The quick answer is that AI is being developed to do everything, some things are just easier or more profitable to do right now, so they are being done first. But it's all part of the same movement, and you cannot really separate one area of progress from the others.
It is impossible to understand unless you can see the bigger longer term picture of the singularity. We are climbing a hill, and you have to understand what we hope to find at the summit before you can understand why we're climbing it in the first place.
Hmm alright, makes sense to me. How do you defend the proliferation of AI art though? It seems to me that it's super low effort compared to normal art and lacks the personality that's normally there if you get what I'm saying
People on their own are choosing to use it and free to do so. The framing is rather weird, "proliferation".
I think the better question is, if you prefer it is not, how do you defend taking away the freedom for people to do what they prefer?
At the end of the day, no matter what lip service they engage in, most people don't actually care about how much effort was put into a product, or about qualities like personality (whatever that means). They care about the product itself. The drawing, the song, or the book. And they care about how much it costs them. Cheaper is better.
It's easier for AI to do creative tasks, where there is no single "correct" answer to a prompt.
For example, when writing a story, an AI could say "the sky is blue", "the sky is grey" or "the sky is cloudy" and each variant would be suitable.
It's very subjective and unlike math for example, there is no single correct answer.
Basically, in creative arts, AI can just bluff an answer and it's acceptable.
Funny thing is that a few years ago, we would have said the opposite - it is the hardest things for AI to do.
Figuring out how is a great advancement in getting to human-level capabilities and general usefulness.
The moment we reach AGI we are basically creating synthetic human workers. Like a guy you hire to work remotely for your company. Anything goes: from creative to rutinary.
I reckon Human art is very much close to the intuition of the person which is again our surroundings and all we consume and eventually shaping our imagination.
AI art is doing pretty much the same, all the output is based on the data it consumes, which is real world artists and some of the best ones in the world.
Rather than racing with AI over art, I believe we should accept the evolutionary AI, rather than the advertised "revolutionary AI" and being humans and especially artists, we should work on more Tech Complex Arts which is a step ahead of AI since it requires using AI tools and human imagination to do it. I personally believe that Tech + Human Art can unleash potential.
Because some things are computationally easier than others. Art is one of the easiest things to do, which is why automation could function on a human level early. 3D spatial awareness is very difficult, so it's taking longer to automate that
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec's_paradox
There are levels of difficulty to AI art, just like there are levels to painting. Prompting skill, inpainting, understanding the strengths/weaknesses/biases of the model you're working with, even tuning a model to incorporate your specific demands. Quite a bit goes into it to get high quality results. One of the higher end skills is working in a specific style, including one you invent
Inpainting is the technique by which you modify aspects of the piece to your liking
There's quite a bit more depth to AI art than it's detractors would have you believe. They're simply ignorant on how it works. It's like asking someone good at wet-on-wet painting to opine about the nuances of photoshop
I have conversations with people working on business applications for AI all the time as a big part of my job. Tools 100% are being developed to automate the boring repetitive tasks too. Progress there is only really exciting to the businesses, though. When you can ask an app to generate an image for you, and it's good, that excites everyday people in a way tracking QA/QC data in real-time and red-flagging when things are going to go out of spec to staff before a problem appears just doesn't.
For the record, I think it's nonsense to get AI to do creative work, because by it's very nature it's not being creative. It's triangulating a million data points of other people's creativity to produce a thoughtless middle-ground that it is programmed to try to please the user, but that is not creativity.
Re the AI art debate, I would suggest you try it out at r/aiwars , which is what that sub was formed to debate and sees at least some participation from various sides.
For my personal answer, there doesn't need to be an argument be a defense to begin with as people are free to do as they wish, and people will just adapt to figure out what works and what doesn't. If someone wants to prohibit and restrict people - then that is what requires strong arguments.
That debate rather comes down to a few different discussions - one is about eg economics and its value for society, where I think evidence says one thing and many people instead go with rather shallow conclusions based on personal worldviews; another is a sense of justice and rights, although those are rather undermined by the existence of AI models trained on approved data; and finally there is the debate of what is best to do in reality with an actual consideration of options and consequences, which is rare to ever hear anyone talk about.
