7 ms·

The amount of gatekeeping I see when this topic is brought is outstanding! Why can't people be happy that more individuals would be soon able to create freely i

The amount of gatekeeping I see when this topic is brought is outstanding! Why can't people be happy that more individuals would be soon able to create freely in a more accessible way? Personally I can't wait to see the new creative doors ai will open for us!

StefanBatory 1y ago
Creative? There's nothing creative in it.
- ahmedfromtunis 1y ago
  It's funny that you're defending creativity by being close-minded about a creative new way to explore it. You're being your judgment of an entire new medium based on a few early examples. It's as if you're downplaying photography just based on the few first blurry, dark clichés produced. Let's keep our minds open to new forms of creativity if we really care about it so much.
- kleiba 1y ago
  What grandparent means is that the AI enables human creativity in a new way.
  - onemoresoop 1y ago
    It does but so does it encourage efortlessness and haste. It definitely is something new, it remains to be see whether creatives bring it to new heigts as with other mediums. I remain a bit skeptical but am open to it. One thing is certain, a tsunami of content is upon us.
  - rxtexit 1y ago
    "Rap isn't even music, they aren't even singing!" Rap is really the best example of how stupid these discussions are. The language models are amazing at rhyming so by the logic then anyone can become a rapper and that is going to put current rappers out of business. Only someone who has never tried to rap could possibly believe this. Same thing with images, same thing with music, same thing with literally everything involving human creativity.
  - anton-c 1y ago
    Finally figured out what gp stands for. Ty.
gamblor956 1y ago
There's nothing creative in having someone or something else doing the work for you. "Creating" with an AI is like an executive "inventing" the work actually done by their team of researchers. A team owner "winning" a game played by the their team. That being said, AI output is very useful for brainstorming and exploring a creative space. The problem is when the brainstorming material is used for production.
- MichaelZuo 1y ago
  > There's nothing creative in having someone or something else doing the work for you. This would include almost everyone who’s used any editing software more advanced than photoshop CS4.
- andoando 1y ago
  I don't think that's true. Is a film director not a creative? You could come up with your own story and direct the AI to generate it for you.
  - gamblor956 1y ago
    In your example, the "come up with your own story" part is the creative part. But you're not "directing" the AI to generate it for you. You're just giving it a command. You're selecting from the results it outputs, but you're not controlling the output. A film director is a creative. Ultimately, they are in charge of "visualizing" a screenplay": the setting, the the design of the set or the utilization of real locations, the staging of the actors within a scene, the "direction" of the actors (i.e., how they should act out dialog or a scene, lighting, the cinematography, the use of stunts, staging shots to accommodate the use of VFX, the editing (meaning, the actual footage that comprises the movie). There's an old show on HBO, Project Greenlight, that demonstrates what a director does. They give 2 directors the same screenplay and budget and they make competing movies. The competing movies are always completely different...even though they scripts are the same. (In the most extreme example from one of the later seasons, one of the movies was a teen grossout comedy, and the competing movie was some sort of adult melodrama.)
_DeadFred_ 1y ago
Remember how there were all those cake shows all of a sudden, and they were making cakes that looked super pretty, but they were just fondant and sheet cakes? We're not thrilled having to wade through the AI equivalent.
alpaca128 1y ago
How is the requirement to use a computer and maybe pay a cloud subscription in the long term more accessible than other kinds of art? Which individuals are gatekept exactly? Before you bring up disabled people (as often happens when the term accessibility is used), know that many of them are not happy to be used as a shield for this without ever being asked and would rather speak for themselves. I've tried AI image generation myself and was not impressed. It doesn't let me create freely, it limits me and constantly gravitates towards typical patterns seen in training data. As it completely takes over the actual creation process there is no direct control over the small decisions, which wastes time. Edit: another comment about a different meaning of accessibility: the flood of AI content makes real content less accessible.
- Clamchop 1y ago
  There's a pretty standard argument that creating artworks should or must require the hardship of developing the skill to bring vision into reality, or paying someone who can. That can be debated, but the position is textbook gatekeeping. Other disapproval comes from different emotional places: a retreading of ludditism borne out of job insecurity, criticism of a dystopia where we've automated away the creative experience of being human but kept the grim work, or perceptions of theft or plagiarism. Whether AI has worked well for you isn't just irrelevant, but contrarian in the face of clear and present value to a lot of people. You can be disgusted with it but you can't claim it isn't there.
