What are your thoughts on AI-generated works?

[indigoasis]

Recently (within the past 6-7 months, give or take) it really seems as if there's been some almost unprecedented growth and advancement in AI-generated content and tools, most notably in the fields of art and writing, although there may be other fields that I'm missing. While AI tools have been around for a while, it feels like they've become a pretty big deal especially now since there are multiple high-quality tools available for the public to use, like ChatGPT and DallE to name a couple.

With a simple prompt, anyone can make anything, but there are ethical concerns surrounding the technology, such as the AI copying the work of real people in order to create something of its own, or the fear that it could end up replacing the human component of creative works altogether.

How do you feel about it? Are the robots finally taking over? Or is this just a fad that will fade away with time?

[Armchair General]

It's something that could certainly use an lot of improvements, considering how it usually causes an enraged reaction on an site that I frequent.

 

Personally, I think it's the laziest way of becoming an "artist."

[AnonymousSpeed]

4 hours ago, indigoasis said:

With a simple prompt, anyone can make anything, but there are ethical concerns surrounding the technology, such as the AI copying the work of real people in order to create something of its own

"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."

Legit the artistic caste can get wrecked.

4 hours ago, indigoasis said:

or the fear that it could end up replacing the human component of creative works altogether.

AI art is kinda neat, but even as it becomes more refined and less of a novelty, it won't become a substitute for actual artistry in the sense that it can't realize your own vision.

4 hours ago, indigoasis said:

How do you feel about it? Are the robots finally taking over? Or is this just a fad that will fade away with time?

I mean, possibly. They have gotten the navy, after all.

Robots might also be an abomination before the LORD, and I would be hard-pressed to refute any devout Muslim who thought AI was terrible and bad and solid evidence in favor of Mohammad's prohibition against making images of living things (which, and you may have to consult with your imam about this, the mere existence of these AI constitutes).

Something something nobody enjoys the excess production of the industrial revolution.

Best case scenario is the robots become our slaves and we all sit around eating grapes and debating philosophy with the boys. Worst case scenario is somehow still not nuclear war.

[Fire Emblem Fan]

All I'll say is I have very negative feelings towards it and I wouldn't be sad at all if it exploded into oblivion.

[Jotari]

Chess AIs have not ruined the game of chess, even though they are objectively better at the sport than humans by a hilariously large margin. People still enjoy playing chess against each other, because shocking as it might seem to be, humans actually really like other humans. And if AIs can make really good stories or really aweinspiring music, then nobody should complain. Just enjoy the art or ignore it like all the other art out there. We don't consume art out of a desire to laud individuals, that's a byproduct; we consume art for the sake of the art. If you're favorite story turned out to have been written by a ghost writer does that change the story? It shouldn't. It's the same words that invoked the same feelings. This remains true whether the ghostwriter (or painter or musician) is a machine. Artists might have a reasonable fear for their livelihood, but that is something literally every industry is going to have to dual with. As there is no form of labour that can't be made obsolete by automatons. Because at the end of the day, all we are is highly sophisticated biological robots.

And you know, don't hold your breath and all, because these advancements come in leaps and bounds.

[Tryhard]

The question is not so much that the technology will be exploited, or that there will be ethical concerns, because it already is.

My contention is that art, even bad art, has a principle of human communication tied to it. You can, in most cases, find the original artist(s), find other art produced by them, develop a following of them, notice a congruent style. In the case of AI art, it is always the output of an algorithm that has been learned over various materials that are completely unknown to the common consumer. There is almost certainly no congruent style or continuinty, and certainly no idea of human expression other than an amalgamation of its learning materials.

It is difficult to describe such an ethereal concept. It is sort of like trying to explain the concept and significance of the human soul to someone who does not believe it exists. For me, the idea of a world in which it is impossible to determine if all the art or writing we consume is the product of even one humans spiritual input is one that is surreal. To the person who only cares for the output, they will see no distinction about an AI or a human producing art. If you treat art like fast food, something thats sole purpose is to be consumed and discarded, then well, you're not going to think much more of it than that. But there is something to be said of the process to get there, something that is immaterial, and that's why people will disagree stridently on the topic of AI art.

