Submitted by Ezekiel_W t3_xwocui in singularity
the_coyote_smith t1_ira8q1u wrote
Reply to comment by ebolathrowawayy in StabilityAI announced AI Music Generator Harmonai based on Dance Diffusion Model by Ezekiel_W
It actually has been explored. Go to any major artist whose working in the industry now, for vary large clientele, and you will see plenty of exploration.
The idea of training an AI off of data isn’t weird. But when it’s done consciously to spite actual humans who have copyright laws that are meant to protect those individuals from intellectual property theft - it’s pretty messed up.
By this same moral standard, Stability should use all the music and audio files it can get its hands on just as with visual art.
In a way - they pretty much just told the world and artists “fuck you lol”.
ebolathrowawayy t1_iraghnm wrote
> consciously to spite actual humans who have copyright laws that are meant to protect those individuals from intellectual property theft - it’s pretty messed up
No copyright laws are breached.
No one goes after artists who learned their craft by copying and learning from others. The only difference between a human copying a style and an AI copying a style is the amount of effort involved. People clutch pearls now that it can be done in seconds instead of weeks (or years if using an untrained artist).
the_coyote_smith t1_iran0wy wrote
Exactly - it’s no different.
So why not let the human do it?
I think that is the main issue.
ebolathrowawayy t1_iranxzc wrote
I'd rather have a competent model instead of a crippled one. I don't think artists should be able to stall AI progress because they think AI will take their jerbs.
AI is going to take all of our jobs eventually.
the_coyote_smith t1_iraod0b wrote
So you’re anti-human, essentially.
And art isn’t about being competent or perfect.
ebolathrowawayy t1_irapvl9 wrote
I'm just pragmatic.
> And art isn’t about being competent or perfect.
Sure if you like looking at terrible deviantart posts.
the_coyote_smith t1_irarbmr wrote
Art isn't pragmatic - lol, people have been doing it before there was monetary, pragmatic reasons to do so.
And I look at "bad" art all the time, I enjoy seeing people be creative. If you go around labeling art as "bad", or "terrible", you're just making an ass of yourself.
Again, anti-humanist behavior, and it just shows that the people who make these models are so, so very far removed from how art is actually made - and what it feels like to actually make art.
ebolathrowawayy t1_irascrq wrote
> Art isn't pragmatic - lol, people have been doing it before there was monetary, pragmatic reasons to do so.
I was responding to "So you’re anti-human, essentially." when I said I'm just pragmatic.
> And I look at "bad" art all the time, I enjoy seeing people be creative. If you go around labeling art as "bad", or "terrible", you're just making an ass of yourself.
I disagree. I mean, everyone says you can view art however you want. I choose to think that art with bad proportions, bad lighting, bad whatever is bad art. I don't shit on people for producing bad art because it's a skill that takes work to hone. I do judge it harshly though and there's nothing wrong with that.
> Again, anti-humanist behavior, and it just shows that the people who make these models are so, so very far removed from how art is actually made
I don't think you can know this unless you know the devs personally.
> and what it feels like to actually make art.
I'm an artist but not by trade. I know what it feels like to make art and using SD feels exactly the same way. I do have to use a lot of photoshop to get the exact results I want, but once I no longer need to I'm sure people like you will get mad for some reason.
the_coyote_smith t1_irawxi5 wrote
> I was responding to "So you’re anti-human, essentially." when I said I'm just pragmatic.
You're missing the point - art is a very human thing. If you'd rather allocate art commission to machines, you are directly rejecting a very essential human experience. You can feign pragmaticism all you want, but it doesn't change the 40,000 years of artistic expression humans feel need to do.
> I disagree. I mean, everyone says you can view art however you want. I choose to think that art with bad proportions, bad lighting, bad whatever is bad art. I don't shit on people for producing bad art because it's a skill that takes work to hone. I do judge it harshly though and there's nothing wrong with that.
Yeah, you can do whatever you want, but judging "bad" art never bodes well for people internally in the long run, especially artists. It's almost like you accept that it takes hard work, and that it's okay to work at making your "bad" art "good", while also judging it harshly? Why? Perfectionism? That's proven in many fields to be a very unhealthy way of living. I've seen so, so many artists lose their artistic spirit due to toxin that is perfectionism, the narrow mindedness of "good" and "bad" art, and hyper capitalisitc world views.
> I don't think you can know this unless you know the devs personally.
Emad Mostaque is very vocal on twitter and online - I don't have to know someone personally to gauge how they view me based on how they speak of people like me in interviews, tweets, or what have you. He sees you, and me (artists), as just tools who do a menial task that get in the way of progress. It's pretty clear. The sleaziness of that is the LAION data set is also pretty apparent.
> using SD feels exactly the same way
It doesn't for me. Most of the fun is the experience of making the picture come to life and reacting to what marks are made on the screen or page. Do you really think getting the image you want immediately will make you a more satisfied, better, or well-equipped artist? If you do, you're in it for all the wrong reasons, and it's not sustainable. This isn't a new idea either. Rennaissance artist knew this.
> but once I no longer need to, I'm sure people like you will get mad for some reason.
And I'm sure people like you will stop making art because it's lost all its human meaning. I keep seeing it happen, people get on Midjourney, play around with it, claim they worked really hard for 1 and half hours to perfect and an image, and a week later they've stopped posting.
ebolathrowawayy t1_irazpzf wrote
> You're missing the point - art is a very human thing. If you'd rather allocate art commission to machines, you are directly > rejecting a very essential human experience. You can feign pragmaticism all you want, but it doesn't change the 40,000 years of artistic expression humans feel need to do.
I never said art is pragmatic. I only said that in response to you saying I am anti-humanist. I agree with you, art doesn't need to have any extrinsic value. I do think creating art with AI is the same thing as creating art without it, though, in terms of the "essential human experience".
