3 ms·

Which means a net negative for humanity.

breppp 10mo ago
Depends, the camera killed painting and is a positive for art in my opinion It's not obvious that LLM generation won't create more interesting music experiences (for lack of non-marketing speak for self curated music)
- galleywest200 10mo ago
  The camera did not kill painting. There are tons and tons of painters still, lots of them use digital means like a tablet these days but it still absolutely exists.
  - squigz 10mo ago
    > lots of them use digital means like a tablet these days but it still absolutely exists. Yes, because art evolves over time. As it very likely will with generative art. And even with that evolution, people still use paint, and people will still use instruments and make music the same ways we always have...
- bopbopbop7 10mo ago
  The camera did not kill painting. And how does comparing a camera to an LLM even make sense?
  - butlike 10mo ago
    They're conflating the LLM to advancement by comparing LLM:Camera, when really cameras and paintings are two different things
  - breppp 10mo ago
    Painting (portraits for example) as a profession largely disappeared, while art based on painting evolved (impressionism, cubism, etc) due to the camera. My point is that photography is essentially a simulacra of reality, yet it unexpectedly created its own art form and influenced existing ones. So will the use of LLMs for generation
    - bopbopbop7 10mo ago
      LLMs will not do what the camera did. LLMs have no anchor to reality like the camera, they simply optimize for the average. A camera is a whole new medium, an LLM is a statistical construction. Sorry to burst your AI bubble. LLMs will not be the new camera, they won't be a new programming language, and they won't be the new compiler.
      - breppp 10mo ago
        I am not sure I agree, a camera on the surface of things is the most boring machine. It shows you what was already there. It is still can be the basis of several interesting art forms I don't see why this can't happen with AI, or at least I am not certain like you it can't happen
    - metalman 10mo ago
      It might turn out that there are more portrait artists, brush in hand, working today than at any point in history, in real numbers. This is certainly true for riding horses, and most definitly for musicians. But as the sole sources of those services, that is no longer true, or as percentages of total's, but with 9 billion people, the internet, and a big of effort, almost anything is viable.
      - breppp 10mo ago
        I generally agree because the population grew, and music can be put aside has it never went through such a technological revolution (synth never really caught on) But from what I saw there are less living horses today than 200 years ago, and although that just a proxy for horse riders I believe the same applies for painters, especially non-hobbyists
- _fzslm 10mo ago
  Arguably, the camera evolved painting because it expanded the idea of what it could be – that it could be more than the illustration of/"illusion" of reality. I think and have always thought the exact same thing will happen with generative AI.
  - breppp 10mo ago
    Yes, which was the point I was trying to convey. However it did also kill the profession of painters (the craft in art vs craft). Which might unfortunately happen to the more commercial side of music
    - bopbopbop7 10mo ago
      Do you have any evidence of all these "killings" of the profession or are you just vibing?
      - breppp 10mo ago
        Photography had particularly dramatic effects on the livelihoods of painters who operated on the fringe of the mainstream. This included the portrait miniaturists, whose markets fell drastically, particularly after the introduction of the multi-pose and cheap cartes de visite in the mid-1850s. Many gave up, while others turned to colouring photos [25]. Some painters of sentimental genre scenes were also particularly affected, as a result of the profusion of readily available photographic genre works, often composed in a painterly or "pictorial" style [26]. This was sometimes due not to the public’s preference for the photographic version, but simply because a particular subject matter lost its appeal to painters and their clients once photography entered the scene [27]. In addition, the introduction of “half-tone” photography in the 1880s also initiated a slow decline in the market for newspaper and magazine illustrators [28]. Much more here: https://www.artinsociety.com/pt-1-initial-impacts.html https://www.artinsociety.com/pt-1-initial-impacts.html https://www.barnesfoundation.org/whats-on/early-photography https://www.barnesfoundation.org/whats-on/early-photography
        10mo ago
- freejazz 10mo ago
  >Depends, the camera killed painting and is a positive for art in my opinion Have you been to a contemporary art museum?
  - breppp 10mo ago
    It killed realist art and it greatly reduced the "market" of available paintings, which back then was really a market, art was usually commissioned for the same reasons you take a photograph today
    - freejazz 10mo ago
      You could have just said "no" or maybe admitted that "killing" painting was overblown, or maybe that it was not an accurate descriptor at all if you're argument is that it just "changed" painting.
      - breppp 10mo ago
        I don't do semantics arguments because they don't help anyone learn anything It largely killed an industry which was everywhere, sure there are still paintings and it's a primer art form. The number of paintings commissioned and number of painters fell drastically since the 19th century to the point I am willing to guess you have never had your portrait taken, something that was common place in the equivalent pay grades of today tech workers. Regarding the art form it is also arguably less important in people's life then it used to be (while museums still exist), However most music today is still mostly a profession rather than pure art for the sake of art We can continue discussing whether the word kill is a metaphor or must be used only for a zero or one situation but I don't think that's interesting enough compared to the actual topic
- lm28469 10mo ago
  > It's not obvious that LLM generation won't create more interesting music experiences It's very obvious that it's polluting and/or killing everything it touched so far though
  - breppp 10mo ago
    it's an automatic bullshit machine so essentially it creates cliches as an automatic process this doesn't mean this can't be controlled by someone talented
    - lm28469 10mo ago
      We should give everyone live grenades, someone talented might do something cool, maybe, eventually, who knows right ?

