@axelhander I feel that we are having some miscommunication errors, and I'll take most of the blame for that. It seems that your comments are bouncing between a valid criticism of capitalism and definitions of what exactly AI art is. I didn't catch that at first.
On the first point, I totally agree with you. Automation originally was supposed to free the working class, but has been since perverted to keep them chained as wage slaves to the owning class as they make bigger and bigger personal profits.
When I say AI art requires stolen assets I mean it literally, not as a negative connotation of iterated or researched. Research and iteration are processes of the human mind taking outside information and translating it through the lens of their personal experiences and knowledge. AI literally cannot do either.
AI art simply CTRL+C information from another electronic source then applies focused randomization based on prompts that it only understands as predictive modifiers.
To follow your example of Shovel Knight. Nowhere in that game's code is code from Super Mario Bros or another of the other games that inspired it. The humans who made it created their own game from scratch. (From scratch does not mean literally from absolutely nothing, it means that nothing in the creation is an actual part from another creation.) They did not even take the maths from the games that inspired Shovel Knight, instead they used human creativity and inspiration to find a "feel" to the movement of their character that they most found appealing.
I agree with your statement about old jobs getting replaced by new technology, even with how it is usually a good thing. I think the reason I worry so much about this specific topic (AI art) is because I see it as one of the most powerful tools for the wealthy class to further minimize the work of a class of people that already struggle with find stable and well-paying work.
For every artist that can make a living or is famous there are tens of thousands who simply can't even if they're really good at it. The rarity of the opportunities is already very small and the so-called "job providers" often resent paying them even more than they resent paying other trained or experienced professionals.
It seems totally different than modern innovations in construction making construction work safer and modern medicine helping patients.
I don't understand what you are referring to when you wrote about "...one must vet an artist before using AI..." It seems completely unrelated to anything I've written so far.
@axelhander I appreciate your long comment. Details matter.
In the example based on this article, you said that no job was lost because the company never intended to hire an artist in the first place, but that doesn't make sense.
If AI art did not exist and this company truly had no intention to hire an artist, then there would only be a blank white space where the cover is. It is the very existence of AI art that cost someone their potential job.
For the example you gave regarding changing a tire, you make sense, but it still seems cloudy as changing a tire would be the same as drawing stick figures for the lack of education and experience that would be required to do so when compared to engine or air conditioning repair. AI art is giving people the (stolen) power to go under the hood and replace the mechanic.
While there are people who do learn how to repair their own cars and have given themselves the freedom to mostly avoid mechanics they still needed to learn an actual skill and they usually don't do this in an attempt to close down professional mechanics.
It is true that all creativity has at least some basis in iteration, but iteration is not the same as copying. If I stole your work word for word then put my name on it without even acknowledging you I would be committing plagiarism (even if I changed a little bit of your grammar). AI art hides its plagiarism by taking its word for word copies and smushing them together in a complex way to look like a new image when it really isn't one.
AI art does seem to speed up what is often a much slower process, but remember that the few second it takes to create its images have to be added on top of the hundreds or thousands of hours of work that came before it because nothing of AI art comes from scratch.
I don't understand the term fearmongering as you use it. To say that AI art is entirely made of stolen assets is simply what it is. To worry about something potentially taking away jobs is a valid concern when dealing with new technology. I would be fearmongering if said that AI art would absolutely take away all artists paid work and we should stop it once and for all or something else as hyperbolic, but asking why a company whose only concern is profit (as all companies do) would rather pay a trained professional when they can just have an intern do the same thing for free seem like a reasonable question.
@axelhander You seem very confident in your views on AI art, but I am confused by some of what you've said.
1. How is AI art just a "time saving tool" when it requires other people's work in the first place? Any and everything artistic created by AI is just a collection of millions of hours of previously created human time and effort. The only time being saved is by those who choose to take away jobs from human beings. The moment it takes away a job from a human being it becomes something that hurts the working class.
2. You alluded to the fact that AI art requires a human to give input to create it and therefore it still is of value, but that doesn't address that the human putting in the prompts is just manipulating the works of others, which leads back my first question. To make up a random example: The person inputting prompts for AI art is like a guy working at a burger restaurant who steals from the neighbor's burger restaurant, takes the wrapping off, rearranges the toppings, then sells it as his own.
3. I don't understand what the statement regarding "...gives to the masses regardless of talent," means. Are you saying that humans should not take the time and effort needed to become talented at something because that makes them oppositional to the rest of us? If aspiring to be good at something and for others to find value in what we create is a bad thing then what is the point of doing anything at all?
