What is the future of human art?

[Cagivagurl]

AI, is only a tool. It cannot create from nothing.
It can create from inputted data. Data that was originally created by the human mind.
Everything that AI, will search through to come up with a new solution has already been conceived by a human being.
We may not have been able to find the answer, but... All of the data is in there, supplied by human kind.
It can duplicate, and create, but cannot ignite the spark of creation...
Perhaps one day, technology may build a data base so huge that AI could feasibly self sustain, what it will always lack is that spark...
Of course this is just my opinion.

I dislike the use of AI for the fields of artistic creation. Music, art, literature, dance. These are things that I love because they are born of desire. Music being my true love. I'm a musician, and have always hated the use of technology to generate sounds (Yes, I hate to call it music)
I love the mistakes that come with human production. When musicians get together and jam. Create something wonderful from nothing. Yes, there are mistakes, and errors, but that is the beauty of it.
We as a race, are flawed, full of emotions and misconceived notions, but that is the beauty of it.
Nothing should be perfect... LOL, except me of course.

The last bit was a joke. I maybe the most flawed of all.

Cagivagurl

 

[EroticFriction]

Tools can be regulated, and how humans use them most can, as well. The FAA requires licenes for humans to operate flying tools, i.e. airplanes and helicopters. A kitchen knife is also a tool. If I use it to fillet a fish, I'm all good. But if someone uses one to stab another human being they'll likely be prosecuted for aggravated assault or murder depending on 'how' the tool was used.

AI use can and should be regulated. Currently, LLMs and other data trawls include copyrighted and other IP where, in many cases, consent was not given. Is this fair use? I personally don't think so, but we'll see where the endless string of court cases land, I believe this will go to the supreme and other international courts before it's done, and I have a strong suspcion that even if the US Supreme court sides with big tech, which it may very well do, EU courts won't be so generous, and since these tools are meant to be accessed internationally it'll be a pretty huge dent in the potential profits.

As far as training data is concerned, I don't think it's fair use in AI, as this data is the only basis on which the algorithms can effectively provide this (paid) service. Without training there's nothing to give.

And there is nothing fair about taking someone's protected, copyrighted novel, song, or artwork and using that to train a system owned and invested by the likes of Microsoft, Apple, and a dizzying array of Silicon Valley VCs for the sole purpose of using those works to earn profit. The sheer number of copyrighted works in those datasets is mindboggling, morally reprehensible, and irresponsible on a surreal level. At the VERY LEAST, artists should be able to opt out of having a any or all of their works included in these training datasets, and subsequent use by developers should be punishable by law. In my opinion they should be required to get consent prior to using any data for training. We're going to end up (or is it continue?) chewing up our creatives and spitting them out until it's not worth it for anyone to bother sacrificing themselves for a career in the arts or entertainment.

BTW, I believe these tools should be used, and can help us make real contributions to society. Just not in the disrespectful, thieving manner currently underway.

 

[EroticFriction]

On to the creative and other fuzzier arguments for or against AI:

My observation is that it's humans doing the training and prompting. AI doesn't do anything other than respond algorithmically. If I come up with the right prompts, and shepherd my work with sufficient skill through AI, wether it's writing, graphic arts, music, or whatever, I could very well create something with 'soul' or whatever intangible is required to touch someone else, and imho that is one human communicating to another.

Like people stated, this is not some artificial (actual) intelligence humming away coming up with stuff.

It's human beings manipulating a tool for an end purpose, something we've been doing most of the history of homo sapiens, and we're likely going to get it right at least on a few occasions. Which is amazing. Now, if I'm not actually violating anyone's copyrights, like legitimately, not using the bullshit plagiarism standard, then I don't see the problem. And if you liked what I made, I don't see the problem x2.

Currently, I'm not sure there's a way to use many of these tools without fucking writers, artists, musicians, and actors over. That needs to be fixed.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Currently, I'm not sure there's a way to use many of these tools without fucking writers, artists, musicians, and actors over. That needs to be fixed.

Self driving vehicles are going to fuck truck drivers, cabbies, and delivery drivers. Should we do something about that?
Technology is always disruptive, hundreds of different types of jobs have been replaced, or reduced to niche professions by technology, why do artists deserve some special protections?