breppp 10mo ago

Depends, the camera killed painting and is a positive for art in my opinion It's not obvious that LLM generation won't create more interesting music experiences (for lack of non-marketing speak for self curated music)

galleywest200 10mo ago
The camera did not kill painting. There are tons and tons of painters still, lots of them use digital means like a tablet these days but it still absolutely exists.
- squigz 10mo ago
  > lots of them use digital means like a tablet these days but it still absolutely exists. Yes, because art evolves over time. As it very likely will with generative art. And even with that evolution, people still use paint, and people will still use instruments and make music the same ways we always have...
bopbopbop7 10mo ago
The camera did not kill painting. And how does comparing a camera to an LLM even make sense?
- butlike 10mo ago
  They're conflating the LLM to advancement by comparing LLM:Camera, when really cameras and paintings are two different things
- breppp 10mo ago
  Painting (portraits for example) as a profession largely disappeared, while art based on painting evolved (impressionism, cubism, etc) due to the camera. My point is that photography is essentially a simulacra of reality, yet it unexpectedly created its own art form and influenced existing ones. So will the use of LLMs for generation
  - bopbopbop7 10mo ago
    LLMs will not do what the camera did. LLMs have no anchor to reality like the camera, they simply optimize for the average. A camera is a whole new medium, an LLM is a statistical construction. Sorry to burst your AI bubble. LLMs will not be the new camera, they won't be a new programming language, and they won't be the new compiler.
    - breppp 10mo ago
      I am not sure I agree, a camera on the surface of things is the most boring machine. It shows you what was already there. It is still can be the basis of several interesting art forms I don't see why this can't happen with AI, or at least I am not certain like you it can't happen
  - metalman 10mo ago
    It might turn out that there are more portrait artists, brush in hand, working today than at any point in history, in real numbers. This is certainly true for riding horses, and most definitly for musicians. But as the sole sources of those services, that is no longer true, or as percentages of total's, but with 9 billion people, the internet, and a big of effort, almost anything is viable.
    - breppp 10mo ago
      I generally agree because the population grew, and music can be put aside has it never went through such a technological revolution (synth never really caught on) But from what I saw there are less living horses today than 200 years ago, and although that just a proxy for horse riders I believe the same applies for painters, especially non-hobbyists
_fzslm 10mo ago
Arguably, the camera evolved painting because it expanded the idea of what it could be – that it could be more than the illustration of/"illusion" of reality. I think and have always thought the exact same thing will happen with generative AI.
- breppp 10mo ago
  Yes, which was the point I was trying to convey. However it did also kill the profession of painters (the craft in art vs craft). Which might unfortunately happen to the more commercial side of music
  - bopbopbop7 10mo ago
    Do you have any evidence of all these "killings" of the profession or are you just vibing?
    - breppp 10mo ago
      Photography had particularly dramatic effects on the livelihoods of painters who operated on the fringe of the mainstream. This included the portrait miniaturists, whose markets fell drastically, particularly after the introduction of the multi-pose and cheap cartes de visite in the mid-1850s. Many gave up, while others turned to colouring photos [25]. Some painters of sentimental genre scenes were also particularly affected, as a result of the profusion of readily available photographic genre works, often composed in a painterly or "pictorial" style [26]. This was sometimes due not to the public’s preference for the photographic version, but simply because a particular subject matter lost its appeal to painters and their clients once photography entered the scene [27]. In addition, the introduction of “half-tone” photography in the 1880s also initiated a slow decline in the market for newspaper and magazine illustrators [28]. Much more here: https://www.artinsociety.com/pt-1-initial-impacts.html https://www.artinsociety.com/pt-1-initial-impacts.html https://www.barnesfoundation.org/whats-on/early-photography https://www.barnesfoundation.org/whats-on/early-photography
      - 10mo ago
freejazz 10mo ago
>Depends, the camera killed painting and is a positive for art in my opinion Have you been to a contemporary art museum?
- breppp 10mo ago
  It killed realist art and it greatly reduced the "market" of available paintings, which back then was really a market, art was usually commissioned for the same reasons you take a photograph today
  - freejazz 10mo ago
    You could have just said "no" or maybe admitted that "killing" painting was overblown, or maybe that it was not an accurate descriptor at all if you're argument is that it just "changed" painting.
    - breppp 10mo ago
      I don't do semantics arguments because they don't help anyone learn anything It largely killed an industry which was everywhere, sure there are still paintings and it's a primer art form. The number of paintings commissioned and number of painters fell drastically since the 19th century to the point I am willing to guess you have never had your portrait taken, something that was common place in the equivalent pay grades of today tech workers. Regarding the art form it is also arguably less important in people's life then it used to be (while museums still exist), However most music today is still mostly a profession rather than pure art for the sake of art We can continue discussing whether the word kill is a metaphor or must be used only for a zero or one situation but I don't think that's interesting enough compared to the actual topic
lm28469 10mo ago
> It's not obvious that LLM generation won't create more interesting music experiences It's very obvious that it's polluting and/or killing everything it touched so far though
- breppp 10mo ago
  it's an automatic bullshit machine so essentially it creates cliches as an automatic process this doesn't mean this can't be controlled by someone talented
  - lm28469 10mo ago
    We should give everyone live grenades, someone talented might do something cool, maybe, eventually, who knows right ?