> Yeah, you can do whatever you want, but judging "bad" art never bodes well for people internally in the long run, especially artists. It's almost like you accept that it takes hard work, and that it's okay to work at making your "bad" art "good", while also judging it harshly? Why? Perfectionism? That's proven in many fields to be a very unhealthy way of living. I've seen so, so many artists lose their artistic spirit due to toxin that is perfectionism, the narrow mindedness of "good" and "bad" art, and hyper capitalisitc world views.
Every serious artist I've ever known (admittedly they were my 2 best friends growing up and a 3rd semi-bestie) had an incredible amount of self-loathing in regard to the work they produced. Particularly one of them, who ended up being by far the best among us. In order to become a good artist, I think it is essential to be incredibly critical of your own work and the work of others. Personally, I've never created something that I didn't think was complete garbage one year later. I don't know any other way someone can improve, or maybe this view is the result of improving and reviewing past work, idk. BTW, I have already noticed the create->look back->disgust loop when I'm using stable diffusion. There's more to unpack in your comment, but I think you think I still think of art in only a capitalistic world view, which I don't, so I don't see a reason to argue there. (sorry for all the thinks there, fun tho).
> Emad Mostaque is very vocal on twitter and online - I don't have to know someone personally to gauge how they view me based on how they speak of people like me in interviews, tweets, or what have you. He sees you, and me (artists), as just tools who do a menial task that get in the way of progress. It's pretty clear. The sleaziness of that is the LAION data set is also pretty apparent.
I'll take your word for it, I believe you. I just don't care if he were to use my work (I am not famous or great) or the works of others to make a powerful tool.
> Do you really think getting the image you want immediately will make you a more satisfied, better, or well-equipped artist?
I do, because once SD is better, I can do more experiments. For example, I'm already trying to generate 3D models from SD using Unity to generate images and using Meshroom to produce the mesh. Some success, but cohesion throws it off a bit. There's a delicate balance between transforming the original vs keeping coherence that I'm still trying to tune. Once successful, I could use these models in a game I'm making and that excites the hell out of me. Perhaps I can create something amazing without hiring 100 artists? That wouldn't be possible without tools like SD. It would allow me to focus on story and gameplay.
I see AI tools as just tools we can use to make better and more complicated stuff. One day I think AI will replace almost everyone's current field of work and maybe create a few new ones. I think it's inevitable and that's why I think I'm pragmatic about all this. It's going to happen whether artists like it or not.
> And I'm sure people like you will stop making art because it's lost all its human meaning. I keep seeing it happen, people get on Midjourney, play around with it, claim they worked really hard for 1 and half hours to perfect and an image, and a week later they've stopped posting.
Then they're not very imaginative.
the_coyote_smith t1_irb7ryf wrote
> I do think creating art with AI is the same thing as creating art without it, though, in terms of the "essential human experience".
That is where I believe you are wrong. The experience of making and constructing a picture is different than what you do after the picture is made. In a practical, modern sense, you are playing the role of commissioner and art director, not the hands that make the pictures.
> Every serious artist I've ever known (admittedly they were my 2 best friends growing up and a 3rd semi-bestie) had an incredible amount of self-loathing in regard to the work they produced...
You aren't wrong here, that is all internal battles we all handle. But you talk about it as a negative experience. Your friends came out better artists and I'd assume are in better mental states, yes? And you want to - automate that experience away? You just want to be super good right away no work or journey involved? I look back at my old work like looking back at a kid or old friend. I'm glad they are there, because it means I can be glad for what will come. To see your old work like that is a rather unloving and, and quite frankly, sad thing to experience.
> I just don't care if he were to use my work (I am not famous or great) or the works of others to make a powerful tool.
You should, he is actively trying to make artists lives worse.
Also, this isn't a tool. Sure, you can use it as one ignoring the obvious issues. But really, no tool is conceived or dependent on the works of others. People like to compare this to photoshop, but it is in no way the same. You still have to know how to paint and draw in photoshop. The hammer needs a hand - the hammer doesn't hit the nail itself or decides what needs to be hit.
>I do, because once SD is better, I can do more experiments. For example, I'm already trying to generate 3D models from SD using Unity to generate images and using Meshroom to produce the mesh. Some success, but cohesion throws it off a bit. There's a delicate balance between transforming the original vs keeping coherence that I'm still trying to tune. Once successful, I could use these models in a game I'm making and that excites the hell out of me. Perhaps I can create something amazing without hiring 100 artists? That wouldn't be possible without tools like SD. It would allow me to focus on story and gameplay.
I'm glad you are creating the things you want. However, let's not pretend that you couldn't have done this before this tool. If you wanted to learn to draw, or write, or make a video game, and actually cared enough to do it, you would have done it already, or have been trying to. I mean sure, you can make the argument that you don't have the money, time, or resources. But that will always be the case. You will die one day. I will die one day. We as artist have to learn to accept that we will never be able to make all the things possible that we'd want. That is a part of living.
And it's great that you can focus on the story and gameplay. This negatively impacts the visual art industry now, but how are you going to feel when the story and gameplay industry gets automated away, too?
It's sad really, when I see people say things like this, I just see a person who is experiencing intense FOMO, and trying to live forever, as if they haven't accepted that they won't and that some things just can't happen.
Also - when you say the 100-artist point - I just think of 100 potential artist losing work that they for sure deserve.
> I see AI tools as just tools we can use to make better and more complicated stuff. One day I think AI will replace almost everyone's current field of work and maybe create a few new ones. I think it's inevitable and that's why I think I'm pragmatic about all this. It's going to happen whether artists like it or not.
This whole "better and more complicated stuff" notion is weird. It's all fantasy, really. There is no way of knowing what will actually happen, but I think it's dangerous just to believe in promises that don't have any concrete plan or critical approach. Seems more like a religion of technology to me.
ebolathrowawayy t1_irb9f3v wrote
> I'm glad you are creating the things you want. However, let's not pretend that you couldn't have done this before this tool. If you wanted to learn to draw, or write, or make a video game, and actually cared enough to do it, you would have done it already, or have been trying to.
