That’s a problem with unchecked capitalism, not AI. Remember how George Jetson was able to have a house in the sky, a suitcase spaceship, full home automation, a robot maid, and supported his whole family by pushing a button? Consider how many people lived and worked on the ground beneath the cloud cover to make that possible.
There were no people down there. It was just a flooded planet
They had an episode on the ground I thought.
What we thought was the ground, could perfectly be a bigger platform for the buildings
Yes. As an aside, the post title reminds me of LinkedIn clickbait. Agree?
I agree. Thoughts?
Agree. Like. Thumbs up.
likensubscribe
dontforgettoringthatbell
leaveacomment
TL;DR:
The misuse of technology in capitalism threatens jobs and financial stability. Affordable robots and AI could either enhance our lives or lead to unemployment and misery. Proposals like an automation tax could fund education or basic income. We need good legislation to ensure technology benefits everyone, not just profits. Recent steps like Europe’s AI act offer a little hope, but a lot more political action is urgently needed.Long Version:
From my perspective, the core of the problem is not the technology, but the reckless way we use it in our capitalistic system. Or let’s say, let it be used.For example, a light load robotic industrial arm costs merely 1k to 5k € nowadays. The software for it is cheap as well.
What the business owners and managers see, is not an awesome new invention which could help to propel humanity into the future of a robotic utopia, but cheap labour force, aiding them to cut jobs in order to maximize their profit margin as human labour is expensive.I am sure AI and robots are our future, one way or another, whether we want it or not.
But I would like to see a future where AI and robots help us to increase our quality of life, instead of making us unemployed and endagering our financial survival.There are various ideas how this could be achieved. I don’t intend to go way too in-depth here, so just as an example:
an automation tax: estimate to which amount a business can be automated and then demand a tax proportional to how much the business was automated. Such a tax could then be used to finance higher education for people or a universal basic income. Maybe at first just an income for those who can’t get a decent job due to automation.We had similar developments as those we see now with virtually all technological advances, where human labour was replaced by more and more clever machines. Jobs where lost due to that but it could still be seen as a good thing in general.
An important difference is the level of required skills though. Someone who’s job it was to go around a street and light gas lanterns every day, extinguishing them some time afterwards, was replaced by electric light grids. A switchboard operator at a telephone company, who connected people manually, got replaced by clever hardware. And so on. Those people didn’t require high skills for their job though. They had it a bit easier to find another one.
This becomes increasingly difficult as AI and technology in general advances. Recently we see how robots and AI are capabable of tasks where higher skills are necessary. And it’s probable that this trend will incresingly continue. At some point, we will have AI developing new and better AI. An explosion of artificial intelligence can then be expected.
It’s less a problem as long as people have job prospects in higher skilled work levels. But that will, for a while at least, not be the case. This has different reasons:
As I see it, we have a “work pyramid”, where the levels of the pyramid represent the required skills and the width of the pyramid levels represent the amount of available jobs. In other words, there is a way higher demand for low skilled work than for high skilled work. (BTW, what I mean by work skill is the level of specialisation and proficiency, often connected to more intense and long training and education.)
As recent developments in AI now slowly creep into higher and higher levels, people may start investing in their own education in order to even get a job. But higher skilled work is less available making it increasingly tight and problematic to get one.
There may of course also be an effect observable where new jobs are created by enabling more even higher skilled jobs due to the aid of AI, but I think this has limitations. On the one hand, the amount of jobs created that way might be insufficient. On the other hand, people might not want to or can’t get an education for that.
The latter needs to be emphasized from my perspective. There are a lot of people who simply don’t want to study for a decade in order to get a PhD in something so that they can get some highly specialised job. Some people like the more simple jobs, those requiring more manual than cognitive labour. And that’s totally fine. People should be happy and like the work they do.
Currently, not all people even have access to that kind of education. Be it due to limitations in available places at universities / colleges, or due to financial reasons or even due to physical or mental health reasons.
You may now understand, why I see that we are going to create more misery if we don’t change the way we handle such things.
I would like to see humanity in that robotic utopia. No one needs to work, as most work is done by AI and robots. But everyone can get a fair share and live a happy life however they would like to live it. They can work, take up some interest and pursue it, but no one needs to.
But currently, this is probably not going to happen. We need good legislation, need to create a system where advancements in AI and robotics can be made without driving people into financial ruin. We need to set those guarding rails which help to guide us towards such a robotic utopia.
That’s why I am advocating for putting this topic higher on political priority lists. Politics worldwide don’t have it even set on their agenda. They are missing crucial time frames. And I really hope they’ll wake up from that slumber and start working on it. I’ve got some hope. Europe recently passed their first AI act.
It’s a start.Sincerely,
A roboticist working in AI and robot research.
A roboticist working in AI and robot research.
Thank you for representing your field better than the other guy in this discussion. This gives me some hope that there are folks involved who can see the forest for the trees.
Yes but the artbro luddites will not read this. They are narcissists who are upset that some kid with a computer in Argentina can now generate anime titties instead of paying $300 for them to draw it and they are fighting the realization of how bullshit their industry was from the get-go
I want AI (well, a robotic helper) for laundry and housework. Technically I’ve already got a dishwasher which is close enough there.
I’d love to have AI help me with making art just like other tools, but not take over it
Does anyone still use scruboards and clotheslines for laundry? What about only using the sink for dishes (that one is a bit more common)? I feel automation already hit the bad things she is talking about.
While I’m not exactly a fan of AI, it does make sense that the first things we’re able to replicate with AI, however terribly, are intellectual things like art and writing. While AI might be able to understand how to wash dishes, it would need a way of interacting with the physical dishes to do so, which goes beyond something a computer program can do while confined to a computer.
I wouldn’t be surprised if future dishwashers and washing machines end up having little cameras and sensors so that AI can determine how best to wash them, but if anything that feature would be implemented more for collecting your private information than for any real washing benefit. Plus you’d still have to load and unload the machines - if we wanted AI to handle everything, we’d need robots, which would be waaaay more expensive, and likely something only the richest would be able to afford anyway.
