6 ms·

>>models create, empowering artists to bring their creative vision Interesting logic the new era brings: something else creates, and you only "bring your visio

• dmonitor 1y ago
  It's being redefined in such a way that 2-3 very large entities get to hold the means of production. It's a very convenient redefinition for them.
  • teitoklien 1y ago
    [flagged]
    • gloosx 1y ago
      If your focus is to solve the problem, then it makes sense to treat the process as secondary. The tools are just means to an end. This view also aligns with how generative AI is marketed – it's a way to accelerate realization, not a way to focus on the act of crafting. That said, outcome-first thinking does run the risk of disconnection, and our current culture is all about disconnection.
      • teitoklien 1y ago
        Even the process is more democratized now, Want to learn coding ? Build out your app idea first with replit -> Then export the codebase into your computer -> Run claude code on it and ask it to scan all the files and describe the tech stack to you and how it operates while giving you all the major components you need to learn to understand it with youtube channel and book recommendations for each topic + work exercises -> Use perplexity deep research once a week to further research every topic as you start to learn them If you’re a busy man/woman make gumloop or lindyai workflow to check your calendar and pack in timeslots to do all of this learning, and then auto send you worksheets via email as homework to test you skills All of this for a price of 1/15th of a college degree (not even an expensive college) This is not hypothetical conjecture I do this daily. So everyone has now 1) Low cost access to build stuff with one prompt to realise the value of tools 2) A personal tutor that can then help you scour the depths of the craft and force you to practice and learn deeply now with your added motivation of knowing what’s possible with building stuff So it has the potential to connect us more too, it’s upto humans to choose whether they do at the end tho. That is their liberty.
        • gloosx 1y ago
          This raises another interesting question to think about: if everyone has (1) low-cost access to build anything, and (2) low-cost access to learn how to build anything at the same time... ...what do you think a human would choose the most?
          • teitoklien 1y ago
            Hence said is their liberty, Im not contesting what you’re worried about. That idiocracy will rise and our nextgen will only have surface level thoughts with AI being more and more being the subtle decider of every human’s choice in the background. That is probably the more likelier possibility. However it just shows the lack of philosophy in our modern times, people don’t do things they are lazy about and a Choice between the easy way and hard way is no longer a choice for majority the easy way’s dangling carrot is the final ultimatum. I think i’ll leave it at the thought that as time progresses to find value in day to day life, to force ourselves to choose the right thing, philosophy will again have to become a much stronger actor in our lives, or else we’d all drive off a cliff at current rate. At the end what happens will be decided by choice and liberty of humans as their choices expand.
        • deleted 1y ago
          [deleted]
        • deleted 1y ago
          [deleted]
    • oblio 1y ago
      That's step one, and you are right. Step two is... sure, every pleb can now create art. That devalues art. More than that, that makes for a "winner takes all" marketplace. So even fewer people than now benefit from it. More than that, guess who wins out: middlemen, the marketplace owners. Read the Black Swan by Nassim Taleb, especially the chapters about Extremistan and Mediocristan. Basically every time we invent something that scales and unlocks something for a great amount of people, we commoditize it and the quality of life for the average person in that field goes down while the leeches, pardon me, the middle men, are the only ones that become constantly rich, after the initial struggle to achieve market dominance (so when the market matures).
      • teitoklien 1y ago
        Tell that to the kings in medieval times who were the only ones who could afford music from finest crafts men and silk shirts This allowed people in those crafts to be very rich. Then came the evil leeches of middle men who brought cheap fine clothes for the masses and music in the hands of every broke college kid in his dorm room. So evil ! Get the sarcasm ? Calling ability for masses to do more things is somehow horrible is elitist, calling the people who make that possible leeches is just elitism in velvet glove. As long as the majority gets more value in their daily life, world is better.
        • jplusequalt 1y ago
          >Calling ability for masses to do more things is somehow horrible is elitist What are they doing other than consuming with extra bells and whistles tacked on to it? I'm sorry, but it's not art.
        • oblio 1y ago
          The problem, as usual, is one of scale. Quantity has a quality all its own, and all that. We maybe needed to go from 1 artist in 1 million people to 1 artist in 10 000 people. We do *not* need to go from 1 artist in 10 people. And regarding "cheap fine clothes", that was sort of fine. But what about when cars drive themselves (16.2 million persons - 10.3% of the U.S. labor force works in transportation)? AND What about when software mostly writes itself (4,4 million persons)? AND What about when stuff mostly manufactures itself (13 million persons)? AND ... ? (repeat ad-nauseam for every field upended right now by AI) If you think MAGA was bad (MAGA being mostly caused by manufacturing jobs being moved away/automated) what do you think will happen when 40% of the population is unemployed and unemployable, forever?
    • ZoomZoomZoom 1y ago
      > I make songs daily Sorry for being blunt, but you do not. You receive some music matching your request from a service offered by an entity which aims to control as much of content creation and distribution as possible, up to total monopolization. > I’m not a musician... Now I can with $10-$15 / month. If you want to create music, do it, it doesn't require much money. If you just want to listen, there's literally thousands of authors creating all kinds of authentic, sincere, daring, skillfully performed, carefully mixed music, giving it away for next to nothing and still striving to find their listeners. What you pay for is avoiding the effort of finding what suits you.
