I find it hard to truly hate AI after seeing this:
In related news…
2 Likes
when we ask what is art that has been an ongoing philisophical discussion.
dictionary definitions are only going to give the most common used of the current time and thus can shift.
this discussion has existed or in some instances debate have existed long before the advent of AI.
art is determined by human effort or amount of human effort.
- when abstract contemporary art became a thing people discussed and debated whether that was art because it didn’t neccessarily always require hours to do or hours of training to be able to do.
art is determined by a lack of tech
- when digital art / art forms became a thing people debated whether or not it was art because it used technology to get the output it did
art is determined by when humans make choices and how many choices they need to make
- when photography and film became a thing we saw people debate whether or not it was art based on the fact humans have flexibility in how many choices they want to make to have an art product
art is determined by originality
- when sampling etc became a thing in music , remixes , people debated/discussed if that was art.
art is determined by who is doing the labor
- so people have argued/discussed whether (film/ theater/ tv/ etc) directing is art
- whether or not the showrunner is an artist
- whether being a creator aka someone who has a develops the ideas but has a team execute them is an artist. an example would be Jeff Koons
and still to this day for these varying categories people have different answers or caveats.
using this one way or another to argue if AI generated content can be art or is never art also comes with different answers and or caveats.
after the advent of photography painters still existed but now the level of creative skill and the ability to execute on that creative skill to have a career as a painter was much higher.
after the advent of digital, traditional artists still existed but the creative skill and ability to execute on that had to be much higher to have a career as a traditional artist
what determines value; this has also been discussed and debated
these are the different ways people determine value
- labor aka time and effort done by the person actually doing the work to make the product or provide the service determines the value
- the amount people on average/ max/ minimum are willing to pay for a product and or service determines value
- the amount people have to pay for a product and or service determines value
- people’s perception of the quality of the product and or service determines value
- people’s perception of the rarity of the product and or service determines value
- etc
however a person decides it is how much the person chooses to charge and if person is willing to pay and or how much a person offers and if a person accepts that offer is based at least in part on the above. who gets the money regardless of method/s determined is also discussed and debated.
if AI generated content can be considered art, whether it can be sold as art, whether it can be sold, whether products services that use ai generative technology can be sold or can be consideed art–> is also debated and discussed.
like ofc it can literally be sold but i mean can as in legal and or moral/ ethical permissability.
AI generated content requires prompting. singular prompt or prompting- generating- prompting- generating. can the singular prompt be considered a piece of art if even the output may or may not be? can the series of prompts be considered art if even the generated output may or may not be?
contrary to popular belief AI does not copy art works verbatim and then hoge poge them together to generate content according to the prompt.
during training AI breaks down everything into patterns of features- that is what is stored and drawn from when a person prompts not the thing it was. their is phenomenon known as memorization leakage which is when a piece of raw data inputted for training is so unique that the raw data and patterns of features are pretty much the same as the raw data. OR when the same raw data for training has been pulled over and over and over again from multiple sources it can also result in abstracting into pattern of features which is the same as the raw data. this occurs about 1-5% of the time when using generative AI.
- so the smaller and less diverse the training data is the more likely it is to occur. but you make barriers to building training data whether that be compensation or requiring permission/ consent it makes it harder to make large, diverse data sets. so even in this front their are debates. on the one hand people go because its just storing pattern features and risk of memorization leakage decreases with large diverse data sets we should make it as easy as possible to form those large, diverse data sets to ensure copyright is preserved and protected as close to perfect as is possible. whereas others go no people should be compensated for and consent to use even at the risk of increasing memorization leakage. for the first group it isn’t just about protecting the copyright of the thing used to train but also even if the generated output isn’t copyrightable it’s protecting its right to be sold. for the second group its about protecting the labor of those who contributed to the training data and the labor of those who generated the content.
- we have to remember that copyright is a form of private property which means the ownership of the product (in this case a creative/ intellectual one) is what generates revenue not the labor of making or forming the product/ service(creative or intellectual) even if the person who has the copyright also did the labor of forming product/ service entirely
so now questions are
- if someone built their own AI but used anything and everything for training data can the content they generate be considered art?
- if someone didn’t build their own AI but used one that only uses public domain data can the content they generate be considered art?
- what if someone build own AI and only uses public domain data for training data then?
