(Thread IKs:
OwlFancier)
|
That's a bit like the Chinese room argument though, does 1.4kg of fancy lard that makes poo poo up about its own inputs half the time create more meaningful art than a computer? Could we get the AI to create a meaning for the art and have it be as trustworthy as when the artist claims what their inspiration was? Is a ChatGPT search result more or less valuable than a Richard Littlejohn op-ed just because one is a person talking bollocks and lying about their sources rather than a machine? Which I guess ties into the wider sociological argument where I don't think artists should be destitute (nor people in general) but I also don't think people should be being paid to write harmful lies, so perhaps AI is a small facet of a wider sociological problem. California Penal Code Section 187 defines murder, and excludes the death of the author
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 14:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 07:49 |
|
|
feedmegin posted:This raises the obvious question - what are your qualifications, mate? You're going to look very silly when he turns out to have a PhD in 'typing "in the style of -'"
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 14:49
|
|
|
NotJustANumber99 posted:I've been typing in short, snappy posts to prompt wild, colourful, but ultimately low quality, artless responses for years, mate. That is actually a depressingly valid point. Not sure it's the defence of LLMs you might be aiming at, though. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 14:50
|
|
|
HopperUK posted:Half the trouble with the AI art conversation is that there's a disconnect in how different people think about art. There's nothing I can say, as an artist, to convince some people that 'a computer composited this image that looks like a painting' has less worth than an actual painting, because to them the image is just itself, just shapes and colours that resemble something. If you don't think art has *meaning*, if you don't think the process of creation itself adds something to the final product, then there's no common ground to be had in discussing AI art. This is why I always stress that removing actual artists who care about what they're making from the process is such a bad idea. Even if people can't articulate their reasons, they can still conceive of art and media as good or bad, and you don't need any specialist knowledge to understand that removing the people who do understand that process is obviously going to work out incredibly badly for everyone. More of an aside to the above than a follow up, but you can see this in the manner of people who really advocate for generative AI. They don't follow any actual creatives, talk with them or support them in any way, they loudly argue that artists are gatekeepers who lord over the serfs with their skills (which I mean lol, lmao) and are now getting what's coming to them, and they constantly stress how much money you can make from GenAI. Not anything about enjoyment or fulfillment or any other reason why they would actually enjoy making art in the first place. The creation of art is this mystery that they resent others for having.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 14:52
|
|
|
You all better have enjoyed my last post as writing it caused me to miss my bus
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 14:52
|
|
|
Doctor_Fruitbat posted:they loudly argue that artists are gatekeepers who lord over the serfs with their skills (which I mean lol, lmao) and are now getting what's coming to them There's plenty that could be disrupted, but it's generally not the fault of the person with the paintbrush (unless the person with the paintbrush is Hitler).
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 14:55
|
|
|
Jakabite posted:You all better have enjoyed my last post as writing it caused me to miss my bus A true artist suffers for his art.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 14:58
|
|
|
Doctor_Fruitbat posted:Not anything about enjoyment or fulfillment or any other reason why they would actually enjoy making art in the first place. How does other people using AI art tools prevent you from doing this? Like don't worry you can still faff about with your paintbrush or whatever if you want to seeing as its not about the money. Doctor_Fruitbat posted:The creation of art is this mystery that they resent others for having. lol. a lot of projecting going on here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 15:00
|
|
|
NotJustANumber99 posted:How does other people using AI art tools prevent you from doing this? Like don't worry you can still faff about with your paintbrush or whatever if you want to seeing as its not about the money. It prevents you from creating art and living off it by, essentially, leaving it as something you can only do if you are okay having your work stolen. The creation of art via copying only leads to the same problem as all generated content in that it eventually becomes recursive and any problems become compounded.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 15:17
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:It prevents you from creating art and living off it by, essentially, leaving it as something you can only do if you are okay having your work stolen. The creation of art via copying only leads to the same problem as all generated content in that it eventually becomes recursive and any problems become compounded. But we said it wasn't about the money and living off it? It was about enjoyment or fulfilment or any other reason why they would actually enjoy making art in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 15:21
|
|
|
NotJustANumber99 posted:faff about with your paintbrush you're such a loving dickhead sometimes NAN99
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 15:23
|
|
|
Feeling any sense of joy or fulfilment from your job is forbidden 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 15:23
|
|
|
HopperUK posted:you're such a loving dickhead sometimes NAN99 Apologies. I'll try to be more consistent in future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 15:26
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:That's largely because they're confusing rights hoarders with artists, due to how badly copyright is broken and due to any criticism of capitalism in end of history society getting you called a MegaHitlerStalin. No no they literally think not being good at drawing shouldn't stop them from drawing like a pro and if you say otherwise that's gatekeeping
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 15:32
|
|
|
NotJustANumber99 posted:Apologies. I'll try to be more consistent in future. You've succeeded. NotJustANumber99 posted:But we said it wasn't about the money and living off it? It was about enjoyment or fulfilment or any other reason why they would actually enjoy making art in the first place. Mate, creating stuff and also getting paid for it is great, some people actually creating art and then having people buy it so that there is a feeling both of accomplishment AND getting to make something people love is incredibly rewarding and a great job to have. Fulfillment through making something joyous is, unsurprisingly, unknown to the Tesla owner.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 15:44
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:A true artist suffers for his art. I personally think Death of the Author became outdated roughly around the time mass-media was invented, but that's just my opinion and I might soon be dead anyway - I've spent the last 3 months completing the first draft of a novel, and the idea that a computer can just thrash out the same amount of formulaic trash in under a second is galling. It stops people wanting to put in the effort to tell their own unique stories if the market is flooded with shite, and even worse, if the system that's flooding it with shite uses your hard-worked for creation and then makes a bunch of derivative shite from it. I don't even understand how this is a discussion that's being had in a marxist thread. Pay people for their artistic labour and don't support the machine that threatens to rob them of both the compensation and the opportunity for expression.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 15:49
|
|
|
AI-generated art is just as authentic as Shrek's love for onions. I mean, who needs human creativity when you can have a machine spitting out masterpieces? It's like Tesla making cars without drivers—totally necessary and definitely not a questionable idea. AI art, the true pinnacle of cultural achievement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 15:51
|
|
|
Chas McGill posted:I've yet to see any AI art that isn't masturbatory tech bro shite from prompt diddlers who think they can create something now that computers will do it for them. They have nothing interesting to say. I spent a few weeks tinkering with Stable Diffusion after I bought a new graphics card. I learnt a fair bit about how to construct effective prompts, using control models, in-painting and a bunch of other ways to produce what I thought were fairly pleasing images. I wouldn't consider anything I produced to be art on any level. It was me, a computer toucher, learning how to use a piece of software to make it do what it was designed to do. I deleted it soon after as it was interesting to mess around with as a novelty but nothing more. The shite I see on twitter is absolutely just bros typing prompts into some online generator and posting the first image it shits out with no attempts to tweak it or retouch it to correct all the weird AI glitches.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 15:54
|
|
|
I think this is why the discussion keeps going around in circles, it's somewhere between "what is art?" and Walter Benjamin's studies in kitsch and what makes 'high art' have greater aesthetic value than commercial art. And the guy in a village art gallery painting his own canvas, the animator on a shop floor in Korea, and the union busting corporate lawyer writing about how robots looking at copyrighted Disney material is a threat to all artists (unlike us) are all very different people, with very different relationships to the creative work. And I suppose the question there is which one will AI affect the most? Some of the legal cases in America seem to be more about rights hoarders fighting technical brothers and like  As for the more general case, once you get the more philosophical concerns off the table it becomes a matter of which is worse for ordinary artists out of rights hoarders and AI.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 15:55
|
|
|
smellmycheese posted:AI-generated art is just as authentic as Shrek's love for onions. I mean, who needs human creativity when you can have a machine spitting out masterpieces? It's like Tesla making cars without drivers—totally necessary and definitely not a questionable idea. AI art, the true pinnacle of cultural achievement. Does Shrek actually like onions? He just enjoys using them as a metaphor afaik
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 15:56
|
|
|
stev posted:Does Shrek actually like onions? He just enjoys using them as a metaphor afaik Don’t ask me. I didnt write it
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 15:58
|
|
|
The real problem with LLMs is the commoditisation of art. Bring in a UBI, let creators create without the threat of starving looming over them, problem solved. Simples.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 16:03
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:You joke, but knowing Douglas Adams and Spike Milligan managed to be that funny while battling depression makes their works all the more impressive. 'Death of the author' only dates to 1967! But it's not really about authors being irrelevant, it's about a trend in literary criticism towards 'explaining' the meaning of works by extensive reference to the author's biography and ignoring that every reader brings their own context to a given work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 16:13
