I find this whole topic fascinating, especially being a writer married to a visual artist. There is something wonderful about being able
to create visual art with words- isn’t that what writers aspire to in our readers’ minds, after all? But agreed, there are the issues that come from automating a process that has previously been done by talented artists in this area.
There is also AI generated writing now- I’m curious about how people feel about that- perhaps it would be fun to have projects where writers illustrated with ai-generated art, and artists created stories for their art with ai-generated writing and put them all together and assess?
AI writing is a whole other thing I need to look into more. For my part, authorial intent matters. I don't really subscribe the notion that the author doesn't matter. I often choose books to read because of the *person* behind them, and I'm not sure if AI writing will satisfy me in the same way, regardless of how good it actually is.
I suspect a lot of this is going to wind up being generational, though. I'm 41, so it all seems very alien. My son, who is 9, will grow up with AI-generated content being the norm. I don't think that's necessarily a good or a bad thing, it's just...a thing.
Agreed. We have a lot of change to look forward to and we will likely have many feelings about it. I‘m 44, so even closer to yelling at clouds than you are. Fun times!
You might have a look at 'DALL-E Mini', Simon. It's not as sophisticated as many of the AI that you've mentioned in your writing (and can be the genesis for some nightmare fuel), but it's entirely free and engaging in its way.
Been watching this, conceptually, for awhile now. I think the discussion regarding art or not-art is somewhat ballooned with people concerned with the buying and selling of art and less the actuality of art, because no maker of art should beware losing what is actually beneficial about art to a machine.
If as you prepared to walk up a mountain, you saw a robot go up the mountain, would you no longer do it? Some people, yes. It's called a tram or a cable-car, and they sit on it and whiz up the slope. But other people would understand there is something that cannot be had by mechanistic means and would climb anyway.
But this analogy comes from the perspective of the artist themselves. For consumers of art, the bulk of them appreciate what you, Simon K Jones do: a personal affiliation with the artist and thus a relationship to the piece created. For those who trade in art rarity or in the 'brand of an artist', I could give two fucks whether they're duped by a robot. They probably have plenty of money and likely have built a worldview based on status-qua-name rather than something founded in emotion or affiliation with the world around them. Superficial folk get superficial matter.
That said, if the concern of an illustrator—or even as AI makers get better and better, videographers, writers, blah blah blah—is that they will lose opportunity to 'the robots', I'd ask how they're getting their work in the first place? Most exchange of creative goods has as much to do with the relationship between the person with the desire and the person with the ability to fulffill it, as it does with the quality of the thing made between them.
I think I'm in the 'tool' camp. The pen has grown quite impressive. Gone are the days of mixing our paint in gourds and using our thumbs. (Though turning to gourds and thumbs is often the best way of admitting what art really is).
The effort, regardless, is still the same: 'Explain life as we know it and admit we don't know it well.'
I think one reason this is freaking out a lot of people is that it's generally been assumed that 'creativity' was off-limits to computers and machines. Robotic factories that can build vehicles? Makes sense. Autopilot on a plane? Makes sense. Close down coal mines for more efficient energy supplies? Definitely. Self-driving taxis? That makes sense. Self-serve automatic kiosks in supermarkets? Makes sense (although in the UK at least they're universally AWFUL still). Semi-automated digital advertising to operate at massive scale? Sure.
Automation has been happening since the industrial revolution, and each twist of new automation has meant a specific portion of the population losing their livelihood. Someone always loses out in the short term, even if society gains in the long term (obviously I don't include digital advertising in that latter part).
Creativity and 'the arts' generally have been largely untouched by automation, because until very recently computers were very binary and predictable. The apparent chaos that has worked into recent AI advances (whether AI generated art, or DLSS upscaling that seems entirely magical, or the uncanny audio filtering of something like Nvidia's Broadcast tool...suddenly computers have leapt forward in a way that's been quite unexpected for most outside observers (me included).
