I don’t get this. AI bros talk about how “in the near future” no one will “need” to be a writer, a filmmaker or a musician anymore, as you’ll be able to generate your own media with your own parameters and preferences on the fly. This, to me, feels like such an insane opinion. How can someone not value the ingenuity and creativity behind a work of art? Do these people not see or feel the human behind it all? And are these really opinions that you’ve encountered outside of the internet?
There seems to be two ways of viewing generative AI. The first, which many anti-AI people take is that Generative AI will be captured by big business and will decimate the creatives financial streams. The outcome will be less art with less meaning and shallow profit seeking art will rule the world.
Then there is the flip side. Everyone in them has a story they want to tell. Everyone has a artistic vision they want to produce. Everyone has a song they want to write and sing. Everyone, if given enough time, talent, practice, resources, and yes, money, could produce something beautiful, deep, and unique to themselves. But they don’t. Why? Because there are barriers. Barriers among barriers. It is the hope of the “AI bros” that AI will tear down those barriers and allow more people to create.
But because these people have never created before, their work will obviously not be up to pair with professionals. Just give it time. In the words of Randall Munroe: If we want to write Ulysses, our generation might not be sexting enough.
What would be the point of AI replacing people to create art?
The essence of art is that it came from the mind and talent (or skill) from another human being. It’s a thread connecting our humanity through time and space.
No one will be looking back at AI art the same way we look back hundreds or thousands of years at paintings, sculptures, musical compositions, or even real photographs.
We might enjoy some AI generated content for the novelty, but it’s soulless.
Fully agree, but I’m afraid market forces will just allow the most common AI slop to exist. And I’m sure people will still consume it, and like it. Unfortunately.
It’s because AI enthusiasts are genuinely proud and in awe of their work, and those that are still staunchly pro-AI are unaware of how much damage they have already done.
Two key facts:
- Generative AI is powerful and amazing
- Generative AI was immediately sold to the capital-owning class and is now being developed and guided by the motivations of profit
Freya Holmér does excellent analysis at around the 43:00 mark. She notes that AI represents a story of human triumph, and the innate quality or “coolness” that lies in that. But on the other hand, she explains how generative AI has quite quickly become entirely devorced from positively amplifying human expression. Exceptions to this exist, where people use AI creatively as an extension of themselves, but are exceptions only and not the rule.
I see other threads here discussing “is there even demand for authentic human art?” And those discussions ignore that yes, there is, and that authentic human art was scraped from copyright holders on the internet without their consent. “Is there even demand for human art?” is what is being asked, when the technology in question was immediately bought up and exploited by billion-dollar companies who are gaining immensely more value from generative AI than even the most lucrative AI-artist.
I encourage “AI bros” reading this to look around and engage with the art world. Genuinely. If you have always wanted to be a screenwriter or painter hobbyist, go engage with those stories. Go and see the human experiences, training and techniques that are visible in every line and brush stroke. Creativity is quite a wonderful and powerful thing and I always encourage it.
Then, after you have experienced these works to a new degree, look back. Don’t even ask “is AI good”—because we all agree, it’s an amazing feat. Instead ask “do I want this technology to be monopolized by corporate interests?”
Wonderful answer.
We don’t mourn the loss of blacksmiths who put time and skill into creating a pan or pot. We don’t care about the glass blowers who are no longer hired to blow drinking glasses. We don’t miss the portrait artists who painted not just for art, but to create an historical record.
History is filled with jobs performed by skilled labor that were made redundant with technology. AI is just a point in a long line.
I think the difference is that blacksmiths created things that were tangibly useful, that people needed, and that they needed in large quantities quickly and cheaply. The whole point of art is that it does not have real-world usefulness, past the enjoyment of it for the sake of the enjoyment of it.
For example, people frequently refer to cars as “art”, because they are beautiful, but “beauty” isn’t necessarily the same as “art”. Cars are beautiful because they invoke the principles of art, whatever they may be. The base principles themselves are complex and intangible, and you’d be hard-presses to find a book that explained what art actually is, because it is not well defined.
Only people can do art, as far as we know. AI can only produce things that resemble art, and they have only been able to do so by copying what real people have done. If real artists stop outputting material, there will never be an original artistic expression created ever again.
AI may be able to generate clip art and pretty text, but nobody is going to flock to the theaters, or attend auctions to acquire what is basically clip art.
This is not at all like creating a metal blade, imo. The tech bros just don’t understand art.
I mentioned painters as portrait artists and artists of historical record; their work has been replaced by photography.
Most animation today is done via a computer instead of being hand drawn. Some of the techniques to reuse sprites come from hand-drawn techniques from Hanna-Barbera.
Art Deco is filled with architectural elements that are mass produced with machines instead of created by skilled labor.
