|
A big flaming stink posted:I appreciate ai art supporters doing a better job of showing how much it sucks than its detractors ever could
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 00:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:23 |
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:Are you sure about this? I would expect that the number of professional musicians as a percentage of general population is now higher than pre-phonograph. Not to mention various other music-related jobs. There are now people making a living producing music, DJing, writing about music, managing tours, etc. Finding hard numbers is difficult, but I'm pretty damned confident. Live music was absolutely everywhere in the 1800s and early 1900s.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 00:36
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Finding hard numbers is difficult, but I'm pretty damned confident. Live music was absolutely everywhere in the 1800s and early 1900s. IMO, people are way too worried about “AI” taking creative jobs. It’s terrible at that stuff. Maybe some AI generated music will get used more for HR training videos or whatever, but you can already license human music for those tasks for a few bucks. It certainly is no threat to good music.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 00:39
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:It certainly was, but how many people made that their living as opposed to a form of entertainment when tv, radio, and computers didn’t exist? Live music performance would likely have been more viable as a job prior to the advent of recorded music and the subsequent increased sophistication / taste standard codification of produced recordings distributed via mass media.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 01:32
|
|
|
MixMasterMalaria posted:Live music performance would likely have been more viable as a job prior to the advent of recorded music and the subsequent increased sophistication / taste standard codification of produced recordings distributed via mass media. cat botherer fucked around with this message at 02:08 on May 31, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 02:06
|
|
|
MixMasterMalaria posted:Live music performance would likely have been more viable as a job prior to the advent of recorded music and the subsequent increased sophistication / taste standard codification of produced recordings distributed via mass media. Can you give me examples? The Richie family was farmers and lawyers. It wasn't until recently that folk musicians made their living via traveling rather then having their performances as a form of self expression for their community, friends and family and made their living doing other jobs. I would say that this is also the main form that music plays in my families own lives.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 02:06
|
|
|
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 151300 full-time musicians and singers in the US in 2021, out of a total population of 333287557 (in 2022). In Paris in 1321 the first guild for minstrels was formed, la corporation des ménétriers, by 37 jongleurs who performed in the vicinity of the Rue aus Jugléeurs. We don't have reliable numbers for the population of Paris in 1321, but a census in 1328 reported 61098 households, which leads to population estimates of around a quarter of a million individuals. If Paris in 1321 had the same number of jongleurs per capita as America has full-time musicians, it would have had around 110. So if we believe that roughly a third of all of the jongleurs in Paris were signatory to the 1321 statues there would be parity. But given that the statutes themselves are largely concerned with limiting the number of free-roaming johngleurs undercutting competition (there are eleven statutes, and 1-7 are limitations on how minstrels can advertise and hire out their services), that is almost certainly a conservative estimate. Of course Paris itself is not representative of the average European city in the 14th Century, but the idea that professional musicianship is a new phenomenon or that it was exceedingly rare in the past is simply not supported by the historical record.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 02:46
|
|
|
SubG posted:According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 151300 full-time musicians and singers in the US in 2021, out of a total population of 333287557 (in 2022). How many households in Paris performed music as a form of self expression for their community, friends and family? The argument isn't that professional musicianship is a new phenomenon, its that the vast majority of music, and all other forms of art, are created by non-professional musicians and artists. The contentious point being talked about is is the belief that the only way to have artistic self-expression is to create commercial art as a full time job, something that I disagree with.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 03:40
|
|
|
SubG posted:but the idea that professional musicianship is a new phenomenon or that it was exceedingly rare in the past is simply not supported by the historical record. How much vaudeville survived edit: radio, broadcast television and film?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 03:44
|
|
|
karthun posted:How many households in Paris performed music as a form of self expression for their community, friends and family? The argument isn't that professional musicianship is a new phenomenon, its that the vast majority of music, and all other forms of art, are created by non-professional musicians and artists
