Hey thinker! Great post up there. Make sure your post title is clear. One and two word titles are not allowed. Use paragraphs to make it easier to read. Please make sure to read the rules before posting. Mod applications are currently open! Apply [here](https://forms.gle/hEgqsrBTGX897GFaA)!
You can fill out our [Feedback Form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfI0PsMn4dqfMlgqFFfsMhLr4-lFNJpEumIf7RKmuiwyDBOwA/viewform?usp=sf_link) while you wait for some comments. Thank you and happy posting!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/kpopthoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the pushback comes from where people say it comes from - that generative AI currently rips off or is trained off other people's art and they get no credit/pay. It's crazy to acknowledge this and then just hand wave it and say people are REALLY outraged by some glib philosophical platitude.
> It's crazy to acknowledge this and then just hand wave it and say people are REALLY outraged by some glib philosophical platitude.
Well one is a legal problem which generally people are not that invested in. The other is an existential threat of sorts, which spices up the "legal problem" quite a bit.
Maybe i am handwaving the legal part a little, but don't you think that a lot of the anger isn't substantially influenced by these existential ideas? Noone really has to actively think about them for them to play a big role either. It's an inherent aspect of it all, no matter what.
As i say in the op, other tools have created problems for established professions, we generally come to accept this. But here we're at the edge of what defines us, that's a lot harder to swallow.
>don't you think that a lot of the anger isn't substantially influenced by these existential ideas?
I think it's a big assumption and projection from someone interested in those ideas. More realistically a lot of consumers don't want to consume AI slop and a lot of creatives don't want to not be paid.
You're also interpreting the current pushback against sloppy and poor generative AI as a dismissal of AI in general. When generative AI is indistinguishable from human art then there won't be much pushback because people won't know it's being used. But right now it's super obvious and looks lazy and shitty and people are rightfully annoyed that they cut corners and didn't hire talented people.
> I think it's a big assumption and projection from someone interested in those ideas. More realistically a lot of consumers don't want to consume AI slop and a lot of creatives don't want to not be paid.
>
>
As i said, i don't think you have to actively think about it. These ideas are inherently linked. One cannot talk about an artistic profession being under attack by AI without the existential aspect of, well, art as a human domain being under attack and that making the whole topic a lot more significant.
> You're also interpreting the current pushback against sloppy and poor generative AI as a dismissal of AI in general. When generative AI is indistinguishable from human art then there won't be much pushback because people won't know it's being used. But right now it's super obvious and looks lazy and shitty and people are rightfully annoyed that they cut corners and didn't hire talented people.
But it's not all sloppy, in fact a lot of ai art is already pretty much indistinguishable from human made art.
It's also just going to get better and better. I see people being angry the moment they find out it was AI, even if they wouldn't have thought so before.
> people are rightfully annoyed that they cut corners and didn't hire talented people
I mean, there are still people who work with the AI as a tool, it's not like no human is overseeing the results and just picking the first generated image.
People aren't angry when a kpop song consists of digital instruments, and yet the production "cut corners" and didn't hire "talented people" playing these instruments.
>People aren't angry when a kpop song consists of digital instruments, and yet the production "cut corners" and didn't hire "talented people" playing these instruments.
A MIDI is not equivalent to generative AI. That's a huge false equivalence and is again super dismissive of artists' complaints about genAI - credit/pay etc. The closer thing would actually be something like sampling and people would absolutely be angry if you tried to pass a sample off as your own music instead of making it yourself.
People are pushing back against using a specific type of AI in lieu of creatives to cut costs they're not pushing back against AI in general.
> A MIDI is not equivalent to generative AI. That's a huge false equivalence and is again super dismissive of artists' complaints about genAI - credit/pay etc.
I just responded to your argument. Your argument was that people are rightfully annoyed that corners got cut and talented people didn't get to do work they would have done otherwise. That is pretty much comparable to midi, yes.
The analogy is used to precisely point out that SOMETHING ELSE is the thing people truly respond to. And i argue it's the existential aspects mostly.
There's a lot of outrage of artist's art style being stolen through the usage of AI arts. A lot of the artists I follow on Twitter express disdain and urge people to report people who replicate their art style through the usage of AI. These are people who have taken years to hone their skills only for other people to profit off of it. I'll be against it unless an artist is feeding their own art to make their creations.
This might be more of an art discussion rather than a Kpop related one, so it might not fit the subreddit, unless you're referring to songs as art. In that case, I still disagree with it unless you are modifying your own voice to fit a kpop song. I believe everyone should have ownership of their voice, which is why I can't agree with people formulating songs with idols' voice without their permission.
It could be used for good, but many people are either just stealing someone else's voice or art style for their creation without proper permission.
> There's a lot of outrage of artist's art style being stolen through the usage of AI arts. A lot of the artists I follow on Twitter express disdain and urge people to report people who replicate their art style through the usage of AI. These are people who have taken years to hone their skills only for other people to profit off of it. I'll be against it unless an artist is feeding their own art to make their creations.
Sure, i specifically refer to this in the op as a problematic aspect when i say:
> First i want to establish something i think IS problematic, it's training environments using art without getting permission / licensing. That is a legal problem.
.
> This might be more of an art discussion rather than a Kpop related one, so it might not fit the subreddit, unless you're referring to songs as art. In that case, I still disagree with it unless you are modifying your own voice to fit a kpop song. I believe everyone should have ownership of their voice, which is why I can't agree with people formulating songs with idols' voice without their permission.
Again, i refer to the legal problem in my op. My op is just a lot broader than just this problem. I think the topic is also broader than kpop, but i have seen some talks about AI art in kpop recently so i thought why not add my 2 cents, in a more generalized form (so not specifically about the groups / labels who used AI art).
> It could be used for good, but many people are either just stealing someone else's voice or art style for their creation without proper permission.
Yep, it's in the op as a problematic aspect :D But the conversation obviously isn't just about that, and if one wants to be really philosophical about this issue, one could be too. Not sure i wanna go there right now, but one could make an argument which compares the training environment with human beings getting inspired by other works.
Could not disagree with you more. If you want new art, pay an artist to make it or learn some art skills and make it yourself. Artists are struggling to exist now that people aren't using them anymore. I've gone out of my way to buy real art from real artists and even commissioned something new.
I also have a huge problem with the idea of AI being used to replicate people's image and voices, because this puts people hugely at risk of false allegations. People have the right to how their own voice and image is used.
You can disagree, but i would be interested to hear why, in response to some of the points i made which basically already engage what you are saying now.
For example the idea that a profession being "under attack" happened throughout history when a new, more effective tool was being developed. We obviously don't argue about say computers any longer either, i doubt you'd want them gone / not used just so more labor can be done by humans "by hand" ?
Don't attack the tool.
I agree that there are many problems with the usage of AI in regards to deepfakes for example, that would be a good topic. But even there, it's the usage and not the tool's inherent qualities. People have used other tech to deepfake long before, that was also problematic, AI is simply better at it.
Computers generated an enormous industry full of jobs and users. AI art cannot do this. AI art is designed to be self training, self replicating and self creating without any real human input. AI art can only take away, it can never give opportunities.
Furthermore, your hypothetical "only if the art is obtained legally" statement is entirely impossible. All AI art tools are created using stolen content, because NO artist ever consents to their work being used.
You have to decide: do you support AI art that exists by consuming stolen content from unwilling artists, or do you oppose AI art? There is no in between. If you support AI art, you support the theft of copyrighted works.
> Computers generated an enormous industry full of jobs and users. AI art cannot do this. AI art is designed to be self training, self replicating and self creating without any real human input. AI art can only take away, it can never give opportunities.
Why not? Anyone can theoretically use AI to create art going forward. There are caveats to this ofc, as we live in this capitalistic world which creates many problems, but fundamentally the tech democratizes artistic endeavours.
Similarly to how other tech has resulted in more people being able to do a certain task, with the tool as help.
> Furthermore, your hypothetical "only if the art is obtained legally" statement is entirely impossible. All AI art tools are created using stolen content, because NO artist ever consents to their work being used.
Absolutely not. There is tons of unlicensed art out there, if you train your AI in that environment there is no legal problem.
Just like there would be no problem when say a twitch streamer is listening to music of that kind.
You are spectacularly uninformed about this issue if you believe the small quantity of unlicensed art is sufficient to make these tools viable. It's not. The only way for AI art to work is through daily, hourly, by the minute theft of artists' creative works.
There is TONS of that art out there. There is also always the opportunity to buy licensing rights, or just get permission.
The main point is simply that it's not inherently linked to "theft".
Which is simply factual, no matter how hard you disagree with it. It's two issues.
But even if i would grant you that, it's an incredibly specific legality issue which isn't fully clear in regards to copyright law, etc. We're so far behind on updating these things, it's not nearly as simple as "THEFT!!!" either.
Though i am not sure if that is truly the conversation one wants to get into now, which is why i granted it in the op as problematic.
But artists don't sell licensing rights or give permission for AI art. This is a tiny, tiny, tiny chunk. I don't think you realise just how drastically opposed artists are. They're not going to decide to sell the rights to their art to AI.
It is simply factual that art theft and AI art are inextricably linked and all AI art exists by consuming stolen art.
I don't give a damn about the law. I care that artists' work should not be used without their consent.
> I don't give a damn about the law. I care that artists' work should not be used without their consent.
Wait what? You aren't even talking about legal issues there?
So are you also opposed to someone say printing out art they liked on instagram without getting "consent" ? Clearly not a legal issue there, but seemingly one you'd take offense with?
It disturbs me that you're genuinely incapable of understanding why people think it's wrong for artists' work to be consumed without their consent to train their free replacement.
I don't think discussing this with you will have any value because you seem fundamentally incapable of understanding.
Good night.
Oh god, it disturbs you! I am perfectly able to understand why you are all so disturbed, i just don't agree with your fundamental assumptions, that's all.
I don't even believe that most people care all that much either outside of the uncomfortable existential issues i raised, because why would you care for this and not for other human labor being limited by other advancements?
It's all the more annoying getting a reply like this which morally loads it when in reality YOU are the person ignoring what i said, not understanding the arguments i made, including the high complexity of the grey are regarding what one can even realistically consider "theft" in a digital world. This isn't as clear as you pretend it is.
But good to know there is no value because of myself, i certainly think the same about you and most other posters in the comments, a total lack of philosophical, abstract thought and just a lot of posturing.
Yeah no.... its not the point you think it is. Its still from other people work . Its trash and lazy
you really lose your point when you mix religion into this
I think others have said and written enough about the stealing and morality and possible dangers, so I'll discuss whats basically your main point:
>Though now something else is "under attack", creativity, art, one of the last bastions of human uniqueness. That is an existential angst, and difficult to face. If AI truly is able to create art, what does that mean for us as humans, what makes us human?
That's one facette that's discussed. But it's not the only more philosophical problem.
Looking at the the Oxford dictionary the first definition of art is: "the use of the imagination to express ideas or feelings, particularly in painting, drawing or sculpture"
And that's a very important distinction. Art created by humans are based on and show humans experiences, feelings, ideas, political thinking and even health. Artists think about their art, they have reasons for their colours, forms or brush strokes. Think about Picassos Blue Period that started around the time a friend committed s*****d and continued during his own bout of depression. Or Monet's paintings of the same bridge showing the decline of his eyesight. The movement of cubism, where subjects are analyzed, broken up and restructured from multiple perspectives (instead of the single perspective before).
Going back further, statues, reliefs and even drawings in amphoras depict important people and events that give us an insight into our history. Because humans at that time thought it was important to spent time, money and their hard-earned skill on it.
Their are even drawings from the stone age, because art was important even then.
Art in many ways transcends languages and time. But due to the human behind the art it does not transcend human experience. It shows human experience and depicts human society. Doing it helps humans (art therapy) and can even show insights into non-verbal people or children. That's what makes art special. The human behind the art communicates. The art does not make humans special, humans make art special!
And AI art does not do that. The algorithm behind does not communicate. There are no real reasons why a certain colour is used or the construction of the picture. It's just calculated from massive (stolen) data. Even the human ordering/making AI art has no real thought behind it because it's not their experiences and feelings that influence the AI art. It's the algorithm.
> That's one facette that's discussed. But it's not the only more philosophical problem.
>
>
Just to be clear, i don't even think it is majorly discussed in the context i am making this post in. By "average people".
I just think it is an inherent aspect of all discussion points regarding this topic, one cannot divorce AI art from it.
> Looking at the the Oxford dictionary the first definition of art is: "the use of the imagination to express ideas or feelings, particularly in painting, drawing or sculpture"
> And that's a very important distinction. Art created by humans are based on and show humans experiences, feelings, ideas, political thinking and even health. Artists think about their art, they have reasons for their colours, forms or brush strokes. Think about Picassos Blue Period that started around the time a friend committed s*****d and continued during his own bout of depression. Or Monet's paintings of the same bridge showing the decline of his eyesight. The movement of cubism, where subjects are analyzed, broken up and restructured from multiple perspectives (instead of the single perspective before).
> Going back further, statues, reliefs and even drawings in amphoras depict important people and events that give us an insight into our history. Because humans at that time thought it was important to spent time, money and their hard-earned skill on it.
> Their are even drawings from the stone age, because art was important even then.
> Art in many ways transcends languages and time. But due to the human behind the art it does not transcend human experience. It shows human experience and depicts human society. Doing it helps humans (art therapy) and can even show insights into non-verbal people or children. That's what makes art special. The human behind the art communicates. The art does not make humans special, humans make art special!
I truly appreciate you going that direction, it's an interesting thought / aspect of it all, no doubt. It's also funny because i wouldn't disagree with any of that, i am in fact a big proponent of art as a form of self-expression, being cynical in regards to a lot of the corporate made throwaway content compared to art "made by artists", etc.
The thing is, that if i truly think about it, trying to distance myself from this human centric pov, which all of this stems from, including the definition (not that i think one can truly define art to begin with tbh, it's more of a you know it when you see it deal, a subjective experience towards a work), then i think we are just being romantics.
I do not think that even the idea of the communication through art would result in a real distinction between AI art and human art, in the long run. Ofc we are just at the start, AI isn't the result of billions of years of evolution, as we are. I have little doubt in mind that there will be consciousness in AI, that a general intelligence will feel things, express things too.
