Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nick Cave on ChatGPT and the creative process

theredhandfiles.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 113 posts

Re: Nick Cave on ChatGPT and the creative process

#21

Post by LastTrain »

bemusedthrow75 wrote: post #8
hellothere1337 wrote: post #4

Seems to me there's a confusion of ideas here. If you want to create "true" art no one is stopping you. If you're upset people can make more money by "undermining" the creative process by using tools then you're not really interested in creating "true" art with the "creative process", you're interested in money.

Are you saying people who make "true art" should not be doing it for reward, or should not be as interested in money as non-artists? This is enormously reductive and is quite a modern idea. Most artists in history have made art for gain. It is a bold strategy to suggest that Nick Cave is confused by ideas of income and art. I don't care who you are: on this topic, Cave is almost 100% certainly better informed than yo…

All kinds of markets have been upturned by technology, what makes music more special?

Re: Nick Cave on ChatGPT and the creative process

#22

Post by vouaobrasil »

poopbutt7 wrote: post #10
vouaobrasil wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, society is set up now so that the ONLY thing people CAN do is go after money. It was pushed hard in that direction by tech companies like Google, Microsoft, and Facebook because they wanted to maximize pure short-term profit by sucking life out of people. There was a time in history where you COULD create real art and make a decent living out of it. Now, AI has set up the ultimate PRISONER'S DILEMMA (…

> There was a time in history where you COULD create real art and make a decent living out of it. Honest question, is that actually true? Historically, professional art always struck me as the domain of the rich, the starving artist, or the person taking commissions for the rich.

Well, as a case in point: people can make money from YouTube and writing books now...that may indeed be a thing of the past if a person is not willing to use AI. But even if not, some people were definitely able to make money out of being an artist in the past, like people who painted other people's portraits.

AND, if you read about the history of photography, some people were definitely able to make money out of taking people's portraits. That was still the case until advanced technology came around.

But I do agree with your point: not everyone was able to do so.

Re: Nick Cave on ChatGPT and the creative process

#23

Post by eightysixfour »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #22
poopbutt7 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was a time in history where you COULD create real art and make a decent living out of it. Honest question, is that actually true? Historically, professional art always struck me as the domain of the rich, the starving artist, or the person taking commissions for the rich.

Well, as a case in point: people can make money from YouTube and writing books now...that may indeed be a thing of the past if a person is not willing to use AI. But even if not, some people were definitely able to make money out of being an artist in the past, like people who painted other people's portraits. AND, if you read about the history of photography, some people were definitely able to make money out of tak…

> AND, if you read about the history of photography, some people were definitely able to make money out of taking people's portraits. That was still the case until advanced technology came around.

People still make money from taking people’s portraits… and those people took money from the portrait artists who used to travel and paint portraits.

Artists almost always reject technology that makes what they do a commodity, which makes sense, but the reality is that art that lasts is usually something which comes into existence when the previous art gets commoditized. IMO, when the artists freak out it is because we have made a new technology that is actually disruptive.

Re: Nick Cave on ChatGPT and the creative process

#24

Post by _pdp_ »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #5

From the article: > ChatGPT is fast-tracking the commodification of the human spirit by mechanising the imagination. It renders our participation in the act of creation as valueless and unnecessary. That ‘songwriter ‘you were talking to, Leon, who is using ChatGPT to write ‘his’ lyrics because it is ‘faster and easier ,’is participating in this erosion of the world’s soul and the spirit of humanity itself and, to put…

If the human spirit is really that fragile, then perhaps it deserves to erode and die. Yet, the human spirit has been subjected to much worse, and it survived. Maybe there are some qualities in the creative process that ChatGPT simply cannot emulate.

Re: Nick Cave on ChatGPT and the creative process

#26

Post by djoldman »

One way to view the use of LLMs is by purpose or intended outcome. Some examples include:

* A user has in their brain a definite statement, thought, or concept they wish to translate to words-on-the-page. They use an LLM to explore different ways to express that definite statement/thought/concept.

* A user has a question they then pose to the LLM, hoping that the LLM's answer is truthful/not-truthful/funny/interesting/etc.

* A user has a vague idea of something they may want to say and poses the question to an LLM to explore the infinite ways the answer could mutate.

* etc. etc.

LLMs have many possible uses and their effectiveness varies with the use and output requirements.

------

Back to the article: I'm reminded of an interesting split in the woodworking world between "hand toolers" and "power toolers." In the end, both camps may arrive at the exact same output but individuals can sometimes seem fanatical as to the correct/true/authentic/efficient/better method.