Actually, no, what I'm talking about is impossible without SD and no budget. I can code very well, draw, make pixel art and do some 3D modeling, rigging and animation. All of that takes a lot of time to do and if I want to make the game I'm thinking of I would need to hire at least 2 artists to get even close to what I want, or 20 artists to make what I truly imagine. Now I don't have to. Last week I generated 20 textures in like 15 minutes and they're actually really good textures. SD gives me the ability to create what I want without being a millionaire.
> and actually cared enough to do it,
Maybe, but I'm always pulled away from what I want to do because I have to work for a living. SD dramatically reduces the time and money requirements to make a game so I'm seriously pursuing it now.
> This whole "better and more complicated stuff" notion is weird. It's all fantasy, really.
I gave you a concrete example; using SD to create new 3D models using photogrammetry (Meshroom). That is more complicated than just generating some pictures. Creating a game and heavily using SD to do so is more complicated than generating pictures. SD unlocks a ton of freedom to do more interesting and complex things. It's not fantasy.
> There is no way of knowing what will actually happen, but I think it's dangerous just to believe in promises that don't have any concrete plan or critical approach. Seems more like a religion of technology to me.
If you look at the AI progress lately and think we won't have a near future where the majority of careers are automated then you're living in a fantasy. I'm a SW dev and I fully expect to be mostly automated out of the process someday.
the_coyote_smith t1_irbc85c wrote
> SD dramatically reduces the time and money requirements to make a game so I'm seriously pursuing it now.
Right - because now it's easy. And you work for a living. So do artists now. And now you want a piece of that too. Hence the FOMO. And it will take the work opportunities away from the other artists in the process.
It kind of is a fantasy, do you know what you will make after your game? Or what those more interesting and complex things even are?
>That is more complicated than just generating some pictures.
Wrong - it's difficult in its own way. I'm sorry, but you seem very ignorant on the actual amount of work it takes to make great imagery. This is that narrow view of art I was talking about, you are only viewing art in terms of "good", "bad", "hard", "not hard", and assigning a worth and value to it. Sad really.
I'm not denying that it can or will happen, I'm arguing that it shouldn't. Two different things.
I'm not saying this as someone who is pissed that the work I put in is not needed anymore. I'm saying this as someone who values human-made hard work, and that it is a valuable thing.
ebolathrowawayy t1_irbojxf wrote
> Right - because now it's easy. And you work for a living. So do artists now. And now you want a piece of that too. Hence the FOMO. And it will take the work opportunities away from the other artists in the process.
Well I wouldn't call it easy. Creating a game will still take a ton of work, but the art aspect is now easier yes. It has been obvious for a decade that AI will replace people. I guess I just don't care. I pursued an art degree and noped out in 1 year because it was obviously never going to be a good enough source of income for me considering the amount of work. Art degrees never were and never will be. I don't feel bad, there's a reason the starving artist trope is so prevalent. Pick a better degree!
> It kind of is a fantasy, do you know what you will make after your game? Or what those more interesting and complex things even are?
So I have to list a bunch of examples? I already gave you several concrete ones, but fine, here's what I can think of: Texture generation, pixel art, 3D model generation, music videos, integration with GPT-3 to show stories as they're told, integration with DaGAN, voice generators and GPT-3 for digital assistants, generate training data for other models, graphic design ideation, ideation in general. Is that enough? Some of these more complex steps will be superseded by new models, 3D model gen is already looking insane.
> Wrong - it's difficult in its own way.
Generating 3D models from SD outputs is novel, never been done before (until recently). It's complex, but not that difficult if you know what you're doing. I don't think complexity is the same as difficulty. SD can be used as a stepping stone to new things.
> I'm sorry, but you seem very ignorant on the actual amount of work it takes to make great imagery.
I know how hard it is. I've spent 8 hours on a single drawing before. So what? If SD let's me skip 8 hours of work to focus on more interesting things then awesome.
> This is that narrow view of art I was talking about, you are only viewing art in terms of "good", "bad", "hard", "not hard", and assigning a worth and value to it. Sad really.
I view art in many different ways, but yes of course I'm always judging it. Humans are judgment machines at their very core. I don't even know how to respond to this. Not every piece of art needs to make you stop and think about the universe. I bet you think Andy Warhol is a genius though.
> I'm not denying that it can or will happen, I'm arguing that it shouldn't. Two different things.
> I'm not saying this as someone who is pissed that the work I put in is not needed anymore. I'm saying this as someone who values human-made hard work, and that it is a valuable thing.
People are going to find things to tinker with and improve at until the bitter end. Making art easy isn't going to kill art. Making games is a form of art. If it takes 6 months to make a very polished game instead of 5 years, it's still art. And when it takes 1 month or 1 week or 1 hour to make a great game, it's still art. If we get to that point then the quality of a game will just need to be that much higher. If anyone can make a great game in an hour then someone else is going to make a better one in 2 hours and so on. Replace the word "game" with whatever you want.
the_coyote_smith t1_irbvtu8 wrote
Lol. I mean, there it is - you were going to art school for monetary reasons and not for art reasons.
Side note; I just don’t think 8 hours is very substantial. Amazing drawings can take way longer than that. Try a 25 hour drawing.
And no it’s not enough tbh - because theres tangible advantages now, but how will this effect the future? What’s the end goal, really? 10, 20, 30, 40 years down the line? Do we want to be in a world where media, art, games, shows, movies, etc are not worked on but just generated at a whim for what we want? Are we considering how this could impact the mental health of future artists or consumers?
Because we kind of already have this reality in other realms of modernity.
Like - movies and TV for example - amazing tools exits now, movies, VFX, and special effects are so advanced now. Yet - you go on the street and most people complain that everything is a reboot, or that nothing good is made anymore.
I honestly believe people want to spite artists in this way because of how hard image making can be, and we are socialized to believe this starving artist trope - yet when we see successful artists (in an age of the most commercially successful contemporary artists to every exist), we must now “democratize” it because people feel “how come they can do what they love and get paid for it, but I can’t?!?”
ebolathrowawayy t1_irc8dxz wrote
> Lol. I mean, there it is - you were going to art school for monetary reasons and not for art reasons.