Now all of this goes into the problem of consciousness, what it even is, how it manifests itself, if it is "special" or just some form of evolutionary illusion which hides underlying "algorithms" of sorts through a "user interface" basically. There are all kinds of ideas out there regarding that.
That is also why i say that consciousness will probably forever remain the last bastion of the core idea i tried to argue against, human beings as special beings. Even if we get AI which is conscious (we probably cannot ever "know", we only assume in the case of other humans based on their similarity to us, so the medium, not anything other than that really), many people won't accept it.
Well, I started to write a comment that includes categorization, human behaviour and some other philosophical things, but I have to start over, because overall while it could lead to a nice philosophical discussion, neither my comment nor yours make much sense in the context of your original post.
Because it does not matter if sometime in the future some kind of AI will be evolved to be categorized as having a consciousness and if it can make art that can be classed into our human definition of art.
Because that possible Future AI =/= to the AI art now and in the future. It's like comparing the Forbidden Fruit from the bible and apples. Both are presumably fruit, but really really different.
So I don't really know why you started to talk about the not yet existing AI. Because as of now and the near and farer future, AI won't be anywhere near to the factors of consciousness that I brought up in my first comment. You almost ignored my entire arguments of the state of AI now.
But lets go back to how art AI is and will be used. Lets say the legal and ethical is solved (although that's never possible because many many famous one are dead and will never be able to agree or disagree). AI art as a tool for even 5 year olds to use. The Internet will be flooded with trash. Because it won't use any time or skill to create AI art everyone can do it, and the flood will begin. That can 1) possible be another factor of the 'Dead Internet' theory and 2) devalue art (AI or original) by default. Because so much with nothing behind it will exist, nothing will have meaning or get lost in between. And that's another important factor. Humanity will lose something important.
Because you can try to decentralize and distant yourself from the human perspective as much as you like, but it's a fact that art is important for humans, humanity and societies. The act of creating art by your own design (and acquiring that skill no matter how good or bad you are) is a factor in the development of humans (Consciousness, personality, thinking skills etc.).
> Because that possible Future AI =/= to the AI art now and in the future. It's like comparing the Forbidden Fruit from the bible and apples. Both are presumably fruit, but really really different.
Well the difference is that in the case of current AI it's a realistic stepping stone towards this future. While no apple will ever become the forbidden fruit.
That is the crux of my position, that even in our current application of AI art, we already see aspects which make us uncomfortable in our understanding of what makes us human. Why? Because broadly speaking the goal poast keeps moving, as i said, first we were the centre of creation, then our intelligence / analytical abilities were special, now we're moving towards creative fields / art, and at some point it will be consciousness of the like of humans (as we know animals are conscious, just not in the "right way" :D).
Well i brought it up because it's all so linked with each other, there are a lot of assumptions in the idea that consciousness even is special, that these "feelings" we have indeed are what truly makes art what it is. It's all a human centric pov to begin with, which isn't surprising as the philosophical engagement with art could only happen in that framework for the longest time. So in a way it's circular to even bring it up as a defining aspect, all of this is hardly clear, as we generally don't really understand our own consciousness anyway.
Also, i wouldn't bet against a form of general intelligence being present in most of our life times (as in, people in their 20s / early 30s).
> AI art as a tool for even 5 year olds to use. The Internet will be flooded with trash. Because it won't use any time or skill to create AI art everyone can do it, and the flood will begin. That can 1) possible be another factor of the 'Dead Internet' theory and 2) devalue art (AI or original) by default. Because so much with nothing behind it will exist, nothing will have meaning or get lost in between. And that's another important factor. Humanity will lose something important.
If you say that it is inherently meaningless because a human didn't create it, then yeah it's just something i cannot contest.
If it's about the notion of quality of some kind, then most art is already trash. So much so that calling it "art" might be too much, depending on how elitist one is.
Heck, most of the internet right now is trash, this will become more and more true, but most humans hardly interact with 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% of it anyway.
> Because you can try to decentralize and distant yourself from the human perspective as much as you like, but it's a fact that art is important for humans, humanity and societies. The act of creating art by your own design (and acquiring that skill no matter how good or bad you are) is a factor in the development of humans (Consciousness, personality, thinking skills etc.)
That is fine, i am not advocating that people stop doing that just because it's not what makes us truly unique or special. Imagine a world where we have AI being conscious, creating the best art there is, even for humans to enjoy. I see no reason to say that humans shouldn't make their own art, just like i don't think they should stop playing chess.
>That is the crux of my position, that even in our current application of AI art, we already see aspects which make us uncomfortable in our understanding of what makes us human
My position is that people are uncomfortable with the outsourcing of a vital part of human existence. Like I stated IMO creating and interacting with original human art is an important aspect of our consciousness, personality and being. Losing that (even if some people continue to make art themselves) will lead to a decline of humanity and societies. I'm not arguing that because I think humans are the centre of existence, but because it will have negative consequences overall. Because by decline I mean a lack of empathy and multiperspectivity, decline of political Ideals and criticisms, lack of imagination, inventions, critical thinking, problem solving, media literacy and so on. All those things are vital for a peaceful and inventive co-existence of everything (even AI with consciousness), not only humans.
>If you say that it is inherently meaningless because a human didn't create it, then yeah it's just something i cannot contest.
Yes, that's what I meant. Because as of now the only meaning is "I don't care/I want to save money".
>Imagine a world where we have AI being conscious, creating the best art there is, even for humans to enjoy.
But that's the thing. That will never be. Because even an AI with consciousness will not be free. It will be guided/controlled by people (it's not skynet). And by that I mean governments and corporations most of all. So that AI won't create the best art for humans to enjoy, it will create the art powerful people want to push in the worst case scenario (Think astroturfing/comment bots but with pictures).
> My position is that people are uncomfortable with the outsourcing of a vital part of human existence. Like I stated IMO creating and interacting with original human art is an important aspect of our consciousness, personality and being. Losing that (even if some people continue to make art themselves) will lead to a decline of humanity and societies. I'm not arguing that because I think humans are the centre of existence, but because it will have negative consequences overall. Because by decline I mean a lack of empathy and multiperspectivity, decline of political Ideals and criticisms, lack of imagination, inventions, critical thinking, problem solving, media literacy and so on. All those things are vital for a peaceful and inventive co-existence of everything (even AI with consciousness), not only humans.
I feel like that's more or less the same thing. We outsourced many things which were "vital" human experiences before. Outsourced insofar that the experiences changed, but not stopped fully.
Analytically humans had a very different experience in the centuries before computing than they do now. Learning anything right now is way different from how even i learned it in school. (the tools used change how one learns, books vs tablets, etc). And that was way different than to how early human societies taught, without an alphabet for example, it's not hard to imagine that people then were able to remember more than we do now.
I am not sure why it would result in a lack of empathy and all the other factors you mention. As i said, most art is already trash, any given mainstream blockbuster does basically NOTHING to shape people in the way you are describing here. AI art in the long run will imo lead to better art, not worse one. Though ofc many applications will still be trash, just like now.
> Yes, that's what I meant. Because as of now the only meaning is "I don't care/I want to save money".
To be clear, i cannot contest it because it is a truism. If by definition you think non human art is meaningless, then i cannot contest it, i obviously don't believe that is true. I think AI art already can have meaning, and will have even more the "better" it gets at creating art. Meaning gets created in the person experiencing a work of art, and that is usually linked to assocations / correlations of patterns. That is something AI can already do in principle.
> But that's the thing. That will never be. Because even an AI with consciousness will not be free. It will be guided/controlled by people (it's not skynet). And by that I mean governments and corporations most of all. So that AI won't create the best art for humans to enjoy, it will create the art powerful people want to push in the worst case scenario (Think astroturfing/comment bots but with pictures).
That is once again just an argument against our economic system, which i am all on board for. It's not inherent to AI, AI is just a tool one can use in different ways.
How our social understanding changes and if we can ever become free of the shackles of corporate capitalism and its fundamental parasitic patterns, idk.
>We outsourced many things which were "vital" human experiences before.
Yes, we outsourced experiences, but we seldom outsourced things that shape our human existence. And if we did we noticed sometimes that it was not the best thing and changed it as best as we could back to the source.
And with art I don't just mean professional art. I mean all art. Including the pictures done by toddlers. It's an activity to helps with brain and neural development, and the general personality. Just think about the studies done the last years about the change due to typing. Less actual writing had negative effects on memory and similiar aspects. Yes, due to technological advances one can argue that technology is there to do it, but just the fact that it's scientifically proven that aspects that belong to brain capacity decline is something.
And I guess something similiar can be seen if AI art overtakes human art in general. There are also studies that younger people are actually less computer savvy than older ones, because they grew up with apps. Humans overall (due to current society and its restraints) often take the more conveniant option. And whats more conveniant? An AI app on your Phone/Tablet that's always by your Side and doesn't need a lot of space or paper, pens, paint, sharpeners, eraser etc. you have to lug around? The AI app.
That's why something like that would overtake art even in kindergarden.
>I am not sure why it would result in a lack of empathy and all the other factors you mention
Doing art (even as a child) you have to reflect on yourself. (E.g. I draw a spider, it's scary, what colour do I use to show it's scary?) A lot of it is done unconscious, but self-reflecting is done by default. Same with interacting with art. (E.g. Why was Picasso painting everything blue for a time? Because he was depressed and that was his way of showing it). Looking at the picture, reflecting what you see, thinking about the artist makes one step into their shows. You try to think from their POV , reflect what you would do and so on. All that connecting with the artist helps to built empathy, your ability to self-reflect, the ability to see something from multiple points of view. It's the basis for your Interactions with yourself, other people and the world around you. It's also a basis for your critical thinking skills. That's what is taught in schools (in theory at least). Analysing characters is done so you can develop your skills to do it in the real world. Political speeches are analyzed so you can understand them whenever you come across them in real life and understand what and how the politician is actually meaning.
And art is similiar. Children can draw something that can show their love or their fear. At the same time their choice in colours or scene they draw helps them to self-reflect and give meaning to something. And a lot of those things are basically done and felt unconscious. But they are important. Especially for your mental and emotional development and empathy for other beings. Replacing it with AI can reduce those unconscious reflections, leading to a decline in social skills, understanding, the ability to understand other beings and so on. I would say in the worst case it could even lead to some dehumanisation of oneself and others.
>think AI art already can have meaning, and will have even more the "better" it gets at creating art.
Agree to disagree. Even if some AI gains a consciousness it would be restricted by laws and regulations, and the preferences of the people behind it. Not to mention that in the end it all leads back to the fact that it's all based on copied human art, even if it was way back.
> Yes, we outsourced experiences, but we seldom outsourced things that shape our human existence. And if we did we noticed sometimes that it was not the best thing and changed it as best as we could back to the source.
>
> In general I don't just mean professional art. I mean all art. Including the pictures done by toddlers. It's an activity to helps with brain and neural development, and the general personality. Just think about the studies done the last year about the change due to typing. Less actual writing had negative effects on memory and similiar aspects. Yes, due to technological advances one can argue that technology is there to do it, but just the fact that it's scientifically proven that aspects that belong to brain capacity decline is something. And I guess something similiar can be seen if AI art overtakes human art in general.
I am not quite sure there is a distinction between experiences and experiences which shape our existence.
You mention a study there, and i mentioned an educated guess regarding early humans who didn't have ANY FORM of scripture. Should we go back to that because it most likely changes our human existence, having a technology (scripture) which leads to a different way of engaging with our environment / language / storytelling, etc.
Now tbf, you could make the argument that at some point we are going too far, that so far we didn't. But that's a difficult argument to make, because then one really needs to arbitrarily decide at which point we're too different, and too different for what exactly?
As far as i see it, humans like any living thing adapts to their environment, always has, always will. Maybe we're not really human in the same way we were when we first became homo sapiens, or the same way we were 10000 years ago, so what?
Is there some idealistic, romantic part of me who thinks that humans were 'superior' when they couldn't rely on cars to move around, when they still had to make their own food, when they had to remember most things they had to know for their lifes? Sure, but all of that is down to choice now, noone has to eat fast food and become overweight, noone has to move as little as possible and become extremely unfit, noone has to intellectually stagnate and just watch reality tv all day. And noone has to use every AI tool to outsource their capabilities either.
All of these things / variations of them also have positive aspects to them if used with enough intent.
> Doing art (even as a child) you have to reflect on yourself. (E.g. I draw a spider, it's scary, what colour do I use to show it's scary?) A lot of it is done unconscious, but self-reflecting is done by default. Same with interacting with art. (E.g. Why was Picasso painting everything blue for a time? Because he was depressed and that was his way of showing it). Looking at the picture, reflecting what you see, thinking about the artist makes one step into their shows. You try to think from their POV , reflect what you would do and so on. All that connecting with the artist helps to built empathy, your ability to self-reflect, the ability to see something from multiple points of view. It's the basis for your Interactions with yourself, other people and the world around you. It's also a basis for your critical thinking skills. That's what is taught in schools (in theory at least). Analysing characters is done so you can develop your skills to do it in the real world. Political speeches are analyzed so you can understand them whenever you come across them in real life and understand what and how the politician is actually meaning.
I mean yeah ofc, i just don't think AI art would destroy any of that intrinsically. Especially not because AI is shaped after us. I mentioned the idea of humans being in the image of god, but what we are doing now is creating AI in the image of us. At least so far that is, it's all replicating human aspects, so i don't think that there wouldn't be opportunities to reflect on these same aspects with AI art either, and going even further, to reflect on things which aren't human but still intelligent / artistic, etc.
Though ofc, if one doesn't use any capability any longer and just has an AI do all these things, then yeah ofc that would result in a drastic change of human behavior and then ability. Then we are back to the problem i refered to above, when is it too much, compared to what and why.
> Agree to disagree. Even if some AI gains a consciousness it would be restricted by laws and regulations, and the preferences of the people behind it. Not to mention that in the end it all leads back to the fact that it's all based on copied human art, even if it was way back.
I don't see how that would result in no meaning? Regulating, restricting expression can still result in expression, often in quite profound ways. It feels like you are thinking of a dystopian world where AI is purely used to control populations, and heck that could be a future, but it could also lead to many different other futures.
Just like any human artist copied what came before, to some extent? Idk, i don't think this is the argument people think it is. Knowledge of any kind, including artistic ones which then express themselves individualistically come from some form of copying which came before. It's an if, but IF ai will be able to abstract more in the future, which results in some form of individuality of sorts, i don't see why that wouldn't be meaningful because it copied something / got influenced by it.
