Is there any meaningfully original art that’s come out of all this creativity yet? Something that actually stuck?
Claude for Creative Work
81–90 of 121 posts
Re: Claude for Creative Work
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's mainly anti-AI sentiment in general.
I am a huge beneficiary of agentic dev tools. They completely changed my life and my income. However, I totally get the general anti-AI sentiment. The ultra-bear case is that it somehow kills all of us, the bull case is that those who own the inference get the all the spoils. Even myself, while I am currently extremely empowered by these tools... I could see my role (Founder/PM/builder) disappearing in the next coupl…
How and why did it change your income?
Re: Claude for Creative Work
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Businesses have already replaced several background artists gambling on the uncopyrightable status of "AI" output being ignored. In a comercial setting, one can't sell what they never owned in the first place. Without a constant stream of stolen training data, the "AI" piracy bleed-through and isomorphic plagiarism business model is unsustainable. We look forward to liquidating the GPU data-centers at a heavy discoun…
> Businesses have already replaced several background artists gambling on the uncopyrightable status of "AI" output being ignored. In a comercial setting, one can't sell what they never owned in the first place. I'm skeptical of this line of reasoning. Major content providers have no problem with copyright, even when content is completely produced by anonymous contributors. Is this supposed to become an issue when yo…
>Major content providers have no problem with copyright
Besides getting sued for piracy, settling out-of-court with Disney, and or externalizing DMCA/RIAA take-down liabilities on users.
A human may transfer rights or "license" to another party in many circumstances, but may not re-sell a codified Coca-Cola logo trademark out of convenience.
All levels of the US courts concluded an "AI" can't transfer nor actually create content rights. Most WIPO members also seemed to follow the same consensus.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20260414-the-monkey-selfi...
There was a similar issue with folks selling marginally pitch-shifted audio assets on the Unity and Web stores. Note, they didn't have the original legal right to license this content, and customers would get their content flagged eventually.
Some kids are cheeky pirating Sony and BBC libraries... exploiting peoples assumption buying an old CD set somehow magically gives the holder broadcast or game distribution rights.
Keep being skeptical, as it will keep you in business. =3
Re: Claude for Creative Work
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The transformer paper was 9 years ago. 9 years between barely translating alright between two very closely related languages (English and French, huge fraction of shared words because of William the conqueror and cultural proximity etc etc) and what we have now. The thing is able to code up full pretty competent thousand lines projects in an hour. Even hardcore engineers use it now, as of this year. My senior front e…
Re: Claude for Creative Work
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
I spent most of my career in the open source world and doesn’t bother me models are trained on my output. Should I feel differently? It seems there’s a kind of ego or emotional attachment to the output that is more common among artists than devs? Perhaps abundance vs scarcity mindsets?
I'm an artist turned CTO. My perspective is really simple - theft is theft. You (not you specifically per se) can sugar coat it however you like, but copying open source codebases/work is different from stealing proprietary/licensed work without permission. It would have been ok if stealing/sharing copyrighted work was heavily normalized, but no, a lot of people have gone to prison for simply pirating DVDs and CDs an…
> It would have been ok if stealing/sharing copyrighted work was heavily normalized, but no, a lot of people have gone to prison for simply pirating DVDs and CDs and now you're telling me it's somehow ok if a corporation does it?
There is no such thing as "stealing" copyrighted work. Either you have unauthorized access and/or distribution, or you don't.
Unauthorized access to copyrighted work is perfectly legal in a big chunk of the world, including western Europe. Read up on the french tradition of copyright law, particularly the provisions for personal use.
This brings us to how "people have gone to prison for simply pirating DVDs and CDs". The bulk of the cases were focused on mass commercial distribution of verbatim copies of third-party content. I'm talking about DVD-burning factories.
Re: Claude for Creative Work
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
The transformer paper was 9 years ago. 9 years between barely translating alright between two very closely related languages (English and French, huge fraction of shared words because of William the conqueror and cultural proximity etc etc) and what we have now. The thing is able to code up full pretty competent thousand lines projects in an hour. Even hardcore engineers use it now, as of this year. My senior front e…
https://xkcd.com/605/
It's funny because you're arguing that 1 month showing 1 variable increasing by 1 point is as reliable as 9 years with continual increase among multiple variables by multiple points when trying to extrapolate a trend.
Re: Claude for Creative Work
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no acceptable use of AI for most people in the artistic field. They see it as an extreme treason, and I understand. They're under incredible incredible threat. They are conscious of preventing momentum in a bad direction. If they don't fight it hyper hard, a huge fraction of them will be out of a job instantly.
Completely false and I hate this puritan gatekeeping. Artists who hate AI are the type to put more importance on the craft than the end product itself. Art is a means of communicating something personal. It’s not meant to show off skills in how well you can move a pencil or how many fricking tools you know in adobe. AI removes all these hurdles and directly presents you with the end problem - communication. Artists h…
>AI removes all these hurdles and directly presents you with the end problem - communication.
Which is why 99.9% of AI art is worthless. There's literally nothing personal or interesting about getting grok to fart out some picture you thought about while sitting on the toilet in the morning.
AI art will never be good without actual artists embracing the medium.
Re: Claude for Creative Work
#88Is there any meaningfully original art that’s come out of all this creativity yet? Something that actually stuck?
Using LLMs for creative work is quite different to using diffusion models for creative work. It normally means writing tools or automation processes to enhance the creative flow, not replacing the creative input of a human.
Re: Claude for Creative Work
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really get the backlash about Blender here, this isn't generative art, it's basically a natural language means of scripting blender. This feels like the proper way to have AI act as a tool to make artist's jobs easier without taking away their creativity? Edit: I guess they might want absolutely no AI of any sort in their tools (which seems like a strange line to draw), or is it about the data it's been train…
Regardless of the purported upside, many people in the arts feel betrayed by the commercial interests that built this technology on their work without their consent and threatened by the explicit intent of these vendors to devalue their work by saturating the art and design market with cheap automated substitution. A lot of artists who would love to be able to direct their professional software in natural language ha…
Speaking as someone who works in the industry, I haven't really heard this sentiment. Artists are predominantly hostile to diffusion models, but optimistic about LLMs and their ability to help them write tools and scripts even if they're non-technical.
Re: Claude for Creative Work
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Businesses have already replaced several background artists gambling on the uncopyrightable status of "AI" output being ignored. In a comercial setting, one can't sell what they never owned in the first place. I'm skeptical of this line of reasoning. Major content providers have no problem with copyright, even when content is completely produced by anonymous contributors. Is this supposed to become an issue when yo…
>Major content providers have no problem with copyright Besides getting sued for piracy, settling out-of-court with Disney, and or externalizing DMCA/RIAA take-down liabilities on users. A human may transfer rights or "license" to another party in many circumstances, but may not re-sell a codified Coca-Cola logo trademark out of convenience. All levels of the US courts concluded an "AI" can't transfer nor actually cr…
Not owning the rights to some content and somebody else owning those rights are not the same thing. If someone else owns the copyright and you redistribute their stuff without permission, they have grounds to sue you. If nobody owns the copyright, because it expired long ago or because it came into being without human creative input, you can sell it just fine. So can everyone else, of course. Now, if you put your own stuff on top, that you own the copyright to, those other people can no longer redistribute it without your permission, but you can. So there's hardly any risk in using uncopyrightable background art.