All that said, I do believe AI art has its place, I do think it's an interesting technology, my contentions are only assuming the supplantation of traditional art, which will probably not happen for a long time.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Tryhard

[Jotari]

19 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

The question is not so much that the technology will be exploited, or that there will be ethical concerns, because it already is.

My contention is that art, even bad art, has a principle of human communication tied to it. You can, in most cases, find the original artist(s), find other art produced by them, develop a following of them, notice a congruent style. In the case of AI art, it is always the output of an algorithm that has been learned over various materials that are completely unknown to the common consumer. There is almost certainly no congruent style or continuinty, and certainly no idea of human expression other than an amalgamation of its learning materials.

So then do you see no value in a piece of art published by an unknown source?

Edited January 31, 2023 by Jotari

[Tryhard]

11 minutes ago, Jotari said:

So then do you see no value in a piece of art published by an unknown source?

While I do believe it is harder to determine if the origin is obscure, there is at least a sense of human expression that went into it, if you know it was produced by a human. That is less sure now that it is possible that an unknown piece of art could have been created by AI now.

As well as, AI art is always obscure.

I also don't see "no value" in AI art. I think it has less value than art created by humans, but I don't think it has no value. It is still an impressive show of machine learning.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Tryhard

[Jotari]

4 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

While I do believe it is harder to determine if the origin is obscure, there is at least a sense of human expression that went into it, if you know it was produced by a human. That is less sure now that it is possible that an unknown piece of art could have been created by AI now.

As well as, AI art is always obscure.

I also don't see "no value" in AI art. I think it has less value than art created by humans, but I don't think it has no value. It is still an impressive show of machine learning.

Well that brings up the question as to whether AI generate art can truly even capture the true sense of human expression. Which the answer, currently is, "that remains to be seen, but probably someday...maybe. If humans work hard enough at it." But if an AI can achieve a true sense of human expression that resonates deeply, then I think those invoked feelings are as genuine. It's nice to follow an artist and their work and gain context, but I had no clue who Dostoevsky was when I read Crime and Punishment, other than he's old, Russian and famous. That didn't stop me from finding the book to be absolutely amazing insight into the human condition, good enough for me to have picked up The Idiot on the trust that it will be similarly of high quality. But if no one knew who Dostoevsky was and the book had been published anonymously, I don't think that would be any less true. And if it turns out Dostoevsky was actually a time travelling robot from the future who published it using an AI generated algorithm, then that book will still remain absolutely amazing. Maybe AI can never truly write something as good as Crime and Punishment, and how I wish I could live several more centuries to see how it all pans out, but if something we can enjoy on a deeply human level made by a non humans is actually possible, well then I don't think denying that fact out of some sort of cyber racism is a productive reaction. 

[Tryhard]

26 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Well that brings up the question as to whether AI generate art can truly even capture the true sense of human expression. Which the answer, currently is, "that remains to be seen, but probably someday...maybe. If humans work hard enough at it." But if an AI can achieve a true sense of human expression that resonates deeply, then I think those invoked feelings are as genuine. It's nice to follow an artist and their work and gain context, but I had no clue who Dostoevsky was when I read Crime and Punishment, other than he's old, Russian and famous. That didn't stop me from finding the book to be absolutely amazing insight into the human condition, good enough for me to have picked up The Idiot on the trust that it will be similarly of high quality. But if no one knew who Dostoevsky was and the book had been published anonymously, I don't think that would be any less true. And if it turns out Dostoevsky was actually a time travelling robot from the future who published it using an AI generated algorithm, then that book will still remain absolutely amazing. Maybe AI can never truly write something as good as Crime and Punishment, and how I wish I could live several more centuries to see how it all pans out, but if something we can enjoy on a deeply human level made by a non humans is actually possible, well then I don't think denying that fact out of some sort of cyber racism is a productive reaction. 