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 04:27
|
|
|
MixMasterMalaria posted:Live music performance would likely have been more viable as a job prior to the advent of recorded music and the subsequent increased sophistication / taste standard codification of produced recordings distributed via mass media. It would also be more viable if the recording industry hadn't more or less instantly decided that it was entitled to more than half of an artists income by virtue of owning a microphone and a recording device. A big flaming stink posted:I appreciate ai art supporters doing a better job of showing how much it sucks than its detractors ever could everyone knows composition and cropping aren't important in art Jaxyon fucked around with this message at 05:35 on May 31, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 05:18
|
|
|
karthun posted:How many households in Paris performed music as a form of self expression for their community, friends and family? The argument isn't that professional musicianship is a new phenomenon, its that the vast majority of music, and all other forms of art, are created by non-professional musicians and artists. The contentious point being talked about is is the belief that the only way to have artistic self-expression is to create commercial art as a full time job, something that I disagree with. AI poses no actual threat to community art (unlike, ironically enough, many previous technological advancements), so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. The primary point of contention, as I understand it, in regards to art and AI specifically revolves around using art to make money, i.e. commercial art, and copyright, which is a system built entirely around the central concept of providing monetary opportunity to artists.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 06:32
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Finding hard numbers is difficult, but I'm pretty damned confident. Live music was absolutely everywhere in the 1800s and early 1900s. As some others have said, it was mostly amateur music. My grandma would tell how when she travelled (pre-WW2) everybody would sing in the train and many woild bring instruments. Women would sing when they gathered to do farm work together, etc. If you wanted musicians for a wedding or another special occasion, you'd get local people who play well and you'd treat them nicely, maybe pay some, but next day they were back to mending pots and feeding pigs. Cities could support professional musicians, but most of the country was agrarian. Note that I'm not saying there's a parallel with AI today. I was just reacting to what I believe is a wrong claim.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 07:08
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:AI poses no actual threat to community art (unlike, ironically enough, many previous technological advancements), so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. The primary point of contention, as I understand it, in regards to art and AI specifically revolves around using art to make money, i.e. commercial art, and copyright, which is a system built entirely around the central concept of providing monetary opportunity to artists. Which itself exists as a compromise in reaction to the proliferation of printing presses and thus mass production of literature and images in a mercantile and then later capitalist society. The compromise that copyright is supposed to uphold is this: Society owes artists fair living conditions and other material compensation as well as a temporary creative monopoly for their creative work. Artists, in turn, owe society for the opportunity to create said work by eventually releasing that work entirely back into the public commons, creatively enriching everyone including and especially other artists. I believe part of the breakdown we are seeing in discussions on this subject is both sides either devaluing one side of the bargain or the other, or completely rejecting the compromise as moral straight out of hand, for a variety reasons from both points of view.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 09:07
|
|
|
How can anyone seriously look at one of these examples from the new photoshop ai fill thing and conclude “yep this is proof that ai generated art is all crap.” Like how? In what world is something like this https://twitter.com/ciguleva/status/1663515783828508672?s=20 Not impressive and just showcases how ai art is poo poo? Jesus gently caress this thread is the worse. Gas it already mods or step in and remind people the loving rules.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 11:57
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:How can anyone seriously look at one of these examples from the new photoshop ai fill thing and conclude “yep this is proof that ai generated art is all crap.” the threads talking about expanding images for famous paintings and album covers were all universally poo poo and illustrative of an incredible ignorance of the basic concept of composition
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 12:55
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:the threads talking about expanding images for famous paintings and album covers were all universally poo poo and illustrative of an incredible ignorance of the basic concept of composition Do you think people actually think it made the paintings better? Like, that it was an actual improved new version? It's a fun thing meant to just show off AI no one is worried about composition. It's just very cool and fun to do with something you're already familiar with, and impressive that it can pick up on the style and context of the source material so well.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 13:01
