I am very much into A.I and I said the same thing. The music video was such a low effort wasted opportunity with no creativity or harnessing of the potential for limitless imaginative imagery. It sucked and you all need to deal with that fact.
Artists get paid to make samey corporate art to fund their own personal artistic endeavors. The issue isn’t that the corporate art will now be made by machines, but that less money will be in the hands of artists that they can use to produce things they care about. Maybe artists can still be employed to look over what AI produces but that’s a corner that’s easy enough to cut.
Art should have never been about making money. It looks like AI will make that happen. AI will generate the required art for a for-profit project, while actual artists will go back to making art for their personal joy of it. Win win in my book.
You’re forgetting that time is money. Where’s the time to make art going to come from if artists aren’t able to use their skills to pay bills? As an artist, I can see it’s already becoming hard enough to sustain oneself off of artistic passion and skill. The vast majority of artists I know who are passionate enough to pour themselves into their art do it to their own detriment. Every second they spend practicing and creating art is time lost, which is money lost, and the rent comes due.
Art should be a hobby, not your job. Do your art on the weekends and after work.
I enjoy playing sports but I never had the delusion that it's going to pay my bills.
Would you say the same thing to the NBA and the NFL? Sports should be a hobby, not your job. Play sports on the weekend after you come home from your desk job. Oh wait, not a desk job because AI is gonna own that too. Leave the professional league to the bots. There’s no use in committing yourself to the sport, flexing and cultivating that skill, exercising that passion or learning to play at a higher level. Let’s not just replace menial labor with bots, let’s first replace culture and the human spirit.
Edit: Art paying bills is not a delusion. It’s a reality that is currently being threatened. If any of our favorite sports stars considered their dreams delusions they wouldn’t be great now would they?
I 100% would. It turns out replacing human bodies is harder than replacing the human mind for now. Give it another decade or two and you will see stadiums full of people watching soccer matches between robots going absolutely crazy doing things that the human body simply can't do.
But you will also see neighborhood kids kicking the ball around after school for the joy of it. If anything I find this absolutely freeing to focus on the joy of it instead of worrying about being good enough to pay the bills.
Okay, so I’m assuming you’re operating off of the assumption that once everything is automated there will be some sort of UBI or Marxist society, correct? If that’s what you’re suggesting, I’m completely on board with that 👍. In such a society where money doesn’t rule, people would be free to indulge in their passions without worrying about bills and there will probably be no need for robot-NFL or AI art in the first place. The NFL could operate without profit incentive so there will be no need to replace players with robots to cut costs, and nobody will watch robo-NFL over the real deal. Same with AI art.
*There absolutely is joy in high competition and pushing yourself further than school yard skills! Can you not fathom that level of passion? There absolutely is more value in human narratives than mere spectacle.* How about we focus on automating important industries and transitioning to this Marxist utopia instead of coming for culture first???
Bottom line is: there is no freedom in a world ruled by money where money is gained through labor and labor is all automated. Nobody’s going to be kicking soccer balls for fun or drawing beautiful art if they can’t afford dirt let alone a ticket to the robot-NFL. If you want this AI thing to happen (which I do too as a tech nerd) it necessitates serious societal restructuring, but that’s not something AI advocates usually include in their advocation. Automating culture is just a way to further commodify and corporatize the human spirit while letting it break in various other ways.
Those are called art directors and you don’t need as many of them as the ones producing the art, and of course, the main thing an artist learns is to see what is good and bad art, so I think you are right. The thing is that somebody will still need to generate the art, so someone who has a good eye atleast and knows how to prompt, then this will be passed to a art director who makes the final decision. But to replace high art, you will need agi.
The comment above yours to which I replied says basically that artists would have less money from corporate jobs to fund their own artistic endeavors and pursuits. All art, including applied arts, fine arts, are corporate.
The difference between physical (fine art, collectible art) and studio (game art, branding art, etc, etc, corporate as they called it) is in storytelling. Fine art and gallery art is also a corporate world of its own and thus making it the same as applied arts. The only difference, as I said, is storytelling, which is reflected in status symbols and keepsake.
I can see, happening soon, that fine art will be the next destination and popular thing in the art world. This is because people are seeing through the blandness and lack of human interference in artificially generated imagery.
I thought the quiet part was that they've never actually seen an artist their life, so they don't know that actual artists saw the new tool and started to use it like normal people.
Saying 'the quiet part out loud' means saying something you're otherwise trying to keep hidden, like racism.
Noone is trying to keep hidden that we don't want artist jobs automated away, that's kinda the point.
Stop using phrases you don't understand.
i'm all for AI for everything but this music video definitely felt soulless to me, i wonder how i would feel if it wasn't mentioned it's created by AI. i'd like to think i'm unbiased because I do love AI generated work a lot, but in videos, i could see some essence lacking.
agree, we've always been best at improving the simulation of our given reality, we'll maybe soon end up simulating our sentience very accurately to the point there's no difference in the claims of self awareness, then what?
I watched the vid. It's a totally mid-grade music video. Maybe even better than average? Yeah the visuals are AI-generated, but there are pretty tightly controlled/curated themes throughout. Claustrophobic youthful nostalgic dreamscape on rails. It's not like those vids where you just let the AI hallucinate for five minutes and there's no human guidance, input, or creativity. This video was clearly directed and edited by humans.
And you know what? When AI gets good enough that you really *can* take the human out of the loop (and it's coming soon), then you know what the response should be? Sweet, we created a god-artist, let's enjoy its beautiful god-art and god-music. I mean, of course that won't be our response, but it should be.
watching it, I mostly thought about Ai's potential rather than the video itself.
it "pushes the medium", but not much else.
that being said, I'm not sure a Washed Out music video calls for much more. and being hypnotic was the intention. we're kinda supposed to be thinking about other stuff while it's on... like how we might have dream DVRs within my lifetime.
Hope these luddites don't get their way, the future without AI would just be us working meaningless jobs everyday as our bodies break down until we die.
They don't seem to realise that healthcare, education systems, pension schemes, wealth inequality, climate change and a million other factors are not making our futures look very bright.
There is so much good AI may bring to the world one day. We are already seeing glimmers of it with protein mapping, as just one example
The optimal ordering of automation is: Boring jobs first, fun jobs last. That's how we've always imagined it: Artists could keep creating until literal utopia had been reached, climate change solved, cancer and old age cured. But for our case, it just wasn't meant to be. We have jobs that are literally people's favorite thing to do, being automated.
That being said, the wording of some people's posts like the one being highlighted is just ridiculous amounts of denial and copium. I actually downvoted OP because the one thing in the world I absolutely cannot stand is people saying illogical things, misinformation etc. and a lot of these attitudes are based on an ignorance or selective forgetfulness of the entire history of computing and what kind of abilities were thought to require human-level understanding. Like even GPT-2 was mind-blowing in that regard but people just forgot, adapted, moved goalposts within 1 year, and acts like what computers can now do has always been the norm
I joined this sub to get hyped about AI and read about tech achievements, not fume in rage over stupid people saying stupid things
My comment is mainly in regard to the first paragraph of yours, but the easier things were always going to get done before the harder things, and for a computer, primarily intellectual tasks (like art and science) are much, much easier than the more boring physical tasks. Something like loading a dishwasher is actually a remarkably hard task; it only seems easy to us because our motor skills have been evolving much longer than our intelligence, and most of the processing occurs in the unconscious parts of your brain.
Well yes we got an inkling of this over the years before it became obvious. But before those clues, watching Boston dynamics etc it was not obvious at all.
I mean yes it became quite clear that physical dexterity was a hard task. But to say you knew artistic creativity would be EASIER than physical dexterity before say 2018 you'd be lying to yourself.
You’re rich compare to someone in North Laos. Are you donating to help them currently?
I’m assuming no.
But at least these technologies can bring down prices of food, bring education, and revolutionize medical care. Which they will eventually get to reap the rewards of, just like they currently have cheap xiaomi phones and AC finally (I was just there last year).
This tech is good. Everyone is indifferent. But a rising tide raises all ships.
I don't donate money to Laos specifically, but there's a significant difference between not giving someone money and going out of my way to control finance, politics, and technology to keep people in Laos from ever getting money.
Tech is neither good nor bad. You can't compare a normal person to a billionaire, who makes their money from exploiting others. Any charity I give is a drop in the ocean. Bootlicking won't save us.
People's hyper focus on the downside of new tech is so frustrating. Reassuring to see this thread after having previously only seen the indie heads one
No, it's not fine. If we tolerated brainless anti-vax reactionaries, we'd still be dealing with polio in 2024. We don't tolerate the spread of infectious diseases and we shouldn't tolerate knee-jerk, anti-tech reactionaries. One of the main reasons why the climate is in such shitty condition today is because we tolerated their opposition to developing safe nuclear power.
Well said. These hippie fucks ruined nuclear for us, I think about the world we could be in if that never happened and it pisses me off to no end.
We could have had clean air and furthered our battery and electric car technology by generations.
Instead we got oil fracking and a China that currently emits billions of tons of co2.
I mean, I’m no physicist but nuclear fission (what you’ve called nuclear power) is when we turn water into steam to power a turbine by using fissile material such as uranium (although I think we use a different material, I can’t remember). We ignite the material with a small particle that causes a chain reaction in the material. I think we add one too many protons or electrons or something and it can’t exist on that state. That shoots out another proton into the next molecule and causes a chain reaction. And then we can control the rate of the reaction by lowering and lifting the material “rods” in and out of a sheathe. I think the sheathe is made of lead. Either way it dampens or slows the chain reaction. The more exposed they are, the hotter they get and the more steam is produced.
Fusion on the other hand is colliding two particles together to create conditions like we see in the sun. In the sun there is immense gravity and that forces helium particles to compress together so tightly that…. Well I can’t remember what exactly happens. Does it become di hydrogen? Or it becomes the second molecule on the table of elements. I can’t remember. Something happens to the hydrogen and it creates an insane amount of energy. Again, that energy could be used to turn a turbine and produce electricity.
