A.I.

[pdub]

I, individually, feel bad for artists because a machine is taking away a large creative avenue.
I understand it has happened in the past though I think, because this has to do with creativity and not more mundane tasks, it is a bit different.
I have been arguing with posters who don't believe it will take away jobs which it will.

What is it taking away? Do those artists still not have the ability to continue doing what they wanted? Maybe it steals away a portion of their potential clientele but it doesn't prevent them from continuing to work in the medium of their choice.

I'm going to sound like i'm talking down to you but i've worked in this field/related fields for 20 years.
Many companies look to find the balance ( and this goes for so many companies ) between cost and quality when it comes to artists. Some of them find the select artists they love to work with. But there's a lot of turnover in the field and when new management takes hold, you tend to get a lot of, hold on to your butts, will I ( as an artist ) still get to work with this producer/project manager? Will that producer/project manager still even be there?

But that's just the cycle -- and generally, if ties are cut, you know they'll find another artist who will either be cheaper, is someone management preferred working with, or is, reality punch, better than you. At least you know though, that work is going to an artist who has worked to get where they are.

What these central companies are intending to do are taking away earning income opportunities to the point where, unless you really want to be that starving artist, you can't continue that career.

What you sound like at the moment, because you bought some art work ( and good for you ) from a local KC artist, is like, "hey no big deal to possibly 80% of the commercial market being cut, they still can go out and buy paints and paint and stuff, right?"

[pdub]

I don't see how we can stop it from happening.

Live every other living organism, you just stop feeding it.

We are fully in control of that so long as AI driven machines are still reliant on power to function. We are centuries and perhaps millennia away from AI driven machines being able to either generate their own power or able to harness enough power from the environment to be able to function without human-provided fuel.

The issue is that there are so many self-absorbed money/power seeking humans out there that they will race right over the line before noticing or caring that it's too late.

AI is going to feed itself. AI will figure out its own power source, and if its from the environment, they'll figure that out quicker than humans. And I don't think its centuries.

The moment to stop feeding it is kinda around now.
But it'll be too late because $$$$ over everything.
( cough cough Phogushers )

[pdub]

Also, very first post:

"Super shitty: there isn't any way around this - will put people out jobs."

Not: "artists can't do art anymore!"

[twocoach]

I, individually, feel bad for artists because a machine is taking away a large creative avenue.
I understand it has happened in the past though I think, because this has to do with creativity and not more mundane tasks, it is a bit different.
I have been arguing with posters who don't believe it will take away jobs which it will.

What is it taking away? Do those artists still not have the ability to continue doing what they wanted? Maybe it steals away a portion of their potential clientele but it doesn't prevent them from continuing to work in the medium of their choice.

I'm going to sound like i'm talking down to you but i've worked in this field/related fields for 20 years.
Many companies look to find the balance ( and this goes for so many companies ) between cost and quality when it comes to artists. Some of them find the select artists they love to work with. But there's a lot of turnover in the field and when new management takes hold, you tend to get a lot of, hold on to your butts, will I ( as an artist ) still get to work with this producer/project manager? Will that producer/project manager still even be there?

But that's just the cycle -- and generally, if ties are cut, you know they'll find another artist who will either be cheaper, is someone management preferred working with, or is, reality punch, better than you. At least you know though, that work is going to an artist who has worked to get where they are.

What these central companies are intending to do are taking away earning income opportunities to the point where, unless you really want to be that starving artist, you can't continue that career.

What you sound like at the moment, because you bought some art work ( and good for you ) from a local KC artist, is like, "hey no big deal to possibly 80% of the commercial market being cut, they still can go out and buy paints and paint and stuff, right?"

That's not "talking down" to me; it's just sharing your point of view and your experiences, which are different than mine. I respect and appreciate that.

Corporations seek out a balance between cost and quality from the very basic levels of what toilet paper to stock to what technology to invest in all the way up to the employees they hire. This isn't any different. I am sure that there is already a push for cheaper, manufactured art when it comes to commercial clients. I would be curious what percentage of commercial art purchases go to living artists and what percentage go to manufactured art today, let alone by the time we have AI robots churning out artwork that can be sold commercially. I doubt it is the beginning of the end. Rather, I'd bet more that it is one of the last nails in an already under construction coffin. But those are all assumptions based on my lack of experience in commercial art sales.

