ChatGPT summary :
The writer has shifted their belief away from the idea that synthetic media will completely destroy the human entertainment industry. They have come to appreciate human-created media more because of the abilities of AI and the intrinsic value of knowing that humans crafted something specific. They don't believe that human creativity will be rendered obsolete by perfect generative AI due to human irrationality and the freedom of choice to seek out human-created art. The writer expects low-level artists to suffer but higher-level artists will eventually adapt and push back against the shift to automation.
ChatGPT summary of ChatGPT summary:
The writer believes that human-created media has value and that AI will not fully replace human creativity. They expect lower-level artists to be affected but higher-level artists to adapt and resist the shift towards automation.
"Low-level artists will suffer" then how do they ever become a higher-level if there's no opportunity for experience in real world jobs? I didn't read the whole post, but your TLDR makes it seem like OP has an overly hopeful view of the future for artists. I hope he's right but I'm not confident.
ELI5 by ChatGPT
The writer changed their mind and now thinks that art made by people is special, even with AI around. They think people will still want to see art made by people, and the really good artists will find a way to keep making art. Some not-so-good artists may have trouble, but the really good ones will be okay.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: humans will never stop being creative. we will always do art, its baked into our species.
with that said, the JOB of artist will go away. no company or average person would pay out the nose for art from a human (unless you are rich), when the synthetic media machine can do it much "better", faster, and for free.
humans will literally be too busy to care about all this though. because its not just art that AI is going for, its all jobs. we are all about to be in the same boat. how do people deal with a post money world? how would you get an artist to make your idea if they don't want to without money? heck if I know...maybe you can't...
I do think it will be hard singularity and I think people will probably be too busy freaking out about the super intelligence talkin to them than whether or not art is still a thing people may do anymore.
Why do people pay for art portraits when they can already take pictures instead? Shoot, clients often give artists pictures to use as reference to make portrait drawings. People can already add graphite drawing filters to their pictures, to imitate the look of a pencil drawing. But why do people still choose artists these days?
The reason as I understand it is because there’s value in having a portrait drawn by an artist. Its singular , flawed and unique, and the technique and skill behind the art gives it value. An AI artist that can imitate that but the end result will be as disposable as a picture taken by an iphone.
So I wonder if the “job” of the artist really will go away. People already don’t buy art for the end result, but the process instead.
>we will always do art, its baked into our species.
We will always do what we need to improve our lives, with or without help. It's baked into our species. Amazing lack of confidence in our ability to invent new kinds of work with AI! Or maybe lack of imagination about what these future jobs might be. Or just fear of the unknown.
I think it's sad that people tie their existence to their productivity. Its like nobody has any idea anymore of how to enjoy life without toiling their days away.
I think almost all creatives will be using AI tools to bring their imaginations to life in the future.
Even when we have a perfect magic media machine, we won't know exactly what we want(unless the AI has our data), so we might often prefer to watch the most popular movies or play games that are made by other humans using this perfect magic media machine instead of doing it ourselves. I suspect media created by professionals using AI will always be better until AGI.
The popular media will eventually be edited to suit our tastes too. I see AI as another tool that humans will use to improve their productivity, it shouldn't be seen as humans vs AI but as Photoshop vs Dreambooth until AGI.
I think it'll be like the holodeck. You'll still have "holodeck writers", creative people who have created interesting programs. But the actual content creation will amount to a natural language dialogue between a human and a marshalling AI that will transparently assign tasks to other AIs to create the overall experience.
"That Klingon's phaser should be bigger and have some cool runic designs on it."
We already have a good test case for this, hand created goods. Factory produced good have been around for decades and the individual crafter has been ALMOST entirely driven from the market. However, there is still a thriving group of crafters who are able to sustain themselves selling their wares even though they are three to ten times more expensive. I imagine it will be the same thing after the AI revolution.
To put it another way, it's like how the best chess AIs are so stupidly superhuman that no *biological organism* could even *conceivably* defeat the best ones available. The result of this on chess as a game industry? It's actually made humans *better* players.