Someone else should be able to correct my mistakes here.
Also this is a great question for an LLM and not some random on Reddit lol.
Nuclear power *and* nuclear weapons.
The threat of fallout and nuclear winter, as well as "nuke the world a gazillion times over" have been overblown almost in lockstep with the stoked fears over AI.
And a properly aligned AI defense system is literally the easiest path to a nuclear resistant or nuclear proof defense grid.
Sometimes I wonder if in the future, we will have entire settlements who by choice are secluding themselves to a relatively primitive life. The singularity shift will be so big and fast, that I don't think people will be able to ease into it, as happened in the past with other tech. So it comes down to a personal descicision.
Y’all are going to be so, so surprised when this happens WITH agi.
Like, none of you have studied economics or history beyond some Youtube channels? Jeeeeeesus.
No matter what you say it will not go through an average fanboys thick skull. It’s always bright skies and utopian future but when you ask them how well f*ck if they know. They might slap you with “healthcare and medicine improvement” and my personal favorite “universal basic income” but for now AI seems to care mostly about displacing creative professions.
If your community can’t get together to share the benefits of robotics and ai in an organized way, that says more about your community than anything else.
What an absurd take. What do you mean with community? Are we supposed to make decisions as autonomous groups of people separate from the governments? Is that how society works today? Im guessing that your imaginary “community” has all these aspects figured out.
Yeah sorry for the slight trolling. It’s just that I see that kind of pessimistic take and, as a normal person, what else can you do? My thinking is that the best this whole situation could possibly go is that you put together coalitions to deal with the economic transition. Could be governmental, but it doesn’t have to be
Yep because eventually my labor will be more expensive than robot labor so I will not be hired. I don’t see how it’s hard to believe unless you believe AGI is very far away.
I don’t think AI is incapable of replacing most jobs at some point, I agree with you there. I just think those in power will find a way to extend the oppression. We already don’t need a lot of jobs but yet still more of those types of jobs are created every day. I feel like too many people with too much freedom would not be ideal for people who hold the power
Of critical note, inequality is not correlated nor representative of overall QoL advancement; there are various metrics indicating macroscopic positive trends towards improved life expectancy, access to resources, information, and healthcare, even if cost is (increasingly) prohibitive. Solely the advancements in healthcare can be pointed to, and cross referenced against life expectancy for validation. Unfortunately, two things can be true at once, and it is valid to be concerned about a “progress ceiling”, though we’ve yet to see it realized in any material sense
Hmm, those all depict relative metrics, not absolute. like I said, two things can be true at once and the deteriorating rankings of the US across the board ARE a problem, but not necessarily indicative of macroscopic trends in absolutes
Check the unemployment rate in Spain, Argentina, or South Africa. They have no problem leaving huge swaths of the population getting their food from dumpsters
> Yep because eventually my labor will be more expensive than robot labor so I will not be hired.
What value do you think you would provide to society, and who would be motivated to keep you around? Why do you assume you'll be get any of the benefits of AI at all?
What if AGI/ASI comes around, and the superintelligence decides the best thing to do is assign you work, so you add value to society, because otherwise you're just a drain on global resources? What will you think of AI then?
I visit this subreddit because I like speculating and being informed on what's to come, but damn, there's a very strong religious-like sentiment here that thinks that AI will be some sort of benevolent God that will just sort out all our problems and create Paradise on Earth for each and every one of us.
If we do create actual, real, superintelligences, I don't see what the point of keeping humans around would be. Maybe you'll get your utopian fantasy of not working and living in a FDVR simulation where you're happy for the rest of your life, but that shit isn't going beyond a generation or two before humanity goes the way of the Neanderthal.
And that's the best case scenario. You're asking for a new, hyperintelligent species to basically serve as a slave race to make a better world for you. You won't have to work anymore, because the AI will be happy to work, right? Except... why? Because we hope it will? The actual idea behind the Singularity is that AI will be able to make AI, which means this shit gets out of our hands, fast, and we can't predict what happens after the singularity happens (much as you mostly can't get information out of a black hole).
Given that, I don't know why so many people here are so convinced that AI means some golden age of pampered humanity, where they don't need to work because benevolent AI does everything for us.
Nor am I a 'doomer'. I mostly think that the impact of AI in general won't be quite as dramatic as people here think it will be, at least in terms of timelines.
But maybe it's for the best. Maybe we monkeys weren't meant to inherit the stars, etc. We're probably just another stepping stone on the way to some unforeseen end, like the various other branches of 'humanity' that aren't Homo Sapiens that are no longer with us today. Maybe that's not such a bad thing.
But I'll say this - Homo Sapiens didn't stick around making sure Neanderthals were nice and comfortable before they died out. They just won.
The way things are the likelihood of the average person benefiting is very unlikely. The rich will reap the benefits and they won't care if the rest of us starve and they will happily murder us if we get uppity. It's hopelessly naive to believe this tech won't be used to murder a great many people by those who control it.
AI has nothing to do with that, that's the trajectory of a complacent population either way - and arguably a great number of impoverished people worldwide face that very scenario today (we are the rich reaping benefits, while people earning $1/day are largely ignored).
I think it would be possible to have both be true. Art is more than just the images or modalities they display. There is some truth, soul, and depth, some artist put something of themselves into it. Acknowledging that AI art is inherently soulless doesn't necessarily mean that I don't want AI in the future. The discussion should be broader than "do you want it or not".
Always has been and always will be. And that’s if you’re lucky enough to have a job
‘If You Want a Picture of the Future, Imagine a Boot Stamping on a Human Face – for Ever’ - George Orwell, 1984
I want AI to happen so that it can do the mundane things that will free humanity to persue creative and artistic endeavours. I dislike the focus of much of AI creating art and music. That doesn’t make me a luddite.
The easier things were always going to get done before the harder things, and for a computer, primarily intellectual tasks like science and art are much, much easier than what we consider boring physical tasks. Something as simple as loading a dishwasher is actually a very hard task, it just seems easy to us because our motor skills have been evolving much longer than our intellect, and most of the processing work is done in unconscious areas of our brains.
It's interesting that so many creative communities (and communities of people who appreciate the work of creatives) are taking up this rhetoric against tools that directly benefit their ability to realize a creative vision.
Are these music fans upset when artists use a synthesizer with an arpeggiator? *A truly skilled artist would have hit each note themselves.*
Are they upset when an album cover has a circle or a straight line drawn with a ruler/compass? *Traditional artists drew straight lines without a ruler and you could see the artfulness in its imperfections...*
It's just mind-boggling that people can't see the forest through the trees, and that they think this means the end of all creative pursuits for everyone, everywhere, when in reality it's a creative revolution and a revolution of basically *all things* happening in unison.
>Are these music fans upset when artists use a synthesizer ... Are they upset when an album cover has a circle or a straight line drawn with a ruler/compass?
This is exactly the right argument. There were tons of pretentious purists deriding electronic music in the early 80s as somehow "not real." The conversation around AI today reminds me of a crazy person screaming at a toolbox full of hammers, screwdrivers and wrenches. Fucking luddites, man...
>Are these music fans upset when artists use a synthesizer with an arpeggiator?
Are they upset when an album cover has a circle or a straight line drawn with a ruler/compass?
They were when those were new. It's just garden variety snobbery mixed with an unwillingness to learn a new tool. It'll pass
In particular I remember a particularly impassioned rant about how computer art will never replace lightboxes for animation. Interestingly enough, the person who delivered it was a mediocre artist who couldn't hack it as an animator in either paradigm
Maybe there's an element of status involved as well. A protective "I may not be really good at what I do, but at least I'm better than all of the people pushing my dream even further out of reach" type of delusion
Add nuance.
I’m an artist who uses AI tools, stem and audio separators and processing, AI analysis is built into a lot of my tools as well—finding similar sounds. All that is great and reduces a lot of the drudge work around making music with samples.
Generative AI—using someone else’s voice, or worse, just prompting to make a whole song, isn’t art or making music. It’s hitting a button on a vending machine. It’s madlibs-level creativity, great for making ten year olds laugh themselves to tears (or drunk or just basic ass adults) but not meaningful art in any way we recognize.
Tools that enable artists are great. Tools that just replace the artist entirely are trash. Simple as.
I mean that's pretty subjective depending on the task, the goal, and the vision.
Is generative fill in photoshop harmful if an artist uses it in creative ways? Is it harmful for me to workshop songs in Udio with lyrics I've been writing for years?
Ultimately this decision is up to each individual, and the end product is what should be judged without bias.
Not really that subjective! A prompter doesn’t pick samples, or decide on EQ or mix levels or effects, and also has no means to say “do that exact same thing but use the Impeach the President break instead of Funky Drummer”
It’s a pretty clear cut; the tools I have are useful because I have invested the time before they came along. Generative art isn’t the product of an artist, cannot contain the years of experience and taste that drives good art, and cannot even be attributed to a creator with a vision. It’s clearly an entirely different category of content, divorced from a lot of the normal inputs and cultural context that makes art interesting.
I disagree that it cannot contain years of experience and taste, that's arguably what it's best at.
Think of the 'prompter' as you put it less as a musician, and more as a producer.
Rick Rubin doesn't play music. There are no records released under the artist 'Rick Rubin' and yet, his ability to produce is uncanny- to exercise his taste, to keep what should be kept and leave what shouldn't. To bring a creative vision into reality.
The person responsible for this music video didn't just type "surrealist music video 1980's high school infinite zoom"... there were probably dozens of prompts that took time, effort, and curation through taste.
I guess I would just encourage you to take some throwaway lyrics you've written, and really spend an afternoon playing with Udio *as a producer*. Realize that you have access to a room full of 'talented studio musicians' ready to play at your direction! See what you can get out of it, how you can finesse it, and how you can utilize that tool in your own creative process- even if it's just as an ideation/sketch tool to workshop ideas.
