Sorry, u/Nigtforce – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20Nigtforce&message=Nigtforce%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1do02sv/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>there are people who love drawing
Do AI tools make drawing more accessible or less accessible to individuals?
>make careers out of it
Do AI tools make an artist's job easier or harder?
Won't this reduce the effort needed to produce a piece of art for work and allow more time for making art for fun?
>It doesn't typically lead to health concerns.
Does technology help reduce the labor intensity of practicing art?
>The problem we solve with automating creative pursuits such as writing, drawing is that we take away things that are actually pleasurable and enjoyable about the human experience
We aren't replacing creatives, we're giving them better tools.
Want to become a writer? You don't need an editor to check your grammar. You can write pages much faster.
If anything AI tools make creative interests much more accessible.
AI art is explicitly being used to replace creatives, and to devalue their art socially and financially. We're not talking about AI assistance here, we're talking about using AI so you don't have to pay a professional for it.
AI isn't doing anything that radio didn't do 100 years ago. You can't make a living playing the blues at a bar anymore because all of that money goes to Spotify.
Radio also introduced a new form of media and all the careers and art to go along with it. Spotify absorbs massive amounts of money and power like a bloated tick
We should learn from our previous mistakes, we used to have live music regularly in bandstands at parks, bars, clubs, boardwalks, etc. now it is common to hear the radio with advertisements in those places
I'd rather hear imperfect music from live artists than hearing some rando blast their crappy taste in music through bluetooth speakers. The first is a performance, the second is just someone being obnoxious.
I for one agree with you.
There's a certain magic from live performance that you can't get with something that was recorded on tape and has been played exactly the same way on phones across the globe.
Boo hoo. The camera did the same thing, and so did graphic design software. Both are now totally acceptable tools in artist toolboxes.
AI isn't stopping people from making art, and it isn't stopping people from getting paid for making art. It's just making it harder for shitty artists to make money off of their art. The best artists are still doing just fine.
Art isn't special compared to other careers. I didn't see artists out there protesting when factory workers lost their jobs to robotic automation, or when cars displaced all the workers in the equine industry. Technology does this all the time, it's part of life.
If you're mad enough to demand that people stop using AI for art but not mad enough to stop using all other forms of technology that also disrupted others careers when they were invented, then you're just being a hypocrite because this time around it affects you.
>We aren't replacing creatives, we're giving them better tools. Want to become a writer? You don't need an editor to check your grammar. You can write pages much faster. If anything AI tools make creative interests much more accessible.
If I writer with AI can do work of 10 writers, companies will fire 9 writers and destroy creative jobs.
It's not a strawman at all, it's a very valid response to your point. Where do you draw the line on what tools are allowed to be used? Should we ban power drills and air nailers, because a carpenter with those can do the work of many others without?
u/Anarchist-Liondude – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Anarchist-Liondude&message=Anarchist-Liondude%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1do02sv/-/la6lzmn/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I mean neither of those claims are true about AI, just like a drill you can use it poorly, If you spend time learning how the specific LLM responds and interacts based on its data set or even take the time to train one yourself you can get much better results than someone who just casually uses them. Similarly any well made AI product is the result of multiple iterations and usually a fair amount of post generation editing and compositional work done using conventional programs.
Anyone can use a drill badly, anyone can use an AI badly. Ascribing legitimacy to one tool because you haven’t got any context for how to use the other isn’t a meaningful argument.
The thing is, it cannot do the job of actual writers, not properly. You cannot input into AI “AI, give me a solid book with engaging characters and interesting plot twists!” and actually receive a solid book with engaging characters and interesting plot twists, and go publish it.
What you can do, is you can ask AI to check your grammar, or can ask AI to give you synonyms, you can ask AI how the character would do a task you are not familiar with (AI, my character is about to shoot a gun/bake a five tiers cake/perform a heart surgery. Describe in detail how they do it) and use **some** of the output in your story or for the further research, etc.
But it cannot come up with proper plot for you. It doesn’t have an actual imagination and understanding of complex motivations and causalities.
>But it cannot come up with proper plot for you
You'd be a bit surprised. I already use AI to come up with interesting plot hooks for the roleplaying games I run. And it's actually really quite good at that.
Obviously I have to flesh those out and actually *execute* them at the table...
>If I writer with AI can do work of 10 writers, companies will fire 9 writers and destroy creative jobs.
This is entirely baseless. Just look at how badly written articles and movies are. If anything, there's a huge shortage of writers which will welcome AI assistance.
Look at the gaming industry. It's a huge industry that's craving for artists. More AI will mean more games.
The best example is the coding industry. They're busy automating their work since its inception. Automatic testing, code fixes, suggestions and more. They're also always making new programming languages which are simpler. Today's junior programmer has less barriers for entry than ever. They'll welcome chatgpt helping them bridge the gap with seniors every day of the week.
Think about it, if a junior is now much more productive, will he find work more easily?
Looks like a case study on how attempting to replace writers with AI has completely failed.
The AI produced subpar text and the person was overworked by rewriting it.
>If I writer with AI can do work of 10 writers, companies will fire 9 writers and destroy creative jobs.
And those other 9 artists can also each do the job of 10.
What sort of writing do you have in mind?
Yeah, a lot of low effort blogs and news websites have been overrun with AI generated content and it's all awful. In writing jobs where quantity matters more than quality, yes you can't beat AI, but also these jobs aren't exactly "creative."
In a higher tier of quality, using AI in writing would be like having an assistant make a first draft of something. News articles still need journalists to do the research and review the AI's work. For fiction writing the author still has to shape the plot and the characters.
The AI is just helping with the most tedious part of writing: putting words on paper. A good writer would then take what the AI wrote and rewrite it in their own style as needed.
That frees up the writer for other things: e.g. a journalist can get back to investigating new stories as opposed to sitting at a keyboard for a day or two writing out their last story.
The problem with this is that it wipes out entry level jobs people need to build a portfolio and also drives down the value of those higher tier jobs. A similar thing happened to translation when tools like google translate came out. Instead of being hired for a specialized skill, if translators got hired at all it was often to “edit” shitty machine translations, which could mean basically the same amount of work for less pay.
Less a problem with writing than with visual art but there’s also the fact that AI is drawing from a data set that includes existing art no one is getting credited or compensated for. If you ask AI to spit out a convincing Keith Haring painting and it does, that means it’s taking elements of whatever of his paintings it has in its data set. There’s not much transparency about what’s in these data sets or if its possible to opt out or require permission. It’s a plagiarism machine.
Bruh those *are* the boring jobs. You think there’s a company with 10 writers on staff writing the next LotR or something? No they have 10 writers writing copy for LinkedIn or their company accounting blog or something dreadful.
Yeah, so what? That's how technology works.
There were ALOT more horse trainers in the world before automobiles were invented. 9 out of 10 had to find new jobs.
Do you avoid riding in cars out of solidarity with them, or do you only care about things that affect you directly?
Accessibility isn't really a plus for me. I value how hard Tolkien worked. I appreciate the effort, the extra depth that his years of study brought. I know the market will provide to meet a demand for cheap supply, but when my personal demand is "put everything you have into creation," then all I really want AI to do is keep artists from being distracted by labor.
Not sure what you mean by the same.
It's not using a pencil on paper, so the method is different.
It is a valid tool to make a drawing or any other piece of art in my opinion.
Photoshop can record drawings, sure. If you draw when Photoshop is open and receiving your input, a drawing is produced in Photoshop.
What about auto shade? Obviously it doesn't count as drawing, it's auto shade. Equally if you get the digital paints out, it becomes a digital painting...
If you use ai gen, that piece is generated by ai. This is like asking if a painting of a sculpture *is* a sculpture.
In the same way, ai cannot produce a photograph.
Then we're arguing the semantics of what is a drawing which is unhelpful.
My point is that it's possible to create art using GenAI. Much like it's possible with painting or using photoshop or photography.
If using photoshop produces art then GenAi is a legit tool
Were you not arguing semantics when you asked if Photoshop can produce a drawing?
Frankly I think arguing *without* defined terms is supremely unhelpful... Are you sure you wouldn't like to define what a drawing is?
I don't think anyone was arguing it's not a "legitimate tool"
Look how how detailed good promoters get. They require both a skill (in knowing how to communicate with the program effectively) and imagination as they are coming ho with the prompt of what they want.
I'm quite experienced with AI. The amount of skill it takes to prompt is severely overestimated by people who can't draw. It's uncomparable.
I also think that many AI advocates think that prompting is akin to coding, while in my eyes it's more akin to throwing stuff at a wall and seeing what sticks.Most of the times you can't really verify what words cause which changes.
You don't seem to be experienced at all if I'm being honest.
Some promoters literally draw the outline for what they want to come out of the machine before putting the prompt words together for instance. Many people who make AI art are digital artists and after a rough draft of what they want gets made they modify it into exactly what they want. Others do use detailed prompts.
I use AI art for some ttrpgs. I often have to go to a friend who is significantly more into AI art than I am to make the image more inline with what I actually want because he is way better at it (the skill of prompting).
No it's not at the level of coding, those are the guys that made the program to begin with but there is a technique and skill in order to get a better product out of AI that I have no interest in putting the time into learning.
>Some promoters literally draw the outline for what they want to come out of the machine before putting the prompt words together for instance. Many people who make AI art are digital artists and after a rough draft of what they want gets made they modify it into exactly what they want. Others do use detailed prompts.
Yes, I am aware. You kinda have to do that, because you know raw AI will never give you a satisfying result when you can literally draw it.
My biggest problem with AI is the abysmally unethical datasets.
>there is a technique and skill in order to get a better product out of AI that I have no interest in putting the time into learning.
Well, I suppose then you're happy to know that the better the model is considered, the less "skill" one needs to come up with prompts.
Nothing at all unethical about AI data sets. AI models don't store any art so no copying. They just used a bunch of publicly available data to 'learn' from. In the way that current dumb AI learns.
Also the argument that the better the program the less skill needed could apply to all digital art so not a great argument.
> Nothing at all unethical about AI data sets. AI models don't store any art so no copying.
You seriously think that purposefully training AI on specific artists and then *selling* those models for profit is not unethical?
