4 ms·

"AI" is just a tool like any other- creatives will use these tools to make things they couldn't make before because of the limits of their budget and/or scale-

"AI" is just a tool like any other- creatives will use these tools to make things they couldn't make before because of the limits of their budget and/or scale- I just made an original animated feature film where I sang %75 of the roles by using an AI tool(audimee.com) to convert my voice into others- I couldn't do that before- we're now creating Portuguese and Russian language versions of the songs with a tool that has a $20 usd/month subscription! Couldn't do that before! For creatives/artists- As long as we don't use AI to generate ideas we're good, human generated ideas are a must- bring on all the AI tools! The whole built on theft thing- as a human film director I could rattle off endless examples just in cinema of human directors "stealing" premises, sequences, shots, styles etc from other filmmakers with no consequences- so why stop the AI now? I see the "theft" as being democratized now- large studios/entities with large resources have always been able to legally "steal" so with these AI tools I guess we all can now? I make original animated films, games, music, art etc etc and I feel no "threat" at all from AI- I feel the opposite as I'm excited to see what things they will allow me to do next as a micro-studio with limited budgets but unlimited creativity. Aesthetics are dead now imo because of generative AI as anyone can be any "style" so now it is all about ideas- original human ideas.

rollcat 1y ago
The capabilities are interesting and useful, but the wider practical impact is that we're already being flooded with cheap cookie-cutter slop, while original artists' copyrights are completely disregarded. If you're building tools to empower artists, this is antithetic to your mission, and simply unethical.
- imaginationra 1y ago
  I do agree with the original artists work being disregarded but I think that has more to do with the aggregation and the lack of curation that is not motivated by $- as an unknown artist creating original work for 20+ years I'm optimistic about permission-less donation supported AI curators digging up unknown creative works and sharing them with humans.
kumarvvr 1y ago
> $20 usd/month subscription! A majority of which will go to already rich people. Its a sad state now, and a sad state in the future for humanity, where technology enables and accelerates accumulation of wealth, aided and abetted by the very consumers it consumes.
- snk 1y ago
  No, it isn't, wealth is good. More readily creating and delivering value is good.
  - kumarvvr 1y ago
    Wealth, at a reasonable level of distribution. Total wealth is a meaningless metric.
    - t0bia_s 1y ago
      What is a definition of "reasonable"?
      - acheron 1y ago
        Usually it's "anyone with more money than me has too much".
      - dkdbejwi383 1y ago
        Billionaires and pop stars taking pleasure trips to orbit while millions of humans elsewhere are starving is probably not it
Tiberium 1y ago
Regarding "we're now creating Portuguese and Russian language versions of the songs" - have you contacted any native speakers of those languages to listen to those songs? Since the translation part isn't that hard, making it actually sound native and nice is hard.
- imaginationra 1y ago
  Native speakers are the ones doing the re-writing of the lyrics in those languages. The ai tool just converts the say Russian singer voice into different voices.
u5wbxrc3 1y ago
> I see the "theft" as being democratized now- large studios/entities with large resources have always been able to legally "steal" so with these AI tools I guess we all can now? You don't see any issue with machine learning models trained on huge amounts of copyrighted and patented materials basically scraped from the internet. Yes you can make your animated film and audio but at the cost of hugely controversial and non-transparent generative models. > Aesthetics are dead now imo because of generative AI as anyone can be any "style" so now it is all about ideas- original human ideas. This argument kind of conflicts with itself, no? Aesthetics are inferred from ideas either inspired or original.
- snk 1y ago
  Fair use?
- imaginationra 1y ago
  No I don't see it as theft- in that I choose to not be a part of the formal film industry- I don't "monetize" any of my work- I have nothing that can be stolen but my aesthetics- but aesthetics are dead imo- they no longer have value- as an artist my ideas are what is valuable- and no ML/AI etc can "steal" my ideas as I haven't thought of them yet- my art and ideas are an expression of my soul- no machine will ever have a soul so I'm not threatened one bit my Ai etc
  - u5wbxrc3 1y ago
    If I as an artist make a great piece of art, you don't think I should be compensated for it. If I complete a surgery or drive a truck which all of them are byproducts of ideas and knowledge I should be compensated for them, not just for thinking of them. You see the problem here? I don't want to pay for an idea of art, I want the complete and original piece made by the artist. As for if they generate the art using some machine learning model, they need to disclose that so I can make conscious choice.
    - imaginationra 1y ago
      Yes I do think we should be compensated for it, and we are- when we talk of compensation that usually refers to money- I'm referring to other forms of compensation- I feel compensated on a spiritual level for my work- I do other things for money and my art can stay "pure" in a sense- It's said that if you "sell your soul" you are unable to ever "buy it back"- so why sell it in the first place? Just so you can try to get "rich" and attempt to buy it back later because you are soulless and miserable? Doesn't make sense to me. Maybe art is something higher? A higher cause? I was really inspired by the Rudolf Steiner book "The arts and their mission" early in my career- worth looking into if you are in the arts.
almostdeadguy 1y ago
The "just a tool like any other" perspective can't account for how much talentless slop is in practice created by AI. Look at the work spotlighted by Google to promote their new Flow tool: https://x.com/GoogleLabs/status/1925596282661327073 https://x.com/GoogleLabs/status/1925596282661327073 . This is a garbage imitation of a Guy Ritchie film or a Jose Cuervo ad (maybe more the latter). Instead of being a tool for creatives it has empowered a number of grifters to churn out more and more "content" bypassing any concern about craft and formal restrictions that help generate creative work. The work that is most often created with the help of AI is not creative, it's a bland, tasteless simulacrum of creativity.
- snk 1y ago
  Sturgeon's Law predates LLMs by decades: 90% of everything is crap.
  - almostdeadguy 1y ago
    Sturgeon's law is generous to the output of LLMs.
- wseqyrku 1y ago
  > more and more "content" I think the blame is on the people who consume it.
  - almostdeadguy 1y ago
    I seriously doubt most of the money being made on this stuff is through consumption. There's a big pot of money by tech giants being used to commission and promote this kind of work to attract a user base.
    - almostdeadguy 1y ago
      Or alternatively it's being used to grift the 1% of instagram users willing to buy vaporware products: https://x.com/KrangTNelson/status/1928446282323894780 https://x.com/KrangTNelson/status/1928446282323894780
intended 1y ago
> AI to generate ideas we're good Why is that the line in the sand? And if someone did find inspiration and ideas from an AI, and made something popular with it, wouldn’t it be indistinguishable from any other piece of popular content?
- imaginationra 1y ago
  Sure- as the AI is trained on the work of humans- so if someone had an idea "inspired by ai" its really just saying they were inspired by humans anyway- for me personally I'll never ask an LLM for "ideas" though-