 

[AlexBailey]

Self driving vehicles are going to fuck truck drivers, cabbies, and delivery drivers. Should we do something about that?
Technology is always disruptive, hundreds of different types of jobs have been replaced, or reduced to niche professions by technology, why do artists deserve some special protections?

Right?

“Typewriter”, “calculator”, and “computer “ used to be professions.

Tape measures and portable hand drills were banned by some labor unions when they first became available, now they are essential items for most construction and manufacturing jobs.

If we banned traffic lights every busy street corner could provide a job for a traffic cop.

Musicians got screwed by the recording industry. Back before audio recording if you wanted to listen to music someone needed to play it live.

When was the last time you spoke with a live telephone operator? When was the last time you bought a paper street map?

My grandfather was a mechanic who owned a service station, the only tools out of his entire collection that are worth using today are an all steel ball peen hammer and a crowbar.


I’m sounding like an old coot. “Back in my days…”

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Right?

“Typewriter”, “calculator”, and “computer “ used to be professions.

Tape measures and portable hand drills were banned by some labor unions when they first became available, now they are essential items for most construction and manufacturing jobs.

If we banned traffic lights every busy street corner could provide a job for a traffic cop.

Musicians got screwed by the recording industry. Back before audio recording if you wanted to listen to music someone needed to play it live.

When was the last time you spoke with a live telephone operator? When was the last time you bought a paper street map?

I’m sounding like an old coot. “Back in my days…”

And the funny thing is, people STILL go to concerts. Recorded music didn't kill live music.
Movies didn't kill live theater, and television didn't kill movies.

There will always be a place for art, and AI doesn't create art anymore than a camera does. It's a tool to be used by an artist.

 

[SimonDoom]

And the funny thing is, people STILL go to concerts. Recorded music didn't kill live music.
Movies didn't kill live theater, and television didn't kill movies.

There will always be a place for art, and AI doesn't create art anymore than a camera does. It's a tool to be used by an artist.

I agree totally. I can recall back in the early 80s, with the rise of "synth-pop," and a friend of mine insisted that soon all instruments would be replaced with synthesizers. Well, of course, that didn't happen, because real human beings will always appreciate real music played on real instruments, and they're never going to want to stop going to live concerts.

I have no idea what's going to happen in the future. Neither does anyone else. But if I had to guess I'd say that some form of transhumanism is likely. We can't beat AI, and it's unlikely we can contain it, so we'll have to join it. We'll find ways of incorporating it into, and enhancing, our own abilities, as opposed to competing with them. I've never thought of the "SkyNet v. humanity" scenario as being very likely.

On the other hand, almost all of my recent political predictions have been wrong, so what do I know?

 

[alohadave]

I agree totally. I can recall back in the early 80s, with the rise of "synth-pop," and a friend of mine insisted that soon all instruments would be replaced with synthesizers. Well, of course, that didn't happen, because real human beings will always appreciate real music played on real instruments, and they're never going to want to stop going to live concerts.

I grew up on that music, and while I love them for what they are, I can't help but to wonder now how they'd sound with the traditional instruments they were replacing with the synth.

An example I really love is Mad World by Tears for Fears. The original is total synthpop and fast. Gary Jules did an acoustic cover with only a piano and slowed it way down. It's almost a different song. I almost can't listen to the original song now.

I'm not sure what my point is...maybe it's that we shouldn't be too afraid of new tech and find a way to make it work for us.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

I grew up on that music, and while I love them for what they are, I can't help but to wonder now how they'd sound with the traditional instruments they were replacing with the synth.

An example I really love is Mad World by Tears for Fears. The original is total synthpop and fast. Gary Jules did an acoustic cover with only a piano and slowed it way down. It's almost a different song. I almost can't listen to the original song now.

I'm not sure what my point is...maybe it's that we shouldn't be too afraid of new tech and find a way to make it work for us.

Except for autotune. Autotune is from from the 69th level of hell and should be cast back to whence it came.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I'm not sure what my point is...maybe it's that we shouldn't be too afraid of new tech and find a way to make it work for us.

