Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Quanlib t1_j3894h8 wrote

Reply to comment by thebestmtgplayer in The future: our POV (ft. AIart issue) by thebestmtgplayer

Boy you sure like quotations marks huh? The problem here is that you’re still suggesting that throwing an idea into an ai algorithm is equivalent to art. This is a false equivalency. Sure- the end product may seem similar to most (consumers), but the creative process is the defining line that divides them.

As it stands, many artists have been plagiarized (or at least their ip has been infringed upon) in DALL-E, simply by inputting their names… this isn’t at all ethical, nor should it be allowed. Why pay for the real thing if you can get a representation of it for free(ish)?

AI should be focused on larger scale objectives, like automating industries and mundane tasks within an industry that no one would choose to or at all want to work in/on, or more pressing issues like maybe trying to help humanity thwart our environmental crises. Churning out AI representations of art is doing nothing but flooding an already flooded market with it’s version of fast fashion. It’s trying to fix an industry that isn’t broken (yet), while simultaneously cheapening a craft.

The other problem with the potential replacement of artists with AI is perspective. What biases have been plugged into AI algos? How many people have been involved in the initial base build of this AI? This leaves a LOT of social and cultural blind spots, or at least grey areas, on how certain cultures are represented- mostly by a handful of people. Cultures that have historically been oppressed will have the most to lose and be hurt by AI art.

Examining potential risks of something is not equivalent to fearing it. I’d argue that the main concerns about AI art aren’t exclusively based off of fear of the future at all- it’s about what’s already happening with these crude versions of AI and the potential issues surrounding them. As the technology advances it will have even more impact on art through it’s effect on the philosophy of art, societal impact of art, financial viability of being a career artist, projected falsities within AI art etc etc…

The real question is- If there was currently an AI companion/sex doll, do you suggest we embrace that as the societal equivalency of having a human partner? Or are we not “waking our inner child’s curiosity” enough for you?

4

thebestmtgplayer OP t1_j38lyn5 wrote

Just the right mix of provocation and input to deserve a reply instead of a shaking head! And mind you, I do like quotation marks.

I would like to answer your last questions with a question: why would I not choose an AI companion for certain interactions, like chores, given I don't rejoice in mundane daily interactions (and accept I don't leave space for special moments)? If I do not enjoy the hassle for bonding sexually, i can have my sexual fulfillment artificially while seeking social interaction for other reasons (i.e. platonic connection). Similar to this, I'd argue there's many forms of art which can be reduced along the lines of "a cool, colorful sticker for this wall" of some sort, likely a re-scrambled version of artwork that's already been made.

Still, I absolutely agree on the bias topic and over/underrepresentation. I did not consider this while writing up the thread! I do absolutely have to disagree on "AI should be focused on larger scale objectives" (why should a powerful tool be used for one thing alone?).

Just a thought: wouldn't 'underrepresented' communities actually benefit from the rise of AI art? Given their style will be more unique as it isn't easily mass-produced? In that sense, it would push artists to beyond great and average, in a way not observed before (or wielding AI properly for the best results), transforming the occupation as I pointed out already.

0