rollcat 1y ago

The capabilities are interesting and useful, but the wider practical impact is that we're already being flooded with cheap cookie-cutter slop, while original artists' copyrights are completely disregarded. If you're building tools to empower artists, this is antithetic to your mission, and simply unethical.

imaginationra 1y ago
I do agree with the original artists work being disregarded but I think that has more to do with the aggregation and the lack of curation that is not motivated by $- as an unknown artist creating original work for 20+ years I'm optimistic about permission-less donation supported AI curators digging up unknown creative works and sharing them with humans.

kumarvvr 1y ago

> $20 usd/month subscription! A majority of which will go to already rich people. Its a sad state now, and a sad state in the future for humanity, where technology enables and accelerates accumulation of wealth, aided and abetted by the very consumers it consumes.

snk 1y ago
No, it isn't, wealth is good. More readily creating and delivering value is good.
- kumarvvr 1y ago
  Wealth, at a reasonable level of distribution. Total wealth is a meaningless metric.
  - t0bia_s 1y ago
    What is a definition of "reasonable"?
    - acheron 1y ago
      Usually it's "anyone with more money than me has too much".
    - dkdbejwi383 1y ago
      Billionaires and pop stars taking pleasure trips to orbit while millions of humans elsewhere are starving is probably not it

Tiberium 1y ago

Regarding "we're now creating Portuguese and Russian language versions of the songs" - have you contacted any native speakers of those languages to listen to those songs? Since the translation part isn't that hard, making it actually sound native and nice is hard.