Re: Nick Cave on ChatGPT and the creative process

#27

Post by wheelerof4te »

lll-o-lll wrote: post #16
vouaobrasil wrote: post #5

From the article: > ChatGPT is fast-tracking the commodification of the human spirit by mechanising the imagination. It renders our participation in the act of creation as valueless and unnecessary. That ‘songwriter ‘you were talking to, Leon, who is using ChatGPT to write ‘his’ lyrics because it is ‘faster and easier ,’is participating in this erosion of the world’s soul and the spirit of humanity itself and, to put…

Not an artist, but many people refer to the creative part of making software as an “art”, so here’s a take. ChatGPT allows for rapid iteration of ideas. I have an idea, I get ChatGPT to flesh it out, I iterate. The value ChatGPT is providing is not to be the source of creativity, it’s in speeding up the process from idea to concrete implementation. It’s a tool. In software development and engineering more generally,…

Coding is not art, it is a learned and trained skill.

Even though, I believe that the use of ChatGPT or any other AI assistant will eventually lead to the creation of inexperienced and unskilled generations of developers.

Using AI to generate "art" will just kill human creativity. Not only will it do that, it will create a new normal, where this AI art will be viewed as standard. Just as we currently have an over-monetized, synthetic music industry completely devoid of quality.

Re: Nick Cave on ChatGPT and the creative process

#28

Post by RetroTechie »

Summarized: ChatGPT = bad. It will turn creativity into a worthless commodity.

But take note: AI agents are tools. Complex tools. Tools with a personality.

Right now, they're dumb. They're crude. They appear simple. But they won't stay that way.

If you happen to be a lonely hacker toiling away in a basement somewhere: brace yourself for having a group of AI tools / friends. Each with a personality of its own that may be simpler than humans, comparable, or even exceed humans. They may become companions for life, in one form or another.

Such AI companions may guide you through a dark or difficult period in life. Or you may lead a team of them into a great victory ("victory" is up to you to define). Creative geniuses in their own right. Producing works of incredible beauty or elegance. Provide deep insights. Advance science. Or even be funnier than best conversation with humans you've ever had. One of them may just keep your fridge stocked with your favourites.

Just... not yet. Hence the "ChatGPT = bad". Yes, those crude AI's will work to enshittify the internet for a while (and probably be quite good at that). Among other things. But be patient. That's not the final state of affairs.

Re: Nick Cave on ChatGPT and the creative process

#29

Post by fhd2 »

lll-o-lll wrote: post #16
vouaobrasil wrote: post #5

From the article: > ChatGPT is fast-tracking the commodification of the human spirit by mechanising the imagination. It renders our participation in the act of creation as valueless and unnecessary. That ‘songwriter ‘you were talking to, Leon, who is using ChatGPT to write ‘his’ lyrics because it is ‘faster and easier ,’is participating in this erosion of the world’s soul and the spirit of humanity itself and, to put…

Not an artist, but many people refer to the creative part of making software as an “art”, so here’s a take. ChatGPT allows for rapid iteration of ideas. I have an idea, I get ChatGPT to flesh it out, I iterate. The value ChatGPT is providing is not to be the source of creativity, it’s in speeding up the process from idea to concrete implementation. It’s a tool. In software development and engineering more generally,…

Art, at least how I understand it, is about sharing emotions and experiences. We know artists (as opposed to programmers) because we are curious about the person that put a part of themselves into the thing that evoked some emotion in us or gave us an interesting experience.

Software can be a tool to create art (games for example), but mostly it's about problem solving. Sometimes creative problem solving, sure. But listening to a machine generated song is like the ultimate soulless A/B tested local maximum entertainment whose only goal is to make money. We had enough of that without generative AI, it's not gonna get better I wager.

I don't care much who wrote the code I'm running or if it was AI generated. There's nothing human being shared there, it solves a problem, and all that really matters is that it solves the problem well.

Re: Nick Cave on ChatGPT and the creative process

#30

Post by vidarh »

bemusedthrow75 wrote: post #8
hellothere1337 wrote: post #4

Seems to me there's a confusion of ideas here. If you want to create "true" art no one is stopping you. If you're upset people can make more money by "undermining" the creative process by using tools then you're not really interested in creating "true" art with the "creative process", you're interested in money.

Are you saying people who make "true art" should not be doing it for reward, or should not be as interested in money as non-artists? This is enormously reductive and is quite a modern idea. Most artists in history have made art for gain. It is a bold strategy to suggest that Nick Cave is confused by ideas of income and art. I don't care who you are: on this topic, Cave is almost 100% certainly better informed than yo…

Most artists make next to nothing on their art. A vanishingly small portion can live off it, and fewer uetearn well.

The number is probably higher for the elite, most renowned artists, and it might well benefit society to ensure a portion of the best can live of it, but in many places that is already hard enough that a substantial portion of the ability of even elite artists to live off their art often comes down to government funding and grants, followed by patronage that is more about status than ability to commercially exploit a work.

That's not to agree with the notion that real artists can't want money too, because I don't agree with that, but I also don't agree that most artists have made art for gain.

At least not as a primary motivator, as if gain was the main goal, it's usually a bad one (e.g. the average full time UK novelist earns below minimum wage from their writing)

Post reply on HN