The problem isn't with the automation, though. Looking back through the history of automation, the problem isn't the automation itself. It's the lack of care taken to help those affected by it. Those creating the new fancy robots are so excited about what they're doing, they don't pause to consider what they're undoing. I'm all for progress, 100%, I just wish as a society we were better at helping people come along for the ride.
Don't count me as someone needing you to be 100% for progress, señor. I think it's one of our more challengeable ideals.
Gods, even.
I think, regarding the squashing of the undermen, that it'll bring us to a forced reconsideration of our notion of 'livelihood', as you've put it. i.e. literally, who is losing what. Automation takes people's jobs. People without jobs can't make money and have two options, find other work, or not work. Many people with jobs don't want to do other jobs, for a variety of reasons: lack of know-how, crippling disability, access, stubborness, family history, the list goes on. These people will flounder while robot-owners and wielders will benefit, but if money or exchange of goods as a system works the way they've pitched it to us in school, people not being able to pay for food, shelter, amenity, and luxury will lead to either a change in price or further collapse.
I hope this doesn't come across as me being a butt, or daft, but in my estimation many of the expectations that people have for what they are due in life—what constitutes livelihood, perhaps—exceeds what the planet is capable of providing for each and every person. Call me a butt, or daft, but I think, people, especially in places where people are making art for a living are, per world averages, places of luxury—places where the prices have been set to high, where people are making a lot of money by inflating the value of the things they do for other people.
Which is a really dark and poorly wrought explanation for admitting that part of me, maybe a lot of me, really welcomes a collapse, despite the obvious and expected suffering because I think people should be doing less, using less, eating less, burning less, making less, wanting less.
Perhaps —Inattention— would be an appropriate topic too, in addition to what constitutes —Livelihood—. What does a person 'deserve'? What should a person attend to?
Maybe just more philosophical boobaa to drum around with as we have for hundreds of years, but, man, what better way to spend a day.
I find this whole topic fascinating, especially being a writer married to a visual artist. There is something wonderful about being able
to create visual art with words- isn’t that what writers aspire to in our readers’ minds, after all? But agreed, there are the issues that come from automating a process that has previously been done by talented artists in this area.
There is also AI generated writing now- I’m curious about how people feel about that- perhaps it would be fun to have projects where writers illustrated with ai-generated art, and artists created stories for their art with ai-generated writing and put them all together and assess?
Ah, you have a valuable perspective there.
AI writing is a whole other thing I need to look into more. For my part, authorial intent matters. I don't really subscribe the notion that the author doesn't matter. I often choose books to read because of the *person* behind them, and I'm not sure if AI writing will satisfy me in the same way, regardless of how good it actually is.
I suspect a lot of this is going to wind up being generational, though. I'm 41, so it all seems very alien. My son, who is 9, will grow up with AI-generated content being the norm. I don't think that's necessarily a good or a bad thing, it's just...a thing.
Agreed. We have a lot of change to look forward to and we will likely have many feelings about it. I‘m 44, so even closer to yelling at clouds than you are. Fun times!
You might have a look at 'DALL-E Mini', Simon. It's not as sophisticated as many of the AI that you've mentioned in your writing (and can be the genesis for some nightmare fuel), but it's entirely free and engaging in its way.
Been watching this, conceptually, for awhile now. I think the discussion regarding art or not-art is somewhat ballooned with people concerned with the buying and selling of art and less the actuality of art, because no maker of art should beware losing what is actually beneficial about art to a machine.
If as you prepared to walk up a mountain, you saw a robot go up the mountain, would you no longer do it? Some people, yes. It's called a tram or a cable-car, and they sit on it and whiz up the slope. But other people would understand there is something that cannot be had by mechanistic means and would climb anyway.