|
|
|
BrainDance posted:Do you think people actually think it made the paintings better? i can only go on what people replying to the threads have said, and my words seem to adequately those people also the bolded here is just straightup wrong, the expanded imagery is so much worse than the original works its actually painful
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 13:07
|
|
|
I get it, their feelings towards the tech and its implications predispose them to seeing it in the worst possible light. The writers union strike also seems to be a big influence on the negative slant, making GBS threads on AI anything shows solidarity. The criticisms are some of the laziest poo poo though. Defending the artistic integrity of the Mona Lisa (who gives a gently caress?), criticism of it's quality which while containing plenty of quirks beats the gently caress out of using a clone tool. The usual "soulless" schtick, as if they don't understand the concept of creating examples to demo a tool. Do they think the only use for it is to expand the canvases of public domain works? Seems like a stupid question to ask but a lot of the responses seem written as if to have assumed that. It sucks to see behavior that treads on reactionary ground among leftist circles, they've become so beholden to capitalist systems that they now angrily defend big IP with "tech bros" as the enemy. But big tech and big copyright are the same loving people, whoever wins we lose. I prefer the solution that at least puts the tools in the hands of the public instead of giving multinationals exclusive access to the best version of a disruptive technology so they can rent it out. What the hell happened to seizing the means of production? SCheeseman fucked around with this message at 13:25 on May 31, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 13:13
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:
Yes, it is, and the bolded part didn't say it wasn't at all? It's an AI expanding on a literal classic...
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 13:38
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:It would also be more viable if the recording industry hadn't more or less instantly decided that it was entitled to more than half of an artists income by virtue of owning a microphone and a recording device. Almost like the rentier class are parasites making their profit off of others' work because they lack the drive to learn a skill! Much like AI 'artists'. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 14:11 on May 31, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 14:09
|
|
|
They're learning a skill, just one you don't recognize as important or valid, meanwhile calling a bunch of people who want to make stuff rentiers while simultaneously working towards a goal that puts the most powerful versions of the tools those people are using, the technology you're afraid will eradicate labour, exclusively in the hands of those whose business model is renting out access to the tool. Can you not see the hypocrisy in that?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 14:25
|
|
|
Not particularly, because as you say, I don't recognize writing Google Image Search queries aimed at others' material as a form of artistry, even if you abstract it out a layer and use an overgrown predictive texting algorithm as a middleman.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 14:47
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Not particularly, because as you say, I don't recognize writing Google Image Search queries aimed at others' material as a form of artistry, even if you abstract it out a layer and use an overgrown predictive texting algorithm as a middleman. Why not? Is any expression of text a form of artistic expression? if so why not this one?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 14:57
|
|
|
That just reads like someone dismissing digital art because the vast majority of people who used macpaint drew dicks with cum. It's more than that, and it's obvious if you took a look beyond the groanworthy techbro twitter posts. Techniques are getting more refined as people come to grips with the toolset and it's clear it has use in traditional art workflows too.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 14:58
|
|
|
BrainDance posted:Yes, it is, and the bolded part didn't say it wasn't at all? People are responding negatively because it wasn't portrayed as "here's a fun experiment," the Twitter thread that started it literally began with "Ever wonder what the rest of the Mona Lisa looks like?" People are taking it as them implying that a. there's more to see beyond the edges of the painting and somehow the artist wasn't able to display it themselves for some reason and b. that only AI is able to understand what's "really" there and uncover it I think that's a fair characterization of how those expand the edges things are coming off, and it makes perfect sense why people would respond that negatively
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 14:59
|
|
|
Lemming posted:People are responding negatively because it wasn't portrayed as "here's a fun experiment," the Twitter thread that started it literally began with "Ever wonder what the rest of the Mona Lisa looks like?" I feel like this is picking nits because what if they were to have said this instead? quote:1. Ever wonder what the rest of the Mona Lisa looks like? I mean, you wouldn’t read that and assume that this particular artist is the reincarnation of Da Vinci sent to us to “finish” his art would you? Of that this version of an “expanded Mona Lisa” is the one true expanded Mona Lisa, as if another artist couldn’t do something different? A reasonable person would see the tweet and think “oh this is just a demo to show case how it can handle different art styles!” Not “oh poo poo someone call the Louvre we just uncovered the missing pieces.” Boris Galerkin fucked around with this message at 15:19 on May 31, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 15:16