No, I just realized once I was there that being poor wasn't the life I wanted and I can practice art in my own time.
> Side note; I just don’t think 8 hours is very substantial. Amazing drawings can take way longer than that. Try a 25 hour drawing.
Ok? I guess I'm not cultured enough to understand art because I didn't spend 25 hours on a single drawing.
> And no it’s not enough tbh - because theres tangible advantages now, but how will this effect the future? What’s the end goal, really? 10, 20, 30, 40 years down the line? Do we want to be in a world where media, art, games, shows, movies, etc are not worked on but just generated at a whim for what we want?
yes.
> Are we considering how this could impact the mental health of future artists or consumers?
I don't care about the mental health of future artists or consumers.
> Like - movies and TV for example - amazing tools exits now, movies, VFX, and special effects are so advanced now. Yet - you go on the street and most people complain that everything is a reboot, or that nothing good is made anymore.
Agreed. Most of the good stuff gets canceled too soon.
> I honestly believe people want to spite artists in this way because of how hard image making can be,
I think the excitement about SD is from all of the possibilities and not a plot to screw over artists.
> yet when we see successful artists (in an age of the most commercially successful contemporary artists to every exist), we must now “democratize” it because people feel “how come they can do what they love and get paid for it, but I can’t?!?”
That's true of every field of work where only the top .001% make big money. If there is a feeling of "democratizing" this, it's likely because some people get paid way too much for things, e.g. CEOs, top sports players and musicians, etc. I've never heard of people saying we should make it so everyone can sing well so that Taylor Swift makes less money though, or anything like that.
the_coyote_smith t1_ire71ax wrote
> yes
Really sad. That won’t be good life.
> I don’t care about the mental health of future artists or consumers.
Even more sad. Empathy and compassion is not just for the other person. It’s good for yourself.
ebolathrowawayy t1_ireuzpx wrote
> Really sad. That won’t be good life.
An endless stream of personalized movies, shows, games, and VR adventures that are tailored specifically to your tastes and even for what you need to grow and mature sounds amazing to me. Especially since they will be better than anything humanity can possibly create.
> I don’t care about the mental health of future artists or consumers.
> Even more sad. Empathy and compassion is not just for the other person. It’s good for yourself.
I don't feel compassion for people who yell at clouds. I feel compassion for people who have bad things happen to them through no fault of their own. IMO everyone should be preparing for the AI future instead of hiding from it. Provided we don't destroy ourselves, the future looks very promising for everyone, but there will be hiccups along the way.
the_coyote_smith t1_irgxhx3 wrote
> An endless stream of personalized movies, shows, games, and VR adventures that are tailored specifically to your tastes and even for what you need to grow and mature sounds amazing to me.
You're naive and looking past the obvious here. We already have a tiny form of this. Go on any social media - YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, what have you - and you are fed stimuli that has been personally tailored to the choices and clicks you make. And - you claim we are mentally doing well because of these things? Aren't a lot of societies facing declining birth rates, increase rates of mental health issues and suicide, and political polarization?
> Especially since they will be better than anything humanity can possibly create.
These are the fantastical scenarios I was speaking about - riddled in AI-favored rhetoric. It's very predictable and not far from a sales pitch.
> I don't feel compassion for people who yell at clouds.
Just because people don't blindly believe the same things you do, and question how to use certain system, tools, or whatever, responsibly - doesn't make them people who are yelling at clouds. Besides, why not? Show some kindness.
No, everyone isn't preparing for AI because not everyone agrees with you. It's as simple as that. I mean, hell, if you sit a person down in front of a screen and they play their favorite video game all day long, you aren't going to have a very happy, satisfied person. This is measurable right now, actually.
ebolathrowawayy t1_irj2u9t wrote
> You're naive and looking past the obvious here. We already have a tiny form of this. Go on any social media - YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, what have you - and you are fed stimuli that has been personally tailored to the choices and clicks you make. And - you claim we are mentally doing well because of these things? Aren't a lot of societies facing declining birth rates, increase rates of mental health issues and suicide, and political polarization?
I am doing mentally well. Not everyone has turned into a drone, but yes that future could be very dark.
The tech is unavoidable though, so we should be shaping it early before it gets out of hand. That's part of why I think we need to embrace this tech and not avoid it. It doesn't matter to the developers or the users of SD how much harm it does to a subset of artists because it doesn't affect them. So now is the time to debate the implications as we're doing now to help shape the development and use of AI tools. Avoiding it altogether though just doesn't help anyone. Like, have you used it extensively and built anything using SD as a foundation? The process of doing that might change your mind.
> These are the fantastical scenarios I was speaking about - riddled in AI-favored rhetoric. It's very predictable and not far from a sales pitch.
IDK, I think that future is inevitable. There's no sign of an AI winter coming, so it's only going to get better and better.
> Just because people don't blindly believe the same things you do, and question how to use certain system, tools, or whatever, responsibly - doesn't make them people who are yelling at clouds. Besides, why not? Show some kindness.
Yeah, sorry, it's hard sometimes to empathize.
> No, everyone isn't preparing for AI because not everyone agrees with you. It's as simple as that.
I think everyone should be preparing. That's why it's so hard for me to empathize with those who don't. It's so obvious to me that AI is going to first assist everyone on a daily basis and then eventually make most humans obsolete. Preparing for this might be building skills in other domains (but fuck if I know which ones, AI is coming for art and coding before more manual labor which is a shock) or by becoming an early adopter of AI tools to remain relevant.
> I mean, hell, if you sit a person down in front of a screen and they play their favorite video game all day long, you aren't going to have a very happy, satisfied person. This is measurable right now, actually.
