Kansas Crimson

pdub wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 3:31 pm

Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 3:15 pm If machines can make better art, great. There's other things that artistic minds will be good at.

So very very gross.
Art is human to me.

I consider digital art to be art. I have a great Chiefs/Royals piece of digital art hanging in my basement. I consider video games to be art. The number of human artists it took to create a game such as Elden Ring is astonishing.

If an artist codes a computer to draw a drawing, I'd consider it to be art. It may not be something I'd buy, but it's art that came from the mind of a human. There's a million artists out there manually creating "art" that I personally think is just a pile of garbage that someone calls "art".

A machine is just a hunk of material until a human makes it do something. It's involvement in the process is of no more concern to me than what type of paint or brush an artist chose to use. It's just another medium for artists to work in.

pdub wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 3:44 pm

Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 3:34 pm

pdub wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 3:31 pm

So very very gross.
Art is human to me.

I'd let humans and the free market decide that. I mean, if you prefer letters over email, go for it.

Humans and the free market, today, will choose cheaper.
So if it's good enough, that'll do.
Off the backs of hundreds of thousands of artists, who didn't want to be a part of this at all, art will be watered down to typing in a prompt and picking from those generated results.

Letters v email isn't quite the same.
That is devaluing art.

There are some people today for whom the majority of "art" they own in their house is whatever framed stuff they found at a store that was the right size for the space and that had the color they were looking for in it.

There are other people who seek out unique works of art and value it for what it is, who created it and what it means to them and will spend money to own it even if cheaper options exist.

That will never change.

Digital art is created by a human using a tool.
A.I. art is created by a computer using humans, who didn't want to be a part of this, as tools.
That's the difference.

pdub wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 3:44 pm

Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 3:34 pm

pdub wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 3:31 pm

So very very gross.
Art is human to me.

I'd let humans and the free market decide that. I mean, if you prefer letters over email, go for it.

Humans and the free market, today, will choose cheaper.
So if it's good enough, that'll do.
Off the backs of hundreds of thousands of artists, who didn't want to be a part of this at all, art will be watered down to typing in a prompt and picking from those generated results.

Letters v email isn't quite the same.
That is devaluing art.

My opinion I think (haven't given it a ton of thought) is the idea of art is just a human construct that we are at a point that we can move beyond.

Kind of like genetics. We have ideas like race and genes, which are just human constructs because we didn't understand how dna actually worked.

We should break art down into what about it moves us. Which yeah, you could say treats art as a science which essentially destroys art... But, if we get the same or better results break breaking it into what it truly consists of, so be it.

KUTradition wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 3:35 pm this thread makes my mind go in two directions…

wall-e

terminator

id lean towards wall e


fat, lazy, incapable society. Do we really need anymore help getting there?

twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 3:56 pmA machine is just a hunk of material until a human makes it do something.

For now . . .

pdub wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 4:02 pm Digital art is created by a human using a tool.
A.I. art is created by a computer using humans, who didn't want to be a part of this, as tools.
That's the difference.

That applies just to the specific example that was provided. There is no reason why a human couldn't program a computer to create a unique work of art that wasn't a rip off of human created art. If one can happen then so can the other.

"Which yeah, you could say treats art as a science which essentially destroys art"

This.

"But, if we get the same or better results break breaking it into what it truly consists of, so be it."

I'd argue you don't get the same/better results because a human didn't create it and that is, to me, something that makes art unique.

In the end, of course there will continue to be a select market for custom man made illustrations/paintings - but that will become pretty niche - because now you can just have something similar at a fraction of the cost, owned by a select few companies eventually who buy up the technology and patents for their A.I. and monopolize what used to be the industry.

I saw this film earlier this year. I found it intriguing, and thought it might not be that far away. It's not AI per se but it speaks to some of the comments in this thread. If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it. I think you can stream it on youtube.



