Comment

Comment on Why do AI bros and other staunch AI defenders seem happy about the potential of killing off the creative industries?

<- View Parent

LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

Eh, I make my own music and somewhat play guitar, I don’t even use samples because it feels personally a bit like cheating myself out of the most challenging and interesting part, though ofc plenty way more talented and successful musicians sample all the way, so it’s just a personal stance.

I’d say actually it’s that experience, just making art as self-expression that has thoroughly inoculated me against artbro talking points.

I’m not against creative industries, nor am I pro corpos, but AI is just a tool and now that anybody can make images, the drawing people seethe, sorry not sorry, I’d rather make creativity more accessible than please egos of a select few rich kid narcissists.

source

Sort:hotnew top

kadup@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
[deleted]
source
- LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  But the prompt is the creative aspect. It’s always the idea, and the rest is convention and form. And lol, modern poor aren’t going to have access to charcoal, paper, tine or a deathbed, but they’re going to have a smartphone, hence it does indeed make creative expression more accessible.
  
  I’d never have even tried music if I couldn’t pirate a DAW, plugins etc etc.
  
  source
  - kadup@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    [deleted]
    source
    LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    So do you have a rebuttal or? Because this is the way I see it, using music because it’s what I know more:
    
    I get an idea in my head for a melody or piece of music -> I either lay it out on an instrument or in a DAW piano roll or on paper -> I tweak and refine and add/remove elements -> I export the file and upload to a website.
    
    The actual creative spark is the first step, the rest is a matter of speaking the language and skills at using the tools of choice to convey ideas clearly. Both are skills in and of themselves but one is about technique, the other is about a well-trained imagination and analytical mindset.
    
    Prompts in that case are just another language like notes and scales. Then you add onto that LoRAs, controlnets, refiner models, custom refines of existing models, embeddings, weights, sampling steps, classifier-free guidance scale, and it’s quite a lot to actually learn and use effectively.
    
    I don’t see how it’s any less creative whatsoever. Less skilled? Sure, absolutely, it can be. No denying there.
    
    Maybe you could say it’s also less intentional, but plenty of art has unintentional elements which doesn’t make it any less creative.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
fubbernuckin@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
My guy, we live in a world where we are required to have a job to live. Most of those jobs are not essential for society to function. Some of these jobs make people happy and passionate, many others are soul grating and awful. This technology makes some of those enjoyable jobs much less lucrative while the product becomes worse. We simply lose things that bring people joy and for what? Like seriously, I cannot think of something an ai can bring to the table that a human cannot in terms of art.

Why would you want to remove the jobs people enjoy and are passionate about just for the sake of it? Why would you campaign to strictly make people less happy? If it wasn’t for the horrible system we live in I’d be all for this kind of advancement, but it does not make life easier, it does not get us better things, and it almost exclusively makes life worse for millions of people with nothing to show for it.

source
- eronth@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  I think this is the big contention point. In a world without a need for jobs, AI would be a neat alternative method of art generation, and a fascinating advancement of technology as a whole…
  
  but UBI is not yet real and jobs still need to be had. Without some form of life-securement for those who provided the art to be trained off of, we’re just using tech to really fuck people over. It’s definitely a moral grey area - very dark grey.
  
  source
- LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  
  We simply lose things that bring people joy and for what?
  
  Why would you campaign to strictly make people less happy?
  
  I disagree completely. Idk but creating beings millions of people joy, anything that democratizes it more accessible is a good thing. AI has absolutely brought many more people joy.
  
  A world where a technology exists that can query the sum of human knowledge and skill to translate ideas into form but is gatekept because few people like feeling special is a horrifying dystopia and I can’t imagine how someone could be so fucking evil as to really wish for that.
  
  Like really, I want to keep giving y’all benefit of the doubt that you simply don’t consider a perspective outside your own, but you don’t make it easy.
  
  This technology makes some of those enjoyable jobs
  
  Technology is what made those jobs enjoyable and accessible to those who do them now in the first place.
  
  Nobody is forcing you to use AI or any technology, you can still farm goats and use them to make drums before you lay out a beat, people will probably be pretty impressed if you did that.
  
  Why would you want to remove the jobs people enjoy and are passionate about just for the sake of it?
  
  If they are passionate about their craft for the sake of it they will keep doing it, if they are doing it as a job then like with any other job market when new technologies or trends arrive they will have to adapt.
  
  To put it in perspective with an analogy: It’s an absurd notion for instance that new programming languages should be banned not for their quality but simply because not every developer will learn them, and it’s an absurd notion that someone who loves programming in C for the sake of it cannot do so just because Java exists.
  