Robotics researchers agree but they can’t get it to work yet. Simple tasks as cleaning tables, loading dishwasher and folding laundry have been tried for the last two decades with very limited success. The ones that do succeed are usually tele-operated for a demo.
Not to mention if it does happen and it does make it to consumers these robots will be insanely expensive to make and maintain. People going “why doesn’t AI just work on physical labor?!” can’t seem to understand that software is a million times easier and cheaper to make
It’s not like scientists woke up one day and said DAMN we need to make robots take away fun jobs ans nothing else. It’s just where machine learning took us.
I don’t mind AI being able to do all 4, and humans can use the AI tools to create their own art, or do it without them if they want. But I definitely agree I want manul labour done by robots.
Side note: has this woman never heard of a dishwasher? Minimal manual labour required.
My dishwasher has remote start functionality if I download the app. But what I really need is remote-load functionality.
AI tools to create their »own« art
I would like an AI tool that lets me easily make the art in my mind, skin to how a dishwasher washes dishes. Like, the labor reduction would be a huge boon.
Bingo. The goal is to produce what is in my mind.
A large part of creating art is the process though.
Goes more so for the more physical art forms like traditional painting, sculpting and so on where you have a physical medium that will shape your working process. But even in digital art I feel like you should go through and iterate and let the process shape how the end piece comes out.
Having a program just like translate your brain impulse into a picture feels kinda hollow… it’s definitely better than image generators but still, there’s a part missing.
like 60%
If you’re going to throw out random/arbitary bars like this we can’t have a serious discussion.
I didn’t build my cameras. Or write the software. Or construct the lenses. I didn’t do 60% of the work that goes into my shooting video.
See how arbitrary this all is?
Okay, I edited it, sorry my majesty for using an arbitrary number to illustrate a point.
It was a valid objection.
I like washing my dishes and do the laundry (but not washing clothes by hand, that we left for good). I feel like some manual labor each day leaves a breathing room for my mind when I don’t scroll or consume content or work with my mind exhausted and occupied. It reminds me of how Don Carleone liked his garden work in the book. Just a simple labor with evident results.
The problem here that I see is that people who are the most influential and interested in these AIs most, like Muskie or Altman, never did their dishes or clothes, so this labor doesn’t exist for them. Their impotency to feel, to create art, to write, to make jokes is what makes them create an AI for these tasks and since they can’t tell good from bad there, they are happy with them. We don’t have a soulless AI, we have an AI created for these soul-lacking suits who’ve never done their dishes or joked at themselves.
That’s not an informed opinion, just a funny thought I had from this post <3
Keep talking like that and they’re going to take your asshole certificate away.
I mean I certainly agreed with the sentiment, but this is largely describing dishwashers, washing machines, and dryers, which were invented some time ago.
Part of the reason these take time is that a lot of folks are resource conscious (as am I). So we want the dishwasher to be efficiently loaded, the clothes to be dried on a clothesline if possible, the white/colors to be separated (increasea the longevity of the clothes), etc. Sacrificing all of these things makes these chores really very quii, if you can afford to have them all in your home.
And in fact, the cost of these things is relatively low — in my high COL area, it’s not that people can’t afford these things, it’s that they can’t afford a place big enough to accommodate them. Which is its own issue altogether…
I cannot overstate how much I want a robot butler to take my dirty dishes and fill and start my dishwasher for me. Or just wash the dishes “by hand”. It’s not that filling the dishwasher takes a long time, but it’s just boring work.
I just can’t fold laundry. Everything else I’m fine.
Anyone who believes AI is being used for art/writing and not for other things like doing the dishes, has a myopic understanding and a strong confirmation bias. This strawman argument is defeated by a simple Google search to see the multitude of other places where this technology is benefiting humanity.
AI is helping physicists speed up experiments into supernovae to better understand the universe.
Anyone who believes that anyone here is trying to suggest that art/writing is the only thing AI is used for, has a myopic understanding of how nuanced conversation works.
I don’t think artists/writers care about what else AI is being used for when they are losing their livelihood to a kid with a computer.
Precisely. The rhetoric here is a dead giveaway when artbros of all people start referencing others like “email monkeys” and “marketers” as having bullshit jobs just like in that other post. Like it’s all the same to me sweetheart all those jobs are bullshit.
Alright then, here’s what I think about your sources. A lot of these seem like technologies that won’t really help the plain folk. I’m sorry if this is a bit long, but I made sure to put time into this because I find it very important.
Source 1: I’m not sure if this type of tech, that being neural networks “trained” on previous data, is actually going to help scientists find out what supernovae explosions are like. This is simply a composition of all the explosions the data is trained on. A better process is this designing of an airplane wing. This uses algorithms with vars that actually represent physical variables, like lift and friction, to find the best airplane wing design, instead of feeding a neural network airplane wing designs that work. It ended up performing a bit better than expected because of real-world variables.
Source 2: The problem this AI is trying to solve is brought on by hospitals purposefully laying off staff. However, I really like this quote.
The AI, dubbed MyEleanor, isn’t designed to replace human navigators, Moadel-Robblee explained. “She” calls patients who didn’t show up or canceled their colonoscopy appointments. If they pick up, she has two primary directives: transfer them over to a human navigator and, if the patient consents, guide them through a brief survey on why they missed their appointment. “Our virtual navigator, she doesn’t sleep. So she can call earlier, later, or on different days. The navigators that are human are invaluable. They have the human touch. We can’t replace them, but we can supplement,” Moadel-Robblee said.
I think that this is technically a good thing, but it’s very small compared to the jobs lost from AI.
Source 3: First off, three people already beat this robot to the punch.
The first dishwasher to be granted a patent was invented in 1850 by Joel Houghton. It was a wooden box that used a hand-turned wheel to splash water on dirty dishes, and it had scrubbers. Ten years later, inventor L.A. Alexander improved on Houghton’s machine by adding a “geared mechanism that allowed the user to spin racked dishes through a tub of water,” according to an entry on reference website ThoughtCo. But the person we have to thank for the modern-day dishwasher is Josephine Cochran (sometimes spelled Cochrane). Her machine was the first to use water pressure instead of scrubbers to clean dishes—which made it more efficient than Houghton’s or Alexander’s versions.