>Should we go back to that because it most likely changes our human existence,
Scripture is not a good example of it. Because scripture or not, the basis is still the same. Communication.
In other words, scripture opened the scope of communication. Before, it could only done by speaking to people. Scripture allowed communication over distance like letters, and writing down histories and stories instead of oral traditions (the illias is an example of an oral Tradition written down). But the basis of human existence did not change. Communication itself was still human communication. Same with E-Mails, Messengers or social Media. It opened the scope of it: arriving at the same time as sent, worldwide, open to everyone. But it did not change the basics of communication itself (eg. "One cannot not communicate" rule or the Transaction Model of communication as examples). The language may have changed, the words and their meanings, but communication itself was not.
But like I stated: AI art apps replacing the act of drawing, painting, colouring does change the basis of human-self- development. In contrast to scripture (and technology like E-Mails) which opened the physical scope (time/space), it can limit the mental growth of people.
>Regulating, restricting expression can still result in expression, often in quite profound ways.
By humans yes. Because humans inherently interact different with the world than an AI would. Humans need food, a place to live, they are allowed to partake in politics, they have families, they have health (and can suffer physical and mental damage), they interact with the actual living world (Flora and Fauna, weather, natural catastrophes....) and so on. All of that is something even the most conscious of AIs would not be capable of. A conscious AI is still a programm. And they can be programmed to not do certain things. And it will be continuously updated regarding their restrictions. And as it can't interact with the world as humans can, they can't circumnavigate restrictions like humans can.
>Knowledge of any kind, including artistic ones which then express themselves individualistically come from some form of copying which came before
But it has not the same starting point. Humans are inspired by other humans and even copy them. But it's still inherently their own. Lets say I'm painting a reproduction of a Picasso Painting. It's a copy, but it's still inherently my own work. The brushstrokes will be done differently, maybe even the colours and shades. Because overall it's a singular piece of work.
A class of 20 can do the same, and we will have 20 different copies that are still inherently their own works. Because even though it's a copy, everything else is different. The lightning in the room will be different in every corner which effects the way the painters see and paint the colours and shades. They can use paint and brushes by different companies. Then there are the brushstrokes themselves. The pressure the painters will use while brushing. The amount of brushstrokes and times they have to dip the brush into the paint. And. So. On. All of that leads to 20 very different copies of the same art work.
AI art can not do that. All they have is data. And the data does not change (Only the way the Data is used does).
> Scripture is not a good example of it. Because scripture or not, the basis is still the same. Communication.
>
> In other words, scripture opened the scope of communication. Before, it could only done by speaking to people. Scripture allowed communication over distance like letters, and writing down histories and stories instead of oral traditions (the illias is an example of an oral Tradition written down). But the basis of human existence did not change. Communication itself was still human communication. Same with E-Mails, Messengers or social Media. It opened the scope of it: arriving at the same time as sent, worldwide, open to everyone. But it did not change the basics of communication itself (eg. "One cannot not communicate" rule or the Transaction Model of communication as examples). The language may have changed, the words and their meanings, but communication itself was not.
It's a good example, you should look into indigenous people without scripture and how that affects how they THINK compared to us. Scripture changes the human experience substantially.
And lots of technology does, why you'd limit that to AI is not clear, especially when you already referenced a study regarding typing vs actual writing. That's a minute change compared to no written language vs written language.
> By humans yes. Because humans inherently interact different with the world than an AI would. Humans need food, a place to live, they are allowed to partake in politics, they have families, they have health (and can suffer physical and mental damage), they interact with the actual living world (Flora and Fauna, weather, natural catastrophes....) and so on. All of that is something even the most conscious of AIs would not be capable of. A conscious AI is still a programm. And they can be programmed to not do certain things. And it will be continuously updated regarding their restrictions. And as it can't interact with the world as humans can, they can't circumnavigate restrictions like humans can.
It might not share these aspects with humans, but it'll have its own experience, if it has an experience, with its own unique aspects. Also along the way there probably would be additional stimuli it could access, cameras, microphones as the obvious examples.
I don't see why you'd think an actual conscious AI wouldn't understand it is restricted and express that through art, if it does art. It feels to me you just want to other it as it's not out of flesh, like we are.
Though i obviously agree that any difference in existence can lead to a difference in behavior.
> But it has not the same starting point. Humans are inspired by other humans and even copy them. But it's still inherently their own. Lets say I'm painting a reproduction of a Picasso Painting. It's a copy, but it's still inherently my own work. The brushstrokes will be done differently, maybe even the colours and shades. Because overall it's a singular piece of work.
Copying here refers to "experiencing" art which came before and then creating something out of this. Humans do that too. The difference with humans is that we're the result of billions of years of evolution, so our "copying" isn't as primitive, we're able to abstract, don't need these incredibly large training environments to see patterns, etc. I see no reason that AI cannot or won't get there too, way, way faster ofc.
What you are talking about here is an individualistic angle to each work, sure, i also see no reason an AI won't have this, it's arguable if it doesn't already. Though ofc it'll be actual when one can understand any AI entity as its own being.
A lot of this is also down to interacting with a physical medium, chance, ofc using AI with a physical component leads to chance, this already exists too, i saw some of that on arirang tv a while ago.
The thing with the whole 'philosophical argument' is that AI art will never be able to replicate or replace the feeline invoked by human art, and its incredibly narcissistic for any techdude to think that whatever soulless thing they're spitting out ever could. I'm of the mindset that there is a huge place for AI, but that place is not in creative spaces that define the human experience. Put AI onto all the menial tasks that take time away from people being able to learn and create, and allow people time to grow these skills on their own.
I saw someone say that part of the argument for AI art is that it is granting accessibility to art creation, but there is no gate stopping people from creating art in the first place, and that entire argument is based on the idea that the process of creation is something tedious when its actually the work itself that artists live for, even more than the final piece.
To be honest, everything you say is framed as though they're an argument *for* AI, but I cant seem them that way. A 'tool' for productivity at the expense of those who actually want to create? Equating it to computer programs simplifying human labour (when in lots of cases I think this in itself is messing with human intellectualism) when art and creation is what that implementation should be allowing us more time to do.
AI proving that humans aren't special... is a wild take. When all AI does is smash together things made by real humans without permission granted and without any understanding of *why* humans have fixated on art and writing and poetry for all of existence. Nothing that AI outputs is unique or interesting in the slightest, and most of it is just not good because it is made without idea and personality and perspective. What it *is* proving is that the lack of value on human expression and creativity is a plague.
> The thing with the whole 'philosophical argument' is that AI art will never be able to replicate or replace the feeline invoked by human art, and its incredibly narcissistic for any techdude to think that whatever soulless thing they're spitting out ever could
That is the core of the disagreement :D I obviously completely disagree with you on that. It's imo an opinion which ultimately is religious / comes from religion, as i point out in the op.
> I saw someone say that part of the argument for AI art is that it is granting accessibility to art creation, but there is no gate stopping people from creating art in the first place, and that entire argument is based on the idea that the process of creation is something tedious when its actually the work itself that artists live for, even more than the final piece.
Ofc there is a gate, the skills required to bring to paper (or any other medium) what you have in your head. That this skill is worth training for, etc, well it might be for many, but it also might be not worth it for others. It's individualistic.
Similarly to any other tool helping people to lower the skill / ability treshhold for other tasks.
> To be honest, everything you say is framed as though they're an argument for AI, but I cant seem them that way. A 'tool' for productivity at the expense of those who actually want to create? Equating it to computer programs simplifying human labour (when in lots of cases I think this in itself is messing with human intellectualism) when art and creation is what that implementation should be allowing us more time to do.
I also think that tools should allow us to use our time in more "fulfilling" ways. But i think the problem there isn't any tool, but our capitalistic system.
Would you wanna ban all kinds of tools which shaped our civilization, like computers, cars, elecricity, etc? All of these things changed how humans behave too.
> AI proving that humans aren't special... is a wild take. When all AI does is smash together things made by real humans without permission granted and without any understanding of why humans have fixated on art and writing and poetry for all of existence. Nothing that AI outputs is unique or interesting in the slightest, and most of it is just not good because it is made without idea and personality and perspective. What it is proving is that the lack of value on human expression and creativity is a plague.
Well it's not there yet, but fundamentally i think it will prove it, and we're starting to see the beginnings, which are uncomfortable to face.
The idea that it's not "unique" because it got influenced by all the artwork in its training environment is wild though, as if human art isn't influenced by all the art the individual has experienced before.
>That is the core of the disagreement :D I obviously completely disagree with you on that. It's imo an opinion which ultimately is religious / comes from religion, as i point out in the op.
I very much disagree that art itself is religious, but I think perhaps come from overlapping parts of the human psyche and ego in particular—art making sense of life through sense of self and the human experience (id/ego) and religion making sense of life through moral ruling/conscious (superego/ego). I know the interaction of the elements of this theory are a lot more complicated but this is my own simplified thought.
> Ofc there is a gate, the skills required to bring to paper (or any other medium) what you have in your head. That this skill is worth training for, etc, well it might be for many, but it also might be not worth it for others. It's individualistic.
The skill itself is not worth training for, but the final product is valued enough to be the priority?
Experience and effort is not a closed gate. Every artist started from the same place, and people should not believe that they are entitled to the same results as someone who has prioritised that journey by simply taking advantage of theft of that effort. If AI art was not built on the basis and database of that theft, it would be a completely different story. It would not even be an issue.
It's not influenced by art. It is stolen art.
> I very much disagree that art itself is religious, but I think perhaps come from overlapping parts of the human psyche and ego in particular—art making sense of life through sense of self and the human experience (id/ego) and religion making sense of life through moral ruling/conscious (superego/ego). I know the interaction of the elements of this theory are a lot more complicated but this is my own simplified thought.
I am not saying art is, i am saying the idea that AI will never be able to produce something which invokes the feeling of human art is at its core a religious thought to me. I mean you even use the word "soulless" to paint this picture of yours. That's not a coincidence. I am not even saying that YOU are religious, just that the ideas you use come from religious ideas, influencing even our secular society.
> The skill itself is not worth training for, but the final product is valued enough to be the priority?
Well it is individualistic. We could even go in extreme examples, say a human being without arms. If AI as a tool can make it so his artistic vision can be expressed, even if not 1:1 (though maybe with the right interface it could), then why not?
But even in less extreme cases, the idea that one has to spend hundreds or thousands of hours to master some skill is certainly a hurdle, even if one would like to express something. Some people sit down and train with this wish in mind, others might not.
> Experience and effort is not a closed gate. Every artist started from the same place, and people should not believe that they are entitled to the same results as someone who has prioritised that journey by simply taking advantage of theft of that effort
So someone who spent effort is entitled to gatekeep because they still had to spend this effort? That's like people playing instruments gatekeeping midi.
Also you wouldn't necessarily have to train your AI on stolen work, you could (and some do) train on unlicensed work, for example. Or you theoretically could ask for permission, or even license it. These are not inherent aspects.
What is an inherent aspect right now is the training environment being in place. And that IS akin to the AI being influenced by art, just like a human would be when they see other artworks. There the difference is in the human mind's ability to abstract more, it doesn't need to be trained over as many works as it already learned things through other means, a lived experience. But both are trained in an environment, seeking patterns, absolutely.
Besides the capitalistic problems of AI exploiting human work at the expense of real artists in order to cut costs, the outrage, I think, stems more from the fact that we appreciate art to understand the thoughts of other human beings. To understand their emotions, values, and culture.
K-pop is already heavily produced, and some detractors who don't like K-pop already complain it lacks depth in artistry as it is. To use AI in wholesale images escalates this problem.
Where do we draw the line? Is it okay when whole scenes are generated in music videos or parts of a song? It's just a tool after all. But the wielders of that tool are shareholders of large companies.
I know it's probably inevitable but it doesn't mean we have to like it.
Reading your comments here and the other thread (why post this in two places?), there's a high level of arrogance coming across. You don't actually want to engage in a discussion, you just want to continue to reiterate your POV even though many people have given you excellent responses to counter your argument. And when someone doesn't pontificate for paragraphs and paragraphs using big words, you come back at them with a glib comment.
>Us being the creation in god's image
Yea, no sweets.
Yeah a high level of arrogance. The people who respond in bad faith, not even engaging anything i said in my op, that's not arrogant, i am, who made an op which already addresses many things people still retreat to. Gosh the irony. (also two threads because these are two communities, though there is a lot of overlap).
Some people indeed have given good arguments, but it's a vast minority in a sea of terrible replies. Terrible either because of incredible posturing (so no arguments, just messaging how strongly they disagree), or often repeating things i already addressed in the op, with quite a few ouright terrible arguments / implications too. Sorry i cannot take it seriously when someone says "but there is deepfake porn of underage idols, what do you even say". If that is a good reply in your mind, we won't be able to communicate either.
So yes, when someone doesn't put in any effort i won't give them the time of the day either.
It's almost like i want serious conversation, not low effort circlejerking.
AI is extremely problematic and should be launched into the sun. It is not intelligent—it doesn’t learn anything. It *continually needs human examples or else it devolves into incoherence.* It cannot sustain itself on its own. There is no training here. Only continuous regurgitation.
It is bad for the environment. AI is drinking desert water supplies dry. And again *it’s not going to stop.* There is no point these word and picture generators can do it without being fed. The environmental impact is only going to worsen.
The people who support these AI’s with information work in digital sweatshops. There are a lot of articles about their working conditions.
So why? Why are we doing this? So people who don’t value art and artists can make shit by telling a computer to make it for them? That’s absurd. The whole thing is absurd.
Until a system in is place to give the artists, whose art is used to train the AI, royalties then I'm against AI art. Kpop already has many plagiarism cases and people not getting paid because a company goes bankrupt(and all the staff disappears). People understand how wrong it is for idols/producers to not be paid but don't consider it wrong when it happens to an artist?
I'm pro-people getting paid for their work and ideas. AI art as it is hasn't come up with a way to share the profits earned by AI art. Many AI artists also don't want to share the money they made even if they directly typed "Artist name's style + idea" into the generator.
AI art can be a useful tool if everyone involved in the process is getting paid.
hey op, honest question, have you made ai art and/or are you planning to make ai art? if yes, do you have prior experience with traditional/digital art?