  Having DAWs did not make it illegal to mess around with an old rompler and a step sequencer for the sake of it, nor did orchestra plugins eliminate violins, but market demands orchestral music done quicker, you either do this or don’t.
  
  If it wasn’t for the horrible system we live in
  
  This would be the case for every system that still has some market demands, even something like anarcho-communist cooperative based market economics would favour technological advancement and efficiency every time and some jobs would simply not be in demand any more.
  
  There is simply no economic system that makes any sense where someone would need to hire an orchestra for every sting on kitchen nightmares instead of using a VST or sample library or now in the not too distant future - generating one.
  
  I fully agree that we need to change the system to ensure when these technological advancements happen that people don’t end up on the street.
  
  However, I’m sure most would agree that even though it was not fair to e.g. human computers, the move to electronic calculators is a net positive for society.
  
  Similarly endlessly distributable digital copies of books etc. democratized media to a massive degree even if it put libraries at risk.
  
  but it does not make life easier,
  
  It definitely does make life easier for many artists, for instance you can upscale old media or restore media where the original was lost to time, game devs can use AI-generated assets for background stuff like adding nigh-infinite variety to textures that would be impractical for an indie dev to do or a sole dev can compensate for whatever skills they lack manually etc.
  
  it does not get us better things
  
  I think with regards to quality it’s completely value neutral, I’ve seen plenty of dogshit AI art, but also some really good unique stuff. I think it just follows Sturgeon’s Law.
  
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law
  
  source
  - sith@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    Thank you.
    
    source
agent_nycto@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
Everyone already can be creative and make images you moron

source
- shalafi@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  Neither is true.
  
  source
  - agent_nycto@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    Elaborate
    
    source
- LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  Why don’t they then? And why do they now that AI is around?
  
  Almost as if there’s a barrier to entry there for most people that’s been removed.
  
  source
  - agent_nycto@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    People do make art and be creative still so I don’t know why you’re asking why they don’t.
    
    And people still do it because making art is a thing humans do and like to do. People still sew even though they can just buy clothing.
    
    Acting like there’s a barrier for entry to make art is a flat out delusion. Humans were making art on caves with chalk and dirt they found. You can make art with a stick. Acting like artists are rich elitists is the most ignorant and incorrect thing I’ve ever read on the Internet.
    
    source
whatalute@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
I honestly find it fascinating that you view artists as the “rich kid narcissists” in comparison to AI proponents as more of an everyman. My personal experience is those the most engaged in AI stuff are college educated, often in STEM fields, silicon valley with money types, whereas the generally the working artists I know come from middle income or poor backgrounds. I don’t say this trying to attack you, or invalidate your experience, I’m genuinely curious. Would you be willing to elaborate on why you view them this way?

source
- LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  My experience is simply the polar opposite of yours.
  
  Most artists I’ve known are extremely upper class, at the very least they come from very privileged backgrounds, and usually had the safety net required to take gap years for unpaid apprenticeships or to start bands, have capital to invest and can afford to lose it, can live with parents and rely on them financially waiting for publishing deals or comissions money or adrev etc etc.
  
  Come to think of it IRL I actually have never heard of a “working class” artist, other than in the strict Marxist sense in that they’re not an owner class.
  
  Even if they work a low paying or shitty job part-time they almost always have very high QoL due to those privileged backgrounds. One guy who went into the arts I know has a day job that paid half mine out of the gate, but he had way more disposable cash because his parents paid his rent and bills.
  
  I’m not saying that arts are just a passtime of the rich mind you, (though I do think the rabidly anti-ai types have a “fuck you got mine” streak) I think it’s survivorship bias ultimately, those who can be full-time or even decently part-time professional artists in some capacity are the ones who have privilege.
  
  Meanwhile 99.9% of people in CompSci were the hustler-grindset type working folks trying to escape poverty or otherwise move up the ladder, either real career chasers who are all about networking or grifters/scammers/shady characters you’d see betting on horses and hanging out in money laundering candy/barbershops.
  
  Most people had at least 1 job just to afford rent, many had 2 (uni is pretty much free here in the UK).
  
  The only rich people were drug dealers in blacked out BMWs and Chinese immigrants with Rolexes and extremely strong spice vapes and no knowledge of English.
  
  The remaining 0.1% were genuinely gifted kids who pursued PhDs and just nerds (me) and they were all usually not super well off locals or they were immigrants from shithole countries of families who could afford to send their kids overseas and not much else, where they prolly didn’t need to work semester time but they couldn’t fuck around either (also me).
  
  Idk about Silicon Valley, I’m not American nor have been, from what I’ve seen people who talk about the “bay area” on Mastodon are either insufferable cunts or some kind of weird internet people/hacking savants/furries though.
  
  source
  - sith@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    Yes. 👏
    
    source