Comments 3
Re: Accusations Of AI Art Deflate Archer Maclean's DropZone 40th Anniversary Announcement
@axelhander I feel that we are having some miscommunication errors, and I'll take most of the blame for that. It seems that your comments are bouncing between a valid criticism of capitalism and definitions of what exactly AI art is. I didn't catch that at first.
On the first point, I totally agree with you. Automation originally was supposed to free the working class, but has been since perverted to keep them chained as wage slaves to the owning class as they make bigger and bigger personal profits.
When I say AI art requires stolen assets I mean it literally, not as a negative connotation of iterated or researched. Research and iteration are processes of the human mind taking outside information and translating it through the lens of their personal experiences and knowledge. AI literally cannot do either.
AI art simply CTRL+C information from another electronic source then applies focused randomization based on prompts that it only understands as predictive modifiers.
To follow your example of Shovel Knight. Nowhere in that game's code is code from Super Mario Bros or another of the other games that inspired it. The humans who made it created their own game from scratch. (From scratch does not mean literally from absolutely nothing, it means that nothing in the creation is an actual part from another creation.) They did not even take the maths from the games that inspired Shovel Knight, instead they used human creativity and inspiration to find a "feel" to the movement of their character that they most found appealing.
I agree with your statement about old jobs getting replaced by new technology, even with how it is usually a good thing. I think the reason I worry so much about this specific topic (AI art) is because I see it as one of the most powerful tools for the wealthy class to further minimize the work of a class of people that already struggle with find stable and well-paying work.
For every artist that can make a living or is famous there are tens of thousands who simply can't even if they're really good at it. The rarity of the opportunities is already very small and the so-called "job providers" often resent paying them even more than they resent paying other trained or experienced professionals.
It seems totally different than modern innovations in construction making construction work safer and modern medicine helping patients.
I don't understand what you are referring to when you wrote about "...one must vet an artist before using AI..." It seems completely unrelated to anything I've written so far.
Re: Accusations Of AI Art Deflate Archer Maclean's DropZone 40th Anniversary Announcement
@axelhander I appreciate your long comment. Details matter.
In the example based on this article, you said that no job was lost because the company never intended to hire an artist in the first place, but that doesn't make sense.
If AI art did not exist and this company truly had no intention to hire an artist, then there would only be a blank white space where the cover is. It is the very existence of AI art that cost someone their potential job.
For the example you gave regarding changing a tire, you make sense, but it still seems cloudy as changing a tire would be the same as drawing stick figures for the lack of education and experience that would be required to do so when compared to engine or air conditioning repair. AI art is giving people the (stolen) power to go under the hood and replace the mechanic.
While there are people who do learn how to repair their own cars and have given themselves the freedom to mostly avoid mechanics they still needed to learn an actual skill and they usually don't do this in an attempt to close down professional mechanics.
It is true that all creativity has at least some basis in iteration, but iteration is not the same as copying. If I stole your work word for word then put my name on it without even acknowledging you I would be committing plagiarism (even if I changed a little bit of your grammar). AI art hides its plagiarism by taking its word for word copies and smushing them together in a complex way to look like a new image when it really isn't one.
AI art does seem to speed up what is often a much slower process, but remember that the few second it takes to create its images have to be added on top of the hundreds or thousands of hours of work that came before it because nothing of AI art comes from scratch.
I don't understand the term fearmongering as you use it. To say that AI art is entirely made of stolen assets is simply what it is. To worry about something potentially taking away jobs is a valid concern when dealing with new technology. I would be fearmongering if said that AI art would absolutely take away all artists paid work and we should stop it once and for all or something else as hyperbolic, but asking why a company whose only concern is profit (as all companies do) would rather pay a trained professional when they can just have an intern do the same thing for free seem like a reasonable question.
Re: Accusations Of AI Art Deflate Archer Maclean's DropZone 40th Anniversary Announcement
@axelhander You seem very confident in your views on AI art, but I am confused by some of what you've said.
1. How is AI art just a "time saving tool" when it requires other people's work in the first place? Any and everything artistic created by AI is just a collection of millions of hours of previously created human time and effort. The only time being saved is by those who choose to take away jobs from human beings. The moment it takes away a job from a human being it becomes something that hurts the working class.
2. You alluded to the fact that AI art requires a human to give input to create it and therefore it still is of value, but that doesn't address that the human putting in the prompts is just manipulating the works of others, which leads back my first question. To make up a random example: The person inputting prompts for AI art is like a guy working at a burger restaurant who steals from the neighbor's burger restaurant, takes the wrapping off, rearranges the toppings, then sells it as his own.
3. I don't understand what the statement regarding "...gives to the masses regardless of talent," means. Are you saying that humans should not take the time and effort needed to become talented at something because that makes them oppositional to the rest of us? If aspiring to be good at something and for others to find value in what we create is a bad thing then what is the point of doing anything at all?