After that, the article is almost nothing like you described. The reporter is going off from a promotional video by people clearly trying to bedazzle investors. Then, the article itself states that “[i]t’s unlikely that Figure 01 is using ChatGPT itself”, and ruminates on advancements that would only happen “[s]hould everything in the video work as claimed”. It’s just AI hype.
Overall, this technology is not “benefiting humanity”. I like how open you are about things, tho.
Edit: I made sure that my statements were not in accidentally in a quote.
but it is true that big tech companies are pouring disproportionately large sums of money into AI that seems like it is doing creative stuff so that they can ride the AI hype wave.
Oh no big companies are spending money instead of using it to buy back their own stock, giving bonuses to the c-suite, or just hoarding it. And they are spending it on projects that are total moon shots that might take a decade or more to pay off.
This is terrible. And not at all what people have been yelling at tech companies for doing since about 2002.
I expect my tech companies to only invest in proven technology and engage in the shortest possible shortterm thinking.
I dont really expect them to change behaviour, I just hope they cease to exist
Hey hope in one hand and shit in another, then tell me which fills first.
why are you holding shit in your hand?
This strawman argument
Ironic coming from your strawman argument that people believe that is the only thing AI is used for, when literally noone, including the OOP, has claimed anything like that.
Joanna just because you get high before your writing or your ‘art’ doesn’t mean it’s good… Go ahead and put it on the fridge but don’t expect it to stay there… wash your own damn dishes and clothes stinky
Who pissed in your cheerios geez?
I did
Yet again artists have the most braindead possible take on AI.
Like I seriously dont understand how even “not a computer person” people dont understand that making a plug in for photoshop or an app that turn you into an anime character is completely fucking different to building a robot that does your chores for you AND that we already have robots that do your fucking dishes and laundry for you.
Let me frame this discussion in a different light.
Why are we spending billions of dollars and countless hours of labour developing software that generates images, something that is fundamentally pointless for any actual product application outside of maybe prototyping stuff?
The whole point of art is human expression and experience, why are we putting all of this experience in a blender and putting it into a machine learning algorithm just to pump out rainbow slop?
Sure, on some level I appreciate the concept of the tech overall and there was a time where I thought it was cool and could lead to something new… what ends up happening though, is just giving idiots with businesses degrees more reasons to wring everything of substance from culture.
generates images, something that is fundamentally pointless for any actual product application outside of maybe prototyping stuff?
What? You’re legitimately arguing that generating images has no applications? Thats a pretty hot take.
why are we putting all of this experience in a blender and putting it into a machine learning algorithm just to pump out rainbow slop?
Again, a very… interesting take.
So take an example. You are a solo game dev, you’re good at programming and game design, but you’re not an artist and you need art for your game. So you can either invest a couple thousand hours of your time to learn to do it yourself, or you can spend money you might not have to get someone to do it for you, or now, you can have AI generate the art for you.
AI makes art near infinitely more accessible for people, which is objectively a good thing, but people like you want to gatekeep it for arbitrary reasons.
and if the whole point of art is human expression like you say, well AI art doesnt stop you from creating your own art now does it? So why do you have beef with it?
What? You’re legitimately arguing that generating images has no applications? Thats a pretty hot take.
If you want a good and meaningful end product, yeah.
If you don’t care about the end product or it’s something that was going to be meaningless from the start, like corporate art, I guess it works.
So you can either invest a couple thousand hours of your time to learn to do it yourself, or you can spend money you might not have to get someone to do it for you, or now, you can have AI generate the art for you.
If you want your game to be a good game, you’ll have to invest something into the art, you don’t have to be a master artist to make a good game with good art.
AI makes art near infinitely more accessible for people, which is objectively a good thing, but people like you want to gatekeep it for arbitrary reasons.
AI doesn’t make art accessible to people, it makes pretty images accessible.
I am not gatekeeping anything, the things that a machine learning algorithm creates can never be art, and if you want to use it for any project you care about, you are making a mistake.
and if the whole point of art is human expression like you say, well AI art doesnt stop you from creating your own art now does it? So why do you have beef with it?
What I’m capable of is completely irrelevant to what I care about, I want people to create cool and meaningful pieces of art, and AI generated images ruin that.
As I said before, you’re taking all of that expression and experience, blending it together, and what comes out has nothing in it, it’s completely empty of any thought or intent behind it.
I don’t want a world where huge amounts of the stuff we see is empty slop, I like art, and this stuff is a threat to the potential of so many artists.
Off the top of my head I could name games like Undertale, that were created by people who were completely new to game dev.
If Toby Fox decided to use AI to generate all of the imagery in that game, it would be nowhere near the art piece it is. But he didn’t, he got an artist to work with him to create the vision he wanted for the game.
I am not gatekeeping anything, the things that a machine learning algorithm creates can never be art,
“im not gatekeeping, but im deciding what counts as art and what doesnt.”
You understand thats like the definition of gatekeeping right?
I don’t want a world where huge amounts of the stuff we see is empty slop, I like art,
More gatekeeping. How is this any different to someone complaining about modern music being “empty slop” because they dont use real instruments? And just because you dont like something doesnt mean it should go away. Plenty of people dont like abstract art and think its not “real art” but those people are also gatekeeping assholes, just like you.
and this stuff is a threat to the potential of so many artists.
Again, if art is all about expressing yourself and human creativity, and AI art isnt “real art” and will never produce anything meaningful, then how is it a threat? You’re actively contradicting yourself.
If Toby Fox decided to use AI to generate all of the imagery in that game, it would be nowhere near the art piece it is.
And if he just made all his art abstract paint swirls and splatters, it also wouldnt be anywhere near the art piece it is. So that means abstract art isnt real art right?
“im not gatekeeping, but im deciding what counts as art and what doesnt.”
You understand thats like the definition of gatekeeping right?
I would also say that a tree growing freely in the forest isn’t art, am I gatekeeping plants from art?
More gatekeeping. How is this any different to someone complaining about modern music being “empty slop” because they dont use real instruments?
Because modern music is art, a lot of it isn’t amazing, but it’s art.
There’s an idea, which is executed through a medium by a human or set of people, and the end result is art.
If something isn’t made by a person, it is by definition not art, see my tree in the forest example from before.