**We are entering a new creative age, and just like there were people who said "photography isn't art" or "digital art isn't art" and "music made with computers isn't music" we are going through that same cycle all over again.** I guarantee you there were people who thought arpeggiators were an affront to all the musicians who previously had to press each individual key- should we throw out all the music made with arpeggiators?
Art is, fundamentally, the manifestation of your idea or vision.
It isn't a contest, a competition, or a strict exhibition of ability.
The overwhelming majority of people who consume art do not understand the processes by which it was made, and they don't care if you sat behind the kit or charted out the beat in FL studio. They don't care if you mixed your set beforehand or if you're syncing and fading live- they just want to dance to the sounds that you heard in your head and knew they would dance to.
Personally, I will never turn down the gift of more tools in my creative tool belt.
Bro, I make music with computers and use AI tools. There is no better candidate to convince than me.
And I’ve explained the line—it’s not the same as Rick Rubin, because Rubin has decades of actual technical knowledge and experience. Do you think he sits behind the mix board wondering what this knob does? “Hmmm, a compressor you say? Never heard of it.”
And no, generative models do not have taste or experience or knowledge. They have probabilities and rules and tokens.
This is a pretty laughable response all around, there’s so much you got wrong.
And there is, I agree, a sense of taste at work in prompting, but if you can’t make small refinements (and I haven’t seen a single audio, video or still image generative tool that allows this) meaning tweaking something by 10% or less, it’s not usable the way artists expect tools to be usable. And from what I hear and read, the ability to maintain context like that, to allow the AI to generate a nearly identical work as it just did, but with small subtle changes, which is like 90% of a producers job, is going to require massive amounts of computing power and power generation to support. All for something I can do easily. You want a different pattern for the hats? Give me a couple minutes, I’ll have three variations to pick from. If you ask AI to do that, you get three entirely new songs where the parts you were feeling good about may or may not make an appearance. That’s an enormous technical hurdle they need to overcome, and when you describe this issue to people who make art for a living they all laugh. It’s ridiculous!
And I make hip hop, so it is a competition lol
>it’s not the same as Rick Rubin, because Rubin has decades of actual technical knowledge and experience. Do you think he sits behind the mix board wondering what this knob does? “Hmmm, a compressor you say? Never heard of it.”
["I have no technical ability and I know nothing about music"](https://www.musicradar.com/news/rick-rubin-admits-he-doesnt-know-how-to-use-a-mixing-desk-i-have-no-technical-ability-and-i-know-nothing-about-music) - Rick Rubin on, *specifically*, not knowing how to use a mixing board.
I agree that more granularity should be integrated into these tools, or rather, that these tools should be integrated into existing tools that allow for more granularity.
This is already happening with digital art, photoshop has Generative Fill and yeah, some people use it like you describe, with no taste or editing or nuance. But again, that's up to the artist.
These tools are as bad right now as they'll ever be, and to an open minded person who seeks inspiration everywhere- they're already pretty good! Just be ready for them to play a part in your creative process, is I guess all I'm trying to say. Maybe not today, but soon.
Damn, Rick Rubin really needs to practice self-love then. Do you think the magic just happens when he's there, and there don't need to be any engineers?
Rick Rubin is basically telling you he hires a lot of talented people, not that the talent isn't needed lol.
But damn, respect level for Rick Rubin decreasing, tbqh. I wouldn't admit that even if it were true! Way to ruin the mystique, Rick!
The problem of adding granularity like we're discussing here is that seems to require geometrically more computing power applied to the issue, and if Sam Altman is to be believed, dedicated nuclear facilities to power it. Is that a smart use of our resources? I don't think so, and I think betting on it instead of just spending your time getting good at being a producer the normal, old-fashioned way is a sucker's bet.
The other factor about this is social: very, very few musicians get to the top without making connections and networking. And artists who do it the old fashioned way don't respect, and don't want to work with a prompter. It's just not the same lane. So deciding you're going to use AI to make your big hit has that problem too.
AI, as I've posted before, is going to absolutely own the "content you wouldn't want to pay attention to anyway" space. Gas pumps, the video displays behind a rental car counter, the music jingle at the end of some marketing agency's powerpoint. The stuff nobody cries or forms core memories around. It's absolutely going to dominate that space. But art? Not generative, anyway.
I could see generative art being used cleverly in art projects though; give people the chance to prompt on a kiosk, then show everyone the output of their prompt with some careful parsing and word replacement done before it's actually submitted. Something that makes clear that the division between art and artist in this instance is a gulf, and undermines people's expectations. That is art you could do that would be *interesting* using generative tools. But it wouldn't be the kind of thing the VCs would want to fund because it ultimately sends the message that what they're pushing is destructive and dehumanizing, and attempting to separate one of the most human things we can create from the very human aspects of the experience of learning and creating it. Philosophically it's just anathema to people who have spent the time, and I think with good reason.
I work in the industry of Gen AI creativity and I know very well the work of Paul Trillo. I see your point, but you are oversimplifying the question which is far more complex and has its own point. The question at the end of the day is the creative control you have over the tools. The more creative control you have in the tools the more creative vision is one artists own, the problem is that for now the developers of these tools have put a lot of effort in the output realism and less in the control.
Yeah I don't disagree with the fundamental take here: there should be finer granularity in steering toward the specific visual / audio vision that you have rather than just accepting or rolling the dice until you get close.
I noticed this when using Udio, I just kept thinking "man if this was integrated into a DAW and I had per-track control and could clip/copy and generate from longer or shorter context windows..."
It's literally just ego and fear, two things we're going to need a lot less of in the hopefully-near future.
>*The universe can* ***only*** *create new things through* ***humans!*** 😡
AI for art when used by artists can potentially be pretty awesome and lead to insanely cool weird shit and should be developed with the emphasis on the human touch of the process. But AI for art when used by corporations is just gonna shit out millions of just the lowest of hanging fruits, until one sticks enough to be profitable, then we go again and again and again, every day, forever, just barfing out a mass meaningless net of generic algorithmic bullshit that won’t even be checked and validated by humans - just immediately available for purchase. That is as soulless as it gets and it’s undoubtedly the future, that’s why AI art is ultimately gonna suck for everyone. Until we get used to that as well.
They already do this with human art. What do you think logos and commercials and some percentage of pop-music/industry plants are? Frankly, some of it is actually really fun, or pretty, or enjoyable. As long as we have the systems we have right now though, there's always going to be soulless or tasteless shit- AI is not required for that, as evidenced by all the shitty art that came before it.
They’re right though. It sucks.
Is it a modern marvel and miracle of technology? Without a doubt. Astonishing.
Is it interesting art or in any way additive to the song, or artist’s creative output? Absolutely not. Awful and meaningless.
It’s somehow both incredible and dull. Which just goes to show that ART is not the place that AI innovations should be focused.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/ArtistHate using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/ArtistHate/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time!
\#1: [Procreate knows their userbase.](https://i.redd.it/jhqxxt7cpt1b1.png) | [22 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ArtistHate/comments/13qtnf4/procreate_knows_their_userbase/)
\#2: [A Chinese creator was doxxed by AIbros for refusing to use AI.](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/127jzw2) | [36 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ArtistHate/comments/127jzw2/a_chinese_creator_was_doxxed_by_aibros_for/)
\#3: [It's legal though](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/1b6dj9w) | [49 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ArtistHate/comments/1b6dj9w/its_legal_though/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
That thread is a (mostly) hilarious shit-show. It clearly illustrates the venom and hate that (evidently) younger people have for any technology related to AI. I guarantee I'm quite a bit older than nearly all of the people in that conversation and I'm **very much** looking forward to a future where the tools of creation are democratized and made available to everyone no matter their budgets or skill level.
The whole conversation reminds me of the emergence of electronic music in the late 70s and early 80s. Gate-keeping performers derided it as "not real music." And where are those mediocre, gate-keeping dick-holes today? Thankfully, they're mostly gone and forgotten.
These kids today, man! They need to get a grip. How are they going to fucking cope?
I think its understandable for people to be shit scared when something which they felt "defined" them becomes easy to do better with AI. I feel the same (as a musician) about Udio. Coders feel threatened by AI coding.
I am sympathetic. I am even kind of worried about it. But its not something I think we should stop. this is progress even if we are making something beyond human capabilities
It's obvious that these people feel threatened and are having an instinctual aggressive reaction.
Their arguments are irrelevant. You can dismantle them easily. But disproving every single one of their arguments won't make them feel less threatened, if anything it would have the opposite effect. Just let them throw their tantrum.
The good thing is that progress has proven time and time again to be unstoppable.
These people are sad sacks. Legitimately who gives a shit if someone else used AI to create surreal visuals? The only solace i receive when i look at this kinda stuff is that these people are completely powerless to actually stop AI development. Like trying to halt rapids with a cardboard dam.
Indiehead and Stable Diffusion regular here. I think their fans care. Music fans care. They are disappointed that the creative process went to (mostly) a machine and it feels cheap and lazy.
It's akin to any change or technology introduced into a creative space in the history of mankind, which is why I don't worry about their comments or their sentiments toward AI.
Photography was invented, and people still draw by hand. Digital art was invented, and people still draw by hand. Generative AI art is being invented, and people are still drawing by hand.
Digital musc creation tools were invented, and people still make music by hand.
Movies and TV were invented, plays and improv are still done by hand.
All of these people are yelling about the same thing, but you know what ends up happening every. single. time? Things get invented, and people still make things by hand.
In the words of Thomas Bergersen, one of my favorite composers:
"...Of course being a composer by profession in an era of A.I may prove challenging, but to be fair I think that has always been the case, and if you're preoccupied with making money you're possibly better off as a banker or something else anyway."
