I agree with this, wholeheartedly.
I don't think art is about the process used to create it, but about what the creation represents and whether or not it moves people. We're not looking to push the limits of human ability, but explore what moves us. To that end, if someone uses AI to create an image from a sketch they made, or to put some music to lyrics they wrote, that's actually enhancing, not diminishing human creativity, but giving people with lots of creativity but not much skill give form to what exists inside of them.
There is a potential for abuse there, don't get me wrong. But I think that there is also there are potential benefits as well.
I must respectfully disagree. With both posts I've quoted here.
We are not discussing the
potential for AI to cause harm-- we're talking about the harm it is currently causing. A tool on its own is not a weapon, its the way you use it that hurts. It'd be one thing if AI was something only the common man could use to come up with ideas or get inspiration, but that isn't based in reality.
AI is being used to cheapen and ruin people's livelihoods on a global scale. And that is a function of capitalism. A capitalist's primary goal is to make money and watch the Number Go Up. People crave entertainment and beautiful things that they don't even know they want because it doesn't exist, they are willing to pay for it. So why waste years of my life learning to draw, write, or play music when a billion dollar company can create something as good or better than me? And this is because its sourcing the talent of those who did not consent to their art now being used as a data point to help Disney make another garbage movie. These companies can churn out steaming piles of garbage in seconds, and then piece it together into something barely passable.
And if we're going to be honest, honing one's craft is really
one part of why people pursue art. The other... is for
money. And if I can use the skills I've spent years of my life developing to make money and be at peace with my life, that's what I'm going to do.
An example:
I can't bake an even halfway decent cake, so I hire a baker to make it for me. Or I choose to learn myself, so I can better myself and share my creations with friends and family. Maybe I decide to open a bakery, and people will pay me to bake cakes for them, because they can't.
A
billion dollar corporation now proceeds to bake a cake 'as good' or 'better' than mine. It has the advantage of every single recipe on every single website that's willing to sell that information for profit,
and they have a machine to make it for them. The people they once employed to bake those cakes are out of a job, and so am I, because I must now justify the cost of my work. And if my work is not as appealing, I'm out of a job. I must now work at McDonalds for 15 dollars an hour, and I must stop baking because I can no longer afford the materials.
And it seems to me (please correct me if I'm wrong here) that the argument to support such a tool is because it helps indie creators make some cool stuff? When its directly profiting and
destroying the lives of so many people. Now they need to find other ways to make ends meet. Ergo, the time and effort it took to learn their craft has been rendered entirely pointless, except for their own pleasure. Unfortunately, they don't have the time or energy to do what they once loved, and now they're miserable and stuck in a dizzying cycle that makes them want to die.
So it begs the question, do these benefits outweigh the harms? Is it better that I can pump out a shitty sounding song using AI, if it means I'll never find it worthwile to learn an instrument in earnest? Why spend all that time and energy on something that means nothing to anyone but myself, when nothing I make (over many years) will ever match up to a machine that can do it in 5, 10, 15 seconds. Imagine being a child and looking at something like that. Would
you want to learn oil painting? Because I sure as hell
don't.
[On AI specifically]
There's no war on art, just a piece of disruptive technology. I think any artist ought to use it!
Partly because it's a great tool, and partly because it brings peace of mind to experience its limitations first hand.
I don't think it's more significant than cameras, gramophones, or spell checkers - all of which have made their mark on art. They allow more people to create and experience things, but they're not in conflict with the essence of art.
"Why would anyone spend hours making an oil painting, when I can snap a much more accurate picture with my smart phone?" (Taking pictures have become it's own art form, but it's not really competing with painters.)
Again, I must disagree wholeheartedly.
"Why would anyone spend serious money on commissioning an oil painting if it doesn't look as good as my iPhone picture" is a really bad analogy. The art forms are unique, but the time it takes to make them
good is important.
As I was alluding to above, artists of all kinds suffer from this fear of inadequacy. If AI existed when I was in school, I would never have spent the time to learn to write. I regularly, to this day, wonder why I bother when no one will read it. Why would they? They can make their own novel on chatgpt in seconds, when I've spent
years crafting a novel? And writing is
difficult. It, like oil painting and photography, is a craft that takes time and effort to produce. But your distinction of medium fails to take into consideration the most important part...
effort.
A debut novelist could write the best damn book and get zero recognition, zero money, and zero accolades for the years they spent writing, editing, getting assistance, learning how storytelling works, learning about genre... Because an AI book that sucks hit top shelf and was generated in, say, 15 minutes. Edited for 2, 3 months. Does that not cheapen the effort one spends to write something in the first place? Or does it not matter because you've never faced that struggle?
So let's ignore the concept of capitalism for a moment. If there is no gratification to practice painting or taking a good picture, why learn how to make your unskilled art
better if Joe can generate something twice as aesthetically pleasing in a handful of seconds? I would just use AI instead. Now I don't know how to draw because learning to do so takes too much time, and I already hate what I can create because I don't know how to draw? How many oil painters are out there, as compared to photographers? Which takes more time to master? You can answer these with factual, objective numbers. But which is more
meaningful? You cannot answer that question, because its down to the person who makes it, the time they spent, the pleasure they get from its completion, and the accolades they receive from people who simply don't know how?
Is it not better to encourage people to make the effort to learn something? How many people are accomplished oil painters? I took an oil painting class once-- that is
not easy. And I didn't continue because though I liked the process, I hated the pointlessness of it, and the cost. Canvases, oil paints, brushes are all incredibly expensive. Getting decent at it requires hours and hours,
months of cumulative work, and to cheapen it by comparing it to another time consuming, yet modern art form that is
also being cannibalized by AI is very,
very short sighted. And insulting to those of us who have a serious passion for these things. These are not casual hobbies, to me. These are my very reasons to live. And I won't be publishing a damn thing, because there is really no point. My writing will die when I do. So will my art. And my music. Some might say that's
my fault, for ever having expected anyone to give a fuck about the things I create regardless of how objectively good or bad it is, but
I say its another reason why a lot of creatives are so damn upset.
I hope I haven't offended either of you, or anyone else who thinks AI has its uses. AI is clearly a tool, not a weapon, but it is being used as one. And to ignore that aspect is hurtful to those of us who are inextricably linked to their creative crafts. And worst of all, it is
objectively causing harm to the very people who are using it for that instant gratification.
For profit.
