Submitted by rpaul9578 t3_yuoabr in singularity
TheForgottenHost t1_iwawwy2 wrote
Reply to comment by razorbeamz in AI Drew This Gorgeous Comic Series, But You'd Never Know It by rpaul9578
Definitely have to squint to find the problems. But the scary part is that future perfection doesn't seem that far off. I had dreams of becoming a comic artist one day. I've gotten good too. But what's the point of getting better when they'll be able to emulate any artist I respected or that influenced me?
I'm in despair, man.
Nicokroox t1_iwb77js wrote
I think we are all in despair, for artists it's a disaster whichever field you are in... Damn, even programmers will be affected with AI because she can learn to substitute real langage with code, sure there will always be the problem of interpretation, the programm won't be exactly what you wished for but that will work and everybody will be able to do what they want, sure it's progress and it's amazing to be able to make a computer learn and "understand" concepts and have this ability to be as flexible as human but it's a serious narcissm problem for us i think.
HalfbrotherFabio t1_iwbk42s wrote
I don’t think it’s necessarily narcissism problem for us. It is just an existential problem. As a human, becoming irrelevant not just in certain facets of life, but to the society as a whole and to other individuals is death-like.
BenjaminHamnett t1_iwbrfqc wrote
This just means people who didn’t master the craft get a say in story telling (programming) also. It’s actually more Democratic. This reminds me of pearl clutching marginal professional writers being displaced by the horde of amateur writers who don’t make money but get to tell their stories now through self publishing.
What if tshirt designs could only be made by people who learned silkscreening or pictures could only be taken by people who studied cinematography and film developing etc
People are mad they learned a craft to give themselves a platform but now everyone gets a platform
gangstasadvocate t1_iwbtdsc wrote
I mean it’s fine with me I have no qualms just taking drugs all day and fucking off and letting AI do everything better and with less effort and support me. I get that’s not everyone but some of us will be happy
HalfbrotherFabio t1_iwc5o1h wrote
Yes, I can imagine that for some, hedonism suffices. There definitely are plenty of people, however, for whom it doesn’t. It sort of digs into the question of what a good and meaningful human life is, and that’s the kind of question that we haven’t properly managed fo settle for the longest time. This is tricky.
gangstasadvocate t1_iwc5ufk wrote
Indeed. Glad to be hedonistic sufficient if it comes to that for me at least. Don’t know what to tell you if not, try to augment yourself with it and work with it even if it’s better than you?
blueSGL t1_iwcru4f wrote
Look at hobbies, they are done because people enjoy the activity and fruits of their labor, normally these activities go up against 'professionals' doing the same thing and don't produce as good results but people still enjoy them and do them anyway.
With a lot of hobbies it's Money goes in > Enjoyment comes out. not Time goes in > Money comes out.
Why won't post scarcity just be everyone finding those activities and doing them?
HalfbrotherFabio t1_iwctw6r wrote
That very well might be the case. It’s difficult for me to assess post-scarcity scenarios, not least because, I imagine, the end of necessary labour has significant ripple effects in other facets of life. There is, however, a certain sense of finality to (at least in my imagination) this post-scarcity world, that does not quite sit well with me.
blueSGL t1_iwd2fdu wrote
We are already in a society where you don't know the names of the vast majority of people involved with anything you have sitting around you right now, who designed your chair or desk or monitor, what are the names of the people that picked or processed the food you are going to eat this evening.
Is there some sort of additional worth that part of the process was done by human hands instead automated by machinery?
There seems to be a weird fetishization of hardship that some people have where it needs to exist in order for people to be able to enjoy themselves, they need enjoyment as a break from the drudgery of modern life and if it was given to them all the time it would not be as special.
That I feel shows a lack of imagination. In a world where you can do whatever you want you can take up multiple hobbies, get tired of doing X you can do Y, or Z or A or, AXX or whatever. A lifetime of activities you choose that are rich in challenge and differences.
Emory_C t1_iwenqsl wrote
>Why won't post scarcity just be everyone finding those activities and doing them?
Because there won't be post-scarcity. There's no indication AI like this will usher in a post-scarcity world. So, what we'll see is redundant humans with no purpose. We've already seen what a society with lots of purposeless people looks like in other parts of the world. Violence almost always follows.
blueSGL t1_iwerajz wrote
>So, what we'll see is redundant humans with no purpose
this has been covered repeatedly on here, If a % of the work force each year gets replaced by AI (either by augmenting so supply outstrips demand or flat out replacing) UBI or a similar scheme will be forced to be enacted by every government to prevent the economy collapsing and wide scale riots.