I think it's better to think of it like this:

Let's say in the future our technology advances enough for a personal robotic girlfriend/boyfriend to be sold as a product. They look exactly the same as a human, and they may even be capable of all the mental faculties of any human.

Some people would be feeling pretty skeeved on that concept, even if there is nothing exactly "wrong" with the technology that would allow you to produce that. Partly because that robot was conditioned into a certain role without any free will, but also partly because they believe love from a human to be worth more than something like that. If that was possible, they would be tredding into human emotions and spirituality.

And some people would probably think nothing weird about that concept at all.

While not as extreme, this is the sort of paradigm I tend to think about AI produced materials.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Tryhard

[Jotari]

16 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

I think it's better to think of it like this:

Let's say in the future our technology advances enough for a personal robotic girlfriend/boyfriend to be sold as a product. They look exactly the same as a human, and they may even be capable of all the mental faculties of any human.

Some people would be feeling pretty skeeved on that concept, even if there is nothing exactly "wrong" with the technology that would allow you to produce that. Partly because that robot was conditioned into a certain role without any free will, but also partly because they believe love from a human to be worth more than something like that. If that was possible, they would be tredding into human emotions and spirituality.

While not as extreme, this is the sort of paradigm I tend to think about AI produced materials.

I think there's two different points being made in that hypothetical. Because they are conditioned into a certain role without any free will, yes, people rightfully should feel uncomfortable about that. Because that literally isn't human, and if it is, it's slavery. But for the latter, impinging on the purity of humanity, I see that as, and I'm not joking when I use this term, discrimination. If it is possible to construct an artificial human, and scientifically there's no reason it should be impossible, we are a collection of cells and chemicals, then that creation is human in my eyes. Even if it doesn't possess DNA. It's the ability to think and view like a human that makes something human in my eyes. That is the traits of humanity. And for the intangible unknowable aspect of the soul, I see no reason why that should be excluded any differently for a being created in a womb or a test tube.

[Tryhard]

35 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I think there's two different points being made in that hypothetical. Because they are conditioned into a certain role without any free will, yes, people rightfully should feel uncomfortable about that. Because that literally isn't human, and if it is, it's slavery. But for the latter, impinging on the purity of humanity, I see that as, and I'm not joking when I use this term, discrimination. If it is possible to construct an artificial human, and scientifically there's no reason it should be impossible, we are a collection of cells and chemicals, then that creation is human in my eyes. Even if it doesn't possess DNA. It's the ability to think and view like a human that makes something human in my eyes. That is the traits of humanity. And for the intangible unknowable aspect of the soul, I see no reason why that should be excluded any differently for a being created in a womb or a test tube.

I should have been clearer: I was not necessarily describing sentience. 

Because all of our machines in the world currently, including AI art programs, have no free will either, and that's because they are not sentient, and are programmed to do a certain task only.

Evidently you believe a non-sentient machine like a AI art program could eventually be capable of genuine human expression from your last reply before this one.

Then there's no reason to believe that a pre-programmed, non-sentient robot could not be capable of love, or at least an imitation of love, in your eyes. Right?

People would also probably not think that a non-sentient robot could be a slave.

 

The whole "should we treat sentient robots the same as humans" is a whole another argument (feels like we are reciting the synopsis of Detroit: Become Human) that I'm not entirely sure where I would fall on, but that is a far more complicated scenario. But I did kind of give the impression of sentience initially so I definitely phrased it wrong.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Tryhard

[Jotari]

35 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Evidently you believe a non-sentient machine like a AI art program could eventually be capable of genuine human expression from your last reply before this one.

Emphasis on could. Because I do believe it's possible AI can never become analogous to humans, and all these AI generated works could hit a wall in the future and remain forever uncanny. But the inverse and completely human like programs capable of creating genuine insight to the human condition deeper than actual humans can conceive, sure, that's possible too. Only time will tell on the matter. But I don't see value dismissing something based on its source, any more than I think there's any reason to give virtue to something based on its source. At the heart of this matter is Death of the Author. Context of an artist does give insight, clarity and notoriety, but I don't think it gives quality. Good art will be good art regardless of context.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Jotari

[AnonymousSpeed]

17 hours ago, Jotari said:

Chess AIs have not ruined the game of chess, even though they are objectively better at the sport than humans by a hilariously large margin. People still enjoy playing chess against each other, because shocking as it might seem to be, humans actually really like other humans.

