Submitted by TinyBurbz t3_zbbn0j in singularity
Comments
AXEL499 t1_iyqd75d wrote
I wouldn't bother with this one.
Check out their comment/post history.
SgathTriallair t1_iyrkpuh wrote
Anytime who goes to a sub to say "everyone in this sub is wing and the entire purpose of this sub is evil" is probably a lost cause, but it's relatively low effort to respond. If we never try to reach out to people we'll miss the ones that really are ready to change.
PhilosophusFuturum t1_iys7rmf wrote
Normally r/transhumanism would absorb the blows from these people, like how Jupiter absorbs the asteroids for Earth.
I personally think people who believe that a Singularity event would be a good thing should not reach out. For every receptive person, there is likely at least 10 others who would actively fight it upon learning about it. This means we could end up creating an active anti-Singularity movement. And what good does bringing new people into the fold do? Progress will continue to accelerate regardless of how many cheerleaders it has
Cryptizard t1_j0cw287 wrote
I'm not even an artist, but what is starting to make me upset about this whole thing is that people look at DALLE or whatever and go, "haha artists out of a job" which seriously underappreciates what artists do. If you made a painting where you couldn't remember how many fingers a person was supposed to have you would fail out of art school. The fact that people are saying DALLE can do as good as a real artist just shows that the vast majority don't appreciate art in the first place.
That's not to say that it won't improve, it definitely will. But its not there right now, and a huge percentage of people around here think that it is which is so fucking cringe.
fauxfinnish t1_iyrxrmt wrote
I get tired of the argument that “all artists steal from each other” being used to justify training AI on copyrighted work because the two are not equivalent in actuality, nor in their impact on artists’ livelihoods and the art industry in general. The implications of AI doing this is far worse. It’s yet another way for wealth to be shifted from the majority to the ever-shrinking minority. Philistines or luddites, none of us will win.
EDIT: Downvote all you want. I’m speaking truth. No one will win but corporations. And it’s not just the arts industry—the entire economic system is going to need to change if people are going to have an income at all.
SgathTriallair t1_iys3ej2 wrote
Marvel comics. It is absolutely 100% true that vast hordes of writers, artists, and other creative persons have read a ton of marvel comics and it impacts the style and stories they tell.
Yes, there will be companies that choose to use AI art and there will be humans who lose jobs. That is the story of automation. It isn't special to artists in any way. It's just that artists thought they were special snowflakes who could never be replaced and are realizing that ALL human activities can be replaced.
This isn't shifting wealth away from the masses. This is giving the tools of art to the masses. That is part of why AI is so exciting. I don't have any skills at drawing, but with AI driven art I can make my own art for RPGs or whatever whims I have. In the past I would need to pay for it, cajole a friend into doing it for free, or just not have the art exist.
With these new tools we will see an increase in the world of interesting art and the ability to create cool projects gets opened up.
I know that automation and the singularity especially is scary but the goal is to free humans of drudgery. We don't want to send the artists into the coal mines. We want to free the artists from the need to sell their art for money so they can create for the sheer joy of creating and not need to worry whether it's consumer friendly.
TinyBurbz OP t1_iysj442 wrote
>This is giving the tools of art to the masses
Stopped reading here. Literally everyone has the "tools of art" stop trying to gaslight people.
SgathTriallair t1_iyvs93u wrote
Then why would anyone ever hire artists in the past? If literally everyone can do what an artists does then they are already worthless. So which is it? Do artists have a set of skills that the AI is replicating or can I just get my nephew to do that for free?
TinyBurbz OP t1_iywkoik wrote
What a fucking smooth brain reply. Eat a dick
thehourglasses t1_j0d5w9r wrote
This is what it looks like when you let your amygdala respond for the pre-frontal cortex.
TinyBurbz OP t1_j0d7htc wrote
cope
LevelWriting t1_j0deztc wrote
seeth XD
Kolinnor t1_iyqdgki wrote
Bro, have a nice day, for real. I think the silent majority of this sub is not hostile to you guys.
I only see artists that are sad, that sucks. I hope one day everyone can do whatever the fuck they want without needing to get paid for it.
TheDividendReport t1_iyrkgw2 wrote
Instead of getting upset at technology, why don’t we both come together and agree that it’s time for a Universal Basic Income? Artists are displaced, not unneeded. The problem is capitalism, not technology. AI is coming from us all, and it is using data from us all. It is time for a technological data dividend
Also you are MORE that free to hate Generated art. I don’t like cubism. And I’m sick of waifus. But you are also more than free to see some cool things and maybe even use it as your own inspiration.