Maybe? I haven't looked much into that. I used to play SC2 competitively for 10 hours a day with a fulltime job many years ago and it wrecked me, but I also gained some cognitive benefits that still persist to today. I don't regret those days. I don't know if it's completely cut and dry. Also, games in the future may be very different than today's if they're personalized for the individual and if there's nothing else for humans to productively do.
the_coyote_smith t1_irjxlc0 wrote
I agree we should shape it responsibly. Which means sometimes criticizing, let’s say, SD and LAION from scrapping medical records and copyrighted images from other artists who did the real work. And yes - it was knowingly done - because there is a double standard happening with Harmonai, which explicitly does collects via an opt-in approach.
https://techcrunch.com/2022/10/07/ai-music-generator-dance-diffusion/
If it’s hard to empathize, than maybe that is something you could work on.
Your points boil down to - (1) tech is inevitable so just don’t question, (2) we don’t know what could happen, (3) this tech is harmful to peoples psyche and social stability but I’m fine so just accept it. (4) leave the ones who question behind.
Like - duh, I want AI to be helpful for everyone. I want it used responsibly. I used to study Cognitive Science and NLP in college, I was all in. I want this tech to truly help everyone responsibly with just intent. But, I just don’t think gutting artists work opportunities - and creating a world where all art has the is shadow of doubt over it (I.e “was this made by a person or a robot? I can’t tell …”) - is the way to go. I just can’t imagine what good could come out of a world where someone who is suicidal picks up a phone - calls the suicide hotline - but isn’t sure if a real person is behind the phone. Hell, they may have not even bothered to call knowing it could be a robot and not a person.
ebolathrowawayy t1_irk3z1n wrote
> I agree we should shape it responsibly. Which means sometimes criticizing, let’s say, SD and LAION from scrapping medical records and copyrighted images from other artists who did the real work. And yes - it was knowingly done - because there is a double standard happening with Harmonai, which explicitly does collects via an opt-in approach.
I'm pretty sure SD didn't have time to comb through however many billions of images in the LAION dataset. I doubt SD wanted medical records in their model or if they do I'm sure they'll be happy to remove any that violate HIPAA.
Copyrighted images are fair game unless the law changes. They used it for training only. If artists' work aren't included in the training data then you get a pretty shitty model.
> Your points boil down to - (1) tech is inevitable so just don’t question, (2) we don’t know what could happen, (3) this tech is harmful to peoples psyche and social stability but I’m fine so just accept it. (4) leave the ones who question behind.
None of those are my points.
-
Tech is inevitable, I didn't say don't question
-
I have very high confidence about what will happen in the next 10-20 years. I have vague ideas about what will happen after that, but that can be dealt with when it's nearer
-
It may be harmful, but so are psychopathic CEOs and kitchen knives. It's not unique to AI. I personally don't think AI is likely to be net-harmful, even when ASIs come online
-
No, I just don't feel bad for people who lose their jobs because they couldn't see the future staring them in the face. I don't feel bad that tech lifted some 90% of the world's population out of having to do farm work all day either. They shouldn't be left behind though, UBI will be essential
> But, I just don’t think gutting artists work opportunities
They will be gutted soon with or without their work included in the training data. It might delay it by a year or less because some artists will volunteer their work and there's a lot of good work done by long dead artists that can be used. Maybe the people who are so threatened by SD should move on to making things that aren't furry porn and other basic stuff. Or learn how to use it to assist them in whatever they're doing.
> I want this tech to truly help everyone responsibly with just intent. But, I just don’t think gutting artists work opportunities - and creating a world where all art has the is shadow of doubt over it (I.e “was this made by a person or a robot? I can’t tell …”)
As a consumer of the works of artists of all kinds, I don't care whether an AI or a person made something.
> I just can’t imagine what good could come out of a world where someone who is suicidal picks up a phone - calls the suicide hotline - but isn’t sure if a real person is behind the phone. Hell, they may have not even bothered to call knowing it could be a robot and not a person.
Why would that matter if they deploy an AI for this purpose and see a reduction in suicides? If they deploy it and suicides increase then yeah sure, it failed, just stop doing that and ban that practice.
I want to live in a world that's similar to Star Trek and I think it's foolish to try to halt progress.
the_coyote_smith t1_irk7332 wrote
Yeah - I’m done arguing because it’s just clear you don’t care about people at the moment.
I’m glad you think your fantasy of living in Star Trek will happen.
I hope you find compassion and empathy one day.
FilthyCommieAccount t1_irf54go wrote
But a lot of art is pragmatic though? I never understand arguments like this. Most professional artists don't get to make whatever the fuck they want to make. They are told to make a product and they do it in order to get paid. AI media synthesis will eventually replace artists who make most of these products. Sure, there will always be a market for handmade and there will still be galleries and competitions for human made art but we won't need them to make logos, banners, 3d assets for games etc anymore and there's nothing more antihuman about that then replacing farmers with self driving tractors.
the_coyote_smith t1_irgygum wrote
I understand this perspective. However, it's not comparable to something like self-driving tractors. This is the problem I see all the time with this argument. It is reducing the art making process into something menial and tedious, or something that is a nuisance to do.
Which is incredibly insulting to artists. Because we actually enjoy doing these things. I'll tell you this, most actually successful artists have honed their craft enough to not have to worry about working on something they don't care about.
It is incredibly common for younger artists to get going on smaller gigs that they aren't as personally invested in, but they move on. It's not sustainable personally enough. It's just like anything else, really - and it happens all the time. Just go take a look at artists with online followings. Those who get stuck in this mindset of "I have to make this thing because it will get me more likes and exposure" end up burning out. The ones who stick around are the ones truly doing the thing they enjoy.
If you're working an office job you don't like, and you don't care about it at all - do you really think you'd stick around? Or be happy in the long haul?
Edit: Plus, farming physically is demanding and uncomfortable (some might find it enjoyable still, for sure). But - food is a necessity. Art is usually seen as spiritual or a luxury. I would even argue that the spiritual aspect of art is a necessity.
FilthyCommieAccount t1_irh0dmu wrote
>I understand this perspective. However, it's not comparable to something like self-driving tractors. This is the problem I see all the time with this argument. It is reducing the art making process into something menial and tedious, or something that is a nuisance to do.