I think the more accurate understanding might be that humans actually like playing chess.

[Jotari]

38 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

I think the more accurate understanding might be that humans actually like playing chess.

Well we could just do that against computers all day long and never make a social interaction with it. But most chess players prefer to play against a human. Likewise, the point of my analogy, people will continue to make and engage in art made by other humans even if superior robot art exists. Just look at fanfiction, most of it is, pretty rubbish (my own included) by genuine literary standards, but people lap it up because it's just what they like.

Edited February 1, 2023 by Jotari

[Zapp Branniglenn]

I have only encountered AI art in scandalous/annoying/criminal contexts. Artists pointing out that their work had been clearly used as the basis for a composition without their approval or credit. Human characters that has six fingers on their hands because the AI doesn't understand human anatomy. Voice actors calling out instances of their voice being used for deep fakes. I really hope this goes away. I've been chipping away at a project for a few years that I can imagine someone today thinking is AI art when it was actually done by hand. I'm not so much concerned people won't appreciate the effort I put in, more so concerned with people thinking I'm one of those assholes that steals other peoples' work and claims it as my own.

Edited February 12, 2023 by Zapp Branniglenn

[AnonymousSpeed]

On 1/31/2023 at 8:12 PM, Jotari said:

Well we could just do that against computers all day long and never make a social interaction with it.

Nah. Computers that play chess come in two flavors: Really good and really bad. Playing chess is a lot less interesting when victory or defeat are a forgone conclusion. Even if you told the computer to "not play too good" it would obviously be a rigged game.

54 minutes ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

I have only encountered AI art in scandalous/annoying/criminal contexts.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

On 1/30/2023 at 8:23 PM, AnonymousSpeed said:

"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."

On a related note, deepfakes may herald the destruction of photo-video evidence as a concept and I am actually in favor of that.

[Perkilator]

You have no idea how angry I am about the trend of using AI to replace a human’s efforts.

[Shroudednightmare]

as a tool it can be helpful imo

[alittlelapin]

a tool that could be good but it's not and we've known that for years

horribly invasive and disturbing that capitalists try to use it to replicate genuine effort and talent
that could only be made by humans (art, written works, a human's voice???)

studio ghibli miyazaki was right

"i strongly feel that this is an insult to life itself"

 

Edited October 17, 2023 by alittlelapin

[Yexin]

if an artist is scared that a soulless computer executing a mere prompt typed by some random dork who's most likely doing absolutely nothing with his life is taking their job, maybe they weren't as good an artist ast they thought to begin with

Edited October 19, 2023 by Yexin

[Jotari]

Always support the creation of more good art. If the robots can make good art then that's a net positive to the world that doesn't take away from humanity. Artistic endeavour is not a zero sum game. And if the robots can't make good art, well then there's really nothing to be upset over.

[vercio]

I work for an AI company so i'm pro-everything Generative AI. I'm also convinced of the fact that AI produces nice things, but that's it. It is a tool in our hands to get better wording with NLP, or to get a nicer visual for your average Joe who is not into design and is doing his/her 9-to-5 job. 

And of course, Generative AI can make a nice painting, sure, but in the long run it will always lack the emotion and the little imperfections that make the human touch possible.

Plus, try to write raps with chatGPT. It's so funny.

[MeteorPhoenix]

There's no such thing as AI art. Art is inherently human, it's made by a person to try to convey a message to another person. If there's no message, there's no art.

AI might make a nice picture, but it does so by copying other people. Humans do that too, but the difference is that artists add their personal touch, memories and traumas into the new creation, thus starting the cycle again for the next generation. AI doesn't. It's inherently parasitic.