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

Why strive? Stephen Fry reads Nick Cave's letter on the threat of AI [video]

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 90 posts

Re: Why strive? Stephen Fry reads Nick Cave's letter on the threat of AI [video]

#81

Post by putpls »

pinbender wrote: post #66
putpls wrote: post #45

For a while now I've wondered which topic would force me to create a HN account and it turns out it is AI art. My position is that AI "art" is absolutely a loss and not a gain for humanity. It is unfortunate that so many HN users are output focused on this and believe that AI tool -> output is the equivalent to human creativity -> output. Art is not the same as making a basket or glass. There are aspects to those pro…

I encourage you to consider why you would put programming in a separate category from "art". You seem just as output focused about code as those who motivated you to create a HN account. Baskets, glass, code, photography, painting, they can all be art. Or a commodity. Or both.

This is a fair response but I do address it when I say we can automate the tedious and boilerplate parts of programming so we can focus on the aspects we enjoy i.e. the big picture stuff that intellectually stimulates us and allows us to be artistic when writing software.

An analogy would be that I would appreciate a tool that could mix paints and give me any hue to paint with on demand, but I don't want that tool to take the paintbrush away from me completely.

Re: Why strive? Stephen Fry reads Nick Cave's letter on the threat of AI [video]

#82

Post by putpls »

lukko wrote: post #56
putpls wrote: post #45

For a while now I've wondered which topic would force me to create a HN account and it turns out it is AI art. My position is that AI "art" is absolutely a loss and not a gain for humanity. It is unfortunate that so many HN users are output focused on this and believe that AI tool -> output is the equivalent to human creativity -> output. Art is not the same as making a basket or glass. There are aspects to those pro…

I feel very strongly about this too. True art is a struggle to bring it into reality - you have to almost expand the space of possibility. It's easy to make derivative work, all the arguments about artists just interpolating other people's work are very weak - some artists do that, but good ones are truly original, even if they steal. It sounds a bit grandiose, but art can cut through the human experience to reveal s…

I think AI art is a complete misnomer and there is no net benefit of being able to generate images so easily, it just means there is more noise in the world

Agreed. It will be difficult to not sound grandiose or pretentious when discussing this subject because the whole discussion becomes a question of what art is in the first place, but oversaturating it with soulless noise will benefit nobody.

Re: Why strive? Stephen Fry reads Nick Cave's letter on the threat of AI [video]

#83

Post by dorkwood »

leashless wrote: post #62
dorkwood wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it art? I don't know. I don't care. I was not able, now I am able, and the people who are able complain. > Screw 'em. This is what tools are for. The strong should not tell the weak they cannot use props. Really? This famously maligned group of people, who have endured a lifetime of jokes about their useless art school degrees and student loans they'll never repay, we're now calling "the strong"? Artists aren't…

When a talented person tries to ban the tools that make an average person able to do the same stuff the talented person can do, this is intentionally disabling people to preserve a class privilege . If there was a pill that gave people +40 points of IQ would we have born-smart people trying to ban it? Yes, some. If we had a machine that put knowledge right into people's heads by nanobot magic would we have people try…

This appears to be basically the same argument I responded to originally, but rephrased in a different way -- that the privileged artists want to prevent anyone else from attaining their power and it's not fair.

You didn't address my original point, which is that your drawing-assistance-machine was only made possible by surreptitiously training on a vast amount of artist's work without their permission.

To use your nanobot analogy, would you see any problem if the nanobot company attained its power by secretly scanning the brains of surgeons without their permission, so that it could mimic their neuron structure and give its users the same memories and motor skills? Or is the process by which the power was attained a non-issue for you?

Re: Why strive? Stephen Fry reads Nick Cave's letter on the threat of AI [video]

#84

Post by viraptor »

jkic47 wrote: post #78
viraptor wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're still screwing Mondrian in this case and the training system would not exist without Mondrian.

Take a minute to extend your argument, and it will fall apart: SNL is "screwing" Trump/Biden because their jokes wouldn't exist without Trump/Biden. Movie critics are "screwing" actors, because the review wouldn't exist without the movie.

SNL jokes are not in the same category. They're not "a speech like Trump's" which would bring nothing new, but jokes based on those. The whole post from Nick Cave is about a generated "song in the style of Nick Cave" rather than something novel that takes inspiration from his songs.

Re: Why strive? Stephen Fry reads Nick Cave's letter on the threat of AI [video]

#85

Post by leashless »

Hoasi wrote: post #76
leashless wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is entirely not the point. I want to see a picture of a 5 kilometre high tower surrounded by spiralling cones of line on an infinite plane made of tessellating fractals. Now I have that picture. Great. I did not make than image "to be an artist". I made that image because I wanted that image. If it came out of a search engine rather than an AI, I wouldn't care. This kind of utilitarian creation of images is like…

> This is entirely not the point. It's not the point for you . Fine. For the record, I'm not advocating for laws or banning AI. It's an impressive technology you can use in a myriad of ways. Ethical ways would be preferable. Using AI does not make you an artist, just as having a pencil in your hand doesn't make you a qualified draughtsman. AI's whole value, the dada, was obtained without living artists' consent. That…

This is pretty simple.