- what if someone builds own AI, individually makes each piece of training data without using AI, and then uses their own prompts to generate content is that now considered art?
okay what makes a piece of AI generated content or piece of content assisted by generative AI copyrightable
- while different countries have different standards. the pretty universal standard is the parts that are human expressiveness are what are copyrightable the rest are not.
a lot of these AI bros (for lack of better term) believe that creative work is merely the physicilization of ideas not the expression of ideas in a tangible form. thus these AI bros assume you need an idea to have creative work which is false. so their understanding of how creative work operates for the most part is faulty regardless of how one answers the what is art question.
currently the way generative AI is designed is that it is a really easy tool to use for the physicilization of ideas (obviously some people may have a harder time than others with this but you can use generative AI other models to assist with this) but as a tool humans can use to express (not have a result in mind of what and how they want to express and achieving that but pure expression) is extremely difficult to use and even then you still require ideas “ideas” (input) to be able to do it.
up until now no other tool for creativity or “tool for creativity” (depending on one’s stance) requires a pre exisiting “idea” input to work or be able to operate as a tool for humans to express.
however when it comes to arts education at least what majority of people receive they are taught it is about ideas. and beyond that for most people they are not taught art is about expression of ideas. they are taught are is just physicilizing an idea. so of course if thats all a person is taught they are going to think generative AI is a tool which democratizes all art. because in their mind its just about physicalizing an idea and that we only have to learn these technical skills because at the time that was the only way to physicalize the idea- which is often how its taught. but remember earlier the physicilization of an idea minus expression (isn’t copyrightable) but setting that aside is only one form or category of creative work or art/ “art” (depends on your stance). but for sake of point lets say it is a form of art even if it is, it only made that form easier/ more accessible etc (not neccesarily monetarily but skill wise) but it does not increase or improve your accesibility to any other form- so saying it democratizes all art is false. but independent of art a lot of people struggle with the notion that what they were taught growing up was inaccurate or incomplete especially when it is presented as complete.
so back to the what is art question gen AI presents a new one
does art require human expression or is merely human ideation enough as long as it becomes physical/ tangible enough? does art require human ideation or is merely human expression enough? does art require both human expression and human ideation or is one or the other enough?
when it comes to firing artists and replacing them with gen AI it depends on two factors
- are they only interested in physicializing the ideas
- are they choosing to fire the person/ cut their pay
when it comes to why are they only interested in physicializing the ideas whether the person is an employer or merely just a user their a mulitutde of reasons
- they simply want a physicalized form of their ideas with minimal human expression to use as a reference or tool or to determine if they want to pursue the project further at all and independent of AI (this how most production designers of tv or film use generative AI now a days) they use gen AI to generate a bunch of ideas see which ones they like best / which ones don’t and then independent of AI work to create and express that idea; its pretty standard industry practice (not saying its right or wrong or how one should feel about it just the reality)
- they believe its the physicilazation of an idea which will get them money; we see this most often in art/ creative work done for corporations- they under the impression that thats all they need or all that helps etc
- they just want to see their idea physicalized and they don’t want another human’s expression to interfere with that at all (which is one of the reasons why this type of person would choose gen AI over a human artist)
- they want to feel creative and they believe creativity is just how many ideas can you physicalize; which is why gen AI appeals to them.
so like i said earlier gen AI can be a tool humans use to express but it requires input to use and is difficult to use as such a tool and very few people generating content with AI are using it that way because it actually takes skill and time and effort like any other tool used for human expression and the illusion that i can make any type of art goes away.
the difference is that because it is also a tool for humans to physicalize ideas independent of expression having a product is very easy and if you are ignorant on what art is. the thing is its like photography in the sense anyone can take a photo so paying for a photo means the person actually has to be skilled with using the camera expressively cuz only you know exactly whats in your head no matter how much you communicate it; before advent of camera etc people would have to decide do i want to take all the time to be able to physicalize idea exactly or do i want to sacrifice that maybe the way i express the idea and physicalize aren’t same. with cameras at least when it came to realism you didn’t have to make that choice, same thing here with gen AI except its not just limited to realism. so because of this on a consumer level a person can go why would i pay for a piece of gen AI that didn’t require any human expressiveness skill- i can just use gen AI to do it myself.
the issue is that a large majority corporations and companies are trying to replace all or most creative works to exclusively physicalizing an idea without human expression. this did not start with the advent of AI/ gen AI- gen AI has just made it easier to do it. but companies and corporations have been trying to do this and doing this for decades because they believe that human expressiveness is a gamble but that ideas independent of expression are steady and predictable in terms of monetary gains.
the exception being those who are insanely talented with human expression who make the gamble worth it.
earlier i talked about how the advent of photography and digital art made it so that artists being paid for traditional and non photographic arts had to be really good at creative skills (this could be ideative or expressive).
