Carbon fiber AI was never stress tested and certified for the immense pressures of human society.
5 Likes
First, many people believed that photography could not be art, because it was made by a machine rather than by human creativity. From the beginning, artists were dismissive of photography, and saw it as a threat to “real art.” The poet Charles Baudelaire wrote, in a review of the Salon of 1859: “If photography is allowed to supplement art in some of its functions, it will soon supplant or corrupt it altogether, thanks to the stupidity of the multitude which is its natural ally.”
Source
Not the same thing. Photography is not taking the work of others and reproducing them.
Context matters.
4 Likes
well, they weren’t wrong, that’s for sure. after all, this whole thread is about using ai to replace movie art; and, motion pictures are a form of photography. true, it hasn’t completely replaced older forms of art, but it certainly dominates our culture.
so then the question might be: do we want ai art to largely replace human made art, and to dominate human culture?
this guy votes no. 
1 Like
Guys I don’t think you should be talking smack about AI art given how regularly y’all decide to shit in my eyeballs with an AI-generated header image.
I watched the first episode today and I already thought it looked cheesy and dumb and so first half of 2023.
Seriously, we have been inundated by this technology’s creations so quickly that it looks old-fashioned and like part of a fad to me already
3 Likes
And if the only way they could train was by purchasing access to a for profit library of other people’s art, we would expect the providers of the library to compensate the artists whose works they show.
i’ve also watched the first episode now, and the plot so far:
you can’t trust people in government, the media, or even your own eyes. there are immigrants among us controlling world events with false flag operations and secret operatives. only one man, going outside the law and every check and balance, can save us
is not really the one that seems… helpful… given our actual political situation right now
4 Likes
It’s almost as if two junctures of history can be similar in some ways and not in others!
Photography redirected the efforts of painters in a pretty narrow way, i.e. it removed a lot of the incentive (though not all) to chase photorealism*. The benefits brought on by photography of being able to document history far outweighs that loss, especially given that painting did continue to flourish in non-photographic ways. Painting also would have never been able to scale to the level of documentation of reality that was needed of desired.
AI may have similar benefits in non-arts fields that will outweigh the damage to the arts, but I’ve yet to hear those arguments, and none of them would preclude building better legal restrictions on the use of AI art, particularly given the Olympic Stadium levels of unpaid labor that gave AI its capabilities. Also, AI doesn’t just replicate one kind of art. If art pivots, it will eat and replicate new styles with increasing efficiency.
There isn’t an art shortage that AI solves. There’s already more art made by humans that our eyes can find and enjoy/consider. If at the end of the day, you don’t think it matters that a human made a piece of art, and are an absolutist advocate for “consumers’ rights” to ever larger piles of available “art” to consume, there isn’t really a starting point for a conversation.
*yes, more abstract and impressionistic uses of photography developed, but not so much to “replicate” painting. Apps that make photos look like watercolors are more obnoxious and stupid, and do create confusion and actual damage, in my opinion.
Whatever one’s other objections to OR support for the use of AI generative art, this particular intro also comes across as very lazy.
It feels like a D- term paper completed minutes before the class it was due.
1 Like
I think the luddite labeling is spot on, but probably not in the way you are using it. At its core the original luddites were engaged in a labor protest about how the benefits and costs of technology were distributed, frequently targeting well established technologies that were being used to impoverish skilled organized workers. What the Luddites Really Fought Against | History| Smithsonian Magazine We see something similar with the pushback against the uses of ai. Right now there is an ongoing WGA strike and one of the core issues is how scripts that use ai to start them, with revisions conducted by humans. Should they be paid a lower revision rate or the rate they would otherwise be entitled to for a new script? With this visual art we don’t know that any of the artists whose work trained the models received a cent.
Yes. I don’t say that because of the productivity of the new tools, but because they don’t look as good as what humans produce and tend to be built on massive uncompensated use of human artist’s work. I’m certainly not a copyright maximalist, but if the big studios want to use a tool that is built on large scale violations of copyright, they can, as long as they don’t get their works protected by the same laws.
Because they aren’t. A human, even a lazy derivative human isn’t just recombining the way current AI systems are. The Getty lawsuit from a few months ago is a good example. Getty Images sues AI art generator Stable Diffusion in the US for copyright infringement - The Verge
Lots, but not all. The labor and quality issues would still be there. But without evidence that it was trained that way, the reasonable assumption is that they did what every other major AI provider does and slurped data wholesale.
Or, there’s a recognition that there is disruption coming, but believing that the primary people who should carry that burden aren’t the workers. So, who should be disrupted?
I’m not seeing that here. I’m seeing a lot of talk about quality, attribution and distribution.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