  - alpaca128 1y ago
    Gatekeeping means restricting power or opportunities. Is it gatekeeping when a skill can be learned for free, and on top is also optional? Is it also gatekeeping to forbid students from using ChatGPT for homework because it would force them to go through the hardship of earning an education? I have seen what 99% of people are doing with this "clear and present value". Turns out when you give people a button to print dopamine they probably aren't going to create the next Mona Lisa, they're just going to press the button more. Even with AI, creating compelling art is still a skill that needs to be learned, and it's still hard. And why would they learn a skill when they just decided against learning a skill? Incentives matter, and here the incentives massively favor quantity over quality. > Whether AI has worked well for you isn't just irrelevant My point was that it's creatively restrictive, and that current models tend to actively steer away from creative outputs. But if you want to limit yourself to what corporations training the models and providing the cloud services deem acceptable, go ahead.
duped 1y ago
> Why can't people be happy that more individuals would be soon able to create freely in a more accessible way? The gates are wide open for those that want to put in effort to learn. What AI is doing to creative professionals is putting them out of a job by people who are cheap and lazy. Art is not inaccessible. It's never been cheaper and easier to make art than today even without AI. > Personally I can't wait to see the new creative doors ai will open for us! It's opening zero doors but closing many --- What really irks me about this is that I have _seen_ AI used to take away work from people. Last weekend I saw a show where the promotional material was AI generated. It's not like tickets were cheaper or the performers were paid more or anything was improved. The producers pocketed a couple hundred bucks by using AI instead of paying a graphic designer. Extrapolate that across the market for arts and wonder what it's going to do to creativity. It's honestly disgusting to me that engineers who don't understand art are building tools at the whims of the financiers behind art who just want to make a bit more money. This is not a rising tide that lifts all ships.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- ahtihn 1y ago
  > The gates are wide open for those that want to put in effort to learn. Why is effort a requirement? Why should being an artist be a viable job? Would you be against technology that makes medical doctors obsolete?
  - ZoomZoomZoom 1y ago
    > Why is effort a requirement? That's how human brains work. People have an intrinsic need to sort, build hierarchies and prioritize. Effort spent is one of viable heuristics for these processes. > Why should being an artist be a viable job? Art itself has great value, if it weren't, museums, theaters and live shows wouldn't exist. > Would you be against technology that makes medical doctors obsolete? The analogy doesn't work. The results of a medical process is a [more] healthy person. The result doesn't have any links to the one performing it. Result of an artistic creative process is an art piece, and art is tied to its creator by definition.
kranke155 1y ago
Individuals won’t be able to do anything. The artist here is the LLM. There is no AI art where the human in the loop carries any significance. Proof of that is you can’t replicate their work using tbt same LLM. In AI art, the AI is the artist. The human is just a client making a request. And who owns the AI? It’s delusional. Stop falling for the mental jiu Jitsu from the large AI labs. You are not becoming an artist by using a machine to make art for you. The machine is the artist. And you don’t own it.
ionwake 1y ago
if I wasnt around to witness it over the last 10 years I would have thought most commenters on HN were bots pretending to be offended and gatekeeping for obscure profit motives. So the bad news is people are just insecure, jealous, pedantic, easy to offend, highly autistic - and these are the smart ones. The good news, is with dead internet theory they will all be replaced with bots that will atleast be more compelling make some sort of sense.
- lm28469 1y ago
  God forbid people have an opinion "Oh you're posting on hackernews, if you don't suck google's dick and every single gadgets megacorps shit out you must be highly autistic".... interesting take
  - Der_Einzige 1y ago
    This is objectively one of the most autistic websites on the internet. Likely worse than 4chan /g/. Just as dang and PG like it though!
    - ionwake 1y ago
      Sure is! And it’s great. Sorry I being autistic didn’t even phrase it well I think people got too offended I was just saying the bad side to it, HN is great. Couple of people were so upset at the suggestion they replied in a defensive manner I should have been more careful with my rant
- GenshoTikamura 1y ago
  If you call motives of designers, painters, musicians, filmmakers and other c-word professionals obscure, then I have bad news for whatever occupation you have for a living. Maybe it's just because it depends on how well AI sells, or because there's suddenly a perceived window of opportunity wide open at some fee for everyone unable to c-word anything on their own to finally become able, even if by relying on corporate crutches, the window you deem endangered by said gatekeepers?
- deleted 1y ago
lm28469 1y ago
"happy", "free", "creative", "accessible" What a weird way to spell "give $200 a month to google"

StefanBatory 1y ago

Creative? There's nothing creative in it.

ahmedfromtunis 1y ago
It's funny that you're defending creativity by being close-minded about a creative new way to explore it. You're being your judgment of an entire new medium based on a few early examples. It's as if you're downplaying photography just based on the few first blurry, dark clichés produced. Let's keep our minds open to new forms of creativity if we really care about it so much.
kleiba 1y ago
What grandparent means is that the AI enables human creativity in a new way.
- onemoresoop 1y ago
  It does but so does it encourage efortlessness and haste. It definitely is something new, it remains to be see whether creatives bring it to new heigts as with other mediums. I remain a bit skeptical but am open to it. One thing is certain, a tsunami of content is upon us.
- rxtexit 1y ago
  "Rap isn't even music, they aren't even singing!" Rap is really the best example of how stupid these discussions are. The language models are amazing at rhyming so by the logic then anyone can become a rapper and that is going to put current rappers out of business. Only someone who has never tried to rap could possibly believe this. Same thing with images, same thing with music, same thing with literally everything involving human creativity.
- anton-c 1y ago
  Finally figured out what gp stands for. Ty.

gamblor956 1y ago

There's nothing creative in having someone or something else doing the work for you. "Creating" with an AI is like an executive "inventing" the work actually done by their team of researchers. A team owner "winning" a game played by the their team. That being said, AI output is very useful for brainstorming and exploring a creative space. The problem is when the brainstorming material is used for production.

MichaelZuo 1y ago
> There's nothing creative in having someone or something else doing the work for you. This would include almost everyone who’s used any editing software more advanced than photoshop CS4.
andoando 1y ago
I don't think that's true. Is a film director not a creative? You could come up with your own story and direct the AI to generate it for you.
- gamblor956 1y ago
  In your example, the "come up with your own story" part is the creative part. But you're not "directing" the AI to generate it for you. You're just giving it a command. You're selecting from the results it outputs, but you're not controlling the output. A film director is a creative. Ultimately, they are in charge of "visualizing" a screenplay": the setting, the the design of the set or the utilization of real locations, the staging of the actors within a scene, the "direction" of the actors (i.e., how they should act out dialog or a scene, lighting, the cinematography, the use of stunts, staging shots to accommodate the use of VFX, the editing (meaning, the actual footage that comprises the movie). There's an old show on HBO, Project Greenlight, that demonstrates what a director does. They give 2 directors the same screenplay and budget and they make competing movies. The competing movies are always completely different...even though they scripts are the same. (In the most extreme example from one of the later seasons, one of the movies was a teen grossout comedy, and the competing movie was some sort of adult melodrama.)

_DeadFred_ 1y ago

Remember how there were all those cake shows all of a sudden, and they were making cakes that looked super pretty, but they were just fondant and sheet cakes? We're not thrilled having to wade through the AI equivalent.

alpaca128 1y ago

How is the requirement to use a computer and maybe pay a cloud subscription in the long term more accessible than other kinds of art? Which individuals are gatekept exactly? Before you bring up disabled people (as often happens when the term accessibility is used), know that many of them are not happy to be used as a shield for this without ever being asked and would rather speak for themselves. I've tried AI image generation myself and was not impressed. It doesn't let me create freely, it limits me and constantly gravitates towards typical patterns seen in training data. As it completely takes over the actual creation process there is no direct control over the small decisions, which wastes time. Edit: another comment about a different meaning of accessibility: the flood of AI content makes real content less accessible.

Clamchop 1y ago
There's a pretty standard argument that creating artworks should or must require the hardship of developing the skill to bring vision into reality, or paying someone who can. That can be debated, but the position is textbook gatekeeping. Other disapproval comes from different emotional places: a retreading of ludditism borne out of job insecurity, criticism of a dystopia where we've automated away the creative experience of being human but kept the grim work, or perceptions of theft or plagiarism. Whether AI has worked well for you isn't just irrelevant, but contrarian in the face of clear and present value to a lot of people. You can be disgusted with it but you can't claim it isn't there.
- alpaca128 1y ago
  Gatekeeping means restricting power or opportunities. Is it gatekeeping when a skill can be learned for free, and on top is also optional? Is it also gatekeeping to forbid students from using ChatGPT for homework because it would force them to go through the hardship of earning an education? I have seen what 99% of people are doing with this "clear and present value". Turns out when you give people a button to print dopamine they probably aren't going to create the next Mona Lisa, they're just going to press the button more. Even with AI, creating compelling art is still a skill that needs to be learned, and it's still hard. And why would they learn a skill when they just decided against learning a skill? Incentives matter, and here the incentives massively favor quantity over quality. > Whether AI has worked well for you isn't just irrelevant My point was that it's creatively restrictive, and that current models tend to actively steer away from creative outputs. But if you want to limit yourself to what corporations training the models and providing the cloud services deem acceptable, go ahead.

duped 1y ago

> Why can't people be happy that more individuals would be soon able to create freely in a more accessible way? The gates are wide open for those that want to put in effort to learn. What AI is doing to creative professionals is putting them out of a job by people who are cheap and lazy. Art is not inaccessible. It's never been cheaper and easier to make art than today even without AI. > Personally I can't wait to see the new creative doors ai will open for us! It's opening zero doors but closing many --- What really irks me about this is that I have _seen_ AI used to take away work from people. Last weekend I saw a show where the promotional material was AI generated. It's not like tickets were cheaper or the performers were paid more or anything was improved. The producers pocketed a couple hundred bucks by using AI instead of paying a graphic designer. Extrapolate that across the market for arts and wonder what it's going to do to creativity. It's honestly disgusting to me that engineers who don't understand art are building tools at the whims of the financiers behind art who just want to make a bit more money. This is not a rising tide that lifts all ships.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
ahtihn 1y ago
> The gates are wide open for those that want to put in effort to learn. Why is effort a requirement? Why should being an artist be a viable job? Would you be against technology that makes medical doctors obsolete?
- ZoomZoomZoom 1y ago
  > Why is effort a requirement? That's how human brains work. People have an intrinsic need to sort, build hierarchies and prioritize. Effort spent is one of viable heuristics for these processes. > Why should being an artist be a viable job? Art itself has great value, if it weren't, museums, theaters and live shows wouldn't exist. > Would you be against technology that makes medical doctors obsolete? The analogy doesn't work. The results of a medical process is a [more] healthy person. The result doesn't have any links to the one performing it. Result of an artistic creative process is an art piece, and art is tied to its creator by definition.

kranke155 1y ago

Individuals won’t be able to do anything. The artist here is the LLM. There is no AI art where the human in the loop carries any significance. Proof of that is you can’t replicate their work using tbt same LLM. In AI art, the AI is the artist. The human is just a client making a request. And who owns the AI? It’s delusional. Stop falling for the mental jiu Jitsu from the large AI labs. You are not becoming an artist by using a machine to make art for you. The machine is the artist. And you don’t own it.

ionwake 1y ago

if I wasnt around to witness it over the last 10 years I would have thought most commenters on HN were bots pretending to be offended and gatekeeping for obscure profit motives. So the bad news is people are just insecure, jealous, pedantic, easy to offend, highly autistic - and these are the smart ones. The good news, is with dead internet theory they will all be replaced with bots that will atleast be more compelling make some sort of sense.

lm28469 1y ago
God forbid people have an opinion "Oh you're posting on hackernews, if you don't suck google's dick and every single gadgets megacorps shit out you must be highly autistic".... interesting take
- Der_Einzige 1y ago
  This is objectively one of the most autistic websites on the internet. Likely worse than 4chan /g/. Just as dang and PG like it though!
  - ionwake 1y ago
    Sure is! And it’s great. Sorry I being autistic didn’t even phrase it well I think people got too offended I was just saying the bad side to it, HN is great. Couple of people were so upset at the suggestion they replied in a defensive manner I should have been more careful with my rant
GenshoTikamura 1y ago
If you call motives of designers, painters, musicians, filmmakers and other c-word professionals obscure, then I have bad news for whatever occupation you have for a living. Maybe it's just because it depends on how well AI sells, or because there's suddenly a perceived window of opportunity wide open at some fee for everyone unable to c-word anything on their own to finally become able, even if by relying on corporate crutches, the window you deem endangered by said gatekeepers?
deleted 1y ago

lm28469 1y ago

"happy", "free", "creative", "accessible" What a weird way to spell "give $200 a month to google"