Nothing about the capitalist principles driving the creation of cheap AI art is impinging upon artist's freedom at all. You can still create and release your art as before. The only difference is the response to it by those viewing it, which you don't have a right to control.

It's a deeper issue than how people respond to AI art.

“We need the wider solutions offered by the Luddites themselves at the time, who thought about the potential good outcome of the industrial revolution — a world where mass-production works for everyone, not mostly for the people who own the factories. Forgive me for reaching for the ‘fully automated luxury communism’ button, but it is a very shiny button (and, of course, bright red).

“In a world where most artists were not struggling to make ends meet as it is, because all people’s basic needs were met (which isn’t impossible in the slightest), an AI making something using your work as an input would be close to harmless, if not fascinating in itself. Until we fix the world around it, this stuff and all its potential is doomed to be hated, recognised (correctly) as a thief of the work people do to survive

This is from an article posted over a Polygon that I just read today. That sort of sums up my feelings about the whole thing. AI art in a vacuum is absolutely a cool thing. It's interesting, at the very least. AI art in our dogshit capitalistic system fucking sucks.

Honestly, this conversation feels like it near perfectly mirrors the two perspectives portrayed in that comic.

Nothing about the capitalist principles driving the creation of cheap AI art is impinging upon artist's freedom at all. You can still create and release your art as before. The only difference is the response to it by those viewing it, which you don't have a right to control.

It's a deeper issue than how people respond to AI art.

“We need the wider solutions offered by the Luddites themselves at the time, who thought about the potential good outcome of the industrial revolution — a world where mass-production works for everyone, not mostly for the people who own the factories. Forgive me for reaching for the ‘fully automated luxury communism’ button, but it is a very shiny button (and, of course, bright red).

“In a world where most artists were not struggling to make ends meet as it is, because all people’s basic needs were met (which isn’t impossible in the slightest), an AI making something using your work as an input would be close to harmless, if not fascinating in itself. Until we fix the world around it, this stuff and all its potential is doomed to be hated, recognised (correctly) as a thief of the work people do to survive

This is from an article posted over a Polygon that I just read today. That sort of sums up my feelings about the whole thing. AI art in a vacuum is absolutely a cool thing. It's interesting, at the very least. AI art in our dogshit capitalistic system fucking sucks.

Also, I may be misremembering, but aren't you a proponent of game preservation? By your own argument, if a company is not compelled preserve their games by capitalist principles, then we have no right to ask for it or push for work arounds in the system to enable it, no?

A company is under no obligation to preserve anything, that is correct. However if people take it upon themselves to do so if the company does not, well that's not really imposing on the company now is it? We even build this into the law - when copyright expires anyone is now free to copy and preserve a work completely legally.

Nothing about the capitalist principles driving the creation of cheap AI art is impinging upon artist's freedom at all. You can still create and release your art as before. The only difference is the response to it by those viewing it, which you don't have a right to control.

This assumes that the average consumer can tell the difference or cares.

Art for commercial purposes is not exempt from market forces. If consumers genuinely do not care, then the market has spoken. You don't get to demand to keep making money just because you worked for years to develop your skill and you think it isn't fair. Either start creating art that consumers DO notice the difference in, cater to a niche market that DOES, or don't expect to make money off of your art.

Whether this (capitalism) is a good thing or not is kind of what we should be asking ourselves. AI art is just an extension of capitalist principles to get the most for the least as a business.

Yeah, obviously your point makes sense if you accept whatever makes "capitalism go brrrr better" as okay, and believe that the only acceptable/fair way to solve any troublesome byproducts of capitalism is the complete eradication of capitalism. Otherwise, any measures taken are wrenches thrown into what normally makes sense for the status quo of the system.

Also, I may be misremembering, but aren't you a proponent of game preservation? By your own argument, if a company is not compelled preserve their games by capitalist principles, then we have no right to ask for it or push for work arounds in the system to enable it, no?

They’ll use the hell out of it until they get caught, then when they do get caught, they’ll pay a measly fine, consider it the cost of doing business, lobby to get the law changed so they can use it, and they’ll ensure wages remain stagnant the whole time while citing increased costs.

