drawing random pictures", the art that the term "deconstruction" could even sensibly apply to - that art isn't in as much danger just yet. GenAI can't replicate human expression, because models aren't people. In time, they'll probably become so, but then art will still be art, and we'll have bigger issues to worry about. > There are outliers, sure, but the web is already inundated by shit images which nonetheless fool people. I bet scamming and spamming with fake images and creating fake content for monetisation is already a bigger market than people “genuinely” using the tools. And it will get worse. Now that is just marketing communications - advertising, sales, and associated fraud. GenAI is making everyone's lives worse by making the job of marketers easier. But that's not really the fault of AI, it's just the people who were already making everything shitty picking up new tools. It's not the AI that's malevolent here, it's the wielder.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
perching_aix 1y ago
> Art is something that cannot be generated Of course it can be, you're seeing it first hand with your very own eyes.
- sbarre 1y ago
  I think we're seeing machine generation of derivative visual materials. There's a difference, in my mind at least. "Art" is cultural activity and expression, there needs to be intent, creativity, imagination.. A printer spooling out wallpaper is not making art, even if there was artistry involved in making the initial pattern that is now being spooled out.
  - perching_aix 1y ago
    The way I think of art has two main components: the aesthetics and the higher level impressions invoked through those aesthetics. For me, art is specifically about the experimentation-with and the then-intentional use of aesthetics, to evoke a specific set of impressions within its audience. A form of communication, a transfer of experiences, frames of mind, and ideas. The more effectively and intelligently one can do this, the more skilled of an artist they are in my book. When I see generative AI produced illustrations, they'll usually be at least aesthetically pleasing. But sometimes they are already more than that. I found that there are lots and lots of illustrations that already deliver higher level experiences that go beyond just their quality of aesthetics delivery. They deliver on the goal they were trying to use those aesthetics for to begin with. Whether this is through tedious prompting and "borrowed" illustrational techniques I think is difficult to debate right now, but just based on what I've seen so far of this field and considering my views and definitions, I have absolutely zero doubts that AI will 100% generate artworks that are more and more "legitimately" artful, and that there's no actual hard dividing line one can draw between these and manmade art, and what difference does exist now I'm confident will gradually fade away. I do not believe that humans are any more special than just the fact that they're human provides to them. Which is ultimately ever-dwindling now it seems.
    - falsaberN1 1y ago
falsaberN1 1y ago
Disclaimer: I'm an artist with 30+ years of experience. Downgraded to AI training? Nonsense. You forget artists do more than just draw for money, we also draw for FUN, and that little detail escapes every single AI-related discussion I've been reading for the last 3 years.
- rchaud 1y ago
  The issue is whether the artists creating things for love of the game will be crowded out even further by studios churning out slop (or in HN terms, Minimal Viable Products) for cash. There are probably 15 disposable reality TV shows created for every scripted sitcom or drama that needs good writers, set designers and directors.
  - rererereferred 1y ago
    The ones doing it because they like it don't need to care about the mass produced slop.
  - TeMPOraL 1y ago
    They already are; have been for decades now. AI is amplifying this, true, but art done for love and for money are already pretty much disjoint ventures, and in areas where they mix (like TV shows), it's an uphill battle for the artist - and they're not always right, either; a good show is more than just great writing or beautiful art.
    - ethbr1 1y ago
      I'd argue that better graphical genai is a solution for this. It's a fact of life that creative production companies will always attempt to optimize costs -- which means most efficiently using any human labor. In the 00s/10s, animation studios especially tried to do this with... mixed results (coughToeicough) More capable models should allow better keyframe-to-keyframe animation.
  - Lerc 1y ago
