4 ms·

It's not that deep, if someone thinks it's AI it loses value to them. If you're able to utilize AI tools in a way that doesn't make the output look like AI to t

It's not that deep, if someone thinks it's AI it loses value to them. If you're able to utilize AI tools in a way that doesn't make the output look like AI to the average person you'll be fine. Eventually no one will be able to really tell the difference and all of this will go away (though likely at the expense of more people's livelihoods).

cootsnuck 9mo ago
Well I think we're just describing taste and craft. AI tools will get better, more granular, and become better integrated into the actual workflows of people over time. A good tool shouldn't take over my sense for taste and craft. It's a good thing people are pushing back against the slop if we want there to be any incentives for AI tools to not be geared towards helping make slop.
yndoendo 9mo ago
I see that as being partially true. There will be people like Walter Keane that take the art of others and state it is their own work. [0] AI will assist those individuals. AI will have a home on people's desktops for those that accept it. Art that has value will not be AI art. Artist like Margaret Keane will continue to be viewed as exceptional along with their works. [1] Personally, I view AI art as lacking passion and an attempt to short circuit the path to profit / greed. I wish to not fund that circuit. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Keane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Keane [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Keane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Keane
- micromacrofoot 9mo ago
  A lot of prolific artists historically have passed their own work off to apprentices (for hundreds of years), and there's probably not much different here. This frees the lead artist up for more conceptual work. AI can potentially carry on this tradition, and at less of an expense. The truth of many great artists is that they needed to produce a lot more work than they'd have liked to make a living for themselves.
  - yndoendo 9mo ago
    And as I learn about such individuals taking credit for others work I have nothing but disgust for them. This statement also binds to STEM. Ivan Pavlov's assistants realized the dogs were salivating. Ronald Hare figured out how to mass produce penicillin and saved thousands of lives but no Nobel recognition for her triumph were those that got the prize failed. [0] I personal will never fund AI art / AI artist. There is no personality in such works, only slop. Profits help artist is not why the create the art they do and if so, they lack soul in their works. [0] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/pencillin-girls-made-one-worlds-most-life-saving-discoveries-possible-180985449/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/penci...
    - micromacrofoot 9mo ago
      I think you're being too idealistic in these stances, it's just not how it's ever worked. > And as I learn about such individuals taking credit for others work I have nothing but disgust for them Historically, this wasn’t considered "taking credit." Leonardo da Vinci’s studio for example, involved apprentices completing significant portions of works under him. Buyers were aware they were commissioning a studio work and not a pair of hands. Koons or Hirst do it today, and it's no secret... it's how prolific artists have operated for centuries, they just can't keep up with the demand for their work solo. The real soloists, like Van Gogh for example, were mostly obscure while they were alive... didn't really have any patrons, and didn't produce enough work to live off of. To call the destitute failures "true artists" and someone like da Vinci "soulless" is pointless, because we don't decide these things, history does. > Ronald Hare figured out how to mass produce penicillin and saved thousands of lives but no Nobel recognition for her triumph were those that got the prize failed. I don't think this is true? Hare found success from trying to replicate Fleming's results. Fleming, Florey and Chain were jointly awarded the Nobel for the original discovery. > I personal will never fund AI art / AI artist. There is no personality in such works, only slop There will come a point in the near future where you won't be able to tell the difference. I lived through the same argument with Photoshop in photography.

cootsnuck 9mo ago

Well I think we're just describing taste and craft. AI tools will get better, more granular, and become better integrated into the actual workflows of people over time. A good tool shouldn't take over my sense for taste and craft. It's a good thing people are pushing back against the slop if we want there to be any incentives for AI tools to not be geared towards helping make slop.

yndoendo 9mo ago

I see that as being partially true. There will be people like Walter Keane that take the art of others and state it is their own work. [0] AI will assist those individuals. AI will have a home on people's desktops for those that accept it. Art that has value will not be AI art. Artist like Margaret Keane will continue to be viewed as exceptional along with their works. [1] Personally, I view AI art as lacking passion and an attempt to short circuit the path to profit / greed. I wish to not fund that circuit. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Keane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Keane [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Keane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Keane

micromacrofoot 9mo ago
A lot of prolific artists historically have passed their own work off to apprentices (for hundreds of years), and there's probably not much different here. This frees the lead artist up for more conceptual work. AI can potentially carry on this tradition, and at less of an expense. The truth of many great artists is that they needed to produce a lot more work than they'd have liked to make a living for themselves.
- yndoendo 9mo ago
  And as I learn about such individuals taking credit for others work I have nothing but disgust for them. This statement also binds to STEM. Ivan Pavlov's assistants realized the dogs were salivating. Ronald Hare figured out how to mass produce penicillin and saved thousands of lives but no Nobel recognition for her triumph were those that got the prize failed. [0] I personal will never fund AI art / AI artist. There is no personality in such works, only slop. Profits help artist is not why the create the art they do and if so, they lack soul in their works. [0] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/pencillin-girls-made-one-worlds-most-life-saving-discoveries-possible-180985449/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/penci...
  - micromacrofoot 9mo ago
    I think you're being too idealistic in these stances, it's just not how it's ever worked. > And as I learn about such individuals taking credit for others work I have nothing but disgust for them Historically, this wasn’t considered "taking credit." Leonardo da Vinci’s studio for example, involved apprentices completing significant portions of works under him. Buyers were aware they were commissioning a studio work and not a pair of hands. Koons or Hirst do it today, and it's no secret... it's how prolific artists have operated for centuries, they just can't keep up with the demand for their work solo. The real soloists, like Van Gogh for example, were mostly obscure while they were alive... didn't really have any patrons, and didn't produce enough work to live off of. To call the destitute failures "true artists" and someone like da Vinci "soulless" is pointless, because we don't decide these things, history does. > Ronald Hare figured out how to mass produce penicillin and saved thousands of lives but no Nobel recognition for her triumph were those that got the prize failed. I don't think this is true? Hare found success from trying to replicate Fleming's results. Fleming, Florey and Chain were jointly awarded the Nobel for the original discovery. > I personal will never fund AI art / AI artist. There is no personality in such works, only slop There will come a point in the near future where you won't be able to tell the difference. I lived through the same argument with Photoshop in photography.