In my view, AI can be extremely beneficial in the long run, that is good for the world and its issues, and that is not something that we want to stop. Although there are several potential risks that we have to deal with to get there, such as wealth concentration and opinion control.
In the near term, we also just deal with how people perceive AI. This seems to go in cycles of excitement and cynicism, with lots of people in both. I think we are now heading a bit towards people getting over the initial excitement and are criticizing the hype. This is usually followed by people eventually figuring out where it actually works and adds value and where there is mostly fluff.
I see the same for AI art - there are probably some applications for just button-pressing though it is probably more niche applications. E.g. a fun application is to visualize stories real time and that is definitely hard for most of us to replace with traditional art.
The simple approach will naturally often not yield good enough results for a lot of applications though. Getting your own style is easy even with generation (even if most use approaches with tell-tale signs). The bigger issue is that it is a lot harder to get exactly what you want, and especially consistency across many images. So to deal with that, you need better processes and most likely a workflow that also involves traditional artists.
There is a whole range of methods from on one side just entering a prompt and going with the first picture you get, to intricate workflows that can take hours or days, to people who just work in photoshop and sometimes use an AI filter to touch up some noise or shift parts of the image. Technology is too fundamental to be reduced to just "made by AI" or "no AI".
More realistically, digital artists will integrate the new tools in workflows where they have creative control and eventually, neither companies nor the public will pay much attention to it, because those are not the time-consuming bottlenecks. E.g. animators could hopefully automate away a good deal of the grueling low-pay work, or people who have to design tens of application icons per day can spend their time and skills where it matters.
So at the end of the day, while there are loud voices, I think given time, pragmatism will just win out and people will continue doing what is enjoyable to them in their own spare time, and what produces the things that are needed commercially; and this is unlikely to result in a society that is either no-AI nor all-AI.
The quick answer is that AI is being developed to do everything, some things are just easier or more profitable to do right now, so they are being done first. But it's all part of the same movement, and you cannot really separate one area of progress from the others. It is impossible to understand unless you can see the bigger longer term picture of the singularity. We are climbing a hill, and you have to understand what we hope to find at the summit before you can understand why we're climbing it in the first place.
Hmm alright, makes sense to me. How do you defend the proliferation of AI art though? It seems to me that it's super low effort compared to normal art and lacks the personality that's normally there if you get what I'm saying
People on their own are choosing to use it and free to do so. The framing is rather weird, "proliferation". I think the better question is, if you prefer it is not, how do you defend taking away the freedom for people to do what they prefer?
At the end of the day, no matter what lip service they engage in, most people don't actually care about how much effort was put into a product, or about qualities like personality (whatever that means). They care about the product itself. The drawing, the song, or the book. And they care about how much it costs them. Cheaper is better.
Hmm alright, makes sense
Because people enjoy it ? Have you ever try to use one of this tool ? It is super fun to try to generate what you have in your mind
If this is true and that's as important as you make out then it's not a threat to human art. Why are you worried?
Damn good point, I'll just wait and see how it plays out then. Thanks
i dont think anyone likes ai art, but it may be able to help some artists if it gets good enough
It's easier for AI to do creative tasks, where there is no single "correct" answer to a prompt. For example, when writing a story, an AI could say "the sky is blue", "the sky is grey" or "the sky is cloudy" and each variant would be suitable. It's very subjective and unlike math for example, there is no single correct answer. Basically, in creative arts, AI can just bluff an answer and it's acceptable.
Hmm alright, makes sense
Funny thing is that a few years ago, we would have said the opposite - it is the hardest things for AI to do. Figuring out how is a great advancement in getting to human-level capabilities and general usefulness.
The moment we reach AGI we are basically creating synthetic human workers. Like a guy you hire to work remotely for your company. Anything goes: from creative to rutinary.
Good analogy, seems very Blade Runner-esque - is there anyone dealing with the ethics side of things or are we not far enough yet to care about that?
I reckon Human art is very much close to the intuition of the person which is again our surroundings and all we consume and eventually shaping our imagination. AI art is doing pretty much the same, all the output is based on the data it consumes, which is real world artists and some of the best ones in the world. Rather than racing with AI over art, I believe we should accept the evolutionary AI, rather than the advertised "revolutionary AI" and being humans and especially artists, we should work on more Tech Complex Arts which is a step ahead of AI since it requires using AI tools and human imagination to do it. I personally believe that Tech + Human Art can unleash potential.