    The fact that those TV shows exist indicates the root of the problem has nothing to do with AI. Those show are cheap because they employ fewer people. They still need to employ some people though. To me the greater tradgedy is that they make a product where those people who make it do not care about it. People are working to make things they don't like because they need income to survive. The problem is not that AI is taking jobs, it is that it is taking incomes. If we really are heading to a world where most jobs can be done by AI (I have my doubts about most, but I'll accept many), we need a strategy to preserve incomes. We already desperately need a system to prevent massive wealth inequality. We need to have a discussion about the future we want to have, but we are just attacking the tools used by people making a future we don't want. We should be looking at the hands that hold the tools. Discussions like this often lead to talking about universal basic income. I think that is a mistake. We need a broader strategy than that. The income needs to be far better than 'basic'. Education needs to change to developing the individual instead of worker units. Imagine a world where the only TV shows were made were the ones who could attract people who care about the program enough that they would offer their time to work on it. That too would generate a lot of poor quality content, because not everyone is good at the things they like to do. It would be heartless to call it slop though. More importantly those people who are afforded the lifestyle that enables them to produce low quality things are doing precisely the work they need to be doing to become people who produce high quality things. Some of those hands learning to make high quality things may be holding the tools of AI. People making things because they want to make will produce some incredible things with or without AI. A lot of astounding creations we haven't even seen or perhaps even imagined will be produced by people creatively using new tools. (This is what I get for checking HN when I let the dog out to toilet in the middle of night)
atomicnumber3 1y ago
AI is just going to absolutely blow the bottom 50% out of any market it's in. Examples: Disney isn't going to start using AI art. But all those gacha games on the iOS app store are ABSOLUTELY going to. And I suspect gacha apps support at least 10-100x more artists than Disney staffs. Staff engineers aren't going anywhere - AI can't tell leadership the truth. But junior engineers are going to be gutted by this, because now their already somewhat dubious direct value proposition - turning tickets into code while they train up enough to participate more in the creative and social process of Software Engineering - now gets blasted by LLMs. Mind you, I don't personally hold this ultra-myopic view of juniors - but mgmt absolutely does, and they pick headcount. Hmm yknow I could actually see Big Books getting the "top" end eaten by AI instead of the bottom, actually. All the penny dreadfuls you see lining the shelves of Barnes and Noble. Vs the truly creative work already happens at the bottom anyway, and is self-published. Also, as someone who's watched copyright from the perspective of a GPL fanboy, good fucking luck actually enforcing anything copyright related. The legal system is pay to play and if you're a small (or even medium!) fry, you will probably never even know your copyright is being violated. Much less enforcing it or getting any kind of judgement.
SubiculumCode 1y ago
You know, I wouldn't short what AI can do in the future, even if not trained on lots of art. It does not seem far out to me to think an AI could be trained to identify in images concepts like structure, balance, contrast, composition, narrative, etc, and then to pursue generation of such in procedural, iterative loops of drawing/painting using test time compute and a prompt for an objective.
rossy 1y ago
> Art is something that cannot be generated like synthetic text so it will have to be nearly forever powered by human artists or else you will continue to end up with artifacting. The rise of GPT slop is making it increasingly clear to me that this distinction doesn't exist, and it's just an under-appreciation of the skill that goes into good writing. That thing where LLMs generate overly-wordy mealy-mouthed text is just what bad writing looks like: the writing equivalent of a bad drawing. Subtle inaccuracies and ill-fitting metaphors are just the text version of visual artifacts. Not to diminish the plight of art and artists, but it's the same as the plight of writers and writing. Writers are also having their copyrighted works used against their will to destroy their own industry. LLMs also need big human-written datasets to keep the magic running, that are drying up as they get poisoned by their own output.