As someone who has worked on a farm this is kind of offensive. Many farmers do not view their work as menial, tedious or a nuisance. I see no reason why art should be seen as intrinsically better than farm work.
>Which is incredibly insulting to artists.
You are the one with insulting assumptions here lol!
>Because we actually enjoy doing these things. I'll tell you this, most actually successful artists have honed their craft enough to not have to worry about working on something they don't care about.
There are tons of middling artists that just do what they are told and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Not everyone can be a super successful artist.
>If you're working an office job you don't like, and you don't care about it at all - do you really think you'd stick around? Or be happy in the long haul?
Dude I'm not trying to be rude but this sounds privileged as fuck. Where I'm from the majority of ppl hate their jobs and only do it because they have to make ends meet.
>Edit: Plus, farming physically is demanding and uncomfortable (some might find it enjoyable still, for sure). But - food is a necessity. Art is usually seen as spiritual or a luxury. I would even argue that the spiritual aspect of art is a necessity.
Bro the most spiritually satisfying work I've ever done by far was working on the farm. To be in direct connection to the earth, to see the seasons pass and with it the fruits of my labors. Working in an office in comparison is soul sucking but do I want the whole world to go back to non-mechanised farm labor for some spiritual reason? No that would be insanely selfish, the world benefits from increased food production at a lower cost just like the world will benefit from increased art production at much lower costs.
the_coyote_smith t1_irh2fyf wrote
> As someone who has worked on a farm this is kind of offensive. Many farmers do not view their work as menial, tedious or a nuisance. I see no reason why art should be seen as intrinsically better than farm work.
I've got some news; I've worked on a farm too - grew up on two. And I addressed this - I did state that there are people who find joy in and that is valid. I think that was a quick emotional response, honestly. But we'd be having a different conversation if you forced the farmer to use a tractor.
> There are tons of middling artists that just do what they are told and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Not everyone can be a super successful artist.
There isn't anything wrong with doing something you need to do for survival. But, for your art practice nothing will kill it quicker. Again, this is predicated on the notion (that I prescribe to) that Art is a unique thing that isn't like a lot of "work".
> Dude I'm not trying to be rude but this sounds privileged as fuck. Where I'm from the majority of ppl hate their jobs and only do it because they have to make ends meet.
Hey, I do too. I do work a job I don't care about, I'm about to start another one to save more money. I'm from a place where this reality is the same. But I don't care what everyone else does. I will fight to do what I love - I won't give in. Period. Plus, this is an envious take. Just because some people have to work jobs, they don't like doesn't mean that should be the case for everyone by force; it sounds like "If I can't do the thing I love and make money, then no one can." Besides, I'm on the side for letting people do the things they love and make a living off of it - if you force art as a hobby for everyone I don't really see how that is fair. It feels like "knocking-down" instead of "bringing-up" people.
> No that would be insanely selfish, the world benefits from increased food production at a lower cost just like the world will benefit from increased art production at much lower costs.
Exactly, this is why I said farming is different from Art, in that it's a necessity. I admit that art only exits by spiritual, and luxury means.
You keep ignoring things that I blatantly admit.
FilthyCommieAccount t1_irh4tts wrote
>I've got some news; I've worked on a farm too - grew up on two. And I addressed this - I did state that there are people who find joy in and that is valid.
If you think it's valid then why are you trying to put art in a priveledged position over farm work? Both can be spiritual, both can lead to self actualization.
>I think that was a quick emotional response, honestly. But we'd be having a different conversation if you forced the farmer to use a tractor.
But farmers are forced into using tractors... The majority of the market isn't organic. They are forced to use all sorts of automation or they get priced out. So it's ok to put manual farmers out of work even though they find just as much spiritual value in what they do but not artists for some reason? Why are artists priveledged? in some ways art is easier thing to continue doing for your own enjoyment than farming or gardening as those require land and or capital to do as a hobby whereas art usually requires much less.
>There isn't anything wrong with doing something you need to do for survival. But, for your art practice nothing will kill it quicker. Again, this is predicated on the notion (that I prescribe to) that Art is a unique thing that isn't like a lot of "work".
You can't have it both ways here. Just earlier today I was listening to an artist complain (rightfully so by the way) that friends/family always ask them to make them stuff for free and they get mad because their friends and family don't understand that it's work not just something done for enjoyment. Making art is work, it may sometimes be nice work to do, something you would prefer to do over other forms of work but it's still 100% work or those friends and family would have a legitimate case in asking for free shit.
>Hey, I do too. I do work a job I don't care about, I'm about to start another one to save more money. I'm from a place where this reality is the same. But I don't care what everyone else does. I will fight to do what I love - I won't give in. Period. Plus, this is an envious take. Just because some people have to work jobs, they don't like doesn't mean that should be the case for everyone by force; it sounds like "If I can't do the thing I love and make money, then no one can." Besides, I'm on the side for letting people do the things they love and make a living off of it - if you force art as a hobby for everyone I don't really see how that is fair. It feels like "knocking-down" instead of "bringing-up" people.
If you do too then why the hell are you asking if people would stay at a job they hate lol? You know what happened to manual farmers and the other luddites of the past that tried to break the looms? You can fight all you want but when these tools get to a point where you can generate more human level high quality content in 10 minutes than professional artist could in a lifetime for less than a hundred dollars there's absolute no way you can stop it. I'm not trying to be rude, I'm not trying to be a dick. This has happened to tons of groups throughout history, in a sense it's one of the main stories of civilization. I see no reason why it's ok for manual textile workers and farmers to get replaced by machines but artists can't. Artists have the same inherent value as the other people who were displaced. They should get no special priveledge or exemption. And again, human made art will still exist and the primary purpose of it will be for expression instead of making it into a commodity to be bought and sold.
>Exactly, this is why I said farming is different from Art, in that it's a necessity. I admit that art only exits by spiritual, and luxury means.