There is no reason to produce products and run services via automation if there is no longer a large enough consumer base to buy them so entire business sectors will lobby for UBI
Emory_C t1_iwfk4aj wrote
There is zero evidence that anything like “UBI” For the entire population will work, or will lead to anything other than people living at a subsistence level.
blueSGL t1_iwfp1u3 wrote
again, it would have to work, the current economic system is designed around a certain percentage of the population being able to afford goods and services. Start removing a chunk of that each year and there won't be any choice, there is not suddenly going to be more jobs to hoover those people up.
Having a lot of intelligent former workers unable to pay bills and willing to fight for a common cause is a dangerous mix, anyone who is a student of history can tell you how quickly such a thing can go bad and governments (esp ones that likely have much better AI modeling) will decide to pay people a basic income than deal with the alternative.
There will be pressure to do this both from the newly unemployed and the companies with shrinking bottom lines. Whatever solution is conceived would need to satisfies both. That may be UBI or a similar scheme. A correction of this sort would be the only option to avoid major disruption to the capitalist system. Something that would be inevitable without intervention.
Emory_C t1_iwfua4b wrote
Again, UBI will only support people at a subsistence level. What you're suggesting is basically servitude to the state.
Nemelex t1_iwdkrfp wrote
I have a similar perspective, but optimistically. For years there have been enormous projects in my head that I've wanted to create, but haven't had the time or skill to do - my hands shake, my schedule is full, there just isn't enough time to both survive and learn how to be the artist I wish I could. With generative engines like this, suddenly my chance to see my dreams come true and my creative visions brought to life skyrockets.
With the help of these tools, I can create the most genuine version of what I see in my head, and I can show the world what I see. Free from the burdens of day-to-day survival and hundreds or thousands of hours of necessary artistic practice that I simply don't have, I still get to show everyone what my imagination contains. And that prospect is exhilarating.
Emory_C t1_iweo1ue wrote
>With the help of these tools, I can create the most genuine version of what I see in my head
The most genuine version of what you see in your head would be created by your own labor, not an AI algorithm.
Nemelex t1_iweok24 wrote
My labor is my guidance of the algorithm. I'm not just asking it to give me a picture, I'm img2img guiding my own rudimentary ideas, clarifying, reprocessing, in-filling to the details of my idea. I'm clearly and closely incorporated with every part of the process.
It's like saying a house isn't a real house if you use power tools to build it and a hired architect to design it instead of doing it all yourself. Why shouldn't we rely on specialized expertise and specialized tools to help us with our creative expression the same way we do with the real world?
Emory_C t1_iwfkiiw wrote
There’s zero creativity in what you do, I’m afraid. The algorithm is just copying ideas from better minds, badly. If you truly want to be creative and show the world your vision, learn to express it in your own way. The algorithm will always, by definition, be derivative.
Nemelex t1_iwflejp wrote
The seed of the idea is mine and that's what matters. You can shout random words into the engine and get something out, sure, but you can also guide it and persuade it to make what YOU imagine. If you think that isn't true, I don't think you understand the nature of how current AI engines work on a basic level, where constant influence, interaction and tuning happens during image creation.
Also, by any definition? We are ALL derivative. Culture and society are cumulative; if I'm taught the methods of art from a teacher who was taught by a book, my art nor vision isn't lessened by the fact that my abilities have a source outside of myself. It's absurdly reductive to think "this was inspired by Van Gogh, and is therefore unoriginal," because we are collectively influenced constantly by the world around us and the things that interest us. The only difference is this can do it faster.
It also relieves the burden of physical labor significantly, which can greatly relieve the disabled. Why should an artist whose hands shake so bad they can't draw straight not be allowed to create their art with tools like this? The elderly, the infirm, the unfortunate? "If you don't make it with your own hands, it has no value" is a noxious notion to those likely already greatly suffering. You would diminish the value of their artistic expression simply on the fact that they are not physically capable of it, and I find that reprehensible.
Emory_C t1_iwfnbsz wrote
>The seed of the idea is mine and that's what matters.
No. Ideas are a dime a dozen. An idea is worthless by itself. It's the execution of an ideas that makes it unique and valuable and interesting. Since you're abdicating the execution to an algorithm, you're also abdicating your role as the creative agent.
>If you think that isn't true, I don't think you understand the nature of how current AI engines work on a basic level, where constant influence, interaction and tuning happens during image creation.
Please. 🙄 I've used all of the current AI engines and they're nowhere near sophisticated enough yet to realize even a basic idea:
- They can't show complex backgrounds, landscapes, or interiors.
- They can't generate interacting people.
- They can't draw tools of weapons.
- They can't create expressive faces.
- They can't create consistent characters.
- They can't frame shots.
And there's lots more it can't do, as well. There's no way a genuinely creative person who has a story they want to tell would find any of the current iteration useful in any way.
>Also, by any definition? We are ALL derivative.
This is a bullshit reply made by the uncreative. There are still such things as "originals." They may have drawn from the artists who came before them, but then they took those influences and made something wholly new.