with the ease of access and use of camera in photography getting paid for your photography now required an increase in expressive skills with photography or an increase in your technical ability to get a result using more complex technology or both.
now with the advent of gen AI - your barrier to learning and using the tech to purely get a result is low. thus now to get paid in any medium it has shifted to requiring an increase in expressive skills across the board not just in a singular particular medium like photography. Of course their are people who believe in paying and hiring artist regardless (not saying one way or another which is right just acknowledging the caveat) —> but that philosphy/ belief/ and how strictly/ frequently one follows it didn’t start with gen AI even if gen AI produced a situation where a person may or may not have leaned more into it.
okay going back to our talk about how companies and corporations want to physicalize ideas and limit human expression to those who are insanely talented/ profitable for their human expression. so essentially anyone who isn’t at that level they want to replace entirely with gen AI. and if they don’t believe they need that level they won’t attempt to hire anyway. so even the situation where gen AI can be used as a tool for creative human expression- which a lot of artists who use AI as a tool say- and they are not technically wrong- but corporations/ companies are not providing the infrastructure to support that financially.
the thing is that other art forms in entirety or in components were tools for human expression first. people wanted to engage with that and pay for that. then once that was seen people in business (even if its not our modern conception of business) thought how can I use those tools to make products or provide services to sell (or hire/exploit others to do it), along with recognizing human expression with that tool, and human expression of ideas/ products with that tool were also viable revenue generators due to the proof of that during the phase when it was just used as a tool for human expression and people’s willingness to pay for it. so even if these three revenue streams were not evenly distributed across all industries for all mediums they at least existed.
with gen AI it is the first time the ability to make a product has come before the ability to use it as a tool humans can use to express due to this the monetary value of it as a tool for human expression has not been proven. not only that just making a product (whether its with gen AI or any other tool) is considered the least risky of the three revenue from a business perspective no longer requires an understanding of human expression to get their. and if this only applied to gen AI as a tool it would suck but it would be contained. but because its now being applied to human expression broadly speaking which is what sucks. and so now business/ corporations/ industries are now going do I really need all 3 revenue stream, which ones can I slough off, which ones can I reduce/ minimize–> which then in turn is effecting artists financially.
the irony though is most ads for AI products like oh this and this website has integrative generative AI uses non AI art/ non AI generated content to advertise and show the AI generated content and capabilites. same thing with the voice stuff they use human voice actors to advertise AI voice capabilities.
so on some level they are attempting to treat human expression is a product in it of itself not that as a byproduct something emerges and sell that gen AI can provide that- which one it inherently can’t do that no matter how advanced it gets. and two human expression is not a product or a service -the by product of doing it is that you get a product or a service.
so the only reason industries/ companies/ corporations don’t use gen AI is if
- they are personally against it
- their customer base is so against it that the represents a larger loss then money gained from AI. and represents larger destabilization then the stability gained from AI. which is also interesting this paradox of using AI when completely uneccessary is a marketing tactic to say they are using AI. and simultaneously not labeling things as AI that are for that as well.
- the main or only or primary source of revenue is in a stream where gen AI cannot help/ cannot be used because it is inherently outside the capabilites of AI at any level of AI i mean.
also important to note why is physicilization of idea valued more than human expression business wise. because physicilization of an idea can be turned into a form of private property which the owner can generate continuous passive income from without labor. whereas human expression is you are being paid for labor so its not passive income.
what about on the consumer level those who are individually purchasing and consuming AI generated content; but not producing it themselves - lets for this sake say knowingly, willingly, and consensually.
why are they doing it? okay like i said about can gen AI be used as a tool for human expression yes. are most people who consume gen AI content vetting for that- no. purchasing maybe more people are. so you can’t say for most of them its because they like seeing what comes out of using AI as a expressive tool. for most of them its that they like seeing an idea or concept physicalized- its not that they dislike human expression, its that its not a required ingredient for them, so for them if its done by humans alone great, mostly AI great, somewhere in between great.also it goes without saying they find it moral/ ethical, not a moral/ ethical issue, or rarely they do believe its immoral/ unethical but thats not deterant for them.
what about those who produce AI generated content on an individual level (not talking about use of it as a tool for creative expression or the use of analytical AI as an evaluative tool) personal private use vs those who post it vs those who try to sell it. (the same how they view it ethically/ morally as above applies here)
- personal private use its a form of entertainment to see their ideas physicalized.
people who post it
- if they are open about it being AI and aren’t claiming its art; they simply want to share with people physical manifestations of their idea
- people who generate AI content and are open about it being AI gen and are claiming its art; either believe the physcilization of an idea/ ideation is art or the conflate the physicilization of an idea with human expression and believe simply physicalizing an idea is human expression which is false.
people who try to sell it
- all of the above stuff i listed
- the belief that the value is in the idea not the expression and so as long as they can turn ideas into products/ services even if no expression and nothing their beyond physcilzation of idea should be able to sell it.
3 Likes
Bookmarked this post to read later
2 Likes
I have a talent for finding strange nonsense.
1 Like
added thoughts I was learning about this concept called the creativity recession which has existed long before the prilipheration of generative ai content including in the contemporary era.
creativity recession essentially refers to fact that in the world around you their is no creativity. all the designs are the same for example.
this video elaborates on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46ya7lXCO_E
so I was thinking about that as it intersects with ai generated content. and these were my thoughts
Are ppl drawn to generating ai content because they lack that input from world that they would normally get generally so r trying to fill it themselves without having to become full artists or pay like they didn’t have to before
Whereas now its like
- develop skill and make/ create it yourself
- Pay exorbitant amounts of money for it
- Get lucky and stumble upon it
- Ai generate it
So they choose last. Artists get offended why not do first three not realizing corporations prior due to their design practices used to create an environment where you would see it all time without effort as a person. And ppl r trying to cope with loss change
Companies r looking At customers response to this loss and going oh they must not value these things if they rnt putting effort into them. But really thats just a justification for their risk adverse design practices aka no one hates it but no one loves it. While also pretending to provide the panacea for it w Ai. And then pitting artists and consumers against eachother. Whispering to artist oh if they cared they wouldn’t be using generative Ai when the reason for use is about something else entirely differently. And whispering to the customers the reason this whole problem even exists is cuz artists r greedy and entitled when in fact is corporations fault. So then the two sides fight and the corporation comes out on top.
1 Like
I like this way of thinking. Unfortunately I think it’s a bit of an optimistic look at it, and giving a certain subset of AI users a bit too much credit. To be clear, I don’t care if someone’s talking to ChatGPT daily (but I really wish they would use Google for easily searchable things…), or even running a business selling AI generated stock images, but there’s a good chunk of AI users who are ignorant, and it isn’t the fault of corporations.
There’s a lot of people using AI to generate products for their digital businesses (which is fine) and then lying about using AI, resulting in people accidentally buying worthless products. I’ve nearly been conned a few times because I didn’t look as carefully as I needed to, and I just trusted the sellers. I think it’s safe to say that everyone is fighting to get their basic needs met right now, and I wish people would learn a skill instead of defaulting to AI, but it’s whatever. Truly. Everyone’s struggling. But to lie about it and scam people? That’s not right.
Then there’s the subset of AI users who celebrated the “death” of creative work. Mocking designers and artists and telling them to get a real job, for example. I don’t think this is the fault of any one thing, but is very telling about someones personality.
2 Likes
oh yeah I should clarify that I don’t think this is the entire scope of the landscape of the sociology and culture of AI generated content- just one of them; it’s all intersection. I’m referring specifically to consumers generating AI content for their own personal use and the platforms who provide such tools think DALLE. I am NOT referring to people who use the content AI generates for their business etc etc.
nor people who hate art/ celebrate death of creative work, telling artist to get a real job.
but more asking the question why do non artists who have no interest in becoming artist generate AI content for own personal use? beyond the answers of entertainment, novelty, laziness, and cheapness → which of course can also be factors.
2 Likes
This has nothing to do with the topic but you need to see this.
Just got this newsletter, figured I’d share!
2 Likes
adding to this you cannot make something with ideas alone. you need a material/s that you create with in order for idea to become something. ai cannot create with something; therefore it cannot make something.
i said possibly the tech could be used in a creative manner beyond just assisting just a matter of skill. i want to ammend my statement in that yes ai can be used as a creative tool but only to generate an idea not to make something of the idea.
which again i discussed above whether or not that is art.
hmm now what if you yourself built the ai —> still no, you are not making something of the idea
what if you built the ai and built the training data aka all work you created without use of ai → then yes; in this scenario → you are making something of the idea.
if you generate AI content and you didn’t do this “built the ai and built the training data aka all work you created” then calling your content art is continjent on people agreeing that generating an idea is art.
but if you did do this ^^ then it doesn’t hold that contingency and exists in the same nebulous philosphical zone of what is art as anything else.
1 Like
Topic: Do you like horror movies or books, etc?
Watching horror, reading horror, or maybe you write horror?