A human simply piloting the ML model will never know just how original the output is, so they can't be prosecuted unless the use of the ML model itself is covered, regardless of output.

Then we have our answer.

If it's too much of a liability to use AI, companies just won't.

It's like the example above where you posit that if computers end up replacing your job because they could do it better that's fine, you'd find a different career.

I don't know how to explain to you, they won't replace you because they produce a better product, they'll do it because they'll be cheaper producing a worse but "acceptable" product. And humanity will suffer a net loss because yes we'll have more of everything, but it'll become more and more mediocre as it trends toward homogenous dreck.

This is called capitalism, and it literally affects every single job and skill human beings do. When was the last time you had someone make your shoes by hand? "Good enough" is basically the end stage of all labor and goods.

Sounds like your real problem is with the system itself. I might even agree with that!

Yeah, that IS what I have an issue with. And I'm just saying this is an acceleration of the existing systems. And it's worth while to point at it and go "oh this isn't good".

This assumes that the average consumer can tell the difference or cares.

Art for commercial purposes is not exempt from market forces. If consumers genuinely do not care, then the market has spoken. You don't get to demand to keep making money just because you worked for years to develop your skill and you think it isn't fair. Either start creating art that consumers DO notice the difference in, cater to a niche market that DOES, or don't expect to make money off of your art.

Whether this (capitalism) is a good thing or not is kind of what we should be asking ourselves. AI art is just an extension of capitalist principles to get the most for the least as a business.

It's like the example above where you posit that if computers end up replacing your job because they could do it better that's fine, you'd find a different career.

I don't know how to explain to you, they won't replace you because they produce a better product, they'll do it because they'll be cheaper producing a worse but "acceptable" product. And humanity will suffer a net loss because yes we'll have more of everything, but it'll become more and more mediocre as it trends toward homogenous dreck.

This is called capitalism, and it literally affects every single job and skill human beings do. When was the last time you had someone make your shoes by hand? "Good enough" is basically the end stage of all labor and goods.

Sounds like your real problem is with the system itself. I might even agree with that!

I don't know how to explain to you, they won't replace you because they produce a better product, they'll do it because they'll be cheaper producing a worse but "acceptable" product. And humanity will suffer a net loss because yes we'll have more of everything, but it'll become more and more mediocre as it trends toward homogenous dreck.

That’s the goal. Those dumbfucks doing the endless Seinfeld AI thing on twitch said as much. Their grand vision is what if AI could just generate endless amounts of “Netflix quality” shows. Why watch 5 seasons of something made by humans when you could get 700 seasons of some wholly AI created thing?

My worry is about how reductive it is. It regurgitates existing ideas mashed together in often sub-par ways while threatening the livelihood of people who come up with genuinely unique new ideas.

What happens when this makes it unsustainable for the human artists to create new ideas?

If what you say above is true, then there's no worry. A human artist will always have something valuable: originally. So if that's all the AI is doing, then it doesn't threaten artists at all by your own argument.

This assumes that the average consumer can tell the difference or cares. If a significant chunk of a game's budget can be cut down and they can still make a major difference in profit (even if sales do go down somewhat), there is no incentive to fund actual artists, especially when these other products can undercut the "normally made" products in price and still make a larger margin of profit.

Theoretically, human made art (including movies and games) will become a true luxury, and that definitely suppresses the creation of new works.

My worry is about how reductive it is. It regurgitates existing ideas mashed together in often sub-par ways while threatening the livelihood of people who come up with genuinely unique new ideas.

What happens when this makes it unsustainable for the human artists to create new ideas?

If what you say above is true, then there's no worry. A human artist will always have something valuable: originally. So if that's all the AI is doing, then it doesn't threaten artists at all by your own argument.

How could someone possibly support a career in art if a large part of what they make money on is consumed by a sub-par (but still "enough") product to get to the point where they can create something unique and interesting.

It's like the example above where you posit that if computers end up replacing your job because they could do it better that's fine, you'd find a different career.