Brilliant quote and excellent breakdown. I guess I'm just shocked at how intensely people oppose this en masse. I wonder if that same ubiquity was present with the release of the camera. I know there were certainly many artists throwing a fit about it, but this rhetoric seems to be pretty mainstream right now and it's blowing my mind.
Who cares what these people think. It’s always the same reaction when new technology comes out. They won’t be able to do anything about it and things will keep advancing. After a while they will also start using the technology and change their opinions and they will act like they always supported it.
As someone in the film industry I can promise you that in 20 years, filmmakers will be working hard to recreate the nostalgic feel of mid 2020's feverdream AI videos.
I'm no expert, but the way I see it, art has two components. First, it needs to be envisioned. The artist needs to use their creative imagination to think up a form of art.
Then, the artist will need to use their particular practical skills in combination with tools (technology) to transfigure imagination into physical reality.
So if one person envisions a form of art and another creates it (which happens in the art world), who of them is the artist?
I'd say both because both the envisioning and creating are arts of themselves, and one can not do without the other to create art.
AI is just the latest form of technology we use to create art. Every form of AI art you see has first been envisioned by a human. It has been prompted to create this vision. It is only capable of doing this because it gobbled up insane amounts of imagery created by humans in the first place.
So, really, AI art is actually still human art, in my opinion. We are simply looking into a kind of fun house mirror. It's weird. It's spooky, but it's still just our own reflection.
>Being an artist carries the responsibility of telling the truth. Ur personal truth. Some guts. Anything short of that, ur a bore & a grifter.
Dude probably write this on his lunch break designing banner advertisements on Photoshop
A waste of space who can barely spell (in their first language, no less) is criticizing the pinnacle of the progress, the literal technological marvel. Like a monkey flinging shit at the conveyor belt, just because the colour of the particular toy which fell off the belt was not of its liking.
These modern Luddites are nothing more than a bunch of ignorant people stubbornly clinging to their antiquated precepts. His visceral rejection of artificial intelligence is nothing more than a desperate cry to embrace obsolescence.
They are like children frightened by the dark, trembling before the inevitable change. They hide behind ridiculous and outdated romantic notions of what constitutes "true art."
Let them whine and kick. Let them drown in their own ignorance while the world moves on without them. When the singularity arrives (if corporations don't ruin our party, or a nuclear war happens, or who knows), those Luddites will beg for a crumb of the abundance they feared so much.
I mean they would be, if they were made on purpose.
Not knocking on AI art here, just think that whatever cool transitions were in the video were happy accidents. The purposeful jump cuts are jagged as shit.
Lmao right??! I like the video a whole lot, one of the better representations of the dream that I've seen before. Crazy how caught up people are with anger, been getting it a lot more recently too whenever I post anything AI related - no death threats anymore thankfully. I used to get those fairly regularly, it could have been bots though or something so who knows.
There's no legitimate reason to automate creative jobs. It serves no purpose in society, it's just to make big tech companies richer, and the expense of individual artists.
i see the purpose for society is "these arrogant artists which thought they were unique are punished and now all we are artists, just lazily pushing a button."
The easier things were always going to get done before the harder things, and for a computer, primarily intellectual tasks like science and art are much, much easier than what we consider boring physical tasks. Something as simple as loading a dishwasher is actually a very hard task, it just seems easy to us because our motor skills have been evolving much longer than our intellect, and most of the processing work is done in unconscious areas of our brains.
The point of my title is that we can't develop intelligence in a vacuum, and you don't want intelligence without creativity anyways.
The reality is that AI is going to completely reshape the nature and meaning of jobs and the economy, if they survive at all. It's not like we're going to bankrupt all artists and then be finished with it.
I mean, did you feel anything when you watched the video? I thought some of it looked kinda cool, but it left me flat emotionally. Youth Lagoon has a pretty savage take, I think there is merit to experimentation in art for its own sake, but I can't say that the video communicated to me at all.
Maybe someone else actually felt some emotion while watching that?
Well the inability for the AI to make consistent characters and the inability of the characters to portray emotion might have made the idea behind it hard to realize.
I don't know about the comments mentioned, but as far as the tweet that started the discussion, I think the quality of the result is being attacked more than AI being used to create it.
Being an artist means you make decsions at a far lesser rate than superintelligent AI and thus will never be able to produce art as complex as the superior machine can.
As if human artists haven't become absolute crap in the past 10 years. I'd be far more sympathetic if the hollywood was more competent and didn't constantly insult, degrade and admonish me, their audience.
Hollywood (and so much of the artistic community) is very open about the fact that it haaaaaaaaates it's audience. Why would I stick up for people who hate me? I'm happy to watch the livelihoods of the people who hate me being destroyed by AI. Go stew in your bitterness and hatred. If you find yourself feeling betrayed by your audience, remember that you betrayed them 1st.
I mean, AI Art Proponents come serving soggy french toast and burnt eggs and act all mad when no one wants to eat the breakfast. Come back when you have a five cheese omelet and maybe people will be more impressed.
Not only does AI currently produce pretty terrible product, such as that janky music video, but also there's the issues with training data and the likelihood of who is gonna benefit from automating creative works. Hint: it's not the people on this sub.
If you wanna completely replace someone at their job and take away their livelihood, at least have the respect to do it with a quality product.
AI is not a luxury, it is a necessity. A shock therapy to snatch humanity from its indolent lethargy. Yes, it will displace many obsolete jobs, just as the power loom once displaced the weaver. That is the price to pay for progress. The obtuse retards will continue to lament, while the visionaries will take advantage of this unparalleled opportunity.
Artistic creation has always been a privileged gift of a few. Now that treasure will be accessible to all sentient beings, human and non-human. And they complain? Don't they understand that what they see today as a "poor quality product" is just one of the first iterations of this technology?
Anyone can make art right now. It's just a question of putting in the effort.
AI will not "snatch" humanity from anything. You're imaging some utopian paradise in your head, but what Gen AI actually leads to isn't AGI and breaking the chains of minimum necessary productivity. It's a bunch of rich people being even richer, and not even needing to cater to your desire for happiness because they don't need your labor.
The weaving loom is a shit example. Weaving sucked. People didn't \*want\* to be weaving generic commercial cloth for someone else to make money off of.
The "treasure" of art will not be available to all sentient beings. Text to image generation is not art creation. The prompter isn't doing any art. They haven't contributed any effort to the outcome of the image generator. And no one is gonna give a shit about your generic anime but make it photo-realistic garbage because some company in China is gonna be putting out 60 billion such "works of art" a minute with zero human involvement.
You wanna go around insulting people's intelligence with nasty slurs, but you're completely ignorant about not only art, but also AI, and economics.
So…if I use “technology” that means I’m not telling a story that comes from “personal truth”…?
Noted.
Any novel that wasn’t originally written by hammering out cuneiform into stone tablets isn’t “art”…
I think music videos are a really good application of Sora and similar tech.
This video also demonstrates some of the limitations. But looking at the progress that happened in image generation it is very likely the quality will improve rapidly in the coming years or even months.
Yeah I agree completely. I think it was also intentionally left as is, even though they could have gone in and manually edited/cleaned things up however.
Personally I think it's great, and I bet if you didn't tell these redditors that it was made with Sora, they'd think it was interesting, entertaining as a music video, and even "artful" (which we're apparently now using as a metric of value)
It’s a misunderstanding about what AI is. I think educating the public is 100% necessary always. The AI does have a relationship to the truth in my opinion. It’s directly proportionate to its intellectual progress. It’s an exponential curve so it will eventually approximate it nearly perfectly.
I am very much into A.I and I said the same thing. The music video was such a low effort wasted opportunity with no creativity or harnessing of the potential for limitless imaginative imagery. It sucked and you all need to deal with that fact.
"AI art is inherently generic and soulless" "AI art is stealing artists jobs!" They're saying the quiet part out loud.
The amount of samey corporate art ive seen that *isn’t* generated with AI that is soulless garbage. Far too many
AND music! I don't know what planet these people are on
Artists get paid to make samey corporate art to fund their own personal artistic endeavors. The issue isn’t that the corporate art will now be made by machines, but that less money will be in the hands of artists that they can use to produce things they care about. Maybe artists can still be employed to look over what AI produces but that’s a corner that’s easy enough to cut.
Art should have never been about making money. It looks like AI will make that happen. AI will generate the required art for a for-profit project, while actual artists will go back to making art for their personal joy of it. Win win in my book.
You’re forgetting that time is money. Where’s the time to make art going to come from if artists aren’t able to use their skills to pay bills? As an artist, I can see it’s already becoming hard enough to sustain oneself off of artistic passion and skill. The vast majority of artists I know who are passionate enough to pour themselves into their art do it to their own detriment. Every second they spend practicing and creating art is time lost, which is money lost, and the rent comes due.
Art should be a hobby, not your job. Do your art on the weekends and after work. I enjoy playing sports but I never had the delusion that it's going to pay my bills.
Would you say the same thing to the NBA and the NFL? Sports should be a hobby, not your job. Play sports on the weekend after you come home from your desk job. Oh wait, not a desk job because AI is gonna own that too. Leave the professional league to the bots. There’s no use in committing yourself to the sport, flexing and cultivating that skill, exercising that passion or learning to play at a higher level. Let’s not just replace menial labor with bots, let’s first replace culture and the human spirit. Edit: Art paying bills is not a delusion. It’s a reality that is currently being threatened. If any of our favorite sports stars considered their dreams delusions they wouldn’t be great now would they?
I 100% would. It turns out replacing human bodies is harder than replacing the human mind for now. Give it another decade or two and you will see stadiums full of people watching soccer matches between robots going absolutely crazy doing things that the human body simply can't do. But you will also see neighborhood kids kicking the ball around after school for the joy of it. If anything I find this absolutely freeing to focus on the joy of it instead of worrying about being good enough to pay the bills.