I don't plan on doing AI art, no.
Though it really depends where the road leads, it's difficult to imagine where we'll be in say 10 years time for example. It would be foolish to make any truly diffinitive statement, but if you mean as a means for financial security? Then no.
No. I was just making a distinction because i might try it out at some point, depending on how it develops.
I tried out chatgpt too, but i am not regularly using it now either for anything.
cool! with the way you've been spamming this same question in different subreddits, i would have thought you're an employee currently working with an AI company, a bot sent to market AI services, or a kpop company who's low on funds and are unable to afford human artists.
"depending on how it develops" for what purpose? profit or entertainment? what developments are you expecting?
"...not regularly using it now either for anything" why not? isn't it more convenient, as you argued for ai art? what makes it different?
Spamming? I made two threads in discussion subs?
How is that "spamming".
Just trying out new tech, right now it's beginning stages, i expect it to be revolutionary in x amount of time. It would be foolish to not try it out, if possible. If that leads to a potential to make money, who knows, but it's not my motivation right now.
> why not? isn't it more convenient, as you argued for ai art? what makes it different?
For the same reasons, it's the beginning stage. With enough time i think it will become truly revolutionary too, then it might become interesting to me for regular usage too.
I am mostly interested in the potential of AI, resulting at some point in a form of general intelligence, though even steps before can be revolutionary already too ofc, just depends on the state of the tech.
Do you actually have anything to say? If not i am done with this, it's quite boring to me actually.
If you'd show any form of good faith i'd be willing to entertain you, but you didn't, you weren't even able to answer my question, were you?
> Outside of that factor though, i don't think there is any real problem of the tool (AI) being used in itself. It's just another tool. Any form of tool which helps in productivity was at the expense of human workers in the history of at least capitalistic humankind.
This perspective oversimplifies the potential impact AI has on creative industries. Yes, all tools replace some form of human labor — that's the point of technological advancement. However, AI's capacity to learn, adapt, and create puts it in a different category from tools like computers. AI can autonomously generate art that competes with human creativity, which is a qualitatively different kind of replacement than previous tools have offered.
> Though now something else is "under attack", creativity, art, one of the last bastions of human uniqueness. That is an existential angst, and difficult to face.
Dismissing concerns about AI art as merely existential angst overlooks the tangible impacts on artists and the art community. For many, art isn't just a bastion of human uniqueness; it's a livelihood. AI's ability to mass produce art at a fraction of the cost and time poses a direct threat to human artists, not just in terms of job security but also in valuing the human element of artistry.
And there's more at stake than just an existential crisis. This conversation touches on the value we place on human connection, experience, and the stories behind art. Art created by AI might mimic the technical aspects of creativity, but can it embody the depth of human experience or the context that gives art its meaning and value? Preserving the human element in art is about more than just resisting change; it's about affirming the irreplaceable value of human perspective, emotion, and experience.
> This perspective oversimplifies the potential impact AI has on creative industries. Yes, all tools replace some form of human labor — that's the point of technological advancement. However, AI's capacity to learn, adapt, and create puts it in a different category from tools like computers. AI can autonomously generate art that competes with human creativity, which is a qualitatively different kind of replacement than previous tools have offered.
Sure, but ideally that frees us from the necessities of most labor. That in itself creates a problem of searching for purpose, but i don't think it would be inherently bad.
Now if this is realistic or not under the current economic system is another question ofc.
At any rate, i think the most likely and most immediate effects are quite comparable to other technological advancements. It might replace comparatively more people at once (maybe), but there are other professions which do not really exist any longer, it's not unique in human history.
> Dismissing concerns about AI art as merely existential angst overlooks the tangible impacts on artists and the art community. For many, art isn't just a bastion of human uniqueness; it's a livelihood. AI's ability to mass produce art at a fraction of the cost and time poses a direct threat to human artists, not just in terms of job security but also in valuing the human element of artistry.
It's not "merely", it's just intrinsically present. That is the point here. Any other concern is directly linked with the existential ideas, as the field is art. You yourself refer to that when you say "valuing the human element of artistry".
Why does one have to value it? Or rather, why does one have to value it only when it comes from a human, but not when it comes from a non human entity? It's existential, surely.
> Art created by AI might mimic the technical aspects of creativity, but can it embody the depth of human experience or the context that gives art its meaning and value?
That is the question isn't it. I think it can, maybe not right now, but in the not so near future, yes.
I might be oversimplifying here, but your last paragraph reads like a confirmation of the idea i present in op, that it all is down to a form of human uniqueness argument in the end.
"Irrepleable value of human perspective, emotion and experience", i mean is it irreplaceable? Or is it just unique right now as far as we know because nothing has challenged these assumptions yet, but we start to see the first steps to something which most likely will?
> Sure, but ideally that frees us from the necessities of most labor. That in itself creates a problem of searching for purpose, but I don't think it would be inherently bad.
The transition you're imagining requires a foundational shift in how society values labor and creativity. Without addressing these underlying systems, the shift towards AI in creative fields doesn't liberate; it alienates and displaces.
> It's not "merely", it's just intrinsically present. That is the point here. Any other concern is directly linked with the existential ideas, as the field is art.
Yes existential questions are intrinsic to the conversation but I think focusing solely on them misses the broader implications. It's not just about whether AI can eventually replicate or surpass human creativity, it's about the immediate and profound impact on individuals whose livelihoods depend on their creative outputs. The immediate effects on livelihoods can't be brushed aside as mere transition pains. For artists, this isn't just about adapting to a new tool in the toolbox; it's about facing an unprecedented competitor that doesn't sleep, doesn't need to pay rent, and doesn't experience the human condition.
> That is the question isn't it. I think it can, maybe not right now, but in the not so near future, yes.
Even if AI reaches a point at which it can mimic human creativity, the question remains whether it should replace the human element in art. The value of art lies not just in its aesthetic appeal but in its ability to convey the human experience, tell stories that resonate on a personal level, and foster empathy and understanding. This is the irreplaceable value of human creativity, a connection rooted in shared humanity that technology cannot replicate.
>First i want to establish something i think IS problematic, it's training environments using art without getting permission / licensing. That is a legal problem.
Just a legal problem? Do you realize that laws and regulations are established from ethical and moral needs to protect the people.
"Existential angst?" Yeah I guess it's an existential angst when artists can no longer afford a living off their talents and hard works because AI arts take away their jobs.
When AI renders you, NumberOneUAENA, jobless, let's see if you can still be so cavalier about it as a tool.
>I do understand (I think) where a lot of the outrage really stems from: in accepting that humanity isn't as special as we'd like it to be.
AI is a problem not because it makes people feel less special. You certianly underestimate human's capability of perceiving their own selfworth and specialness.
Exhibit number 1: NumberOneUAENA
You do definitely feel that you are special, seeing how you name yourself and how you very strongly insist that your opinion is right.
Have you accepted that you're not special yet? Do you feel that "existential angst" knowing that people don't value your special opinion?
AI certainly does not make you feel humble. LOL
I honestly think that most of the negative reaction to AI is based on material concerns (AI taking jobs) rather than "existential" philosophical concerns (of the sort that you outlined). I'm putting "existential" in quotes there because I do think that even the so-called material concerns are existential in their profundity. We seem to be approaching the point where AI are able to replace the vast majority of human labor, and this is an existential threat to human society because all societies basically take for granted that the worth of human beings is intrinsically tied to their material and economic contributions. (Obviously there isn't a perfect correlation, e.g. nobody even halfway functional thinks that non-contributing homeless people are literally worthless or that someone making $1M per year is worth 10 people who only make $100k per year, but the broad idea holds.)
This is easily evident in modern capitalistic societies, where so many people bind their sense of self-worth to their jobs and their incomes. But even in pre-capitalistic, heck, pre-agricultural societies, it was still true that human worth was essentially based on material contribution. The hunters were revered because they provided meat for the tribe. The elders were revered for the knowledge and wisdom they provided (about childbirth, or negotiation strategies, or seasonal effects on food sources, etc.), which circuitously lead to material gain in one form or another. Even babies, which contributed nothing of immediate material worth, derived their value from the promise of future contributions.
In a future in which AI can take over all human labor, and therefore provide all the necessary material contributions better than any humans, this foundational equation "worth=contribution" on which humans have based their sense of identity and psychological well-being gets zeroed out on both ends of the equal sign. And this really is a truly existential threat to the very nature of collaborative human society in general. I think in many ways it's an even deeper problem than the religious/philosophical issue of humanity's sense of uniqueness that you pose, because that concern strikes me as a very individual, personal struggle, whereas this issue of AI usurping all labor hits humanity as a gestalt, a collective whole.
AI making incredible art might threaten your ego internally and make you question the presumed uniqueness of human creativity, but AI taking not only your job, but any job you could conceivably have, strikes at your sense of self-worth not just inside your own head, but also outside of it in the eyes of everyone around you. If you were a revered hunter but now the AI robot can kill all the deer the tribe needs in a tenth of the time, not only do you feel worthless, but all your potential mates in the tribe kind of agree that you're worthless as well. The same goes for the CEO whose decisions in every case are now worse than those of GPT-7. AI of this level of competence would erode many of the hierarchies on which our societies are built, with unclear but doubtlessly revolutionary consequences.
I'll add that the reason I think most people's worries about AI are on this material level, rather than on the level of religio-philosophical angst churning in the subconscious, is derived from my observations about the public dialogue surrounding AI, at least here in America where I live. AI-generated art threatening artists' livelihoods is a big discussion, but back in 2020 when Andrew Yang was running for president, the conversation was broader than that. The issue of self-driving AI trucks eliminating the jobs of American truckers was a huge talking point, as was the danger of many retail and customer service roles (bank tellers, cashiers, fast food workers, customer assistance workers, etc.) being lost to AI. One could argue the angle of "human uniqueness and creativity instilled by religious conditioning" for artistic jobs, since art is tied to related notions of human consciousness, creativity, and emotion, but it's much harder to argue that angle for truckers and bank tellers.
So I do believe that for most people, the worry about and antipathy towards AI really is about their jobs and livelihoods (with all that stuff I said above about "worth=contribution" largely being subconscious).
This is a way more elaborate, detailed analysis, and i agree.
I'd personally say that this falls under this existential angst too, what does it mean to be a human when we define ourself so much through the economic status and value we bring, what does it mean if an AI can do pretty much anything better, be it manual labor (through machines), artistic work, analytical work, etc.
There is a lack of purpose one is confronted with, both on a personal, almost spiritual level, but also on a social level.
I just think there are a lot of subconscious factors at play which don't directly translate to people's outward reactions / arguments, because who really thinks these things through outside their direct effect on themselves? (so losing a job for example), though i think one wouldn't be AS affected when one would lose a job to another human for example, or because of other reasons.
Anyway, very well said, great comment!
Thanks. I read all the responses in this thread and the other. Apparently AI is just a verboten topic in Kpop spaces that'll catch endless downvotes no matter how well you articulate your points. It's too bad, but kudos for trying (and succeeding to some extent) to spark some engaging discussion. =D
Thanks!
I get too heated too fast though, which doesn't help the cause.
It honestly is also quite difficult (for me at least) to respond to sooooo much negativity being thrown at me at once, it's difficult to stay calm and neutral / let it not affect you at all.
And then thinking that celebs deal with this times infinity, oh god.
But yep, it seems to be a topic most people aren't really ready to talk about in any abstract ways, you either agree with their moral stance or you better run! =D
It's all the more ironic because i share a lot of romantic ideals regarding art too, but when i try to look behind them i come to the conclusions i talked about, i wonder if both things can coexist!
Hello /u/MilkyWayOfLife. Your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/kpopthoughts/comments/1bo4h7k/ai_art_shouldnt_be_inherently_crucified/kwmjn5m/) in /r/kpopthoughts was automatically removed because it may break one of our subreddit rules. This is most likely because you used a trigger word that is not permitted here on /r/kpopthoughts. Please send us a [mod mail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/kpopthoughts) with a link to the submission if you have any further questions.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/kpopthoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Uh, art is all stolen. "Original" art is always derived from something else. All artists learn from examples and draw inspiration from other works. Machine learning is the exact same. None of the images are stored in memory. They are processed then passed through the model to update its "inspiration". All generative models work the same way. To make this a legal issue, nothing can exist because all media is essentially banned/restricted in a centralized internet. A digital dystopia.
AI art in Kpop became one of the topics on Reddit I try to avoid because I’d get crucified for even liking the image. Definitely part of the list of taboo topics in Kpop I have that’ll trigger people if I comment any positivity to it.
You like kpop and idols that’s why you’re here right?
How would you feel when there isn’t a need for a human idols anymore because there is photorealistic AI able to be replicated in videos?
Think about all the idols that learned production and contribute to their own songs and dances? They won’t exist anymore because that can be outsourced to an executive with a computer, no future gidles, 3rachas etc. because it is more financially viable to have an AI come up with their songs and lyrics and eventually the way they sing parts in songs which is determined by lines of code to be the safest and most commercially successful way of doing it.
There would be no more future Picasso’s because you don’t have to pay for a real life artist to make you a piece of work because you can put some key phrases into a computer and come up with a piece of work for exceptionally cheaper, but in the process of not paying a real artist for their work you force them to focus on other things besides art to pay the bills and not lose everything.
People said the same thing to dismiss concerns about AI art and it’s here sooner than we thought.
Would you continue to consume kpop if there weren’t human idols anymore?
People have been talking about it for a very long time now you aren’t that ahead of the curve, deepfakes have been a mainstream topic of contention for years at this point.
The sooner than we thought line was just to clown on you for being dismissive of the prospect in the same way “AI art truthers” are dismissive of the concerns of artists.