sshine 1y ago

It’s great that you have sympathy for illustrators, but I don’t see a big difference if the training data is a novel, a picture, a song, a piece of code, or even a piece of legal text. As my mom retired from being a translator, she went from typewriter to machine-assisted translation with centralised corpus-databases. All the while the available work became less and less, and the wages became lower and lower. In the end, the work we do that is heavily robotic will be done by less expensive robots.

earthnail 1y ago
Here’s the argument: The output of her translations had no copyright. Language developed independently of translators. The output of artists has copyright. Artists shape the space in which they’re generating output. The fear now is that if we no longer have a market where people generate novel arts, that space will stagnate.
- briansm 1y ago
  Makes me wonder if the generous copyright protections afforded to artists had not become so abhorrent (thanks, Disney) then this kind of thing might not have happened.
- wongarsu 1y ago
  I don't think the Berne Convention on Copyright was meant as a complete list of things where humans have valuable input. Translators do shape the space in which they generate output. Their space isn't any single language bit rather the connecting space between languages. Most translation work is simple just as the day-to-day of many creative professions is rather uncreative. But translating a book, comic or movie requires creative decisions on how to best convey the original meaning in the idioms and cultural context of a different language. The difference between a good and a bag translation can be stark
- imiric 1y ago
  > The output of artists has copyright. Copyright is a very messy and divisive topic. How exactly can an artist claim ownership of a thought or an image? It is often difficult to ascertain whether a piece of art infringes on the copyright of another. There are grey areas like "fair use", which complicate this further. In many cases copyright is also abused by holders to censor art that they don't like for a myriad of unrelated reasons. And there's the argument that copyright stunts innovation. There are entire art movements and music genres that wouldn't exist if copyright was strictly enforced on art. > Artists shape the space in which they’re generating output. Art created by humans is not entirely original. Artists are inspired by each other, they follow trends and movements, and often tiptoe the line between copyright infringement and inspiration. Groundbreaking artists are rare, and if we consider that machines can create a practically infinite number of permutations based on their source data, it's not unthinkable that they could also create art that humans consider unique and novel, if nothing else because we're not able to trace the output to all of its source inputs. Then again, those human groundbreaking artists are also inspired by others in ways we often can't perceive. Art is never created in a vacuum. "Good artists copy; great artists steal", etc. So I guess my point is: it doesn't make sense to apply copyright to art, but there's nothing stopping us from doing the same for machine-generated art, if we wanted to make our laws even more insane. And machine-generated art can also set trends and shape the space they're generated in. The thing is that technology advances far more rapidly than laws do. AI is raising many questions that we'll have to answer eventually, but it will take a long time to get there. And on that path it's worth rethinking traditional laws like copyright, and considering whether we can implement a new framework that's fair towards creators without the drawbacks of the current system.
kouteiheika 1y ago
> As my mom retired from being a translator, she went from typewriter to machine-assisted translation with centralised corpus-databases. All the while the available work became less and less, and the wages became lower and lower. She was lucky to be able to retire when she did, as the job of a translator is definitely going to become extinct. You can already get higher quality translations from machine learning models than you get from the majority of commercial human translations (sans occasional mistakes for which you still need editors to fix), and it's only going to get better. And unlike human translators LLMs don't mangle the translations because they're too lazy to actually translate so they just rewrite the text as that's easier, or (unfortunately this is starting to become more and more common lately) deliberately mistranslate because of their personal political beliefs.
- GoblinSlayer 1y ago
  Maybe for dry text. Translation of art is art too and there's no such thing as higher quality art.
  - taneq 1y ago
    I’m intrigued by this statement. It seems obvious to me that some artworks are ‘higher quality’ than others. You wouldn’t, I’d presume, consider the Sistine Chapel or the Mona Lisa to be the same quality as a dickbutt scribbled on a napkin?
    - Ylpertnodi 1y ago
      >You wouldn’t, I’d presume, consider the Sistine Chapel or the Mona Lisa to be the same quality as a dickbutt scribbled on a napkin? To paraphrase Frank Zappa...Art just needs a frame. If you poo on a table...not art. If you declare 'my poo on the table will last from the idea, until the poo dissappears', then that is art. Similarly, banksy is just graffiti unless you understand (or not) the framing of the work.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
emsign 1y ago
You can't compare translation to creating new works of art. Sorry mom, but that's apples and oranges. A dangerously false comparison.
- sshine 1y ago
  As noted in another sub-thread, translations are indeed works of art. As evidence, my mom has received royalties for her translations for decades, both from sales and from library lending. And she could sue for copyright infringement if someone stole her translation. The only difference is that she needs permission to distribute the translation, unless it’s translated from the public domain.
- anton-c 1y ago
  If you speak more than one language(esp something like Chinese or Japanese) you understand how subjective some choices are. It certainly takes creative decision making.
  - numpad0 1y ago
    I speak Japanese natively and hell, I'm just going to say, there is no such thing as translation, there is just foreign language ghostwriting. I'm not even sure if bilingualism is real or if it's just an alternate expression for relatively benign forced split personality. Could very well be.
idiotsecant 1y ago
My prediction: It will be like furniture. A long time ago, every piece of furniture was handmade. It might have been good furniture, or crude, poorly constructed furniture, but it was all quite expensive, in terms of hours per piece. Now, furniture is almost completely mass produced, and can be purchased in a variety of styles and qualities relatively cheaply. Any customization or uniqueness puts it right back into the hand-made category. And that arrangement works for almost everyone. Media will be like that. There will be a vast quantity of personalized media of decent quality. It will be produced almost entirely automatically based on what the algorithm knows about you and your preferences. There will be a niche industry of 'hand made' media with real acting and writing from human brains, but it will be expensive, a mark of conspicuous consumption and class differentiation.
- collingreen 1y ago
  This prediction implies that people will value consuming tailored media, knowing 100% that it was generated because they wanted it (as opposed to because someone wanted to express something), with no deeper story or connection or exploration to it. If people instead care about the creation story and influences (the idea of "behind the scenes" and "creator interviews" for on demand ai generated media is pretty funny) then this won't have much value. Time will tell - it's an exciting, discouraging time to be alive, which has probably always been the case.
  - idiotsecant 1y ago
    I think the proportion of people who care about 'the making of' type content is vanishingly small. Almost everyone is looking for a dopamine hit and that's it.
- sshine 1y ago
  > There will be a niche industry of 'hand made' media with real acting and writing from human brains, but it will be expensive, a mark of conspicuous consumption and class differentiation. This addresses one axis of development. Meanwhile, there's lots of people around willing to express themselves for advertisement money. Like with translation: We're going to see tool-assisted work where the tools get more and more sophisticated. Your example with furniture is good. Another is cars: From horses to robotaxis. Humans are in the loop somewhere still.

