111–120 of 173 posts
From what? Until strong AI comes about, good human artists will always be able to compete on originality and relatability, and even afterwards, human art could be valued for its "authentic flavor", or something like that. Until then, among humans, only the hacks need fear these systems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The kind of art you're talking about is "high art" and it's a luxury item. The majority of artists don't produce that type of art, and will instead lose out in this scenario.
A Ferrari is a luxury item. The exhibition was free but you could pay to stay the night. The guy also designs slides and the tone of his exhibition style is not "high art". Ultimately you are talking about art as a product and that means you think all art is captured by Warhol's system of art. Which is what all digital artists overreacting to this also think. It's not the totality of what art is. I like DALL-E. Good…
Yeah, art is vast. It includes me saying "Kerflaffle!!" while I ride a unicycle and fart out a candle in a dimly lit room. But that doesn't usually pay bills and most artists don't do this type of art. It serves a different audience/consumer. It has a different market cap. Let's not confuse oranges and grapefruit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you spend a lifetime mastering some skill, and then it's just not valued anymore, it sucks, and you get pretty mad about it. That is absolutely not what the OP is complaining about. They're not saying that because AI is good, they won't find work. They are complaining that in training AI for art generation, builders took works from living artists, without consent from them, and that in so doing allowed generator…
This is frankly what humans have always done, learning and taking inspiration from other artists. Now we have made a machine that can do the same thing. In the case of exact reproductions, we have copyright and IP laws.
These models are not learning or being inspired in the same sense humans are. The laws tgat apply to humans should not be applied to them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please save this comment to refer to when an iteration of Copilot starts to make you truly worried for the future of your career. Thanks in advance.
Yes, many of us will turn into cowards when automation starts to touch our work, but that would not prove this sentiment incorrect - only that we're cowards.
We'll want to be a little careful with how society responds to this. Basquiat put it well ( http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html ) Excerpt follows: "We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price; for the moment he appears, our sales cease, al…
Since this thread is about art, I figured people might read the name Basquiat in your comment and think that he wrote the quote you cite, which would in my mind give it greater relevance to this discussion than it has.
I think it’s telling that the primary ethical concerns around AI development (at least at OpenAI, if not others) are that AI tools not be used to enable propagandists, or to generate violent or sexual imagery. I see comparatively few ethical concerns about the economic fallout professional artists and illustrators will experience as a result.
Why no sexual imagery?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you give examples of when technology was successfully rolled back for social reasons (not because it was found to have dramatic side effects, like asbestos eg) and that didn't coincide with a massive drop in HDI (like the fall of the Roman empire)?
Anti-WMD proliferation comes to mind, but perhaps that's a special case.
Those discussions aside, what I meant by social reasons was people wanting to see some tech go away because it's automating jobs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Either way I support AI art and AI in other fields. Just because artists are mad it's gonna take their jobs does not seem like a legitimate reason to halt human progress. It's just inevitable the way things are going.
Please save this comment to refer to when an iteration of Copilot starts to make you truly worried for the future of your career. Thanks in advance.
Software development is heavily labor-constrained, if copilot can make everyone a 10x developer, we'll get slightly less than 10x the features-per-year on an industry-wide basis after contributors shuffle around.
The effect will be most pronounced in application development, where a team of 1-5 is about ideal for a coherent app made with taste, and that team could produce the output of 10-50 developers. Not such a bad thing.
Unfortunately this is unlikely to be true for visiual art, I don't predict that making artists ten times as productive will meet a latent demand for ten times as much art. Could be wrong, but my sense is that about as much art is purchased as people want to buy.
I won't pretend that this isn't a troubling development for digital artists, maybe even existentially so. I hope not. One thing that makes me a little hopeful is that every image I've generated with DALL-E 2, even the best ones, would require non-trivial work to make them "good". There's always something wrong, and you can't tell the model "the hat should be tilted about 5 about degrees", or "the hands should not loo…
Have you seen Stable Diffusion, the AI in question in the tweet? The images are astoundingly good, much better than DALL-E 2 even. https://twitter.com/StableDiffusion/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only is your rant about Google misplaced considering Dall-E is OpenAI, not Google, but the thread is also not complaining about Dall-E. It's about Stable Diffusion ( https://stability.ai/blog/stable-diffusion-announcement ) which is explicitly trained on working artists. That's why it tries to reproduce the logo.
You're right of course! I don't know what I was thinking. Dall-e is MS. I will edit.