zlacker

>>dredmo+(OP)
I've been finding that the strangest part of discussions around art AI among technical people is the complete lack of identification or empathy: it seems to me that most computer programmers should be just as afraid as artists, in the face of technology like this!!! I am a failed artist (read, I studied painting in school and tried to make a go at being a commercial artist in animation and couldn't make the cut), and so I decided to do something easier and became a computer programmer, working for FAANG and other large companies and making absurd (to me!!) amounts of cash. In my humble estimation, making art is vastly more difficult than the huge majority of computer programming that is done. Art AI is terrifying if you want to make art for a living- and, if AI is able to do these astonishingly difficult things, why shouldn't it, with some finagling, also be able to do the dumb, simple things most programmers do for their jobs?

The lack of empathy is incredibly depressing...

>>meebob+kc
My empathy for artists is fighting with my concern for everyone else's future, and losing.

It would be very easy to make training ML models on publicly available data illegal. I think that would be a very bad thing because it would legally enshrine a difference between human learning and machine learning in a broader sense, and I think machine learning has huge potential to improve everyone's lives.

Artists are in a similar position to grooms and farriers demanding the combustion engine be banned from the roads for spooking horses. They have a good point, but could easily screw everyone else over and halt technological progress for decades. I want to help them, but want to unblock ML progress more.

>>strken+Kx
> My empathy for artists is fighting with my concern for everyone else's future, and losing.

My empathy for artists is aligned with my concern for everyone else's future.

> I want to help them, but want to unblock ML progress more.

But progress towards what end? The ML future looks very bleak to me, the world of "The Machine Stops," with humans perhaps reduced to organic effectors for the few remaining tasks that the machine cannot perform economically on its own: carrying packages upstairs, fixing pipes, etc.

We used to imagine that machines would take up the burden our physical labor, freeing our minds for more creative and interesting pursuits: art, science, the study of history, the study of human society, etc. Now it seems the opposite will happen.

>>alltur+iJ
> We used to imagine that machines would take up the burden our physical labor, freeing our minds for more creative and interesting pursuits: art, science, the study of history, the study of human society, etc.

You’re like half a step away from the realization that almost everything you do today is done better if not by AI then someone that can do it better than you but you still do it because you enjoy it.

Now just flip those two, almost everything you do in the future will be done better by AI if not another human.

But that doesn’t remove the fact that you enjoy it.

For example, today I want to spend my day taking photographs and trying to do stupid graphic design in After Effects. I can promise you that there are thousands of humans and even AI that can do a far better job than me at both these things. Yet I have over a terabyte of photographs and failed After Effects experiments. Do I stop enjoying it because I can’t make money from these hobbies? Do I stop enjoying it because there’s some digital artist at corporation X that can take everything I have and do it better, faster, and get paid while doing it?

No. So why would this change things if instead of a human at corporation X, it’s an AI?