wordpad 1y ago

Artists push the envelope. With AI tools artists will be able to push further, doing things that AI can't do yet.

numpad0 1y ago
Audiences too. People loses interest fast for anything that something faceless can provide, whether the thing is machines or humans, or whether the act is drawing art or assembling iPhone.
GoblinSlayer 1y ago
Push further can only artists that weren't crippled by AI.
- falsaberN1 1y ago
  What do you mean? How can AI cripple an artist? Even if the AI can do stuff better than I can in less time, it doesn't affect my art at all. It's the same thing as human artists better than them existing. Then again, I've seen people who get jealous to a raging degree because artist X can do better than them, so... Every artist worth anything strives to be better at their craft on the daily, if that artist gets discouraged because there's something "better", that means that artist is not good because those negative emotions are coming from a competitive place instead of one of self-improvement and care for their craft or the audience. Art is only a competition with oneself, and artists that don't understand or refuse this fact are doomed from the start.
  - JoeAltmaier 1y ago
    Nice idealistic view. It doesn't pay the bills. Artists quit doing art when they have to flip burgers instead. And AI is absolutely unconditionally a competitor in that arena.
    - numpad0 1y ago
      Online artists are more likely to be consultants and marketing experts. They "flip burgers", or rather make PowerPoints and lays out magazine articles, 12 hours a day for 8 days a week anyway. So AI only "financially" hurts them in the sense that it hurts their dopamine income.

earthnail 1y ago

I find it interesting that you echo the concerns of people who defend artists’ copyright claims, while stating that you are very pro AI in terms of copyright. It’s a very emotionally loaded space for many, meaning most comments I read lean to the extremes of either argument, so seeing a comment like yours that combines both makes me curious. Would be interesting to hear a bit more about how you see the role of copyright in the AI space.