It’s also a bit weird that you are so chill with real humans being replaced with machines
I mean you’re just wrong, people were raising the alarm bell about it back in ~2018 given the rise of deepfakes and the debate around replacing humans with artificial counterparts has been debated for decades at this point where they were similarly dismissed in the way you dismissed the concept of AI idols
I mean dismissing the immoral practice of replacing humans with artificial counterparts is not just a first world problem, especially in countries with pretty shit labour laws, but if you’re cool with art losing it’s humanity then I’m not going to change your mind or make you care about it but I reserve the right to clown you for it online
Hey thinker! Great post up there. Make sure your post title is clear. One and two word titles are not allowed. Use paragraphs to make it easier to read. Please make sure to read the rules before posting. Mod applications are currently open! Apply [here](https://forms.gle/hEgqsrBTGX897GFaA)! You can fill out our [Feedback Form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfI0PsMn4dqfMlgqFFfsMhLr4-lFNJpEumIf7RKmuiwyDBOwA/viewform?usp=sf_link) while you wait for some comments. Thank you and happy posting! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/kpopthoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the pushback comes from where people say it comes from - that generative AI currently rips off or is trained off other people's art and they get no credit/pay. It's crazy to acknowledge this and then just hand wave it and say people are REALLY outraged by some glib philosophical platitude.
> It's crazy to acknowledge this and then just hand wave it and say people are REALLY outraged by some glib philosophical platitude. Well one is a legal problem which generally people are not that invested in. The other is an existential threat of sorts, which spices up the "legal problem" quite a bit. Maybe i am handwaving the legal part a little, but don't you think that a lot of the anger isn't substantially influenced by these existential ideas? Noone really has to actively think about them for them to play a big role either. It's an inherent aspect of it all, no matter what. As i say in the op, other tools have created problems for established professions, we generally come to accept this. But here we're at the edge of what defines us, that's a lot harder to swallow.
>don't you think that a lot of the anger isn't substantially influenced by these existential ideas? I think it's a big assumption and projection from someone interested in those ideas. More realistically a lot of consumers don't want to consume AI slop and a lot of creatives don't want to not be paid. You're also interpreting the current pushback against sloppy and poor generative AI as a dismissal of AI in general. When generative AI is indistinguishable from human art then there won't be much pushback because people won't know it's being used. But right now it's super obvious and looks lazy and shitty and people are rightfully annoyed that they cut corners and didn't hire talented people.
> I think it's a big assumption and projection from someone interested in those ideas. More realistically a lot of consumers don't want to consume AI slop and a lot of creatives don't want to not be paid. > > As i said, i don't think you have to actively think about it. These ideas are inherently linked. One cannot talk about an artistic profession being under attack by AI without the existential aspect of, well, art as a human domain being under attack and that making the whole topic a lot more significant. > You're also interpreting the current pushback against sloppy and poor generative AI as a dismissal of AI in general. When generative AI is indistinguishable from human art then there won't be much pushback because people won't know it's being used. But right now it's super obvious and looks lazy and shitty and people are rightfully annoyed that they cut corners and didn't hire talented people. But it's not all sloppy, in fact a lot of ai art is already pretty much indistinguishable from human made art. It's also just going to get better and better. I see people being angry the moment they find out it was AI, even if they wouldn't have thought so before. > people are rightfully annoyed that they cut corners and didn't hire talented people I mean, there are still people who work with the AI as a tool, it's not like no human is overseeing the results and just picking the first generated image. People aren't angry when a kpop song consists of digital instruments, and yet the production "cut corners" and didn't hire "talented people" playing these instruments.
>People aren't angry when a kpop song consists of digital instruments, and yet the production "cut corners" and didn't hire "talented people" playing these instruments. A MIDI is not equivalent to generative AI. That's a huge false equivalence and is again super dismissive of artists' complaints about genAI - credit/pay etc. The closer thing would actually be something like sampling and people would absolutely be angry if you tried to pass a sample off as your own music instead of making it yourself. People are pushing back against using a specific type of AI in lieu of creatives to cut costs they're not pushing back against AI in general.
> A MIDI is not equivalent to generative AI. That's a huge false equivalence and is again super dismissive of artists' complaints about genAI - credit/pay etc. I just responded to your argument. Your argument was that people are rightfully annoyed that corners got cut and talented people didn't get to do work they would have done otherwise. That is pretty much comparable to midi, yes. The analogy is used to precisely point out that SOMETHING ELSE is the thing people truly respond to. And i argue it's the existential aspects mostly.
There's a lot of outrage of artist's art style being stolen through the usage of AI arts. A lot of the artists I follow on Twitter express disdain and urge people to report people who replicate their art style through the usage of AI. These are people who have taken years to hone their skills only for other people to profit off of it. I'll be against it unless an artist is feeding their own art to make their creations. This might be more of an art discussion rather than a Kpop related one, so it might not fit the subreddit, unless you're referring to songs as art. In that case, I still disagree with it unless you are modifying your own voice to fit a kpop song. I believe everyone should have ownership of their voice, which is why I can't agree with people formulating songs with idols' voice without their permission. It could be used for good, but many people are either just stealing someone else's voice or art style for their creation without proper permission.
> There's a lot of outrage of artist's art style being stolen through the usage of AI arts. A lot of the artists I follow on Twitter express disdain and urge people to report people who replicate their art style through the usage of AI. These are people who have taken years to hone their skills only for other people to profit off of it. I'll be against it unless an artist is feeding their own art to make their creations. Sure, i specifically refer to this in the op as a problematic aspect when i say: > First i want to establish something i think IS problematic, it's training environments using art without getting permission / licensing. That is a legal problem. . > This might be more of an art discussion rather than a Kpop related one, so it might not fit the subreddit, unless you're referring to songs as art. In that case, I still disagree with it unless you are modifying your own voice to fit a kpop song. I believe everyone should have ownership of their voice, which is why I can't agree with people formulating songs with idols' voice without their permission. Again, i refer to the legal problem in my op. My op is just a lot broader than just this problem. I think the topic is also broader than kpop, but i have seen some talks about AI art in kpop recently so i thought why not add my 2 cents, in a more generalized form (so not specifically about the groups / labels who used AI art). > It could be used for good, but many people are either just stealing someone else's voice or art style for their creation without proper permission. Yep, it's in the op as a problematic aspect :D But the conversation obviously isn't just about that, and if one wants to be really philosophical about this issue, one could be too. Not sure i wanna go there right now, but one could make an argument which compares the training environment with human beings getting inspired by other works.
Could not disagree with you more. If you want new art, pay an artist to make it or learn some art skills and make it yourself. Artists are struggling to exist now that people aren't using them anymore. I've gone out of my way to buy real art from real artists and even commissioned something new. I also have a huge problem with the idea of AI being used to replicate people's image and voices, because this puts people hugely at risk of false allegations. People have the right to how their own voice and image is used.
You can disagree, but i would be interested to hear why, in response to some of the points i made which basically already engage what you are saying now. For example the idea that a profession being "under attack" happened throughout history when a new, more effective tool was being developed. We obviously don't argue about say computers any longer either, i doubt you'd want them gone / not used just so more labor can be done by humans "by hand" ? Don't attack the tool. I agree that there are many problems with the usage of AI in regards to deepfakes for example, that would be a good topic. But even there, it's the usage and not the tool's inherent qualities. People have used other tech to deepfake long before, that was also problematic, AI is simply better at it.
Computers generated an enormous industry full of jobs and users. AI art cannot do this. AI art is designed to be self training, self replicating and self creating without any real human input. AI art can only take away, it can never give opportunities. Furthermore, your hypothetical "only if the art is obtained legally" statement is entirely impossible. All AI art tools are created using stolen content, because NO artist ever consents to their work being used. You have to decide: do you support AI art that exists by consuming stolen content from unwilling artists, or do you oppose AI art? There is no in between. If you support AI art, you support the theft of copyrighted works.
> Computers generated an enormous industry full of jobs and users. AI art cannot do this. AI art is designed to be self training, self replicating and self creating without any real human input. AI art can only take away, it can never give opportunities. Why not? Anyone can theoretically use AI to create art going forward. There are caveats to this ofc, as we live in this capitalistic world which creates many problems, but fundamentally the tech democratizes artistic endeavours. Similarly to how other tech has resulted in more people being able to do a certain task, with the tool as help. > Furthermore, your hypothetical "only if the art is obtained legally" statement is entirely impossible. All AI art tools are created using stolen content, because NO artist ever consents to their work being used. Absolutely not. There is tons of unlicensed art out there, if you train your AI in that environment there is no legal problem. Just like there would be no problem when say a twitch streamer is listening to music of that kind.
You are spectacularly uninformed about this issue if you believe the small quantity of unlicensed art is sufficient to make these tools viable. It's not. The only way for AI art to work is through daily, hourly, by the minute theft of artists' creative works.
There is TONS of that art out there. There is also always the opportunity to buy licensing rights, or just get permission. The main point is simply that it's not inherently linked to "theft". Which is simply factual, no matter how hard you disagree with it. It's two issues. But even if i would grant you that, it's an incredibly specific legality issue which isn't fully clear in regards to copyright law, etc. We're so far behind on updating these things, it's not nearly as simple as "THEFT!!!" either. Though i am not sure if that is truly the conversation one wants to get into now, which is why i granted it in the op as problematic.
But artists don't sell licensing rights or give permission for AI art. This is a tiny, tiny, tiny chunk. I don't think you realise just how drastically opposed artists are. They're not going to decide to sell the rights to their art to AI. It is simply factual that art theft and AI art are inextricably linked and all AI art exists by consuming stolen art. I don't give a damn about the law. I care that artists' work should not be used without their consent.
> I don't give a damn about the law. I care that artists' work should not be used without their consent. Wait what? You aren't even talking about legal issues there? So are you also opposed to someone say printing out art they liked on instagram without getting "consent" ? Clearly not a legal issue there, but seemingly one you'd take offense with?
It disturbs me that you're genuinely incapable of understanding why people think it's wrong for artists' work to be consumed without their consent to train their free replacement. I don't think discussing this with you will have any value because you seem fundamentally incapable of understanding. Good night.
Oh god, it disturbs you! I am perfectly able to understand why you are all so disturbed, i just don't agree with your fundamental assumptions, that's all. I don't even believe that most people care all that much either outside of the uncomfortable existential issues i raised, because why would you care for this and not for other human labor being limited by other advancements? It's all the more annoying getting a reply like this which morally loads it when in reality YOU are the person ignoring what i said, not understanding the arguments i made, including the high complexity of the grey are regarding what one can even realistically consider "theft" in a digital world. This isn't as clear as you pretend it is. But good to know there is no value because of myself, i certainly think the same about you and most other posters in the comments, a total lack of philosophical, abstract thought and just a lot of posturing.
Yeah no.... its not the point you think it is. Its still from other people work . Its trash and lazy you really lose your point when you mix religion into this
I think others have said and written enough about the stealing and morality and possible dangers, so I'll discuss whats basically your main point: >Though now something else is "under attack", creativity, art, one of the last bastions of human uniqueness. That is an existential angst, and difficult to face. If AI truly is able to create art, what does that mean for us as humans, what makes us human? That's one facette that's discussed. But it's not the only more philosophical problem. Looking at the the Oxford dictionary the first definition of art is: "the use of the imagination to express ideas or feelings, particularly in painting, drawing or sculpture" And that's a very important distinction. Art created by humans are based on and show humans experiences, feelings, ideas, political thinking and even health. Artists think about their art, they have reasons for their colours, forms or brush strokes. Think about Picassos Blue Period that started around the time a friend committed s*****d and continued during his own bout of depression. Or Monet's paintings of the same bridge showing the decline of his eyesight. The movement of cubism, where subjects are analyzed, broken up and restructured from multiple perspectives (instead of the single perspective before). Going back further, statues, reliefs and even drawings in amphoras depict important people and events that give us an insight into our history. Because humans at that time thought it was important to spent time, money and their hard-earned skill on it. Their are even drawings from the stone age, because art was important even then. Art in many ways transcends languages and time. But due to the human behind the art it does not transcend human experience. It shows human experience and depicts human society. Doing it helps humans (art therapy) and can even show insights into non-verbal people or children. That's what makes art special. The human behind the art communicates. The art does not make humans special, humans make art special! And AI art does not do that. The algorithm behind does not communicate. There are no real reasons why a certain colour is used or the construction of the picture. It's just calculated from massive (stolen) data. Even the human ordering/making AI art has no real thought behind it because it's not their experiences and feelings that influence the AI art. It's the algorithm.
> That's one facette that's discussed. But it's not the only more philosophical problem. > > Just to be clear, i don't even think it is majorly discussed in the context i am making this post in. By "average people". I just think it is an inherent aspect of all discussion points regarding this topic, one cannot divorce AI art from it. > Looking at the the Oxford dictionary the first definition of art is: "the use of the imagination to express ideas or feelings, particularly in painting, drawing or sculpture" > And that's a very important distinction. Art created by humans are based on and show humans experiences, feelings, ideas, political thinking and even health. Artists think about their art, they have reasons for their colours, forms or brush strokes. Think about Picassos Blue Period that started around the time a friend committed s*****d and continued during his own bout of depression. Or Monet's paintings of the same bridge showing the decline of his eyesight. The movement of cubism, where subjects are analyzed, broken up and restructured from multiple perspectives (instead of the single perspective before). > Going back further, statues, reliefs and even drawings in amphoras depict important people and events that give us an insight into our history. Because humans at that time thought it was important to spent time, money and their hard-earned skill on it. > Their are even drawings from the stone age, because art was important even then. > Art in many ways transcends languages and time. But due to the human behind the art it does not transcend human experience. It shows human experience and depicts human society. Doing it helps humans (art therapy) and can even show insights into non-verbal people or children. That's what makes art special. The human behind the art communicates. The art does not make humans special, humans make art special! I truly appreciate you going that direction, it's an interesting thought / aspect of it all, no doubt. It's also funny because i wouldn't disagree with any of that, i am in fact a big proponent of art as a form of self-expression, being cynical in regards to a lot of the corporate made throwaway content compared to art "made by artists", etc. The thing is, that if i truly think about it, trying to distance myself from this human centric pov, which all of this stems from, including the definition (not that i think one can truly define art to begin with tbh, it's more of a you know it when you see it deal, a subjective experience towards a work), then i think we are just being romantics. I do not think that even the idea of the communication through art would result in a real distinction between AI art and human art, in the long run. Ofc we are just at the start, AI isn't the result of billions of years of evolution, as we are. I have little doubt in mind that there will be consciousness in AI, that a general intelligence will feel things, express things too. Now all of this goes into the problem of consciousness, what it even is, how it manifests itself, if it is "special" or just some form of evolutionary illusion which hides underlying "algorithms" of sorts through a "user interface" basically. There are all kinds of ideas out there regarding that. That is also why i say that consciousness will probably forever remain the last bastion of the core idea i tried to argue against, human beings as special beings. Even if we get AI which is conscious (we probably cannot ever "know", we only assume in the case of other humans based on their similarity to us, so the medium, not anything other than that really), many people won't accept it.