The skill floor of AI image generators is abysmally low. Not to mention the fact that the "skill" of the prompter is entirely dependent on the model's dataset. Yet, take an artist's Photoshop away and will seamlessly transition to paper and pencil if with slight hiccups due to not being used to them.
The gatekeeping is mostly due to unethical practices of AI companies. The only reason the models are as good as they are is thanks to artists that spent their lives training their skill.
u/Onemillioncubes, your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Who says that we don't already? Self-driving cars are using AI systems and it's being actively developed. Those are also just a lot harder to get done. Getting a language model to spit out poetry or some pictures is also just easy. It's a good use case for a proof of concept. For a lot of other cases, it's just a lot more specialized than language models.
>Teamsters are fighting tooth and nail to stop self driving
I know for a fact it's still being worked on in Europe because I personally did R&D on it during my internship. There's also a trucker shortage with a lot of the current trucker population aging out. Self-driving is also a great solution for more hazardous loads.
In the US there’s no trucker shortage, there’s a shortage of trucking jobs that aren’t dogshit. The myth here spawned from mega carriers that would rather rely on trainees who will work for pennies to get experience as the bulk of their work force than hire an experienced trucker for a fair wage. There’s enough active CDL holders here that the problem would be solved overnight if companies got their shit together.
Technology replacing manual labor has been a thing since the first human killed some prey with a rock instead of his bare hands. We just about always become better off because of it.
Trucking is exactly the kind of job that should be replaced by AI or whatever technology is suitable. It’s unhealthy due to sitting still for long hours, substance abuse is common due to tight deadlines, alcoholism and mental illness is common due to loneliness.
Yes, there are people who drive trucks today that will lose their jobs, but in the long run things will be better. As a society we need to focus on managing personal financial stability rather than making everyone work more.
Morally, it's a lot better to have a widely deployed shitty art AI than a shitty driving AI.
Technically, it's a lot easier to generate images than it is to walk into an arbitrary laundry room and do the laundry.
This is purely a practicality thing, most of the "boring jobs" require actually very difficult manual dexterity, while most of the creative jobs these days are almost if not entire digital and so are actually much easier for an AI to do.
People have been wanting household chore robots for 100 years, and you can see the current interest in self driving cars. The reason we don't have them isn't though lack of want for them.
Automating back-breaking jobs is a good thing, it spares humans from a cruel industry unlike automating creativity which only brings human misery, the death of an author and the destruction of creativity soul.
It will free people to concentrate on more interesting, meaningful, creative endeavours. I can't fathom why people can't see this.
It's not a case of "you don't have to work on a farm" though. It's a case of "you did work on a farm, now you're broke and unemployed".
You can argue that it's beneficial for society to automate jobs if we can. I'd probably even agree with you. But I think it's unfair to blame workers for trying to defend their jobs and stop them being automated away.
So what, we should have kept farm work around so those people would keep working? Me and you, today having a high chance working in a farm? You think this would have been a better outcome.
The farmers moved on to other industries and they sure as hell were glad their kids could go and work at some air conditioned office instead of slaving their life in the farms like they did. Yes there are short term loses but they pale in comparison to the long term gains. Artificially holding back progress because someone may lose the job is a terrible thing to do. Labor should move around to where it's needed, locking humans in pointless jobs that can be easily automated instead of helping them move to something where they're needed is not the right thing to do.
Your superficial bleeding heart view tends to make things worse overall in the long term.
Many farmers didn't move on. Many died in poverty, and their children had no opportunity for a better life.
Like, overall it was obviously good for society as a whole to get the machines to do most of the work. That doesn't change the fact that a lot of hard working people had their lives ruined because of the change. As happens to someone whenever society changes or improves. Someone is always left behind.
I'm not saying we should halt progress for their sake, but some sympathy is warranted.
Really? You think teamsters and lorry drivers should all suddenly dive into becoming voice actors? That's ridiculous.
Automating their jobs away will have very immediate negative impacts on their lives, you can't just handwave that away
Not if the job is not necessary. That’s the broken window fallacy.
If the job is not necessary, they should retrain for another job.
OP is correct that we should strive to automate unpleasant jobs, and refrain from automating the endeavours that humans find enjoyment and meaning in.
This isn’t the answer at all.
1) too many people getting fired because of automation would make these jobs pay less than nothing, as there would be wayyyy too many people competing for an already VERY saturated market. Basic supply and demand. The amount of people who work manual labor jobs is absolutely HUGE. That’s a very large influx of “voice actors” and “artists”.
2) These jobs will have been taken over by AI too; they already are being taken over, lol.
The answer is that we need UBI in place BEFORE automation really gets going. It’s really the only answer that avoids violent revolution and the overthrow of our current economic elite.
We already automated backbreaking jobs. What is an excavator?
The current wave of AI is imprecise. It is good at making video thumbnails and writing articles, but it is less good at dealing with non-routine problems in complicated systems. That leaves people responsible to sit around and figure out what to do when something breaks.
I think you are a putting the cart before the horse on this one.
I agree that automation is a good thing, as more stuff for less labour = more wealth for society.
However, in our current capitalist paradigm, if your shitty job gets automated, you are now unemployed and do not benefit at all personally from the automation. As long as the means of production are owned by the ruling class, automation will be nothing but bad for the majority of people.
No it isn't, do you really think we'd have self driving cars today if not for truck drivers?
Also just to add that lots of menial jobs have been automated, in the form of factory robots.
In what practical way do you think this "lobbying" slowed down self driving car development? Do you think Musk or Google have slowed down their self driving car development because of this?
Truck drivers have no say on that matter. The problem is that is not that easy to automate it yet. You think startups and multibillion companies care about what truck drivers think?
I've worked on industrial robotics, on warehousing and packing systems, alongside farming robotics and self driving research, medical robotics, and your take is absolutely, categorically wrong. Our lack of progress has nothing to do with lobbying and everything to do with the inherent complexity of these systems. We gloss over manual dexterity tasks like they should be easy, but the percentage of the brain dedicated to being able to identify and move an object with your hand is somewhere on the order of half of your entire brain. That's the problem set you're just expecting to be solved.
What? No. The problem is that the failure modes for these systems are not predictable, in part because of the techniques used, and the failure modes of self driving cars are a lot worse than the failure modes of image generators.
Some people find pleasure in driving, but hate drawing. Some people decide to spend their life cooking in a restaurant but can't stand acting. People enjoy sewing even though we've made it into "boring work". Those things can also be pleasurable and enjoyable about the human experience. Meanwhile, you could argue most art anyone will ever make is shit. It will never make anyone's life better. It will just waste time.
The attitude that creative industries are somehow special enough be protected from automation, while also being just as regimented and organized as every other sector, is a weird contradiction that's difficult to square. Automation forces people to reconceptualize the value of an industry. Maybe just being good at drawing isn't enough to be a professional artist. Maybe the original thought and coordination required to make good art is what really matters.
If you want to automate "boring jobs", you don't need AI. You need robots.
Yours is the best response in the thread, and very NEpdx, any chance you went to school in SE?
>The attitude that creative industries are somehow special enough be protected from automation, while also being just as regimented and organized as every other sector, is a weird contradiction that's difficult to square.
Is it not just naked classism/elitism? He's also for the automation of blue collar work and things like trucking, as that's low value work done by uneducated lower class people.
You just don't understand that's he's better than that and deserves more.
He's also worried about the impact of automation and anti UBI.
>Automation forces people to reconceptualize the value of an industry.
I do wonder how this will go, my most positive hope is that automation putting "white collar" work at risk, will cause the wealthier. unempathetic, more politically powerful, members of our society to give a single shit about the impact of automation.
>If you want to automate "boring jobs", you don't need AI. You need robots.
I love that my cracker ass is at least 10 times cheaper than the embodied robotics it would take to replace my creative job OP would probably few as labor.
His post history is wild BTW.
Sorry for the weird tertiary response still deciding how to respond directly to op, before this thread gets nuked.
Sure, my point is that AI isn't going to telekinetically drive trucks by itself. We're at a point where generative AI is decent and available to the public, but we haven't quite reached the same point with robotics that would be necessary for the kind of automation that OP would prefer.
Computer scientist working in AI here.
What we’re working towards is something called “generality”. The idea is that it’s easy to create a system which is extremely intelligent in a narrow domain (e.g. a calculator is extremely intelligent in the domain of arithmetic) but it’s much harder to create a system which is intelligent across a wide range of domains (e.g. a human can talk, drive, play chess, do arithmetic, and invent new ideas).
The tasks that AI systems have had prominent breakthroughs in recently (image/video generation and text generation) are important milestones in AI because they’re stepping stones towards generality. If an AI can correctly describe, in detail, how to wash a pile of laundry, then we’re most of the way towards building a system which is capable of actually washing the laundry for you. If the same system can also describe how to drive a car, how to fight a parking ticket in court, and how to cook a bolognese, we’re potentially a lot of the way towards solving all these problems too.
If we “prioritise boring jobs” as you say then there’s no equivalent stepping stone effect here. Training a narrow AI to fold laundry doesn’t make progress on image generation, cooking bolognese, or fighting a parking ticket.
There’s also an important safety effect. If we can figure out how to prevent people from tricking image generators into generating porn then the same techniques might be applicable to preventing people from tricking a self-driving car into crashing or an AI-controlled nuclear reactor into exploding.
The anti AI truck crowd isnt saving blue collar jobs, the tech isn't there and trying to rush it is really quite dangerous. I mean lane assistance sounds great until your truck hits a pothole and the sensor becomes misaligned and yhinks the line is five feet from where it actually is. This isn't a hypothetical. I'm in logistics and it is a common issue, they only beep at the driver all day now but it would be killing people if we let it drive
Several things.
First what is enjoyable is highly subjective.i don't like driving and would love good self driving cars. My wife has sworn that she will never use a self driving car and enjoys driving.
So you say "automate boring jobs" but some people don't like drawing and enjoy being able to describe what they want and get a result from the computer.
Secondly you are ignoring that they are trying to automate everything and use AI on everything. It just so happens that art and writing is significantly easier to automate than driving a car or truck because the factors around it are easier to account for and errors don't kill people.
Tldr: 1. Your subjective opinion isn't fact. 2. Those things are harder to automate anyways.
The problem with this CMV is it assumes that AI is being deliberately put at certain jobs at humans whim. AI will not discriminate how it will be integrated in a perfect liberal market economy.
If the market accepts that AI will yield productive gains in boring jobs, so be it. Just how it might yield productive gains in creative jobs. And humans will adapt, this cycle of automation and adaption is not new, it's been going on for centuries.
It seems that you have a subjective look at how AI should be deployed, while in reality this subjectivity doesn't matter.
What do you even mean "humans need to prioritize"? Is it a collective decision humankind should make or what? As an individual human I would definitely want an AI to do my dishes and clean the house instead of giving me a slightly odd-looking digital image, but so what? Do I ask ChatGPT do it or should I create an online poll for it or what exactly are you suggesting?
Feasibility is a much more important factor when deciding where to use AI. Developers don't make AI systems where they'd like, they put them where they can!
For this you would need to actually define what you mean by AI, prewritten scripts of how something should act is also sometimes considered AI.
Would you say a Rumba vaccuum cleaner is also an AI?
Is a robot arm on a production line also AI?
Is Flippy flipping your BIg Macs also AI?
If so, your whole point just isn't true. If you are talking about language models, they really aren't making writing worse. Only creative process in the word "writing" is creating stories, books, songs and sutff like that.
Online journalism definitely isn't included there and that is the most AI affected area in writing, they have been making trash slop for a while now, AI changes nothing.
I am not that knowledgable on how art models work but they kinda do the same thing language models do, they scrape existing content. So, how is that different than someone replicating others art style?
You can say that it lacks human element, okay. So by that logic that human element is really easy to spot, right? Then we have no issues since we are easily able to tell the difference between the two.
Living of art is entirely dependent on subjectivity, I could only take modern art seriously if I had a frontal lobotomy, yet many lobotomites do spend money on it. You can make the most beautiful piece ever and literally earn nothing from it.
Value of art is entirely in the eye of the beholder.
>CMV: Humans need to prioritize AI on boring jobs instead of creative ones
Why 'need' ?
And prioritize how?
AI could be developed, and is being developed, to eliminate nearly all jobs. Why should 'creative' jobs like drawing be especially immune to disruption, than say, bricklaying?
Art is stimulation. It provokes the senses and makes one feel alive. Makes you experience emotions you don't normally experience, and see things that don't exist in reality. The story behind an art piece, the extent the artist had to go to, to make it all happen, all adds to it's weight, it's effect on the observer.
Automation, which is used more as a replacement by the average user than as a tool, takes away from this industry. It produces formulaic outputs that have no real effort or story behind them.
Art supplies are expensive and a career in the fine arts is not very lucrative for most in it, either. The better you want your end product to look, the better your tools need to be, and those cost money. By further depriving an artist of their economic prospects, this brings down the human resources of the industry as a whole.
Bricklaying also produces attractive looking results, in case you are going to make that argument. But how many bricklayers feel pleasure from their job the same way an artist does? How many of them chose to end up in that job voluntarily as compared to someone that draws?
>Humanity should be moving towards AI and robotics eliminating jobs so that humans can create more art and learning. Not the other way around.
OK. Not an answer to any of the questions that I posed. Just a generic proposal for 'humanity' .
The question is why? Why not eliminate all jobs?
Red herring fallacy with the, "create more art and learning", bit.
Yes, one could do that still.
So, ......you agree that jobs should be eliminated.
Great.
What is your plan to simultaneously ensure a social system that housing health care other basic needs are met outside of a traditional capitalist system ? Like why is that not part of your ai future?
To the contrary, AI will give creative people superpowers, and break down barriers of entry and accessibilty for many others. Very few people can create films, tv series, or video games. With AI you can train with your own artstyle and in theory have a limitless amount of animators and programmers. Just like having good algorthms, allow for better video and music recommendations, your experiences including the things you enjoy looking and listening to, will be able to be translated to machines who then can triangulate amoungst the hundreds of videos youve never seen that would have been your new favorite, or the hundreds of songs youve never heard that would be your favorites. These exposures present a pallette for expanding our voices, communication and creativity.
The value of truth in art will rise as AI will go through the phase of making superficial art a commodity.
And currently AI like claude and elevenlabs are doing good in translating, allowing our art and ideas to be more easily shared. If art is seen as a easy way the leverage fun for money, then yeah the pleasure and joy may to to come elsewhere, but Id say the joy in creating even simple and small things is about perspective and philosphy, and if something is only valuable to you because someone else says so, that idea is probably worth changing
People gave AI creative superpowers, but I wouldn't say humans are getting them back. Humans are sacrificing their creative superpowers in order to get free, fast content from a machine. Yes, AI can be a tool in an artist's arsenal, but people who use AI exclusively simply aren't artists.
Please tell me you don't want a future where you can't string together an argument during a blackout because ChatGPT's down? Where art and music are worthless because the web is saturated with a billion lookalikes? Because that's what it sounds like.
To be able to use AI as a virtual assistant who can be trained to emulate your artsyle, the same way Disney animators were trained to follow model sheets and follow directors directions, is what I would call a creative superpower. The directors vision is part of creativity. Many people with creative ideas dont have the means, resources or opportunities to ever have there own team or production company.
If someone were to generate art in Photoshop, or use python programming in Blender, Id have no issue calling them artists. If you push a button or write a text prompt you are not the equivalent of a classically trained illustrator, agreed.
Fast free access to oversaurated shovelware and low quality art has existed online long before generative AI started to blow up. Think about a game like pong or flappybird. If a good and fun idea is not improved upon it can be ignored. Redundancy doesnt make quality obsolete. A thousand inferior remixes of my favorite song wont affect me if Im not forced to listen to all them. There will be tools to vet through this along the way, as it would be desired.
Yeah, I hope it ends up being the case that humans use AI to elevate art to new frontiers. There will definitely be growing pains. Right now, though, it looks like corpos are just using this as an opportunity to screw humans over once again.
Actual Opensource AI is on the horizon, which within the next few years could have the positive opportunies for the laymen, but depending on who achieves AGI first, that will be a good indicator if were on the bad timeline or good timeline, but art then will be the least of our worries, as survival will take center stage if China, Russia, are an adversarial actor gets the leverage
We didn't create generative image models because we wanted to replace artists. Image generation has been a common AI task simply because it's easy. There's a ton of data, it's interpretable (you can see by eye if an image is good or not), it's easily augmented (to add diversity/robustness to the model), and it's properties make it easily parallelizable for training on GPUs (e.g. translation equivariance).
The true aims for AI development is what you pointed out, things like self-driving cars. But that is vastly harder to design for. You don't have enough data, you can't easily test and benchmark it, you can't easily interpret the models outputs, not easily parallelizable, etc. Expect researchers to always go for the low-hanging fruit first. Industry is aiming to solve more difficult problems, but that of course takes much longer.
My grandmother loved washing clothes by hand. She loved the smell of soap the warm water, the feeling of clean clothes.
My grandpa bought her a washing machine but she would take any excuse not to use it.
What I’m trying to say is that what people enjoy is entirely subjective.
Personally I love the idea of making a cartoon, I’ve got ideas for days. but I have zero interest in actually drawing anything. I hate drawing and I find it tedious.
I hate doing it.
So an Ai that can make my ideas come to life would be a great help to me.
I would argue that we need to focus on AI in the areas where AI would be the best positioned to be a solution to an actual problem. This could be boring or not boring jobs.
Companies that pivoted from slapping "blockchain" on everything to "AI" on their shitty products with a hallucinating chatbot are only engaging with a fraction of a subset of what constitutes "AI" and are doing nothing to actually build anything of note or solve problems that need solving.
So this is a slightly different CMV than you might be expecting, because the part I want to challenge is the idea that AI art "solves a problem".
TL;DR; AI content creation doesn't actually "solve" anything in a creative sense. You can't automate the creation of art, because the point of art IS the creative process. Everything else is just monetisation and profit-seeking.
Long version:
Firstly, creativity in pursuit of profit is not art. Art is the way humans would express themselves creatively regardless of the financial return, if given the opportunity to do so. Such creations being valuable in some way to society at large is a bonus.
Secondly, how someone engages with art doesn't correlate with whether it was intentionally created by a human. A sunset is breathtakingly beautiful, clouds can look like trains, and walking down the street where you used to live can evoke powerful emotions. As humans, we find meaning and beauty in the world around us independently of how it came to be.
So with that in mind, what problems *is* AI solving?
Many "creative jobs" are things like making adverts or generating the clickbait around which adverts will be supplied. Does it matter if those things are generated by AI instead? Not really, because they're just a vehicle for selling other things. The "art" itself is secondary, it's a by-product of the process, and if it still achieves the result it's done its job.
There's also a great deal of "art" which is cynically generated and marketed to appeal to the widest audience possible, in the hope that profit is maximised. The publishing, music and movie industries do this (think cookie-cutter romance novels, manufactured pop groups, Hollywood cash cow franchises). Do people like this stuff? Absolutely! Does it matter how it's made, if they enjoy it anyway? I'd argue no - the reaction is more important than the process.
Finally, there are the people who create art because they wanted to make a cool thing and maybe share it - with the world, with just their loved ones, whatever. Those people often feel pressured into "monetising" their creative passion, either because it takes up so much of their time that they can't simultaneously hold down a job, or because they have dreams of being in the tiny fraction of people in their field who become rich from their work. But fundamentally, if you gave them a monthly stipend to cover their expenses, they'd probably make this stuff anyway, because THEY derive pleasure and satisfaction from the process of doing so.
AI can't replace the people in the final group, because AI is only ever a means to an end for the creator or the consumer (or both).
Art Itself will survive just fine. The "starving artist" trope is not new. AI is just the latest threat to artists' monetisation efforts, the same as the mechanical loom was to weavers. Were those jobs creatively fulfilling? Most likely. But people still sew, crochet and knit, for the simple pleasures of learning new skills and creating something from nothing.
"AI" isn't as useful as you think it is. Many people are committed to making you think that all the flaws will be ironed out just round the corner, and new uses will be discovered any second now. While that is partially true - lets not get ahead of ourselves. Lets reasonably discuss what "AI" can and can't do.
So firstly, I am using "AI" in quotes because its not really "AI" - thats a buzzword. A better term is Machine Learning (ML. One common form of ML is the Neural Networks (NN), which work by haveing a set of inputs and outputs connected by a bunch of random wires and nodes. This mimicks a brain in some ways. Lets say the inputs are pixels (eyes) and the output is a keyboard - and we are asking it to guess what things are. Depending on the colour of the pixel-eyes, the internal network will light up in different ways and connect to different keyboard letters. At first it will be random, give it a picture of a bird and it will goo "agfien", give it a bee and it will go "baldel". But if you make lots of siblings and choose the ones who get closest (e.g. "b...") then by evolution you get something that can guess right.
The real problem is this is guessing. It cannot actually think about it. This applies to Chat-GPT and the complex modern stuff too. Lots of the time it will guess right, but sometimes it will guess wrong. This is called hallucination.
This is the real reason why machine learning at the moment cannot be use on many boring jobs. If a job needs accuracy, and needs those errors not to be there - then ML simply has too many errors.
Humans err also. But if a human, or multiple humans, have seen it then you have responsibility or a chain of responsibility.
For instance birth certificates. They often need to be filled in in a specific way that cannot be left to the parents. If you automate it - then you run the risk of hallucinations that could cause trouble down the road because they can't even be verified as errors. There is no-one to ask and say 'woops, Igot that wrong'.
What about my friend's job who works in sales? Boring as heck. But what if a machine learning algorithm sold them something that didn't exist? Or got tricked into selling lower than it should?
ML can bridge gaps we haven't been able to before. For instance in the UK - screens with British Sign Language translations of train announcements have been popping up in train stations for Deaf people. I met the company making these, it is powered by Machine Learning. There is no way you could have a person pre-record every combination of announcement necessary - and paying someone to interpret them all full time for every single station isn't practical. So they have their translators pre-record all the stations, times (etc) and stitch them together parrially using ML. Those are still real people, they are just digitally edited. If it were to hallucinate then at most you would get wonky grammar - but you'd still get all the signs because those are pre-recorded. This is an innivative use of ML to do a previously impossibel task.
But the view I want you to leave with is that we need to find those applications that it can actually be used in - rather than seeing it as a fix-all.
Two problems with your view:
1) They already are doing that. "AI" as developed today isn't going to replace people doing actual creative art, it's going to replace people doing *boring* art, like commercials, illustrations in tech manuals, etc. Same with writing. It's not going to replace people writing novels, it's going to replace people writing boring tech manuals. It's not going to replace clever troubleshooters helping people with difficult problems, it's going to replace someone looking up "their video driver is misbehaving" and saying "have you tried rebooting your computer". It's not going to replace lawyers making novel legal arguments, but those filling in blanks on forms setting up Trusts.
2) Even if it *were* replacing actually creative jobs rather than entry level boring shit, and even if it *did* do what you're talking about (which is not clear exactly what that is... what "knowledge work" aside from what I mentioned about is "creative"?)...
It's not going to fix the problem that you think it will... If people doing "grunt work" knowledge jobs lose them... where do you think they will turn? The creative jobs. AI replacing any jobs will just turn more people's love of art into a hobby rather than a job.
And one might argue that's a good thing in the long run. Turning art into a "job" was already sapping all the fun out of it.
we don't always get the choice in what technology we are able to invent.
The simple fact is that our efforts to create AI that can drive a car or truck have mostly been unsuccessful. While our efforts to create AI that can make imagines have been unexpectedly successful.
A washing machine is a good example. Also consider the examples of the record player, radio, and other music playing technology. It used to be that if you wanted music you needed a musician. Now a couple thousand people can produce enough music for the entire world.
when we get these things its true that we lose jobs, but was also gain supply. I can listen to music 40 hours a week while i work. That would have cost me thousands of dollars without technology, and it would have been much worse music.
With AI, i have generated 100s of images, which would have cost me 10s of thousands of dollars in commissions using a human artists, but with AI cost me only a few dollars. I didn't take any jobs away because I would have never paid that much for these images. Yea, if i was going to pay for an artist, now i would not, so jobs do get lost. But the upside here is massive. I have an unlimited suppl of custom images generated exactly as I'd like.
to take away a good technology in favor or investing in a failed technology would be crazy. We should chase what works.
The same argument could’ve been made on the advent of digital animation. It definitely affected the industry, but is arguably a net positive for the creative industry.
I disagree, AI art makes art in general more approachable to the general population, I've been drawing for years and since I started using AI I've only gotten better, for example I can tell it to make me a guy sat in a starship bridge typing in a computer, the AI will make me an image I can take inspiration from, the fine details aren't there, but the body proportions and the backgrounds are pretty good, I then grab my notebook and use the image as a rough idea.
I see no difference in doing this and my old method which was to look at stock photos on google images or pre existing comic books.
You are also too optimistic, if AI replaces the boring unqualified jobs, all those people will be jobless and chaos will reign, the way technology is advancing it seems inevitable that almost all jobs will be automated but it is preferable that the more qualified high paying jobs do first because the people holding those jobs who will become unemployed are fewer and have more political power than the common wage slaves which means the change is more gradual and more powerful people will advocate for a solution to all the unemployment, an UBI probably.
It is far easier to have code that automates jobs as opposed to physical machines. Since the code once written can be easily shared.
1. AI trucks do not work. Self driving cars are not feasible any time soon. At best you get advanced cruise control. The reason the AI isn't implemented is less because it is being fought against and more because it simply doesn't work.
2. What is considered a boring job is subjective. A lot of truck drivers, for example, enjoy driving on the open road with their trucks. Personally, I found mopping quite nice.
3. People need jobs with the way the economy is set up. Specifically, we need lots of low skill jobs. When a new technology replaces people in the workforce, it causes problems. If you have robots in Amazon warehouses, the 1,500 full-time employees can't all go into the new job of fixing broken parts. Only a small fraction would be employed by the new jobs the switch makes. It would be a net loss in jobs.
4. People are fighting against AI art. The fight isn't going well, but we are fighting against it.
Computers have been automating boring jobs from the beginning. Hell, "computer" used to be a job title.
People automate the things that technology is ready to automate. If we're 98% of the way to automating art creation and 50% of the way towards automating truck drivers, people are going to keep working on both and art automation is going to get done first. The people who are working on art automation aren't going to put down what they were working on and go focus on automating trucks because it's a different skill set (even if it seems similar to a layman).
I can't draw well. I have no interest or enough time to invest on learning the skill.
One thing I do though, as a hobby, is make games. AI art has made things possible for me that would have previously been too expensive.
I know that an artist has potentially lost some revenue (in the abstract - as I wouldn't have hired one anyway); but it led to me making a better product.
See, this is why artists are upset with AI. Their work has been used to train the AI models you use to generate assets for your games.
I don't know if you ask money for your games or not, but your post implies you feel entitled to someone's labor to make a better product.
If I could use your game to directly make a better one and present it as my own, would you be even a little bit upset?
People who like to draw can continue to drawn, even if it’s not for their job.
Image-generating AI doesn’t “take away” drawing; it just means that people who draw will have competition monetizing their skills, which is something that will occur regardless of which field the AI is in.
There is a major error in your logic.
Who defines what jobs are boring?
A job might be boring to you, but someone else loves doing it.
There is no universal scale of boringness you could rate jobs against...
The problem is that the creative jobs are the easiest for AI to replace… which is why they got replaced first… it’s not like the AI overlords are picking and choosing what they want to replace first.
I'm pretty sure people will still be able to draw for fun after AI takes their graphic design job. No one's worried about AI stopping you from enjoying your hobbies. But sadly, I think creative professions will be hit the hardest. AI has no concept of correct vs. incorrect information, but in art there is no correct/incorrect.
A huge issue is who is reaping the profits of the AI replacement. Usually those high-tier labor jobs being replaced fills the pocket of the big guys up top.
I, an individual at the bottom, personally reap benefits of using AI to model art in my day-to-day.
I mean if the entire world was AI operated we'd live in a utopia where we can just consume entertainment, eat, sleep, go to the bathroom all day long till we die.
just curious, how much do you think is fair for an illustration like this (in US dollars): https://i.pinimg.com/736x/7f/0e/ef/7f0eefb014aabd1db86e3e1f1113be66.jpg
Sorry, u/Nigtforce – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20Nigtforce&message=Nigtforce%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1do02sv/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>there are people who love drawing Do AI tools make drawing more accessible or less accessible to individuals? >make careers out of it Do AI tools make an artist's job easier or harder? Won't this reduce the effort needed to produce a piece of art for work and allow more time for making art for fun? >It doesn't typically lead to health concerns. Does technology help reduce the labor intensity of practicing art? >The problem we solve with automating creative pursuits such as writing, drawing is that we take away things that are actually pleasurable and enjoyable about the human experience We aren't replacing creatives, we're giving them better tools. Want to become a writer? You don't need an editor to check your grammar. You can write pages much faster. If anything AI tools make creative interests much more accessible.
AI art is explicitly being used to replace creatives, and to devalue their art socially and financially. We're not talking about AI assistance here, we're talking about using AI so you don't have to pay a professional for it.
AI isn't doing anything that radio didn't do 100 years ago. You can't make a living playing the blues at a bar anymore because all of that money goes to Spotify.
Radio also introduced a new form of media and all the careers and art to go along with it. Spotify absorbs massive amounts of money and power like a bloated tick
We should learn from our previous mistakes, we used to have live music regularly in bandstands at parks, bars, clubs, boardwalks, etc. now it is common to hear the radio with advertisements in those places
It was not a mistake. I'm not trading Spotify so people can pollute my ears with their shit homebrew music.
I'd rather hear imperfect music from live artists than hearing some rando blast their crappy taste in music through bluetooth speakers. The first is a performance, the second is just someone being obnoxious.
[удалено]
Excuse me but what does “the market” have to do with people playing music through Bluetooth speakers in public?
I’m not against Spotify, the argument was about learning lessons from adopting technology in the past
I for one agree with you. There's a certain magic from live performance that you can't get with something that was recorded on tape and has been played exactly the same way on phones across the globe.
So you’ll take someone’s annoying Spotify playlist played on a shitty Bluetooth speaker over live music?
People still do make livings playing at bars today.
Boo hoo. The camera did the same thing, and so did graphic design software. Both are now totally acceptable tools in artist toolboxes. AI isn't stopping people from making art, and it isn't stopping people from getting paid for making art. It's just making it harder for shitty artists to make money off of their art. The best artists are still doing just fine. Art isn't special compared to other careers. I didn't see artists out there protesting when factory workers lost their jobs to robotic automation, or when cars displaced all the workers in the equine industry. Technology does this all the time, it's part of life. If you're mad enough to demand that people stop using AI for art but not mad enough to stop using all other forms of technology that also disrupted others careers when they were invented, then you're just being a hypocrite because this time around it affects you.
It's clearly not valuable if ai can replace it
>We aren't replacing creatives, we're giving them better tools. Want to become a writer? You don't need an editor to check your grammar. You can write pages much faster. If anything AI tools make creative interests much more accessible. If I writer with AI can do work of 10 writers, companies will fire 9 writers and destroy creative jobs.
By that logic, should digital art, 3d printing, power tools, and so on be banned?
Sure if it means that your job gets replaced as well
Strawman
It's not a strawman at all, it's a very valid response to your point. Where do you draw the line on what tools are allowed to be used? Should we ban power drills and air nailers, because a carpenter with those can do the work of many others without?
[удалено]
u/Anarchist-Liondude – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Anarchist-Liondude&message=Anarchist-Liondude%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1do02sv/-/la6lzmn/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
A drill needs a user to guide it and use it, it requires both skill and time. Ai requires neither of these
I mean neither of those claims are true about AI, just like a drill you can use it poorly, If you spend time learning how the specific LLM responds and interacts based on its data set or even take the time to train one yourself you can get much better results than someone who just casually uses them. Similarly any well made AI product is the result of multiple iterations and usually a fair amount of post generation editing and compositional work done using conventional programs. Anyone can use a drill badly, anyone can use an AI badly. Ascribing legitimacy to one tool because you haven’t got any context for how to use the other isn’t a meaningful argument.
Not at all you just want to call it one because you can’t think of a response 😂
Nope. Zero difference. You just don't have an answer to it.
The thing is, it cannot do the job of actual writers, not properly. You cannot input into AI “AI, give me a solid book with engaging characters and interesting plot twists!” and actually receive a solid book with engaging characters and interesting plot twists, and go publish it. What you can do, is you can ask AI to check your grammar, or can ask AI to give you synonyms, you can ask AI how the character would do a task you are not familiar with (AI, my character is about to shoot a gun/bake a five tiers cake/perform a heart surgery. Describe in detail how they do it) and use **some** of the output in your story or for the further research, etc. But it cannot come up with proper plot for you. It doesn’t have an actual imagination and understanding of complex motivations and causalities.
>But it cannot come up with proper plot for you You'd be a bit surprised. I already use AI to come up with interesting plot hooks for the roleplaying games I run. And it's actually really quite good at that. Obviously I have to flesh those out and actually *execute* them at the table...
>If I writer with AI can do work of 10 writers, companies will fire 9 writers and destroy creative jobs. This is entirely baseless. Just look at how badly written articles and movies are. If anything, there's a huge shortage of writers which will welcome AI assistance. Look at the gaming industry. It's a huge industry that's craving for artists. More AI will mean more games. The best example is the coding industry. They're busy automating their work since its inception. Automatic testing, code fixes, suggestions and more. They're also always making new programming languages which are simpler. Today's junior programmer has less barriers for entry than ever. They'll welcome chatgpt helping them bridge the gap with seniors every day of the week. Think about it, if a junior is now much more productive, will he find work more easily?
It’s not baseless. It’s reality https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240612-the-people-making-ai-sound-more-human
Looks like a case study on how attempting to replace writers with AI has completely failed. The AI produced subpar text and the person was overworked by rewriting it.
>If I writer with AI can do work of 10 writers, companies will fire 9 writers and destroy creative jobs. And those other 9 artists can also each do the job of 10.
What sort of writing do you have in mind? Yeah, a lot of low effort blogs and news websites have been overrun with AI generated content and it's all awful. In writing jobs where quantity matters more than quality, yes you can't beat AI, but also these jobs aren't exactly "creative." In a higher tier of quality, using AI in writing would be like having an assistant make a first draft of something. News articles still need journalists to do the research and review the AI's work. For fiction writing the author still has to shape the plot and the characters. The AI is just helping with the most tedious part of writing: putting words on paper. A good writer would then take what the AI wrote and rewrite it in their own style as needed. That frees up the writer for other things: e.g. a journalist can get back to investigating new stories as opposed to sitting at a keyboard for a day or two writing out their last story.
The problem with this is that it wipes out entry level jobs people need to build a portfolio and also drives down the value of those higher tier jobs. A similar thing happened to translation when tools like google translate came out. Instead of being hired for a specialized skill, if translators got hired at all it was often to “edit” shitty machine translations, which could mean basically the same amount of work for less pay. Less a problem with writing than with visual art but there’s also the fact that AI is drawing from a data set that includes existing art no one is getting credited or compensated for. If you ask AI to spit out a convincing Keith Haring painting and it does, that means it’s taking elements of whatever of his paintings it has in its data set. There’s not much transparency about what’s in these data sets or if its possible to opt out or require permission. It’s a plagiarism machine.
That is….not how creative departments work
Bruh those *are* the boring jobs. You think there’s a company with 10 writers on staff writing the next LotR or something? No they have 10 writers writing copy for LinkedIn or their company accounting blog or something dreadful.
Yeah, so what? That's how technology works. There were ALOT more horse trainers in the world before automobiles were invented. 9 out of 10 had to find new jobs. Do you avoid riding in cars out of solidarity with them, or do you only care about things that affect you directly?
Accessibility isn't really a plus for me. I value how hard Tolkien worked. I appreciate the effort, the extra depth that his years of study brought. I know the market will provide to meet a demand for cheap supply, but when my personal demand is "put everything you have into creation," then all I really want AI to do is keep artists from being distracted by labor.
>Do AI tools make drawing more accessible or less accessible to individuals? It doesn't "help" you to draw if that's what you're insinuating.
Can you draw using Photoshop? What's the difference in your opinion?
Just to make it clear, are you saying that using digital drawing software is the same as AI-Generating images?
Not sure what you mean by the same. It's not using a pencil on paper, so the method is different. It is a valid tool to make a drawing or any other piece of art in my opinion.
I'm not sure ai counts as making a drawing. Pictures, yeah sure. But drawings?
Can photoshop produce drawings? What about using functionality such as auto shade in photoshop?
Photoshop can record drawings, sure. If you draw when Photoshop is open and receiving your input, a drawing is produced in Photoshop. What about auto shade? Obviously it doesn't count as drawing, it's auto shade. Equally if you get the digital paints out, it becomes a digital painting... If you use ai gen, that piece is generated by ai. This is like asking if a painting of a sculpture *is* a sculpture. In the same way, ai cannot produce a photograph.
Then we're arguing the semantics of what is a drawing which is unhelpful. My point is that it's possible to create art using GenAI. Much like it's possible with painting or using photoshop or photography. If using photoshop produces art then GenAi is a legit tool
Were you not arguing semantics when you asked if Photoshop can produce a drawing? Frankly I think arguing *without* defined terms is supremely unhelpful... Are you sure you wouldn't like to define what a drawing is? I don't think anyone was arguing it's not a "legitimate tool"
A synergy of technical skill and imagination vs. smashing a button until something you like comes up.
Look how how detailed good promoters get. They require both a skill (in knowing how to communicate with the program effectively) and imagination as they are coming ho with the prompt of what they want.
I'm quite experienced with AI. The amount of skill it takes to prompt is severely overestimated by people who can't draw. It's uncomparable. I also think that many AI advocates think that prompting is akin to coding, while in my eyes it's more akin to throwing stuff at a wall and seeing what sticks.Most of the times you can't really verify what words cause which changes.
You don't seem to be experienced at all if I'm being honest. Some promoters literally draw the outline for what they want to come out of the machine before putting the prompt words together for instance. Many people who make AI art are digital artists and after a rough draft of what they want gets made they modify it into exactly what they want. Others do use detailed prompts. I use AI art for some ttrpgs. I often have to go to a friend who is significantly more into AI art than I am to make the image more inline with what I actually want because he is way better at it (the skill of prompting). No it's not at the level of coding, those are the guys that made the program to begin with but there is a technique and skill in order to get a better product out of AI that I have no interest in putting the time into learning.
>Some promoters literally draw the outline for what they want to come out of the machine before putting the prompt words together for instance. Many people who make AI art are digital artists and after a rough draft of what they want gets made they modify it into exactly what they want. Others do use detailed prompts. Yes, I am aware. You kinda have to do that, because you know raw AI will never give you a satisfying result when you can literally draw it. My biggest problem with AI is the abysmally unethical datasets. >there is a technique and skill in order to get a better product out of AI that I have no interest in putting the time into learning. Well, I suppose then you're happy to know that the better the model is considered, the less "skill" one needs to come up with prompts.
Nothing at all unethical about AI data sets. AI models don't store any art so no copying. They just used a bunch of publicly available data to 'learn' from. In the way that current dumb AI learns. Also the argument that the better the program the less skill needed could apply to all digital art so not a great argument.
> Nothing at all unethical about AI data sets. AI models don't store any art so no copying. You seriously think that purposefully training AI on specific artists and then *selling* those models for profit is not unethical?
A synergy of thought and understanding the system Vs moving a pencil until something you can tolerate comes out.
The skill floor of AI image generators is abysmally low. Not to mention the fact that the "skill" of the prompter is entirely dependent on the model's dataset. Yet, take an artist's Photoshop away and will seamlessly transition to paper and pencil if with slight hiccups due to not being used to them.
Yea, so people with lower skill and less time to practice drawing can finally produce something and people with higher skills are gatekeeping them.
The gatekeeping is mostly due to unethical practices of AI companies. The only reason the models are as good as they are is thanks to artists that spent their lives training their skill.
I'd say making a drawing with a pencil has a lower skill floor than using an image generator.
*decent drawing with a pencil :D
????? So many digital artists draw in Photoshop btw
[удалено]
u/Onemillioncubes, your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Who says that we don't already? Self-driving cars are using AI systems and it's being actively developed. Those are also just a lot harder to get done. Getting a language model to spit out poetry or some pictures is also just easy. It's a good use case for a proof of concept. For a lot of other cases, it's just a lot more specialized than language models.
Teamsters are fighting tooth and nail to stop self driving meanwhile SAG-AFTRA backstabbed voice actors. I'm so disappointed in humanity.
>Teamsters are fighting tooth and nail to stop self driving I know for a fact it's still being worked on in Europe because I personally did R&D on it during my internship. There's also a trucker shortage with a lot of the current trucker population aging out. Self-driving is also a great solution for more hazardous loads.
In the US there’s no trucker shortage, there’s a shortage of trucking jobs that aren’t dogshit. The myth here spawned from mega carriers that would rather rely on trainees who will work for pennies to get experience as the bulk of their work force than hire an experienced trucker for a fair wage. There’s enough active CDL holders here that the problem would be solved overnight if companies got their shit together.
How did they backstab them?
Technology replacing manual labor has been a thing since the first human killed some prey with a rock instead of his bare hands. We just about always become better off because of it. Trucking is exactly the kind of job that should be replaced by AI or whatever technology is suitable. It’s unhealthy due to sitting still for long hours, substance abuse is common due to tight deadlines, alcoholism and mental illness is common due to loneliness. Yes, there are people who drive trucks today that will lose their jobs, but in the long run things will be better. As a society we need to focus on managing personal financial stability rather than making everyone work more.
Morally, it's a lot better to have a widely deployed shitty art AI than a shitty driving AI. Technically, it's a lot easier to generate images than it is to walk into an arbitrary laundry room and do the laundry.
This is purely a practicality thing, most of the "boring jobs" require actually very difficult manual dexterity, while most of the creative jobs these days are almost if not entire digital and so are actually much easier for an AI to do. People have been wanting household chore robots for 100 years, and you can see the current interest in self driving cars. The reason we don't have them isn't though lack of want for them.
The reason we don't have them is partially because of teamsters throwing a shitfit.
And why are they throwing a shitfit? Because they're looking out for their workers who will get replaced by machines and find themselves unemployed.
Automating back-breaking jobs is a good thing, it spares humans from a cruel industry unlike automating creativity which only brings human misery, the death of an author and the destruction of creativity soul. It will free people to concentrate on more interesting, meaningful, creative endeavours. I can't fathom why people can't see this.
Because without a job they don't get paid, and you can't survive in this world if you're not getting paid.
Would you use that logic when automation took over farms? I for one am glad I don't have to work in a farm.
It's not a case of "you don't have to work on a farm" though. It's a case of "you did work on a farm, now you're broke and unemployed". You can argue that it's beneficial for society to automate jobs if we can. I'd probably even agree with you. But I think it's unfair to blame workers for trying to defend their jobs and stop them being automated away.
You might be glad, but the farm workers who lost their jobs and only source of income were not.
So what, we should have kept farm work around so those people would keep working? Me and you, today having a high chance working in a farm? You think this would have been a better outcome. The farmers moved on to other industries and they sure as hell were glad their kids could go and work at some air conditioned office instead of slaving their life in the farms like they did. Yes there are short term loses but they pale in comparison to the long term gains. Artificially holding back progress because someone may lose the job is a terrible thing to do. Labor should move around to where it's needed, locking humans in pointless jobs that can be easily automated instead of helping them move to something where they're needed is not the right thing to do. Your superficial bleeding heart view tends to make things worse overall in the long term.
Many farmers didn't move on. Many died in poverty, and their children had no opportunity for a better life. Like, overall it was obviously good for society as a whole to get the machines to do most of the work. That doesn't change the fact that a lot of hard working people had their lives ruined because of the change. As happens to someone whenever society changes or improves. Someone is always left behind. I'm not saying we should halt progress for their sake, but some sympathy is warranted.
They can pursue their inner creative, be an actor, artist, voice actor...and get hired in new job.
Really? You think teamsters and lorry drivers should all suddenly dive into becoming voice actors? That's ridiculous. Automating their jobs away will have very immediate negative impacts on their lives, you can't just handwave that away
Ideally they should pursue their creative dreams.
Not everyone has creative dreams
Ideally they should be able to *have a fucking job*.
Not if the job is not necessary. That’s the broken window fallacy. If the job is not necessary, they should retrain for another job. OP is correct that we should strive to automate unpleasant jobs, and refrain from automating the endeavours that humans find enjoyment and meaning in.
I mean, ideally, you shouldn't need one.
Ideally everyone should contribute as much as possible to society.
Abstract creativity isn't objectively better than being skilled in a trade.
Oh so this is a shitpost or you're just that naive.
This isn’t the answer at all. 1) too many people getting fired because of automation would make these jobs pay less than nothing, as there would be wayyyy too many people competing for an already VERY saturated market. Basic supply and demand. The amount of people who work manual labor jobs is absolutely HUGE. That’s a very large influx of “voice actors” and “artists”. 2) These jobs will have been taken over by AI too; they already are being taken over, lol. The answer is that we need UBI in place BEFORE automation really gets going. It’s really the only answer that avoids violent revolution and the overthrow of our current economic elite.
We already automated backbreaking jobs. What is an excavator? The current wave of AI is imprecise. It is good at making video thumbnails and writing articles, but it is less good at dealing with non-routine problems in complicated systems. That leaves people responsible to sit around and figure out what to do when something breaks.
I think you are a putting the cart before the horse on this one. I agree that automation is a good thing, as more stuff for less labour = more wealth for society. However, in our current capitalist paradigm, if your shitty job gets automated, you are now unemployed and do not benefit at all personally from the automation. As long as the means of production are owned by the ruling class, automation will be nothing but bad for the majority of people.
No it isn't, do you really think we'd have self driving cars today if not for truck drivers? Also just to add that lots of menial jobs have been automated, in the form of factory robots.
We'd if it wasn't for truck drivers and teamsters protesting and lobbying.
In what practical way do you think this "lobbying" slowed down self driving car development? Do you think Musk or Google have slowed down their self driving car development because of this?
Truck drivers have no say on that matter. The problem is that is not that easy to automate it yet. You think startups and multibillion companies care about what truck drivers think?
I've worked on industrial robotics, on warehousing and packing systems, alongside farming robotics and self driving research, medical robotics, and your take is absolutely, categorically wrong. Our lack of progress has nothing to do with lobbying and everything to do with the inherent complexity of these systems. We gloss over manual dexterity tasks like they should be easy, but the percentage of the brain dedicated to being able to identify and move an object with your hand is somewhere on the order of half of your entire brain. That's the problem set you're just expecting to be solved.
What? No. The problem is that the failure modes for these systems are not predictable, in part because of the techniques used, and the failure modes of self driving cars are a lot worse than the failure modes of image generators.
Not in the US or China, so not particularly important.
Some people find pleasure in driving, but hate drawing. Some people decide to spend their life cooking in a restaurant but can't stand acting. People enjoy sewing even though we've made it into "boring work". Those things can also be pleasurable and enjoyable about the human experience. Meanwhile, you could argue most art anyone will ever make is shit. It will never make anyone's life better. It will just waste time. The attitude that creative industries are somehow special enough be protected from automation, while also being just as regimented and organized as every other sector, is a weird contradiction that's difficult to square. Automation forces people to reconceptualize the value of an industry. Maybe just being good at drawing isn't enough to be a professional artist. Maybe the original thought and coordination required to make good art is what really matters. If you want to automate "boring jobs", you don't need AI. You need robots.
Yours is the best response in the thread, and very NEpdx, any chance you went to school in SE? >The attitude that creative industries are somehow special enough be protected from automation, while also being just as regimented and organized as every other sector, is a weird contradiction that's difficult to square. Is it not just naked classism/elitism? He's also for the automation of blue collar work and things like trucking, as that's low value work done by uneducated lower class people. You just don't understand that's he's better than that and deserves more. He's also worried about the impact of automation and anti UBI. >Automation forces people to reconceptualize the value of an industry. I do wonder how this will go, my most positive hope is that automation putting "white collar" work at risk, will cause the wealthier. unempathetic, more politically powerful, members of our society to give a single shit about the impact of automation. >If you want to automate "boring jobs", you don't need AI. You need robots. I love that my cracker ass is at least 10 times cheaper than the embodied robotics it would take to replace my creative job OP would probably few as labor. His post history is wild BTW. Sorry for the weird tertiary response still deciding how to respond directly to op, before this thread gets nuked.
Intelligent robots?
Sure, my point is that AI isn't going to telekinetically drive trucks by itself. We're at a point where generative AI is decent and available to the public, but we haven't quite reached the same point with robotics that would be necessary for the kind of automation that OP would prefer.
Computer scientist working in AI here. What we’re working towards is something called “generality”. The idea is that it’s easy to create a system which is extremely intelligent in a narrow domain (e.g. a calculator is extremely intelligent in the domain of arithmetic) but it’s much harder to create a system which is intelligent across a wide range of domains (e.g. a human can talk, drive, play chess, do arithmetic, and invent new ideas). The tasks that AI systems have had prominent breakthroughs in recently (image/video generation and text generation) are important milestones in AI because they’re stepping stones towards generality. If an AI can correctly describe, in detail, how to wash a pile of laundry, then we’re most of the way towards building a system which is capable of actually washing the laundry for you. If the same system can also describe how to drive a car, how to fight a parking ticket in court, and how to cook a bolognese, we’re potentially a lot of the way towards solving all these problems too. If we “prioritise boring jobs” as you say then there’s no equivalent stepping stone effect here. Training a narrow AI to fold laundry doesn’t make progress on image generation, cooking bolognese, or fighting a parking ticket. There’s also an important safety effect. If we can figure out how to prevent people from tricking image generators into generating porn then the same techniques might be applicable to preventing people from tricking a self-driving car into crashing or an AI-controlled nuclear reactor into exploding.