gabriel666smith 1y ago
Not GP, though I agree with their views, and make my money from copyrighted work (writing novels). The role of the artist has always been to provide excellent training data for future minds to educate themselves with. This is why public libraries, free galleries, etc are so important. Historically, art has been ‘best’ when the process of its creation has been heavily funded by a wealthy body (the church or state, for example). ‘Copyright’, as a legal idea, hasn’t existed for very long, relative to ‘subsidizing the creation of excellent training data’. If ‘excellent training data for educating minds’ genuinely becomes a bottleneck for AI (though I’d argue it’s always a bottleneck for humanity!), funding its creation seems a no-brainer for an AI company, though they may balk at the messiness of that process. I would strongly prefer that my taxes paid for this subsidization, so that the training data could be freely accessed by human minds or other types of mind. Copyright isn’t anything more than a paywall, in my opinion. Art isn’t for revenue generation - it’s for catalyzing revenue generation.
- blaeks 1y ago
  "The role of the artist has always been to provide excellent training data for future minds to educate themselves with." We are not aware of the implications of this sentence. This is it. The only "source" is play. Joyful play.
kachapopopow 1y ago
At first it will obviously make it easier for artists to create what they want at the expense of doing everything yourself which will take the fun out of it. At first we might see some raise in the money some people can make, but as I said the choice artists will have in the end is being someone who draws pictures for a machine to be trained on. I also think AI is the next evolution of humanity.

wodenokoto 1y ago

I think the “paper rock cross blade” short films by Corridor is absolute great and can by all accounts be called art and if they make a 3rd they will probably use this model. In terms of losing styles, that is already been happening for ages. Disney moved to xeroxing instead of inking, changed the style because inking was “too hard”. In the late 90s/early 2000s we saw a burst of cartoons with a flash animation style on TV because it was a lot easier and cheaper to animate in flash.

latexr 1y ago
I disagree with the positive characterisation. Those videos have a funny schtick of exaggerating anime tropes for a couple of minutes and that’s the extent of it. The animation is all over the place, reactions, expressions, mouth movements often fail, style changes from frame to frame. It maybe kind of works precisely because it’s a short exaggerated parody and we have a high tolerance for flaws in comedy, but even then the seams are showing. Anything even remotely more substantive would no longer have worked.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- wodenokoto 1y ago
  I think it’s a successful creative endeavor for two reasons: They took the weaknesses of last years style transfer models and used them as a style, working around and with it’s shortcomings and weaknesses. That is a far cry from “type a prompt and be do e with it”. Secondly I think the story is fun and the whole thing is fun, not in a will smith eats spaghetti kind of why but fun as in an actually fun short film. I think it shows that AI can be a tool that empowers creativity and creative work and more than a power point stock photo generator.
  - latexr 1y ago
    > I think it’s a successful creative endeavor Fair. But I wouldn’t say that automatically translates to “absolute great” or that it “by all accounts be called art”. Though there is a high degree of subjectivity there, which why I simply said I disagree. > actually fun short film Sure, you like what you like, no judgement. But again, “it’s a short exaggerated parody and we have a high tolerance for flaws in comedy”. Had they tried to make something more substantial, serious, provocative, emotional, or slower paced, I believe they would’ve fallen flat. > I think it shows that AI can be a tool that empowers creativity and creative work Plenty of actual artist disagreed, though. And the backlash wasn’t just limited to the end product, but Corridor Crew’s attitude to it (creator intentions matter a lot when defining something as art) and lack of understanding on the very real and very negative impacts on the industry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOwxXj1EIXM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOwxXj1EIXM

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

rhubarbtree 1y ago

I think many artists will see that if they publish anything original then AI companies will immediately use it as training data without regards to copyright. The result will be less original art. They will simply stop creating it or publishing it. IMO music streaming has similarly lead to a collapse in quality music artistry, as fewer talented individuals are incentivised to go down that path. AI will do the same for illustration. It won’t do the same for _art_ in the “contemporary art” sense, as great art is mostly beyond the abilities of AI models. That’s probably an AGI complete task. That’s the good news. I’m kinda sad about it. The abilities of the models are impressive, but they rely on harvesting the collective efforts of so many talented and hardworking artists, who are facing a double whammy: their own work is being dubiously used to put them out of a job. Sometimes I feel like the tech community had an opportunity to create a wonderful future powered by technology. And what we decided to do instead was enshittify the world with ads, undermine the legal system, and extract value from people’s work without their permission. Back in the day real hackers used to gather online to “stick it to the man”. They despised the greed and exploitation of Wall Street. And now we have become torch bearers for the very same greed.

