4 ms·
The fact that these same people can't tell whether it was authored by a human or an AI without a seperate disclosure is strong evidence that human authorship as
by rdbl27 2mo ago
The fact that these same people can't tell whether it was authored by a human or an AI without a seperate disclosure is strong evidence that human authorship as such is not what they value at all.
- danaris 2mo agoWhy would you say that? On the contrary; it seems to me that caring about its authorship even though the product may be outwardly indistinguishable from something a human could have made shows that human authorship is, in fact, precisely what they value. Are you trying to make an argument that "if they really valued human authorship so highly, they'd devote their every waking moment to learning what every possible method is to tell when a given work was created by an LLM" or something? Because I would think that was fairly obviously bullshit by this point. For one thing, there's plenty of ways to make LLM-generated works (especially smaller, simpler ones) that are 100% indistinguishable from something human-created. (This is especially true in text formats, where the amount of information, and thus the possible failure modes, available in the output is smaller than in images or video.)
- picofarad 2mo agoThat doesn't seem to follow.
- threatofrain 2mo agoThe degree to which you can discern is the degree to which you can meaningfully ask for human vs AI.
- tyromaniac 2mo agoArt consists of decisions made by the artist that are interpretable by the audience. Automatically generated imagery lacks this, but still presents a fascimille of it. The intention and thoughtfulness of the artist is encoded within their creation, and when there is no artist this is lost.
- tough 2mo agoai art usage isn't a binary black or white thing as most imply
- threatofrain 2mo agoAnd the degree which this is discerned... sometimes AI art wins contests.
- tyromaniac 2mo agoDo you understand how that addresses none of what I talked about?
- threatofrain 2mo agoIt is a direct refutation.
- tyromaniac 2mo agoArt is not a contest, and the lie is not one of quality
- numpad0 2mo agoYou can't win this argument. Your comments probably require prior exposure to art to understand.
- nucleogenesis 2mo agoI can tell you I hate more than anything when I’m lied to. Some AI art could be fantastic (haven’t seen anything yet but I’m sure it’ll happen someday). I don’t want something you prompted an AI for because genuinely I could just do that myself. The barrier to entry is nil. I’m not interested in the idea an artist has I’m interested in how they execute it. If they executed it through human effort then I place a much much higher value on that. Same as I would if someone selling a hand forged a knife rather than a mass produced cut out. Even if the human-made item is lower quality I’d prefer it by a mile if for no other reason than I know someone’s love and effort went into it. I could never have that appreciation for something a machine generated. The lines might blur if an artist uses an AI to manipulate their own art that they made. Point is - the output quality fundamentally doesn’t matter. It’s principle, not the output quality, that guides most people in avoiding AI art.
- zeryx 2mo agoIf you saw two paintings and one was painted with the blood and guts of the artist, and another was a nice oil painting - would you value the former more regardless of aesthetic merit?
- maccard 2mo agoGenerally anti AI person who is a game dev here: > The lines might blur if an artist uses an AI to manipulate their own art that they made. Where’s the line? Is using tools in maya and photoshop to rapidly speed up asset generation ok? > I could never have that appreciation for something a machine generated. Do you feel the same about PCG?
- jubilanti 2mo ago> The fact that these same people can't tell whether it was authored by a human or an AI without a seperate disclosure is strong evidence that human authorship as such is not what they value at all. By that logic, the fact that (some) people can't tell between gold and fool's gold is strong evidence that gold was not what they value at all. Or: the fact that (some) people can't tell between food that is marketed to them as "healthy" and food that actually makes them healthy, is strong evidence that healthy food was not what they value at all. Neither follows. Both blame the victim of a lie.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- vidarh 2mo ago> By that logic, the fact that (some) people can't tell between gold and fool's gold is strong evidence that gold was not what they value at all. Well, no? Most people don't value gold for intrinsic attributes of the metal, but for the market-assigned value of it or perceived status. I think GP overstated the point, but it's clear that a lot of people who object to AI authored content are objecting not because of the intrinsic attributes of the content but because of their emotions on the subject. That doesn't make it invalid. If someone really doesn't want to consume AI generated content, then so be it. But I also think the people making a big deal out of this seriously overestimate how deeply most people care. I suspect most people care only to the extent that the quality is lacking. I'd justify that view with your example: People keep eating unhealthy food despite knowing it's bad. And as another example, we keep buying things we can't be sure is ethically sourced. We're willing to look past a whole lot. The same way "Made in ..." labels were originally protectionist measures, I suspect disclosure requirements etc. will seriously backfire when it turns out most people stop caring the moment the quality is usually good enough.
- DicIfTEx 2mo agoImagine I sell you something and you pay me in cash. The notes look authentic, but I later discover that they are conterfeits. It would be absurd to claim that your successful passing-off deception demonstrates that I don't value money at all.
- scarmig 2mo agoWhatever the morality involved, it's an unstable norm. There can be good actors who use AI and disclose, and good actors who don't use AI and don't disclose. There are bad actors, however, who will use AI and not disclose. The entire discourse will be flooded with non-disclosers accusing each other of AI use (particularly, the bad actors will accuse everyone else of AI use, to flood the zone with shit), and there will be no way for a consumer to distinguish good from bad. Bad actors will prevail economically. See e.g. corporate green and rainbow washing, Amazon marketplace, organic food.
- jhanschoo 2mo agoI agree that the current culture of disclosure is unstable. Nevertheless, I think that there will still eventually be a mechanism to verify the degree and manner to which AI was involved in the production of art, though perhaps with very different economic scale and distribution channels. Speculating, perhaps there may be an "organic food" niche of mass media art.
- OroPla 2mo agoIf you find a counterfeit bill, you experience a loss. Imagine if instead of a counterfeit bill you got a counterfeit movie. The quality is exactly like the real deal, but it's an illegal copy. You find out after the fact. Does this affect your enjoyment of the movie? You've been bamboozled either way, but in one scenario you lose out and in another scenario the people selling the movie lose out.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- majormajor 2mo agoYou don't get to play the game before you pay for it. Do you want to have to go ask for refund after refund after noticing it's yet-another-AI-slop-cookie-cutter-lookalike several hours in?
- Calazon 2mo agoBeing unable to tell a game is garbage without personally playing it is a problem with or without AI. Though AI is vastly increasing the amount of slop out there, for sure.
- jayd16 2mo agoJust because it takes effort or time to tell a fake doesn't mean its not important. If you buy a fake that looks extremely close but falls apart a month later, that doesn't mean you don't care. If art is visually polished in some way such that quick quality cues are handled that doesn't mean that it will actually have a meaning or a message. You won't know until you have a chance to fully consume it.
- rdbl27 2mo agoThe AI product doesn't fall apart (at least, not a good AI product.) The proposition is that is functionally indistinguishable from a human product to the extent that _there is no way to tell_, absent a formal and seperate disclosure. It's a Turing test for art -- and the machines are winning, at scale.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]