Absolutely this.
And sometimes it works going the other way.

A "rocker" that takes on a whole new flavor done with synthesizers.
There is room for all kinds of music.

 

[CalebZhass]

And the funny thing is, people STILL go to concerts. Recorded music didn't kill live music.
Movies didn't kill live theater, and television didn't kill movies.

There will always be a place for art, and AI doesn't create art anymore than a camera does. It's a tool to be used by an artist.

This made me think about Queen's Radio Ga Ga

It has a section in it that's pretty much a cry about times gone by and technology leaving us behind:

We watch the shows, we watch the stars
On videos for hours and hours
We hardly need to use our ears
How music changes through the years

Let's hope you never leave, old friend
Like all good things, on you we depend
So stick around, 'cause we might miss you
When we grow tired of all this visual

You had your time, you had the power
You've yet to have your finest hour
Radio

I mean, all we would have to do is substitute radio and video for AI and human art and we'd be there

 

[Kelliezgirl]

This made me think about Queen's Radio Ga Ga

It has a line in it that's pretty much a cry about times gone by and technology leaving us behind:

I mean, all we would have to do is substitute radio and video for AI and human art and we'd be there

And yet, apologies to the Bugles, Video did NOT in fact kill the radio star.

 

[SimonDoom]

And yet, apologies to the Bugles, Video did NOT in fact kill the radio star.

I would argue that video has had some negative impact on music, in that it has refocused attention to how musical stars look as opposed to how they sing. Britney Spears would be totally impossible without video because her voice would never hold up on its own without the jailbait videos.

But that doesn't mean I wish the rise of video had never happened. On balance it enhances the experience for people and it doesn't stop people from creating good music if they want to.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I would argue that video has had some negative impact on music, in that it has refocused attention to how musical stars look as opposed to how they sing. Britney Spears would be totally impossible without video because her voice would never hold up on its own without the jailbait videos.

But that doesn't mean I wish the rise of video had never happened. On balance it enhances the experience for people and it doesn't stop people from creating good music if they want to.

True, but at least for the Rock and Roll era (from Elvis on) even before MTV and music videos being conventionally attractive has been important for women to succeed in the music industry. There are lots of unattractive male rock stars, vanishingly few female ones.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

I would argue that video has had some negative impact on music, in that it has refocused attention to how musical stars look as opposed to how they sing. Britney Spears would be totally impossible without video because her voice would never hold up on its own without the jailbait videos.

But that doesn't mean I wish the rise of video had never happened. On balance it enhances the experience for people and it doesn't stop people from creating good music if they want to.

Like all new innovations, it allowed for some people that otherwise wouldn't have had the opportunity to achieve success to do so, but I'll challenge anyone to tell me Thriller didn't elevate all of popular music to anther level and in the best of ways.

 

[AlexBailey]

The future of “live” entertainment?I

The Star Trek holodeck isn't so far fetched any more.

 

[CalebZhass]

Like all new innovations, it allowed for some people that otherwise wouldn't have had the opportunity to achieve success to do so, but I'll challenge anyone to tell me Thriller didn't elevate all of popular music to anther level and in the best of ways.

Let's be honest, its not quite just Thriller, but the entire career of that guy

 

[Kelliezgirl]

The future of “live” entertainment?I

The Star Trek holodeck isn't so far fetched any more.

Who's job was it to mop the holodeck floor? You know some of the ratings got freaky in there.

 

[alohadave]

Absolutely this.
And sometimes it works going the other way.

A "rocker" that takes on a whole new flavor done with synthesizers.
There is room for all kinds of music.

I love the Cannons.

Whose job was it to mop the holodeck floor? You know some of the ratings got freaky in there.

Transporters whisk it all away, back into the raw materials storage.

Maybe there is someone with a janitor fantasy that does that kind of thing to relax.

 

[EroticFriction]

There is a huge gap between a camera, which is a tool that does not require any other intellectual property to function, and current ai tools in discussion like stable diffusion and chatGPT which are currently being trained in copyrighted works without the authors and artists consent.

Any tool can be used for good or for bad, that's not the issue. The real issue to me is, why should Microsoft et al be allowed to use my copyrighted or otherwise legally protected work without permission to enhance their quarterly statement?