varelse 1y ago
[dead]
xyzal 1y ago
It is a fluke visual training sets are far less amenable to sabotage than textual ones. Not that I suggest engaging in such a horrible, terrible, very bad manners, do I?
- falsaberN1 1y ago
  I'm sorry to inform you that the mere automated pre-processing used in building of a training set will most likely disable any form of poisoning because the image is being altered before training. All popular training tools do this. Art stealing is a thing. I've had by art stolen regularly. Multiple Doom mods use sprites I made and only one person (the DRLA guy) asked for permission. I've had my art traced and even used in advertisements with me only finding out by sheer chance. I've had people use it for coloring without crediting the source. This has happened for more than thirty years. You can only learn to live with it, lest you risk going absolutely insane. If you are popular, people will do stupid stuff with your stuff. And if you aren't popular, you art is not going to be used to train, anyway (sets are ordered by popularity and only the top stuff gets used. The one with 3 upvotes is not going in.)

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

exe34 1y ago

> Art is something that cannot be generated like synthetic text 10 years ago: "real real text cannot be generated like stock phrases, so writing will be nearly forever powered by human writers."

card_zero 1y ago
I think "text" is irrelevant, the distinction is between art and the synthetic, where art might be written or visual. It's a vague term that's often used to mean "graphics", confusing matters, and the meaning of art is endlessly debated, like the meaning of intelligence. Obviously we have synthetic graphics (like synthetic text). So something else must be meant by "art" here.
- exe34 1y ago
  If somebody comes up with a new pun, is that art?
  - card_zero 1y ago
    Atelier later.
    - exe34 1y ago
      What?
      - card_zero 1y ago
        I tried to invent a new pun, it seemed a crime not to make the effort.
        exe34 1y ago
        how did you come up with it?
        1y ago

protocolture 1y ago

>So this is obviously trained on copyrighted material. Is it? I have no knowledge of this product, but I recall Novel AI paid for a database of tagged Anime style images. Its not impossible for something similar to have happened here.

raincole 1y ago
If you believe NovelAI is only trained on legally acquired content, I have a bridge to sell you.
- protocolture 1y ago
  The argument they made, at least for the 1.0 of their image model, is that the database of images they purchased was heavily tagged reducing the work they had to do. That isn't to say that they purchased everything they have ever used. Nor do I care if they have.
layer8 1y ago
That wouldn’t change the fact that the images are copyrighted material.

sschueller 1y ago

The problem I have with the whole copyright AI thing is that the big ones benefit. If you reference any famous Copyright in chatgpt etc. you will get blocked but a small artist's stuff is not. Open it for all or nothing.

dughnut 1y ago
We probably should just stop enforcing copyright. “Stealing” my idea doesn’t deprive me of its use. Think about what the US market might look like if scaling and efficiency were rewarded rather than legal capture of markets. That large companies can buy and bury technology IP to maintain a market position is a tremendous loss for the rest of us.
rchaud 1y ago
"Might makes right" is how we got here. Airbnb and Uber can break hotel and taxi regulations openly, but if you start your own ride-for-cash service, the state will shut you down for any number of by-law violations. They have law firms and lobbyists on retainer and you don't. Similarly, copyright infringement could be a jail sentence for you, but a "legal gray area" for them.

latexr 1y ago

> So it makes me wonder if artists will just be downgraded to an "AI" training position, but it could be for the best as people can draw what they like instead and have that input feed into a model for training which doesn't sound too bad. Doesn’t sound too bad? It sounds like the premise of a dystopian novel. Most artists would be profoundly unhappy making “art” to be fed to and deconstructed by a machine. You’re not creating art at that point, you’re simply another cog feeding the machine. “Art” is not drawing random pictures. And how, pray tell, will these artists survive? Who is going to be paying them to “draw whatever they like” to feed to models? And why would they employ more than two or three? > it still make me wonder (…) if we're going to start losing challenging styles (…) and everything will start 'felling' the same. It already does. There are outliers, sure, but the web is already inundated by shit images which nonetheless fool people. I bet scamming and spamming with fake images and creating fake content for monetisation is already a bigger market than people “genuinely” using the tools. And it will get worse.