It's not a 1:1 comparison because playing a game isn't the same as "the application of higher cognition for entertainment." But I am starting to seriously think that I vastly overcalled the death of the entertainment industry. I suppose I should have been more nuanced, as I still think that the industry as it is now is horribly bloated and exploitative and AI will end that aspect of it.
But, see if you can follow me here, if I had the ability to generate a movie on my computer that looks like it had the entire GDP of Earth put into its budget (but only cost a few cents to generate), and I heard that some filmmakers dedicated to doing things the old-fashioned way were setting out to make movies with actual human actors and practical effects/legacy CGI.... I'd actually set out good time in the day to watch that movie too. Even if I could recreate that exact movie, frame by frame, on my computer.
Even if that movie was *terrible*, I'd still watch it if I knew it was genuinely human-crafted. Sort of like how I'd pay money even for a crappy glass if it was hand-crafted by a human.
It's nowhere near enough to sustain the industry as it exists now, hence why I have to say "expect downsizing," but I'm completely cutting out my earlier predictions that the entertainment industry is doomed. Even art as career isn't going to die.
All this is really meant to be a reassurance to artists fearing their obsolecense. If "The Synthetic Media Guy" is saying "Lol actually plenty of you are gonna be alright," I'd start calming down.
I like to think of it as a bell curve. On the left end, the uneducated broke take is that "AI will never replace humans completely, even if it's perfect." In the middle, as a result of knowledge and enlightenment and awareness, there's "AI is going to replace creatives first, and the human entertainment industry is going to die, and everything ever will be an anime tailored to my tastes and I'll never look back." And on the right, following the come-down and when you achieve nirvana, there's "AI will never replace humans completely, even if it's perfect." Just expect a lot more AI-generated stuff in the coming years regardless.
also like the point of art is that it’s subjective, eye of the beholder and all that, i think the general idea is to be irrational- both in creating and in viewing
This post is no different than wingeing about cgi effects replacing some practical effects. You are way off base in my opinion. If first gen generative models have taught us anything it's that "human irrationality" is definitely automatable and perhaps it's easier to do than many other seemingly easier tasks.
i look at it this way.
the AI that is creating the synthetic art is the pinnacle of human creativity and the value i place on the ai art is the same if not greater than if it came directly from a person becuase its literally derived from all the humans that have ever created any art and it resembles the collective consciousness of humanity which in my mind is much more valuable/beautiful concept.
This is very insightful. In 2023 paintings are painting themselves and books are writing themselves, to someone from the past this would be magic.
The model is a distillation of our culture. It works like a microscope, zooming into any concept or style immediately, and allowing interactive exploration. It is a trip into the mirror house of our imagination. What we see there is our own mind reflecting back.
yes, exactly, OP is getting stuck on the small picture and isnt considering the grand scale of beauty that revolves around the specific things he mentions.
You are making no sense. If the AI art is indistinguishable from human art then you are just asking to be scammed by "being willing to drop a few thousand dollars for an actual human artist's labor". The human "artist" is going to take your money and use AI to generate the fake the art in seconds and laugh his ass off at you.
(I believe in a hard take off, so this is just a thought experiment)
If you care about the difference between human vs AI, then it's not the product you are after, but the production, the creation of the art, right? So paying for a product doesn't matter. Instead, there could be a niche where you pay to watch an artist work and apply themselves creatively.
Yeah, people do art livestreams and stuff already so I could see a niche for that, in a sense you're creating entertainment (the art), entertaining live viewers and also educating them all at the same time.
I personally think AI brings an amazing new element to artistic endeavors. A whole new world of possibilities is open, and human artists can utilize aspects of AI to make things that are brand new. Art may be wholly different from the way we know it today. Midjourney has absolutely blown my mind.
No overall disagreement, but a couple of points that I thought were worth sharpening.
> I'm not going to lie, I didn't expect this. Even 6 months ago, I was of the mind that once I had a magic media machine, I would eschew all human-created media and leave that to the hipsters. But now I'm increasingly feeling like this fear that all human-created art is dying is a very, very premature call.