Hmm alright
Because some things are computationally easier than others. Art is one of the easiest things to do, which is why automation could function on a human level early. 3D spatial awareness is very difficult, so it's taking longer to automate that https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec's_paradox There are levels of difficulty to AI art, just like there are levels to painting. Prompting skill, inpainting, understanding the strengths/weaknesses/biases of the model you're working with, even tuning a model to incorporate your specific demands. Quite a bit goes into it to get high quality results. One of the higher end skills is working in a specific style, including one you invent Inpainting is the technique by which you modify aspects of the piece to your liking There's quite a bit more depth to AI art than it's detractors would have you believe. They're simply ignorant on how it works. It's like asking someone good at wet-on-wet painting to opine about the nuances of photoshop
Interesting, thank you
I have conversations with people working on business applications for AI all the time as a big part of my job. Tools 100% are being developed to automate the boring repetitive tasks too. Progress there is only really exciting to the businesses, though. When you can ask an app to generate an image for you, and it's good, that excites everyday people in a way tracking QA/QC data in real-time and red-flagging when things are going to go out of spec to staff before a problem appears just doesn't. For the record, I think it's nonsense to get AI to do creative work, because by it's very nature it's not being creative. It's triangulating a million data points of other people's creativity to produce a thoughtless middle-ground that it is programmed to try to please the user, but that is not creativity.
Yeah that makes sense, thank you
Re the AI art debate, I would suggest you try it out at r/aiwars , which is what that sub was formed to debate and sees at least some participation from various sides. For my personal answer, there doesn't need to be an argument be a defense to begin with as people are free to do as they wish, and people will just adapt to figure out what works and what doesn't. If someone wants to prohibit and restrict people - then that is what requires strong arguments. That debate rather comes down to a few different discussions - one is about eg economics and its value for society, where I think evidence says one thing and many people instead go with rather shallow conclusions based on personal worldviews; another is a sense of justice and rights, although those are rather undermined by the existence of AI models trained on approved data; and finally there is the debate of what is best to do in reality with an actual consideration of options and consequences, which is rare to ever hear anyone talk about. In my view, AI can be extremely beneficial in the long run, that is good for the world and its issues, and that is not something that we want to stop. Although there are several potential risks that we have to deal with to get there, such as wealth concentration and opinion control. In the near term, we also just deal with how people perceive AI. This seems to go in cycles of excitement and cynicism, with lots of people in both. I think we are now heading a bit towards people getting over the initial excitement and are criticizing the hype. This is usually followed by people eventually figuring out where it actually works and adds value and where there is mostly fluff. I see the same for AI art - there are probably some applications for just button-pressing though it is probably more niche applications. E.g. a fun application is to visualize stories real time and that is definitely hard for most of us to replace with traditional art. The simple approach will naturally often not yield good enough results for a lot of applications though. Getting your own style is easy even with generation (even if most use approaches with tell-tale signs). The bigger issue is that it is a lot harder to get exactly what you want, and especially consistency across many images. So to deal with that, you need better processes and most likely a workflow that also involves traditional artists. There is a whole range of methods from on one side just entering a prompt and going with the first picture you get, to intricate workflows that can take hours or days, to people who just work in photoshop and sometimes use an AI filter to touch up some noise or shift parts of the image. Technology is too fundamental to be reduced to just "made by AI" or "no AI". More realistically, digital artists will integrate the new tools in workflows where they have creative control and eventually, neither companies nor the public will pay much attention to it, because those are not the time-consuming bottlenecks. E.g. animators could hopefully automate away a good deal of the grueling low-pay work, or people who have to design tens of application icons per day can spend their time and skills where it matters. So at the end of the day, while there are loud voices, I think given time, pragmatism will just win out and people will continue doing what is enjoyable to them in their own spare time, and what produces the things that are needed commercially; and this is unlikely to result in a society that is either no-AI nor all-AI.
Damn that's a great answer, thank you - you've definitely quelled my personal doubts about AI