|
|
|
Nobody actually wants "Mona Lisa but with more background," but that's very clearly not the point. The actual uses of this stuff will be photographers going "poo poo, I really wish I took this a little to the left" or texture artists going "this picture of a brick wall has a gas meter on it that I would have to hand paint over with the clone tool if I want to use it." It is clearly up to the artist to choose the composition of what they're working on. Do you think Photoshop is only going to give you a single button you click and the AI decides the new composition? Of course not. The AI is out-painting what and where the artist chooses. Okay, so why did those ads show terrible composition? Simple - in order to show off what the system can do, they needed examples where they weren't just adding 10 pixels along the border. They needed to generate a large amount of additional image for it to be technically impressive. The ads are about showing that the AI can make filler content that is contiguous and seamless with the existing style of an image, literally for the purpose of padding at the direction of an artist. Complaining about the composition - the part the AI didn't and wasn't supposed to do - is like complaining that a paint swatch isn't a usable piece of stationary.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 15:22
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:I feel like this is picking nits because what if they were to have said this instead? If there was a zeitgeist promoting that random person as being someone who could possibly replace artists and creatives and people in all kinds of industries and it was phrased like that I think there would be a pretty similar response to it, yeah I feel like you can understand where the response is coming from though, right? In the context of AI, where it's being aggressively sold as this world changing thing that is going to upend the way lots of things work, people are interpreting the concept of showing "the rest" of famous art pieces as an implicit argument that soon the machines will be able to replicate or create new art as impactful as some of the most famous and culturally relevant art in history. I'm not commenting on how reasonable some of those reactions are, but surely you can see where that perspective comes from, it's not going to be solely a response to those specific images
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 15:32
|
|
|
I think its a fair take, that original presentation was laughable even if the outcomes are potentially entertaining.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 15:33
|
|
|
Lemming posted:If there was a zeitgeist promoting that random person as being someone who could possibly replace artists and creatives and people in all kinds of industries and it was phrased like that I think there would be a pretty similar response to it, yeah Adobe very much isn't billing their tech as making artists obsolete because artists are literally their target market. Some people are saying this tech will do that, but some people are also saying the government is putting microchips in vaccines. You really have to take what people and companies do in the context of what those people and companies say, not in the context of what completely different people and companies say. If you are only able to see this as a good and evil fight between two factions of completely aligned groups, one pro AI and one pro artist, you have completely misunderstood both the issues and the players.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 15:42
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Adobe very much isn't billing their tech as making artists obsolete because artists are literally their target market. Some people are saying this tech will do that, but some people are also saying the government is putting microchips in vaccines. You really have to take what people and companies do in the context of what those people and companies say, not in the context of what completely different people and companies say. Nobody's responding to Adobe directly, they're responding to a series of images posted by an AI bro (previously NFT bro, previously metaverse bro, previously Bitcoin bro, previously AR bro, previously VR bro, etc), because they've unfortunately been given outsized influence in our society since they're perpetuating various pump and dump schemes backed by the incredibly rich. It's completely fair to respond to those people even if they're patently morons because they're loving everywhere. I think it's totally fair to have separate conversations about the specific realities of the technology (and I'd even agree those conversations aren't happening as much and would probably be more interesting than a lot of the "is it art" stuff), but it's also completely reasonable that those kinds of Twitter threads are getting pushback, especially when people are just directly responding to a specific one that was posted in the thread
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 15:56
|
|
|
