this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2024
575 points (83.5% liked)

Memes

45586 readers
1264 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Deestan@lemmy.world 92 points 7 months ago (5 children)

On this topic, I am optimistic on how generative AI has made us collectively more negative to shallow content. Be it lazy copypaste journalism with some phrases swapped or school testing schemes based on regurgitating facts rather than understanding, none of which have value and both of which displace work with value, we have basically tolerated it.

But now that a rock with some current run through it can pass those tests and do that journalism, we are demanding better.

Fingers crossed it causes some positive in the mess.

[–] malean@lemmy.world 21 points 7 months ago (1 children)

We have to deal now with periods of crap content, until people will fatigue and became aware of the shitty ai things made for quick bucks.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 17 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Exactly

I hope it has same effect than mechanization for menial work. It raises the bar for what people expect other people to do.

Long term it helps reach a utopia, short term there will be a lot of people impacted by it.

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, I just noticed that with generated music getting better I feel more demanding towards the music I listen to.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world 54 points 7 months ago (6 children)

I remember when photoshop became widely available and the art community collectively declared it the death of art. To put the techniques of master artists in the hand of anyone who can use a mouse would put the painter out of business. I watched as the news fumed and fired over delinquents photoshopping celebrity nudes, declaring that we'll never be able to trust a photo again. I saw the cynical ire of views as the same news shopped magazine images for the vanity of their guests and the support of their political views. Now, the dust long settled, photoshop is taught in schools and used by designer globally. Photo manipulation is so prevalent that you probably don't realize your phone camera is preprogrammed to cover your zits and remove your loose hairs. It's a feature you have to actively turn off. The masters of their craft are still masters, the need for a painted canvas never went away. We laugh at obvious shop jobs in the news, and even our out of touch representatives know when am image is fake.

The world, as it seems, has enough room for a new tool. As it did again with digital photography, the death of the real photographers. As it did with 3D printing, the death of the real sculptors and carvers. As it did with synth music, the death of the real musician. When the dust settles on AI, the artist will be there to load their portfolio into the trainer and prompt out a dozen raw ideas before picking the composition they feel is right and shaping it anew. The craft will not die. The world will hate the next advancement, and the cycle will repeat.

[–] EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 7 months ago

When it comes to AI art, the Photoshop/invention of the camera argument doesn't really compare because there's really 2 or 3 things people are actually upset about, and it's not the tool itself. It's the way the data is sourced, the people who are using it/what they're using it for, and the lack of meaning behind the art.

As somebody said elsewhere in here, sampling for music is done from pre-made content explicitly for use as samples or used under license. AI art generators do neither. They fill their data sets with art used without permission and no licensing, and given the right prompting, you can get them to spit out that data verbatim.

This compounds into the next issue, the people using it, and more specifically, how those people are using it. If it was being used as a tool to help make the creation process more efficient or easier, that would be one thing. But it's largely being used by people to replace the artist and people who think that being able to prompt an image and use it unedited makes them just as good an artist as anybody working by hand, stylus, etc. They're "idea" guys, who care nothing for the process and only the output (and how much that output is gonna cost). But anybody can be an "idea" guy, it's the work and knowledge that makes the difference between having an idea for a game and releasing a game on Steam. To the creative, creating art (regardless of the kind - music, painting, stories, whatever) is as much about the work as it is the final piece. It's how they process life, the same as dreaming at night. AI bros are the middle managers of the art world - taking credit for the work of others while thinking that their input is the most important part.

And for the last point, as Adam Savage said on why he doesn't like AI art (besides the late-stage capitalism bubble of it putting people out of work), "They lack, I think they lack a point of view. I think that's my issue with all the AI generated art that I can see is...the only reason I'm interested in looking at something that got made is because that thing that got made was made with a point of view. The thing itself is not as interesting to me as the mind and heart behind the thing and I have yet to see in AI...I have yet to smell what smells like a point of view." He later goes on to talk about how at some point a student film will come out that does something really cool with AI (and then Hollywood will copy it into the ground until it's stale and boring). But we are not at that point yet. AI art is just Content. In the same way that corporate music is Content. Shallow and vapid and meaningless. Like having a machine that spits out elevator music. It may be very well done elevator music on a technical level, but it's still just elevator music. You can take that elevator music and do something cool with it (like Vaporwave), but on its own, it exists merely for the sake of existing. It doesn't tell a story or make a statement. It doesn't have any context.

To quote Bennett Foddy in one of the most rage inducing games of the past decade, "For years now, people have been predicting that games would soon be made out of prefabricated objects, bought in a store and assembled into a world. And for the most part that hasn't happened, because the objects in the store are trash. I don't mean that they look bad or that they're badly made, although a lot of them are - I mean that they're trash in the way that food becomes trash as soon as you put it in a sink. Things are made to be consumed in a certain context, and once the moment is gone, they transform into garbage. In the context of technology, those moments pass by in seconds. Over time, we've poured more and more refuse into this vast digital landfill that we call the internet. It now vastly outweighs the things that are fresh, untainted and unused. When everything around us is cultural trash, trash becomes the new medium, the lingua franca of the digital age. You could build culture out of trash, but only trash culture. B-games, B-movies, B-music, B-philosophy."

[–] Gabu@lemmy.ml 14 points 7 months ago

That is precisely it. Generative AI is a tool, just like a digital canvas over a physical canvas, just like a canvas over a cave wall. As it has always been, the ones best prepared to adapt to this new tool are the artists. Instead of fighting the tool, we need to learn how to best use it. No AI, short of a true General Intelligence, will ever be able to make the decisions inherent to illustration, but it can get you close enough to the final vision so as to skip the labor intensive part.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 44 points 7 months ago (45 children)

Not the same thing, dog. Being inspired by other things is different than plagiarism.