taneq 1y ago
Surely we’re way past the point now that models could be improved via RLHF using upvotes, or something equally banal?
- latexr 1y ago
  The situation will get worse, not the models.
TeMPOraL 1y ago
> You’re not creating art at that point, you’re simply another cog feeding the machine. That's the definition of commercial art, which is what most art is. > “Art” is not drawing random pictures. It's exactly what it is, if you're talking about people churning out art by volume for money. It's drawing whatever they get told to, in endless variations. Those are the people you're really talking about, because those are the ones whose livelihoods are being consumed by AI right now. The kind of art you're thinking of, the art that isn't just "drawing random pictures", the art that the term "deconstruction" could even sensibly apply to - that art isn't in as much danger just yet. GenAI can't replicate human expression, because models aren't people. In time, they'll probably become so, but then art will still be art, and we'll have bigger issues to worry about. > There are outliers, sure, but the web is already inundated by shit images which nonetheless fool people. I bet scamming and spamming with fake images and creating fake content for monetisation is already a bigger market than people “genuinely” using the tools. And it will get worse. Now that is just marketing communications - advertising, sales, and associated fraud. GenAI is making everyone's lives worse by making the job of marketers easier. But that's not really the fault of AI, it's just the people who were already making everything shitty picking up new tools. It's not the AI that's malevolent here, it's the wielder.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

perching_aix 1y ago

> Art is something that cannot be generated Of course it can be, you're seeing it first hand with your very own eyes.

sbarre 1y ago
I think we're seeing machine generation of derivative visual materials. There's a difference, in my mind at least. "Art" is cultural activity and expression, there needs to be intent, creativity, imagination.. A printer spooling out wallpaper is not making art, even if there was artistry involved in making the initial pattern that is now being spooled out.
- perching_aix 1y ago
  The way I think of art has two main components: the aesthetics and the higher level impressions invoked through those aesthetics. For me, art is specifically about the experimentation-with and the then-intentional use of aesthetics, to evoke a specific set of impressions within its audience. A form of communication, a transfer of experiences, frames of mind, and ideas. The more effectively and intelligently one can do this, the more skilled of an artist they are in my book. When I see generative AI produced illustrations, they'll usually be at least aesthetically pleasing. But sometimes they are already more than that. I found that there are lots and lots of illustrations that already deliver higher level experiences that go beyond just their quality of aesthetics delivery. They deliver on the goal they were trying to use those aesthetics for to begin with. Whether this is through tedious prompting and "borrowed" illustrational techniques I think is difficult to debate right now, but just based on what I've seen so far of this field and considering my views and definitions, I have absolutely zero doubts that AI will 100% generate artworks that are more and more "legitimately" artful, and that there's no actual hard dividing line one can draw between these and manmade art, and what difference does exist now I'm confident will gradually fade away. I do not believe that humans are any more special than just the fact that they're human provides to them. Which is ultimately ever-dwindling now it seems.
  - falsaberN1 1y ago

falsaberN1 1y ago

Disclaimer: I'm an artist with 30+ years of experience. Downgraded to AI training? Nonsense. You forget artists do more than just draw for money, we also draw for FUN, and that little detail escapes every single AI-related discussion I've been reading for the last 3 years.