Again, if art is all about expressing yourself and human creativity, and AI art isnt “real art” and will never produce anything meaningful, then how is it a threat? You’re actively contradicting yourself.
If the mud in my garden isn’t delicious chocolate as you claim then why can I still get botulism from it and fucking die?
It’s a threat because:
-
Capitalism will seek to use it for more efficient extraction of value, leading to popular culture being even worse on average.
-
It’s just bad?
And if he just made all his art abstract paint swirls and splatters, it also wouldnt be anywhere near the art piece it is. So that means abstract art isnt real art right?
What? Yes, if the artist used a different art style for the visual parts of it, it would be a different piece of art. If it was made by a person it would still be art.
In that point I was trying to get at two things:
-
Even if you have basically no skills needed for gamedev, you can overcome it by effort or by collaboration.
-
Another danger of AI, as using it would have been the easier option there, but in turn the end product wouldn’t be anywhere near the same quality.
I would also say that a tree growing freely in the forest isn’t art, am I gatekeeping plants from art?
Is bonsai an art? I’d say it is. In that case the difference between that and your example is humans providing artistic direction.
Does the same not happen with generative models? In the typical use case, humans provide artistic direction.
It doesn’t happen with the output of a generative model by itself, if you edit it afterwards then it can be art because someone did put at least something into it.
Still though, the base in that case is completely meaningless and you’d have to change it massively for it to be anything worthwhile, just like a bonsai requires a lot of effort to be turned from a regular tree to art.
I would also say that a tree growing freely in the forest isn’t art, am I gatekeeping plants from art?
What?
Because modern music is art, a lot of it isn’t amazing, but it’s art.
Because you say so? What makes you the great arbiter of what is and isnt art? You are literally gatekeeping by the very definiton of the word.
If the mud in my garden isn’t delicious chocolate
What?
Yes, if the artist used a different art style for the visual parts of it, it would be a different piece of art. If it was made by a person it would still be art.
So peoeple that do things like put a hole in a paint can and let it swing back and forth over a canvas? Is that still humans making art? What about mechanical things spirographs? is that still humans making art? What about digital art the relies heavily on computer tools (including tools that often use AI)? What about photographers? Or what about someone that uses generated AI aspects in their digital art? Your definition is reactionary gatekeeping bullshit. And there is no logical reasoning behind it.
Even if you have basically no skills needed for gamedev, you can overcome it by effort or by collaboration.
Okay thats entirely besides the point.
Another danger of AI, as using it would have been the easier option there, but in turn the end product wouldn’t be anywhere near the same quality.
And the Mona Lisa would have been easier to make on a Wacom tablet, but wouldnt be anywhere near the same quality as the original. So Digital art is dangerous too right?
You cannot make an argument against AI that cannot be logically applied to other art as well. So your whole argument is purely emotional reactions and arbitrary gatekeeping.
Because you say so? What makes you the great arbiter of what is and isnt art? You are literally gatekeeping by the very definiton of the word.
I’m fairly sure I mentioned the definition I use for art before. Ai generated images can’t be art because they’re not made by a person, there’s no underlying thought or message, it’s just algorithmic slop.
Same thing goes for a tree growing freely in the woods, there’s no intent behind it, the tree just grows the best it can to fulfil it’s need for sunlight and nutrients, as such it is not art.
Both the tree and AI can create imagery that can be considered beautiful, but beauty != art.
Modern music however is created by people, even if the message behind it is that “I feel so clean like a money machine.”
Mud chocolate bit
The point is that even if AI generated images are trash, they can still do harm to culture.
So peoeple that do things like put a hole in a paint can and let it swing back and forth over a canvas? Is that still humans making art? What about mechanical things spirographs? is that still humans making art? What about digital art the relies heavily on computer tools (including tools that often use AI)? What about photographers? Or what about someone that uses generated AI aspects in their digital art? Your definition is reactionary gatekeeping bullshit. And there is no logical reasoning behind it.
That is all people doing things, yeah.
Okay thats entirely besides the point.
I’m just saying this regarding the dEmOcRaTiSinG aRt cringe, are has been democratic for as long as people could make coherent vocalisations, you people just don’t want to put in any effort into it.
And the Mona Lisa would have been easier to make on a Wacom tablet, but wouldnt be anywhere near the same quality as the original. So Digital art is dangerous too right?
It’s not about how easy it is, it’s about it being easy and artistically worthless. It doesn’t matter if the sprites were scanned sculptures or crayon stickmen, it was art.
You cannot make an argument against AI that cannot be logically applied to other art as well.
If you willingly misinterpret the point, yeah.
It’s not about it being easy, it’s that you cannot just take a bunch of art, and taking the fucking averages of it and hoping it to be anything but (at best) pretty images.
-
You are a solo game dev, you’re good at programming and game design, but you’re not an artist and you need art for your game.
You cannot be a gamedev without being an artist. Full stop. You might not have drawing skills, you might not have 3d skills, you might not have musical skills, and you still can produce a great game, but that’s because the art in games is more than those things. They’re secondary to the experience same as set design is secondary in theatre, a great play will rivet an audience even if you stage it before a blank wall.
Seriously how does your head hold “good at game design” and “not an artist” at the same time without imploding.
AI makes art near infinitely more accessible for people
No: It makes certain specialised subskills more accessible. AI can generate a song to you, you still need to know which song fits your game. It can generate some pixels for you, you still need to work it into a coherent whole that has the impact you’re looking for. It cannot write a play for you that you could stage before a blank wall.
No: It makes certain specialised subskills more accessible. AI can generate a song to you, you still need to know which song fits your game.
Okay so at this point it’s sounding like an issue of semantics - you’re clearly saying that artists can use AI to help their tasking.
I believe the other guy your responding to defines artist as someone who is able to create without AI.
Y’all are hung up over what the definition of “artist” is, but you’re in agreement that generative ai can help those who are less skilled in the production of art.
I believe the other guy your responding to defines artist as someone who is able to create without AI.
I’m not disagreeing with their assessment. If you can’t create art without AI, you won’t be able to create it with AI because you lack the very basic skills of being an artist. Art is not about the medium that art is expressed in, and having help with that medium doesn’t make the message art if it wasn’t art in the first place.
