Board 8 > What do people here think about AI-created media?

(+) Yeah! (+)

PumpkinCoach posted...

AI written articles describing and critiquing AI art - an entire art ecosystem operating without human intervention.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/5/7/AAbtIzAAENQJ.jpg

If anything can stunt the AI revolution, it would be advertisers getting false data from bots and putting the clamp down as a result.

Metal_DK posted...

the next stage of the casual revolution. This is truly the end.

Stage 1: 2007-2016
Stage 2: 2016-2023
Stage 3: 2023-?

Its accelerating. We are approaching the Casual Singularity.

Mythiot posted...

PR writers quaking in fear right now.

I'm a PR writer, actually! AI has already been extremely helpful in my work. It's very obviously not a replacement for a human even once it does become more advanced, but that's not going to stop short-sighted companies from making that mistake. I'm pretty confident that the ones that do make that mistake will pretty quickly be course corrected, seeing as it legitimately isn't a human replacement for anything other than the most mindless SEO fodder that nobody is ever really intended to read.

As it stands, it's ridiculously helpful for quickly hammering out the bones of a press release, pitch, article outline etc etc and serving as a sounding board to generate ideas, effectively skipping the "blank page" part of the process that can easily take up entirely too much time in the writing process. It's also great for quickly spitballing ideas for topics, examples and quick questions, though obviously you still have to fact check stuff.

As developments continue I'm sure many agencies (and companies in many other industries) will start to adopt it as a way to help strip out the tedious parts of the job. It's absolutely just a tool and will remain just a tool for any sane and stable company, but smart use of it will doubtless help to strip out a shitload of tedium and just generally make life better. That all relies on ethical use, of course, and I'm definitely willing to admit that's a frightening sea that we're only just now starting to navigate as a society.

The problem is not AI, it's capitalism.

As companies race to lower their costs as much as possible, creation of art is one of the things they'll likely delegate to AI.

Paratroopa1 posted...

I hoped the bit would be obvious from post one

it was

anyways AI replacing artists sucks obviously for the artists, but it's a fair view to say art is art regardless of context (even if I don't really agree with this) and if people are enjoying AI art and music it doesn't necessarily matter if it's AI created or not. I just hope we can leverage this to start achieving a post-scarcity society where artists are free to create without patronization and their newfound freedom of creation without the need of monetization will usher in a new era of I can't even finish I'm laughing too hard

Fun as a toy, but people using it to try to churn out content for money is bad enough that Id be cool if it went away.

Don't think its any different than telephone operators going out of business.

If it is indistinguishable it is just as good, and if it isn't as good there will be people who are better.

NFUN posted...

and if people are enjoying AI art and music it doesn't necessarily matter if it's AI created or not.

It does matter when most of this art was created by feeding art from creators who did not give their concent into an algorithm.

AI art is theft.

UshiromiyaEva posted...

It does matter when most of this art was created by feeding art from creators who did not give their concent into an algorithm.

AI art is theft.

you're A, entirely missing the point of that statement, and 2, not understanding how these AIs work

Seeing some people being fooled by Para does scare me a bit as AI generated content continues to get better

KamikazePotato posted...

https://www.reuters.com/technology/chatgpt-launches-boom-ai-written-e-books-amazon-2023-02-21/

Topic inspired by this article which is related to my field of work. I've really not been a fan of the AI art boom, so seeing AI also take strides into writing is...not fun either! I think the technology itself is very impressive but the implications it has for media as a whole is deeply worrying.

Pretty much most white collar jobs are at risk from AI. The only ones that are "somewhat safe" for now are the ones with significant in person human interaction or ones that are in highly regulated industries.

Seems fine to me. Definitely don't care about "losing jobs" or whatever.

Maybe I just sincerely doubt it's ability to create actually good original art.

You mean you havent already heard the complaints of AI generated art winning actual art contests over human artists?

Maybe I'm thinking complex art like a movie, novel, music, etc.

But even in an art contest the only thing being judged is probably stuff like technical ability and composition, kind of basic stuff.

swordz9 posted...

You mean you havent already heard the complaints of AI generated art winning actual art contests over human artists?

Incoming "is art subjective?" debate again

swordz9 posted...

You mean you havent already heard the complaints of AI generated art winning actual art contests over human artists?

It still was a human who decided what AI art to submit

It's super advanced photoshop

I don't care about it either way but probably should care about it more given my wife works for an AI chatbot company. I'm honestly baffled by how against it people are though.

masterplum posted...

It still was a human who decided what AI art to submit

It's super advanced photoshop

Someone typed a string of words and then picked from a limitless number of images generated in seconds, a human picked it doesnt mean anything.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Someone typed a string of words and then picked from a limitless number of images generated in seconds, a human picked it doesnt mean anything.

Ok?

So it created award winning art in a fraction of the time as a human

Hooray

Raka_Putra posted...

The problem is not AI, it's capitalism.

As companies race to lower their costs as much as possible, creation of art is one of the things they'll likely delegate to AI.

Pretty much. It's great that creative people no longer have to be stunted by a lack of skill or income or contacts to create.

But everything that can be AI-automated, will be, because it cuts costs.

I don't have a positive opinion towards AI at all, not even towards the harmless bits done for jokes. I think creativity outlets go a long way to making people feel satisfied going through life. I think AI circumvents that. I have heard of people using AI as a shortcut to further realizing their creative outlets (a common example is using AI to generate art for a D&D session). I'm....fine with this, but I would probably never explore that route.

AI mixed with capitalism feels like it'll be a disaster.

masterplum posted...

Ok?