We’ve mechanized art to make its construction easier. AI is part of that.
I feel like this is a bad take but more importantly, nothing you’ve said answers the main question. Why would someone be happy to remove all of that art from people?
In every example you gave, nothing was being removed at any point, they were just being moved around and not even always… Historical record painters got replaced with the new profession of photography but people who can paint extremely accurately still exist and are now an extremely valued skill.
The question above is not about that process, one which is as old as invention, but more about the joy of removing those jobs.
Why are some AI people so incredibly overjoyed that artists are no longer making money? Why are they so happy that writers will have to find new work? What about all of this makes them think that it’s a good thing that human programmers will be replaced?
Art hasn’t been removed with AI. It is offering a lower quality substitution for a lower price. We aren’t smashing paintings to feed the electricity turbines to power AI. And I’ve provided examples of where people lost artistic work because of changes in technology.
And the joy is likely from being able to do more with less, which has been consistent when other technology was adopted. You don’t need to hire any one to make a drawing, you can do it on a computer. Sure, the drawing isn’t as good, just like how a photo isn’t as good as a portrait painting.
There are still blacksmiths and portrait artists
Yeah, and I’m sure there will still be human writers and artists. There just won’t be as many of them employed compared to today.
My daughter (15f) is an artist and I work at an AI company as a software engineer. We’ve had a lot of interesting debates. Most recently, she defined Art this way:
“Art is protest against automation.”
We thought of some examples:
- when cave artists made paintings in caves, perhaps they were in a sense protesting the automatic forces of nature that would have washed or eroded away their paintings if they had not sought out caves. By painting something that could outlast themselves, perhaps they wished to express, “I am here!”
- when manufacturing and economic factors made kitsch art possible (cheap figurines, mass reprints, etc.), although more people had access to “art” there was also a sense of loss and blandness, like maybe now that we can afford art, this isn’t art, actually?
- when computers can produce images that look beautiful in some way or another, maybe this pushes the artist within each of us to find new ground where economic reproducibility can’t reach, and where we can continue the story of protest where originality can stake a claim on the ever-unfolding nature of what it means to be human.
I defined Economics this way:
“Economics is the automation of what nature does not provide.”
An example:
- long ago, nature automated the creation of apples. People picked free apples, and there was no credit card machine. But humans wanted more apples, and more varieties of apples, and tastier varieties that nature wouldn’t make soon enough. So humans created jobs–someone to make apple varieties faster than nature, and someone to plant more apple trees than nature, and someone to pick all of the apples that nature was happy to let rot on the ground as part of its slow orchard re-planting process.
Jobs are created in one of two ways: either by destroying the ability to automatically create things (destroying looms, maybe), or by making people want new things (e.g. the creation of jobs around farming Eve Online Interstellar Kredits). Whenever an artist creates something new that has value, an investor will want to automate its creation.
Where Art and Economics fight is over automation: Art wants to find territory that cannot be automated. Economics wants to discover ways to efficiently automate anything desirable. As long as humans live in groups, I suppose this cycle does not have an end.
Art is subjective, AI is a buzzword, if statements are considered AI, especially in the gaming world.
And the current state of LLMs and what are the smartest and brightest in the industry have only managed to produce utter trash, while sacrificing the planet and its inhabitants. I like your daughter more, she will create more value and at the same time not be a total corporate tool, ruining the planet for generations to come, mad respect.
(not calling you a tool, but people who work with LLMs)
I do work with LLMs, and I respect your opinion. I suspect if we could meet and chat for an hour, we’d understand each other better.
But despite the bad, I also see a great deal of good that can come from LLMs, and AI in general. I appreciated what Sal Khan (Khan Academy) had to say about the big picture view:
There’s folks who take a more pessimistic view of AI, they say this is scary, there’s all these dystopian scenarios, we maybe want to slow down, we want to pause. On the other side, there are the more optimistic folks that say, well, we’ve gone through inflection points before, we’ve gone through the Industrial Revolution. It was scary, but it all kind of worked out.
And what I’d argue right now is I don’t think this is like a flip of a coin or this is something where we’ll just have to, like, wait and see which way it turns out. I think everyone here and beyond, we are active participants in this decision. I’m pretty convinced that the first line of reasoning is actually almost a self-fulfilling prophecy, that if we act with fear and if we say, “Hey, we’ve just got to stop doing this stuff,” what’s really going to happen is the rule followers might pause, might slow down, but the rule breakers–as Alexander [Wang] mentioned–the totalitarian governments, the criminal organizations, they’re only going to accelerate. And that leads to what I am pretty convinced is the dystopian state, which is the good actors have worse AIs than the bad actors.
https://www.ted.com/talks/sal_khan_how_ai_could_save_not_destroy_education?subtitle=en
These are people without talents who have to pay creatives for cool things. All they are thinking is that they’ll be able to get the creative assets themselves for free from now on, to run their businesses or whatever. That’s it. They don’t care about the cow when they believe they’re going to get the milk for free.
deleted by creator
Everything about this just feels really depressing. I’m guessing many people in the world are similar about only caring about consumption. As long as they deem it “good”, they don’t care how/when/where and by whom it was produced by.
deleted by creator
I’m someone who talks about AI a lot on lemmy, people might call me pro AI although I consider myself to be neither pro nor anti, but admittedly, optimistic about AI in general. I work with people in the creative industry, artists, writers, designers, you name it.