Y’all are hung up over what the definition of “artist” is, but you’re in agreement that generative ai can help those who are less skilled in the production of art.
No. I’m saying it can help those who are less skilled in the production of a particular medium to produce that medium. You still need to be able to artistically judge that medium. You still have to put the art in. It doesn’t come out of the AI, you have to add it in the way that you’re employing it.
You cannot be a gamedev without being an artist.
This is just gatekeeping nonsense
Seriously how does your head hold “good at game design” and “not an artist” at the same time without imploding.
Because thats me. I design and code games, but im not a good enough artist to make the textures or models. So I either have to but premade assets or hire artists to do the work for me. I dont understand why you think this is a contradiction, other than you just gatekeeping for no reason.
No: It makes certain specialised subskills more accessible
And thus makes are more accessible.
This is just gatekeeping nonsense
Nope it’s like saying “you cannot be a gardener without knowing about plants”. Games are art. To produce them, you have to be an artist. If you produce games, you are an artist. You might be a brilliant or shoddy artist, formally educated, self-taught, conservative or avant-garde, but you are, by definition, an artist.
Because thats me. I design and code games, but im not a good enough artist to make the textures or models.
If you understand game design then you should understand how it’s art.
Have a look at Dwarf Fortress. How many textures and models in that one? It’s in the fucking MOMA!
…if you know game design, have no other art skills, and no team, there’s one choice you should make before all others: Do you want to get into creating that other kind of stuff, or do you want to make the lack of those things a style? Maybe even an expression in itself. It’s going to be the one or the other, so make it consciously, and informed, ideally after having explored both sides a bit, learned enough to know what you don’t know, practised enough to see what you’d need to practice to get results you’d like.
In case you think “I’m just going to throw AI images at my VN” – valid choice. But be aware that without any experience in creating picture media yourself you have no artistic eye for them, and can’t judge the quality of the AI output, and probably be unaware of the artistic possibilities inherent in lightening, choice of colour schemes, etc. No you don’t need to be able to paint everything yourself, but there’s still a baseline of skills necessary to use AI in a capacity that’s more than prompting “big bazongaz plz”.
I don’t doubt that you can train that artistic eye while hitting generate over and over, as long as you’re critical enough, but spending some time with a youtube tutorial and actual pencil, crayon, and paper, or actual blender and virtual clay1, will teach you a lot more in a much shorter time-frame. You don’t actually have to master that stuff, but you do need to be able to see that you’re not mastering it so you can judge whether the AI got it right.
1 Highly reommended but please, for the love of your carpal tunnel, don’t try to sculpt with a mouse for longer than a day. Huion tablets are good and cheap. You don’t need a display tablet (nobody does but some prefer it).
Nope
Yes, actually, someone arbitrarily deciding what makes someone an artist is by definition gatekeeping.
Have a look at Dwarf Fortress. How many textures and models
Quite a lot? This it has lots of art in it? Its just pixel art? Youre not making the point you think you’re making there.
…if you know game design, have no other art skills, and no team…
This whole paragraph wasnt really relevant to the conversation so im just moving past it if thats okay?
In case you think “I’m just going to throw AI images at my VN” – valid choice.
This is a false dichotomy. Your options are not either put in the effort with traditional art or lazily throw any random AI generated images at your game. You can put time and effort into AI images, to make them have a consistent style and to actually fit what are trying to make. The latest background im making for my game, for example, has taken me well over an hour already and its not quite finished, but its still orders of magnitude faster and better than if I drew it myself
Which is the entire point of my comment. If I had to rely on my own artistic skill or have to pay money I dont have to get art made, then I simply would not have been able to make the game I want to make. Even if I did what you suggested and designed around my lack of artistic skill, that would be a different game than the one I wanted to make. Thats why im saying AI art is a good thing and makes art more accessible. I simply would not be making my game, expressing my creativity and enjoying myself if it wasnt for the ability to generate AI art pieces.
Quite a lot? This it has lots of art in it?
Zero. Dwarf fortress has zero textures and models, at least the base version that generated the cult following, by now there’s some extensions. It’s rendering to console, not with some 3d API, how would it even use those textures and models? It also doesn’t contain pixel art (past the intro screen) same as a street map is not line art.
Seeing that you got such a basic thing completely wrong I do not believe you for one second that you’re anywhere close to being a gamedev. Or even programmer. Maybe you’re a hobbyist trying to write your first game, in that case be aware that your first ten are going to suck get them out of your system as quickly as possible, don’t settle. Move quickly and abandon things.
You can put time and effort into AI images, to make them have a consistent style and to actually fit what are trying to make.
Nothing I said contradicts that. That time and effort, to make it fit what you’re trying to make, is an artistic endeavour, all I did was give pointers on how to get better at that stuff.
Even if I did what you suggested and designed around my lack of artistic skill, that would be a different game than the one I wanted to make.
That’s not what I suggested. What I suggested was making a conscious, deliberate, informed, choice. Not saying “I want to make a science-based dragon MMO with photorealistic graphics” but “Here’s my options, here’s what I can do, here’s what I can learn in a reasonable amount of time, let’s see what option I like best”. Make a decision matrix if you have to.
expressing my creativity and enjoying myself
One thing art is not about is enjoyment. I mean it can come with the process but the opposite can be true as well.
Ah because a lack of understanding of tech is the only possible reason one might have for criticising the way society allocates priorities.
congrats you missed the entire point of my comment.
What op is doing is like saying “Why do we keep making Netflix shows instead of curing cancer???” Thats not a good criticism of societies priorities, because those things are not mutually exclusive and making a show on netflix is much easier than curing cancer.
Its the same here. Its not like we are choosing to automate art instead of laundry, automating art is just orders of magnitudes easier.
Thats not a good criticism of societies priorities, because those things are not mutually exclusive and making a show on netflix is much easier than curing cancer.
That’s a nice strawman, there. Why don’t you ask the direct question: Are advances in laundry and dish washing technology easier or harder than in image generation?
You made no argument as to why automating art should actually be easier – all you provide is an assertion. Consider the billions sunk into buying shovels from nvidia, how much progress could’ve been made on the laundry front?
