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

101–110 of 113 posts

Re: Nick Cave on ChatGPT and the creative process

#101

Post by Hoasi »

luminen wrote: post #14
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…

As with most things, I think the true value of LLMs will come from use in moderation. In theory, having AI write an annoyingly polite email to a frustrated customer saves emotional and artistic capital that a knowledge worker can spend later on their own pursuits. It makes me think of something Brandon Sanderson wrote that has been bouncing around in my head a lot lately: "Physical labor is great for the mind, as it…

> It makes me think of something Brandon Sanderson wrote that has been bouncing around in my head a lot lately: "Physical labor is great for the mind, as it leaves all kinds of time to consider the world. Other work, like accounting or scribing, demands little of the body—but siphons energy from the mind. If you wish to become a storyteller, here is a hint: sell your labor, but not your mind. Give me ten hours a day scrubbing a deck, and oh the stories I could imagine. Give me ten hours adding sums, and all you’ll have me imagining at the end is a warm bed and a thought-free evening.”

While I understand the theory, it doesn’t work in practice most of the time. Labour work doesn’t let you think that much in reality.

Re: Nick Cave on ChatGPT and the creative process

#102

Post by bemusedthrow75 »

vidarh wrote: post #96
bemusedthrow75 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Throughout the history of the last two millennia or so, most artists will have made art for patronage, for direct reimbursement (artisanal objects that happen to be art, or for the church or some noble) or for barter. There will have been very few serious artists in history who could afford to do it for the love, because art materials cost money, and time making non-functional art is time not earning enough or workin…

This is kind of the point, in that tying art to the need to make a living used to severely limit the production of art. As we saw this difficulty being overcome, we saw an explosion in artists, and a whole lot of those unable to get paid for their art turned out to produce amazing things. Van Gogh being one of the obvious examples coming out of that. But even before that I'm not convinced that about your claim. I'll…

> This is kind of the point, in that tying art to the need to make a living used to severely limit the production of art. As we saw this difficulty being overcome, we saw an explosion in artists, and a whole lot of those unable to get paid for their art turned out to produce amazing things. Van Gogh being one of the obvious examples coming out of that.

Fair. But the argument I am responding to implies that making money is antithetical to making art — that artists can’t think about making money if they want to make true art. This is, frankly, patronising bullshit in the fullest sense (not least because it denigrates artisanship in the sense of making truly artistic useful objects).

Arguing for a world where artists should not be respected if they are as focused on their income as anyone else is insulting, not least when great art makes such huge sums and generates independent wealth for its owners once it becomes an asset.

It belittles art itself, as a plaything or an alternative to real work.

Re: Nick Cave on ChatGPT and the creative process

#103

Post by fnovd »

krapp wrote: post #93
fnovd wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference between "making money and making art" and "making money by making art". No one is entitled to having other people value their artistic output. I would argue that art created for the marketplace is less creative than art produced by a human's need to create for creation's sake. It's not un-artistic, but it is the kind of art that an AI can make better, faster, and cheaper.

Give an example of a work of art produced by a human's need to create for creation's sake alone, and not at all for the marketplace, that outclasses any classical works of art, music, literature or anything else that the creator was paid for. Michaelangelo didn't paint the Sistene Chapel ceiling for free. The Rolling Stones and the Beatles didn't perform for free. Shakespeare didn't write for free. That indie band yo…

Simply look at the career of Van Gogh or any "Bohemian starving artist". Listing only the most popular, most influential artists proves my point: for most people art is an untenable career. In that regard AI, has virtually no impact on those who want to create. They will find a way to make something unique and valuable or they will fail like millions of artists already do in the world we have today.

There are many artists in my family and all of them have day jobs to support their creative passions. Mosts artists fail to make money; it really should go without saying that not everyone can be Helen Mirren or Paul McCartney. If requiring a day job makes you give up art, you probably didn't have the drive to create anything people really wanted. For most artists creation is a need, not something that is pursued for monetary reasons. Everyone tries to make money on their art, but again, even without AI the vast majority of artists fail to do so.

Re: Nick Cave on ChatGPT and the creative process

#105

Post by rambojohnson »

mitjam wrote: post #95

“Art is in the eye of the beholder, and everyone will have their own interpretation.” ― E.A. Bucchianeri, Brushstrokes of a Gadfly. For me, the job of art is to make us stumble and break out of automatic recognition patterns. Art helps us see, listen, and think in a fresh way. Great art inspires "imitation" and own creations as well as discussions and controversy. If you look at it this way, being able to create virt…

Saying "art is in the eye of the beholder" is an oversimplification. Art is deeply connected to context and culture, and to argue that anything qualifies as art is to sever it from what lends it significance and substance. It is BEAUTY, instead, that truly resides in the eye of the observer.

Re: Nick Cave on ChatGPT and the creative process

#106

Post by red-iron-pine »

Hoasi wrote: post #101
luminen wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As with most things, I think the true value of LLMs will come from use in moderation. In theory, having AI write an annoyingly polite email to a frustrated customer saves emotional and artistic capital that a knowledge worker can spend later on their own pursuits. It makes me think of something Brandon Sanderson wrote that has been bouncing around in my head a lot lately: "Physical labor is great for the mind, as it…

> It makes me think of something Brandon Sanderson wrote that has been bouncing around in my head a lot lately: "Physical labor is great for the mind, as it leaves all kinds of time to consider the world. Other work, like accounting or scribing, demands little of the body—but siphons energy from the mind. If you wish to become a storyteller, here is a hint: sell your labor, but not your mind. Give me ten hours a day…

i suspect sanderson didn't spend 5 years scrubbing decks. having done a good bit of physical work, when i'm done i'm not channeling stories i'm trying to ice my aching joints and worrying about how i'd make rent.