Peace
TinyBurbz OP t1_iysjxm0 wrote
>you are also more than free to see some cool things and maybe even use it as your own inspiration.
I dont hate AI art. I hate prompters that act like that generated images are "better than what humans can create" which is absolutely delusional because it was trained on art by humans. Not only that, but a majority of the time the images generated look like shit to someone with even slightly critical eyes.
Let's not even start on the fact that people who produce art don't want to use AI most of the time, because the production of the art is the fulfilling part. Which brings us back to the OP
TheDividendReport t1_iysm1jj wrote
Sure, a person saying that human art is now useless is an idiot, because 1. Clearly humans are still capable of insane art and art quality that outperforms AI and 2. Art is subjective by nature. Who is to say 1 persons art is better than another’s?
But I very much enjoy chiptunes. Music made by actual mechanical board sounds and video game music. A person that informed me that my enjoyment of this type of sound is poor because only vibrations from horse fiber can be considered tasteful is insane.
Undoubtably, there are a lot of toxic prompters and trolls using AI art to poke and prod the reactions of artists that have poured their souls into their own style. These people do suck, of course. But it’s a story as old as art, in my opinion, and misses the real headline: AI is going to displace more people, faster, and we all should be beneficiaries of a technology that wouldn’t be possible without our data
TinyBurbz OP t1_iysw2eq wrote
>misses the real headline: AI is going to displace more people, faster, and we all should be beneficiaries of a technology that wouldn’t be possible without our data
AI is coming for Ad generation first; something folks need to understand.
FilthyCommieAccount t1_iyvz52v wrote
Yeah that's ridiculous AI art is not better than humans right now but I would be careful with the argument it can't get better than us because it was trained on human data argument. We have models that perform at superhuman levels that were trained on nothing but human data. Really image generation and deep learning in general are young fields that are changing fast. It's very likely in the next few years we will see image generation systems approach human skill level.
Also stability AI is currently working on a completely licenced dataset in which they've either bought the rights to the art or it's copyright free. I don't think this will stop artist's anger one bit lol because ultimately it has nothing to do with perceived theft, that's just a rationalization and everything to do with the fear of replacement/unemployment or loss of the thing that gave them their identity.
TinyBurbz OP t1_iywkju4 wrote
>Yeah that's ridiculous AI art is not better than humans right now but I would be careful with the argument it can't get better than us because it was trained on human data argument. We have models that perform at superhuman levels that were trained on nothing but human data.
In what regard? What do you mean by 'better'
FilthyCommieAccount t1_iyx6lrk wrote
In the economic sense. Where instead of hiring a professional artist even for high quality artistic products in a corporate environment it would be more effective to use a machine learning model unless the client specifically wanted something handmade for sentimental reasons. Right now we're aren't there yet because AI still struggles with a lot of stuff like hands and specificity but that won't always be the case.
TinyBurbz OP t1_iyxaq14 wrote
I actually use AI for texture work myself. This tech is definitely going to displace a lot of labor.... but I have low expectations for productions who use AI for everything.
FilthyCommieAccount t1_iyxvxrd wrote
I agree short term. Ten years from now though I think there's a case to be made that the market for digital visual artists is going to look a lot like the market for work horses. Very niche and not really a viable career option for aspiring creatives. Image models will be so good by then that it literally won't make sense to employ a human to do it.
TinyBurbz OP t1_iyxxvqm wrote
>Ten years from now though I think there's a case to be made that the market for digital visual artists is going to look a lot like the market for work horses
So human made art will be an expensive highly valuable luxury item? Sounds like aspiring creatives can get very far.
FilthyCommieAccount t1_iyz695l wrote
Not really. The market will be very small. Like ask yourself was it easier making a living as a handcrafted furniture builder (or just craftsman in general) before industrialization? Yeah because now the vast majority of the market but stuff made from an assembly line. Sure there's a very small group of elite furniture builders that stuck around but in general it was bad for the people who did that for a living. This is the assembly line for digital art.
Cryptizard t1_j0cwdbp wrote
The vast majority of people on this sub, and Reddit in general, are not capable of appreciating art. That is just becoming more obvious now because of AI art generation, and it is infuriating a lot of people.
Think_Olive_1000 t1_iyr4e8f wrote
Idgaf what artists want, need, think, do. If your ability to draw is all that defines you then that's real tough pal.
SgathTriallair t1_iyqcjd9 wrote
A philistine? I'm not sure what complaint you are trying to make.
AI research clearly isn't ignoring art or pretending it is important. The current complaint of the artists is that the AI is threatening their ability to earn money by copying the artists work.
The argument by the AI researchers is that everyone steaks from each other, there has never been an artist who hasn't learned from existing art and used it to shape their own style.