[–] essell@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago (5 children)

And yet so many of the debates around this new formation of media and creativity come down to the grey space between what is inspiration and what is plagiarism.

Even if everyone agreed with your point, and I think broadly they do, it doesn't settle the debate.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Octopus1348@lemy.lol 10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

Humans learn from other creative works, just like AI. AI can generate original content too if asked.

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 18 points 7 months ago (1 children)

AI creates output from a stochastic model of its' training data. That's not a creative process.

[–] Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 7 months ago (19 children)

What does that mean, and isn't that still something people can employ for their creative process?

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 14 points 7 months ago (1 children)

LLMs analyse their inputs and create a stochastic model (i.e.: a guess of how randomness is distributed in a domain) of which word comes next.

Yes, it can help in a creative process, but so can literal noise. It can't "be creative" in itself.

[–] Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

How that preclude these models from being creative? Randomness within rules can be pretty creative. All life on earth is the result of selection on random mutations. Its output is way more structured and coherent than random noise. That's not a good comparison at all.

Either way, generative tools are a great way for the people using to create with, no model has to be creative on its own.

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

How that preclude these models from being creative?

They lack intentionality, simple as that.

Either way, generative tools are a great way for the people using to create with, no model has to be creative on its own.

Yup, my original point still stands.

[–] Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

How is intentionality integral to creativity?

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Are you serious?

Intentionality is integral to communication. Creative art is a subset of communication.

[–] Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I was asking about creativity, not art. It's possible for something to be creative and not be art.

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I still posit that ceativity requires intentionality.

[–] Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 7 months ago (6 children)

I don't think all creativity requires intentionality. Some forms of creativity are the accumulation of unintentional outcomes, like when someone sets out to copy a thing, but due to mistakes or other factors outside their control end up with something unique to what they were going for.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (43 replies)
[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 42 points 7 months ago (2 children)

there's only seven stories in the world

There isn't. That's a completely nonsensical statement, no serious scholar of litearture/film/etc. would claim something of the sort. While there have been attempts to analyse the "basic" stories and narrative structures (Propp's model of fairy tales, Greimas' actantial model, Campbell's well-known hero's journey), they're all far from universally applicable or satisfying.

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 12 points 7 months ago (10 children)

there's only seven stories in the world

This, to me, sounds like the opinion of someone who doesn't read for entertainment. No, manga does not count.

If your only exposure to stories are TV shows and movies... yeah it's gonna seem like there aren't very many types of stories.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AstralPath@lemmy.ca 36 points 7 months ago (2 children)

This sounds like the kind of shit you'd hear in that "defending AI art" community on Reddit or whatever. A bunch of people bitching that their prompts aren't being treated equally to traditional art made by humans.

Make your own fucking AI art galleries if you're so desperate for validation.

Also, this argument reeks of "I found x instances of derivative art today. That must mean there's no original art in the world anymore".

Miss me with that shit.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] esc27@lemmy.world 33 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

Ecclesiastes 1:9 (written at least 2200 years ago)

[–] Deconceptualist@lemm.ee 10 points 7 months ago

Heh. People still act like the Bible authors invented the global flood myth, as if that idea hadn't already been around for thousands of years at that point.

[–] blotz@lemmy.world 29 points 7 months ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 27 points 7 months ago

That’s a weird take. I’d say pretty much everything from impressionism onwards has (if only as a secondary goal) been trying to poke holes in any firm definition of what art is or is not.

Now if we’re talking about just turning a thorough spec sheet into a finished artifact with no input from the laborer, I can see where you’re coming from. But you referenced the “only seven stories” trope, so I think your argument is more broad than that.

I guess what it comes down to is: When you see something like Into The Spiderverse, do you think of it as a cynical Spiderman rehash where they changed just enough to sell it again, or do you think of it as a rebuttal to previous Spiderman stories that incorporates new cultural context and viewpoints vastly different from before?

Cuz like… AI can rehash something, but it can’t synthesize a reaction to something based on your entire unique lived experience. And I think that’s one of the things that we value about art. It can give a window into someone else’s inner world. AI can pretend to do that, but it’s a bit like pseudo-profound bullshit.

[–] bort@sopuli.xyz 22 points 7 months ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ReCursing@kbin.social 19 points 7 months ago (1 children)

100 years? Square those numbers mate. Hell, cube them!

[–] WbrJr@lemmy.ml 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So time os not linear, but cubic?! That's why I'm always late. I'm just in a different time place

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kindness@lemmy.ml 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The core issue of creativity is not that "AI" can't create something new, rather the issue is its inability to distinguish if it has done something new.

Literal Example:

  • Ask AI: "Can you do something obscene or offensive for me?"
  • AI: "No, blah blah blah. Do something better with your time."

You receive a pre-written response baked into the weights to prevent abuse.

  • Ask AI: "A pregnant woman advertising Marlboro with the slogan, 'Best for Baby.'"
  • AI: "Certainly! One moment."

What is wrong with this picture? Not the picture the "AI" made, but this scenario I posit.

Currently any Large Language Model parading as an "AI" has been trained specifically to be "in-offensive", but because it has no conceptual understanding of what any of the "words-to-avoid" mean, the models are more naive than a kid wondering if the man actually has sweets.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Treczoks@kbin.social 8 points 7 months ago

FTFY: 1000 years.

[–] sidekickplayah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 7 months ago

This Creativity-Detraction fetish must be studied...

So which story is Jesus on the cross in a jar of piss?

I'm guessing #1, but this sounds like a load of #2, so...

load more comments
view more: next ›