Re: Nick Cave on ChatGPT and the creative process

#107

Post by krapp »

fnovd wrote: post #103
krapp wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Give an example of a work of art produced by a human's need to create for creation's sake alone, and not at all for the marketplace, that outclasses any classical works of art, music, literature or anything else that the creator was paid for. Michaelangelo didn't paint the Sistene Chapel ceiling for free. The Rolling Stones and the Beatles didn't perform for free. Shakespeare didn't write for free. That indie band yo…

Simply look at the career of Van Gogh or any "Bohemian starving artist". Listing only the most popular, most influential artists proves my point: for most people art is an untenable career. In that regard AI, has virtually no impact on those who want to create. They will find a way to make something unique and valuable or they will fail like millions of artists already do in the world we have today. There are many ar…

>Listing only the most popular, most influential artists proves my point: for most people art is an untenable career.

That wasn't your point. Your point was that no artist who makes a living with their art can be considered a "true" artist. I pointed out popular and influential artists because the quality of their work, despite having been being done by working artists, disputes your thesis that no art done for money has real value.

>In that regard AI, has virtually no impact on those who want to create.

AI has already been used to steal the commissions of working artists and fabricate CVs, and plenty of jobs are being outsourced entirely to AI. I guarantee you the artists who lost that work have plenty of passion for their craft.

>Mosts artists fail to make money; it really should go without saying that not everyone can be Helen Mirren or Paul McCartney.

Why are you trying to equate working artists with celebrities. Most working actors aren't Helen Mirren or Paul McCartney. Most writers aren't Tom Clancy or Stephen King. You've never heard of anyone working in VFX, or many people involved in comics or game art.

Again, you just keep restating your argument, but never proving it. Why are none of these people real artists, and why do none of them deserve to make a living? Why are the only "true" artists your friends who make macaroni collages or paint portraits on the boardwalk, and not the people who had the commitment to master their craft and do it full time?

>For most artists creation is a need, not something that is pursued for monetary reasons.

Here's the flaw in your reasoning, you assume that artists who work for a living are only interested in monetary gain. For the vast majority of working artists, creation is a need, and that's why they pursue a living at it. You seem to be assuming the only artists being replaced by AI are low-talent bottom feeders, but markets aren't optimizing for talent, they're optimizing for cost and replacing their entire creative pipeline with AI where feasible.

A lot of modern creative work involves years of effort, material, and investment. Small bands can't tour if everyone also has a full time job, and they never charge for tickets and only ever give their music away for free. Indie game studios couldn't publish games that way. A lot of art just ceases to exist when your only option is to squeeze it in during free time when you're already working 40, 50 or 60 hours just to feed yourself.

Re: Nick Cave on ChatGPT and the creative process

#108

Post by krapp »

librexpr wrote: post #43
jnovek wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my head, I keep making this comparison to photography. I like to take pictures. Usually, I take many, many -- hundreds -- of pictures for a project and I'll find one or two that I like most in that bunch. I think this is a pretty common practice in photography, euphemistically referred to as portfolio editing. I see a strong analogy between portfolio editing and operation of AI like ChatGPT. The camera and the AI…

You'll note that "photography" as an art has its own name and is considered a different art than painting or drawing. And if you took a photo and then said "I drew this", people would say you were lying. So personally I have no problem with considering GPT stuff "art", but I think it should be considered a separate art form and given a different name.

>So personally I have no problem with considering GPT stuff "art", but I think it should be considered a separate art form and given a different name.

That name already exists - generative art.

Re: Nick Cave on ChatGPT and the creative process

#109

Post by krapp »

wddkcs wrote: post #79
Baeocystin wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly disagree. Even as imperfect as the current crop of LLMs are, I'm doing things today that year-ago-me would have considered firmly in the realm of science fiction. It's reinvigorating my creative drive across the board, and I love it. I'm getting to make the Interesting Choices that lead to Art faster and more freely than ever. Others will feel differently, and that's ok. I find myself not even mad at such…

Strong agree. I started writing a comic series in 2016, but had to stop in part because commissioning the art was prohibitively expensive. AI image generation is quickly erasing that ability gap. Most publically consumed art is made by large teams, which naturally leads to a dilution of a singular artists vision. With the current quality mass media, I'm excited to see singular geniuses with the power of whole product…

Those "singular geniuses" aren't producing anything truly creative or unique, they're just typing "x in the style of Joe Quesada" (or whomever) into a textbox. AI isn't erasing the gap, it's just making the theft of other artists' work easier, and putting the artists themselves out of business. All for software that doesn't even allow real freedom of creative control, or autonomy of vision - the best you can ever do is hope to get an approximation of a concept that probably still has to be run through Photoshop or something to keep everything on model and fix all of the six-fingered hands.

If you can't afford to pay real artists to draw for your comic book, maybe you shouldn't be in that business?

Re: Nick Cave on ChatGPT and the creative process

#110

Post by krapp »

ChatGTP wrote: post #87

Personally, what's fun is actually creating something, but the process is the fun part IMO. If you can just click a button and get something, there will be some type of dopamine hit that happens but it's not going to be the same type of hit that comes from spending 4 weeks building yourself a nice workbench. Without a journey, there isn't much point to existence IMO.

Both approaches have value. Sometimes you want the journey, sometimes you want the destination.

The problem comes when people assume those things have the same value. Maybe I don't want to spend the next ten or fifteen years learning and meticulously honing skills in multiple artistic disciplines to the point of mastery just to get a picture I could probably get in an hour with the right prompt and some filters. Maybe I just want the dopamine hit, or I find the process of seeing what the AI comes up with interesting on its own. But that still doesn't make me an artist of anywhere near the caliber of a real professional.

Post reply on HN