4 ms·

The same question could be poised of art in general. I know that response would (and probably should) ruffle peoples' figurative feathers, but I think it's wort

by spijdar 6mo ago

The same question could be poised of art in general. I know that response would (and probably should) ruffle peoples' figurative feathers, but I think it's worth considering. A lot of art isn't "necessary for society". The question still stands, "are the benefits worth the cost to society", but it bears remembering we do a lot of things for fun which aren't "necessary for society".

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
TomGarden 6mo ago
I used to think like what you describe, but I've fallen on the side of "art is just more emotionally resonant human communication". And most of the time human communication with more effort and thought behind it. AI art falls short on both being human and, on average, having more effort or thought behind it than your general interaction at the supermarket. I will say, it can be emotionally resonant though - but it's a borrowed property from the perception of human communication and effort that made the art the models were trained on.
tills13 6mo ago
The difference between "art in general" and this is scale and speed. Sure, I'll grant you that people are going to engage in deception with or without this but the barrier to entry with this is literally on the floor. Do you have a $5 prepaid VISA? You can generate whatever narrative you want in 30 seconds. Replace the $5 Prepaid VISA with the pocketbook of a three letter agency and it starts getting crazy.
- Barbing 6mo ago
  >starts getting crazy Got pretty wild w/the Iranian propaganda that reportedly _resonated with Americans_ (didn't verify that claim) Slopaganda - https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/the-team-behind-a-pro-iran-lego-themed-viral-video-campaign https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/the-team-b...
nothinkjustai 6mo ago
Art is for the producer, and if they feel it’s necessary for them to produce it than it’s necessary for them, and what is necessary for the individual extends to the society they’re in.
Jtarii 6mo ago
If you want to say the complete destruction of truth is worth it because some people are having "fun" then idk.
- SpicyLemonZest 6mo ago
  I was worried about the complete destruction of truth, but it seems that's not the result of commoditized image generation. False AI-generated images have been widespread for years, and as far as I've seen, society has adapted very well to the understanding that images can't prove anything without detailed provenance. I'd argue that this has been helped, actually, by random people on the Internet routinely generating plausible images of events that obviously didn't happen.
  - Jtarii 6mo ago
    >society has adapted very well to the understanding that images can't prove anything without detailed provenance Donald Trump is the president of the United States.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6mo ago
      I don't understand the response. Do you think that Donald Trump would not be president of the United States if powerful image models hadn't been invented? Or perhaps you're referring to the AI-generated media he's often posted since being elected; when he showed a video of getting in a fighter jet to dump poo on protesters, do you think many people believed that was a real thing he actually did?
      - Jtarii 6mo ago
        I'm more reacting to the premise that society is positively adapting to the post truth world. Which it clearly is not. Half the population of the US is already living in a fake news mirror universe where everything is inverted. More convincing fake news is not going to help. And this is just straight out of Putin's playbook, if everything is fake then people just stop beliving in the concept of truth altogether.

by spijdar 6mo ago

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

TomGarden 6mo ago

I used to think like what you describe, but I've fallen on the side of "art is just more emotionally resonant human communication". And most of the time human communication with more effort and thought behind it. AI art falls short on both being human and, on average, having more effort or thought behind it than your general interaction at the supermarket. I will say, it can be emotionally resonant though - but it's a borrowed property from the perception of human communication and effort that made the art the models were trained on.

tills13 6mo ago

The difference between "art in general" and this is scale and speed. Sure, I'll grant you that people are going to engage in deception with or without this but the barrier to entry with this is literally on the floor. Do you have a $5 prepaid VISA? You can generate whatever narrative you want in 30 seconds. Replace the $5 Prepaid VISA with the pocketbook of a three letter agency and it starts getting crazy.

Barbing 6mo ago
>starts getting crazy Got pretty wild w/the Iranian propaganda that reportedly _resonated with Americans_ (didn't verify that claim) Slopaganda - https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/the-team-behind-a-pro-iran-lego-themed-viral-video-campaign https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/the-team-b...

nothinkjustai 6mo ago

Art is for the producer, and if they feel it’s necessary for them to produce it than it’s necessary for them, and what is necessary for the individual extends to the society they’re in.

Jtarii 6mo ago

If you want to say the complete destruction of truth is worth it because some people are having "fun" then idk.

SpicyLemonZest 6mo ago
I was worried about the complete destruction of truth, but it seems that's not the result of commoditized image generation. False AI-generated images have been widespread for years, and as far as I've seen, society has adapted very well to the understanding that images can't prove anything without detailed provenance. I'd argue that this has been helped, actually, by random people on the Internet routinely generating plausible images of events that obviously didn't happen.
- Jtarii 6mo ago
  >society has adapted very well to the understanding that images can't prove anything without detailed provenance Donald Trump is the president of the United States.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6mo ago
    I don't understand the response. Do you think that Donald Trump would not be president of the United States if powerful image models hadn't been invented? Or perhaps you're referring to the AI-generated media he's often posted since being elected; when he showed a video of getting in a fighter jet to dump poo on protesters, do you think many people believed that was a real thing he actually did?
    - Jtarii 6mo ago
      I'm more reacting to the premise that society is positively adapting to the post truth world. Which it clearly is not. Half the population of the US is already living in a fake news mirror universe where everything is inverted. More convincing fake news is not going to help. And this is just straight out of Putin's playbook, if everything is fake then people just stop beliving in the concept of truth altogether.