[dead]
No, that's not someone reaching out to random websites
Also the initials are RD from the screenshot
Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response
201–207 of 207 posts
Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't necessarily disagree with your viewpoint, but sometimes the lack of a proper voice makes it impossible to identify that you have a perspective that can be expressed. Iterating to get the right output from a prompt- and waiting for the output to be generated - is not an instantaneous endeavor. How much improvement could someone see if they dedicated that time to drawing or writing practice instead?
> I don't necessarily disagree with your viewpoint, but sometimes the lack of a proper voice makes it impossible to identify that you have a perspective that can be expressed. Developing a "voice" is done, at least partially, via honing one's craft, as well as engaging with art made by other people and cultures. The former is antithetical to prompting, and the latter is actively being destroyed by AI. I can't help bu…
> I can't help but feel that this strange insistence by industry that AI be used to all but usurp art ultimately comes from a place of jealousy
No, it is because replacing art is easier than replacing other jobs, that is the only reason. If they could they would replace something way more lucrative to them, but as is replacing artists is the thing they can do so that is what they do.
Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response
#203> most artists love their work and do not want to outsource their passion to a machine that does this for them. This was the money quote. I love what I do (which tends to be programming, but I approach it as a craft), and often do things by hand, that others automate, because I love my work, and also the people that use it.
Most artists, like most programmers are working in a commercial capacity. I see no reason why "their passion" should overrule profit-seeking. Do art for the sake of art on your own time. But expecting companies to not embrace AI to do their jobs is foolish just like it's foolish to think corporate programmers will be a thing at some point in the future.
[flagged]
Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response
#204I really cannot fathom enjoying any "art" produced by an AI, excepting art that uses it as an assistant for boring tasks like texturing a video game.
but what will happen when "enjoyable art" and "AI art" are virtually impossible to differentiate between without tools? https://i.imgur.com/XSCN9Aj.png
A very big part of art (probably the biggest part) is the meaning behind it. AIs have no internal "experience" or novel ideas so the art is ultimately meaningless, or only as meaningful as the idea behind the prompt the person put into it. This is why you can have an incredibly slick, high budget movie that is universally considered bad because it's soulless. If AIs become "conscious" or something and we actually have an interest in how they see the world I think their art could be interesting. Even without the consciousness I think that we can have interesting "art" that comes out of them based on how they see the world, which brings to mind things like the old Google AI Image generator hallucination/dream images from a few years back.
Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, this viewpoint is the only reason a shirt doesn't cost a month's wages. Weavers once had similar arguments, decrying machinery that made cloth. Imagine how many more video games and movies can be made when we don't need anywhere near as many artists as before. How many more diagrams in textbooks. How many extra illustrations for Wikipedia. There are tremendous benefits to making art something anyone can get for d…
> decrying machinery that made cloth You can be passionate about this advancement without placing profits first. > Imagine how many more video games and movies can be made... Again, you can do this with passion and without placing profit first > There are tremendous benefits to making art something anyone can get for dirt cheap I disagree strongly here. Art has value in large part because most people cannot produce i…
> You can be passionate about this advancement without placing profits first.
Given the riots inspired by this machinery, I don't believe this is possible.
(Arguably also communism, but there was a lot going on back then).
> I disagree strongly here. Art has value in large part because most people cannot produce it. I like stories, but not everyone has a good story to tell. When the story is AI-generated, there isn't a consciousness behind it to give it the passion required for good stories.
I'm not sure either way on this. Possibly a simultaneous agree-and-disagree?
I agree that art may be a "peacock's tail" where the difficulty is the point, and making it cheap makes it cease to be art. In this case, some hypothetical AI which everyone agrees is totally conscious and also that it creates works of exquisite and sublime wonder, still won't be "art".
But the other view of art is that it may also be simply "nice stuff"; if so, then the ability to discern good art from bad art is sufficient, even if you regard an LLM as little more than "fancy autocomplete" — it doesn't need consciousness* of its own, the consciousness of the user is sufficient.
I suspect there's a lot of people in both groups.
* by whichever of the many meanings you intend for that
Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but many people who are bad at art and writing would like AI to make art and writing that's tailored to their tastes and are fine doing laundry and dishes since they're good at that and we have already automated 99% of it with dishwashers and dryers.
You missed the point. One of those scenarios is available. The other isn't even being worked on in any serious fashion. And you definitely don't get to tell people that your product is just fine, they are wrong for wanting something else.
> The other isn't even being worked on in any serious fashion.
It is being worked on, it's just hard:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pycyMUQwiNs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sq1QZB5baNw&t=34s
I'm expecting a minimum of 5-10 years to pass between real-time vision AI getting good enough for level-5 autonomous cars and the same stuff fitting into the power envelope available to this kind of domestic robot.
Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can also get better at those skills while also using AI. It’s not really an absolute. You can generate outlines sketches so you can practice shading techniques as a simple example. There are also those who don’t want to get better at those skills, as those skills are just a temporary medium. For example someone making pottery might be terrible at drawing and creating ideas, so they generate some and then get to w…
Using AI is not free, in either price nor time. If all the time spent iterating over prompts to get the "right" output was instead spent working on skills, you (the royal you) could get a lot better at drawing/writing right off the bat. I've lurked through a few AI art boards, and the number of times people will spend dozens if not hundreds of hours iterating through prompts to get a simple anime character just right…
> Using AI is not free, in either price nor time. If all the time spent iterating over prompts to get the "right" output was instead spent working on skills, you (the royal you) could get a lot better at drawing/writing right off the bat.
Eventually, by practice, a person can get better at art.
I've seen (pre-AI) artists spending dozens of hours just on icons, so the idea of artists spending hundreds of hours perfecting every detail of some character doesn't seem surprising, not even when the specific details really can be done by a better method than repeatedly changing the prompt.
Conversely, even when I use an app on my phone for GenAI, it's making images in perhaps 90 seconds, vs. the entire day that my GCSE* art class gave the students to create the final project — even with the need to have multiple attempts or prompt variations, the AI just gets stuff done too fast for me to learn much in the same time period.