I don’t think that’s true. It’s just another tool. Using it to get a good result takes more skill, practice, and patience than using it to get an okay result.
That’s not to say it is equivalent in terms of skill required to oil paint, for example. But it really does stink of being obstinately against change for no reason other than it being change.
I imagine similar complaints were made when photoshop first started to rise in popularity and use.
I agree: it is a tool. And maybe you might at some point be able to create something worthwhile with it. But I’ve yet to see something wwrthwhile.
The main way “generative AI” is currently being used is by giving some idea some kind of form. If the original idea is just lame, or has been done to death (like a pixar poster of insert any atocricy here) : it will show.
If you think that AI is a shortcut to replace a creative idea, you will not be able to get any art from it.
You can also see that in the weird AI bro behavior, when they refuse to share their prompts: In any traditional art project people are glad to share their techniques. But AI bros realize that there’s so little effort involved that they are overly protective of their prompts so that people may not find out how low effort their “creativite” process actually is.
So, you don’t like the art you’ve seen made with AI. That’s fine. Art is subjective; just because you don’t like a medium doesn’t mean it’s not creative. There are plenty of mediums and styles I don’t personally like either.
If you think that AI is a shortcut to replace a creative idea, you will not be able to get any art from it.
That’s not contentious, in the sense of you won’t come up with any interesting art. My toddler’s scribble on a page isn’t interesting art either, but it’s still art.
As for the ‘AI bro’ thing - I haven’t run in to this, but yes it does sound like the ones that don’t want to share their prompts are insecure. It’s very normal for most artists to share their media and techniques with their piece; most AI art I’ve seen, particularly the better more interesting stuff, the person has shared their prompts and the models they’ve used.p
I wasn’t pointing to a conspiracy, merely the fact that the criticism voiced so far doesn’t have any substance to it other than ‘I don’t like it’ and therefore is likely because it’s new and different.
Edit:
I just realised you may be conflating my argument here about what constitutes as ‘art’ with artists making a case they’ve been ripped off because LLMs have been trained on their work.
@Risk@Prunebutt, the risk is when we lose our own capabilities and intelligence, becoming dependent on AI. This has already happened with previous technologies. Who still has the handwriting of our grandparents with the introduction of the keyboard and word processors? Who can still do simple sums mentally for purchases at the supermarket, without using a calculator? With the introduction of smartphones, our lives have become completely dependent on these gossips in practically every aspect, social as well as professional.
Seeing this evolution, I always think of the humans in the movie Wall-e as the end result of this path. It is not that AI is going to fight and subjugate humanity, it does not need to do so, since we subordinate ourselves to it voluntarily, even today we would be unable to survive a week without our technology.
It happens when we start using tools, not for what they are, but as crutches for our own inability and intelligence, instead of using them for our own development.
Yeah, good quality handwriting is less prevalent now than it has been in the past - but that’s not because of a loss of artistry, but because that mode of written communication is less important. But there are still plenty of calligraphy artists out there, and are perhaps more highly prized now than they were before.
Human creativity doesn’t stop, we just progress to new tools when the previous ones can be automated. And yet, even then, we still have people that go back to use the old tools for the simple joy of using them.
I don’t think that’s true. It’s just another tool. Using it to get a good result takes more skill, practice, and patience than using it to get an okay result.
That’s not to say it is equivalent in terms of skill required to oil paint, for example. But it really does stink of being obstinately against change for no reason other than it being change.
I imagine similar complaints were made when photoshop first started to rise in popularity and use.
I agree: it is a tool. And maybe you might at some point be able to create something worthwhile with it. But I’ve yet to see something wwrthwhile.
The main way “generative AI” is currently being used is by giving some idea some kind of form. If the original idea is just lame, or has been done to death (like a pixar poster of insert any atocricy here) : it will show.
If you think that AI is a shortcut to replace a creative idea, you will not be able to get any art from it.
You can also see that in the weird AI bro behavior, when they refuse to share their prompts: In any traditional art project people are glad to share their techniques. But AI bros realize that there’s so little effort involved that they are overly protective of their prompts so that people may not find out how low effort their “creativite” process actually is.
So, you don’t like the art you’ve seen made with AI. That’s fine. Art is subjective; just because you don’t like a medium doesn’t mean it’s not creative. There are plenty of mediums and styles I don’t personally like either.
That’s not contentious, in the sense of you won’t come up with any interesting art. My toddler’s scribble on a page isn’t interesting art either, but it’s still art.
As for the ‘AI bro’ thing - I haven’t run in to this, but yes it does sound like the ones that don’t want to share their prompts are insecure. It’s very normal for most artists to share their media and techniques with their piece; most AI art I’ve seen, particularly the better more interesting stuff, the person has shared their prompts and the models they’ve used.p
Stop being so dramatic and conspiratorial. The pushback is because it sucks. AI can’t be genuinely creative.
Conspiratorial? What?
Large Language Models cannot be genuinely creative; I agree. The people using them can. Why is that disagreeable?
The pushback against AI is not because artists are in a conspiracy to block progress.
Okay. That wasn’t what I was trying to imply at all.
You might not have meant to say it but you did
No, I really didn’t - but I can’t exactly stop your confirmation bias.
Sighhhhh
it is so tiresome being lied to when the evidence is a short scroll above
As I said, I can’t fix your confirmation bias.
I wasn’t pointing to a conspiracy, merely the fact that the criticism voiced so far doesn’t have any substance to it other than ‘I don’t like it’ and therefore is likely because it’s new and different.
Edit:
I just realised you may be conflating my argument here about what constitutes as ‘art’ with artists making a case they’ve been ripped off because LLMs have been trained on their work.
Those are two different topics.
@Risk @Prunebutt, the risk is when we lose our own capabilities and intelligence, becoming dependent on AI. This has already happened with previous technologies. Who still has the handwriting of our grandparents with the introduction of the keyboard and word processors? Who can still do simple sums mentally for purchases at the supermarket, without using a calculator? With the introduction of smartphones, our lives have become completely dependent on these gossips in practically every aspect, social as well as professional.
Seeing this evolution, I always think of the humans in the movie Wall-e as the end result of this path. It is not that AI is going to fight and subjugate humanity, it does not need to do so, since we subordinate ourselves to it voluntarily, even today we would be unable to survive a week without our technology.
It happens when we start using tools, not for what they are, but as crutches for our own inability and intelligence, instead of using them for our own development.
I think this is quite a hyperbolic analysis.
Yeah, good quality handwriting is less prevalent now than it has been in the past - but that’s not because of a loss of artistry, but because that mode of written communication is less important. But there are still plenty of calligraphy artists out there, and are perhaps more highly prized now than they were before.
Human creativity doesn’t stop, we just progress to new tools when the previous ones can be automated. And yet, even then, we still have people that go back to use the old tools for the simple joy of using them.
Don’t mistake delegation for subordination.