Technology

yeah that's like saying chatgpt democratized writing. no, you could always write. what's changed is now you can pretend you write, without writing.

What AI democratizes in art, is the perception of skill.

I was a professional artist for many years, and often noted a strong preference for photo-realistic art among non-artists, often to the exclusion of any other style or aesthetic. The people around me who tried to draw or paint or sculpt, even just one time, often had an appreciation for a more diverse array of approaches and media.

To me, most AI 'art' feels like the product of 'artists' who don't even really like art.

People confuse art and craft.

I have always felt that I'm not good at art (the practice I did got me not very far), and I've recently had reason to make little collages. One thing that I've done is uploaded pictures to Canva and traced them so I had something resembling recognizable images (my dog, me in a kayak). I don't think tracing is making an art, AI is definitely not making an art.

And people forget how many forms of art there are. If you can speak any language which if youre reading this you can then you can create art. Putting your feelings into words is art. The point of art is not to be good at it or to earn money with it. Its to express your feelings. Of course enabling people who express their feelings in a way that others like to earn money with it is a good thing but even that can be very restrictive. Look at all the twitter porn artists who really just want to create something else but need some sort of revenue stream.

it's just a cloud of noise that happens to resemble a rat with a big butt.

I’d like this on my tombstone

I've been practicing at being a better writer, and one of the ways I've been doing that is by studying the writing that I personally really like. Often I can't explain why I click so much with a particular style of writing, but by studying and attempting to learn how to copy the styles that I like, it feels like a step towards developing my own "voice" in writing.

A common adage around art (and other skilled endeavours) is that you need to know how to follow the rules before you can break them, after all. Copying is a useful stepping stone to something more. It's always going to be tough to learn when your ambition is greater than your skill level, but there's a quote from Ira Glass that I've found quite helpful:

"Nobody tells this to people who are beginners, I wish someone told me. All of us who do creative work, we get into it because we have good taste. But there is this gap. For the first couple years you make stuff, it’s just not that good. It’s trying to be good, it has potential, but it’s not. But your taste, the thing that got you into the game, is still killer. And your taste is why your work disappoints you. A lot of people never get past this phase, they quit. Most people I know who do interesting, creative work went through years of this. We know our work doesn’t have this special thing that we want it to have. We all go through this. And if you are just starting out or you are still in this phase, you gotta know it's normal and the most important thing you can do is do a lot of work. Put yourself on a deadline so that every week you will finish one story. It is only by going through a volume of work that you will close that gap, and your work will be as good as your ambitions. And I took longer to figure out how to do this than anyone I’ve ever met. It’s gonna take awhile. It’s normal to take a while. You’ve just gotta fight your way through."

There was a good interview with Tim Minchin by the BBC where he said something similar to this & used the word intent.
I suppose the intent/communication/art comes from the person writing the prompt but those few words can only convey so much information. When the choice of medium & every line etc. involves millions of micro-decisions by the artist there is so much more information encoded. Even if its copy & pasted bits of memes.

I get what you're saying.

I often find myself being the person in the room with the most knowledge about how Generative AI (and other machine learning) works, so I tend to be in the role of the person who answers questions from people who want to check whether their intuition is correct. Yesterday, when someone asked me whether LLMs have any potential uses, or whether the technology is fundamentally useless, and the way they phrased it allowed me to articulate something better than I had previously been able to.

The TL;DR was that I actually think that LLMs have a lot of promise as a technology, but not like this; the way they are being rolled out indiscriminately, even in domains where it would be completely inappropriate, is actually obstructive to properly researching and implementing these tools in a useful way. The problem at the core is that AI is only being shoved down our throats because powerful people want to make more money, at any cost — as long as they are not the ones bearing that cost. My view is that we won't get to find out the true promise of the technology until we break apart the bullshit economics driving this hype machine.

I agree that even today, it's possible for the tools to be used in a way that's empowering for the humans using them, but it seems like the people doing that are in the minority. It seems like it's pretty hard for a tech layperson to do that kind of stuff, not least of all because most people struggle to discern the bullshit from the genuinely useful (and I don't blame them for being overwhelmed). I don't think the current environment is conducive towards people learning to build those kinds of workflows. I often use myself as a sort of anti-benchmark in areas like this, because I am an exceedingly stubborn person who likes to tinker, and if I find it exhausting to learn how to do, it seems unreasonable to expect the majority of people to be able to.

I like the comic's example of Photoshop's background remover, because I doubt I'd know as many people who make cool stuff in Photoshop without helpful bits of automation like that ("cool stuff" in this case often means amusing memes or jokes, but for many, that's the starting point in continuing to grow). I'm all for increasing the accessibility of an endeavour. However, the positive arguments for Generative AI often feels like it's actually reinforcing gatekeeping rather than actually increasing accessibility; it implicitly divides people into the static categories of Artist, and Non-Artist, and then argues that Generative AI is the only way for Non-Artists to make art. It seems to promote a sense of defeatism by suggesting that it's not possible for a Non-Artist to ever gain worthwhile levels of skill. As someone who sits squarely in the grey area between "artist" and "non-artist", this makes me feel deeply uncomfortable.

I think there’s a stark difference between crafting your own comfyui workflow, getting the right nodes and control nets and checkpoints and whatever, tweaking it until you get what you want, and someone telling an AI “make me a picture/video of X.”

The least AI-looking AI art is the kind that someone took effort to make their own. Just like any other tool.

Unfortunately, gen AI is a tool that gives relatively good results without any skill at all. So most people won’t bother to do the work to make it their own.

I think that, like nearly everything in life, there is nuance to this. But at the same time, we aren’t ready for the nuance because we’re being drowned by slop and it’s horrible.

I know that art is an art of it's own and a way to express human creativity.

However people also complained once the loom was invented. It took lots of jobs.

The job argument is usually a stupid one.

The lack of creativity and quality is of course a much better argument against AI art.