Then, your whole line of inquiry is missing the point: It’s not so much about relative complexity of the tasks, but the fact that we do enjoy the one, but not the other. What does it say about a society when we focus on automating what we like to do at the expense of stuff that we don’t like to do?
Or, differently put: How much advancement in AI do we need to make to have it ask us what a dabbling beginner artist can already ask us, and that is why the hell are we making this choice, and not the other? Art is the science of choice, give it some respect.
What you’re doing there is not being smart, being all so enlightened rational MINT brained, what you’re doing is going to extreme lengths to ignore a simple question. Was that choice conscious?
Why don’t you ask the direct question: Are advances in laundry and dish washing technology easier or harder than in image generation?
Image generation, being purely software, is far easier than automating physical tasks. There’s very little risk of danger, you can iterate much faster, and costs are lower. Not really a clear analog, but Boston dynamics spot robot is like 75k, whereas most image generation models are downloadable for free. Once you start acting in the physical world things get expensive and hard.
Consider the billions sunk into buying shovels from nvidia, how much progress could’ve been made on the laundry front?
Automating laundry would’ve also required this, as the shovels are for general machine learning. In fact as far as I can tell, these gpus aren’t being bought for image generation, but large language models now.
There’s very little risk of danger, you can iterate much faster, and costs are lower. Not really a clear analog, but Boston dynamics spot robot is like 75k, whereas most image generation models are downloadable for free.
I was thinking more development costs. The product price of the robot I’m sure can be brought down significantly with sufficient automation.
Automating laundry would’ve also required this, as the shovels are for general machine learning.
Those LLM fucks are working towards AGI, I don’t think my washing machine needs to be sentient to do a good job. Or read reddit and conclude that it should add glue to the detergent.
Engineering-wise improvements in laundry are way easier to deal with because the problem space is well-defined. Want your clothes to come out folded? Sure, not easy, but at least we know what behaviour we’re looking for and how to assess it.
I was thinking more development costs.
Like I said, not really a clear analog, however I’m hoping this shows the difference working in the real world makes when it comes to R&D costs. Idk how accurate this website is, but we’re talking about literal billions in R&D. Versus most stable diffusion models are trained up by a grad student or something - and subsequently released for free potentially as a reflection of the r&d price.
I don’t think my washing machine needs to be sentient to do a good job.
But you will need them to be able to recognize the type of clothing and orientation in a 3d space before manipulating it, and that’s where training models comes in.
Versus most stable diffusion models are trained up by a grad student or something
Most SD models are fine-tunes of stuff StabilityAI produces. Training those things from scratch is neither cheap nor easy, PonyXL is the one coming closest as there’s more of its own weights in there than of the SDXL base model but that wasn’t a single person enterprise. One lead dev yes but they had a community behind them.
If it was that easy people wouldn’t be griping about StabilityAI removing any and all NSFW content from their dataset so the community has to work for months and months to make a model erm “usable”.
That’s a nice strawman, there
Thats not what a strawman is.
Why don’t you ask the direct question: Are advances in laundry and dish washing technology easier or harder than in image generation?
Harder, obviously.
You made no argument as to why automating art should actually be easier
Apologies, I assumed people had common sense, but you’ve made it clear I was incorrect. My bad
Consider the billions sunk into buying shovels from nvidia,
Shovels?
Then, your whole line of inquiry is missing the point: It’s not so much about relative complexity of the tasks, but the fact that we do enjoy the one, but not the other. What does it say about a society when we focus on automating what we like to do at the expense of stuff that we don’t like to do?
Its actually like talking to a brick wall.
I need you to understand that people dont sit in meetings and say “should we casually create robots that can do all our daily chores and free the working class from the chains of capitalist oppression, or do we automate furry porn???” We are not automating art at the expense of laundry.
-
We a re doing both
-
and I hate that you’re making me repeat this over and over because you have tumblr levels of reading comprehension. Its orders of magnitude easier to white a computer program than it is to build a fucking robot.
What you’re doing there is not being smart, being all so enlightened rational MINT brained
The absolute. fucking. Irony.
simple question. Was that choice conscious?
Youre still missing the ENTIRE FUCKING POINT of my comment. There isnt a choice, this isnt 1 or the other. For the love of god learn to read.
Consider the billions sunk into buying shovels from nvidia,Shovels?
“When there’s a gold rush, be the one who sells shovels”.
“should we casually create robots that can do all our daily chores and free the working class from the chains of capitalist oppression, or do we automate furry porn???”
Why not? Why aren’t we doing it? Why aren’t you doing it, why are you reinforcing us not doing it by putting other perspectives down as “braindead artist takes”?
There isnt a choice, this isnt 1 or the other.
Maybe not a binary choice, but there’s definitely a priority. People question that priority. Is that question, in your perspective, valid? Would it hurt humanity if we replaced, say, 0.1% of pointless meetings with meetings discussing robots vs. furry porn?
Be bold, ask that question.
Why not? Why aren’t we doing it? Why aren’t you doing
For the exact same reason YOU nor anyone else is curing cancer, or sending people to Mars, or letting us live forever or creating usable fusion power plants.
And I have told you those reasons MULTIPLE FUCKING TIMES. But your head is so far up your own arse it’s like you are physically incapable of reading anything that goes against your dog shit, braindead world view.
So I will reiterate for the umpteenth time:
-
We are doing
-
It’s really fucking difficult so it takes time.
Do you understand this time or do you need me to draw you a fucking picture?
I need you to understand that people dont sit in meetings and say “should we casually create robots that can do all our daily chores and free the working class from the chains of capitalist oppression, or do we automate furry porn???”
There you’re saying we aren’t doing it.
We are doing
Now you’re saying we are doing it.
But I think we should set that aside for a second. The actual question I am interested in getting an answer for from you is “should we be doing it”.
-
-
I don’t understand how you can miss that of course they are up in arms. The only thing anyone seems to want to use this tech for is to devalue their work.
(Aside from MS who wants to be sure I can cram more productivity for the 1% into my workday.)
I work in a creative industry. Our artists are already using Photoshops generative AI in their work. Which has only made their lives easier. But then again, they are all highly educated and not terminally online.