Either we maintain that it is illegal to learn from copyrighted images without a license — which is going to destroy human culture very fast I believe,

Or we accept that anybody can study a copyrighted work and learn from it, including using a machine as their agent.

If a 12 year old kid prints out an image made by Hirst and hangs it in their bedroom that is fair use. If a corporation uses the image on a t shirt they need a license.

Now the same thing, but “in the style of Hirst”

The copyright infringement is generally at the point where somebody is depriving the artist of income and what I’m hearing here is HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC.

No, friends, refusal to enforce monopolies laws is killing music. Home taping is how music survived.

Re: Why strive? Stephen Fry reads Nick Cave's letter on the threat of AI [video]

#86

Post by leashless »

dorkwood wrote: post #83
leashless wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a talented person tries to ban the tools that make an average person able to do the same stuff the talented person can do, this is intentionally disabling people to preserve a class privilege . If there was a pill that gave people +40 points of IQ would we have born-smart people trying to ban it? Yes, some. If we had a machine that put knowledge right into people's heads by nanobot magic would we have people try…

This appears to be basically the same argument I responded to originally, but rephrased in a different way -- that the privileged artists want to prevent anyone else from attaining their power and it's not fair. You didn't address my original point, which is that your drawing-assistance-machine was only made possible by surreptitiously training on a vast amount of artist's work without their permission. To use your n…

All artists study other artists.

Are we to ban this too?

Re: Why strive? Stephen Fry reads Nick Cave's letter on the threat of AI [video]

#87

Post by leashless »

Hoasi wrote: post #77
leashless wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I think that's absolutely true of both plastic surgery and of AI. I don't mind, it's better than where I was before! I can semi-draw with AI help. Good enough.

> I can semi-draw with AI help. Good enough. Good for you. But that's not drawing, though. You won't know what drawing is until you try. Then you'll come back with more questions. It's an open-ended endeavor. Drawing is not something you solve with an app. That's why the whole premise of this thread is a bit sad. AI is a tool that bypasses the joy (and the point) of drawing entirely.

Oh I tried. I suck.

If I worked at it, I would still suck.

Am I to be deprived of the capability to take images from inside my head and turn them into pixels TO PROTECT THE CARTEL OF PEOPLE WHO CAN DO IT MANUALLY?

Seems like a bad idea.

“good artists borrow, great artists steal” —- Picasso.

Whether AI generated work should be copyright able is a MUCH MUCH harder question.

Maybe the answer you seek is there.

Re: Why strive? Stephen Fry reads Nick Cave's letter on the threat of AI [video]

#88

Post by dorkwood »

leashless wrote: post #86
dorkwood wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This appears to be basically the same argument I responded to originally, but rephrased in a different way -- that the privileged artists want to prevent anyone else from attaining their power and it's not fair. You didn't address my original point, which is that your drawing-assistance-machine was only made possible by surreptitiously training on a vast amount of artist's work without their permission. To use your n…

All artists study other artists. Are we to ban this too?

You're not making a serious attempt to engage with anything I've said so far, so I don't want to keep arguing with you.

Re: Why strive? Stephen Fry reads Nick Cave's letter on the threat of AI [video]

#89

Post by leashless »

dorkwood wrote: post #88
leashless wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All artists study other artists. Are we to ban this too?

You're not making a serious attempt to engage with anything I've said so far, so I don't want to keep arguing with you.

I am not willing to change my mind based on the case you have presented.

I have engaged. I am not persuaded.

Re: Why strive? Stephen Fry reads Nick Cave's letter on the threat of AI [video]

#90

Post by jkic47 »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #79
jkic47 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take a minute to extend your argument, and it will fall apart: SNL is "screwing" Trump/Biden because their jokes wouldn't exist without Trump/Biden. Movie critics are "screwing" actors, because the review wouldn't exist without the movie.

that's a fair counter but there are laws about this, and your examples are parody and commentary, neither of which effect the market value of the original the "screwing" is in the form of getting paid for reselling the work of others (depriving the others of the ability to sell their own work - less downloading a movie for free and more like selling bootlegs in front of the record store), not merely being, like, chro…

I agree that my examples are about parody and commentary, and I apologize that my intent wasn't clear. I was trying to convey that a derivative work made by studying the original (Mondrian / Biden / Trump speech) should be OK. Like Admiral Cloudberg or Mentour Pilot can take an air-crash investigation and make it more compelling than a Mayday documentary, or, indeed, the FAA report itself. They use the same base material, but sculpt it into something perhaps more compelling. The fact that an AI does this instead of a human seems irrelevant.
Post reply on HN