As others have mentioned already, your question to my knowledge does not reflect most people’s view on AI neither online and even less so in real life. And I talk and participate in communities that are overwhelmingly pro AI. The “AI bros” you mention sound like caricatures to me.
There are some who have become bitter by lies and misinformation spread about AI that are intentionally hateful as a kind of reverse gotcha, but thats about it. You have those on the anti AI side as well for different reasons.
I dont consider AI to be anywhere close to being a threat to the industry, other than indirectly through the forces of capitalism and mismanagement. Your question indeed seems very insane to me. Most people that use and talk about AI to me seem more interested in using it to make new creative works, or enhance existing works to greater depth in the same time. Creative people are human too and have limited time, and often their time is already cut short by deadlines and their work has been systematically undervalued even before AI.
AI as it currently stands on its own simply has no feeling of direction. Without much effort you can get very pretty, elegant, interesting, but ultimately meaningless things from it. This cannot replace anyone, because such content while intriguing doesnt capture attention for long. It also cannot do complex tasks such as discussing with stakeholders or remaining consistent across work and feedback.
With a creative person at the wheel of the AI though, something special can happen. It can give AI the direction it needs to bring back that meaning.
This is a perspective a lot of people miss, since they only see AI as ChatGPT or Midjourney, not realizing that these are proprietary (not open source) front ends to the technology that essentially hide all the controls and options the technology has, because these things are essentially a new craft on their own and to this day very little people are even in the progress of mastering them.
Everyone knows about prompts, but you can do much more than that depending on the model. Some image models allow you to provide your own input image, and even additional images that control aspects of the image like depth, layout, outlines. And text models allow you to pack a ton of pre existing data that completely guide what it will output next, as well as provide control over the internal math that decides how it comes to its guess for the next word.
Without a creative and inventive person behind the wheel, you get generic AI material we all know. And with such a person, you get material at times indistinguishable from normal material. These people are already plentiful in the creative industry, and they are not going anywhere, and new people that meet this criteria are always welcome. Art is for everyone, and especially those who are driven.
Really the only threat to the creative industry in regards to AI is that some wish to bully and coerce those who use the technology into submission and force them to reject it, and even avoid considering it altogether like dogma. This creates a submissive group that will never learn how to operate AI models. Should AI ever become neccesary to work in the creative industry (it currently doesnt look like it) these people will be absolutely decimated by the ones that kept an open mind, and more importantly, the youth of tomorrow that always is more open to new technologies. This is a story of the ages whenever new technology comes around, as it never treats those that reject it kindly, if it sticks around.
The loom and the Luddites, cars and horses, cameras and painters, mine workers and digging machines, human calculators and mechanical calculators, the list goes on.
So no, being pro AI doesnt neccesarily mean you are participating in the downfall of the creative industry. Neither does being anti AI. But spreading falsehoods and stifling healthy discussion, that can kill any industry except those built on dishonesty.
This is not something taken out of thin air. While of course it’s an hyperbole, as we’re on the internet, it’s still an opinion that I’ve come across more than a handful times on e.g., reddit.
I see and understand your point of creatives using AI to alter/improve/whatever their own work. I have no problem with that. The thing I’m scared about, which I arguably could’ve phrased better in my initial post, is that we’ll reach a future where human-made work isn’t valued at all. That what we get when we go into bookstores, or stream music, or go to the cinema, is work that’s 99% made by an AI and only “tweaked” by humans. You say “Without a creative and inventive person behind the wheel, you get generic AI material we all know.”, but at the same time I’m seeing people literally saying: before 2030 we will have the first AI movie blockbuster made completely by an AI (even though maybe someone has put in a small prompt).
As I said in another reply, these are the things I’m worried about, especially when I see the act of creative creation being based on everything that have made us and shaped us in the past. Our experiences, memories and the paths we’ve taken. I feel like what makes something art, is the humanness poured into it. Complete AI works will promptly devalue the art of human creation and replace it with something else that I have no doubt people will buy into (as market forces and capitalism are just another side to this that’ll make this possible), but of which will degrade our society to begin looking like something from Brave New World. That consumption is the only thing that’ll matter. Now, on whether this is an intrinsic danger of AI or whether it’s a consequence of capitalism, I’d lean towards capitalism being at fault. But seeing as how our world is structured, I doubt the negatives will outweigh the positives once the technology develops and CEOs sees more possibility of “endless growth” using AI in this way.
Thanks for clarifying. I get your point, I honestly dont doubt someone or a group with such opinions exists out there, I just dont think it represents anywhere near a critical mass.
Sadly, when there’s big money to be made such as for blockbusters, even some human work before AI was already pretty ‘sanitized’ or ‘toned down’ in terms of human creativity, as it must be as uncontroversial and mainstream appealing as possible. So yes if AI got good enough it would definitely be used by some of those companies.
However, I dont see any path for current AI technology to get there without at least 1 or 2 breakthrough similar to the advent of current AI technology.
I also dont think it will replace anything beyond the works of companies with great profit incentive. We have a massive amount of communities where human creativity is central in all shapes and forms, producing works that arent appealing to everyone, but to the people it resonates with, it is so uniquely special that its irreplaceable. This kind of art thrives on it’s human creativity rather than it’s ability to make money. The human desire to produce and consume art that resonates with them is so strong it wont go anywhere as long as people have the time and ability to produce it.
Rest assured, there is basically no talk of replacing anyone with AI in my corner of the creative industry.
Should the day come that AI truly becomes that good it can compete with human creativity, its likely that AI will have become far more human in terms of how it creates art, and would start exhibiting the same tendencies to share human experiences and memories. Then the difference will start to fade and indeed we might go the way of the horses, but such a scenario is essentially sci-fi right now - we may never even get close and art might have made many radical shifts before we get there. And like the camera didnt kill hand painted portraits, there will still be a place for human creativity, just less.
But so long as the incentive is there, it might eventually happen. And so we should be ready to safeguard creativity in some manner along the way. But currently the most effective ways of doing so entail mostly to curb our capitalistic society, and not at the technology. Because doing so could in the worst case lock creatives out from the technology and start a race for the capability to keep up, and large companies would surely win out if we let them.
They have more means of doing things and more data than smaller creators, and AI does seem to pull some of that power back to smaller creators, hence why even thought it might seem big companies are all pro AI, dont be surprised if they are totally fine taking a powerful tool away so they can take it just for themselves.
deleted by creator
They absolutely hate anyone who is better than them at anything. They hate programmers. They hate artists. They hate their secretary that knows more about them than they do.
Getting rid of everyone would soothe their egos.
What a cynical view to live under.
AI can only replace creative industries if the content it produces is better in which case it’s a win for the people consuming that content. When it comes to creators themselves, it’ll be harder to earn a living that way but on the other hand, none of the artists I know are making it for the money and they would continue making it even if AI was better. Myself included.
However, I don’t think it’s either-or situation. AI will just come alongside human made content. There’s a ton of content creators I’d continue following no matter how good AI would get.
Is it really a win for people to consume soulless AI poetry or prose? Even if the objective qualities (of which are hard to define anyway) makes it “better”, in the eyes of the masses than a human author like Baudelaire or Mary Oliver? One could say it’s up to the consumer, if they’d rather buy an AI work, then that “decides it”, but market forces are really bad at deciding what’s worth consuming or not.
These are the things I’m worried about, especially when I see the act of creative creation being based on everything that have made us and shaped us in the past. Our experiences, memories and the paths we’ve taken. I feel like what makes something art, is the humanness poured into it.
deleted by creator
I still hear you implying that, in one way or another, AI content wouldn’t be as good as - or better than - human-made content. If that’s the case, I agree with you: replacing human artists with AI would be a net negative. However, my point is that when the day comes that AI content genuinely surpasses human-made work on every metric we care about, resisting it simply because it’s AI-generated doesn’t make much sense to me.
I still empathize with human artists who may no longer be able to compete, but I see that as part of human evolution - some professions inevitably become obsolete.
That said, as I mentioned, this wouldn’t prevent anyone from continuing as an artist for the joy of it. It would just make it harder to monetize their work.
The best example I can think of, and this is being very generous to the AI bros, is that they’re trying to compare it to obsolete creative positions. Think about animation. Each frame used to have to be hand drawn and colored entirely by hand. There was a lot of heavy lifting going on in the process that weren’t necessarily creative but still required for the final product. I think they’re trying to say that we’ll need less work like this.
I’m not sure I agree or how accurate their claims are.
Edit: I’m just explaining what I think their point of view is. It’s not my personal opinion.
Becau$e rea$ons.
Because AI bros love the smell of their own farts and they get off by convincing other people that they should also smell their farts. (Only partly /s)
But more seriously, I’d say it’s just a symptom of the world we live in where there is tremendous pressure to commodify and commercialize everything in the most “efficient” way possible, including creativity.