I use AI type tools that are not trained on LLMs or other data trawls in my profession, no issue there.

 

[AlexBailey]

There is a huge gap between a camera, which is a tool that does not require any other intellectual property to function, and current ai tools in discussion like stable diffusion and chatGPT which are currently being trained in copyrighted works without the authors and artists consent.

Any tool can be used for good or for bad, that's not the issue. The real issue to me is, why should Microsoft et al be allowed to use my copyrighted or otherwise legally protected work without permission to enhance their quarterly statement?

I use AI type tools that are not trained on LLMs or other data trawls in my profession, no issue there.

I understand this argument in the sense of having engineers select specific works to put into the machine, but don’t artists copy techniques and styles?

Music is chock full of theory with a huge pedantic hierarchy trying to define what is right and what isn’t - at least in classical and jazz. There have been lawsuits about recycling chord progressions and similar themes. The Beatles and Bob Dylan have been freely copied in style while royalties are still collected for their original works.

When (not if) AI androids walk among the population, is their input and experience going to be regulated more than a human’s influences are?

Are you stealing from other artists when you go to a museum or a concert and come away inspired?

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I understand this argument in the sense of having engineers select specific works to put into the machine, but don’t artists copy techniques and styles?

Music is chock full of theory with a huge pedantic hierarchy trying to define what is right and what isn’t - at least in classical and jazz. There have been lawsuits about recycling chord progressions and similar themes. The Beatles and Bob Dylan have been freely copied in style while royalties are still collected for their original works.

When (not if) AI androids walk among the population, is their input and experience going to be regulated more than a human’s influences are?

Are you stealing from other artists when you go to a museum or a concert and come away inspired?

Excellent point.
I read Neil Gaiman and it influences my work: perfectly acceptable.
AI reads Neil Gaiman and it influences its work: unacceptable.

The real difference is people are afraid of AI taking their job, me, not so much.

 

[forgotmyantidepressants]

I have probably spent one too many hours thinking about this topic in recent months, but I always came down to the same question. Why? What makes our creativity so special. I mean if we exclude the esoteric, like souls or divine aspects of existence and consider life as purely a biological function, we are little more than very complex biochemical machines that can think for themselves.

We are slowly reaching the point where we can recreate these same complexities in our own designs.

What is to say, that if we mimic our brains completely (or even surpass it in its complexity), then what we create would not have the same, or even bigger capacity to have emotions, be creative.. to have a soul of their own.

I mean if we assume that there is something beyond our scientific grasp that we will never be able to recreate, a soul of sorts, then the equation becomes simple, the AI will never be able to become our equals in art.

Being a rational man and not having any evidence to support the existence of a soul, I am more inclined to lean towards the first scenario. I can from my part accept the second version as an explanation, even if it makes any subsequent discussion of the subject moot for obvious reasons.

In a weird way, I would love that to be the case, as that would mean there is still hope for us. That we cannot just create something better than us, making ourselves obsolete in the process.


You are right of course, for where AI is today. What I am contemplating here is where our future lies, as the AI you see today will seem ridiculously, utterly basic in just 5 years, maybe even sooner.

As for training, yes. The AI is trained on existing material, just like you are. The difference between you and the AI is that your brain is still vastly more complex than the AI's and can form connections that the current generation AIs are simply not complex enough to mimic. What is knowledge after all, what is creativity? How do we come up with a new idea? Does it just suddenly pop into existence out of nothing, or is it maybe our brain combining a myriad of different aspects of our past life experiences? If its the latter, which I honestly believe it to be, then the AI being truly creative is just a matter of neural network complexity and the amount of data it was trained on.

Sidenote: the amount of data we are talking about is already staggering. ChatGPT is easily most knowledgable and in certain ways 'smarter', than any other human being currently or ever alive, when it comes to how much it knows. What it lacks yet is the ability to make refined enough connections between various bits and pieces of information it has digested.

Because a person made it.

I don't know if souls are real or not, but when a person is born into the world, they are truly unique. There has never been a person exactly the same as they are, and there will never be another exactly like them. They will grow up and live a unique life. That's cool.

