I find AI to be such an interesting topic especially when it comes to its use and influence in creative industries in modern society. There's obviously a lot of perspective variety in the topic depending on what artistic branch is being discussed such as music, visual art, writing, etc. and I can definitely see the validity in all the differing opinions on this issue. It was an absolute treat to help out with this video and I'm glad our discussion helped! Great work mate!
As an artist who loves the creative process it is hard for me to think positively about it. I feel like the term artificial intelligence makes it sounds more interesting than it really is. It is essentially scraping peoples work and creativity. My main concern is that it will actually deter creative people from producing more art and original music. Its just so much easier and there is a lot of people are making a lot of money with it, so definitely not going anywhere. Like you said its not cut and dry though. There is the argument that spell check is ai and some people just use it for promps. I just think its important to create value and novel ideas and my biggest objection is it seems like its making people lazy.... like were just resting on the laurels of our early accomplishments and eventually we'll run out of novel information to feed the machines.
thankyou for your comment - and for acknowledging that there are two sides to this issue! many people fail to accept that. i agree - it is making people put less effort into their creative work. in that sense, its a very personal issue, in regards to how you yourself feel about using ai, and its impact on your own creative process - i see no problem with generating art for a "supplementary" purpose (album art, background music, proof of concept/prototyping, etc), but if often brings with it ethical concerns. the ethical side is of course another issue, where in extreme forms it is absolutely taking work from artists, but it does exist in less extreme, "assistive" forms, which often present less ethical concerns.
@isaachorgan yeah I get the use for assistive forms... There's only 24 hours a day and it can take a lot of the tedium from doing business in the virtual world. It's mainly just painful when I see people not creating art or offering any real value (like ai blog articles or videos)
The "there have been many technological advancements that have changed art throughout history, and AI is just more of this dynamic" argument that is adamantly employed by some does't really work for me... I see almost no analog to say, the printing press, or a drum machine... never before in history, has humanity had access to human rhetoric catalogs just on-tap so to speak, and the dynamics created from that are unlike any other technology... yes, the printing press may have detrimentally affected any kind of manual printer financially, but ultimately, the artist was liberated tenfold... and regarding the dynamic of the drum machine, drum machines in their infancy, well into their later usages, were never capable of creating human-like sounds whatsoever, sometimes by design even, and through this, actually birthed new music archetypes. The drum machine may have been seen or used by some as a way to bypass the drummer in a commercial setting to provide backbeats at the expense of the gigging furniture-music kinda drummer, but ultimately, humanity was graced by many musical dynamics that would not be today had they not existed... now compare that to the way generative rhetoric catalogs (AI) is being used primarily... to me it's like... okay you can have a machine automate making socks for instance, but once you instruct the machine to not only make the socks, but wear them too, and sell that itself as the spectacle to be observered, what does anyone get from that? It functions so much more as a bypass of all artistic endeavors than any kind of limitation bypass with a silver lining... I know that analogy is kinda weird, but I don't know how else to draw an analog yet... I really don't think humanity has made a comparable "tool" so far... it seems like a creation born almost entirely out of, and caters to a sense of entitlement for would-be artists and detrimental insatiability in a commercial setting.
amazing points here hota. in the time since making this video i've moved towards that perspective a little more, however i also feel there are aspects of ai that will liberate artists as far as practicing their craft and replacing the mundane aspects of their work. but, as has been said time and time again, this introduces other ethical problems. it's hard to know what the tradeoff is.
The arguement that we must apply the same understanding of how human artists learn from other artists to the way that AI's learn from human artists is a strange one- humans are not machines. I could-in theory- build a mechanical exoskeleton that would allow me to run down a race track at 70MPH and then argue that I should be allowed to race alongside human athletes on the basis that the way my mechanical legs work is analogous to the way that human legs work- but no one would take this analogy seriously enough to allow me to compete. AI's do not learn in the way that human beings learn- an AI is not an 'electronic' brain that somehow duplicates the functions of the human brain- this idea is anthropomorphic nonsense. Yet all the debates surrounding the use of other people's work to train AI's is suffused with this nonsense. Once we are clear that AI's are not people then we can easily imagine a scenario in which laws are made to specifically prevent AI's being trained on Artists work without permission. Note that I said 'AI's'- I did not say people. Why is there this odd notion that any copyright laws must be applied equally to people as well as AI's? As a species we can walk and chew gum at the same time so we should have no problem in creating a situation where humans are free to learn from other artists work but AI's are not free to do this. A big potential downside with using 'some' AI generated content is that your audience will not know where this begins and ends- so, for example, using AI generated cover art opens up the possibility that the music itself may also have an AI generated component- there's a 'slippery slope' aspect this. Personally i think that in the not too distant future being able to sincerely claim that no AI was used might become an important point to be able to make. AI generated content is already seen as a negative by many people and as more and more AI generated stuff gets put out there the reputation of AI content as being 'cheap and nasty' low effort crap will only get worse. I am working on quite a large project of my own and AI Art would be a useful shortcut for me to take, but I will not use it because in the long run I want to make something that has actual value rather than cobble together a collection AI generated stuff that in the end adds no real value at all. Culture is not fruit and Veg- the value we assign to a given cultural artefact like a piece of Art or Music or Writing ect is not only defined by it's aesthetic qualites but also by it's provenance- who made it- and why they made- it matters as much as the thing itself. For example- should I visit the Louvre in France to see the Mona Lisa only to discover later that the thing I saw was a reproduction, placed on display while the real painting was being restored, can I claim to have seen the Mona Lisa? Most would say no- despite the fact that I obviously could not tell the real painting from the fake. Where AI fails is not in it's ability to mimic the work of human creators- where it fails is in it's lack of provenance- unlike the work of a human, AI generated content has no narrative, no story that lies behind it's creation. It matters that the Mona Lisa I see is the actual canvas touched by the brush of Da Vinci because the value of that painting is inextricably bound up with the history and intent of the artist who painted it. In the case of AI Art there is no artist- just the mindless proliferation of algorithms. A computer solving a problem is not Art- and that is all that Generative AI's really are- calculators in which the prompt is the problem and the output the solution. AI's understand Art the same way that Calculators understand Math- but if you tell me that my calculator is a Mathematician I will say that you are mistaken.