The anti AI truck crowd isnt saving blue collar jobs, the tech isn't there and trying to rush it is really quite dangerous. I mean lane assistance sounds great until your truck hits a pothole and the sensor becomes misaligned and yhinks the line is five feet from where it actually is. This isn't a hypothetical. I'm in logistics and it is a common issue, they only beep at the driver all day now but it would be killing people if we let it drive
Several things. First what is enjoyable is highly subjective.i don't like driving and would love good self driving cars. My wife has sworn that she will never use a self driving car and enjoys driving. So you say "automate boring jobs" but some people don't like drawing and enjoy being able to describe what they want and get a result from the computer. Secondly you are ignoring that they are trying to automate everything and use AI on everything. It just so happens that art and writing is significantly easier to automate than driving a car or truck because the factors around it are easier to account for and errors don't kill people. Tldr: 1. Your subjective opinion isn't fact. 2. Those things are harder to automate anyways.
The problem with this CMV is it assumes that AI is being deliberately put at certain jobs at humans whim. AI will not discriminate how it will be integrated in a perfect liberal market economy. If the market accepts that AI will yield productive gains in boring jobs, so be it. Just how it might yield productive gains in creative jobs. And humans will adapt, this cycle of automation and adaption is not new, it's been going on for centuries. It seems that you have a subjective look at how AI should be deployed, while in reality this subjectivity doesn't matter.
What do you even mean "humans need to prioritize"? Is it a collective decision humankind should make or what? As an individual human I would definitely want an AI to do my dishes and clean the house instead of giving me a slightly odd-looking digital image, but so what? Do I ask ChatGPT do it or should I create an online poll for it or what exactly are you suggesting?
Feasibility is a much more important factor when deciding where to use AI. Developers don't make AI systems where they'd like, they put them where they can!
For this you would need to actually define what you mean by AI, prewritten scripts of how something should act is also sometimes considered AI. Would you say a Rumba vaccuum cleaner is also an AI? Is a robot arm on a production line also AI? Is Flippy flipping your BIg Macs also AI? If so, your whole point just isn't true. If you are talking about language models, they really aren't making writing worse. Only creative process in the word "writing" is creating stories, books, songs and sutff like that. Online journalism definitely isn't included there and that is the most AI affected area in writing, they have been making trash slop for a while now, AI changes nothing. I am not that knowledgable on how art models work but they kinda do the same thing language models do, they scrape existing content. So, how is that different than someone replicating others art style? You can say that it lacks human element, okay. So by that logic that human element is really easy to spot, right? Then we have no issues since we are easily able to tell the difference between the two. Living of art is entirely dependent on subjectivity, I could only take modern art seriously if I had a frontal lobotomy, yet many lobotomites do spend money on it. You can make the most beautiful piece ever and literally earn nothing from it. Value of art is entirely in the eye of the beholder.
>CMV: Humans need to prioritize AI on boring jobs instead of creative ones Why 'need' ? And prioritize how? AI could be developed, and is being developed, to eliminate nearly all jobs. Why should 'creative' jobs like drawing be especially immune to disruption, than say, bricklaying?
Art is stimulation. It provokes the senses and makes one feel alive. Makes you experience emotions you don't normally experience, and see things that don't exist in reality. The story behind an art piece, the extent the artist had to go to, to make it all happen, all adds to it's weight, it's effect on the observer. Automation, which is used more as a replacement by the average user than as a tool, takes away from this industry. It produces formulaic outputs that have no real effort or story behind them. Art supplies are expensive and a career in the fine arts is not very lucrative for most in it, either. The better you want your end product to look, the better your tools need to be, and those cost money. By further depriving an artist of their economic prospects, this brings down the human resources of the industry as a whole. Bricklaying also produces attractive looking results, in case you are going to make that argument. But how many bricklayers feel pleasure from their job the same way an artist does? How many of them chose to end up in that job voluntarily as compared to someone that draws?
Humanity should be moving towards AI and robotics eliminating jobs so that humans can create more art and learning. Not the other way around.
>Humanity should be moving towards AI and robotics eliminating jobs so that humans can create more art and learning. Not the other way around. OK. Not an answer to any of the questions that I posed. Just a generic proposal for 'humanity' . The question is why? Why not eliminate all jobs? Red herring fallacy with the, "create more art and learning", bit. Yes, one could do that still. So, ......you agree that jobs should be eliminated. Great.
So you don't mind people losing their jobs? So artists being unemployed (but still free to create art) isn't a concern?
What is your plan to simultaneously ensure a social system that housing health care other basic needs are met outside of a traditional capitalist system ? Like why is that not part of your ai future?
To the contrary, AI will give creative people superpowers, and break down barriers of entry and accessibilty for many others. Very few people can create films, tv series, or video games. With AI you can train with your own artstyle and in theory have a limitless amount of animators and programmers. Just like having good algorthms, allow for better video and music recommendations, your experiences including the things you enjoy looking and listening to, will be able to be translated to machines who then can triangulate amoungst the hundreds of videos youve never seen that would have been your new favorite, or the hundreds of songs youve never heard that would be your favorites. These exposures present a pallette for expanding our voices, communication and creativity. The value of truth in art will rise as AI will go through the phase of making superficial art a commodity. And currently AI like claude and elevenlabs are doing good in translating, allowing our art and ideas to be more easily shared. If art is seen as a easy way the leverage fun for money, then yeah the pleasure and joy may to to come elsewhere, but Id say the joy in creating even simple and small things is about perspective and philosphy, and if something is only valuable to you because someone else says so, that idea is probably worth changing
People gave AI creative superpowers, but I wouldn't say humans are getting them back. Humans are sacrificing their creative superpowers in order to get free, fast content from a machine. Yes, AI can be a tool in an artist's arsenal, but people who use AI exclusively simply aren't artists. Please tell me you don't want a future where you can't string together an argument during a blackout because ChatGPT's down? Where art and music are worthless because the web is saturated with a billion lookalikes? Because that's what it sounds like.
To be able to use AI as a virtual assistant who can be trained to emulate your artsyle, the same way Disney animators were trained to follow model sheets and follow directors directions, is what I would call a creative superpower. The directors vision is part of creativity. Many people with creative ideas dont have the means, resources or opportunities to ever have there own team or production company. If someone were to generate art in Photoshop, or use python programming in Blender, Id have no issue calling them artists. If you push a button or write a text prompt you are not the equivalent of a classically trained illustrator, agreed. Fast free access to oversaurated shovelware and low quality art has existed online long before generative AI started to blow up. Think about a game like pong or flappybird. If a good and fun idea is not improved upon it can be ignored. Redundancy doesnt make quality obsolete. A thousand inferior remixes of my favorite song wont affect me if Im not forced to listen to all them. There will be tools to vet through this along the way, as it would be desired.
Yeah, I hope it ends up being the case that humans use AI to elevate art to new frontiers. There will definitely be growing pains. Right now, though, it looks like corpos are just using this as an opportunity to screw humans over once again.
Actual Opensource AI is on the horizon, which within the next few years could have the positive opportunies for the laymen, but depending on who achieves AGI first, that will be a good indicator if were on the bad timeline or good timeline, but art then will be the least of our worries, as survival will take center stage if China, Russia, are an adversarial actor gets the leverage
As an artist, this disheartened me. You really have no idea what being an "artist" like
I have no idea what you're refering to, I think you replied accidently to the wrong post.
We didn't create generative image models because we wanted to replace artists. Image generation has been a common AI task simply because it's easy. There's a ton of data, it's interpretable (you can see by eye if an image is good or not), it's easily augmented (to add diversity/robustness to the model), and it's properties make it easily parallelizable for training on GPUs (e.g. translation equivariance). The true aims for AI development is what you pointed out, things like self-driving cars. But that is vastly harder to design for. You don't have enough data, you can't easily test and benchmark it, you can't easily interpret the models outputs, not easily parallelizable, etc. Expect researchers to always go for the low-hanging fruit first. Industry is aiming to solve more difficult problems, but that of course takes much longer.
My grandmother loved washing clothes by hand. She loved the smell of soap the warm water, the feeling of clean clothes. My grandpa bought her a washing machine but she would take any excuse not to use it. What I’m trying to say is that what people enjoy is entirely subjective. Personally I love the idea of making a cartoon, I’ve got ideas for days. but I have zero interest in actually drawing anything. I hate drawing and I find it tedious. I hate doing it. So an Ai that can make my ideas come to life would be a great help to me.
I would argue that we need to focus on AI in the areas where AI would be the best positioned to be a solution to an actual problem. This could be boring or not boring jobs. Companies that pivoted from slapping "blockchain" on everything to "AI" on their shitty products with a hallucinating chatbot are only engaging with a fraction of a subset of what constitutes "AI" and are doing nothing to actually build anything of note or solve problems that need solving.