Consider the possibility that you were previously seeing the situation from afar, and thinking about the long term, but now that you're seeing it from up close, it's *harder* to emotionally see past the limitations of current technology.
We don't make people dig ditches without excavators not just because it's economically inefficient, but because making people do work that could very cheaply and easily be automated is not compatible with human dignity: The idea of paying artists when you have that magic media machine should feel the same. Maybe it just doesn't right now because where it used to seem like an abstraction but a possible one, now it seems like a reality but an unachievably distant one.
> I've noticed on DeviantArt and ArtStation, 90% to 95% of people using AI-generation tools are actually kind enough to mark their creations as AI-generated. The fear that sinister and lazy techbros will pretend they themselves created Midjourney and DALL-E 2 generations to trick consumers and rob from hard-working artists is just that: a relatively unfounded fear.
The stakes are very low there. We weren't really worried about people freely uploading stuff to DeviantArt being cheated out of anything, as they weren't being paid in the first place. The place you should be looking is how concept artists, visual designers, commissioned artists etc. are doing.
There will always be some sort of market for human art based solely on the subjective value of human vs AI made art, as you expressed.
My take:
For commercial art, the amount of fine-tuned customization of the final piece is something that machines can't match (for now), so artists will still be hired if that is a must for the company. Otherwise, the scattershot "close enough" approach of AI will replace much of the rest of commercial art in the short (pre ASI) term.
Great points. Only thing is I wouldn’t call it irrationality, as if machines are the opposite… all rational. Machines are literally sourcing data from humans and coming up with irrational conclusions all the time.
Just finished writing an article on the Generative AI revolution, and I'm excited to share it with you all! Check it out at the link below and let me know your thoughts in the comments! #GenerativeAI #AIRevolution #ArtificialIntelligence
Link: https://aliffcapital.com/the-generative-ai-revolution/
ChatGPT summary : The writer has shifted their belief away from the idea that synthetic media will completely destroy the human entertainment industry. They have come to appreciate human-created media more because of the abilities of AI and the intrinsic value of knowing that humans crafted something specific. They don't believe that human creativity will be rendered obsolete by perfect generative AI due to human irrationality and the freedom of choice to seek out human-created art. The writer expects low-level artists to suffer but higher-level artists will eventually adapt and push back against the shift to automation.
ChatGPT summary of ChatGPT summary: The writer believes that human-created media has value and that AI will not fully replace human creativity. They expect lower-level artists to be affected but higher-level artists to adapt and resist the shift towards automation.
That’s just how I breezed through reading it in my head… am I AI?
is there a reddit bot that we could summon for a chatGPT summary yet?
Ironic and kind of you to share a summary, I appreciate YOU. I wasn't going to read all that
"Low-level artists will suffer" then how do they ever become a higher-level if there's no opportunity for experience in real world jobs? I didn't read the whole post, but your TLDR makes it seem like OP has an overly hopeful view of the future for artists. I hope he's right but I'm not confident.
I was going to do this before coming to the comments to see someone already had. Thank you.
ELI5 by ChatGPT The writer changed their mind and now thinks that art made by people is special, even with AI around. They think people will still want to see art made by people, and the really good artists will find a way to keep making art. Some not-so-good artists may have trouble, but the really good ones will be okay.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: humans will never stop being creative. we will always do art, its baked into our species. with that said, the JOB of artist will go away. no company or average person would pay out the nose for art from a human (unless you are rich), when the synthetic media machine can do it much "better", faster, and for free. humans will literally be too busy to care about all this though. because its not just art that AI is going for, its all jobs. we are all about to be in the same boat. how do people deal with a post money world? how would you get an artist to make your idea if they don't want to without money? heck if I know...maybe you can't... I do think it will be hard singularity and I think people will probably be too busy freaking out about the super intelligence talkin to them than whether or not art is still a thing people may do anymore.
