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.
You seem to have a pretty unhealthy idea of what art is and what it’s function is in the world. Private commissions are one way that artists can monetize what they do, but art and commissions are completely independent concepts.
Art is from the soul.
All AI does is scrape and steal data and technique.
I agree with this. AI cannot make art, but it can make fragments that an artist can use to make a mosaic, and the mosaic is art.
People downvoting this don’t really get how unpopular opinion works.
I love dropping by #unpopularopinion and agreeing with an OP. The downvote train makes me laugh…
Enough of a poor take for me to upvote
I think you’re in the ballpark of the truth OP. Art and all forms of human creativity come from two sources, experience and connectivity. Nothing man has ever created came from a vacuum. We start observing and remembering the world from birth, and once we are old enough we begin to connect these experiences together with lateral thinking.
MLLM models just taking training data (experience) and connect it together in potentially new ways (lateral thinking). A close approximation of human creativity. Which will eventually become identical and then surpass any human capability.
Once we begin to understand that our human brains are not unique we will then be able to extend our creativity in ways that will make modern art seem archaic.
People need to stop being of afraid of what is new, despite what your lizard brain is telling you. Start accepting that AI is step in human evolution that will allow us to live in a world we have not yet imagined… or it will kill us all.
People aren’t afraid of “what is new”, they’re afraid sleazy tech millionaires are going to take their art without permission or compensation and use it to destroy a career they spent years building.
AI isn’t taking their art, which implies copyright infringement, it’s training their models on it, to then create something different than the original art. It becomes philosophical argument about what defines art or creativity. If we are saying that art can only be created by humans, then we also have to remember AI is created by humans.
If you saying the trained model stole art, then you have to remember that all art was stolen, because the only way we know what an orange looks like is because we’ve seen an orange. The only way we know what cubism is, is by looking at a Picasso. There is no creativity without “theft”. People like to pretend they are different than the AI model.
Is it because we are terrified to acknowledge our own insignificance. Could it be AI is making people feel insecure about our own existence? After all, people have spent a millennia building careers to end up dying and have it be forgotten anyway. For every human remembered in a history book there are millions more who’s name hasn’t been spoken since death.
AI isn’t taking their art, which implies copyright infringement, it’s training their models on it, to then create something different than the original art.
Funny how they can’t train their models on work they have consent to use. They can’t even train their model on the work it produces because it quickly inbreeds itself into nonsense.
The technology simply isn’t viable without the artists it undermines. It hasn’t invented the next cubism and it isn’t the next Van Gogh, it can just mimic them without shame.
Is it because we are terrified to acknowledge our own insignificance
Nope. It’s because AI companies are doing the same thing as people who steal art and put it on shirts. You don’t need to wax philosophical about it.
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.
Further art forms like cubism (as an example) didn’t come from nothing, it is stolen from the art that predates it. All creativity in every form builds from the other art that preceded it. This idea that artist are creating anything from nothing is flat out wrong and any artist would tell you that. Why do you think every interview with any kind of artist almost always asks about their influences…
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.
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).