Yes a luxury good whose price will crater and availability skyrocket if automated. Why do you want art to have artificial scarcity? How is society better off in a world where it's significantly slower and more expensive to make video games, movies, tv shows, character art for d&d etc?
the_coyote_smith t1_irhbbo1 wrote
> If you think it's valid then why are you trying to put art in a priveledged position over farm work? Both can be spiritual, both can lead to self actualization.
I didn't - because I think if someone wants to farm manually, they should have the availability to live a good life, economically to do so. Not just as a hobby.
> You can't have it both ways here. Just earlier today I was listening to an artist complain (rightfully so by the way) that friends/family always ask them to make them stuff for free and they get mad because their friends and family don't understand that it's work not just something done for enjoyment. Making art is work, it may sometimes be nice work to do, something you would prefer to do over other forms of work but it's still 100% work or those friends and family would have a legitimate case in asking for free shit.
I want to work, and in the future, I want work. That's the fucking point.
> I'm not trying to be rude, I'm not trying to be a dick.
You may not be trying to, but you're not being very understanding of the artist perspective. Like, for me personally, I went to college for something I hated, because I thought (and was told) art wouldn't be a good career option. Then the depression and thoughts of suicide kicked in, I went and got help, dropped out of the MA that I hated being in, and decided to work odd jobs and do art on the side so that maybe I could have a future where I did care about my work. And this is taking a shit on that too. So, I do take it rather personally when I get called entitled, naive, privileged, or whatever the fuck else that diminishes the hours of lost sleep, blood, sweat, and tears I gave to be here right now.
You are right in that this is the course of history. But I ask - who's side are you really on here? Do you think artists deserve a good life or not? Because I do. Art is the actualization of beauty, changes so many lives, and helps a lot of people. I'd hate myself to be on the side against those individuals.
FilthyCommieAccount t1_irhdvoe wrote
>I didn't - because I think if someone wants to farm manually, they should have the availability to live a good life, economically to do so. Not just as a hobby.
But this is utopian. Society doesn't have the resources to just let people do whatever the fuck they want for a living regardless of it's efficiency, cost or societal utility. Like what, tax payers should prop up people who want to produce food at 10 times the cost for no societal benefit?
>I want to work, and in the future, I want work. That's the fucking point.
Me too bro. So did all the textile workers, the elevator and switchboard operators etc. But shit gets automated and we aren't sad really sad about their loss are we because overall society was better for it.
It's shit and it's unfair but society isn't going to lose out to benefit a very small proportion of the population. You're gonna have to reskill in something else or adapt to AI and use it as long as you can before getting replaced.
>You may not be trying to, but you're not being very understanding of the artist perspective.
I can't personally understand but I do sort of get it and have sympathy for the position y'all are in. It just doesn't change my opinion. Do you know how many jobs were automated during the industrial revolution? Do you even understand the scale of the human suffering that happened during that time period? And acknowledging all that pain and suffering it was still worth it.
>Like, for me personally, I went to college for something I hated, because I thought (and was told) art wouldn't be a good career option. Then the depression and thoughts of suicide kicked in, I went and got help, dropped out of the MA that I hated being in, and decided to work odd jobs and do art on the side so that maybe I could have a future where I did care about my work. And this is taking a shit on that too. So, I do take it rather personally when I get called entitled, naive, privileged, or whatever the fuck else that diminishes the hours of lost sleep, blood, sweat, and tears I gave to be here right now.
I didn't call you privileged because you're an artist. I said your assumption that most people do something they like is 100% untrue. Just think about all the developing countries in the world, the poverty, the lack of education etc. Do you really think those people are doing something they want to do? Hell no, they get their meaning from their family, their friends etc. Closer to home think about most middle class and lower class jobs. Do you think stocking shelves is fulfilling for most people? How about plugging numbers into a spreadsheet or how about weilding two pieces of metal together in a tin can at a 110 degrees Fahrenheit like my father's done since he was 16? The typical experience is to dislike your job.
>You are right in that this is the course of history. But I ask - who's side are you really on here?
I'm on societies side the vast majority of whom are not artists.
>Do you think artists deserve a good life or not?
Of course I do. Do you think elevator operators deserved a good life back in the day? Do you think we should have kept them around because you wanted them to have a good life?
>Art is the actualization of beauty, changes so many lives, and helps a lot of people.
And organic farming is not only a direct connection to the earth but to our ancestors. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be so automated.
>I'd hate myself to be on the side against those individuals.
Again, no one is saying artists won't be able to create or express themselves. They just won't largely do it for money. They will largely do it as a hobby without monetary incentive and have to reskill into another trade just like everyone else that's been automated. You keep putting artists on a pedestal. Why do you think an artist has more inherent value as a person than say a truck driver? Which is another job that will be automated in the coming years?
the_coyote_smith t1_irhehp8 wrote
> I said your assumption that most people do something they like is 100% untrue.
I never said it was - I said that most people want to do something they like - which you claimed was entitled.
>Just think about all the developing countries in the world, the poverty, the lack of education etc. Do you really think those people are doing something they want to do?
And you know what they do? They fight like hell to get out of it.
> I can't personally understand but I do sort of get it and have sympathy for the position y'all are in. It just doesn't change my opinion.
Okay - good for you, I guess.
> Of course I do. Do you think elevator operators deserved a good life back in the day? Do you think we should have kept them around because you wanted them to have a good life?
Yes - if they truly had the passion for it.
> They just won't largely do it for money. They will largely do it as a hobby without monetary incentive and have to reskill into another trade just like everyone else that's been automated.
Alas, the art itself suffers as a result.
FilthyCommieAccount t1_irhfvlw wrote
>I never said it was - I said that most people want to do something they like - which you claimed was entitled.
Then this is just a case of classic misunderstanding. Let's move on because I'm not saying it's bad or entitled for people to want to do something they like. It would only be entitled if they expected society to supply them with that even if it were a detriment to society.
>And you know what they do? They fight like hell to get out of it.
No they don't lol. Do you think the even a sizable portion of those in the developing world try to emigrate?