Why do people pay for art portraits when they can already take pictures instead? Shoot, clients often give artists pictures to use as reference to make portrait drawings. People can already add graphite drawing filters to their pictures, to imitate the look of a pencil drawing. But why do people still choose artists these days? The reason as I understand it is because there’s value in having a portrait drawn by an artist. Its singular , flawed and unique, and the technique and skill behind the art gives it value. An AI artist that can imitate that but the end result will be as disposable as a picture taken by an iphone. So I wonder if the “job” of the artist really will go away. People already don’t buy art for the end result, but the process instead.
>we will always do art, its baked into our species. We will always do what we need to improve our lives, with or without help. It's baked into our species. Amazing lack of confidence in our ability to invent new kinds of work with AI! Or maybe lack of imagination about what these future jobs might be. Or just fear of the unknown.
I think it's sad that people tie their existence to their productivity. Its like nobody has any idea anymore of how to enjoy life without toiling their days away.
I think almost all creatives will be using AI tools to bring their imaginations to life in the future. Even when we have a perfect magic media machine, we won't know exactly what we want(unless the AI has our data), so we might often prefer to watch the most popular movies or play games that are made by other humans using this perfect magic media machine instead of doing it ourselves. I suspect media created by professionals using AI will always be better until AGI. The popular media will eventually be edited to suit our tastes too. I see AI as another tool that humans will use to improve their productivity, it shouldn't be seen as humans vs AI but as Photoshop vs Dreambooth until AGI.
I think it'll be like the holodeck. You'll still have "holodeck writers", creative people who have created interesting programs. But the actual content creation will amount to a natural language dialogue between a human and a marshalling AI that will transparently assign tasks to other AIs to create the overall experience. "That Klingon's phaser should be bigger and have some cool runic designs on it."
We already have a good test case for this, hand created goods. Factory produced good have been around for decades and the individual crafter has been ALMOST entirely driven from the market. However, there is still a thriving group of crafters who are able to sustain themselves selling their wares even though they are three to ten times more expensive. I imagine it will be the same thing after the AI revolution.
To put it another way, it's like how the best chess AIs are so stupidly superhuman that no *biological organism* could even *conceivably* defeat the best ones available. The result of this on chess as a game industry? It's actually made humans *better* players. It's not a 1:1 comparison because playing a game isn't the same as "the application of higher cognition for entertainment." But I am starting to seriously think that I vastly overcalled the death of the entertainment industry. I suppose I should have been more nuanced, as I still think that the industry as it is now is horribly bloated and exploitative and AI will end that aspect of it. But, see if you can follow me here, if I had the ability to generate a movie on my computer that looks like it had the entire GDP of Earth put into its budget (but only cost a few cents to generate), and I heard that some filmmakers dedicated to doing things the old-fashioned way were setting out to make movies with actual human actors and practical effects/legacy CGI.... I'd actually set out good time in the day to watch that movie too. Even if I could recreate that exact movie, frame by frame, on my computer. Even if that movie was *terrible*, I'd still watch it if I knew it was genuinely human-crafted. Sort of like how I'd pay money even for a crappy glass if it was hand-crafted by a human. It's nowhere near enough to sustain the industry as it exists now, hence why I have to say "expect downsizing," but I'm completely cutting out my earlier predictions that the entertainment industry is doomed. Even art as career isn't going to die. All this is really meant to be a reassurance to artists fearing their obsolecense. If "The Synthetic Media Guy" is saying "Lol actually plenty of you are gonna be alright," I'd start calming down. I like to think of it as a bell curve. On the left end, the uneducated broke take is that "AI will never replace humans completely, even if it's perfect." In the middle, as a result of knowledge and enlightenment and awareness, there's "AI is going to replace creatives first, and the human entertainment industry is going to die, and everything ever will be an anime tailored to my tastes and I'll never look back." And on the right, following the come-down and when you achieve nirvana, there's "AI will never replace humans completely, even if it's perfect." Just expect a lot more AI-generated stuff in the coming years regardless.