The algorithms cannot do that. All they're capable of doing is mocking already existing styles.
>It's absurdly reductive to think "this was inspired by Van Gogh, and is therefore unoriginal,"
If all you made was art that seemed like a bad Van Gogh knock-off, you'd be quickly forgotten by an artist. You would need to quickly develop your own unique style. Since the algorithm cannot do this, it's destined to fail as anything other than pure kitsch.
>It also relieves the burden of physical labor significantly, which can greatly relieve the disabled. Why should an artist whose hands shake so bad they can't draw straight not be allowed to create their art with tools like this? The elderly, the infirm, the unfortunate? "If you don't make it with your own hands, it has no value" is a noxious notion to those likely already greatly suffering.
The disabled can create great art. There are numerous examples of people with physical and mental disabilities overcoming those limitations and making gorgeous music, paintings, and other artistic pieces. If you have the creative bug, nothing will stop you from creating. And there is a power in having to fight to get your true vision into the world. If you don't understand that idea, you are not an artist.
TheForgottenHost t1_iwfozyq wrote
But here's my problem. I like drawing! I like that I spent so much time cultivating this skill. I got a stack of paper the size of my fist full of straight lines to improve my motor skills. For me making comics is equal parts writing and drawing. If a machine does the second, what's the point all of a sudden? In 10-15 years, when I'm laboring away at my second issue, some upstart with a bright idea as me and no skill will completely steam roll my craft with an omnibus finished in month.
People like me are completely left in the dirt here.
Nemelex t1_iwfqani wrote
I imagine similar things happened when tailors, hand-crafting shirts, saw great industrial machines fabricating enormous rolls of cotton all at once, to be cut and trimmed into simple shirts. Would you try to stay up 20 hours a day, frantically pricking at your fingers to desperately and futilely try to keep up with the massive capacity of industrial creation? No, of course not. You can't adapt to that degree of complexity and industry. But you can handknit custom shirts, you can make skirts and hats, you can do whatever you want with your shirts.
I can insist on the value of "the soul of cooking," but I would be a buffoon if I tried to outproduce advanced, complex food factories churning out thousands of gallons a soup a day. That doesn't take away from the value of the soup I make at home - it just means I'm not gonna bring down Campbell's with my handmade food.
The same is EXACTLY true for digital art. Are you shaking your fist at people who use Photoshop, draw perfectly straight lines and use complicated vectors and shaders and filters to encapsulate particular styles and ideas in mere seconds that would manually take hours to create? Of course not. It's just a different means of artistic creation. I'm sure medicine men were angry at legitimate doctors when they brought medicine and technology and used them to save lives instead of rely on the traditional medicine men, but that doesn't mean the advancement of technology is a bad thing. It's just something to adapt to.
Your enjoyment of the creation of art shouldn't go away because other people can make art faster. It sucks to feel scared about technology taking your job away, but if you want it to be your job then adapt to the technology and use it yourself, nothing is stopping you. Just don't try to outfabricate a factory line with nothing but your hands, your wits and your plucky spirit.
TheForgottenHost t1_iwitnyt wrote
But that's the underlying problem with mechanization. It takes the personable aspects of the craft and feeds them through the machine. It's not your labor. It's just pointing in a direction and having the computer do all the work for you.
Who cares about their work more? The artisan who chipped away at every part of the toy horse for their store? Or the assembly line worker who spends all day every day making the same hindleg. One put more humanity into their work than the other by a long margin. You might say that the labor is taken out. But when you're competing with peers, in your own mechanized industry, how much of your art will you disassociate from to meet the deadline.
Who cares about their work more? The artisan who chipped away at every part of the toy horse for their store? Or the assembly line worker who spends all day every day making the same hindleg. One put more humanity into their work than the other by a long margin. You might say that the labor is taken out. But when you're competing with peers, in your own mechanized industry, how much of your art will you disassociate from to meet the deadline?
The time you put into the craft makes it.
As to your second point, of course, I'd spend hours even days laboring for my work. I and others love putting our souls, our wits, and our hurt, into our art. The act of doing as an artist is the end in itself. The fact that you would just brush it off as an example of people not 'getting with the times' just screams callousness on your part.
Also, how can you compare like art to medicine?? One is a subjective endeavor. The other is a scientific process that improves with time. Art hasn't improved with time. Its quality has always been defined by the work people put into it. Having photoshop tools is all and good, but without that crucible of dedication that so many have put themselves through, it just doesn't register the same.
Whatevers2011 t1_iws9ze8 wrote
While this is a nice idea, if the AI is great enough to make these artworks, it will become good enough to make the story as well. And through iterative data driven design, they will create works people can't get enough of. So you can make your idea, great. No one will care.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments