Players Cancel System Shock Remake Pre-Orders Over AI-Generated Art Controversy - by theabyss
Starker on 1/6/2023 at 22:52
Quote Posted by catbarf
Which, if the prior example of language translation is anything to go on, will result in artists being out of work long before AI is actually capable of producing comparable content.
The state of Virginia was using machine translation for their COVID 19 website to help with vaccine scheduling. Among other things, it mistranslated the verb "to book" (as in "to reserve a date") and translated "The vaccine is not mandatory" to "The vaccine is not necessary". So at least when it comes to translating between English and Spanish, two relatively large and close languages, there's still a long way to go.
Maybe one day there will be a LLM-based AI that doesn't make such mistakes, but human translation is still necessary in any field that values accuracy and/or quality. There isn't really a market for machine-translated books, for example.
Also, while that may change with advances in neural network-based machine translation, right now it often takes less effort to translate something from scratch than it does to fix/edit a machine translated text, although companies more and more seek to cut corners by offering post-edited machine translations instead of human translations, due to editors generally having a lower pay grade than translators.
Sulphur on 2/6/2023 at 06:09
Quote Posted by SD
See, I remember all these very same arguments when synthesisers were going to put traditional musicians out of work. And yet, still no shortage of people who want to listen to mediocre journeymen plucking strings and bashing things with sticks.
If your argument is 'in fact, there's place in the world for both AI generation and traditional artists with some necessary turmoil and displacement before equilibrium is reached', that's a far more optimistic point of view than I'd otherwise ascribe to you.
So I'm going to assume what you actually mean is eventual artistic subsumption is better overall because it'll consistently match some arbitrary qualitative parameters you and people like you set, which is definitely a take.
Sulphur on 2/6/2023 at 06:11
Quote Posted by heywood
Humans can cut and paste, and do it on occasion. And have you ever seen an AI art program spit out a perfect reproduction of another artwork? I haven't. I think that's a red herring. If somebody copied my work and published it as their own, I wouldn't be happy regardless of whether a person did it or a program did it or how exact the copy is. As artists start using AI programs to create paid works, they have to accept the risk that the AI might get them into copyright or trademark trouble if it spits out a wholesale copy of something and the artist doesn't catch it. There's probably going to be a few high profile accusations and cases, but I'm not worried about it because software that gets people in trouble isn't going to succeed in the market.
Well, it's interesting, right. I don't think it's
exactly a red herring because there's more nuance to the discussion than 'that's what humans do too'. AIs are in some ways instantaneously more capable than someone setting out to learn from the masters, and there are in fact not that many humans who have that predilection to begin with out of the entire population; this reinforces a certain inherent rarity to the art that we produce. Put simply, this means that inspiration and derivation are an acceptable process because it results in a certain amount of artistic
value, where deviations from the originals filtered through the artist's mind and life (their journey, to reference a conversation in Comm Chat) to a certain skill level contribute to the work having more value.
The fact that you can make as many instances of these ANNs as you can afford hardware to host them on means that we're introducing two problems: one, your population of 'artists' increases drastically because you can make them at will, so to speak, which decreases the rarity factor. Two, since AIs have no actual life experience or even have 'understanding' as such, they will deviate from copyrighted art only inasmuch as they can reconfigure it in ways that amount to outright copying or pastiche, which are traditionally less valuable artistically. We don't have issues with humans doing this, because there simply aren't that many humans out there who will. Putting both together: when you can configure an army of the things, limited only by the amount of hardware you can host them on, you can see why an infinite pool of art permutations from copyrighted sources is problematic to the creators - this can have the effect of devaluing original works from less famous artists, simply because we will have an incredible amount of stuff to sift through if someone chooses to flood a market.
We're already seeing this a bit with Spotify and its wave of 'artists' with generated music, and while we're not at the stage where it's difficult to confuse them with 'name' artists, I don't see a future where sifting through all this chaff isn't going to be extremely difficult - especially given that, with enough time and training, we'll reach the stage where competency and variability is good enough that we may simply not care if it's a human or a robot that made it.
theabyss on 2/6/2023 at 20:58
Some very interesting takes on this. It certainly makes one think about values and what it means for us going forward. As I said earlier in this thread, there is no going back. One just has to adapt to the new reality. For certain jobs it will be devastating but for others it will open new opportunities. It could even be that we get some sort of content labeling in the future similar to the Non-GMO food labels.
SD on 3/6/2023 at 18:20
Quote Posted by Sulphur
If your argument is 'in fact, there's place in the world for both AI generation and traditional artists with some necessary turmoil and displacement before equilibrium is reached', that's a far more optimistic point of view than I'd otherwise ascribe to you.
So I'm going to assume what you actually mean is eventual artistic subsumption is better overall because it'll consistently match some arbitrary qualitative parameters you and people like you set, which is definitely a take.
Not sure where the unbridled hostility is coming from, but it's essentially true that artists with talent have nothing to worry about from artificial intelligence. At least until robots start picking up paintbrushes.
F. J. Rothchild III on 6/6/2023 at 08:55
Quote Posted by JumpinBlackjackFlash
How the taff does Night Dive keep screwing up? I remember they used to be at least decent once upon a time.
The overuse and misuse of “literally” can be obnoxious, I know, but trust me when I say that this “screw up”...is literally just a tweet.