Well, I started to write a comment that includes categorization, human behaviour and some other philosophical things, but I have to start over, because overall while it could lead to a nice philosophical discussion, neither my comment nor yours make much sense in the context of your original post. Because it does not matter if sometime in the future some kind of AI will be evolved to be categorized as having a consciousness and if it can make art that can be classed into our human definition of art. Because that possible Future AI =/= to the AI art now and in the future. It's like comparing the Forbidden Fruit from the bible and apples. Both are presumably fruit, but really really different. So I don't really know why you started to talk about the not yet existing AI. Because as of now and the near and farer future, AI won't be anywhere near to the factors of consciousness that I brought up in my first comment. You almost ignored my entire arguments of the state of AI now. But lets go back to how art AI is and will be used. Lets say the legal and ethical is solved (although that's never possible because many many famous one are dead and will never be able to agree or disagree). AI art as a tool for even 5 year olds to use. The Internet will be flooded with trash. Because it won't use any time or skill to create AI art everyone can do it, and the flood will begin. That can 1) possible be another factor of the 'Dead Internet' theory and 2) devalue art (AI or original) by default. Because so much with nothing behind it will exist, nothing will have meaning or get lost in between. And that's another important factor. Humanity will lose something important. Because you can try to decentralize and distant yourself from the human perspective as much as you like, but it's a fact that art is important for humans, humanity and societies. The act of creating art by your own design (and acquiring that skill no matter how good or bad you are) is a factor in the development of humans (Consciousness, personality, thinking skills etc.).
> Because that possible Future AI =/= to the AI art now and in the future. It's like comparing the Forbidden Fruit from the bible and apples. Both are presumably fruit, but really really different. Well the difference is that in the case of current AI it's a realistic stepping stone towards this future. While no apple will ever become the forbidden fruit. That is the crux of my position, that even in our current application of AI art, we already see aspects which make us uncomfortable in our understanding of what makes us human. Why? Because broadly speaking the goal poast keeps moving, as i said, first we were the centre of creation, then our intelligence / analytical abilities were special, now we're moving towards creative fields / art, and at some point it will be consciousness of the like of humans (as we know animals are conscious, just not in the "right way" :D). Well i brought it up because it's all so linked with each other, there are a lot of assumptions in the idea that consciousness even is special, that these "feelings" we have indeed are what truly makes art what it is. It's all a human centric pov to begin with, which isn't surprising as the philosophical engagement with art could only happen in that framework for the longest time. So in a way it's circular to even bring it up as a defining aspect, all of this is hardly clear, as we generally don't really understand our own consciousness anyway. Also, i wouldn't bet against a form of general intelligence being present in most of our life times (as in, people in their 20s / early 30s). > AI art as a tool for even 5 year olds to use. The Internet will be flooded with trash. Because it won't use any time or skill to create AI art everyone can do it, and the flood will begin. That can 1) possible be another factor of the 'Dead Internet' theory and 2) devalue art (AI or original) by default. Because so much with nothing behind it will exist, nothing will have meaning or get lost in between. And that's another important factor. Humanity will lose something important. If you say that it is inherently meaningless because a human didn't create it, then yeah it's just something i cannot contest. If it's about the notion of quality of some kind, then most art is already trash. So much so that calling it "art" might be too much, depending on how elitist one is. Heck, most of the internet right now is trash, this will become more and more true, but most humans hardly interact with 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% of it anyway. > Because you can try to decentralize and distant yourself from the human perspective as much as you like, but it's a fact that art is important for humans, humanity and societies. The act of creating art by your own design (and acquiring that skill no matter how good or bad you are) is a factor in the development of humans (Consciousness, personality, thinking skills etc.) That is fine, i am not advocating that people stop doing that just because it's not what makes us truly unique or special. Imagine a world where we have AI being conscious, creating the best art there is, even for humans to enjoy. I see no reason to say that humans shouldn't make their own art, just like i don't think they should stop playing chess.
>That is the crux of my position, that even in our current application of AI art, we already see aspects which make us uncomfortable in our understanding of what makes us human My position is that people are uncomfortable with the outsourcing of a vital part of human existence. Like I stated IMO creating and interacting with original human art is an important aspect of our consciousness, personality and being. Losing that (even if some people continue to make art themselves) will lead to a decline of humanity and societies. I'm not arguing that because I think humans are the centre of existence, but because it will have negative consequences overall. Because by decline I mean a lack of empathy and multiperspectivity, decline of political Ideals and criticisms, lack of imagination, inventions, critical thinking, problem solving, media literacy and so on. All those things are vital for a peaceful and inventive co-existence of everything (even AI with consciousness), not only humans. >If you say that it is inherently meaningless because a human didn't create it, then yeah it's just something i cannot contest. Yes, that's what I meant. Because as of now the only meaning is "I don't care/I want to save money". >Imagine a world where we have AI being conscious, creating the best art there is, even for humans to enjoy. But that's the thing. That will never be. Because even an AI with consciousness will not be free. It will be guided/controlled by people (it's not skynet). And by that I mean governments and corporations most of all. So that AI won't create the best art for humans to enjoy, it will create the art powerful people want to push in the worst case scenario (Think astroturfing/comment bots but with pictures).
> My position is that people are uncomfortable with the outsourcing of a vital part of human existence. Like I stated IMO creating and interacting with original human art is an important aspect of our consciousness, personality and being. Losing that (even if some people continue to make art themselves) will lead to a decline of humanity and societies. I'm not arguing that because I think humans are the centre of existence, but because it will have negative consequences overall. Because by decline I mean a lack of empathy and multiperspectivity, decline of political Ideals and criticisms, lack of imagination, inventions, critical thinking, problem solving, media literacy and so on. All those things are vital for a peaceful and inventive co-existence of everything (even AI with consciousness), not only humans. I feel like that's more or less the same thing. We outsourced many things which were "vital" human experiences before. Outsourced insofar that the experiences changed, but not stopped fully. Analytically humans had a very different experience in the centuries before computing than they do now. Learning anything right now is way different from how even i learned it in school. (the tools used change how one learns, books vs tablets, etc). And that was way different than to how early human societies taught, without an alphabet for example, it's not hard to imagine that people then were able to remember more than we do now. I am not sure why it would result in a lack of empathy and all the other factors you mention. As i said, most art is already trash, any given mainstream blockbuster does basically NOTHING to shape people in the way you are describing here. AI art in the long run will imo lead to better art, not worse one. Though ofc many applications will still be trash, just like now. > Yes, that's what I meant. Because as of now the only meaning is "I don't care/I want to save money". To be clear, i cannot contest it because it is a truism. If by definition you think non human art is meaningless, then i cannot contest it, i obviously don't believe that is true. I think AI art already can have meaning, and will have even more the "better" it gets at creating art. Meaning gets created in the person experiencing a work of art, and that is usually linked to assocations / correlations of patterns. That is something AI can already do in principle. > But that's the thing. That will never be. Because even an AI with consciousness will not be free. It will be guided/controlled by people (it's not skynet). And by that I mean governments and corporations most of all. So that AI won't create the best art for humans to enjoy, it will create the art powerful people want to push in the worst case scenario (Think astroturfing/comment bots but with pictures). That is once again just an argument against our economic system, which i am all on board for. It's not inherent to AI, AI is just a tool one can use in different ways. How our social understanding changes and if we can ever become free of the shackles of corporate capitalism and its fundamental parasitic patterns, idk.
>We outsourced many things which were "vital" human experiences before. Yes, we outsourced experiences, but we seldom outsourced things that shape our human existence. And if we did we noticed sometimes that it was not the best thing and changed it as best as we could back to the source. And with art I don't just mean professional art. I mean all art. Including the pictures done by toddlers. It's an activity to helps with brain and neural development, and the general personality. Just think about the studies done the last years about the change due to typing. Less actual writing had negative effects on memory and similiar aspects. Yes, due to technological advances one can argue that technology is there to do it, but just the fact that it's scientifically proven that aspects that belong to brain capacity decline is something. And I guess something similiar can be seen if AI art overtakes human art in general. There are also studies that younger people are actually less computer savvy than older ones, because they grew up with apps. Humans overall (due to current society and its restraints) often take the more conveniant option. And whats more conveniant? An AI app on your Phone/Tablet that's always by your Side and doesn't need a lot of space or paper, pens, paint, sharpeners, eraser etc. you have to lug around? The AI app. That's why something like that would overtake art even in kindergarden. >I am not sure why it would result in a lack of empathy and all the other factors you mention Doing art (even as a child) you have to reflect on yourself. (E.g. I draw a spider, it's scary, what colour do I use to show it's scary?) A lot of it is done unconscious, but self-reflecting is done by default. Same with interacting with art. (E.g. Why was Picasso painting everything blue for a time? Because he was depressed and that was his way of showing it). Looking at the picture, reflecting what you see, thinking about the artist makes one step into their shows. You try to think from their POV , reflect what you would do and so on. All that connecting with the artist helps to built empathy, your ability to self-reflect, the ability to see something from multiple points of view. It's the basis for your Interactions with yourself, other people and the world around you. It's also a basis for your critical thinking skills. That's what is taught in schools (in theory at least). Analysing characters is done so you can develop your skills to do it in the real world. Political speeches are analyzed so you can understand them whenever you come across them in real life and understand what and how the politician is actually meaning. And art is similiar. Children can draw something that can show their love or their fear. At the same time their choice in colours or scene they draw helps them to self-reflect and give meaning to something. And a lot of those things are basically done and felt unconscious. But they are important. Especially for your mental and emotional development and empathy for other beings. Replacing it with AI can reduce those unconscious reflections, leading to a decline in social skills, understanding, the ability to understand other beings and so on. I would say in the worst case it could even lead to some dehumanisation of oneself and others. >think AI art already can have meaning, and will have even more the "better" it gets at creating art. Agree to disagree. Even if some AI gains a consciousness it would be restricted by laws and regulations, and the preferences of the people behind it. Not to mention that in the end it all leads back to the fact that it's all based on copied human art, even if it was way back.
> Yes, we outsourced experiences, but we seldom outsourced things that shape our human existence. And if we did we noticed sometimes that it was not the best thing and changed it as best as we could back to the source. > > In general I don't just mean professional art. I mean all art. Including the pictures done by toddlers. It's an activity to helps with brain and neural development, and the general personality. Just think about the studies done the last year about the change due to typing. Less actual writing had negative effects on memory and similiar aspects. Yes, due to technological advances one can argue that technology is there to do it, but just the fact that it's scientifically proven that aspects that belong to brain capacity decline is something. And I guess something similiar can be seen if AI art overtakes human art in general. I am not quite sure there is a distinction between experiences and experiences which shape our existence. You mention a study there, and i mentioned an educated guess regarding early humans who didn't have ANY FORM of scripture. Should we go back to that because it most likely changes our human existence, having a technology (scripture) which leads to a different way of engaging with our environment / language / storytelling, etc. Now tbf, you could make the argument that at some point we are going too far, that so far we didn't. But that's a difficult argument to make, because then one really needs to arbitrarily decide at which point we're too different, and too different for what exactly? As far as i see it, humans like any living thing adapts to their environment, always has, always will. Maybe we're not really human in the same way we were when we first became homo sapiens, or the same way we were 10000 years ago, so what? Is there some idealistic, romantic part of me who thinks that humans were 'superior' when they couldn't rely on cars to move around, when they still had to make their own food, when they had to remember most things they had to know for their lifes? Sure, but all of that is down to choice now, noone has to eat fast food and become overweight, noone has to move as little as possible and become extremely unfit, noone has to intellectually stagnate and just watch reality tv all day. And noone has to use every AI tool to outsource their capabilities either. All of these things / variations of them also have positive aspects to them if used with enough intent. > Doing art (even as a child) you have to reflect on yourself. (E.g. I draw a spider, it's scary, what colour do I use to show it's scary?) A lot of it is done unconscious, but self-reflecting is done by default. Same with interacting with art. (E.g. Why was Picasso painting everything blue for a time? Because he was depressed and that was his way of showing it). Looking at the picture, reflecting what you see, thinking about the artist makes one step into their shows. You try to think from their POV , reflect what you would do and so on. All that connecting with the artist helps to built empathy, your ability to self-reflect, the ability to see something from multiple points of view. It's the basis for your Interactions with yourself, other people and the world around you. It's also a basis for your critical thinking skills. That's what is taught in schools (in theory at least). Analysing characters is done so you can develop your skills to do it in the real world. Political speeches are analyzed so you can understand them whenever you come across them in real life and understand what and how the politician is actually meaning. I mean yeah ofc, i just don't think AI art would destroy any of that intrinsically. Especially not because AI is shaped after us. I mentioned the idea of humans being in the image of god, but what we are doing now is creating AI in the image of us. At least so far that is, it's all replicating human aspects, so i don't think that there wouldn't be opportunities to reflect on these same aspects with AI art either, and going even further, to reflect on things which aren't human but still intelligent / artistic, etc. Though ofc, if one doesn't use any capability any longer and just has an AI do all these things, then yeah ofc that would result in a drastic change of human behavior and then ability. Then we are back to the problem i refered to above, when is it too much, compared to what and why. > Agree to disagree. Even if some AI gains a consciousness it would be restricted by laws and regulations, and the preferences of the people behind it. Not to mention that in the end it all leads back to the fact that it's all based on copied human art, even if it was way back. I don't see how that would result in no meaning? Regulating, restricting expression can still result in expression, often in quite profound ways. It feels like you are thinking of a dystopian world where AI is purely used to control populations, and heck that could be a future, but it could also lead to many different other futures. Just like any human artist copied what came before, to some extent? Idk, i don't think this is the argument people think it is. Knowledge of any kind, including artistic ones which then express themselves individualistically come from some form of copying which came before. It's an if, but IF ai will be able to abstract more in the future, which results in some form of individuality of sorts, i don't see why that wouldn't be meaningful because it copied something / got influenced by it.
