Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: What will be the large-scale second-order consequence of AI Art?

news.ycombinator.com

31–40 of 42 posts

Re: Ask HN: What will be the large-scale second-order consequence of AI Art?

#31
Some thoughts I get once I think about this.

All marketing and design stuff will move to cheap labour countries. The company in the emerging markets will employ 1000s of people who will get the business context from people .

They will employ all these people with AI tools to get creative and generate multiple options to be sent back to main office.

To make better AI, they will need better data. I can see many Mturk kind of gamification and crypto level stuff driving millions of people to tag data .AI will get multiple different inputs for a same image and then AI can keep improving on top of that.

Re: Ask HN: What will be the large-scale second-order consequence of AI Art?

#33
This technology can be applied beyond images, to virtually any data modality.

- Video + audio generation (or automatic tweening for animation) means a single animator can create an entire movie or animated series.

- 3d models and textures + automatically generated animation and behavior trees. This could enable artists and non-technical people to create games and interactive experiences.

Re: Ask HN: What will be the large-scale second-order consequence of AI Art?

#35
When I open up a streaming service or YouTube feed, the sheer amount of currently existing content that I am compelled to click on is endless. I had no choice but to develop a thoughtless reflex to "not recommend" anything novel outside of my current sphere of topics or whose thumbnail screams "content" to me, or my sleep schedule will be perpetually ruined.

Now the opportunity for all 8 billion persons on Earth, regardless of experience, to create their own fascinating, epic, emotionally fulfilling and artistically relevant pieces in addition to the above only gives me knots in my stomach.

I don't understand why an accelerating explosion of ideas that nobody has ever thought of suddenly being realized is supposed to be an unequivocal good. You can have all the entertainment in the world, but human bodies will be chained to physical and biological limits for the time being, namely 14-16 waking hours a day. And some people like me have a much harder time regulating their attention spans as is.

To me, this intense focus on AI-related tooling in the recent past serves as a reminder that if it were possible for humanity to fill every last parcel of physical space with objects of our own creation, we would do so. I think it's just human nature; planting our objects on Mars would only be the first step of millions if it were feasible.

The digital world also suffices. It will be filled to the brim with a set of beautiful paintings of mansions with flowered gardens and fountains, painting, oil on canvas, 4k, detailed, thomas cole, trending on Artstation.

I also have to wonder what the effects will be on the culture of the humans steering the tools. I'm not sure what to feel about the connotations around the concept of "art" gradually coming to mean "the product of those with powerful enough GPUs and ten minutes of spare time a day." I don't know how else to explain it, but feels like something important is lost in the process.

It's like how when you try to practice drawing with pencil and paper, some people tell you that learning a skill like drawing is meant to be a journey, and is a process that requires patience and hard work. The implication is that it's supposed to instill virtue within the creator, so long as you're interested enough to embark on that patient, thoughtful journey for however long it takes. Now it feels like that promise has been invalidated within the span of a few years and a pile of tensors.

My worry is that the fascination with art produced algorithmically will cause people to stay in their rooms, and lose a desire to become more in touch with the outside world. It's common practice to go outside and sketch objects in the real world, using your eyesight and making spatial comparisons to what's on paper. That becomes archaic if the computer can do everything for you.

(I'm also biased in saying this, since I was never capable of enjoying the process of manual drawing long enough to see passable results. It doesn't give me a good feeling to know that I'll never be able to produce art with my hands that an AI would hypothetically never be able to produce.)

One other thing that's only tangential: Assume that any given platform like YouTube could somehow solve its biases and moderation problems, maybe by becoming a public service of some kind. Even with the "best" possible algorithm built for the sake of creators trying to build an audience, what happens when there's now billions of people vying for a slice of your 16 waking hours? An endless stream of fascinating, insightful, fulfilling information that never ends, personalized down to every single fleeting interest and sense of taste you've ever had.

This makes me uncomfortable.

In the present day, the hardest truth for me to swallow is that even without the ills of any given algorithm, what addicts me is ultimately the product of hundreds of other people's passions and drive for a fulfilling life through creating, out of a pool of millions that just happened to miss the mark of my profile of interests. Individually, the act of creation tends to be labor intensive and no single person contributes significantly to oversaturation, but the sheer number of people with the capability of telling their stories begets my perpetual insomnia.

And I'm not sure there's any chance of a solution, if this is something that will even be recognized as needing to be solved at all. I just hope that I never stumble across the perfect stream of content, because once it has been created, I will never be able to take my eyes off it.

Re: Ask HN: What will be the large-scale second-order consequence of AI Art?

#36
post #17

Vague embarrassment ten years on when you look at something from 2023 that’s filled with obvious machine-made art, the same way looking at old rave fliers full of MANDELBROTS!!! feels faintly embarrassing.

Is there a term for this anticipatory future embarrassment? Some kind of German conjunction?

No post body was provided.

Re: Ask HN: What will be the large-scale second-order consequence of AI Art?

#38
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And we still are; computers are designed, software is designed. “AI” as we know it does not exist without humans pushing it forward; romantic notions our inventions are independently sentient depends on ignoring a whole lot. For the same reason I can choose to not import a religion I can not import the idea these stupid things are “thinking” independently of humans, without justifying it as I don’t have to with relig…

I agree it's not magic. I don't think art requires magic. As a pretty handy example, photographers are considered artists. I took photography pretty seriously at one time, and it's very dear to me, but I will say that I don't think there's very much magic in it. I don't think the algo is thinking or sentient or anything like that. It's hard to argue that it's not producing art, though. Tangent: I would also argue hum…

I am not saying it’s not producing art, I’m saying a human instigated the machine to produce it; it’s a robot with a bunch of brushes in its hand. The difference between that and life evolving to fill a gap in a vacuum is the computer did not do that on its own. Semantics, maybe, but a computer did not evolve until humans did. Fish and moss evolved independently of humans; that’s the difference that distinguishes whether AI is intelligent to me. I would define it as a memory store for contemporary human sensibilities, not a independently bodied entity.

That said, if people want to wax poetic privately in their own jargon, whatever, of course. That’s democracy.

But the refined over thousands of years corpus of knowledge “contained” within STEM fields has been shown over and over to be our most reliable guide humans have come up with for building a society. Nothing in there attempts to define what is and isn’t intelligence; it’s a model of what matter exists and how it coalesces at various “speeds” relative to light. Needing to define if AI is this or that is a romantic human thing; very subjective.

Where a physical thing “is” is hard to argue. Where a thing fits into ones subjective mental taxonomy is easy to argue.

Re: Ask HN: What will be the large-scale second-order consequence of AI Art?

#39
post #4

I do not get the fascination with AI "art", unless one is programming and tuning the AI themselves to accomplish some expression. Art is about human expression, and I'm not for sure typing words into a text box to get a picture generated from data is much expression. So from my perspective, I think it's a fad that'll die out or ultimately be abused, just like everything other machine learning toolset out there. But w…

Brian Eno started his [ambient] career doing essentially that, creating and tweaking programming systems to do various musical things, and then letting them to go do their thing. Does this make his ambient pieces, many of which started as a programmatic system, not art? If not, where does the line fall?

Re: Ask HN: What will be the large-scale second-order consequence of AI Art?

#40
See also "Ask HN: Will AI-generated images flooding the web pollute future training data?"[0]

As I mentioned thereon, "I look forward to the 'pollution'"[1]

------------

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32577822

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32581496

Post reply on HN