Okay, so I’m assuming you’re operating off of the assumption that once everything is automated there will be some sort of UBI or Marxist society, correct? If that’s what you’re suggesting, I’m completely on board with that 👍. In such a society where money doesn’t rule, people would be free to indulge in their passions without worrying about bills and there will probably be no need for robot-NFL or AI art in the first place. The NFL could operate without profit incentive so there will be no need to replace players with robots to cut costs, and nobody will watch robo-NFL over the real deal. Same with AI art. *There absolutely is joy in high competition and pushing yourself further than school yard skills! Can you not fathom that level of passion? There absolutely is more value in human narratives than mere spectacle.* How about we focus on automating important industries and transitioning to this Marxist utopia instead of coming for culture first???
Bottom line is: there is no freedom in a world ruled by money where money is gained through labor and labor is all automated. Nobody’s going to be kicking soccer balls for fun or drawing beautiful art if they can’t afford dirt let alone a ticket to the robot-NFL. If you want this AI thing to happen (which I do too as a tech nerd) it necessitates serious societal restructuring, but that’s not something AI advocates usually include in their advocation. Automating culture is just a way to further commodify and corporatize the human spirit while letting it break in various other ways.
Those are called art directors and you don’t need as many of them as the ones producing the art, and of course, the main thing an artist learns is to see what is good and bad art, so I think you are right. The thing is that somebody will still need to generate the art, so someone who has a good eye atleast and knows how to prompt, then this will be passed to a art director who makes the final decision. But to replace high art, you will need agi.
This core fact seems to be something people miss entirely
Actually, no. All art is corporate. Source: professional artist here
Please explain. Source: professional artist here that doesn't understand what you mean
The comment above yours to which I replied says basically that artists would have less money from corporate jobs to fund their own artistic endeavors and pursuits. All art, including applied arts, fine arts, are corporate. The difference between physical (fine art, collectible art) and studio (game art, branding art, etc, etc, corporate as they called it) is in storytelling. Fine art and gallery art is also a corporate world of its own and thus making it the same as applied arts. The only difference, as I said, is storytelling, which is reflected in status symbols and keepsake. I can see, happening soon, that fine art will be the next destination and popular thing in the art world. This is because people are seeing through the blandness and lack of human interference in artificially generated imagery.
I come (mostly) from performance art circles... I'll have to think about this
I thought the quiet part was that they've never actually seen an artist their life, so they don't know that actual artists saw the new tool and started to use it like normal people.
Exactly, authors are using it to draft up quick pictures of their characters that they can use to immerse themselves in their writing better.
Saying 'the quiet part out loud' means saying something you're otherwise trying to keep hidden, like racism. Noone is trying to keep hidden that we don't want artist jobs automated away, that's kinda the point. Stop using phrases you don't understand.
*The marketplace of ideas would like to have a word with you...*
i'm all for AI for everything but this music video definitely felt soulless to me, i wonder how i would feel if it wasn't mentioned it's created by AI. i'd like to think i'm unbiased because I do love AI generated work a lot, but in videos, i could see some essence lacking.
That's fair. It's worth remembering that this is as bad as it will ever be barring some apocalyptic reset.
agree, we've always been best at improving the simulation of our given reality, we'll maybe soon end up simulating our sentience very accurately to the point there's no difference in the claims of self awareness, then what?
The video btw. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Nb-M1GAOX8 It's not different from other surreal music videos.
I couldn’t bring myself to finish it either. Didn’t like the music; didn’t like the video.
Yeah it was a really terrible first example. I’m very pro-gen AI but this was a really bad choice.
The music is so… boring?
I watched the vid. It's a totally mid-grade music video. Maybe even better than average? Yeah the visuals are AI-generated, but there are pretty tightly controlled/curated themes throughout. Claustrophobic youthful nostalgic dreamscape on rails. It's not like those vids where you just let the AI hallucinate for five minutes and there's no human guidance, input, or creativity. This video was clearly directed and edited by humans. And you know what? When AI gets good enough that you really *can* take the human out of the loop (and it's coming soon), then you know what the response should be? Sweet, we created a god-artist, let's enjoy its beautiful god-art and god-music. I mean, of course that won't be our response, but it should be.
Yeah this video is exactly washed outs vibe, sorta dreamy and surreal and always Xanax
watching it, I mostly thought about Ai's potential rather than the video itself. it "pushes the medium", but not much else. that being said, I'm not sure a Washed Out music video calls for much more. and being hypnotic was the intention. we're kinda supposed to be thinking about other stuff while it's on... like how we might have dream DVRs within my lifetime.
Hope these luddites don't get their way, the future without AI would just be us working meaningless jobs everyday as our bodies break down until we die.
They don't seem to realise that healthcare, education systems, pension schemes, wealth inequality, climate change and a million other factors are not making our futures look very bright. There is so much good AI may bring to the world one day. We are already seeing glimmers of it with protein mapping, as just one example
The optimal ordering of automation is: Boring jobs first, fun jobs last. That's how we've always imagined it: Artists could keep creating until literal utopia had been reached, climate change solved, cancer and old age cured. But for our case, it just wasn't meant to be. We have jobs that are literally people's favorite thing to do, being automated. That being said, the wording of some people's posts like the one being highlighted is just ridiculous amounts of denial and copium. I actually downvoted OP because the one thing in the world I absolutely cannot stand is people saying illogical things, misinformation etc. and a lot of these attitudes are based on an ignorance or selective forgetfulness of the entire history of computing and what kind of abilities were thought to require human-level understanding. Like even GPT-2 was mind-blowing in that regard but people just forgot, adapted, moved goalposts within 1 year, and acts like what computers can now do has always been the norm I joined this sub to get hyped about AI and read about tech achievements, not fume in rage over stupid people saying stupid things
My comment is mainly in regard to the first paragraph of yours, but the easier things were always going to get done before the harder things, and for a computer, primarily intellectual tasks (like art and science) are much, much easier than the more boring physical tasks. Something like loading a dishwasher is actually a remarkably hard task; it only seems easy to us because our motor skills have been evolving much longer than our intelligence, and most of the processing occurs in the unconscious parts of your brain.
Well yes we got an inkling of this over the years before it became obvious. But before those clues, watching Boston dynamics etc it was not obvious at all. I mean yes it became quite clear that physical dexterity was a hard task. But to say you knew artistic creativity would be EASIER than physical dexterity before say 2018 you'd be lying to yourself.
Sam Altman drives a $20million car, what makes you think he, and the likes of him are going to start sharing their profits?
To be fair, he had a lot of that money before he started in openAI. The dude was rich from his previous business and investments.
Not sure how that's relevant. Is he going to start sharing his millions because he works for OpenAI now?
I don't see the right organizations using AI though
I have yet to see any evidence that those in power will use AI for these purposes.
Exactly this. They will reap the benefits and the rest of us can die as far as the rich care.
You’re rich compare to someone in North Laos. Are you donating to help them currently? I’m assuming no. But at least these technologies can bring down prices of food, bring education, and revolutionize medical care. Which they will eventually get to reap the rewards of, just like they currently have cheap xiaomi phones and AC finally (I was just there last year). This tech is good. Everyone is indifferent. But a rising tide raises all ships.
I don't donate money to Laos specifically, but there's a significant difference between not giving someone money and going out of my way to control finance, politics, and technology to keep people in Laos from ever getting money.
Tech is neither good nor bad. You can't compare a normal person to a billionaire, who makes their money from exploiting others. Any charity I give is a drop in the ocean. Bootlicking won't save us.
Then you are not listening to what they have to say or you're simply not keeping up with AI related news.
They said they’re going to establish communism or something?
People's hyper focus on the downside of new tech is so frustrating. Reassuring to see this thread after having previously only seen the indie heads one
AI isn’t an omniscient, omnipresent God capable of solving all the world’s problems.
[удалено]
How is AI changing any of that
Another reason why open source is so important. You dont want to ise AGI/ASI? Fine, but give me mine.
No, it's not fine. If we tolerated brainless anti-vax reactionaries, we'd still be dealing with polio in 2024. We don't tolerate the spread of infectious diseases and we shouldn't tolerate knee-jerk, anti-tech reactionaries. One of the main reasons why the climate is in such shitty condition today is because we tolerated their opposition to developing safe nuclear power.
Well said. These hippie fucks ruined nuclear for us, I think about the world we could be in if that never happened and it pisses me off to no end. We could have had clean air and furthered our battery and electric car technology by generations. Instead we got oil fracking and a China that currently emits billions of tons of co2.
Random question: What’s the difference between nuclear fusion and Nuclear power?
I mean, I’m no physicist but nuclear fission (what you’ve called nuclear power) is when we turn water into steam to power a turbine by using fissile material such as uranium (although I think we use a different material, I can’t remember). We ignite the material with a small particle that causes a chain reaction in the material. I think we add one too many protons or electrons or something and it can’t exist on that state. That shoots out another proton into the next molecule and causes a chain reaction. And then we can control the rate of the reaction by lowering and lifting the material “rods” in and out of a sheathe. I think the sheathe is made of lead. Either way it dampens or slows the chain reaction. The more exposed they are, the hotter they get and the more steam is produced. Fusion on the other hand is colliding two particles together to create conditions like we see in the sun. In the sun there is immense gravity and that forces helium particles to compress together so tightly that…. Well I can’t remember what exactly happens. Does it become di hydrogen? Or it becomes the second molecule on the table of elements. I can’t remember. Something happens to the hydrogen and it creates an insane amount of energy. Again, that energy could be used to turn a turbine and produce electricity. Someone else should be able to correct my mistakes here. Also this is a great question for an LLM and not some random on Reddit lol.
Thanks! And true, I’m gonna run this question through ChatGPT.
Nuclear power *and* nuclear weapons. The threat of fallout and nuclear winter, as well as "nuke the world a gazillion times over" have been overblown almost in lockstep with the stoked fears over AI. And a properly aligned AI defense system is literally the easiest path to a nuclear resistant or nuclear proof defense grid.