And with regards to "art", most people really don't care and it isn't an integral part of their lives outside of the occasional trip to a museum. There was a time when people tore pages out of magazines and framed the photos. It was what they could afford and they liked the images. In the end displaying art is about creating an aesthetic in a place you live. Maybe it portrays who you are, and maybe it portrays who you want others to think you are.

I have a friend in Denver who is a well known artist. He makes a collage about once a month and takes it to a local Goodwilll Store. He finds a frame that fits the image he brought in, and puts the collage in the frame and leaves it at Goodwill where someone unknowingly buys it for a buck. The same image in a gallery would cost $1000. He never knows who bought it or what happens to it. Maybe they throw it away and put a magazine page in it's place. Another friend plasters huge photographic images on abandoned buildings in the desert of Arizona. It's at his expense many times although he does now get commissions to put images up around the world as well. He never sees most of the people who visit his work or gets feedback from them. The anonymity and surprise are part of the appeal.

In the end, urge for "making art" is about expressing yourself (like a message board?). It is a most basic impulse of the human spirit and has been for thousands of years. In the beginning art was made with fingers and then sticks and then brushes and plates. And then the camera came along, and artists decided to make things you can't photograph; impressionism and abstraction. AI most likely is a tool that will cause another reaction in the art world much as photography did. Maybe it will incorporate AI, or go in a direction that is 180 degrees opposite.

I hear you on the fairness of using people's art to train AI when they didn't consent... I think I agree with you on that now

pdub wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 4:36 pm "Which yeah, you could say treats art as a science which essentially destroys art"

This.

"But, if we get the same or better results break breaking it into what it truly consists of, so be it."

I'd argue you don't get the same/better results because a human didn't create it and that is, to me, something that makes art unique.

In the end, of course there will continue to be a select market for custom man made illustrations/paintings - but that will become pretty niche - because now you can just have something similar at a fraction of the cost, owned by a select few companies eventually who buy up the technology and patents for their A.I. and monopolize what used to be the industry.

I don't ever see the market for human art becoming "niche" because there are no artificial, imposing blockers to entry into the market. If you want to sell paintings, you just have to buy supplies and then get your art in front of someone willing to buy it. Anyone can attempt to be an artist if they have the desire to try.

The "cost" thing exists today. I could buy generic prints of Chiefs stuff online today for $10-$25 or I could spend more to get a print from a local KC artist who creates work I really like. Yes, it costs more but it is available in limited quantities and I like her work so I don't mind pay more for it despite cheaper alternatives existing.

This just reads more like the typical scary boogeyman argument.

Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 4:41 pm I hear you on the fairness of using people's art to train AI when they didn't consent... I think I agree with you on that now

I agree as well. Thank goodness no public data about ourselves is being used without our consent to train AI driven advertising... cue Facebook splashing me an ad for whatever it heard me talking about an hour ago.

"If you want to sell paintings, you just have to buy supplies and then get your art in front of someone willing to buy it. Anyone can attempt to be an artist if they have the desire to try."

A bit of the eye roll with this one.
Anyone can make it!
But if the market is saturated with work that looks like other professional artists but isn't created by professional artists, anyone who just buys supplies and tries to get it in front of someone willing to buy it becomes significantly harder.

"The "cost" thing exists today. I could buy generic prints of Chiefs stuff online today for $10-$25 or I could spend more to get a print from a local KC artist who creates work I really like. Yes, it costs more but it is available in limited quantities and I like her work so I don't mind pay more for it despite cheaper alternatives existing."

The difference is the quality.
Generic prints of Chiefs stuff, sure, you could do that now. But it's clear you are getting a worse product.

Using A.I., one can completely replicate a local KC artist who creates work you really like, down to her style, and then type in "Kelce spiking football" and it will generate 100 options for you and then you can just pick one. That puts local KC artist in a bit of a bind.

And now, instead of those thousands of artists trying to make a career of it, including individually deciding the number of prints they want to make ( if any ) or deciding whether or not they want to put their work on stock sites ( if at all ) you’ll have a few big services that will replicate their work for a fraction of the cost ( because time involved is basically instantaneous and it can be mass produced ).