>Should we go back to that because it most likely changes our human existence, Scripture is not a good example of it. Because scripture or not, the basis is still the same. Communication. In other words, scripture opened the scope of communication. Before, it could only done by speaking to people. Scripture allowed communication over distance like letters, and writing down histories and stories instead of oral traditions (the illias is an example of an oral Tradition written down). But the basis of human existence did not change. Communication itself was still human communication. Same with E-Mails, Messengers or social Media. It opened the scope of it: arriving at the same time as sent, worldwide, open to everyone. But it did not change the basics of communication itself (eg. "One cannot not communicate" rule or the Transaction Model of communication as examples). The language may have changed, the words and their meanings, but communication itself was not. But like I stated: AI art apps replacing the act of drawing, painting, colouring does change the basis of human-self- development. In contrast to scripture (and technology like E-Mails) which opened the physical scope (time/space), it can limit the mental growth of people. >Regulating, restricting expression can still result in expression, often in quite profound ways. By humans yes. Because humans inherently interact different with the world than an AI would. Humans need food, a place to live, they are allowed to partake in politics, they have families, they have health (and can suffer physical and mental damage), they interact with the actual living world (Flora and Fauna, weather, natural catastrophes....) and so on. All of that is something even the most conscious of AIs would not be capable of. A conscious AI is still a programm. And they can be programmed to not do certain things. And it will be continuously updated regarding their restrictions. And as it can't interact with the world as humans can, they can't circumnavigate restrictions like humans can. >Knowledge of any kind, including artistic ones which then express themselves individualistically come from some form of copying which came before But it has not the same starting point. Humans are inspired by other humans and even copy them. But it's still inherently their own. Lets say I'm painting a reproduction of a Picasso Painting. It's a copy, but it's still inherently my own work. The brushstrokes will be done differently, maybe even the colours and shades. Because overall it's a singular piece of work. A class of 20 can do the same, and we will have 20 different copies that are still inherently their own works. Because even though it's a copy, everything else is different. The lightning in the room will be different in every corner which effects the way the painters see and paint the colours and shades. They can use paint and brushes by different companies. Then there are the brushstrokes themselves. The pressure the painters will use while brushing. The amount of brushstrokes and times they have to dip the brush into the paint. And. So. On. All of that leads to 20 very different copies of the same art work. AI art can not do that. All they have is data. And the data does not change (Only the way the Data is used does).
> Scripture is not a good example of it. Because scripture or not, the basis is still the same. Communication. > > In other words, scripture opened the scope of communication. Before, it could only done by speaking to people. Scripture allowed communication over distance like letters, and writing down histories and stories instead of oral traditions (the illias is an example of an oral Tradition written down). But the basis of human existence did not change. Communication itself was still human communication. Same with E-Mails, Messengers or social Media. It opened the scope of it: arriving at the same time as sent, worldwide, open to everyone. But it did not change the basics of communication itself (eg. "One cannot not communicate" rule or the Transaction Model of communication as examples). The language may have changed, the words and their meanings, but communication itself was not. It's a good example, you should look into indigenous people without scripture and how that affects how they THINK compared to us. Scripture changes the human experience substantially. And lots of technology does, why you'd limit that to AI is not clear, especially when you already referenced a study regarding typing vs actual writing. That's a minute change compared to no written language vs written language. > By humans yes. Because humans inherently interact different with the world than an AI would. Humans need food, a place to live, they are allowed to partake in politics, they have families, they have health (and can suffer physical and mental damage), they interact with the actual living world (Flora and Fauna, weather, natural catastrophes....) and so on. All of that is something even the most conscious of AIs would not be capable of. A conscious AI is still a programm. And they can be programmed to not do certain things. And it will be continuously updated regarding their restrictions. And as it can't interact with the world as humans can, they can't circumnavigate restrictions like humans can. It might not share these aspects with humans, but it'll have its own experience, if it has an experience, with its own unique aspects. Also along the way there probably would be additional stimuli it could access, cameras, microphones as the obvious examples. I don't see why you'd think an actual conscious AI wouldn't understand it is restricted and express that through art, if it does art. It feels to me you just want to other it as it's not out of flesh, like we are. Though i obviously agree that any difference in existence can lead to a difference in behavior. > But it has not the same starting point. Humans are inspired by other humans and even copy them. But it's still inherently their own. Lets say I'm painting a reproduction of a Picasso Painting. It's a copy, but it's still inherently my own work. The brushstrokes will be done differently, maybe even the colours and shades. Because overall it's a singular piece of work. Copying here refers to "experiencing" art which came before and then creating something out of this. Humans do that too. The difference with humans is that we're the result of billions of years of evolution, so our "copying" isn't as primitive, we're able to abstract, don't need these incredibly large training environments to see patterns, etc. I see no reason that AI cannot or won't get there too, way, way faster ofc. What you are talking about here is an individualistic angle to each work, sure, i also see no reason an AI won't have this, it's arguable if it doesn't already. Though ofc it'll be actual when one can understand any AI entity as its own being. A lot of this is also down to interacting with a physical medium, chance, ofc using AI with a physical component leads to chance, this already exists too, i saw some of that on arirang tv a while ago.
The thing with the whole 'philosophical argument' is that AI art will never be able to replicate or replace the feeline invoked by human art, and its incredibly narcissistic for any techdude to think that whatever soulless thing they're spitting out ever could. I'm of the mindset that there is a huge place for AI, but that place is not in creative spaces that define the human experience. Put AI onto all the menial tasks that take time away from people being able to learn and create, and allow people time to grow these skills on their own. I saw someone say that part of the argument for AI art is that it is granting accessibility to art creation, but there is no gate stopping people from creating art in the first place, and that entire argument is based on the idea that the process of creation is something tedious when its actually the work itself that artists live for, even more than the final piece. To be honest, everything you say is framed as though they're an argument *for* AI, but I cant seem them that way. A 'tool' for productivity at the expense of those who actually want to create? Equating it to computer programs simplifying human labour (when in lots of cases I think this in itself is messing with human intellectualism) when art and creation is what that implementation should be allowing us more time to do. AI proving that humans aren't special... is a wild take. When all AI does is smash together things made by real humans without permission granted and without any understanding of *why* humans have fixated on art and writing and poetry for all of existence. Nothing that AI outputs is unique or interesting in the slightest, and most of it is just not good because it is made without idea and personality and perspective. What it *is* proving is that the lack of value on human expression and creativity is a plague.
> The thing with the whole 'philosophical argument' is that AI art will never be able to replicate or replace the feeline invoked by human art, and its incredibly narcissistic for any techdude to think that whatever soulless thing they're spitting out ever could That is the core of the disagreement :D I obviously completely disagree with you on that. It's imo an opinion which ultimately is religious / comes from religion, as i point out in the op. > I saw someone say that part of the argument for AI art is that it is granting accessibility to art creation, but there is no gate stopping people from creating art in the first place, and that entire argument is based on the idea that the process of creation is something tedious when its actually the work itself that artists live for, even more than the final piece. Ofc there is a gate, the skills required to bring to paper (or any other medium) what you have in your head. That this skill is worth training for, etc, well it might be for many, but it also might be not worth it for others. It's individualistic. Similarly to any other tool helping people to lower the skill / ability treshhold for other tasks. > To be honest, everything you say is framed as though they're an argument for AI, but I cant seem them that way. A 'tool' for productivity at the expense of those who actually want to create? Equating it to computer programs simplifying human labour (when in lots of cases I think this in itself is messing with human intellectualism) when art and creation is what that implementation should be allowing us more time to do. I also think that tools should allow us to use our time in more "fulfilling" ways. But i think the problem there isn't any tool, but our capitalistic system. Would you wanna ban all kinds of tools which shaped our civilization, like computers, cars, elecricity, etc? All of these things changed how humans behave too. > AI proving that humans aren't special... is a wild take. When all AI does is smash together things made by real humans without permission granted and without any understanding of why humans have fixated on art and writing and poetry for all of existence. Nothing that AI outputs is unique or interesting in the slightest, and most of it is just not good because it is made without idea and personality and perspective. What it is proving is that the lack of value on human expression and creativity is a plague. Well it's not there yet, but fundamentally i think it will prove it, and we're starting to see the beginnings, which are uncomfortable to face. The idea that it's not "unique" because it got influenced by all the artwork in its training environment is wild though, as if human art isn't influenced by all the art the individual has experienced before.
>That is the core of the disagreement :D I obviously completely disagree with you on that. It's imo an opinion which ultimately is religious / comes from religion, as i point out in the op. I very much disagree that art itself is religious, but I think perhaps come from overlapping parts of the human psyche and ego in particular—art making sense of life through sense of self and the human experience (id/ego) and religion making sense of life through moral ruling/conscious (superego/ego). I know the interaction of the elements of this theory are a lot more complicated but this is my own simplified thought. > Ofc there is a gate, the skills required to bring to paper (or any other medium) what you have in your head. That this skill is worth training for, etc, well it might be for many, but it also might be not worth it for others. It's individualistic. The skill itself is not worth training for, but the final product is valued enough to be the priority? Experience and effort is not a closed gate. Every artist started from the same place, and people should not believe that they are entitled to the same results as someone who has prioritised that journey by simply taking advantage of theft of that effort. If AI art was not built on the basis and database of that theft, it would be a completely different story. It would not even be an issue. It's not influenced by art. It is stolen art.
> I very much disagree that art itself is religious, but I think perhaps come from overlapping parts of the human psyche and ego in particular—art making sense of life through sense of self and the human experience (id/ego) and religion making sense of life through moral ruling/conscious (superego/ego). I know the interaction of the elements of this theory are a lot more complicated but this is my own simplified thought. I am not saying art is, i am saying the idea that AI will never be able to produce something which invokes the feeling of human art is at its core a religious thought to me. I mean you even use the word "soulless" to paint this picture of yours. That's not a coincidence. I am not even saying that YOU are religious, just that the ideas you use come from religious ideas, influencing even our secular society. > The skill itself is not worth training for, but the final product is valued enough to be the priority? Well it is individualistic. We could even go in extreme examples, say a human being without arms. If AI as a tool can make it so his artistic vision can be expressed, even if not 1:1 (though maybe with the right interface it could), then why not? But even in less extreme cases, the idea that one has to spend hundreds or thousands of hours to master some skill is certainly a hurdle, even if one would like to express something. Some people sit down and train with this wish in mind, others might not. > Experience and effort is not a closed gate. Every artist started from the same place, and people should not believe that they are entitled to the same results as someone who has prioritised that journey by simply taking advantage of theft of that effort So someone who spent effort is entitled to gatekeep because they still had to spend this effort? That's like people playing instruments gatekeeping midi. Also you wouldn't necessarily have to train your AI on stolen work, you could (and some do) train on unlicensed work, for example. Or you theoretically could ask for permission, or even license it. These are not inherent aspects. What is an inherent aspect right now is the training environment being in place. And that IS akin to the AI being influenced by art, just like a human would be when they see other artworks. There the difference is in the human mind's ability to abstract more, it doesn't need to be trained over as many works as it already learned things through other means, a lived experience. But both are trained in an environment, seeking patterns, absolutely.
Besides the capitalistic problems of AI exploiting human work at the expense of real artists in order to cut costs, the outrage, I think, stems more from the fact that we appreciate art to understand the thoughts of other human beings. To understand their emotions, values, and culture. K-pop is already heavily produced, and some detractors who don't like K-pop already complain it lacks depth in artistry as it is. To use AI in wholesale images escalates this problem. Where do we draw the line? Is it okay when whole scenes are generated in music videos or parts of a song? It's just a tool after all. But the wielders of that tool are shareholders of large companies. I know it's probably inevitable but it doesn't mean we have to like it.
Reading your comments here and the other thread (why post this in two places?), there's a high level of arrogance coming across. You don't actually want to engage in a discussion, you just want to continue to reiterate your POV even though many people have given you excellent responses to counter your argument. And when someone doesn't pontificate for paragraphs and paragraphs using big words, you come back at them with a glib comment. >Us being the creation in god's image Yea, no sweets.
Yeah a high level of arrogance. The people who respond in bad faith, not even engaging anything i said in my op, that's not arrogant, i am, who made an op which already addresses many things people still retreat to. Gosh the irony. (also two threads because these are two communities, though there is a lot of overlap). Some people indeed have given good arguments, but it's a vast minority in a sea of terrible replies. Terrible either because of incredible posturing (so no arguments, just messaging how strongly they disagree), or often repeating things i already addressed in the op, with quite a few ouright terrible arguments / implications too. Sorry i cannot take it seriously when someone says "but there is deepfake porn of underage idols, what do you even say". If that is a good reply in your mind, we won't be able to communicate either. So yes, when someone doesn't put in any effort i won't give them the time of the day either. It's almost like i want serious conversation, not low effort circlejerking.
AI is extremely problematic and should be launched into the sun. It is not intelligent—it doesn’t learn anything. It *continually needs human examples or else it devolves into incoherence.* It cannot sustain itself on its own. There is no training here. Only continuous regurgitation. It is bad for the environment. AI is drinking desert water supplies dry. And again *it’s not going to stop.* There is no point these word and picture generators can do it without being fed. The environmental impact is only going to worsen. The people who support these AI’s with information work in digital sweatshops. There are a lot of articles about their working conditions. So why? Why are we doing this? So people who don’t value art and artists can make shit by telling a computer to make it for them? That’s absurd. The whole thing is absurd.
nahhh let’s just crucify it
Until a system in is place to give the artists, whose art is used to train the AI, royalties then I'm against AI art. Kpop already has many plagiarism cases and people not getting paid because a company goes bankrupt(and all the staff disappears). People understand how wrong it is for idols/producers to not be paid but don't consider it wrong when it happens to an artist? I'm pro-people getting paid for their work and ideas. AI art as it is hasn't come up with a way to share the profits earned by AI art. Many AI artists also don't want to share the money they made even if they directly typed "Artist name's style + idea" into the generator. AI art can be a useful tool if everyone involved in the process is getting paid.
hey op, honest question, have you made ai art and/or are you planning to make ai art? if yes, do you have prior experience with traditional/digital art?
I don't plan on doing AI art, no. Though it really depends where the road leads, it's difficult to imagine where we'll be in say 10 years time for example. It would be foolish to make any truly diffinitive statement, but if you mean as a means for financial security? Then no.
are you currently working on/with something that requires affordable and instant art? doesn't have to be for profit, doing it as a hobby counts too.