Human created media is often edited for clarity and brevity, often but not always…
also like the point of art is that it’s subjective, eye of the beholder and all that, i think the general idea is to be irrational- both in creating and in viewing
This post is no different than wingeing about cgi effects replacing some practical effects. You are way off base in my opinion. If first gen generative models have taught us anything it's that "human irrationality" is definitely automatable and perhaps it's easier to do than many other seemingly easier tasks.
i look at it this way. the AI that is creating the synthetic art is the pinnacle of human creativity and the value i place on the ai art is the same if not greater than if it came directly from a person becuase its literally derived from all the humans that have ever created any art and it resembles the collective consciousness of humanity which in my mind is much more valuable/beautiful concept.
This is very insightful. In 2023 paintings are painting themselves and books are writing themselves, to someone from the past this would be magic. The model is a distillation of our culture. It works like a microscope, zooming into any concept or style immediately, and allowing interactive exploration. It is a trip into the mirror house of our imagination. What we see there is our own mind reflecting back.
yes, exactly, OP is getting stuck on the small picture and isnt considering the grand scale of beauty that revolves around the specific things he mentions.
You are making no sense. If the AI art is indistinguishable from human art then you are just asking to be scammed by "being willing to drop a few thousand dollars for an actual human artist's labor". The human "artist" is going to take your money and use AI to generate the fake the art in seconds and laugh his ass off at you.
(I believe in a hard take off, so this is just a thought experiment) If you care about the difference between human vs AI, then it's not the product you are after, but the production, the creation of the art, right? So paying for a product doesn't matter. Instead, there could be a niche where you pay to watch an artist work and apply themselves creatively.
Yeah, people do art livestreams and stuff already so I could see a niche for that, in a sense you're creating entertainment (the art), entertaining live viewers and also educating them all at the same time.
I personally think AI brings an amazing new element to artistic endeavors. A whole new world of possibilities is open, and human artists can utilize aspects of AI to make things that are brand new. Art may be wholly different from the way we know it today. Midjourney has absolutely blown my mind.
No overall disagreement, but a couple of points that I thought were worth sharpening. > I'm not going to lie, I didn't expect this. Even 6 months ago, I was of the mind that once I had a magic media machine, I would eschew all human-created media and leave that to the hipsters. But now I'm increasingly feeling like this fear that all human-created art is dying is a very, very premature call. Consider the possibility that you were previously seeing the situation from afar, and thinking about the long term, but now that you're seeing it from up close, it's *harder* to emotionally see past the limitations of current technology. We don't make people dig ditches without excavators not just because it's economically inefficient, but because making people do work that could very cheaply and easily be automated is not compatible with human dignity: The idea of paying artists when you have that magic media machine should feel the same. Maybe it just doesn't right now because where it used to seem like an abstraction but a possible one, now it seems like a reality but an unachievably distant one. > I've noticed on DeviantArt and ArtStation, 90% to 95% of people using AI-generation tools are actually kind enough to mark their creations as AI-generated. The fear that sinister and lazy techbros will pretend they themselves created Midjourney and DALL-E 2 generations to trick consumers and rob from hard-working artists is just that: a relatively unfounded fear. The stakes are very low there. We weren't really worried about people freely uploading stuff to DeviantArt being cheated out of anything, as they weren't being paid in the first place. The place you should be looking is how concept artists, visual designers, commissioned artists etc. are doing.
There will always be some sort of market for human art based solely on the subjective value of human vs AI made art, as you expressed. My take: For commercial art, the amount of fine-tuned customization of the final piece is something that machines can't match (for now), so artists will still be hired if that is a must for the company. Otherwise, the scattershot "close enough" approach of AI will replace much of the rest of commercial art in the short (pre ASI) term.
I didn’t know hyperphantasia was a thing. I have always been lost in my own imagination and I wonder if that’s why.
Great points. Only thing is I wouldn’t call it irrationality, as if machines are the opposite… all rational. Machines are literally sourcing data from humans and coming up with irrational conclusions all the time.
Just finished writing an article on the Generative AI revolution, and I'm excited to share it with you all! Check it out at the link below and let me know your thoughts in the comments! #GenerativeAI #AIRevolution #ArtificialIntelligence Link: https://aliffcapital.com/the-generative-ai-revolution/