rchaud 1y ago
The issue is whether the artists creating things for love of the game will be crowded out even further by studios churning out slop (or in HN terms, Minimal Viable Products) for cash. There are probably 15 disposable reality TV shows created for every scripted sitcom or drama that needs good writers, set designers and directors.
- rererereferred 1y ago
  The ones doing it because they like it don't need to care about the mass produced slop.
- TeMPOraL 1y ago
  They already are; have been for decades now. AI is amplifying this, true, but art done for love and for money are already pretty much disjoint ventures, and in areas where they mix (like TV shows), it's an uphill battle for the artist - and they're not always right, either; a good show is more than just great writing or beautiful art.
  - ethbr1 1y ago
    I'd argue that better graphical genai is a solution for this. It's a fact of life that creative production companies will always attempt to optimize costs -- which means most efficiently using any human labor. In the 00s/10s, animation studios especially tried to do this with... mixed results (coughToeicough) More capable models should allow better keyframe-to-keyframe animation.
- Lerc 1y ago
  The fact that those TV shows exist indicates the root of the problem has nothing to do with AI. Those show are cheap because they employ fewer people. They still need to employ some people though. To me the greater tradgedy is that they make a product where those people who make it do not care about it. People are working to make things they don't like because they need income to survive. The problem is not that AI is taking jobs, it is that it is taking incomes. If we really are heading to a world where most jobs can be done by AI (I have my doubts about most, but I'll accept many), we need a strategy to preserve incomes. We already desperately need a system to prevent massive wealth inequality. We need to have a discussion about the future we want to have, but we are just attacking the tools used by people making a future we don't want. We should be looking at the hands that hold the tools. Discussions like this often lead to talking about universal basic income. I think that is a mistake. We need a broader strategy than that. The income needs to be far better than 'basic'. Education needs to change to developing the individual instead of worker units. Imagine a world where the only TV shows were made were the ones who could attract people who care about the program enough that they would offer their time to work on it. That too would generate a lot of poor quality content, because not everyone is good at the things they like to do. It would be heartless to call it slop though. More importantly those people who are afforded the lifestyle that enables them to produce low quality things are doing precisely the work they need to be doing to become people who produce high quality things. Some of those hands learning to make high quality things may be holding the tools of AI. People making things because they want to make will produce some incredible things with or without AI. A lot of astounding creations we haven't even seen or perhaps even imagined will be produced by people creatively using new tools. (This is what I get for checking HN when I let the dog out to toilet in the middle of night)

atomicnumber3 1y ago

AI is just going to absolutely blow the bottom 50% out of any market it's in. Examples: Disney isn't going to start using AI art. But all those gacha games on the iOS app store are ABSOLUTELY going to. And I suspect gacha apps support at least 10-100x more artists than Disney staffs. Staff engineers aren't going anywhere - AI can't tell leadership the truth. But junior engineers are going to be gutted by this, because now their already somewhat dubious direct value proposition - turning tickets into code while they train up enough to participate more in the creative and social process of Software Engineering - now gets blasted by LLMs. Mind you, I don't personally hold this ultra-myopic view of juniors - but mgmt absolutely does, and they pick headcount. Hmm yknow I could actually see Big Books getting the "top" end eaten by AI instead of the bottom, actually. All the penny dreadfuls you see lining the shelves of Barnes and Noble. Vs the truly creative work already happens at the bottom anyway, and is self-published. Also, as someone who's watched copyright from the perspective of a GPL fanboy, good fucking luck actually enforcing anything copyright related. The legal system is pay to play and if you're a small (or even medium!) fry, you will probably never even know your copyright is being violated. Much less enforcing it or getting any kind of judgement.

SubiculumCode 1y ago

You know, I wouldn't short what AI can do in the future, even if not trained on lots of art. It does not seem far out to me to think an AI could be trained to identify in images concepts like structure, balance, contrast, composition, narrative, etc, and then to pursue generation of such in procedural, iterative loops of drawing/painting using test time compute and a prompt for an objective.

rossy 1y ago

> Art is something that cannot be generated like synthetic text so it will have to be nearly forever powered by human artists or else you will continue to end up with artifacting. The rise of GPT slop is making it increasingly clear to me that this distinction doesn't exist, and it's just an under-appreciation of the skill that goes into good writing. That thing where LLMs generate overly-wordy mealy-mouthed text is just what bad writing looks like: the writing equivalent of a bad drawing. Subtle inaccuracies and ill-fitting metaphors are just the text version of visual artifacts. Not to diminish the plight of art and artists, but it's the same as the plight of writers and writing. Writers are also having their copyrighted works used against their will to destroy their own industry. LLMs also need big human-written datasets to keep the magic running, that are drying up as they get poisoned by their own output.