Lemming posted:If there was a zeitgeist promoting that random person as being someone who could possibly replace artists and creatives and people in all kinds of industries and it was phrased like that I think there would be a pretty similar response to it, yeah I understand it but that’s not my point or the problem I have. The issue for me is the people, some of the people, ITT refusing to debate and discuss and instead use this thread as an outlet for “ai bad faaaaart” and shutting down any conversation because “ai baaaaaaad.” People who refuse to open their ducking eyes and admit “ok yeah this is impressive tech” just because “ai baaaaaad.” If people aren’t going to post and debate and discuss in good faith then what the duck is the point of this thread? For the record I don’t give a drat what slapfights are happening in random twitter threads. But if you’re going to post takes here then they should be open for discussion and if you’re just going to jam “ai bad 💩” into every response then just gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 16:01
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Nobody's responding to Adobe directly, they're responding to a series of images posted by an AI bro (previously NFT bro, previously metaverse bro, previously Bitcoin bro, previously AR bro, previously VR bro, etc), because they've unfortunately been given outsized influence in our society since they're perpetuating various pump and dump schemes backed by the incredibly rich. Fair point, although I would give OP the benefit of the doubt and say they probably didn't mean to kick off an argument about AI bro (previously NFT bro, previously metaverse bro, previously Bitcoin bro, previously AR bro, previously VR bro, etc) and was just looking for technically impressive images to share. I'm just frustrated that everyone seems to have taken a maximalist position on this. It's all either "this will destroy art as we know it and that's terrible" or "this will destroy art as we know it and that's fantastic." As you said, the reality of what this stuff can do for artists is very interesting but everyone is more interested in talking hypotheticals about their worst fears / wettest dreams.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 16:07
|
|
|
I'm reminded of the Watson Jeopardy episode. The entire point of the demonstration was to showcase how impressive LLM technology had become by forcing it to answer a bunch of wordplay prompts that previously only humans could hope to accurately and consistently solve, which it did for the most part. Lay people immediately started harping on the AI's "unfair" advantage of being able to press the button faster than any human could ever hope to and immediately started suggesting a built in delay. Prior systems were so terrible at the task that the advantage in buzzer speed would have been completely meaningless. They completely missed the point of the exercise. KillHour posted:Fair point, although I would give OP the benefit of the doubt and say they probably didn't mean to kick off an argument about AI bro (previously NFT bro, previously metaverse bro, previously Bitcoin bro, previously AR bro, previously VR bro, etc) and was just looking for technically impressive images to share. It's just another example of social media doing what it does best: siloing people into defined groups, and then radicalizing the hell out of them as a matter of course in chasing engagement metrics. I imagine most moderates on the subject have completely ducked out of the discussion months ago at this point. Tree Reformat fucked around with this message at 16:12 on May 31, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 16:08
|
|
|
Was Watson even a LLM? I think the concept of a LLM wasn’t a thing until the late 2010s. But I don’t know if this means proto-LLMs didn’t exist.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 16:12
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:Was Watson even a LLM? I think the concept of a LLM wasn’t a thing until the late 2010s. But I don’t know if this means proto-LLMs didn’t exist. Watson was a bunch of smaller bespoke systems duct taped together.  Basically a search engine on top of a database with NLP for parsing the question and generating the response in the correct format. But the point is the same - that Jeopardy episode was supposed to be an advertisement for IBM, saying "look at our sweet tech and imagine how useful this will be" but it turned into people filtering into Team Computer and Team Human based on their priors. KillHour fucked around with this message at 16:20 on May 31, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 16:18
|
|
|
Watson was about the last time IBM tried to do anything innovative before they just gave up and resigned themselves to their moribund but still profitable mainframe market.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 16:22
|
|
|
Tree Reformat posted:It's just another example of social media doing what it does best: siloing people into defined groups, and then radicalizing the hell out of them as a matter of course in chasing engagement metrics. I imagine most moderates on the subject have completely ducked out of the discussion months ago at this point. Sure but we should probably just stick with the arguments presented here in this thread. I have no idea what goes on on Twitter or Reddit or whatever. I'm sure many people are saying many dumb things in many other places but people arguing against opaque references to those thibgs is confusing.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:23 |
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Almost like the rentier class are parasites making their profit off of others' work because they lack the drive to learn a skill! Ok, I agree now, gas the thread
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 18:44
|
|
