[D] What is left after machine learning takes over creative endeavors?

Submitted by NotASuicidalRobot t3_xx8wje in MachineLearning

It has been shown that machine learning can produce creative works in both text, visual and audio, and they are indeed improving at a great pace. For example, it did not take long for ai to progress from incoherent colours with terrible anatomy to works that could pass as a decent artist's work.

So what happens if this just continues? What place will the human creative mind have beside the machines that do it better and much quicker?

(There is also the possibility that the tech hits a ceiling and never quite reaches the level of the best human work, but this post assumes otherwise)

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

save_the_panda_bears t1_iravfcn wrote

I don’t mean this in a negative way, but if you’re concerned about AI completely supplanting human art, then you have a limited view of art.

Part of what makes great art is the intentionality and story behind it - take the abstract art movement. Most pieces aren’t technically difficult to create, but the representation and symbolism are what make the pieces so captivating.

There will always be a demand for human created art, just as there will always be a demand for naturally occurring gemstones. We can grow perfect diamonds in a lab for a fraction of the price of naturally occurring ones, yet people are still drawn to natural ones despite their flaws and imperfections.

10

NotASuicidalRobot OP t1_irax1cs wrote

Yes, but i feel ai will also be able to start drawing symbolism soon. Perhaps there is something different about human made symbolism and creativity in general that computers can never generate, but i think for general purpose ai has also passed that. Many ai pictures can comfortably pass off as an artist's work.

This actually brings up another point, what will stop people from passing AI work as their own, original work? Especially if there is the demand for human work like some sort of luxury product as you said

−1

Southern-Trip-1102 t1_iraq56s wrote

There will be less jobs for artists and art will, as it is now, mostly be a hobby.

8

BCBCC t1_irawkz4 wrote

Go to a museum. Talk to people who have studied art, people who have bought art, people who have made art.

I suspect you'll find that the value humans put on art (monetary or otherwise) is NOT based entirely on the visual aspect or the "quality" of the art, but is mostly having to do with the circumstances of the artist, the circumstances of the time and the situation that art was made in, and what the art says about people and society and the human condition. AI can replace stock photos, illustrations in some cases. AI cannot replace creative endeavors entirely - at best if we ever have truly intelligent AI it could contribute with art from a wholly new perspective, but that wouldn't invalidate art made by humans.

As a personal example: I saw the Turner exhibition at the Boston MFA this summer. Turner was an English painter, lived 1775-1851. His most famous works show how life changed with the industrial revolution. You could feed a prompt of "english coastline with sailing ships and a steamboat" but you wouldn't end up with something as interesting as made by the person who was actually around at that time. You could generate a painting from the prompt "a ship visible in the background, sailing through a tumultuous sea of churning water and leaving scattered human forms floating in its wake" but you wouldn't get Turner's The Slave Ship from it.

4

barbarianbard t1_irb6772 wrote

You say you wouldn’t get something as interesting as Turner’s slave ship but people have already entered AI artwork into competitions under human aliases and won the competition. The truth that art people never really want to admit is that the art world is basically controlled by gatekeepers. Whoever the influential art gallery owners/buyers decide is a good artist gets to exhibit. They craft a mythological story around the artist and their work and the artist does their part in perpetuating it. The wealthy buy the art thus translating the mythology around the artist in to actual monetary value. Once this has actually happened, it probably doesn’t even matter if any of the artist’s story is true - if it turns out not to be, it becomes just another twist in the story behind the art and it goes up in value. The rich people who buy the art don’t really care so long as the value of the artwork doesn’t come down; it’s just another way to diversify the portfolio so they’re less exposed to risk.

People are trying to figure out how to make AI art serve the same purpose: as an investment/cash storage for rich people. You seen them trying to do it with NFTs but it’s not really been that successful. The problem is that the value comes from there only being one unique physical piece (or however many the artist made) and the fact that the artist has a finite life span means only a limited number will ever be produced. This is why the art goes up in value after the artist dies; the story is “locked in” and there will never be any more pieces created. It’s a scarcity system.

I’m not an expert but I don’t know if AI can really do this. It’s an abundance system with an unlimited expiration date. Still if someone finds a way to make it a more reliable or valuable financial instrument than conventional art it may be able to replace it. I just doubt that it will happen because of its very nature. It’s hard to build a mythology around a token. People need some human connection. People who are working as graphic designers, logo makers, web designers etc are pretty screwed though because their work is a straight up exchange designed to serve a business purpose rather than a wealth management one and the businessman will opt for whatever is cheapest which will always be AI.