Why do you think you like it? Is it the scare aspect? Is there more to it?
Also, hi @dizzyd_writer_poet @Qualeshia12 I’m particularly interested in your thoughts 
Have I thought about this? Well, a little bit. I think I like the mysterious, sometimes otherworldly aspect of it. I’ve always liked mysterious things like abandoned buildings or learning about ancient civilizations where not much is written about them. I know that’s not really horror, but it’s the same sort of “unknown”-ness. Horror can also be unsettling and while I don’t like to be unsettled in my own life, I like watching or reading about fictional people being unsettled 
Idk what that says about me XD
4 Likes
I exclusively consume horror media (some exceptions for romance and fantasy books, and historical shows). I’m writing a lot of horror atm, too. Horror isn’t anxiety-inducing to me like most other genres are, and the stories are, imo, better than a lot of other genres. To this day I’m yet to watch an action movie or a romance movie that didn’t either bore me to tears or make me annoyed at how bad it was by the end of it (ofc some horrors do this too, but mostly not).
There’s also a good chunk of horrors that explore traumatic things that I’ve been through and it’s usually nice watching someone recover from that - only once did I have to stop watching because it was triggering lol. When other genres try to tackle the same stuff, they just do it wrong and offend me, for the most part lmao.
I also just really like shitty horror. 
4 Likes
I like J-Horror, but a lot of it is pretty extreme for American tastes.
4 Likes
Hi, @TheTigerWriter! I appreciate the shout-out.
I do love horror. Watching it, writing it, and reading. For me, it’s a comfort thing and also kind of nostalgic because it’s been there off and on since I was a kid. I remember seeing old Stephen King movies on TV when I was a kid, and I always felt drawn to it. Not surprisingly, it was King’s Misery that got me into reading when I was 14.
But it doesn’t define me. I’m an eclectic reader. Eclectic in general, really. I just can’t be tied down to one specific thing for very long because I need variety. Maybe that’s the ADHD, maybe it’s just me. Maybe a bit of both. Who knows? 
4 Likes
Generally speaking? Nope. I have enough nightmares as it is, thank you very much
HOWEVER, I will make an exception for The Mummy (1999) films, X-Files (minus one episode), Supernatural (which barely has any tbh), Evil and memes involving Alien.
Edit: Forgot to add True Blood, Stranger Things, Angel and Buffy (which apparently counts as horror, go figure)
3 Likes
I don’t mind horror! I think it can be pretty fun, and I’ve written a couple horror shorts before. I don’t think I have it in me to write a full-length horror novel though, especially since I can get scared easily 
I personally like the suspense! And some other things too, but I can’t quite put my finger on it now.
Oh yeah, speaking of horror, have you heard of the comic artist Adam Ellis (u/adamtots_remastered on Reddit)? A lot of his comics are horror comics. He’s released two horror anthologies recently, and I actually borrowed the first book from the library! 
I’ve placed a hold on his second horror book, so as soon as the library receives their copies, I’ll be one of the first to pick it up! 
3 Likes
What about writing horror do you like? And are there some things in the horror genre that you struggle to write?
For me, in fantasy, I love the world building and being able to do whatever I want. But a struggle I often have is how much lore to show. It’s not about avoiding info-dump but more like where and how much information I need to tell readers so that they understand what’s going on. How little of it can I get away with? 
So, you mean you would scare yourself writing it even though you know what’s going to happen?
If there was horror without suspense, it’s a fail Do you have horror movie favorites? Maybe that will help you figure out why you like the things you like.
For me, I thought about The Nun and the reason I like it isn’t just the suspense. It’s the mystery and the unknown. There’s old, abandoned things. It’s unsettling. And I like to be immersed in that and it’s probably because I don’t have any of that irl Thank goodness my life is relatively peaceful, but I need some fictional spice XD
No, I haven’t. Haven’t really been keeping up with comic artists unless they’re on IG. That looks interesting though
1 Like
Topic: Got any very specific preferences with food?
Like… I eat butter, but it has to have the salt in it. I can’t deal with saltless butter.
And coffee has to be on the sour-bitter end because I add milk and sugar. The flavor of the coffee has to come through after all that. So, I don’t really try all kinds of coffee.
I don’t mind hardboiled eggs, but I do prefer them to be a tiny little bit undercooked. Just a tiny bit. I don’t mind runny boiled eggs, but it’s a pain to eat
Mayonnaise has to be Japanese mayo and it has to have that slight, sourness and eggy flavor to it. I’ve tried others, but I think this is the best kind.
3 Likes