[pdub]

The disadvantage of stock is not finding exactly what you are looking for. Oftentimes even coming close. When I am creating mood boards or concept proposals which need to be fast, you’ll rely on stock which has to be fast, but it’s only for an initial look. It’s often not quite there. Or just bad.

In this case, you’ll much better be able to get good enough content that looks professional enough and is better suited to exactly your request without involving another human.

[pdub]

If you're a completely traditional fine artist, i.e. only do tactile work, and mostly originals, without a lot of prints, then yes, you'll be less impacted.

If you are a part time commercial artist/part time traditional, like most, you'll be largely impacted.

If you are full commercial, you'll be very significantly impacted.

imo

[jfish26]

I don't see how we can stop it from happening.

Live every other living organism, you just stop feeding it.

We are fully in control of that so long as AI driven machines are still reliant on power to function. We are centuries and perhaps millennia away from AI driven machines being able to either generate their own power or able to harness enough power from the environment to be able to function without human-provided fuel.

The issue is that there are so many self-absorbed money/power seeking humans out there that they will race right over the line before noticing or caring that it's too late.

AI is going to feed itself. AI will figure out its own power source, and if its from the environment, they'll figure that out quicker than humans. And I don't think its centuries.

Take it to the Pronouns thread, bub.

[Mjl]

I fully expect the Matrix plot to happen. I just hope I'm dead before it does. Not likely, though. AI is improving exponentially, not steadily.

you and i both, buddy

neuralink and metaverse are just the tip

Once AI is good enough to make AI, it’s game over. We don’t stand a chance with our flaws. I doubt our evolution can ever reach the speed of AI’s, especially if AI is making the AI. AI will be smarter. Would love, though, if anyone could poke holes in this logic.

This gets to where pdub dickishly said that I want everyone to be robots - I think it's the opposite.

Some of this fear of AI insinuates a fear that it'll do everything humans can do. I don't think it can - I think that there's something more than 0s and 1s in people. Call it a soul, call it whatever you want - but I think that there are things that are uniquely human.

And I welcome the advancement of technology to identify which things are and are not.

[KUTradition]

“emotion” seems to be what you’re getting

love, compassion, empathy, etc.

not all humans are capable, so i’d argue that AI can mimic those things to the same or greater effect than might be exhibited by a human

other than emotion, i’m not sure how you could identify/qualify/quantify the idea of a soul

[jhawks99]

A few years ago I was traveling so much on long-haul international flights and had the opportunity to watch some fantastic documentaries (highly recommend “Neat”, about bourbons - more on this later). There was a series on how we arrived at the modern music scene and its history. There was one analogy that struck a chord (pun not intended) with me and applies somewhat to this discussion.

They were comparing studio recordings to live performances and how they have changed from merely recording a live performance to a carefully constructed piece, using technology specifically developed for this purpose. They correlated a studio album to a painting and a live performance to a photograph. In the former the artist takes the time and effort to create something that is truly his/her vision using just a few performers. Whereas a live performance has to have many performers doing their best with little to no margin of error.

Other than that they are both visual media, photos and paintings will always have their place in society.

Now, speaking of bourbon, there is this company in San Francisco which creates “barrel aged whiskey” by using a neutral spirit and adding the flavor compounds. https://endlesswest.com/. Their signature product is called Glyph and we tasted it as part of our distilled beverage club at my former company. This would be the equivalent of an AI whiskey. The unanimous verdict was that while it tasted good it didn’t come close to a real whiskey. Btw, this conclusion was arrived prior to the participants knowing the details about it - the person who brought it just said that it was an interesting locally produced whiskey. It was after the fact that she revealed how it was made.

So, no, most often the sum of the parts does not make the whole. AI is just not there, yet.

Someone mention bourbon? I got to do an hour tasting at Buffalo Trace a few years ago. Led be their master chemist. Some good stuff on that table. The tasting was followed by a 2 hour tour of the place.

[pdub]

you and i both, buddy

neuralink and metaverse are just the tip

Once AI is good enough to make AI, it’s game over. We don’t stand a chance with our flaws. I doubt our evolution can ever reach the speed of AI’s, especially if AI is making the AI. AI will be smarter. Would love, though, if anyone could poke holes in this logic.

This gets to where pdub dickishly said that I want everyone to be robots - I think it's the opposite.