I don't know how to explain to you, they won't replace you because they produce a better product, they'll do it because they'll be cheaper producing a worse but "acceptable" product. And humanity will suffer a net loss because yes we'll have more of everything, but it'll become more and more mediocre as it trends toward homogenous dreck.

My worry is about how reductive it is. It regurgitates existing ideas mashed together in often sub-par ways while threatening the livelihood of people who come up with genuinely unique new ideas.

What happens when this makes it unsustainable for the human artists to create new ideas?

If what you say above is true, then there's no worry. A human artist will always have something valuable: originally. So if that's all the AI is doing, then it doesn't threaten artists at all by your own argument.

It stinks that people put a lot of time and effort into their art and a 5 second prompt of text takes the win. It also stinks how many business will host a "design our logo" contest instead of paying a designer to do it.

Contests like that do stink.

But I'm not sure AI art does.

To me, gauging the quality of a work by effort has always seemed misguided. That would imply that a savant who can effortlessly conjure drawings somehow has less valuable work than someone who works incredibly hard at it over time. It makes no sense to me - the aesthetics of the final image are all that matter. I don't think people really care either - if they did every entry into an art contest would include exhaustive documentation of the process of creation. But they don't. They just look at the image.

If you DO value human effort when evaluating art, then you clearly have nothing to fear. The response to AI art, particularly those which have won competitions and had their awards rescinded, proves you aren't really at risk of being replaced, doesn't it?

My worry about AI art is going to be about who controls the algorithms. A big corporation? No bueno. Open source and democratic? Now we are talking.

My worry is about how reductive it is. It regurgitates existing ideas mashed together in often sub-par ways while threatening the livelihood of people who come up with genuinely unique new ideas.

What happens when this makes it unsustainable for the human artists to create new ideas? We'll have no new ideas. Just an uncanny valley that roughly mirrors what we have seen.

In the case of A/V, the human mind and body is the launderer, but the human element introduces so much variance that it rarely results in the ability to mimic. Those who can mimic are either lucky or have worked to earn it, and a human's right to exercise their abilities is equivalent to another human's. With these generators, you have a computer mimicking a human and is able to do so with precision.

The human element, and the rights a human has, are what make mimicry "ok." The introduction of AI poses a completely new ethical problem to be solved, and is not perfectly equivalent to the existing human-human paradigm.

That’s the most depressing thing I’ve read today.

Who cares if commercial editors lose their jobs, it’s not like they’re working on movies. Fuck ‘em!

It's the reality of the situation.

Commercials - generally seen as commerce and not art.
Commercial editors - more expensive per day than narrative editors

So, I predict they'll be on the chopping block first. No value judgement, just a reflection of facts.

Who cares if commercial editors lose their jobs, it’s not like they’re working on movies. Fuck ‘em!

Or so you say until EditorGPT is a thing. I'm not looking forward to the human element being pushed off the stage. It's not worked well so far. Look at it from the perspective of human interaction. The more digital and less analog we are, the meaner we are.

Don't you think that attitude, which is shared by a lot of people, is why humans will always desire art made by other humans?

If EditorGPT becomes a thing, then I predict it will be widely used in things like commercials or corporate / industrial videos, while humans will still cut movies.

But if it turns out audiences don't care whether a human edited a film? Then they've spoken, and I'll find a new career.

If you DO value human effort when evaluating art, then you clearly have nothing to fear. The response to AI art, particularly those which have won competitions and had their awards rescinded, proves you aren't really at risk of being replaced, doesn't it?

People aren't worried about having their artistic sensibilities questioned--they're worried about their fucking jobs.

Concept artists? Who needs 'em, just fire up Midjourney! Will it be good? Not for some amount of time, no, but since when has that ever stopped capitalist pigs from doing it anyway and then firing people just because they fucking can?

I mean, that kind of worry is just trying to fight the coming tide. Every tech innovation puts some group out of work. It's just impossible to fight so adaptation is required.

Or so you say until EditorGPT is a thing. I'm not looking forward to the human element being pushed off the stage. It's not worked well so far. Look at it from the perspective of human interaction. The more digital and less analog we are, the meaner we are.