>Yes - if they truly had the passion for it.
This is comical. So in your ideal world society is just made of money and instead of trying to fill socially useful roles with qualified candidates ppl should just do whatever the fuck they want? Like if I want to make mudpies for a living the state should pay me to do it? Do you really think a society like that would be prosperous in the long run?
>Alas, the art itself suffers as a result.
If the art suffers then it was never about self expression or actualization etc. in the first place. Because it will still be possible to do human made art without a monetary incentive.
the_coyote_smith t1_irjzixb wrote
> No they don’t lol. Do you think the even a sizable portion of those in the developing world try to emigrate?
Yes? Have you see the USA’s immigration situation? Lol.
Like sometimes shit hits the fan and it’s hard, but don’t act like people don’t actually try and emigrate from 3rd world countries. I know of artists who are from poor as hell countries, who had a family and did their artwork at night when the electricity is off and everyone was asleep - and now they work in the industry here in the West. I don’t really think the amount of people who do that really matters, it’s clear people do it haha. I had an Uber driver from Rwanda the other day.
> This is comical. So in your ideal world society is just made of money and instead of trying to fill socially useful roles with qualified candidates ppl should just do whatever the fuck they want? Like if I want to make mudpies for a living the state should pay me to do it? Do you really think a society like that would be prosperous in the long run?
Funny you bring this up because one of the pillars of the pro-AI, pro-Singularity rhetoric is the need for UBI. Which would very much be in line with your scenario here. AI would take all jobs, everyone has UBI, don’t have jobs, and we just … chill I guess? If we embraced the AI with no question - than yes you could make mudpies all you want.
> If the art suffers then it was never about self expression or actualization etc. in the first place. Because it will still be possible to do human made art without a monetary incentive.
I agree. I just fear that it will destroy the incentives for the kids of the future to pick up a pencil.
Like it has already for so many people (not everyone or everywhere, of course - where I’m from art is laughable but other places, it’s much more of a respectable job prospect). But, some of the most insane art exists right now because of the entertainment industry, and a world where you could be monetarily compensated for your hard work.
FilthyCommieAccount t1_irk2ar8 wrote
>Yes? Have you see the USA’s immigration situation? Lol.
Yeah and guess what? It's absolutely dwarfed by the developing world. Most people in the developing world aren't putting in emmigration applications. Now would they choose to move if given the opportunity? Certainly a higher number of them would but I'd still guess not the majority because their language, culture, customs, traditions and family are more important to them. Most aren't trying to escape they just make do with what they have.
>Like sometimes shit hits the fan and it’s hard, but don’t act like people don’t actually try and emigrate from 3rd world countries.
I never said ppl don't try it's just that the majority don't. Do I need to go pull up emmigration applications statistics?
>Funny you bring this up because one of the pillars of the pro-AI, pro-Singularity rhetoric is the need for UBI. Which would very much be in line with your scenario here. AI would take all jobs, everyone has UBI, don’t have jobs, and we just … chill I guess? If we embraced the AI with no question - than yes you could make mudpies all you want.
Do we currently live in a world where all labor is automated? So why would you pay people to do socially useless jobs? It's one thing to give support to ppl who were displaced by AI and help them get new skills. It's another to start hiring switchboard operators again. Like I said it's absolutely comical.
>I agree. I just fear that it will destroy the incentives for the kids of the future to pick up a pencil.
Again then their hearts were never in the right place to begin with according to you.
>...some of the most insane art exists right now because of the entertainment industry, and a world where you could be monetarily compensated for your hard work.
This is kind of my point actually. Most professional art really isn't about self expression anyway. It's been so marketized and commodified that it's just a product. Very few people know a specific animator because it doesn't matter who made it to them, what their background is or what they went through in their childhood etc. It's literally a commodity in the true sense of the word just like corn or oil. If the monetary incentive went away human made art would be more about self expression again.
the_coyote_smith t1_irh33y0 wrote
Also; I find it strange to call someone entitled to want happiness for themselves. A little odd.
FilthyCommieAccount t1_irh5q19 wrote
I didn't call you entitled I said it was privileged because many people (I'd argue most) perform jobs they don't want to in order to survive. So saying something like " do you really think you'd stick around if you didn't enjoy your job" comes off as detached from the normal reality of working class folk.
the_coyote_smith t1_irha2nq wrote
I mean - I just plainly disagree. By your logic, we should be happy with terrible work just because that's how it is?.
> I didn't call you entitled
You kind of did. You claimed my take was entitled for simply wanting a good life for myself by working in something I love. Silly.
FilthyCommieAccount t1_irhbl7z wrote
>I mean - I just plainly disagree. By your logic, we should be happy with terrible work just because that's how it is?.
No, I'm saying the primary purpose of work is to make a living. If you can find enjoyment while doing it that's great but that isn't the primary aim either personally or societally. Society has no obligation to provide you with a fulfilling job especially if that job could be automated and produce something of the same or greater quality at lower cost and more of it to boot.
>> I didn't call you entitled > >You kind of did. You claimed my take was entitled for simply wanting a good life for myself by working in something I love. Silly.
Only if you think using the term white privilege also conotes entitlement? Privilege and entitlement are different concepts. I would much rather you respond to my other post because the discussion is more substantive then accusations of name calling. My point wasn't to offend you. I was trying to point out that lots of ppl don't have a job they are passionate about and yet their lives go on. Should society suffer in order to provide emotionally meaningful employment to people? Or should they find meaning outside of their jobs instead?
the_coyote_smith t1_irhbun0 wrote
I mean - I think society and people suffer if people have no meaningful employment.
Who said anything about being white?
FilthyCommieAccount t1_irhem76 wrote
>Who said anything about being white?
No one. I was referring to the concept of white privilege in order to show that privilege is not synonymous with entitlement.
Edit: Most people do not have "meaningful employment" in that they feel fulfilled by their job. And if society made that a goal what are we supposed to reemploy switch board operators, elevator operators, etc?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments