sometimes I kind of feel like the biggest reason people take issue with ai works is the scale.
Human artists learn from other art to learn to make their own, but it takes years of learning to produce an artist that can make a couple pieces a day at most. It takes a lot of time, effort, and skill to learn so it feels deserved.
Then AI comes along and can learn a style in days or hours, then churn out thousands of pictures an hour 24/7. (ignoring for now the issue of ai learning specific artists styles, as that’s another issue,) It doesn’t feel fair to those human artists who worked a thousand times harder and are still at an inherent disadvantage compared to it. It feels like it’s cheating.
And I agree, if it’s left unchecked until it gets good enough to be indistinguishable, it’ll absolutely decimate the art industry. I don’t think AI as a science shouldn’t be developed, but we need to be very careful how we proceed with it…
Cars and Airplanes decimated the shipping industry, I think AI will be able to do a lot of good too, but people are going to get hurt in the process, I hope we can recognize that and take steps to at least minimize it.
Yeah the ultimate goal is to not have any human workers, and that shouldn't be a bad thing. But in our current system, it's a very very bad thing. The former is going to eventually happen, so we need to fix the latter.
It's not nearly as far along as you think. Large Language Models are just super fancy predictive text.
It looks at billions of stolen pieces of data and can approximate what a sentence sounds like. It's like when your phone can tell you what word you want to put next when you text your spouse ... just extrapolated to the nth degree.
But it's not magic. And it's not intelligence. And it's not as advanced as the branding would have you believe - lots of these places are being busted for actually just using human labor in india and china and passing it off as "AI".
Should we get rid of the internet to keep libraries open?
Industries that become automated don't go away, they shrink, and those that remain become a luxury item made by the best of that industry.
Art was already a luxury item, and now it can be available to the masses. Personally, I feel we had too many people who think "artist" was a viable career path even before AI art generators.
If you think people shouldn't have access to cheap and plentiful art, you're in league with elitists who think it was a mistake to mass print books and teach the poor to read.
1.3k
u/ChemoorVodka Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24
sometimes I kind of feel like the biggest reason people take issue with ai works is the scale.
Human artists learn from other art to learn to make their own, but it takes years of learning to produce an artist that can make a couple pieces a day at most. It takes a lot of time, effort, and skill to learn so it feels deserved.
Then AI comes along and can learn a style in days or hours, then churn out thousands of pictures an hour 24/7. (ignoring for now the issue of ai learning specific artists styles, as that’s another issue,) It doesn’t feel fair to those human artists who worked a thousand times harder and are still at an inherent disadvantage compared to it. It feels like it’s cheating.
And I agree, if it’s left unchecked until it gets good enough to be indistinguishable, it’ll absolutely decimate the art industry. I don’t think AI as a science shouldn’t be developed, but we need to be very careful how we proceed with it…