      • teitoklien 1y ago
        No amigo, no artist out there made a japanese song on my anime obsessed schoolteacher friend and his life. When he received that song from me, he was super excited for next 3-5 days and still listens to it and flexes them to their friends. Same thing happened with a lot of my other friends and me too, I have an apple shortcut script that generates songs for me daily based on my routine for that day pulled from todoist.com I still listen to and pay for others music and songs, but this experience with AI is entirely different. What I pay for is not avoiding effort of finding what suits me but creating what suits me. > You receive some music matching your request from a service offered by an entity which aims to control as much of content creation and distribution as possible, up to total monopolization. What I receive is a high fidelity song made from prompts that i’m given full ownership of , when pooled at scale between all users allows people to make their own song generators with GPUs. Its very nature is the opposite of monopoly. I’d love to hear how you think the big 3 corps (Universal, Sony, etc) who own all the music almost globally are not a monopoly ? Never had an experience where your spotify or apple music streaming albums disappear randomly due to those big 3 corps ? My friend’s song of himself will never disappear that mp3 file he can store on a pen drive, load ig anywhere, gift to anyone. How is that the “monopoly” ?
        • ZoomZoomZoom 1y ago
          > when pooled at scale between all users allows people to make their own song generators with GPUs. I can assure you, local generation is to become a fringe activity, same as self-hosting web services, only worse, because the quality gap (which in case of software is often negligible) will be insurmountable. > I’d love to hear how you think the big 3 corps (Universal, Sony, etc) who own all the music almost globally are not a monopoly? It's not a monopoly, it's a cartel. Luckily, they don't own everything, though, too much they do. > no artist out there made a japanese song on my anime obsessed schoolteacher friend and his life. Ok, what you describe is commissioning. Yeah, you can't argue with the fact it now can be done almost free and is becoming good enough for most, but you have to keep in mind, this process had been feeding a considerable amount of artists who do it to keep producing their art. Cutting this source of income is not wrong per se, but the consequences are the opposite of supporting the diversity and abundance in arts.
• lxe 1y ago
  I've been doing AI art since 2022 and I'm still both disappointed and not quite surprised that this still is a pervasive view of what it takes to create anything high quality using AI. If you take any high quality AI content and ask their creator what their workflow is, you'll quickly discover that the complexity and nuance required to actually create something high-quality and something that actually "fulfills your vision" is incredibly complex. Whether you measure quality through social media metrics, reach, or artistic metrics, like novelty or nuance, high quality content and art requires a good amount of skill and effort, regardless of the tool. Standard reading for context: https://archive.org/details/Bazin_Andre_The_Ontology_of_Photographic_Image https://archive.org/details/Bazin_Andre_The_Ontology_of_Phot...
  • kevinventullo 1y ago
    Given the pervasiveness of AI slop with hundreds of thousands of likes on Facebook, I wouldn’t be so sure about using social media metrics as proof of high skill and effort.
  • jplusequalt 1y ago
    >If you take any high quality AI content and ask their creator what their workflow is, you'll quickly discover that the complexity and nuance required to actually create something high-quality and something that actually "fulfills your vision" is incredibly complex This comes off as so tone deaf seeing your AI artwork is only possible due to the millions of hours spent by real people who created the art used to train these models. Maybe it's easier to understand why people don't respect AI "artists" with this in mind.
    • vessenes 1y ago
      I also feel unhappy when painters get formal art training which summarizes millions of human hours of work. Even worse they then go to Florence and waste their time stealing art by painting..exact copies of other people’s paintings! I feel a real artist would make their own tools: brushes, paint, canvas, and above all be truly creative by not unfairly using anything that’s gone before. If they did they aren’t creative; they’re a thief.
• tintor 1y ago
  Text prompts are very short now, but that can quickly change if prompt following improves. Software Engineers bring their vision to life through the source code they input to produce software, systems, video games, ...
• hooverd 1y ago
  LLM providers want to a) make you dependent on their services as you outsource your skills and cognition and b) use that dependency to skim the cream off every economic activity.
  • oblio 1y ago
    > b) use that dependency to skim the cream off every economic activity. Exactly. Probably the most important quote of modern times is, I think it was a CEO of an ISP that said it: "we don't want to be the dumb pipes" (during a comparison with a water utility company). Everyone wants to seek rents for recurring revenue someone else actually generates.
• kkarakk 1y ago
  we can see what happened to opera/theater/hand drawn art as conclusive answer. humans move on to the newer more easier to create/consume thing in general (digital music/tv/digital art) and a small percentage of people treat the older mode of creation as high art coz it's more difficult and expensive to learn / implement.
  • gloosx 1y ago
    Calling cinema a "new form" of theatre is quite a simplification. It was certainly inspired by theatre, but the two differ in almost every aspect: medium, communication language, cultural role, and audience dynamics. Most people throughout history probably never experienced theatre or opera – so they didn’t move from them to cinema; rather, cinema emerged as a more accessible and reproducible medium for those. Theatre and opera are regarded as high art because they are performed live in front of an audience every time, demanding presence, skill, and immediacy – unlike cinema, which relies on a recorded and edited performance.
  • vessenes 1y ago
    Umm no. GTA 6 will cost on the order of 2bn to make, more than some wars. You will likely play it. Your kids definitely will. What is true is that cheapening the cost of creative production will yield a wider variety of expression: we will see what people prefer to consume.
• klabb3 1y ago
  > but what it means is left for readers questioning, your "vision" here is your text prompt? Right. Imo you have to be imagination handicapped to think that creative vision can be distilled to a prompt, let alone be the medium a creative vision lives in its natural medium. The exact relation between vision, artifact, process and art itself can be philosophically debated endlessly, but, to think artifacts are the only meaningful substrate at which art exists sounds like an dull and hollowed-out existence, like a Plato’s cave level confusion about what is the true meaning vs the representation. Or in a (horrible) analogy for my fellow programmers, confusing pointers to data with the data itself.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]