So it created award winning art in a fraction of the time as a human

Hooray

Were not talking about John Henry vs the machine here, why is this good? The entire purpose of automation is to give people more time for pleasure, whats the point of automating art?

I see people on Twitter passing AI art as their own and trying to make money off it. So I hate it already.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Someone typed a string of words and then picked from a limitless number of images generated in seconds, a human picked it doesnt mean anything.

I've even seen people take nature photography with a camera and try to pass it off as their own. It's like "dude, the earth created that, not you".

TomNook posted...

I've even seen people take nature photography with a camera and try to pass it off as their own. It's like "dude, the earth created that, not you".

Photography is actually a skill though. Knowing how to frame a shot, timing it correctly, even photoshop involves making deliberate and careful choices. It's not comparable to stringing words together and crossing your fingers that whatever the computer mashes together from other people's stolen work will be close enough to your imagination.

TomNook posted...

I've even seen people take nature photography with a camera and try to pass it off as their own. It's like "dude, the earth created that, not you".

lol you CANNOT be serious

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

lol you CANNOT be serious

I dont think he was being serious but its kinda hard to tell

RyoCaliente posted...

because it cuts costs.

This is very far from true right now btw, and it's actually the main thing that will hold back it's adoption in the short-term.

Shit's really expensive and all the free apps are losing lots of money every day. The cost can be optimized pretty well, but not as much as like google search.

Mythiot posted...

Photography is actually a skill though. Knowing how to frame a shot, timing it correctly, even photoshop involves making deliberate and careful choices. It's not comparable to stringing words together and crossing your fingers that whatever the computer mashes together from other people's stolen work will be close enough to your imagination.

You're gonna have to change this argument quick if you want to stay against AI art

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

The entire purpose of automation is to give people more time for pleasure, whats the point of automating art?

This argument also doesn't make sense. There's thousands of artists who grind way beyond sustainable hours to pump out tedious art. Do they not deserve automation? You can argue that artists are somehow the one group that needs to remain wage slaves.

By itself? I think it can be neat.

But when it's hurting artists, writers, etc? I totally get why people are against it, and things could get even worse if this becomes a trend.

Oh yeah and there were lots of controversy when AI art was trained on pirated or stolen material

I care about the end result, not particularly concerned with who or what made it.

foolm0r0n posted...

This argument also doesn't make sense. There's thousands of artists who grind way beyond sustainable hours to pump out tedious art. Do they not deserve automation? You can argue that artists are somehow the one group that needs to remain wage slaves.

Congrats, you found the exception that proves the rule.

dunno about what you guys are arguing about

but this kind of stuff is hilarious

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjBOD4eXcQc

I just dont see why people are treating art like its some sort of sacred cow

We dont need chimney sweeps any more. We dont need horse and carriage drivers any more. We dont need cashiers in many fast food locations any more.

But heaven forbid we dont need artists any more

masterplum posted...

We dont need chimney sweeps any more. We dont need horse and carriage drivers any more. We dont need cashiers in many fast food locations any more.

yeah because those are all services

Hbthebattle posted...

yeah because those are all services

So is art

Yeah, art for monetary reasons is a service. Art just as a creative outlet is not and AI art existing doesn't change people's ability to keep doing art for that purpose.

And also it's only one type of art.

Mass production hasn't suddenly made glass art disappear even if you could set up a machine to do it.

We literally are only talking about digital art

masterplum posted...

I just dont see why people are treating art like its some sort of sacred cow

We dont need chimney sweeps any more. We dont need horse and carriage drivers any more. We dont need cashiers in many fast food locations any more.

But heaven forbid we dont need artists any more

I've never met anyone who was like "I want to be a chimney sweep when I grow up"

MZero posted...

I've never met anyone who was like "I want to be a chimney sweep when I grow up"

Well yeah, because the profession has been dead for generations.

You don't think there are people who wish they could be blacksmiths? Forging is still a hobby of people even though it is completely obsolete

There's a difference between content and art

scarletspeed7 posted...

There's a difference between content and art

That's a distinction made by the beholder as much as its creator though.

As time has passed, I personally believe that argument becomes less valid. As mentioned earlier in this thread, D&D character mock-ups are pure filler material. A poster, mass-produced with the purpose primarily of information gathering. Marquees featuring movie posters. I think we've slowly begun to advance past the point of all "drawings" being art. Art has a purpose beyond utility.

In fact, I think the very fact that AI has produced content is enough of a restrictive barrier to say that it ISN'T art. The technical quality is slowly going to be phased out of our perceptions of how to view art as AI becomes more and more talented. And you're right - the creator and the beholder alike must view art as art - which in the AI's case is impossible.

It's okay for the definition of words to change. I'm not afraid of the idea that we have to redefine the paradigms that shape our understanding of things like art, literature, music, etc. That's the exciting part of human advancement.

scarletspeed7 posted...

As time has passed, I personally believe that argument becomes less valid. As mentioned earlier in this thread, D&D character mock-ups are pure filler material. A poster, mass-produced with the purpose primarily of information gathering. Marquees featuring movie posters. I think we've slowly begun to advance past the point of all "drawings" being art. Art has a purpose beyond utility.

In fact, I think the very fact that AI has produced content is enough of a restrictive barrier to say that it ISN'T art. The technical quality is slowly going to be phased out of our perceptions of how to view art as AI becomes more and more talented. And you're right - the creator and the beholder alike must view art as art - which in the AI's case is impossible.

Not what I said. Both doesn't have to view it as art. Either can view it as art. I can think AI art is art and you can disagree and we're both right because there's no objective definition of art. It's like saying something is "good", it's all subjective.

The only correct answer to "what is art" is "this is a stupid question", lots of wrong answers here