Let's say this person is brimming with creative ideas they want to express based on the life experiences they've had. So they sit down and make art. I am of the opinion that bad art is worth making because while other humans enjoy the art of others, art is for the person making it. It's very introspective. An artists work is unique and special because they made it. The creator makes art special. So does their effort. Knowing that a person put their heart and soul into making and perfecting their work makes me so happy. I love seeing people be passionate about their craft. It would kill me to see that taken away from them because our society wants things fast and cheap.

Look at A Song of Ice and Fire by George R.R. Martin. That series remains unfinished. People have feed his work into a machine because they want to know how it ends. But what they are starting to find is that an ending created by anyone (or thing) other than Martin will never be the "real" ending. Why? Because he is the artist. He is what makes that series wonderful.

If we have machines churning out soulless garbage at the push of a button for the soul purpose of being consumed, we rob ourselves of something wonderful. Art is a shared experience between human beings making things to inspire, entertain, teach, confront, etc. one another. That is beautiful and wonderful and uniquely human. And I fear we will lose that and it makes me very sad.

 

[forgotmyantidepressants]

I came back to add this...

I also write non-erotic stories. There is a platform called Royal Road where people post fantasy and sci-fi stories. To get it views, you pretty much have to have a cool "book" cover. I used ai to generate a cover and put it up. Sure enough, I got more views. I was happy.

But one day, I was screwing around on Reddit (terrible habit. I don't recommend it), and an author was lambasting all the bad ai book covers he saw on Twitter, saying, "If you care about art, you will not use ai or support people who do."

I, of course, took great offense. I care about my art very much and want to share it with others. I used ai as a tool promote my work. I can't afford a cover artist, so I tried to find a shortcut. After arguing with this person, I realized he was right. By using ai, I robbed an artist of a financial opportunity and of the opportunity to make something. I tried to  cheat.

I took my bad ai cover down and deleted it. My story has barely any views. I still can't afford a cover artist, but I learned my lesson. I cannot profess to be passionate about art and use ai. I cannot support others who use ai to cheat.

 

[samhasstories]

Because a person made it.

I don't know if souls are real or not, but when a person is born into the world, they are truly unique. There has never been a person exactly the same as they are, and there will never be another exactly like them. They will grow up and live a unique life. That's cool.

Let's say this person is brimming with creative ideas they want to express based on the life experiences they've had. So they sit down and make art. I am of the opinion that bad art is worth making because while other humans enjoy the art of others, art is for the person making it. It's very introspective. An artists work is unique and special because they made it. The creator makes art special. So does their effort. Knowing that a person put their heart and soul into making and perfecting their work makes me so happy. I love seeing people be passionate about their craft. It would kill me to see that taken away from them because our society wants things fast and cheap.

Look at A Song of Ice and Fire by George R.R. Martin. That series remains unfinished. People have feed his work into a machine because they want to know how it ends. But what they are starting to find is that an ending created by anyone (or thing) other than Martin will never be the "real" ending. Why? Because he is the artist. He is what makes that series wonderful.

If we have machines churning out soulless garbage at the push of a button for the soul purpose of being consumed, we rob ourselves of something wonderful. Art is a shared experience between human beings making things to inspire, entertain, teach, confront, etc. one another. That is beautiful and wonderful and uniquely human. And I fear we will lose that and it makes me very sad.

Agreed. The reason I'm interested in art is because it's human.

It's conceivable that AI will get better and better at imitating art. Maybe we'll even be fooled. If I read a novel that I absolutely loved, thought the writing was perfect, the characters deep and interesting, and then you told me that it was generated entirely by AI, that would ultimately leave me cold. It wouldn't take away the experience I had enjoying the work in the first place, but that would forever be an asterisk beside my appreciation. My interest in that novel would be as a curiosity, as an impressive simulation. Maybe it would qualify as art - I'm not really interested in that debate, since it's so subjective. But it isn't any kind of art I'm interested in.

As a tool, AI is interesting, and worth developing, exploring, making people's jobs easier, etc. Its output could be used to inspire creativity, to help generate and explore ideas. But I don't see it replacing human-made art. What would be the point of that?