But then again, they are all highly educated and not terminally online.
So you think the fact that you work with creatives who have accepted this state of affairs means that no other creatives have a valid complaint about their work being devalued, and that anyone who feels they have such a complaint is not thoroughly educated, and probably terminally online. Do I have your position about right?
Yes, I respect the opinions of well educated professionals over the opinion of uneducated randoms on the internet.
Much in the same way I think because I know doctors that have “accepted the state of affairs” in regards to vaccines, that when I see some random person on the internet who disagrees, getting all the technical details objectively wrong, then I write them off as some uneducated nutjob. And I’d be willing to bet you do essentially the same, right?
I would consider myself an “expert” on AI and robotics (thats what I did my masters and Ive been a founder of 2 different robotics/AI startups) so when I see people give their bad takes on AI and get the technical details completely wrong, I dismiss them as uneducated. And because of my work/education I know a lot of other people that are highly educated on AI, include people that are actual artists, none of them, literally not a single one shares these “AI bad, why no do laundry instead!!!” opinions with these randoms on the internet. And none of these people have ever made a logically consistent argument to me as to why they have that opinion. Its always bad faith or emotional arguments.
If one of these people were to ever demonstrate they know how AI actually works and made an actual well thought out argument against AI to me, I would be more than happy to listen to them and respect their opinion. But I dont see that happening any time soon.
I don’t think you can quote me as discussing any of the technical details. I think most creatives who I encounter are not reacting to or considering technical details. They are responding to impacts AI usage has had on them and their industry. One example that comes easily to mind because of all the appeals I saw on social media to stop flooding them with AI garbage is Clarkesworld.
You are out here defending this technology when OP and nearly all complaints aren’t about the technology, they are about the shit way in which it’s being employed, which is to devalue their works, harm markets, and squeeze out more productivity for the 1% to profit from.
I can almost feel how excited you were to swing your credentials around here while implying no one else is actually a creative, or that we’re all just making things up, but you didn’t reply to this at all, even though it’s 100% simply true:
So I either have to but premade assets or hire artists to do the work for me.
And by using AI you do neither of those things, and devalue the work of those who do make those things.
You can have good reasons for doing so. It doesn’t change the outcome. Have the integrity to admit it, at least.
edit - her here
I think most creatives who I encounter are not reacting to or considering technical details.
Thats where the entire “AI just takes parts from other peoples art work and sticks them together” argument comes from.
And this image that got spread around A LOT. That gets the very fundamental details entirely wrong.
One example that comes easily to mind because of all the appeals I saw on social media to stop flooding them with AI garbage is Clarkesworld.
Okay? You could also manually spam a magazine with bad shirt stories, but thats not a valid argument against human generated stories is it?
which is to devalue their works, harm markets,
And Im stating that the technology makes making art easier, so If you adapt to it instead of getting emotional and stubbornly refusing to accept change, then you’re not going to lose out like you will if you dont accept new technology. Just like a traditional artist complaining that digital art has devalued them. Its simply made art easier, so you need to adapt.
can almost feel how excited you were to swing your credentials around here
Yep thats why i mentioned them in my very first comment…
while implying no one else is actually a creative,
Except I didnt. I said people that give uneducated opinions are uneducated.
we’re all just making things up
Because you are?
but you didn’t reply to this at all, even though it’s 100% simply true:
And by using AI you do neither of those things, and devalue the work of those who do make those things.
Because it misses the point. The point IS that AI means I dont HAVE to do either of those things. I cant afford to pay an artist for custom art for my passion project. Before AI I would have had to just give up on the project because I dont have the money. But now I can generate it myself in photoshop and I can actually work on my passion project and enjoy myself doing it.
Do you buy all your clothes from people that hand weave the fabrics? Because if you dont then you’re devaluing the work of the people that do that.
Do you buy all your food directly from people who hand farm in their gardens? Because if you dont then you’re devaluing the work of those farmers.
Do you make art with real brushes made in traditional ways by artisans? Or do you use digital brushes and devalue the work of those traditional artisans?
Technology makes things easier, it always has and always will. You can either cry and complain about it, refuse to change and be mad at people that do things the easier new way and become obsolete, or you can adapt. Simple as that.
Because it misses the point.
So much for integrity.
I don’t think you’ve understood the points anyone has tried to make, and your rebuttal examples are false equivalences.
Good Day.
I’m seeing a lot of AI apologists in here. I want the leisure time required to create art, instead of being fucking burned out from working multiple jobs and spending all my available free time doing chores. Fuck AI, fuck the uncompensated artists and illegitimate theft of those works used to train the AI, and fuck you for normalizing it.
Let me make it clear first. Generative AI is not art. Prompt engineering is not a real job.
AI is just a tool. It is still waiting for an artist to use it to create art, just as a Photography or Photoshop image is not an art by itself.
But… training with images is the same as humans learning how to draw, though… I know it’s boring but what you said is boring too. We could fall back to the same conversation over and over because you start with the same conversation again and again.
FUCK AI, and also FUCK PEOPLE AGAINST AI, Good thing I hate everyone!
FUCK AI, and also FUCK PEOPLE AGAINST AI, Good thing I hate everyone!
That sounds more like self-loathing.
I mostly agree with this. I’m coming to think that in the future defining the word “art” for the context of a discussion would avoid a lot of the back and forth I’m seeing here and help these discussions be more productive.
“Prompt engineer” is on a lower level than “tarot fortune teller” for me. As a fortune teller, you are required to have people skills, as a prompt engineer, you just have to be an opportunistic dork.
A prompt engineer is nowhere near a tarot card user. Tarot cards do not contribute to a gigantic machine that eats job opportunities and spits out misinfo.
You cannot be an apologist unless there is a credible accusation to defend against.
Disagreeing with people that cannot coherently decide why they are upset is a good thing.
As for your comment, I agree that using art to train AI and then selling the result is a problem. Our legal framework needs to catch up on that. Personally, I do not see why it would not be copyright violation. That is clearly what it would be if a human did the exact same thing. A tool directed by a human does not seem so different from that. In my reading of copyright law, this misuse of AI may already be illegal.