I was joking mjl.
Need a sarcasm font.
Who is running this place?

[pdub]

I’m not angry in the slightest with anyone on this thread btw. This is just a passionate topic to me.

[pdub]

And rambling, here is what I think a great tool/use of the technology would be:

An individual can create an account, feed it a closed box ( good luck with that in todays data hungry corporate environs ) set of data they own - ie all of that artists work - then it taps into the cloud model and can create work specifically for that account based on what it’s fed.

I would never even push that work online to showcase, much less try to sell it, but it could be useful as inspiration and reference - ie a tool rather than a replacement.

[KUTradition]

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/ch ... ontroversy

[TDub]

“emotion” seems to be what you’re getting

love, compassion, empathy, etc.

not all humans are capable, so i’d argue that AI can mimic those things to the same or greater effect than might be exhibited by a human

other than emotion, i’m not sure how you could identify/qualify/quantify the idea of a soul

in a strictly non religious sense i totally believe in soul. It's indescribable and something that can only be felt. I also think some inanimate objects can have soul as well. Though.......I believe this only really applies to things made of wood, earth, organic material and I wonder of that has to do with the fact that it was once a living thing. I never once have thought that anything metal or ferrous has had that same feeling. Never have I thought a car, for instance, had soul. Thats more a Stephen King short.

I dont mean this to sound hippy dippy, or religious by any means.....just a feeling. I truly don't believe AI is capable of that. And fuckem if they are. I want off this AI train.

[TDub]

https://www.thetechdeviant.com/2023/01/ ... -made-art/

[Mjl]

“emotion” seems to be what you’re getting

love, compassion, empathy, etc.

not all humans are capable, so i’d argue that AI can mimic those things to the same or greater effect than might be exhibited by a human

other than emotion, i’m not sure how you could identify/qualify/quantify the idea of a soul

I don't mean this in a judging way - but are you an atheist? I think that if I were an atheist I would have more fear of AI in that it would only be a matter of time until it's basically human.

I hate the idea of "faith" because it basically means believing something without any reason. But I think that my belief in a higher power, which I don't consider "faith", makes me less fearful of AI because I think there is a lot to "life" that we just aren't capable of creating, and I think that goes beyond just emotions. Though I don't know that I can articulate what that is.

[Mjl]

Once AI is good enough to make AI, it’s game over. We don’t stand a chance with our flaws. I doubt our evolution can ever reach the speed of AI’s, especially if AI is making the AI. AI will be smarter. Would love, though, if anyone could poke holes in this logic.

This gets to where pdub dickishly said that I want everyone to be robots - I think it's the opposite.

I was joking mjl.
Need a sarcasm font.
Who is running this place?

<sarcasm-font>apology accepted</sarcasm-font>

[KUTradition]

“emotion” seems to be what you’re getting

love, compassion, empathy, etc.

not all humans are capable, so i’d argue that AI can mimic those things to the same or greater effect than might be exhibited by a human

other than emotion, i’m not sure how you could identify/qualify/quantify the idea of a soul

I don't mean this in a judging way - but are you an atheist? I think that if I were an atheist I would have more fear of AI in that it would only be a matter of time until it's basically human.

I hate the idea of "faith" because it basically means believing something without any reason. But I think that my belief in a higher power, which I don't consider "faith", makes me less fearful of AI because I think there is a lot to "life" that we just aren't capable of creating, and I think that goes beyond just emotions. Though I don't know that I can articulate what that is.

i’ve referred to myself as atheist or agnostic for my adult life. i grew up “religious”, predominately attending presbyterian services for most of my childhood (but also other flavors…catholic, mennonite). i was also baptized as a child for whatever that’s worth

i definitely DO NOT adhere to the notion of a higher power that gives two shits about humans or anything we do or don’t do. i don’t believe there is a heaven or hell

organized religion, imo, is an unnecessary crutch that “now” does more harm than good

i don’t fear AI, so much as i don’t trust humans to refrain from opening pandora’s box (but that lack of trust isn’t exclusive to AI)



i’m actually firmly of the opinion that AI can be leveraged to do some miraculous things for human health and the treatment of diseases, viruses, etc…

[ousdahl]

Need to catch up on this thread but have we talked about this?

CnB, if you need a career change, I could always teach you how to be a fishing guide