But this analogy comes from the perspective of the artist themselves. For consumers of art, the bulk of them appreciate what you, Simon K Jones do: a personal affiliation with the artist and thus a relationship to the piece created. For those who trade in art rarity or in the 'brand of an artist', I could give two fucks whether they're duped by a robot. They probably have plenty of money and likely have built a worldview based on status-qua-name rather than something founded in emotion or affiliation with the world around them. Superficial folk get superficial matter.
That said, if the concern of an illustrator—or even as AI makers get better and better, videographers, writers, blah blah blah—is that they will lose opportunity to 'the robots', I'd ask how they're getting their work in the first place? Most exchange of creative goods has as much to do with the relationship between the person with the desire and the person with the ability to fulffill it, as it does with the quality of the thing made between them.
I think I'm in the 'tool' camp. The pen has grown quite impressive. Gone are the days of mixing our paint in gourds and using our thumbs. (Though turning to gourds and thumbs is often the best way of admitting what art really is).
The effort, regardless, is still the same: 'Explain life as we know it and admit we don't know it well.'
I think one reason this is freaking out a lot of people is that it's generally been assumed that 'creativity' was off-limits to computers and machines. Robotic factories that can build vehicles? Makes sense. Autopilot on a plane? Makes sense. Close down coal mines for more efficient energy supplies? Definitely. Self-driving taxis? That makes sense. Self-serve automatic kiosks in supermarkets? Makes sense (although in the UK at least they're universally AWFUL still). Semi-automated digital advertising to operate at massive scale? Sure.
Automation has been happening since the industrial revolution, and each twist of new automation has meant a specific portion of the population losing their livelihood. Someone always loses out in the short term, even if society gains in the long term (obviously I don't include digital advertising in that latter part).
Creativity and 'the arts' generally have been largely untouched by automation, because until very recently computers were very binary and predictable. The apparent chaos that has worked into recent AI advances (whether AI generated art, or DLSS upscaling that seems entirely magical, or the uncanny audio filtering of something like Nvidia's Broadcast tool...suddenly computers have leapt forward in a way that's been quite unexpected for most outside observers (me included).
The problem isn't with the automation, though. Looking back through the history of automation, the problem isn't the automation itself. It's the lack of care taken to help those affected by it. Those creating the new fancy robots are so excited about what they're doing, they don't pause to consider what they're undoing. I'm all for progress, 100%, I just wish as a society we were better at helping people come along for the ride.
Don't count me as someone needing you to be 100% for progress, señor. I think it's one of our more challengeable ideals.
Gods, even.
I think, regarding the squashing of the undermen, that it'll bring us to a forced reconsideration of our notion of 'livelihood', as you've put it. i.e. literally, who is losing what. Automation takes people's jobs. People without jobs can't make money and have two options, find other work, or not work. Many people with jobs don't want to do other jobs, for a variety of reasons: lack of know-how, crippling disability, access, stubborness, family history, the list goes on. These people will flounder while robot-owners and wielders will benefit, but if money or exchange of goods as a system works the way they've pitched it to us in school, people not being able to pay for food, shelter, amenity, and luxury will lead to either a change in price or further collapse.
I hope this doesn't come across as me being a butt, or daft, but in my estimation many of the expectations that people have for what they are due in life—what constitutes livelihood, perhaps—exceeds what the planet is capable of providing for each and every person. Call me a butt, or daft, but I think, people, especially in places where people are making art for a living are, per world averages, places of luxury—places where the prices have been set to high, where people are making a lot of money by inflating the value of the things they do for other people.
Which is a really dark and poorly wrought explanation for admitting that part of me, maybe a lot of me, really welcomes a collapse, despite the obvious and expected suffering because I think people should be doing less, using less, eating less, burning less, making less, wanting less.
Perhaps —Inattention— would be an appropriate topic too, in addition to what constitutes —Livelihood—. What does a person 'deserve'? What should a person attend to?
Maybe just more philosophical boobaa to drum around with as we have for hundreds of years, but, man, what better way to spend a day.
Yeah, help people. But. So. Many. People.
So how do we pick?