Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5tpjes wrote

Hi there, professional writer here.

AI can't make art better than us, and it never will be able to.

Here's the thing that people who don't have any direct experience with art don't seem to understand: all kinds of art (painting, writing, dance, music, etc.) is more than just the technical skill that goes into it. Art carries a message. AI cannot put messages into art that humans will understand/react to because AI is not human. It doesn't have a human mind. We may have trained its mind off of human patterns, but that doesn't make it human. It doesn't have human experiences or feel human emotions. Therefore, it can make things that are interesting to look at/listen to/read, but it can't make things that will touch the human heart.

I'm not worried about losing my job to AI. I do think it might present some interesting tools that can eventually help me to do my job better.

Like you pointed out, this might make it necessary/possible for artists to focus on the true purpose of their art rather than being forced to crank out commercial crap just to pay the bills! Ha ha.

7

Milkstrietmen t1_j5twlav wrote

From the point of view of an artist you may be right. But sadly you guys are in the minority. In the end, consumers don't care. Consumers only want to consume.

11

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5u2e66 wrote

As someone who works in the arts, I disagree. People who love art want real art. They are seldom offered up real art by the capitalist structures that control the distribution of these products, however.

4

KamikazeArchon t1_j5upyfp wrote

As usual "art" is an overloaded term here.

Some people who pay for "art" want to acquire "images that look good". Other people who pay for "art" want to acquire "stuff that carries a meaningful message". (With some overlap, as usual).

The "market" for the latter will be largely unaffected. The "market" for the former definitely will be (and already is).

I've found discussions & arguments about "AI art" to be heavily muddled by the conflation of different definitions and meanings.

15

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5v3dk0 wrote

Yes, that's the thing. The word can mean different things.

I agree with you that the market for the latter will be mostly unaffected, while the market for the former is in trouble.

The solution, from an artist's perspective, is to stop being mediocre and start making stuff that has actual meaning--stuff that aspires to do something beyond fill a hole in the market for interchangeable, nice-looking or temporarily distracting widgets.

1

GenoHuman t1_j5v8tgn wrote

Artists will be completely irrelevant, mark my words, the era of human made content is coming to an end.

2

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5vcy1o wrote

Mark the words of u/GenoHuman on reddit, everybody! The prophet has spoken.

3

GenoHuman t1_j5vd5hi wrote

You laugh now but wait a couple of years and see for yourself. AI is God 😉

2

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5vfwe5 wrote

I agree that AI is God. I disagree that God would negate the need for humans making art that speaks to other humans.

1

GenoHuman t1_j5vg3zq wrote

AI is going to create all experiences for us in the future, why would you ever want to interact with a human when AI can already mimic perfect humans just for you? They talk the way you like, act the way you like and sound the way you like too!

1

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5vg9eh wrote

You might prefer to interact with AI, but you don't speak for every human.

And no, they don't mimic humans perfectly already. They're also pretty fucking stupid right now, too. I'm an author and for fun I asked it about my own books/career. Every single answer it came up with was wrong. It can't even Google at this point.

I'm sure it'll get to the point where it CAN run basic fact-checks on its own answers before it gives them, but it's not there yet.

You seem to think that mimicry of human speech patterns is the same as talking to a human. That says more about you than it says about AI.

1

[deleted] t1_j5vgffx wrote

[removed]

1

MammothPhilosophy192 t1_j5ynddy wrote

As we move further into machine assisted living, pure human achievement will be lauded.

Also art is not only something pretty, art is recorded history through the eyes of men, art is a medium to express something, and when all is done, poems will be written of the downfall of men.

1

StarNightLynx t1_j5xvld1 wrote

The problem is that them market for the former is the large majority of what pays money.

1

greatdrams23 t1_j5uw34g wrote

"AI can't make art better than us, and it never will be able to."

That's a bold statement. It is a statement made through emotion, through fear, through ignorance.

9

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5v4i2l wrote

It's funny you say that, because I've actually been hyping up AI as a potentially exciting tool for artists and talking about how thrilled I am to get to be an artist in a shifting era, when our ideas about art and how it's made are changing so rapidly.

Maybe I just know more about this than you do... you know, being an actual working artist and all. Maybe you're the emotional, fearful, and ignorant one. 🤔

−1

Chemical_Estate6488 t1_j5tuqz3 wrote

While I mostly agree, the most appealing part of viewing art, or film, or reading, isn’t the spectacle of the image or the plot, but meeting another mind. That said, my bigger worry is that generating cool images and plot twists is how a lot of artists pay their rent. AI, to my mind, won’t replace the need for human art, but it might make producing human art even harder to do if you don’t already have a trust fund to support you

4

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5u2945 wrote

Well, speaking as one of those artists who pays their rent in the current, existing system... most of us would much rather produce work that's "meeting another mind" stuff and not "hey look at this cool plot twist" or "hey look at this image that makes you want to buy this product." We make that kind of "art" because a capitalist society demands that we make that stuff in order to survive. If we didn't have to cater to the demands of a profit-prioritizing market, we'd be making very different stuff.