If you think this is cynical, look at someone like Van Gogh. No one gave a shit about his paintings whilst he was alive. It wasn’t until after he was dead and one of the wealthy and influential gatekeepers of the art world decided his art was good and built a story around it and wealthy people bought in did the painting become worth anything. If they hadn’t, it probably would be selling in some flea market for pennies.

5

f10101 t1_irb3g5x wrote

It's hard to forecast what will happen to artistic endeavour in general. Whenever previous technological shifts like this have happened, new artistic roles emerged to utilise the new powers.

But what is certain is that it is going to be extremely disruptive to those who've spent years honing their craft, and are relying on that craft for their livelihood, but aren't superstars. Demand for their artistic skillset is going to go through the floor, and instead it's their meta-knowledge that will make them valuable. But that's a very hard shift to make for many people.

3

fromnighttilldawn t1_irb3iy0 wrote

People here are way too optimistic.

The goal of technology within capitalist systems is to cut cost and inefficiencies for the capitalists. It has been a very very long project to eliminate the human from capital accumulation. The start of it was the removal of peasants and indigenous people from their land because "they not using (the land) (farming) (digging for gold) (...) efficiently".

At some point physical labor became hugely replaceable (mainly due to automatic control). So the only thing that is of value is people's creative minds: their ability to code, to design, to create art or music.

We are in the phase that the latter inefficiencies are going to get eliminated. This is the intended function of capitalism. It is the river that guides the current.

The final stake in the heart is coding itself. I know huge amount of CS majors who are now doing automated code generation because it is "challenging". It is like painting glitter on ourselves because it looks "interesting" without caring about where all those glitter end up.

We as scientists, researchers, people who work in technology are digging a grave for ourselves in pursuit of "knowledge". Our goals have been hijacked by people who want nothing more than more money. People who care nothing for science or knowledge or any meaningful questions. People like that apple exec like to drive "fancy cars" and "fondle big breasted women" doesn't give a rat's ass about the information bottleneck; yet hundreds of ML/software/hardware engineers work under him.

Also observe how most ML researchers are literally doing research at places with huge concentration of homeless people, poverty and social inequality. It is too late.

3

Southern-Trip-1102 t1_irbc8za wrote

At such a point capitlaism destroys itself, no profits since no laborers to exploit, and no customers to buy anything since everyone is unemployed.

3

fromnighttilldawn t1_irbmier wrote

Ha! If only. Capitalism will just try to start wars overseas and direct all excess humans into the war effort.

Until every soldier is replaced by a drone that is...

1

MasterFubar t1_irc6m4q wrote

Computers started beating human chess masters in the 1990s. People still play chess.

3

NotASuicidalRobot OP t1_irao2hu wrote

My career plans don't involve art, but i do have art related hobbies. I do hope there will still be any point in making art years into the future.

1

RaptorDotCpp t1_irapeau wrote

Other people can make art. Does that stop you from making art yourself? No? Then why should an AI creating art stop you?

7

NotASuicidalRobot OP t1_irar30i wrote

Well one is that there will probably be proportionally fewer people to look at human works in the first place, and i think most artists will still like to have people looking at their work

. And two is feeling of satisfaction i guess. Learning and practicing for years to finally make the thing you want. Now it feels pointless if you can just use the machine to make it better and immediately.

1

theLanguageSprite t1_ircqj3w wrote

We already know exactly what’s going’s to happen because it’s happened before. Before photography was invented, making portraits was a thriving industry, but once it became clear that no human could paint with as much detail and realism as a camera could, the industry died and the only people still making portraits were the people who did it out of love of the art, not for the money. It’ll be the same with art to varying degrees. Also, many people consider photography an art so in 20 years we’ll probably think about using ai the same way

1

Dendriform1491 t1_ircq3a2 wrote

The cost of illustrations will drop. Stuff that didn't have original illustrations before now will.

A lot of people do not have a sense of aesthetics. Designers do. So they will have a job even if they do as much work as before.

1

payle_knite t1_irdw8lr wrote

Text prompt creators with a grounding in art history styles will work alongside AI, coaching it to yield results that marketers want.

1

wandering-coder t1_irgj14v wrote

Action is a shackle binding us to desire. Machines have the ability to free us from the necessity of action.

This allows us to focus on experience. We will be enabled to have all our energy devoted towards experience. Understanding the self, understanding the universe, and becoming immersed in it.

Art explores these human conditions. Machines can augment art. They can create new forms and infinite dimensions. Humans will create and experience new art and machines will turn it infinite. An unlimited playground of experience.

Our meaning will no longer need be derived by the depth of our contribution, but by the depth of our experience.

This is the next stage of consciousness arising.

Anyone who has a problem with it is welcome to have their memories erased and start over in a machine simulated reality as long as needed, if you stick around for another 10 - 50 years I am confident that opportunity will present itself.

1