I agree with all of your points, and I’m confident artists will survive, but you didn’t respond to what I (and most ppl I think?) find to be the most egregious part of AI: that these guys who don’t read books or look at art are profiting massively off the IP of writers and artists who have no say in the matter.
It might have been technically unfeasible and killed the development of AI (fine by me) but the default should have been that everyone’s IP is opted out from these models and an opt in is required (ideally, purchased).
OTOH I know lots of anti-capitalist types who hate the existence of "intellectual property" as a legal concept. It seems to me that this sort of objection is just "the people who are making money off this [if there are, in fact, any of them] aren't the people *I* valorize". The deep urge to allocate the goodies to the people you admire.
We live in an un- and de-regulated world. Our economic system is designed to extract maximum profit with minimal wealth-spread. Notoriously, a top commodity right now is human attention, and it is coextensive with the consumer tech industry. And even if Tech had paid Publishing for catalogues, think how little the average author would have gotten from that. It’s all upside down.
Ai doesn't make money though, right now it's an uneconomic boondoggle. Also, the Internet is literally built on ip infringement from the ground up, if you aren't getting mad about copy and paste you probably shouldn't be mad about ai looking at stuff and doing an impression of it.
I'm not mad about Ai art, I just don't have any interest in it for the same reason I don't have any interest in motel "art" or wallpaper. Simply put, my equation is: no effort, no value.
Yes, however, I think a major piece of the anti-AI discourse that goes unmentioned is the environmental impacts-- the strain it puts on electric grids and municipal water supplies; how it debilitates local ecosystems and produces an exorbitant amount of carbon emissions. I see how this has the power to make our lives easier, but not currently in the hands of every half-interested internet user waiting for their data to be harvested.
See, I’m absolutely not an expert, but I have heard the environmental impact has been overstated (though with something like Bitcoin, I totally agree with you). And there's a very hypothetical argument that using AI in industry might introduce efficiencies that are environmentally beneficial. But now I sound like an (uninformed) shill for Big Tech, so I'll stop.
Certainly you're right about the future of Art. But I think there's a lot of underlying fear because in any field, the bulk of the people employed and the bulk of the money that changes hands are for pedestrian works done by mediocre workers. AI is dangerous to artists in the same way it is dangerous to coders -- it might eliminate the economic value of skills that are below maybe the 70th percentile of people who are currently employed in the field.
OTOH, the average human is, directly or directly, far more a consumer of these pedestrian works than they are of Art, and they get more aggregate value from pedestrian works. Simply reducing the cost of pedestrian works is a great benefit to them. Consider the making of clothing, which has become largely automated. Go back a few centuries and a lot of people made their livings from clothing; actually sewing a usable garment was a skilled job. Now, few people make much money from tailoring, and the few that are have to be very good to do it professionally. But the average person is far better dressed at far lower cost than they used to be.
This is the eternal tale of automation and technological unemployment.
Definitely, which isn't to say people won't try to trick us into thinking AI stuff has been made by humans in the future, but I don't see people willingly sitting down to stuff their faces with slop where they once would instead have chosen more sensitive and creative media, necessarily.
I agree with all of your points, and I’m confident artists will survive, but you didn’t respond to what I (and most ppl I think?) find to be the most egregious part of AI: that these guys who don’t read books or look at art are profiting massively off the IP of writers and artists who have no say in the matter.
It might have been technically unfeasible and killed the development of AI (fine by me) but the default should have been that everyone’s IP is opted out from these models and an opt in is required (ideally, purchased).
OTOH I know lots of anti-capitalist types who hate the existence of "intellectual property" as a legal concept. It seems to me that this sort of objection is just "the people who are making money off this [if there are, in fact, any of them] aren't the people *I* valorize". The deep urge to allocate the goodies to the people you admire.
We live in an un- and de-regulated world. Our economic system is designed to extract maximum profit with minimal wealth-spread. Notoriously, a top commodity right now is human attention, and it is coextensive with the consumer tech industry. And even if Tech had paid Publishing for catalogues, think how little the average author would have gotten from that. It’s all upside down.
Ai doesn't make money though, right now it's an uneconomic boondoggle. Also, the Internet is literally built on ip infringement from the ground up, if you aren't getting mad about copy and paste you probably shouldn't be mad about ai looking at stuff and doing an impression of it.
I'm not mad about Ai art, I just don't have any interest in it for the same reason I don't have any interest in motel "art" or wallpaper. Simply put, my equation is: no effort, no value.
Legit, i agree.
Yes, however, I think a major piece of the anti-AI discourse that goes unmentioned is the environmental impacts-- the strain it puts on electric grids and municipal water supplies; how it debilitates local ecosystems and produces an exorbitant amount of carbon emissions. I see how this has the power to make our lives easier, but not currently in the hands of every half-interested internet user waiting for their data to be harvested.
See, I’m absolutely not an expert, but I have heard the environmental impact has been overstated (though with something like Bitcoin, I totally agree with you). And there's a very hypothetical argument that using AI in industry might introduce efficiencies that are environmentally beneficial. But now I sound like an (uninformed) shill for Big Tech, so I'll stop.
I’m confused on what your stance actually is?
Same, I suppose
Just flip a coin and get mad if it's a tail
Certainly you're right about the future of Art. But I think there's a lot of underlying fear because in any field, the bulk of the people employed and the bulk of the money that changes hands are for pedestrian works done by mediocre workers. AI is dangerous to artists in the same way it is dangerous to coders -- it might eliminate the economic value of skills that are below maybe the 70th percentile of people who are currently employed in the field.
OTOH, the average human is, directly or directly, far more a consumer of these pedestrian works than they are of Art, and they get more aggregate value from pedestrian works. Simply reducing the cost of pedestrian works is a great benefit to them. Consider the making of clothing, which has become largely automated. Go back a few centuries and a lot of people made their livings from clothing; actually sewing a usable garment was a skilled job. Now, few people make much money from tailoring, and the few that are have to be very good to do it professionally. But the average person is far better dressed at far lower cost than they used to be.
This is the eternal tale of automation and technological unemployment.
This post defo verbalised my own thoughts: art's appeal is always interlinked with the fact that there is a human behind it imo
Definitely, which isn't to say people won't try to trick us into thinking AI stuff has been made by humans in the future, but I don't see people willingly sitting down to stuff their faces with slop where they once would instead have chosen more sensitive and creative media, necessarily.
Ugh such a great newsletter, so thank you! The most nuanced piece of writing on the subject I have seen so far. Completely agree!