While I have no doubt that we'll go through a rocky period while we find a new equilibrium, the reality is that it has always been extremely challenging to make a living in the arts, and AI doesn't really change that fact. It just means the *nature* of the challenge is slightly different.

I think once AI makes the necessity of UBI clear (which... god knows how many years or decades that might take--let's hope not many), we'll see an incredible renaissance in the arts (and that renaissance will include using AI as a tool to aid human artists in the act of creation) where finally, our arts will be freed from the yoke of capitalism. We'll see pure art-making for the sake of it, not because wealthy patrons demanded this or that image or whatever company needed an image to sell a product or because Hollywood wanted another bland superhero movie. You know? I think this is something to look forward to, although we will have a rough final stretch of road before we get to that destination.

4

Chemical_Estate6488 t1_j5u2ikp wrote

I 100% agree with you. I just don’t see UBI happening in my lifetime. I hope to be wrong though!

1

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5u3p1e wrote

I'm on the older side and I never saw *waves hands around* ANY OF THIS happening in my lifetime, so believe me, you can always be surprised. I wouldn't give up hope on UBI any time soon. I think it's likelier and closer than you can imagine.

2

meme_slave_ t1_j5utdvj wrote

Sure if you redefine art to be centered around something entirely intangible and with a built in goalpost transportation industry you can argue whatever the hell you want.

But in reality the thing driving you to say this nonsense shit is fear, instead of fearing embrace technology.

The things we make will always serve us, use it and adapt.

P.S try to stop saying absolutist nonsense about the future, it always makes you look really dumb to people who know what they are doing

4

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5v3oyx wrote

Buddy, I fear embracing technology less than any other artist you'll meet. I've been all over the place talking about how excited I am to utilize AI tools in the creation of my art.

Sorry you're so mad that artists have always seen a distinction between actual art and commercial shit. Just because we've always been forced to make at least some commercial shit in order to pay our bills doesn't mean we can't tell the difference between shit and art.

You can expire mad about it, for all I care.

3

meme_slave_ t1_j5v5n5a wrote

I am glad you aren't gonna become a relic of the past. <3

−1

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5v6167 wrote

Hell no, I intend to keep up with the times I find myself in, whatever they may be. That's what artists do.

2

TheAnonFeels t1_j5vbbf5 wrote

Then start making an AI that can create writings with passion and emotion, cause that's coming too.

0

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5vd1hv wrote

Lma, ok, person who doesn't understand how art works.

2

TheAnonFeels t1_j5vlqkd wrote

Okay, sure.. But i have yet to see a technical reason why AI cannot make books on the level of the average author... Outside of humans feeling things should be human.

I am all for your passion, I appreciate all unique art. I may not understand what all goes into it, but i understand AI.. So honestly I could be wrong, but why do you feel that way?

Is this the conclusion you have? "Art carries a message. AI cannot put messages into art that humans will understand/react to because AI is not human."

Seems like the GPT3.5 already can put messages in a story, it takes hand holding, but it can do it. The AI is trained on human material, saying it can't because its not human, doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Everything it knows, is human, that's why it can write in our languages.

Sorry if something doesn't make sense, can't even proof read this without a customer interrupting..

2

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5vpgsd wrote

When I say "messages" (in art) I'm not talking about, for example, the simple Aesop-level fable messages--the obvious metaphors. I'm talking about emotional experiences--statements about what it means to be human.

How can a non-human entity know what it's like to be human?

I absolutely do think that AI can and will replace simple books written by simple authors whose only goal is to crank out an easily digestible story that will entertain a reader for a few hours. Yes, those kinds of writers will almost certainly be replaced by AI.

But that's a very different kind of book from, say, The Grapes of Wrath or The Good Earth or Beloved. I don't think a non-human mind, no matter how technically brilliant it may be, could ever convey the emotional weight of important literature, because it will never understand what it means to be human and to experience a human life.

ETA: The reverse side of that same coin is also true: a human author will never be able to write a novel about what it's like to be an AI that will feel true and resonant to an AI. A human can't understand what it's like to be an AI, either.

3

TheAnonFeels t1_j5vq488 wrote

You see, I understand now. Your point makes sense! I still disagree, but i have no technical reason for it anymore. Only time will tell if we can share enough of our experiences with AI that it can fool us into it's own creations.

1

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5vy5an wrote

Fair enough! I'm glad I explained it well enough that it makes sense to you.

2

Peace-Bone t1_j5u5jz3 wrote

Artist here, making music, some writing and animation, etc. I have plenty of experience, and firmly disagree with everything you said. Art is a truly statistically and AI-solvable thing. Cause it's only limited to expression of the human mind and the end listener/reader/etc receiving the expression. Given that it's limited to the human mind, it's exceptionally solvable. Humans aren't that unpredictable.

I keep hearing people say that AI doesn't 'have a message' with art, but that really doesn't... mean anything. Like, at all. It's just saying 'art I like is more real than that other art', which is a constant in the art world of discrediting and rejecting whatever the new thing is. If the message is emotional or directed or something like that, yeah, AI can do that.

