3 ms·

The pivot to do things they want as AI research lab is perfectly understandable, but also..weird, like their loyal userbase are mostly creative people, and this

The pivot to do things they want as AI research lab is perfectly understandable, but also..weird, like their loyal userbase are mostly creative people, and this pivot have ZERO things to do with those audience at all. It also gives a vibe that they gives zero damn about to those creatives audience, or the things that made name for them in the past anymore, or that what I feel as their subscriber... I know that David Holz have his own unique way of doing things but it's still...weird! oh, and the hypetrain on X. yikes..

keiferski 4mo ago
Yeah, exactly. This would have been a cool side project company from the founder and team. Doing it under their main brand is very weird and I don’t quite see how it translates to creatives at all.
leothetechguy 4mo ago
to be fair I wouldn't call people operating AI Image generators creative people. At best they're people curious about the technology itself, anybody willing to learn and do it for the sake of being creative does it themselves.
- altmanaltman 4mo ago
  I think you're romanticizing art generation a bit. A lot of it operates like a normal working job, there is no magic "truly creative genuis", a lot of working artists treat it as their jobs and if a tool helps them get their job done, it is helpful. Not every creative profession is something where you create something you're proud of or you own. You're often just one part of a massive machine working on a project. It's a bit hard to keep sticking to the "creative noble artist" mythical vibe when it's a 9 to 5. And it's not fair to call them not creative just because you feel like it.
  - klabb3 4mo ago
    Both ”creative mythical noble artist” and ”creative work is just work” are unhelpful strawman arguments. One is elitist, the other is reductionist. Creativity is neither a property of who you are or what you do. It’s about how you do it. It’s closer to a mindset of curiosity, wonder and play. For example, many programmers have a need for creativity within coding, but don’t feel they get it at their 9-5 job, and instead work a side project (like FOSS, indie game) because it’s a more creative experience. The point is: same person, same activity yet one is more creative than the other. The art/artifact itself is not creative. It’s the process that’s creative. Building a car can be creative. Buying a car is not. That’s not romanticizing and gatekeeping people who don’t have time to build a car. It would be genuinely misleading to equate those things.
    - altmanaltman 4mo ago
      I don't understand your point. You say: > Creativity is neither a property of who you are or what you do Then you say: > It’s closer to a mindset of curiosity, wonder and play. Which has to be the property of what you do (the process) or who you are (the personality willing to embed those values), right? > It’s the process that’s creative. Building a car can be creative. Buying a car is not. Sure, but the process is "what you do" which directly contradicts what you're saying. > For example, many programmers have a need for creativity within coding, but don’t feel they get it at their 9-5 job, and instead work a side project (like FOSS, indie game) because it’s a more creative experience. Sure but most programmers don't do it. Simillarly many artists work on projects for companies and their own projects. My point is that you cannot reduce commercial work as not creative just because it's a 9-to-5. I really fail to understand your point with this comment since it's not really saying anything coherent. You also say > The point is: same person, same activity yet one is more creative than the other. Again, if that person is doing that activity then it is what they do i.e. you're calling the process creative. And in this case, we'll call that same person to be creative since they have the drive to work on their own project after a full 9-5 job. But if they were not doing it, we'll still consider them creative since it is a basic requirement at their 9-5. That is my point - both of them are creative. Degrees may vary depending on subjective perception but that was not what was being discussed.
- tychez 4mo ago
  This is just complete nonsense. You really think creative people are not interested in new forms of visual expression? This as simply being ignorant of art history.
  - leothetechguy 4mo ago
    From what I gather the hatred for AI among musicians and artists is pretty universal. I can only speak for myself. but for me and the way that I draw and make music AI can only replace, never complement my creative process.
davrosthedalek 4mo ago
This is somewhat speculative, but as I see it, there are two ways to retain excellent people: a) You pay them handsomely b) You do shit they like, they way the like. Sometimes it overlaps, of course. But this is essentially the reason why people stay in academia in the hard sciences. Most of us could earn considerably more in industry. I'm not sure midjourney can compete with the bigwigs on a). But doing healthcare stuff is probably more fulfilling to the researchers, and with less "we stole from all the artists" vibes. Of course, if this all works out, they might me able to do a) easily :)
pigpop 4mo ago
Personally, I think the bigger problem is successful individuals and companies deciding to just stick with their original business model and squeeze every drop of money out of it for their own personal enrichment. God forbid someone should try to do things to benefit society with their fortune.

keiferski 4mo ago

Yeah, exactly. This would have been a cool side project company from the founder and team. Doing it under their main brand is very weird and I don’t quite see how it translates to creatives at all.

leothetechguy 4mo ago

to be fair I wouldn't call people operating AI Image generators creative people. At best they're people curious about the technology itself, anybody willing to learn and do it for the sake of being creative does it themselves.

altmanaltman 4mo ago
I think you're romanticizing art generation a bit. A lot of it operates like a normal working job, there is no magic "truly creative genuis", a lot of working artists treat it as their jobs and if a tool helps them get their job done, it is helpful. Not every creative profession is something where you create something you're proud of or you own. You're often just one part of a massive machine working on a project. It's a bit hard to keep sticking to the "creative noble artist" mythical vibe when it's a 9 to 5. And it's not fair to call them not creative just because you feel like it.
- klabb3 4mo ago
  Both ”creative mythical noble artist” and ”creative work is just work” are unhelpful strawman arguments. One is elitist, the other is reductionist. Creativity is neither a property of who you are or what you do. It’s about how you do it. It’s closer to a mindset of curiosity, wonder and play. For example, many programmers have a need for creativity within coding, but don’t feel they get it at their 9-5 job, and instead work a side project (like FOSS, indie game) because it’s a more creative experience. The point is: same person, same activity yet one is more creative than the other. The art/artifact itself is not creative. It’s the process that’s creative. Building a car can be creative. Buying a car is not. That’s not romanticizing and gatekeeping people who don’t have time to build a car. It would be genuinely misleading to equate those things.
  - altmanaltman 4mo ago
    I don't understand your point. You say: > Creativity is neither a property of who you are or what you do Then you say: > It’s closer to a mindset of curiosity, wonder and play. Which has to be the property of what you do (the process) or who you are (the personality willing to embed those values), right? > It’s the process that’s creative. Building a car can be creative. Buying a car is not. Sure, but the process is "what you do" which directly contradicts what you're saying. > For example, many programmers have a need for creativity within coding, but don’t feel they get it at their 9-5 job, and instead work a side project (like FOSS, indie game) because it’s a more creative experience. Sure but most programmers don't do it. Simillarly many artists work on projects for companies and their own projects. My point is that you cannot reduce commercial work as not creative just because it's a 9-to-5. I really fail to understand your point with this comment since it's not really saying anything coherent. You also say > The point is: same person, same activity yet one is more creative than the other. Again, if that person is doing that activity then it is what they do i.e. you're calling the process creative. And in this case, we'll call that same person to be creative since they have the drive to work on their own project after a full 9-5 job. But if they were not doing it, we'll still consider them creative since it is a basic requirement at their 9-5. That is my point - both of them are creative. Degrees may vary depending on subjective perception but that was not what was being discussed.
tychez 4mo ago
This is just complete nonsense. You really think creative people are not interested in new forms of visual expression? This as simply being ignorant of art history.
- leothetechguy 4mo ago
  From what I gather the hatred for AI among musicians and artists is pretty universal. I can only speak for myself. but for me and the way that I draw and make music AI can only replace, never complement my creative process.

davrosthedalek 4mo ago

This is somewhat speculative, but as I see it, there are two ways to retain excellent people: a) You pay them handsomely b) You do shit they like, they way the like. Sometimes it overlaps, of course. But this is essentially the reason why people stay in academia in the hard sciences. Most of us could earn considerably more in industry. I'm not sure midjourney can compete with the bigwigs on a). But doing healthcare stuff is probably more fulfilling to the researchers, and with less "we stole from all the artists" vibes. Of course, if this all works out, they might me able to do a) easily :)

pigpop 4mo ago

Personally, I think the bigger problem is successful individuals and companies deciding to just stick with their original business model and squeeze every drop of money out of it for their own personal enrichment. God forbid someone should try to do things to benefit society with their fortune.