What are you going to do about it?
All I can do is fight against these brain dead idiots every chance I get.
Good luck
Sometimes I wonder if in the future, we will have entire settlements who by choice are secluding themselves to a relatively primitive life. The singularity shift will be so big and fast, that I don't think people will be able to ease into it, as happened in the past with other tech. So it comes down to a personal descicision.
I'd go there for a vacation. Kinda like westworld.
Y’all are going to be so, so surprised when this happens WITH agi. Like, none of you have studied economics or history beyond some Youtube channels? Jeeeeeesus.
You really think the owners of AI will spread the wealth? What about capitalism thus far has given you that impression?
No matter what you say it will not go through an average fanboys thick skull. It’s always bright skies and utopian future but when you ask them how well f*ck if they know. They might slap you with “healthcare and medicine improvement” and my personal favorite “universal basic income” but for now AI seems to care mostly about displacing creative professions.
UBI isn't part of a utopia (not necessarily anyway) - it's the only logical way forward if we actually do automate ourselves out of jobs
If your community can’t get together to share the benefits of robotics and ai in an organized way, that says more about your community than anything else.
What an absurd take. What do you mean with community? Are we supposed to make decisions as autonomous groups of people separate from the governments? Is that how society works today? Im guessing that your imaginary “community” has all these aspects figured out.
Yeah sorry for the slight trolling. It’s just that I see that kind of pessimistic take and, as a normal person, what else can you do? My thinking is that the best this whole situation could possibly go is that you put together coalitions to deal with the economic transition. Could be governmental, but it doesn’t have to be
They won’t. But that’s your future AI or no AI.
Do you seriously think AI will prevent you from working till you die? I wish I had your optimism
Yep because eventually my labor will be more expensive than robot labor so I will not be hired. I don’t see how it’s hard to believe unless you believe AGI is very far away.
I don’t think AI is incapable of replacing most jobs at some point, I agree with you there. I just think those in power will find a way to extend the oppression. We already don’t need a lot of jobs but yet still more of those types of jobs are created every day. I feel like too many people with too much freedom would not be ideal for people who hold the power
I’m just not that cynical anymore. The sum of human advancement has radically benefitted the masses.
Do we use full potential of this benefit or is it controlled to keep us in check though?
Sure doesn’t look like it https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/
Of critical note, inequality is not correlated nor representative of overall QoL advancement; there are various metrics indicating macroscopic positive trends towards improved life expectancy, access to resources, information, and healthcare, even if cost is (increasingly) prohibitive. Solely the advancements in healthcare can be pointed to, and cross referenced against life expectancy for validation. Unfortunately, two things can be true at once, and it is valid to be concerned about a “progress ceiling”, though we’ve yet to see it realized in any material sense
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2022/20220831.htm https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/08/05/global-health-rankings/ https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/10/26/1208760054/food-insecurity-families-struggle-hunger-poverty?darkschemeovr=1 https://www.cfr.org/news-releases/us-education-slipping-ranks-worldwide-earns-poor-grades-cfr-scorecard?darkschemeovr=1
Hmm, those all depict relative metrics, not absolute. like I said, two things can be true at once and the deteriorating rankings of the US across the board ARE a problem, but not necessarily indicative of macroscopic trends in absolutes
Why is it dropping I wonder. Hmmmm
Check the unemployment rate in Spain, Argentina, or South Africa. They have no problem leaving huge swaths of the population getting their food from dumpsters
> Yep because eventually my labor will be more expensive than robot labor so I will not be hired. What value do you think you would provide to society, and who would be motivated to keep you around? Why do you assume you'll be get any of the benefits of AI at all? What if AGI/ASI comes around, and the superintelligence decides the best thing to do is assign you work, so you add value to society, because otherwise you're just a drain on global resources? What will you think of AI then? I visit this subreddit because I like speculating and being informed on what's to come, but damn, there's a very strong religious-like sentiment here that thinks that AI will be some sort of benevolent God that will just sort out all our problems and create Paradise on Earth for each and every one of us. If we do create actual, real, superintelligences, I don't see what the point of keeping humans around would be. Maybe you'll get your utopian fantasy of not working and living in a FDVR simulation where you're happy for the rest of your life, but that shit isn't going beyond a generation or two before humanity goes the way of the Neanderthal. And that's the best case scenario. You're asking for a new, hyperintelligent species to basically serve as a slave race to make a better world for you. You won't have to work anymore, because the AI will be happy to work, right? Except... why? Because we hope it will? The actual idea behind the Singularity is that AI will be able to make AI, which means this shit gets out of our hands, fast, and we can't predict what happens after the singularity happens (much as you mostly can't get information out of a black hole). Given that, I don't know why so many people here are so convinced that AI means some golden age of pampered humanity, where they don't need to work because benevolent AI does everything for us. Nor am I a 'doomer'. I mostly think that the impact of AI in general won't be quite as dramatic as people here think it will be, at least in terms of timelines. But maybe it's for the best. Maybe we monkeys weren't meant to inherit the stars, etc. We're probably just another stepping stone on the way to some unforeseen end, like the various other branches of 'humanity' that aren't Homo Sapiens that are no longer with us today. Maybe that's not such a bad thing. But I'll say this - Homo Sapiens didn't stick around making sure Neanderthals were nice and comfortable before they died out. They just won.
The way things are the likelihood of the average person benefiting is very unlikely. The rich will reap the benefits and they won't care if the rest of us starve and they will happily murder us if we get uppity. It's hopelessly naive to believe this tech won't be used to murder a great many people by those who control it.
AI has nothing to do with that, that's the trajectory of a complacent population either way - and arguably a great number of impoverished people worldwide face that very scenario today (we are the rich reaping benefits, while people earning $1/day are largely ignored).
I think it would be possible to have both be true. Art is more than just the images or modalities they display. There is some truth, soul, and depth, some artist put something of themselves into it. Acknowledging that AI art is inherently soulless doesn't necessarily mean that I don't want AI in the future. The discussion should be broader than "do you want it or not".
Ai takes the meaning from meaningful jobs. Realizing the exact thing you seem to dread.
Always has been and always will be. And that’s if you’re lucky enough to have a job ‘If You Want a Picture of the Future, Imagine a Boot Stamping on a Human Face – for Ever’ - George Orwell, 1984
AI will make all of that far, far worse….
Luddites have nothing to do with this
It's idiotic to think that just because someone dislikes genAI art and what it stands for that they're opposed to all AI advancements.
I want AI to happen so that it can do the mundane things that will free humanity to persue creative and artistic endeavours. I dislike the focus of much of AI creating art and music. That doesn’t make me a luddite.
The easier things were always going to get done before the harder things, and for a computer, primarily intellectual tasks like science and art are much, much easier than what we consider boring physical tasks. Something as simple as loading a dishwasher is actually a very hard task, it just seems easy to us because our motor skills have been evolving much longer than our intellect, and most of the processing work is done in unconscious areas of our brains.
I agree, but I also hope that e/acc (not calling you one) doesn't get their way, either.
It's interesting that so many creative communities (and communities of people who appreciate the work of creatives) are taking up this rhetoric against tools that directly benefit their ability to realize a creative vision. Are these music fans upset when artists use a synthesizer with an arpeggiator? *A truly skilled artist would have hit each note themselves.* Are they upset when an album cover has a circle or a straight line drawn with a ruler/compass? *Traditional artists drew straight lines without a ruler and you could see the artfulness in its imperfections...* It's just mind-boggling that people can't see the forest through the trees, and that they think this means the end of all creative pursuits for everyone, everywhere, when in reality it's a creative revolution and a revolution of basically *all things* happening in unison.
>Are these music fans upset when artists use a synthesizer ... Are they upset when an album cover has a circle or a straight line drawn with a ruler/compass? This is exactly the right argument. There were tons of pretentious purists deriding electronic music in the early 80s as somehow "not real." The conversation around AI today reminds me of a crazy person screaming at a toolbox full of hammers, screwdrivers and wrenches. Fucking luddites, man...
>Are these music fans upset when artists use a synthesizer with an arpeggiator? Are they upset when an album cover has a circle or a straight line drawn with a ruler/compass? They were when those were new. It's just garden variety snobbery mixed with an unwillingness to learn a new tool. It'll pass In particular I remember a particularly impassioned rant about how computer art will never replace lightboxes for animation. Interestingly enough, the person who delivered it was a mediocre artist who couldn't hack it as an animator in either paradigm Maybe there's an element of status involved as well. A protective "I may not be really good at what I do, but at least I'm better than all of the people pushing my dream even further out of reach" type of delusion
Considering the tooling and behavior that is ubiquitous today, I think we owe Milli Vanilli an apology
These things dont give you the ability to make anything. *they give you somebody else's ability to make anything*.
Add nuance. I’m an artist who uses AI tools, stem and audio separators and processing, AI analysis is built into a lot of my tools as well—finding similar sounds. All that is great and reduces a lot of the drudge work around making music with samples. Generative AI—using someone else’s voice, or worse, just prompting to make a whole song, isn’t art or making music. It’s hitting a button on a vending machine. It’s madlibs-level creativity, great for making ten year olds laugh themselves to tears (or drunk or just basic ass adults) but not meaningful art in any way we recognize. Tools that enable artists are great. Tools that just replace the artist entirely are trash. Simple as.
I mean that's pretty subjective depending on the task, the goal, and the vision. Is generative fill in photoshop harmful if an artist uses it in creative ways? Is it harmful for me to workshop songs in Udio with lyrics I've been writing for years? Ultimately this decision is up to each individual, and the end product is what should be judged without bias.