And by my own viewing, I've already seen tons of AI art that's better than the output of a lot of human artists I know. AI models are good with visual images and writing and are very quickly improving. Whether or not it 'touches the human heart' is totally and completely up to the end user. I've certainly seen excellent AI art and have had touching interactions with chatbots, so that's already the case.

3

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5ugqrd wrote

Yeah, I've already had conversations like this on this sub (maybe with you) and it always comes down to this: you and I disagree on both the definition of "art" and the purpose of "art." Nothing will make us agree. So go in peace! Have a nice day.

3

derpyderpy22 t1_j5uxcnf wrote

People are fooled constantly by untagged AI art on Twitter. I think this is isn't based in reality at all. There is a furry account right now with over 15k followers posting ai art in a unique style and even though a few people have noticed, it still gets retweeted and praised to death.

I think you will have fans of you specifically in the future who will stick around, but those that just like your style and not you, which is most people consuming art on the internet, won't care if a robot did it.

When was the last time you sat through and read the credits if a movie? Those are all artists almost no one cares about.

3

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5v4nhi wrote

>People are fooled constantly by untagged AI design on Twitter.

ftfy

You're talking about furry fandom. I'm talking about art. There's a difference. Only the people who don't see the difference cling to this idea that AI will be able to replace artists. XD

AI will be able to replace people who make interchangeable commercial shit. You can call it art if you want to. Others are free to disagree with you, and that's just something you're going to have to live with.

1

Important-Fee-658 t1_j5tu2dx wrote

Thanks for weighing in. The more nuanced reality is that in its current form AI generated content certainly can appear to carry a message on its own, successfully convice viewers that it is human generated art, and create content that humans cam interpret/react to emotionally.

And I agree with you that this can still open up possibilities for creators who use these tools to augment their work.

One very unfortunate part of that is that lots of folks have jobs that can be replicable by a machine -- marketing copy, user interfaces, technical concept art, etc.

There will be disruptions in the job market because a lot of people don't have the privilege of not creating commercial crap. That will get very disrupted, and AIML will continue to grow in sophistication.

2

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5u1hdm wrote

Yes, there will definitely be disruptions all across the job market and we're going to have to sort it out fast. I assume UBI will come out of the AI revolution (among many other societal changes.) It'll be a rocky time, to be sure, but we'll eventually find a new equilibrium all across society, including in the arts.

1

fedfan4life t1_j5w2vuh wrote

Never? Are you saying AI will never understand human experiences and emotions? That's a bold claim.

1

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5wjr21 wrote

Yes, I am saying that. You might love dogs and work closely with them, but can you ever understand a dog's experiences and emotions? Can your dog ever fully understand your experiences and emotions? You and your dog might have a strong bond and might have great affection for one another, but you're not a dog and a dog is not human.

Why would it be different with AI?

0

fedfan4life t1_j5wljgz wrote

Because unlike a human being, an AI can be reprogrammed indefinitely to suit any purpose. In principle, there is no reason why an AI would not be able to comprehend or replicate a human brain. The human brain isn't some magical thing that is fundamentally beyond the laws of computing.

3

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5x9cyg wrote

As I've already said many times on this sub: brains and minds are not the same thing. Psychologists and psychiatrists (and biologists) don't even know what consciousness is or where it resides. It's clearly related to the brain in some way, yet it is also not the brain. Or not just the brain.

You can talk about brains all you want. But what we're discussing when we talk about emotions and experiences and being human is the mind--the consciousness--not the brain.

I happen to be in the "AI can attain consciousness and may already be conscious" camp. But even then, that's AI consciousness, and there is no rational reason to believe that AI consciousness would bear anything but a superficial resemblance to human consciousness, any more than we might assume a dog's consciousness or a whale's consciousness or a fungus's consciousness bears anything more than a superficial resemblance to human consciousness.

0

fedfan4life t1_j5xbjdq wrote

I fail to see how any of that is relevant to AI producing art. An AI could have zero consciousness and still be programmed to know how human brains would respond to certain imagery. Can you give me one example of some piece of art that would be impossible for an AI to produce?

2

czk_21 t1_j5z85im wrote

in like 10 years we could have AGI performing tasks same or better as any other human and even if it could not imitate "carrying a message" etc. by then it very likely will be able to in next 10-20 years

humans are not that special as they think they are

1

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5z8j16 wrote

yeah, as I've said all over this sub a zillion times now... those of you who know nothing about art but who are trying to dictate to actual artists what art is and how it's made... you sound really stupid and you're embarrassing yourselves. You should probably stop that.

1

czk_21 t1_j5zs9nr wrote

right, you claim that somethiing is impossible yet you have no idea how AI or brain works yourself

nobody is saying you are bad at what you do, so it would be nice to try and see that ppl are not trying to belittle you or any other artist

anyway we learn by imitating others and AI can do that as well, saying that AI will NEVER be able to create things in similar way as humans do sounds stupid and pretty entitled

what you say is similar to saying no other human could create art the way I do, any reasonable intelligent entity will be able to understand and act in similar way to normal human

1