I think AI replacing artists is going to be a good thing in the long run.

Right now, if you want custom artwork made without the use of AI you have to either criminally underpay an artist on Fiverr or pay an artist hundreds of dollars to make one piece which you may not like.

I think the cat is out of the bag on AI generated art pieces and there’s no way to put it back in, and so future artists will use a combination of their actual art skills and their ability to work with an AI system to create entirely new and currently nearly impossible art pieces, and there is an entire field of unexplored possibilities waiting to be tapped by Future artists.

AI can’t make new art.

All it can do is repurpose pieces of art other people have made, just like Auto-Tune can make you sing on pitch but it can’t make you a good singer.

#unpopularopinion

  • @PoliticalAgitator
    1•7 months ago

    Just so you’re aware machine learning has been around for 50 years and isn’t the exclusive domain of tech start-ups. It’s the product of very talented and passionate data scientists who are artists in their own right. I find it disrespectful to just focus on the capitalist exploitation

    Aren’t you supposed to be pretending to argue in good faith?

    The machine learning of the last 50 years hasn’t been nearly as sophisticated nor distruptive as the AI we’ve seen in the last few years – that’s why it has a completely different name.

    And you find focusing on “capital exploitation” disrespectful because you’re arguing against an opinion that nobody outside your imagination holds.

    Functionally nobody opposes AI on the basis of “technology scary” or thinks the data scientists behind it are talentless or greedy. They oppose it exactly because of the capitalist exploitation.

    AI companies used artists work without permission, in a for-profit, commercial product, without compensating them. Even worse, they’re using that artwork to take work away from those artists.

    Without that training data, these models would be nothing and underneath all your flowery “all art is stolen” rhetoric, you know it. These models can churn out 1000 fake Van Goghs a second but without his work in it’s training data, it never would have come up with it organically.

    • @oxomoxo
      1•7 months ago

      Aren’t you supposed to be pretending to argue in good faith?

      I am sorry you feel this way.

      The machine learning of the last 50 years hasn’t been nearly as sophisticated nor disruptive as the AI we’ve seen in the last few years – that’s why it has a completely different name.

      Machine Leaning is a subset of AI. I muddied the argument by switching labels. The sophistication is due to exponential development.

      And you find focusing on “capital exploitation” disrespectful because you’re arguing against an opinion that nobody outside your imagination holds.

      I am not entirely sure what this means. I formed my opinion on what I’ve heard some data scientists have spoken about and combined it with what I have heard artists speak about and because we are talking about the future, we can only reference imagination, since it’s not yet happened.

      Functionally nobody opposes AI on the basis of “technology scary” or thinks the data scientists behind it are talentless or greedy. They oppose it exactly because of the capitalist exploitation.

      I have seen an onslaught of news articles and had a few conversation specifically on “technology scary”, further every innovation comes with naysayers who are scared of change. They said it about books, radio, school, television, video games, computers…

      I think people don’t care to differentiate the data scientist from the companies that are exploiting their work. So I don’t agree here. I think some people oppose it due to capitalist exploitation, while other realize the technology and the business are mutually exclusive. Since there is a whole world of open source models you can self host and leverage for personal use. In other words AI without the money exists.

      AI companies used artists work without permission, in a for-profit, commercial product, without compensating them. Even worse, they’re using that artwork to take work away from those artists.

      My argument is that AI is approximation of the human brain, and because of this, it is my opinion that using other people work to train a model is an equivalent exercise to showing a person others art works. I also don’t agree that AI will necessarily take work away from artists, I can chose to buy a product made by machine or one made by hand. As well art is not the elusive domain of profit. We created art work long before money was involved, and not everything we do needs to be monetized.

      Without that training data, these models would be nothing and underneath all your flowery “all art is stolen” rhetoric, you know it. These models can churn out 1000 fake Van Goghs a second but without his work in it’s training data, it never would have come up with it organically.

      My position is that artists would be nothing without their own experience (training) as well. So yes I know it, but I don’t understand your point. A young artist also churns out a bunch of copies of work inspired by the artist they admire before they find their own voice. While I would agree AI hasn’t produce much work on it’s own currently, I believe and the data scientists believe that it will most likely be able to find it own voice in the near future. My understanding is at least in realm of writing, AI is starting to do unexpected and perceivable unique things.

      I think people like to see themselves as unique and special, in other words the machines are not able to do what we do. I disagree, both because of past evidence of machines taking our jobs (manufacturing, automation, computation, communication, etc…) but I also believe that if allowed, the machines could surpass our creativity at a rate we have not yet imagined. Because imagination needs a reference (training data).