And the general response of adapt or die, yea, I get it, but it still is sad to me and still is an issue for those in that field right now.

It isn’t far fetched to say eventually music will be generated. Movies. And then sports played by superior robots who jump higher and run faster. Humans will be pushed further away from being the creators and participants and instead will be spectators.

pdub wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 5:49 pm And the general response of adapt or die, yea, I get it, but it still is sad to me and still is an issue for those in that field right now.

It isn’t far fetched to say eventually music will be generated. Movies. And then sports played by superior robots who jump higher and run faster. Humans will be pushed further away from being the creators and participants and instead will be spectators.

falls in line with the youth that love to watch others play video games instead of playing themselves....

which...is insane. We had some battles over nintendo controllers back in the day...nobody wanted to watch...watching sucks. Participation is he joy of everything....

TDub wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 6:10 pm

pdub wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 5:49 pm And the general response of adapt or die, yea, I get it, but it still is sad to me and still is an issue for those in that field right now.

It isn’t far fetched to say eventually music will be generated. Movies. And then sports played by superior robots who jump higher and run faster. Humans will be pushed further away from being the creators and participants and instead will be spectators.

falls in line with the youth that love to watch others play video games instead of playing themselves....

which...is insane. We had some battles over nintendo controllers back in the day...nobody wanted to watch...watching sucks. Participation is he joy of everything....

it is one of the most shocking things to me that there are youtubers making a decent living having others watch them play

“We talk in’ ‘bout PRACTICE man……not a game…..PRACTICE”

pdub wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 5:49 pm And the general response of adapt or die, yea, I get it, but it still is sad to me and still is an issue for those in that field right now.

It isn’t far fetched to say eventually music will be generated. Movies. And then sports played by superior robots who jump higher and run faster. Humans will be pushed further away from being the creators and participants and instead will be spectators.

Music: Song-writing, yes, especially pop. Live music with actual instruments isn't going anywhere. There will be a lot of AI-assisted songwriting, as opposed to entirely AI. There's still going to be a human element for a very long time.

Movies: I don't think they'd be all that different from the garbage of the last 5-10 years. It's already just a bunch of recycled crap. Like music, I think there's room for AI-assisted movies, and a niche market for natural-made.

Sports: I don't see that happening. Imperfections are a key element of sport. I actually don't understand what role AI would play here?

"Live music with actual instruments isn't going anywhere."

It is going somewhere as more and more musicians become popular using digital instrumentation. I don't think it will fade away but I do think that live instruments won't be needed if you can just replace them with the same sound. So you'll have A.I. writing the tracks, the lyrics, and composing and editing the sound, and someone singing in an auto tuned mic. Or pressing some buttons to alter the live audio.

"There's still going to be a human element for a very long time."

But not necessarily.
If ML was given as much open access to music as it has now to image scraping (without as much fear of litigation) A.I. could learn to mimic an artists voice to a tee, learn what makes a track popular, and create endless songs that could flood the market. Some of those songs would become hits and it'd sound just like someone ( or even a combination ) they already like. I think there'd be traditionalists ( like there are traditionalists in illustration/design/painting etc ) who would never listen to that...but i'm betting there'd be a ton of younger people that would.

If there's a new song created and released every day that sounds just like Taylor Swift that isn't Taylor Swift, you're going to get people to listen to it.

"I don't think they'd be all that different from the garbage of the last 5-10 years."

Kinda sad statement to me. There have been a ton of great movies made in the last 5-10 years. And just saying, 'well, there's crap out there, let's just made it crappier," doesn't do much for me.

"Imperfections are a key element of sport."

They are also a key element of music and of art.

A.I. in sports is a leap past where we are at the moment.

It would combine with robotics.
Imagine a robot that could dunk from 30 feet away but another robot that would learn how to try and stop that robot by blocking it. And then them all learning how best to beat each other as a team.