This comment was incredibly well-written. More effort than most videos on the platform. I wish more people had your outlook on this. I agree wholeheartedly.
thankyou for your comment. incredibly well written and very well thought out. i agree with your points. differentiating between ai and humans is a key aspect of copyright and law that has not yet been fully realised, allowing for exploitation. my intention was to lay out the potential arguments for both sides - it's easy to rebut these points morally and ethically, but modifying copyright law is not something that will happen quickly. as for your other point, i wholeheartedly agree. it is hard to draw a line as a creative with one's own expectations of yourself. it's easy to "allow yourself" to use ai for an album cover, because it's not your strength, but i can say from experience that i wish i had put in the time to create something of my own or paid a human artist to do so. at the end of the day, my key point is that everything is this space is new and complicated. many people have a clear view either for or against ai, and completely stick to that. i find myself somewhere in the middle, and recognise that while it's easy to morally decide what is and is not acceptable, the law doesn't work that way. thankyou for your comment.
I find AI to be such an interesting topic especially when it comes to its use and influence in creative industries in modern society. There's obviously a lot of perspective variety in the topic depending on what artistic branch is being discussed such as music, visual art, writing, etc. and I can definitely see the validity in all the differing opinions on this issue. It was an absolute treat to help out with this video and I'm glad our discussion helped! Great work mate!
thankyou! yeah, it is interesting to see where people sit across different parts of the industry. thanks for your help!!
As an artist who loves the creative process it is hard for me to think positively about it. I feel like the term artificial intelligence makes it sounds more interesting than it really is. It is essentially scraping peoples work and creativity. My main concern is that it will actually deter creative people from producing more art and original music. Its just so much easier and there is a lot of people are making a lot of money with it, so definitely not going anywhere. Like you said its not cut and dry though. There is the argument that spell check is ai and some people just use it for promps. I just think its important to create value and novel ideas and my biggest objection is it seems like its making people lazy.... like were just resting on the laurels of our early accomplishments and eventually we'll run out of novel information to feed the machines.
thankyou for your comment - and for acknowledging that there are two sides to this issue! many people fail to accept that. i agree - it is making people put less effort into their creative work. in that sense, its a very personal issue, in regards to how you yourself feel about using ai, and its impact on your own creative process - i see no problem with generating art for a "supplementary" purpose (album art, background music, proof of concept/prototyping, etc), but if often brings with it ethical concerns.
the ethical side is of course another issue, where in extreme forms it is absolutely taking work from artists, but it does exist in less extreme, "assistive" forms, which often present less ethical concerns.
@isaachorgan yeah I get the use for assistive forms... There's only 24 hours a day and it can take a lot of the tedium from doing business in the virtual world. It's mainly just painful when I see people not creating art or offering any real value (like ai blog articles or videos)
100% agree!