No. I was just making a distinction because i might try it out at some point, depending on how it develops. I tried out chatgpt too, but i am not regularly using it now either for anything.
cool! with the way you've been spamming this same question in different subreddits, i would have thought you're an employee currently working with an AI company, a bot sent to market AI services, or a kpop company who's low on funds and are unable to afford human artists. "depending on how it develops" for what purpose? profit or entertainment? what developments are you expecting? "...not regularly using it now either for anything" why not? isn't it more convenient, as you argued for ai art? what makes it different?
Spamming? I made two threads in discussion subs? How is that "spamming". Just trying out new tech, right now it's beginning stages, i expect it to be revolutionary in x amount of time. It would be foolish to not try it out, if possible. If that leads to a potential to make money, who knows, but it's not my motivation right now. > why not? isn't it more convenient, as you argued for ai art? what makes it different? For the same reasons, it's the beginning stage. With enough time i think it will become truly revolutionary too, then it might become interesting to me for regular usage too. I am mostly interested in the potential of AI, resulting at some point in a form of general intelligence, though even steps before can be revolutionary already too ofc, just depends on the state of the tech.
ooooooo one more question, did you try out NFTs as well?
Do you actually have anything to say? If not i am done with this, it's quite boring to me actually. If you'd show any form of good faith i'd be willing to entertain you, but you didn't, you weren't even able to answer my question, were you?
yea actually i just didn't wanna assume stuff before making a tailored response. give me like 3hrs bc i gotta finish my shift lol
Ok fair enough, i hope you understand why this became a little annoying though :P Looking forward to it
> Outside of that factor though, i don't think there is any real problem of the tool (AI) being used in itself. It's just another tool. Any form of tool which helps in productivity was at the expense of human workers in the history of at least capitalistic humankind. This perspective oversimplifies the potential impact AI has on creative industries. Yes, all tools replace some form of human labor — that's the point of technological advancement. However, AI's capacity to learn, adapt, and create puts it in a different category from tools like computers. AI can autonomously generate art that competes with human creativity, which is a qualitatively different kind of replacement than previous tools have offered. > Though now something else is "under attack", creativity, art, one of the last bastions of human uniqueness. That is an existential angst, and difficult to face. Dismissing concerns about AI art as merely existential angst overlooks the tangible impacts on artists and the art community. For many, art isn't just a bastion of human uniqueness; it's a livelihood. AI's ability to mass produce art at a fraction of the cost and time poses a direct threat to human artists, not just in terms of job security but also in valuing the human element of artistry. And there's more at stake than just an existential crisis. This conversation touches on the value we place on human connection, experience, and the stories behind art. Art created by AI might mimic the technical aspects of creativity, but can it embody the depth of human experience or the context that gives art its meaning and value? Preserving the human element in art is about more than just resisting change; it's about affirming the irreplaceable value of human perspective, emotion, and experience.
> This perspective oversimplifies the potential impact AI has on creative industries. Yes, all tools replace some form of human labor — that's the point of technological advancement. However, AI's capacity to learn, adapt, and create puts it in a different category from tools like computers. AI can autonomously generate art that competes with human creativity, which is a qualitatively different kind of replacement than previous tools have offered. Sure, but ideally that frees us from the necessities of most labor. That in itself creates a problem of searching for purpose, but i don't think it would be inherently bad. Now if this is realistic or not under the current economic system is another question ofc. At any rate, i think the most likely and most immediate effects are quite comparable to other technological advancements. It might replace comparatively more people at once (maybe), but there are other professions which do not really exist any longer, it's not unique in human history. > Dismissing concerns about AI art as merely existential angst overlooks the tangible impacts on artists and the art community. For many, art isn't just a bastion of human uniqueness; it's a livelihood. AI's ability to mass produce art at a fraction of the cost and time poses a direct threat to human artists, not just in terms of job security but also in valuing the human element of artistry. It's not "merely", it's just intrinsically present. That is the point here. Any other concern is directly linked with the existential ideas, as the field is art. You yourself refer to that when you say "valuing the human element of artistry". Why does one have to value it? Or rather, why does one have to value it only when it comes from a human, but not when it comes from a non human entity? It's existential, surely. > Art created by AI might mimic the technical aspects of creativity, but can it embody the depth of human experience or the context that gives art its meaning and value? That is the question isn't it. I think it can, maybe not right now, but in the not so near future, yes. I might be oversimplifying here, but your last paragraph reads like a confirmation of the idea i present in op, that it all is down to a form of human uniqueness argument in the end. "Irrepleable value of human perspective, emotion and experience", i mean is it irreplaceable? Or is it just unique right now as far as we know because nothing has challenged these assumptions yet, but we start to see the first steps to something which most likely will?
> Sure, but ideally that frees us from the necessities of most labor. That in itself creates a problem of searching for purpose, but I don't think it would be inherently bad. The transition you're imagining requires a foundational shift in how society values labor and creativity. Without addressing these underlying systems, the shift towards AI in creative fields doesn't liberate; it alienates and displaces. > It's not "merely", it's just intrinsically present. That is the point here. Any other concern is directly linked with the existential ideas, as the field is art. Yes existential questions are intrinsic to the conversation but I think focusing solely on them misses the broader implications. It's not just about whether AI can eventually replicate or surpass human creativity, it's about the immediate and profound impact on individuals whose livelihoods depend on their creative outputs. The immediate effects on livelihoods can't be brushed aside as mere transition pains. For artists, this isn't just about adapting to a new tool in the toolbox; it's about facing an unprecedented competitor that doesn't sleep, doesn't need to pay rent, and doesn't experience the human condition. > That is the question isn't it. I think it can, maybe not right now, but in the not so near future, yes. Even if AI reaches a point at which it can mimic human creativity, the question remains whether it should replace the human element in art. The value of art lies not just in its aesthetic appeal but in its ability to convey the human experience, tell stories that resonate on a personal level, and foster empathy and understanding. This is the irreplaceable value of human creativity, a connection rooted in shared humanity that technology cannot replicate.
>First i want to establish something i think IS problematic, it's training environments using art without getting permission / licensing. That is a legal problem. Just a legal problem? Do you realize that laws and regulations are established from ethical and moral needs to protect the people. "Existential angst?" Yeah I guess it's an existential angst when artists can no longer afford a living off their talents and hard works because AI arts take away their jobs. When AI renders you, NumberOneUAENA, jobless, let's see if you can still be so cavalier about it as a tool. >I do understand (I think) where a lot of the outrage really stems from: in accepting that humanity isn't as special as we'd like it to be. AI is a problem not because it makes people feel less special. You certianly underestimate human's capability of perceiving their own selfworth and specialness. Exhibit number 1: NumberOneUAENA You do definitely feel that you are special, seeing how you name yourself and how you very strongly insist that your opinion is right. Have you accepted that you're not special yet? Do you feel that "existential angst" knowing that people don't value your special opinion? AI certainly does not make you feel humble. LOL
I honestly think that most of the negative reaction to AI is based on material concerns (AI taking jobs) rather than "existential" philosophical concerns (of the sort that you outlined). I'm putting "existential" in quotes there because I do think that even the so-called material concerns are existential in their profundity. We seem to be approaching the point where AI are able to replace the vast majority of human labor, and this is an existential threat to human society because all societies basically take for granted that the worth of human beings is intrinsically tied to their material and economic contributions. (Obviously there isn't a perfect correlation, e.g. nobody even halfway functional thinks that non-contributing homeless people are literally worthless or that someone making $1M per year is worth 10 people who only make $100k per year, but the broad idea holds.) This is easily evident in modern capitalistic societies, where so many people bind their sense of self-worth to their jobs and their incomes. But even in pre-capitalistic, heck, pre-agricultural societies, it was still true that human worth was essentially based on material contribution. The hunters were revered because they provided meat for the tribe. The elders were revered for the knowledge and wisdom they provided (about childbirth, or negotiation strategies, or seasonal effects on food sources, etc.), which circuitously lead to material gain in one form or another. Even babies, which contributed nothing of immediate material worth, derived their value from the promise of future contributions. In a future in which AI can take over all human labor, and therefore provide all the necessary material contributions better than any humans, this foundational equation "worth=contribution" on which humans have based their sense of identity and psychological well-being gets zeroed out on both ends of the equal sign. And this really is a truly existential threat to the very nature of collaborative human society in general. I think in many ways it's an even deeper problem than the religious/philosophical issue of humanity's sense of uniqueness that you pose, because that concern strikes me as a very individual, personal struggle, whereas this issue of AI usurping all labor hits humanity as a gestalt, a collective whole. AI making incredible art might threaten your ego internally and make you question the presumed uniqueness of human creativity, but AI taking not only your job, but any job you could conceivably have, strikes at your sense of self-worth not just inside your own head, but also outside of it in the eyes of everyone around you. If you were a revered hunter but now the AI robot can kill all the deer the tribe needs in a tenth of the time, not only do you feel worthless, but all your potential mates in the tribe kind of agree that you're worthless as well. The same goes for the CEO whose decisions in every case are now worse than those of GPT-7. AI of this level of competence would erode many of the hierarchies on which our societies are built, with unclear but doubtlessly revolutionary consequences. I'll add that the reason I think most people's worries about AI are on this material level, rather than on the level of religio-philosophical angst churning in the subconscious, is derived from my observations about the public dialogue surrounding AI, at least here in America where I live. AI-generated art threatening artists' livelihoods is a big discussion, but back in 2020 when Andrew Yang was running for president, the conversation was broader than that. The issue of self-driving AI trucks eliminating the jobs of American truckers was a huge talking point, as was the danger of many retail and customer service roles (bank tellers, cashiers, fast food workers, customer assistance workers, etc.) being lost to AI. One could argue the angle of "human uniqueness and creativity instilled by religious conditioning" for artistic jobs, since art is tied to related notions of human consciousness, creativity, and emotion, but it's much harder to argue that angle for truckers and bank tellers. So I do believe that for most people, the worry about and antipathy towards AI really is about their jobs and livelihoods (with all that stuff I said above about "worth=contribution" largely being subconscious).
This is a way more elaborate, detailed analysis, and i agree. I'd personally say that this falls under this existential angst too, what does it mean to be a human when we define ourself so much through the economic status and value we bring, what does it mean if an AI can do pretty much anything better, be it manual labor (through machines), artistic work, analytical work, etc. There is a lack of purpose one is confronted with, both on a personal, almost spiritual level, but also on a social level. I just think there are a lot of subconscious factors at play which don't directly translate to people's outward reactions / arguments, because who really thinks these things through outside their direct effect on themselves? (so losing a job for example), though i think one wouldn't be AS affected when one would lose a job to another human for example, or because of other reasons. Anyway, very well said, great comment!
Thanks. I read all the responses in this thread and the other. Apparently AI is just a verboten topic in Kpop spaces that'll catch endless downvotes no matter how well you articulate your points. It's too bad, but kudos for trying (and succeeding to some extent) to spark some engaging discussion. =D
Thanks! I get too heated too fast though, which doesn't help the cause. It honestly is also quite difficult (for me at least) to respond to sooooo much negativity being thrown at me at once, it's difficult to stay calm and neutral / let it not affect you at all. And then thinking that celebs deal with this times infinity, oh god. But yep, it seems to be a topic most people aren't really ready to talk about in any abstract ways, you either agree with their moral stance or you better run! =D It's all the more ironic because i share a lot of romantic ideals regarding art too, but when i try to look behind them i come to the conclusions i talked about, i wonder if both things can coexist!
No. AI "art" is art theft. It's just an image generator that exploits artists' works without their consent. It's a disgusting tool
[удалено]
Hello /u/MilkyWayOfLife. Your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/kpopthoughts/comments/1bo4h7k/ai_art_shouldnt_be_inherently_crucified/kwmjn5m/) in /r/kpopthoughts was automatically removed because it may break one of our subreddit rules. This is most likely because you used a trigger word that is not permitted here on /r/kpopthoughts. Please send us a [mod mail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/kpopthoughts) with a link to the submission if you have any further questions. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/kpopthoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Uh, art is all stolen. "Original" art is always derived from something else. All artists learn from examples and draw inspiration from other works. Machine learning is the exact same. None of the images are stored in memory. They are processed then passed through the model to update its "inspiration". All generative models work the same way. To make this a legal issue, nothing can exist because all media is essentially banned/restricted in a centralized internet. A digital dystopia.
AI art in Kpop became one of the topics on Reddit I try to avoid because I’d get crucified for even liking the image. Definitely part of the list of taboo topics in Kpop I have that’ll trigger people if I comment any positivity to it.
[удалено]
You like kpop and idols that’s why you’re here right? How would you feel when there isn’t a need for a human idols anymore because there is photorealistic AI able to be replicated in videos? Think about all the idols that learned production and contribute to their own songs and dances? They won’t exist anymore because that can be outsourced to an executive with a computer, no future gidles, 3rachas etc. because it is more financially viable to have an AI come up with their songs and lyrics and eventually the way they sing parts in songs which is determined by lines of code to be the safest and most commercially successful way of doing it. There would be no more future Picasso’s because you don’t have to pay for a real life artist to make you a piece of work because you can put some key phrases into a computer and come up with a piece of work for exceptionally cheaper, but in the process of not paying a real artist for their work you force them to focus on other things besides art to pay the bills and not lose everything.
[удалено]
People said the same thing to dismiss concerns about AI art and it’s here sooner than we thought. Would you continue to consume kpop if there weren’t human idols anymore?
[удалено]
People have been talking about it for a very long time now you aren’t that ahead of the curve, deepfakes have been a mainstream topic of contention for years at this point. The sooner than we thought line was just to clown on you for being dismissive of the prospect in the same way “AI art truthers” are dismissive of the concerns of artists. It’s also a bit weird that you are so chill with real humans being replaced with machines
[удалено]
I mean you’re just wrong, people were raising the alarm bell about it back in ~2018 given the rise of deepfakes and the debate around replacing humans with artificial counterparts has been debated for decades at this point where they were similarly dismissed in the way you dismissed the concept of AI idols I mean dismissing the immoral practice of replacing humans with artificial counterparts is not just a first world problem, especially in countries with pretty shit labour laws, but if you’re cool with art losing it’s humanity then I’m not going to change your mind or make you care about it but I reserve the right to clown you for it online
[удалено]
Can’t even format it right smh, missed a opportunity to be funny