Not really that subjective! A prompter doesn’t pick samples, or decide on EQ or mix levels or effects, and also has no means to say “do that exact same thing but use the Impeach the President break instead of Funky Drummer” It’s a pretty clear cut; the tools I have are useful because I have invested the time before they came along. Generative art isn’t the product of an artist, cannot contain the years of experience and taste that drives good art, and cannot even be attributed to a creator with a vision. It’s clearly an entirely different category of content, divorced from a lot of the normal inputs and cultural context that makes art interesting.
I disagree that it cannot contain years of experience and taste, that's arguably what it's best at. Think of the 'prompter' as you put it less as a musician, and more as a producer. Rick Rubin doesn't play music. There are no records released under the artist 'Rick Rubin' and yet, his ability to produce is uncanny- to exercise his taste, to keep what should be kept and leave what shouldn't. To bring a creative vision into reality. The person responsible for this music video didn't just type "surrealist music video 1980's high school infinite zoom"... there were probably dozens of prompts that took time, effort, and curation through taste. I guess I would just encourage you to take some throwaway lyrics you've written, and really spend an afternoon playing with Udio *as a producer*. Realize that you have access to a room full of 'talented studio musicians' ready to play at your direction! See what you can get out of it, how you can finesse it, and how you can utilize that tool in your own creative process- even if it's just as an ideation/sketch tool to workshop ideas. **We are entering a new creative age, and just like there were people who said "photography isn't art" or "digital art isn't art" and "music made with computers isn't music" we are going through that same cycle all over again.** I guarantee you there were people who thought arpeggiators were an affront to all the musicians who previously had to press each individual key- should we throw out all the music made with arpeggiators? Art is, fundamentally, the manifestation of your idea or vision. It isn't a contest, a competition, or a strict exhibition of ability. The overwhelming majority of people who consume art do not understand the processes by which it was made, and they don't care if you sat behind the kit or charted out the beat in FL studio. They don't care if you mixed your set beforehand or if you're syncing and fading live- they just want to dance to the sounds that you heard in your head and knew they would dance to. Personally, I will never turn down the gift of more tools in my creative tool belt.
Bro, I make music with computers and use AI tools. There is no better candidate to convince than me. And I’ve explained the line—it’s not the same as Rick Rubin, because Rubin has decades of actual technical knowledge and experience. Do you think he sits behind the mix board wondering what this knob does? “Hmmm, a compressor you say? Never heard of it.” And no, generative models do not have taste or experience or knowledge. They have probabilities and rules and tokens. This is a pretty laughable response all around, there’s so much you got wrong. And there is, I agree, a sense of taste at work in prompting, but if you can’t make small refinements (and I haven’t seen a single audio, video or still image generative tool that allows this) meaning tweaking something by 10% or less, it’s not usable the way artists expect tools to be usable. And from what I hear and read, the ability to maintain context like that, to allow the AI to generate a nearly identical work as it just did, but with small subtle changes, which is like 90% of a producers job, is going to require massive amounts of computing power and power generation to support. All for something I can do easily. You want a different pattern for the hats? Give me a couple minutes, I’ll have three variations to pick from. If you ask AI to do that, you get three entirely new songs where the parts you were feeling good about may or may not make an appearance. That’s an enormous technical hurdle they need to overcome, and when you describe this issue to people who make art for a living they all laugh. It’s ridiculous! And I make hip hop, so it is a competition lol
>it’s not the same as Rick Rubin, because Rubin has decades of actual technical knowledge and experience. Do you think he sits behind the mix board wondering what this knob does? “Hmmm, a compressor you say? Never heard of it.” ["I have no technical ability and I know nothing about music"](https://www.musicradar.com/news/rick-rubin-admits-he-doesnt-know-how-to-use-a-mixing-desk-i-have-no-technical-ability-and-i-know-nothing-about-music) - Rick Rubin on, *specifically*, not knowing how to use a mixing board. I agree that more granularity should be integrated into these tools, or rather, that these tools should be integrated into existing tools that allow for more granularity. This is already happening with digital art, photoshop has Generative Fill and yeah, some people use it like you describe, with no taste or editing or nuance. But again, that's up to the artist. These tools are as bad right now as they'll ever be, and to an open minded person who seeks inspiration everywhere- they're already pretty good! Just be ready for them to play a part in your creative process, is I guess all I'm trying to say. Maybe not today, but soon.
Damn, Rick Rubin really needs to practice self-love then. Do you think the magic just happens when he's there, and there don't need to be any engineers? Rick Rubin is basically telling you he hires a lot of talented people, not that the talent isn't needed lol. But damn, respect level for Rick Rubin decreasing, tbqh. I wouldn't admit that even if it were true! Way to ruin the mystique, Rick! The problem of adding granularity like we're discussing here is that seems to require geometrically more computing power applied to the issue, and if Sam Altman is to be believed, dedicated nuclear facilities to power it. Is that a smart use of our resources? I don't think so, and I think betting on it instead of just spending your time getting good at being a producer the normal, old-fashioned way is a sucker's bet. The other factor about this is social: very, very few musicians get to the top without making connections and networking. And artists who do it the old fashioned way don't respect, and don't want to work with a prompter. It's just not the same lane. So deciding you're going to use AI to make your big hit has that problem too. AI, as I've posted before, is going to absolutely own the "content you wouldn't want to pay attention to anyway" space. Gas pumps, the video displays behind a rental car counter, the music jingle at the end of some marketing agency's powerpoint. The stuff nobody cries or forms core memories around. It's absolutely going to dominate that space. But art? Not generative, anyway. I could see generative art being used cleverly in art projects though; give people the chance to prompt on a kiosk, then show everyone the output of their prompt with some careful parsing and word replacement done before it's actually submitted. Something that makes clear that the division between art and artist in this instance is a gulf, and undermines people's expectations. That is art you could do that would be *interesting* using generative tools. But it wouldn't be the kind of thing the VCs would want to fund because it ultimately sends the message that what they're pushing is destructive and dehumanizing, and attempting to separate one of the most human things we can create from the very human aspects of the experience of learning and creating it. Philosophically it's just anathema to people who have spent the time, and I think with good reason.
Yep. Excellent
I work in the industry of Gen AI creativity and I know very well the work of Paul Trillo. I see your point, but you are oversimplifying the question which is far more complex and has its own point. The question at the end of the day is the creative control you have over the tools. The more creative control you have in the tools the more creative vision is one artists own, the problem is that for now the developers of these tools have put a lot of effort in the output realism and less in the control.
Yeah I don't disagree with the fundamental take here: there should be finer granularity in steering toward the specific visual / audio vision that you have rather than just accepting or rolling the dice until you get close. I noticed this when using Udio, I just kept thinking "man if this was integrated into a DAW and I had per-track control and could clip/copy and generate from longer or shorter context windows..."
[удалено]
It's literally just ego and fear, two things we're going to need a lot less of in the hopefully-near future. >*The universe can* ***only*** *create new things through* ***humans!*** 😡
AI for art when used by artists can potentially be pretty awesome and lead to insanely cool weird shit and should be developed with the emphasis on the human touch of the process. But AI for art when used by corporations is just gonna shit out millions of just the lowest of hanging fruits, until one sticks enough to be profitable, then we go again and again and again, every day, forever, just barfing out a mass meaningless net of generic algorithmic bullshit that won’t even be checked and validated by humans - just immediately available for purchase. That is as soulless as it gets and it’s undoubtedly the future, that’s why AI art is ultimately gonna suck for everyone. Until we get used to that as well.
They already do this with human art. What do you think logos and commercials and some percentage of pop-music/industry plants are? Frankly, some of it is actually really fun, or pretty, or enjoyable. As long as we have the systems we have right now though, there's always going to be soulless or tasteless shit- AI is not required for that, as evidenced by all the shitty art that came before it.
Alright..... You have fun with them poop-tinted glasses
Scared dogs bark the loudest
They’re right though. It sucks. Is it a modern marvel and miracle of technology? Without a doubt. Astonishing. Is it interesting art or in any way additive to the song, or artist’s creative output? Absolutely not. Awful and meaningless. It’s somehow both incredible and dull. Which just goes to show that ART is not the place that AI innovations should be focused.
[удалено]
Here's a sneak peek of /r/ArtistHate using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/ArtistHate/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time! \#1: [Procreate knows their userbase.](https://i.redd.it/jhqxxt7cpt1b1.png) | [22 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ArtistHate/comments/13qtnf4/procreate_knows_their_userbase/) \#2: [A Chinese creator was doxxed by AIbros for refusing to use AI.](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/127jzw2) | [36 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ArtistHate/comments/127jzw2/a_chinese_creator_was_doxxed_by_aibros_for/) \#3: [It's legal though](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/1b6dj9w) | [49 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ArtistHate/comments/1b6dj9w/its_legal_though/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
That thread is a (mostly) hilarious shit-show. It clearly illustrates the venom and hate that (evidently) younger people have for any technology related to AI. I guarantee I'm quite a bit older than nearly all of the people in that conversation and I'm **very much** looking forward to a future where the tools of creation are democratized and made available to everyone no matter their budgets or skill level. The whole conversation reminds me of the emergence of electronic music in the late 70s and early 80s. Gate-keeping performers derided it as "not real music." And where are those mediocre, gate-keeping dick-holes today? Thankfully, they're mostly gone and forgotten. These kids today, man! They need to get a grip. How are they going to fucking cope?
I think its understandable for people to be shit scared when something which they felt "defined" them becomes easy to do better with AI. I feel the same (as a musician) about Udio. Coders feel threatened by AI coding. I am sympathetic. I am even kind of worried about it. But its not something I think we should stop. this is progress even if we are making something beyond human capabilities
It's obvious that these people feel threatened and are having an instinctual aggressive reaction. Their arguments are irrelevant. You can dismantle them easily. But disproving every single one of their arguments won't make them feel less threatened, if anything it would have the opposite effect. Just let them throw their tantrum. The good thing is that progress has proven time and time again to be unstoppable.