The "there have been many technological advancements that have changed art throughout history, and AI is just more of this dynamic" argument that is adamantly employed by some does't really work for me... I see almost no analog to say, the printing press, or a drum machine... never before in history, has humanity had access to human rhetoric catalogs just on-tap so to speak, and the dynamics created from that are unlike any other technology... yes, the printing press may have detrimentally affected any kind of manual printer financially, but ultimately, the artist was liberated tenfold... and regarding the dynamic of the drum machine, drum machines in their infancy, well into their later usages, were never capable of creating human-like sounds whatsoever, sometimes by design even, and through this, actually birthed new music archetypes. The drum machine may have been seen or used by some as a way to bypass the drummer in a commercial setting to provide backbeats at the expense of the gigging furniture-music kinda drummer, but ultimately, humanity was graced by many musical dynamics that would not be today had they not existed... now compare that to the way generative rhetoric catalogs (AI) is being used primarily... to me it's like... okay you can have a machine automate making socks for instance, but once you instruct the machine to not only make the socks, but wear them too, and sell that itself as the spectacle to be observered, what does anyone get from that? It functions so much more as a bypass of all artistic endeavors than any kind of limitation bypass with a silver lining... I know that analogy is kinda weird, but I don't know how else to draw an analog yet... I really don't think humanity has made a comparable "tool" so far... it seems like a creation born almost entirely out of, and caters to a sense of entitlement for would-be artists and detrimental insatiability in a commercial setting.
amazing points here hota. in the time since making this video i've moved towards that perspective a little more, however i also feel there are aspects of ai that will liberate artists as far as practicing their craft and replacing the mundane aspects of their work. but, as has been said time and time again, this introduces other ethical problems. it's hard to know what the tradeoff is.
The arguement that we must apply the same understanding of how human artists learn from other artists to the way that AI's learn from human artists is a strange one- humans are not machines.
I could-in theory- build a mechanical exoskeleton that would allow me to run down a race track at 70MPH and then argue that I should be allowed to race alongside human athletes on the basis that the way my mechanical legs work is analogous to the way that human legs work- but no one would take this analogy seriously enough to allow me to compete.
AI's do not learn in the way that human beings learn- an AI is not an 'electronic' brain that somehow duplicates the functions of the human brain- this idea is anthropomorphic nonsense.
Yet all the debates surrounding the use of other people's work to train AI's is suffused with this nonsense. Once we are clear that AI's are not people then we can easily imagine a scenario in which laws are made to specifically prevent AI's being trained on Artists work without permission. Note that I said 'AI's'- I did not say people. Why is there this odd notion that any copyright laws must be applied equally to people as well as AI's? As a species we can walk and chew gum at the same time so we should have no problem in creating a situation where humans are free to learn from other artists work but AI's are not free to do this.
A big potential downside with using 'some' AI generated content is that your audience will not know where this begins and ends- so, for example, using AI generated cover art opens up the possibility that the music itself may also have an AI generated component- there's a 'slippery slope' aspect this. Personally i think that in the not too distant future being able to sincerely claim that no AI was used might become an important point to be able to make. AI generated content is already seen as a negative by many people and as more and more AI generated stuff gets put out there the reputation of AI content as being 'cheap and nasty' low effort crap will only get worse.
I am working on quite a large project of my own and AI Art would be a useful shortcut for me to take, but I will not use it because in the long run I want to make something that has actual value rather than cobble together a collection AI generated stuff that in the end adds no real value at all. Culture is not fruit and Veg- the value we assign to a given cultural artefact like a piece of Art or Music or Writing ect is not only defined by it's aesthetic qualites but also by it's provenance- who made it- and why they made- it matters as much as the thing itself.
For example- should I visit the Louvre in France to see the Mona Lisa only to discover later that the thing I saw was a reproduction, placed on display while the real painting was being restored, can I claim to have seen the Mona Lisa? Most would say no- despite the fact that I obviously could not tell the real painting from the fake.
Where AI fails is not in it's ability to mimic the work of human creators- where it fails is in it's lack of provenance- unlike the work of a human, AI generated content has no narrative, no story that lies behind it's creation. It matters that the Mona Lisa I see is the actual canvas touched by the brush of Da Vinci because the value of that painting is inextricably bound up with the history and intent of the artist who painted it. In the case of AI Art there is no artist- just the mindless proliferation of algorithms. A computer solving a problem is not Art- and that is all that Generative AI's really are- calculators in which the prompt is the problem and the output the solution. AI's understand Art the same way that Calculators understand Math- but if you tell me that my calculator is a Mathematician I will say that you are mistaken.
This comment was incredibly well-written. More effort than most videos on the platform. I wish more people had your outlook on this. I agree wholeheartedly.
thankyou for your comment. incredibly well written and very well thought out. i agree with your points.
differentiating between ai and humans is a key aspect of copyright and law that has not yet been fully realised, allowing for exploitation. my intention was to lay out the potential arguments for both sides - it's easy to rebut these points morally and ethically, but modifying copyright law is not something that will happen quickly.
as for your other point, i wholeheartedly agree. it is hard to draw a line as a creative with one's own expectations of yourself. it's easy to "allow yourself" to use ai for an album cover, because it's not your strength, but i can say from experience that i wish i had put in the time to create something of my own or paid a human artist to do so.
at the end of the day, my key point is that everything is this space is new and complicated. many people have a clear view either for or against ai, and completely stick to that. i find myself somewhere in the middle, and recognise that while it's easy to morally decide what is and is not acceptable, the law doesn't work that way.
thankyou for your comment.