We just need a few court cases to sort that out.
“I want the leisure time required to create art, instead of being fucking burned out from working multiple jobs and spending all my available free time doing chores.”
So, fair enough. Does this have anything whatsoever to do with AI? It really waters down your other point ( addressed above ).
If you are trying to agree with the OP concerning “laundry and dishes”, please think about your position. Those are two of the best examples for how technology has reduced time spent and effort expended on menial chores. I struggle to think of better ones. They also seem like prime candidates to be improved by adding AI to our existing mechanical devices.
What could the actual complaint be here? At worst, you can assume that AI will not help you with laundry and dishes. Any less extreme position will be that it probably will. The same can be said for any other menial task I can think of in my day-to-day life.
Sorry to be a rationality apologist but I am not going to line-up against totally misdirected outrage. Being mad does not make you right.
Well said.
AI apologists
Im not an “AI apologist” because theres nothing to apologise for.
Much like im not an “automatic loom apologist” or a “steam engine apologist”
Apologist comes from the greek word “apologia”, which means “speech in defense.” Apologetics isn’t apologizing, it’s defending.
Huh, well TIL
Another way to learn is to look up words you don’t know instead of a) guessing, and then b) reacting based on guesswork.
Yeah let me just sit down and look up the etymology of literally every single fucking Englush word 🤓🤓🤓
Who said anything about etymology? Your problem was not knowing the current definition.
I want to be able to create all the things Ive dreamed of creating my.whole life without spending 4-8 years in fucking art school, saddling myself in debt for a skill that was virtually impossible to make a living off of. and that was BEFORE ai. AI has enabled me to create things that would have been fucking.impossible for me to.create on my own and and absurdly.expensive to have commissioned. Its allowed me to create things that would be literally.impossible without it.
I had ideas. I just couldn’t afford to make it real. With ai I’ve been able to.
I never would have paid an artist to do what I’ve been able to done for myself. Even if I could have afforded it.
Ai may commodotize creativity but it democratizes art.
Jeans Pierre can still build a lifesized model.of Donald trump.out of tampons and I get an to cover my walls with viking chicks with huge fits that look like they’re painted by van Gogh, and oil paintings of my face instead of whoever the model.was on history’s greatest works.of art.
If you’re an artist pissed off about ai taking your money: you probably wouldn’t have made much anyway. Being an artist was always a reckless gamble.
So your argument is that putting in effort and investing money for a skill is ‘virtually impossible’ and that artists shouldn’t complain because they ‘probably wouldn’t have made much anyway’?
Following your logic generative AI would never come to exist, because there wouldn’t even be anything created for an AI to learn from.
Uh. No. You can tell because of how my post is.
Preach. Art is a hobby, not a job, drawing shit does not produce any value for anyone. Lithium mines and McRib cook lines is where artists belong under any economic system.
That’s sarcasm, right?
You do have more than 2 braincells, right? I hope.Look I got nothing against y’all drawing shit or putting together low fi hiphop beats to shit and piss to or writing some waluigi yaoi or other content production, but it doesn’t exactly put men on the moon, kapische?
The only reason any of you earn money as is is because advertisements can be served embedded into content, while corpos earn money mostly from landlording over IPs. Like all of marketing, it’s a drain on society from an economic standpoint.
I think you have some real mental issues and you are feeling some sort of disconnect from the world. I’ll leave you be, you’re freaking me out.
Yeah scadoodle luddite
I hope you get the help you need.
If you weren’t creating before “AI”, you’re not creating after.
It’s like hiring a person to do art for you, but instead you took all their shit and used a machine to make a soup out of it.
Get fcked.
So i had an idea for a thing. This thing did not exist. Parts of it may existed in some fashion, but the thing itself did not.
Now the thing exists. It hangs on my wall.
We may have different definitions of the term creation in mind here. Can you suggest a better word to use for using my input to make a thing that did not exist before? I can use that going forward.
And yes. Ai combines things that other people have made before into something else. Usually the Mona Lisa does not have my face. Then I spent around and hour in stable diffusion and maybe two hours in gimp. Now the Mona Lisa has my face. I would call this new, as the Mona Lisa, to my knowledge, has never before had my face on it. Let alone looked like my face belonged on it.
I’m making an assumption here, and feel free to correct me if its incorrect, but I’m guessing that you feel its okay when a person blends artistic styles into something that is distinctly their own.
If this assumption is true: why is it legitimate when a person does it and not a machine? Or is it?
And another question: if the issue is with artists being compensated (maybe another assumption here, in apologize if I’m off base): would you support legislation to the effect that those that inspired or influenced another artist’s work receive recompense for it?
Second to last question: if an ai is trained solely on works in the public domain do you still have an issue with it?
Final question: if existing artists styles can be replicated using a genealogy of sorts using only those public domain works, and they’re combined in a manner that no one has thought to combine them: are there issues you have with that? What are they?
Honestly trying to get a better understanding of where the borders of right and wrong here for you are so I can better understand your position.
Ai combines things that other people have made before into something else. Usually the Mona Lisa does not have my face. Then I spent around and hour in stable diffusion and maybe two hours in gimp. Now the Mona Lisa has my face. I would call this new, as the Mona Lisa, to my knowledge, has never before had my face on it. Let alone looked like my face belonged on it.
Dude, just use Photoshop. That’s all you have to do. You just cut out the face of Lisa and put your own. You can also use blurring to make it look better. “Ai” isn’t needed.
Based on your first comment, you’re not a person I want to have a discussion with.
Maybe someone else values their time less then I do and will indulge in your quest to find the right and the wrong.
you’re correct and almost intelligent enough to spell so I obviously will lose if I continue this argument I started by shouting in my echo chamber of luddite artbros
My ROFLCopter goes woot woot woot woot.
You’re having a conversation with yourself here? Are you ok?
No I’m summarizing your post, summarizing is a good skill maybe ChatGPT can show you how to do it :3
Cognitive dissonance at work.
Lol, keep telling that to yourself.
Don’t be so bitter dude. Go out and be the change you want to see.
What does the even mean? Like what are you even trying to say?
Fuck AI
be the change you want to see
Obviously this means AI sex dolls.
This right here will be our species demise
