Support NeoGAF

[Barakov]

"But at least those woke feminist sjw writers don't have a job anymore!!"

That's a win. The writing is going to be crap either way. Honestly, I want to see how this bad this gets for them before they realize they've made a colossal mistake.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

If she's a true artists she isn't in it for the money.

Sure, and I think that there are many benefits in education for education's sake, but I also think that realism about what path you take and where it leads is important. If a child says that they want to be an artist and imagines a life where they can dedicate themselves to that art, and they aren't independently wealthy, then how will they put a roof over their heads while making their art?

But really, my point wasn't about a fictional child and how much of a true artist they can be considered to be, but about how future planning is becoming more difficult because the world is going to change and large parts of industries are going to disappear. Some people will be fine, just as always, at the top end, but a lot of low/mid level stuff might well disappear relatively quickly.

 

[Faust]

Seeing some of the writing quality we have gotten from major AAA studios, I genuinely wonder if we wouldn't be better off with AI than them.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

Humanity will lose touch with its artistic side. We'll become emotionless husks begging to consume whatever the AI throws at us.

I do wonder if that's already happened, that we've lost touch with art already, to some degree irrespective of the influence of AI.

Art changes constantly, of course, and it's value is in the eye of the beholder, but the democratizing influence of computer tools means that the required skills to create art are arguably much more easily attained.

Now, some might argue that art has never been in a better place (I don't know who) and that everyone should have the chance to create art, and that modern tools allow people to produce work that has the same aesthetic quality as the most skilled artist. Why should you have to learn how to control a brush to create a painting? If you can get your idea on a canvas, isn't that the most important thing? Is the physical act of placing paint on a surface the art? If the idea is the main thing, does it matter if it's Photoshop or a palette that you're interacting with, is there a difference?

We're at a point where I think most people would say that creating in Photoshop is as valid as using real paint. A few years ago, some would have said that Photoshop wasn't what a real artist would use. In a few years time, it's possible that people will consider partnerships between creatives and AI as just as valid.

"But is it art?"

I suspect that new art that will satisfy all will be available for a long time, but that perhaps some things will become more and less popular. If you love it, support it, I guess.

 

[IDKFA]

I do wonder if that's already happened, that we've lost touch with art already, to some degree irrespective of the influence of AI.

Art changes constantly, of course, and it's value is in the eye of the beholder, but the democratizing influence of computer tools means that the required skills to create art are arguably much more easily attained.

Now, some might argue that art has never been in a better place (I don't know who) and that everyone should have the chance to create art, and that modern tools allow people to produce work that has the same aesthetic quality as the most skilled artist. Why should you have to learn how to control a brush to create a painting? If you can get your idea on a canvas, isn't that the most important thing? Is the physical act of placing paint on a surface the art? If the idea is the main thing, does it matter if it's Photoshop or a palette that you're interacting with, is there a difference?

We're at a point where I think most people would say that creating in Photoshop is as valid as using real paint. A few years ago, some would have said that Photoshop wasn't what a real artist would use. In a few years time, it's possible that people will consider partnerships between creatives and AI as just as valid.

"But is it art?"

I suspect that new art that will satisfy all will be available for a long time, but that perhaps some things will become more and less popular. If you love it, support it, I guess.

You raise a good point about AI generated art.

However, let's change AI to a human artist, but use the same situation.

For example, I can't draw or paint. My wife on the other hand is a fantastic artist. If I give her prompts and ask her to draw me something, who's the artist? Me for having the vision and telling her what to draw, or my wife for actually drawing it?

 

[Mr Reasonable]

For example, I can't draw or paint. My wife on the other hand is a fantastic artist. If I give her prompts and ask her to draw me something, who's the artist? Me for having the vision and telling her what to draw, or my wife for actually drawing it?

Yeah, that's what I was getting at, and for some people the art is the idea, for some it is the technique. For some pieces of art you can remove either part. Photorealistic painting is very skillful. But, I'm not sure I see the value in it, it's all technique.

If you look at (British graffiti artist) Banksy's work, they're all about the idea, being thought provoking. So, if you tell your wife, or an AI to create a phtorealistic image of your pet, then I think you're not really contributing to the art that's created.

If you come up with a clever idea that causes people to consider the relationship that they have with their pets, and your wife or the AI creates a picture that gets people thinking and talking about the very nature of owning an animal (first thing I thought of) then your contribution to the art is the greater one. Of course you couldn't present that idea without it being realised by your wife or the AI, but without your spark it isn't worth much.

And that, I think is where things will go in an AI future. Ideas will overshadow doing, when the doing can be done by anyone. The problem will of course be that we'll be drowning in terrible art built on terrible ideas, finding the good stuff and having it cut through will be the thing - arguably not much different to today.

 

[BbMajor7th]

I do wonder if that's already happened, that we've lost touch with art already, to some degree irrespective of the influence of AI.

Art changes constantly, of course, and it's value is in the eye of the beholder, but the democratizing influence of computer tools means that the required skills to create art are arguably much more easily attained.

Now, some might argue that art has never been in a better place (I don't know who) and that everyone should have the chance to create art, and that modern tools allow people to produce work that has the same aesthetic quality as the most skilled artist. Why should you have to learn how to control a brush to create a painting? If you can get your idea on a canvas, isn't that the most important thing? Is the physical act of placing paint on a surface the art? If the idea is the main thing, does it matter if it's Photoshop or a palette that you're interacting with, is there a difference?

We're at a point where I think most people would say that creating in Photoshop is as valid as using real paint. A few years ago, some would have said that Photoshop wasn't what a real artist would use. In a few years time, it's possible that people will consider partnerships between creatives and AI as just as valid.