imaginationra 1y ago
Native speakers are the ones doing the re-writing of the lyrics in those languages. The ai tool just converts the say Russian singer voice into different voices.

u5wbxrc3 1y ago

> I see the "theft" as being democratized now- large studios/entities with large resources have always been able to legally "steal" so with these AI tools I guess we all can now? You don't see any issue with machine learning models trained on huge amounts of copyrighted and patented materials basically scraped from the internet. Yes you can make your animated film and audio but at the cost of hugely controversial and non-transparent generative models. > Aesthetics are dead now imo because of generative AI as anyone can be any "style" so now it is all about ideas- original human ideas. This argument kind of conflicts with itself, no? Aesthetics are inferred from ideas either inspired or original.

snk 1y ago
Fair use?
imaginationra 1y ago
No I don't see it as theft- in that I choose to not be a part of the formal film industry- I don't "monetize" any of my work- I have nothing that can be stolen but my aesthetics- but aesthetics are dead imo- they no longer have value- as an artist my ideas are what is valuable- and no ML/AI etc can "steal" my ideas as I haven't thought of them yet- my art and ideas are an expression of my soul- no machine will ever have a soul so I'm not threatened one bit my Ai etc
- u5wbxrc3 1y ago
  If I as an artist make a great piece of art, you don't think I should be compensated for it. If I complete a surgery or drive a truck which all of them are byproducts of ideas and knowledge I should be compensated for them, not just for thinking of them. You see the problem here? I don't want to pay for an idea of art, I want the complete and original piece made by the artist. As for if they generate the art using some machine learning model, they need to disclose that so I can make conscious choice.
  - imaginationra 1y ago
    Yes I do think we should be compensated for it, and we are- when we talk of compensation that usually refers to money- I'm referring to other forms of compensation- I feel compensated on a spiritual level for my work- I do other things for money and my art can stay "pure" in a sense- It's said that if you "sell your soul" you are unable to ever "buy it back"- so why sell it in the first place? Just so you can try to get "rich" and attempt to buy it back later because you are soulless and miserable? Doesn't make sense to me. Maybe art is something higher? A higher cause? I was really inspired by the Rudolf Steiner book "The arts and their mission" early in my career- worth looking into if you are in the arts.

almostdeadguy 1y ago

The "just a tool like any other" perspective can't account for how much talentless slop is in practice created by AI. Look at the work spotlighted by Google to promote their new Flow tool: https://x.com/GoogleLabs/status/1925596282661327073 https://x.com/GoogleLabs/status/1925596282661327073 . This is a garbage imitation of a Guy Ritchie film or a Jose Cuervo ad (maybe more the latter). Instead of being a tool for creatives it has empowered a number of grifters to churn out more and more "content" bypassing any concern about craft and formal restrictions that help generate creative work. The work that is most often created with the help of AI is not creative, it's a bland, tasteless simulacrum of creativity.

snk 1y ago
Sturgeon's Law predates LLMs by decades: 90% of everything is crap.
- almostdeadguy 1y ago
  Sturgeon's law is generous to the output of LLMs.
wseqyrku 1y ago
> more and more "content" I think the blame is on the people who consume it.
- almostdeadguy 1y ago
  I seriously doubt most of the money being made on this stuff is through consumption. There's a big pot of money by tech giants being used to commission and promote this kind of work to attract a user base.
  - almostdeadguy 1y ago
    Or alternatively it's being used to grift the 1% of instagram users willing to buy vaporware products: https://x.com/KrangTNelson/status/1928446282323894780 https://x.com/KrangTNelson/status/1928446282323894780

intended 1y ago

> AI to generate ideas we're good Why is that the line in the sand? And if someone did find inspiration and ideas from an AI, and made something popular with it, wouldn’t it be indistinguishable from any other piece of popular content?

imaginationra 1y ago
Sure- as the AI is trained on the work of humans- so if someone had an idea "inspired by ai" its really just saying they were inspired by humans anyway- for me personally I'll never ask an LLM for "ideas" though-