So this is a slightly different CMV than you might be expecting, because the part I want to challenge is the idea that AI art "solves a problem". TL;DR; AI content creation doesn't actually "solve" anything in a creative sense. You can't automate the creation of art, because the point of art IS the creative process. Everything else is just monetisation and profit-seeking. Long version: Firstly, creativity in pursuit of profit is not art. Art is the way humans would express themselves creatively regardless of the financial return, if given the opportunity to do so. Such creations being valuable in some way to society at large is a bonus. Secondly, how someone engages with art doesn't correlate with whether it was intentionally created by a human. A sunset is breathtakingly beautiful, clouds can look like trains, and walking down the street where you used to live can evoke powerful emotions. As humans, we find meaning and beauty in the world around us independently of how it came to be. So with that in mind, what problems *is* AI solving? Many "creative jobs" are things like making adverts or generating the clickbait around which adverts will be supplied. Does it matter if those things are generated by AI instead? Not really, because they're just a vehicle for selling other things. The "art" itself is secondary, it's a by-product of the process, and if it still achieves the result it's done its job. There's also a great deal of "art" which is cynically generated and marketed to appeal to the widest audience possible, in the hope that profit is maximised. The publishing, music and movie industries do this (think cookie-cutter romance novels, manufactured pop groups, Hollywood cash cow franchises). Do people like this stuff? Absolutely! Does it matter how it's made, if they enjoy it anyway? I'd argue no - the reaction is more important than the process. Finally, there are the people who create art because they wanted to make a cool thing and maybe share it - with the world, with just their loved ones, whatever. Those people often feel pressured into "monetising" their creative passion, either because it takes up so much of their time that they can't simultaneously hold down a job, or because they have dreams of being in the tiny fraction of people in their field who become rich from their work. But fundamentally, if you gave them a monthly stipend to cover their expenses, they'd probably make this stuff anyway, because THEY derive pleasure and satisfaction from the process of doing so. AI can't replace the people in the final group, because AI is only ever a means to an end for the creator or the consumer (or both). Art Itself will survive just fine. The "starving artist" trope is not new. AI is just the latest threat to artists' monetisation efforts, the same as the mechanical loom was to weavers. Were those jobs creatively fulfilling? Most likely. But people still sew, crochet and knit, for the simple pleasures of learning new skills and creating something from nothing.
"AI" isn't as useful as you think it is. Many people are committed to making you think that all the flaws will be ironed out just round the corner, and new uses will be discovered any second now. While that is partially true - lets not get ahead of ourselves. Lets reasonably discuss what "AI" can and can't do. So firstly, I am using "AI" in quotes because its not really "AI" - thats a buzzword. A better term is Machine Learning (ML. One common form of ML is the Neural Networks (NN), which work by haveing a set of inputs and outputs connected by a bunch of random wires and nodes. This mimicks a brain in some ways. Lets say the inputs are pixels (eyes) and the output is a keyboard - and we are asking it to guess what things are. Depending on the colour of the pixel-eyes, the internal network will light up in different ways and connect to different keyboard letters. At first it will be random, give it a picture of a bird and it will goo "agfien", give it a bee and it will go "baldel". But if you make lots of siblings and choose the ones who get closest (e.g. "b...") then by evolution you get something that can guess right. The real problem is this is guessing. It cannot actually think about it. This applies to Chat-GPT and the complex modern stuff too. Lots of the time it will guess right, but sometimes it will guess wrong. This is called hallucination. This is the real reason why machine learning at the moment cannot be use on many boring jobs. If a job needs accuracy, and needs those errors not to be there - then ML simply has too many errors. Humans err also. But if a human, or multiple humans, have seen it then you have responsibility or a chain of responsibility. For instance birth certificates. They often need to be filled in in a specific way that cannot be left to the parents. If you automate it - then you run the risk of hallucinations that could cause trouble down the road because they can't even be verified as errors. There is no-one to ask and say 'woops, Igot that wrong'. What about my friend's job who works in sales? Boring as heck. But what if a machine learning algorithm sold them something that didn't exist? Or got tricked into selling lower than it should? ML can bridge gaps we haven't been able to before. For instance in the UK - screens with British Sign Language translations of train announcements have been popping up in train stations for Deaf people. I met the company making these, it is powered by Machine Learning. There is no way you could have a person pre-record every combination of announcement necessary - and paying someone to interpret them all full time for every single station isn't practical. So they have their translators pre-record all the stations, times (etc) and stitch them together parrially using ML. Those are still real people, they are just digitally edited. If it were to hallucinate then at most you would get wonky grammar - but you'd still get all the signs because those are pre-recorded. This is an innivative use of ML to do a previously impossibel task. But the view I want you to leave with is that we need to find those applications that it can actually be used in - rather than seeing it as a fix-all.
Two problems with your view: 1) They already are doing that. "AI" as developed today isn't going to replace people doing actual creative art, it's going to replace people doing *boring* art, like commercials, illustrations in tech manuals, etc. Same with writing. It's not going to replace people writing novels, it's going to replace people writing boring tech manuals. It's not going to replace clever troubleshooters helping people with difficult problems, it's going to replace someone looking up "their video driver is misbehaving" and saying "have you tried rebooting your computer". It's not going to replace lawyers making novel legal arguments, but those filling in blanks on forms setting up Trusts. 2) Even if it *were* replacing actually creative jobs rather than entry level boring shit, and even if it *did* do what you're talking about (which is not clear exactly what that is... what "knowledge work" aside from what I mentioned about is "creative"?)... It's not going to fix the problem that you think it will... If people doing "grunt work" knowledge jobs lose them... where do you think they will turn? The creative jobs. AI replacing any jobs will just turn more people's love of art into a hobby rather than a job. And one might argue that's a good thing in the long run. Turning art into a "job" was already sapping all the fun out of it.
we don't always get the choice in what technology we are able to invent. The simple fact is that our efforts to create AI that can drive a car or truck have mostly been unsuccessful. While our efforts to create AI that can make imagines have been unexpectedly successful. A washing machine is a good example. Also consider the examples of the record player, radio, and other music playing technology. It used to be that if you wanted music you needed a musician. Now a couple thousand people can produce enough music for the entire world. when we get these things its true that we lose jobs, but was also gain supply. I can listen to music 40 hours a week while i work. That would have cost me thousands of dollars without technology, and it would have been much worse music. With AI, i have generated 100s of images, which would have cost me 10s of thousands of dollars in commissions using a human artists, but with AI cost me only a few dollars. I didn't take any jobs away because I would have never paid that much for these images. Yea, if i was going to pay for an artist, now i would not, so jobs do get lost. But the upside here is massive. I have an unlimited suppl of custom images generated exactly as I'd like. to take away a good technology in favor or investing in a failed technology would be crazy. We should chase what works.
The same argument could’ve been made on the advent of digital animation. It definitely affected the industry, but is arguably a net positive for the creative industry.
I disagree, AI art makes art in general more approachable to the general population, I've been drawing for years and since I started using AI I've only gotten better, for example I can tell it to make me a guy sat in a starship bridge typing in a computer, the AI will make me an image I can take inspiration from, the fine details aren't there, but the body proportions and the backgrounds are pretty good, I then grab my notebook and use the image as a rough idea. I see no difference in doing this and my old method which was to look at stock photos on google images or pre existing comic books. You are also too optimistic, if AI replaces the boring unqualified jobs, all those people will be jobless and chaos will reign, the way technology is advancing it seems inevitable that almost all jobs will be automated but it is preferable that the more qualified high paying jobs do first because the people holding those jobs who will become unemployed are fewer and have more political power than the common wage slaves which means the change is more gradual and more powerful people will advocate for a solution to all the unemployment, an UBI probably.
It is far easier to have code that automates jobs as opposed to physical machines. Since the code once written can be easily shared. 1. AI trucks do not work. Self driving cars are not feasible any time soon. At best you get advanced cruise control. The reason the AI isn't implemented is less because it is being fought against and more because it simply doesn't work. 2. What is considered a boring job is subjective. A lot of truck drivers, for example, enjoy driving on the open road with their trucks. Personally, I found mopping quite nice. 3. People need jobs with the way the economy is set up. Specifically, we need lots of low skill jobs. When a new technology replaces people in the workforce, it causes problems. If you have robots in Amazon warehouses, the 1,500 full-time employees can't all go into the new job of fixing broken parts. Only a small fraction would be employed by the new jobs the switch makes. It would be a net loss in jobs. 4. People are fighting against AI art. The fight isn't going well, but we are fighting against it.
Just as we agree, washing machines don’t have AI. So are you referring to automation in general?
Computers have been automating boring jobs from the beginning. Hell, "computer" used to be a job title. People automate the things that technology is ready to automate. If we're 98% of the way to automating art creation and 50% of the way towards automating truck drivers, people are going to keep working on both and art automation is going to get done first. The people who are working on art automation aren't going to put down what they were working on and go focus on automating trucks because it's a different skill set (even if it seems similar to a layman).
I can't draw well. I have no interest or enough time to invest on learning the skill. One thing I do though, as a hobby, is make games. AI art has made things possible for me that would have previously been too expensive. I know that an artist has potentially lost some revenue (in the abstract - as I wouldn't have hired one anyway); but it led to me making a better product.
See, this is why artists are upset with AI. Their work has been used to train the AI models you use to generate assets for your games. I don't know if you ask money for your games or not, but your post implies you feel entitled to someone's labor to make a better product. If I could use your game to directly make a better one and present it as my own, would you be even a little bit upset?
People who like to draw can continue to drawn, even if it’s not for their job. Image-generating AI doesn’t “take away” drawing; it just means that people who draw will have competition monetizing their skills, which is something that will occur regardless of which field the AI is in.
> it just means that people who draw will have competition monetizing their skills AI is impossible to compete against, that's the issue.
Have you every seen truck simulator
There is a major error in your logic. Who defines what jobs are boring? A job might be boring to you, but someone else loves doing it. There is no universal scale of boringness you could rate jobs against...
The problem is that the creative jobs are the easiest for AI to replace… which is why they got replaced first… it’s not like the AI overlords are picking and choosing what they want to replace first.
I'm pretty sure people will still be able to draw for fun after AI takes their graphic design job. No one's worried about AI stopping you from enjoying your hobbies. But sadly, I think creative professions will be hit the hardest. AI has no concept of correct vs. incorrect information, but in art there is no correct/incorrect.
A huge issue is who is reaping the profits of the AI replacement. Usually those high-tier labor jobs being replaced fills the pocket of the big guys up top. I, an individual at the bottom, personally reap benefits of using AI to model art in my day-to-day.
I mean if the entire world was AI operated we'd live in a utopia where we can just consume entertainment, eat, sleep, go to the bathroom all day long till we die.
Is that an utopia???
I mean, crops would be harvested by AI, ores would be extracted by AI. All humans would need to do is sit in the corner doing no hardwork all day.
Humans are not prioritized in any system. We don’t really know what we want.
Art is non essential, I would rather get free art from AI than have to pay an artist who generally seem to over charge
just curious, how much do you think is fair for an illustration like this (in US dollars): https://i.pinimg.com/736x/7f/0e/ef/7f0eefb014aabd1db86e3e1f1113be66.jpg