"But is it art?"

I suspect that new art that will satisfy all will be available for a long time, but that perhaps some things will become more and less popular. If you love it, support it, I guess.

I think it's less about execution and more about intent and, on that front, I agree that we've already lost touch. 'Art' or rather art's traditional mediums have already been consumed by 'entertainment'. Whilst art was traditionally a journey inward that was projected outward - a chance for individuals to explore themes and ideas, present the world from their own perspective, or share some universal aspect of the human experience - it's now entirely focused on the audience.

Modern artistic mediums exist to entertain audiences and make money by doing so, they exist to create compelling facsimiles of things that we already find entertaining; designed to condescend to us, eschewing challenging or difficult themes that make audiences uncomfortable and to appeal to the largest number of people in the broadest possible way. It's become so commonplace that people now actively reject any kind of production that doesn't set out to exclusively entertain an audience as pretentious.

Accessibility, in the broadest sense, has become so fundamental that any production that doesn't trigger a dopamine response immediately is rejected because 'nobody has time for that'. This issue has been supercharged by recent shifts in social politics that place an explicit responsibility on creators to represent the views and experiences of their audiences rather than their own, to cater to their particular emotional and psychological needs, to reflect back their own values and political ideals and have them feel 'comfortable' throughout the experience - we'll even modify pre-existing works to ensure they do this.

As it stands, art as the foundation of mainstream culture is dead and buried.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

I think it's less about execution and more about intent and, on that front, I agree that we've already lost touch. 'Art' or rather art's traditional mediums have already been consumed by 'entertainment'. Whilst art was traditionally a journey inward that was projected outward - a chance for individuals to explore themes and ideas, present the world from their own perspective, or share some universal aspect of the human experience - it's now entirely focused on the audience.

Modern artistic mediums exist to entertain audiences and make money by doing so, they exist to create compelling facsimiles of things that we already find entertaining; designed to condescend to us, eschewing challenging or difficult themes that make audiences uncomfortable and to appeal to the largest number of people in the broadest possible way. It's become so commonplace that people now actively reject any kind of production that doesn't set out to exclusively entertain an audience as pretentious.

Accessibility, in the broadest sense, has become so fundamental that any production that doesn't trigger a dopamine response immediately is rejected because 'nobody has time for that'. This issue has been supercharged by recent shifts in social politics that place an explicit responsibility on creators to represent the views and experiences of their audiences rather than their own, to cater to their particular emotional and psychological needs, to reflect back their own values and political ideals and have them feel 'comfortable' throughout the experience - we'll even modify pre-existing works to ensure they do this.

As it stands, art as the foundation of mainstream culture is dead and buried.

I'm not sure that I agree wholeheartedly with your take, but with all of this stuff, the grey is where the interesting parts are, less so the black and white.

I'm sure there are plenty of artists producing for themselves, rather than an audience and that some of the greatest works were made with an exhibition (and therefore audience) in mind.

But I agree that the intent, the idea, the message is where the art is. For some people it absolutely is the technique - some people want to work out what the artist was expressing - some want a pretty picture - some say that the picture is so pretty because the artist wanted people to see the beauty in what they were documenting. So, there are plenty of takes to be made.

I expect that there'll be someone trying to work out how to do something with AI art that hasn't been considered already. As to whether we'll value it is one thing, but one thing is for certain, some will and some won't.

 

[mdkirby]

Each week there’ll be another story like this. Each time there’ll be less outrage. Each week that goes by more people everywhere will be using ai tools in their day to day life or work, and before we know it, it’ll be just accepted/normalised.

In my view, people in whatever industry that feel threatened in some way (assuming they are in a position to use/embrace the tools) have about a year to rage and scream into the void. It can be cathartic as a form of grieving. Then they’ll need to be using the tools (and rapidly playing catch up), or they’ll quickly find themselves out of a job and replaced by someone doing what they do, but who is skilled at maximising their output using ai toolsets.

It’s just the way it is

 

[64bitmodels]

For example, I can't draw or paint. My wife on the other hand is a fantastic artist. If I give her prompts and ask her to draw me something, who's the artist? Me for having the vision and telling her what to draw, or my wife for actually drawing it?

I think your wife moreso. While you played a part in suggestion, she was the one who ultimately put the idea to paper, and her interpretation would be 100% different from yours, an interpretation that she came up with. She may have added details you're not fond of, and likewise missed out on details you would have included. She drew it from her perspective, and the art reflects that more than it does your ideas... At least that's what I think. It's similar to those drawing challenges on Twitter where an artist creates an idea and asks other artists to draw it, because they want it to be creative and do it from their other perspectives.

It's not that different from AI, yes you came up with the idea but at the end of the day the AI created it. The issue is that so far the AI can't really seem to explore ideas beyond the surface level, they literally give you what you want. They are the most literal intepretation of the concept you can possibly have, it's not very artistic.

Like if you asked a cartoonist to draw Trump and Biden in a cage fight they'd add a ton of funny details, such as having biden and Trump be carcaitures of themselves, or change the arena itself to represent a presidential debate stage, maybe they'd be swinging and smashing their podiums at each other. Ask an AI to do that and it will literally just superimpose Trump and Biden over 2 boxers faces.

 

[Kadve]

And this my friend is why we have unions!

 

[nikolino840]

I'm a piano teacher and if my job gets replaced by AI, I don't know what else to do. Maybe I'd become a prostitute or something. Don't think AI can replace me if I become a whore.

And music softwares Vs real instruments? Even without the AI you don't need to pay a full orchestra to make a score