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:You joke, but knowing Douglas Adams and Spike Milligan managed to be that funny while battling depression makes their works all the more impressive. I would generally take the position that if you do something creatively, the best reason to do it is just because you enjoy doing it. Because you almost certainly aren't going to get the reception you might like from any audience you release it to. Obviously some people have to do it for a job, and tbh that kinda sucks, it seems like it would just make it less enjoyable to do even if you get to do it more often. I guess if you get very rich from doing it maybe that offsets it a bit but most people don't get that either. As far as practical disputes about labour go I would go with whatever makes things better for people, which is probably going to be kicking the AI companies in the dick. The distance that separates the author from the viewer in interpreting the work, works both ways though, so I would counsel trying not to let other people's interpretation of your work affect you. They don't have to listen to you, but you also don't have to listen to them.The relationship you have to your work is something nobody else is capable of properly understanding or replicating.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 16:13
|
|
|
Crust First posted:The real problem with LLMs is the commoditisation of art. Bring in a UBI, let creators create without the threat of starving looming over them, problem solved. Simples. Art went from being either huge works of high art commissioned by dukes or cardinals or folk art on pub walls to the creation of a commercial art industry that could mass produce culture, in the same way that Marx said that feudalism gave way to capitalism. This got called kitsch and was ill regarded by the people who could afford commissioned art, but was highly regarded by the general public who thought it was better than having no art at all, but it was exploitative of the creative process because capitalism. But otoh it did enable a larger class of creatives than relying on the good graces of a duke. This is the either the next stage of that or its undoing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 16:19
|
|
|
smellmycheese posted:Don’t ask me. I didnt write it who needs llms when you have obsessives on fan wikis to tell you all about the history of onions in shrek media quote:Shrek on X-Box/Shrek Extra Large so there you go, he finds them useful for filling his gas meter
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 16:25
|
|
|
Crust First posted:The real problem with LLMs is the commoditisation of art. Bring in a UBI, let creators create without the threat of starving looming over them, problem solved. Simples. Mostly. You still have the huge dirge of content being uploaded causing issues in itself. https://neil-clarke.com/a-concerning-trend/
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 16:44
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Which I guess ties into the wider sociological argument where I don't think artists should be destitute (nor people in general) but I also don't think people should be being paid to write harmful lies, so perhaps AI is a small facet of a wider sociological problem. Guardian Media Group fires all its columnists and uses LLMs to write columns that drive high traffic, and can freely leave open the comments as the authors are unable to feel offense. But they are unable to get the model to replicate one of their columnist's unique styles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 16:54
|
|
|
So you're all here arguing against AI art whilst sharing deepfake political porn behind the scenes. bit hypocritical
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 17:03
|
|
|
NotJustANumber99 posted:So you're all here arguing against AI art whilst sharing deepfake political porn behind the scenes. bit hypocritical What no response to anything being posted to you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 17:26
|
|
|
The most attractive lie told by OpenAI and companies like them is that they are "democratising" access to art. Making art is hard, and making art that is even technically good, let alone creatively interesting, requires long years of training and practice. That's true whether the art in question is pictures of big titty elves or shrek slash fic. If I, someone who isn't sure what end of the paintbrush goes in the paint, can go on my phone and in seconds, for free, translate the idea in my head into a reasonable facsimile of what a skilled artist could produce, that is obviously incredibly cool to me. I think that's why most people are excited about the technology and are willing to overlook the problematic aspects of its creation. Why should only those snooty artists be allowed to make art? However, the actual goal of these companies is to monopolise art. You can download a text-to-image model and run it locally on hardware that costs on the order of £1000. To train a useful model is technically and financially outside the reach of most consumers, but a dedicated hobbyist with disposable income to burn can certainly achieve it given access to a training set. To produce a worthwhile training set in this area costs millions and the work of at least hundreds of people. That means that if you want access to the magical booby elf generator, functionally you are going to have to go through OpenAI or one of their competitors. This is not so apparent now since they've made their early models and services freely available to build hype, but already their next generation stuff is behind a paywall. The goal with future models is to be harder to distinguish from human output and more easily tuned for specific applications - more useful and more broadly usable. This early stage of letting people fart out "just good enough" works onto the internet has the obvious functions of getting people used to the technology, and taking work away from artists who would otherwise have been commissioned to produce inexpensive work for people and organisations with low budgets. But if you want access to the "good" stuff where hands have the right number of fingers, you're going to have to pay for it. The generative AI companies are positioning themselves to make everyday human creative work - things like short, disposable pieces of writing, stock images and one-off concept works - unaffordable either to produce or buy commercially, and to instead make themselves the source for all of that. Their vision isn't every Kindle Unlimited author being able to produce sweet cover art for free rather than paying someone on DeviantArt $100, it's everyone paying OpenAI $20 instead. e: It's possible to make the argument that saving that $80 or whatever makes it all worthwhile, of course. I don't think that's very compelling but clearly there are a lot of people who do. big scary monsters fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Jan 27, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 17:31
|
|
|
I had a play with the music generating AI just for fun, expecting nothing just shitposting in a genre I never listen to, and what it came back with SO good my first thought was "this is clearly copied from somewhere, I want to know what so I can hear more of it". And this is the thing, there's no way to query these things, there's no audit trail. MAYBE it's cobbled together a bunch of ideas in a way that's produced something truly unique. MAYBE it's one of its training data tracks with the bare minimum of identifying details sawn off. No way of telling, even if the companies running the things would release their training data, which they aren't except under oath in court, nobody understands what the tech does enough to do the rest of the work and say "hey computer, who are you ripping off here". Edit: The point being, until these things have that very basic addition you have to assume that at the very least EVERYTHING that comes out of them is tainted by plagiarism of a source that didn't want to be in the training data, and if you're at all creative there's no ethical way to make it part of your workflow. I get the Star Trek appeal of "computer, entertain me" as an end user, but there's no way of monetising that, and the second you do anything creative or commercial or both with it it's just ethical poison, really. Isomermaid fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Jan 27, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 17:41
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:What no response to anything being posted to you? You're the last person to quote me. To imply I'm a dickhead and that I don't understand the joy of creation because of the car I drive. I dunno what response you'd like to see from me here? thanks?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 17:52
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:I don't even understand how this is a discussion that's being had in a marxist thread. Pay people for their artistic labour and don't support the machine that threatens to rob them of both the compensation and the opportunity for expression. Marx wanted to abolish wage labour and the commodification of art, not demand both of them. It sucks that under capitalism every tool that can be is used for harm, but the thing to oppose is capitalism, not tools.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 17:53
|
|
|
NotJustANumber99 posted:You're the last person to quote me. Indeed. Because it seems to be an accurate summation of your character and everything you continually post. Some introspection? The realisation that people telling you your annoying isn't attention you should want?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 17:54
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:Marx wanted to abolish wage labour and the commodification of art, not demand both of them. It sucks that under capitalism every tool that can be is used for harm, but the thing to oppose is capitalism, not tools. The rights hoarders and copyright trolls are the Tory side, they say they're all about traditional arts, but what they're actually about is having half a dozen people own more intellectual property than everyone else put together and gently caress you if you look at it wrong. The AI techbros are the Whig side, claiming to be all about democracy and freedom, but they're actually about the freedom to enrich themselves doing stupid poo poo. Neither of these is a good proposition for the creative worker; labour under a Sword of Damocles where any copyright troll can accuse you of using a bad AI, or compete against a flood of low quality. If forced to choose I'd go with the side that undermines copyright rather than shores it up though, because you protect workers by strengthening workers' rights, not property rights.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 18:22
|
|
|
NJAN’s posts are funny if you don’t let yourself get wound up. The man is a magnificent piss artist, just lol and move on. Or don’t it would probably ruin the schtick a bit. Owning a tesla isn’t part of the bit I don’t think, sadly
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 18:43
|
|
|
In the swamp of the internet, my posts reside, Shunned like Shrek's humble abode, pushed aside. No likes, no love, just pixels in despair, Tesla cars pass by, but my posts they don't care.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 18:48
|
|
|
Jakabite posted:NJAN’s posts are funny if you don’t let yourself get wound up. The man is a magnificent piss artist, just lol and move on. Going to disagree here. I don't think cringe comedy needs to be both on TV and in D&D.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 07:49 |
|
|
Jakabite posted:NJAN’s posts are funny if you don’t let yourself get wound up. The man is a magnificent piss artist, just lol and move on. I think in the debate and discussion thread a person should be willing to actually debate and discuss, tbh. if you want to do some lol trolling and then start trying to laugh it off with quips when people question you i'm sure there's other places for that
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 19:11
|
|