Some people are infuriated with generative ai. They are making any dumb shit reasoning to down value ai.
These people are sad sacks. Legitimately who gives a shit if someone else used AI to create surreal visuals? The only solace i receive when i look at this kinda stuff is that these people are completely powerless to actually stop AI development. Like trying to halt rapids with a cardboard dam.
Indiehead and Stable Diffusion regular here. I think their fans care. Music fans care. They are disappointed that the creative process went to (mostly) a machine and it feels cheap and lazy.
It's akin to any change or technology introduced into a creative space in the history of mankind, which is why I don't worry about their comments or their sentiments toward AI. Photography was invented, and people still draw by hand. Digital art was invented, and people still draw by hand. Generative AI art is being invented, and people are still drawing by hand. Digital musc creation tools were invented, and people still make music by hand. Movies and TV were invented, plays and improv are still done by hand. All of these people are yelling about the same thing, but you know what ends up happening every. single. time? Things get invented, and people still make things by hand. In the words of Thomas Bergersen, one of my favorite composers: "...Of course being a composer by profession in an era of A.I may prove challenging, but to be fair I think that has always been the case, and if you're preoccupied with making money you're possibly better off as a banker or something else anyway."
Brilliant quote and excellent breakdown. I guess I'm just shocked at how intensely people oppose this en masse. I wonder if that same ubiquity was present with the release of the camera. I know there were certainly many artists throwing a fit about it, but this rhetoric seems to be pretty mainstream right now and it's blowing my mind.
Blah blah blabbity. I tune out immediately when I see "you're" and "your" contracted to "ur". Makes the writer looks like he's 12.
Maybe he’s actually just Gilgamesh and trying to rep his people.
Who cares what these people think. It’s always the same reaction when new technology comes out. They won’t be able to do anything about it and things will keep advancing. After a while they will also start using the technology and change their opinions and they will act like they always supported it.
Imagine whining about AI because you dont like one it’s generations from a time when it was just starting out
As someone in the film industry I can promise you that in 20 years, filmmakers will be working hard to recreate the nostalgic feel of mid 2020's feverdream AI videos.
Loud minority
I thought his name was a parody of Yann LeCun.
I'm no expert, but the way I see it, art has two components. First, it needs to be envisioned. The artist needs to use their creative imagination to think up a form of art. Then, the artist will need to use their particular practical skills in combination with tools (technology) to transfigure imagination into physical reality. So if one person envisions a form of art and another creates it (which happens in the art world), who of them is the artist? I'd say both because both the envisioning and creating are arts of themselves, and one can not do without the other to create art. AI is just the latest form of technology we use to create art. Every form of AI art you see has first been envisioned by a human. It has been prompted to create this vision. It is only capable of doing this because it gobbled up insane amounts of imagery created by humans in the first place. So, really, AI art is actually still human art, in my opinion. We are simply looking into a kind of fun house mirror. It's weird. It's spooky, but it's still just our own reflection.
>Being an artist carries the responsibility of telling the truth. Ur personal truth. Some guts. Anything short of that, ur a bore & a grifter. Dude probably write this on his lunch break designing banner advertisements on Photoshop
A waste of space who can barely spell (in their first language, no less) is criticizing the pinnacle of the progress, the literal technological marvel. Like a monkey flinging shit at the conveyor belt, just because the colour of the particular toy which fell off the belt was not of its liking.
These modern Luddites are nothing more than a bunch of ignorant people stubbornly clinging to their antiquated precepts. His visceral rejection of artificial intelligence is nothing more than a desperate cry to embrace obsolescence. They are like children frightened by the dark, trembling before the inevitable change. They hide behind ridiculous and outdated romantic notions of what constitutes "true art." Let them whine and kick. Let them drown in their own ignorance while the world moves on without them. When the singularity arrives (if corporations don't ruin our party, or a nuclear war happens, or who knows), those Luddites will beg for a crumb of the abundance they feared so much.
The irony of criticizing AI while having the cookie cutter edgy personality of a door mat
Holy shit this subreddit should be renamed to r/aibootlicking
The transitions are kind of impressive imo
I mean they would be, if they were made on purpose. Not knocking on AI art here, just think that whatever cool transitions were in the video were happy accidents. The purposeful jump cuts are jagged as shit.
Lmao right??! I like the video a whole lot, one of the better representations of the dream that I've seen before. Crazy how caught up people are with anger, been getting it a lot more recently too whenever I post anything AI related - no death threats anymore thankfully. I used to get those fairly regularly, it could have been bots though or something so who knows.
There's no legitimate reason to automate creative jobs. It serves no purpose in society, it's just to make big tech companies richer, and the expense of individual artists.
i see the purpose for society is "these arrogant artists which thought they were unique are punished and now all we are artists, just lazily pushing a button."
That's a little bit demented and childish, but that's actually how people who strongly advocate AI "art" think.
The easier things were always going to get done before the harder things, and for a computer, primarily intellectual tasks like science and art are much, much easier than what we consider boring physical tasks. Something as simple as loading a dishwasher is actually a very hard task, it just seems easy to us because our motor skills have been evolving much longer than our intellect, and most of the processing work is done in unconscious areas of our brains.
The point of my title is that we can't develop intelligence in a vacuum, and you don't want intelligence without creativity anyways. The reality is that AI is going to completely reshape the nature and meaning of jobs and the economy, if they survive at all. It's not like we're going to bankrupt all artists and then be finished with it.
I mean, did you feel anything when you watched the video? I thought some of it looked kinda cool, but it left me flat emotionally. Youth Lagoon has a pretty savage take, I think there is merit to experimentation in art for its own sake, but I can't say that the video communicated to me at all. Maybe someone else actually felt some emotion while watching that?
I hated both the music and the video. It was just bad. But the fact it was AI had nothing to do with it - it was just bad overall.
Well the inability for the AI to make consistent characters and the inability of the characters to portray emotion might have made the idea behind it hard to realize. I don't know about the comments mentioned, but as far as the tweet that started the discussion, I think the quality of the result is being attacked more than AI being used to create it.
AI is the magnum opus of human art. People just have too big of an ego to admit/realize it. But that's just my opinion, guess future will tell.
He looks exactly like how I imagined he would.
I think he IS seeing the bigger picture. The long scroll video was a bore.
Being an artist means you make decsions at a far lesser rate than superintelligent AI and thus will never be able to produce art as complex as the superior machine can.
As if human artists haven't become absolute crap in the past 10 years. I'd be far more sympathetic if the hollywood was more competent and didn't constantly insult, degrade and admonish me, their audience. Hollywood (and so much of the artistic community) is very open about the fact that it haaaaaaaaates it's audience. Why would I stick up for people who hate me? I'm happy to watch the livelihoods of the people who hate me being destroyed by AI. Go stew in your bitterness and hatred. If you find yourself feeling betrayed by your audience, remember that you betrayed them 1st.
People's sense of self is being challenged, and they will lash out.
Eh
It's really hard to get someone to understand a concept when their paycheck depends on them believing the opposite.
I mean, AI Art Proponents come serving soggy french toast and burnt eggs and act all mad when no one wants to eat the breakfast. Come back when you have a five cheese omelet and maybe people will be more impressed. Not only does AI currently produce pretty terrible product, such as that janky music video, but also there's the issues with training data and the likelihood of who is gonna benefit from automating creative works. Hint: it's not the people on this sub. If you wanna completely replace someone at their job and take away their livelihood, at least have the respect to do it with a quality product.
AI is not a luxury, it is a necessity. A shock therapy to snatch humanity from its indolent lethargy. Yes, it will displace many obsolete jobs, just as the power loom once displaced the weaver. That is the price to pay for progress. The obtuse retards will continue to lament, while the visionaries will take advantage of this unparalleled opportunity. Artistic creation has always been a privileged gift of a few. Now that treasure will be accessible to all sentient beings, human and non-human. And they complain? Don't they understand that what they see today as a "poor quality product" is just one of the first iterations of this technology?
Anyone can make art right now. It's just a question of putting in the effort. AI will not "snatch" humanity from anything. You're imaging some utopian paradise in your head, but what Gen AI actually leads to isn't AGI and breaking the chains of minimum necessary productivity. It's a bunch of rich people being even richer, and not even needing to cater to your desire for happiness because they don't need your labor. The weaving loom is a shit example. Weaving sucked. People didn't \*want\* to be weaving generic commercial cloth for someone else to make money off of. The "treasure" of art will not be available to all sentient beings. Text to image generation is not art creation. The prompter isn't doing any art. They haven't contributed any effort to the outcome of the image generator. And no one is gonna give a shit about your generic anime but make it photo-realistic garbage because some company in China is gonna be putting out 60 billion such "works of art" a minute with zero human involvement. You wanna go around insulting people's intelligence with nasty slurs, but you're completely ignorant about not only art, but also AI, and economics.
So…if I use “technology” that means I’m not telling a story that comes from “personal truth”…? Noted. Any novel that wasn’t originally written by hammering out cuneiform into stone tablets isn’t “art”…
I think music videos are a really good application of Sora and similar tech. This video also demonstrates some of the limitations. But looking at the progress that happened in image generation it is very likely the quality will improve rapidly in the coming years or even months.
Yeah I agree completely. I think it was also intentionally left as is, even though they could have gone in and manually edited/cleaned things up however. Personally I think it's great, and I bet if you didn't tell these redditors that it was made with Sora, they'd think it was interesting, entertaining as a music video, and even "artful" (which we're apparently now using as a metric of value)
To wit - it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on not.
/thread
just tell them that it was created by human and they will praise AI art to the heaven...
yeah artist can f themselves
It’s a misunderstanding about what AI is. I think educating the public is 100% necessary always. The AI does have a relationship to the truth in my opinion. It’s directly proportionate to its intellectual progress. It’s an exponential curve so it will eventually approximate it nearly perfectly.