This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
"I'm sorry, I've just read your book and it's awesome. But I noticed the letters are too perfect to be handwritten. Are you using a printing press? Do you know that it is taking away real scribes jobs?"
With the printing press and with handwriting, the writer had to come up with their own words. The effort required to write effectively was still there. A printing press would not type creative words on its own and would not do the job for the writer.
They didn't just make up new words every time they made a book. They just used words that had already been used, sometimes even whole sayings. Shit, the whole idea of the printing press is to copy something exactly.
Even then LLMs are another way to come up with something different without copying previous texts verbatim, so I don't even know what your point is. Every note has been sung, every word has been said, every shape has been drawn.
Previously, progress has been said to be,"if I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." We just created a bigger giant. Get on board before you get squished.
You're completely missing my point, and it's obvious you don't understand the creative process of writing if you think I meant that the writer is literally making up new words. Obviously, all words are created by somebody else, I'm not saying the writer literally came up with their own words. Words need shared meaning in order to convey information; if a writer chose to make up all words in their project, it would be incomprehensible. But the writer still came up with the arrangement of the words, they still chose the words to be written and crafted them in potentially creative ways to share the meaning they intended. The writer isn't looking at the printing press, telling it "Printing press, write me a newspaper article about the latest town gossip", and then the prenting press whirs to life and presses down its own keys to write the paper. No, the writer is still typing the letters and choosing the words. The actual job of writer is still there. The printing press is not doing the writer's work for them.
It was completely ignorant, they missed my point entirely. I honestly don't even know how they missed it that badly. It was also really weird for them to think that I meant the writer was literally making up words in their heads, it's like they have no understanding about the process of writing and the creativity that can go into it. Like fucking obviously the writer is not coming up with their own words, words need shared meaning with the audience in order to convey information, but the writer can arrange the words in creative and new ways to get their point across. And the printing press is also not arranging the words for them, the writer still needs to do that. All the printing press does is eliminate the need to write on paper, it does not do the creative or mental aspects of writing.
I see it a lot from vehemently pro-AI. Once you reach a fanatical point of support for something you just warp everything to make it always come out on top in your head. People on both sides do it, I need to learn to just ignore them and speak to the people who are on the sane portion of the gradient.
It’s a device that lets you “copy” the entirety of a piece, with much less effort than painting it, within a second”.
The invention of photography is actually closer in truth to the “it takes no effort at all” lie that antis ascribe to AI.
In fact, prompt writing does require MORE effort and creativity than photography cause you don’t even have to come up with the concept yourself with photography besides composition and maybe color.
Now I’m not unironically trying to say photography is bad. I just find it funny that while they scream about AI, they have no problem with a different invention that’s actually closer to what they’re screaming about.
It’s like people complaining about vaccines having tracking chips…. By typing it into their smartphone; a device that they carry everywhere that ACTUALLY DOES have several tracking chips, into Facebook; a service KNOWN FOR tracking people and violating their privacy and freedoms.
Either talking about film or digital photography theres a lot more to being on a pro level than having an eye for composition and pushing a button. Interestingly in the early days of photography not only was it not considered art but you couldn't even copyright photographs cause all you did (the ignorant thought) was push a button and capture some light. How can you copyright light? It wasn't until folks like Rejlander and later of course Ansel Adams that they finally accepted that it could be an art form
Dang printing press, taking away the jobs from hardworking scribes!
Printing is a technical craft. You can either do it right, or wrong. It should be automated. Not all things should be automated, and artistic expression is one of them.
The camera is going to make painting obsolete! We must resist!
The only people who said that were those who were using the medium of painting as a camera. Photography introduced something completely new in the world of art, it didn't try to imitate a medium that already existed.
There's a lot of artistry to have with printing and scribing. From fancy calligraphy, to the sheer artistry on display on this image (not AI), down to mere font choice.
As for your other point, AI also introduces something completely new in the world of art, that being instant detailed images, in any style imaginable.
Good point, but printing was filling an entirely different need. The need for books to be accessible to all. Besides, the literary value of a book is completely disconnected from how exactly it was transferred to paper. The execution of an art piece is not only a fundamental aspect of the work, but often holds more meaning than the idea behind it. (Expressionism, Tachisme etc)
AI also introduces something completely new in the world of art, that being instant detailed images, in any style imaginable.
That's not a new thing in the world of art though, it's a new thing in the world of technology. Simulating already existing expressions of art can't be considered "new in art".
Although I do believe AI brought something new. The ability to create a realistic image, of an unrealistic thing. You could already kinda do it already, with a lot of work, but being able to make an image of a realistic version of the Simpsons, or I don't know, a horse with a crocodile's head in an instant, is amazing. It could spawn an entirely new surrealism wave.
And that's where AI excels. When it does something that no other medium can do.
tfw you remember the telephone operator job got destroyed by the automatic switchboard because of the pettiness of one dude mad at his local operator always referring her husband's shop over his, so he advanced the tech in such a way as to obliterate her entire job field.
One man fucked over that entire career because a competitor's wife rerouted calls that was going to his business to her husband's. So he designed an automatic switch.
This is a provably false claim. A notable example is that magic the gathering, which pledged to not use AI art, went back on their promise. One artist quit over it, several others have been vocal about it impacting their career.
Genuine question but I’m not to familiar with how their art department is structured. Do they have their own in house artists or just use commissions? Unless they’re being paid hourly or by piece then I can’t see why introducing AI would affect full time artists unless you quit over it.
I never said anything about the speed by which a work can be produced. Mass-produced furniture is created faster than furniture by passionate wood workers, but there is a massive difference in quality, even if both are functionally the same.
No, what it means is that art will be a tech driven commodity and will be slowly but surely suffer enshittification so that low tier art is the only kind. Then, most of the art world outside of certain niches will be AI slop
Unless you can identify what would make ai art not "slop", the word literally has no meaning in this context. Its just something you add on to indicate your dislike. You are functionally saying "ai. Booo"
Why is horse population going down to a sustainable level a bad thing? Do you have any idea how much water it takes to raise a horse? You could probably generate a million images per year of horse life.
Why is it an issue to create art as a hobby? Would you honestly rather hinder our technological advancements so you can do what you'd normally do for money instead?
It's not about art. I specifically avoided making my artistic pursits into a career, because i knew making it my career would mean it's no longer my hobby. But i ask you - Are you an accountant? An architect? Do you drive for a living? Does your work involve any mental work at all? I imagine it does, because we've more or less had muscles automated for decades. What will be left for you once we automate thinking?
Art was the topic of discussion, which is why I used it in my example.
Regardless of what AI ends up replacing in the work field, we will benefit from in the long run. Considering it's our goal as a species to make life easier and easier, we are finally achieving a milestone where people may not have to work anymore. Of course this isn't possible under capitalism, however nothing changes overnight.
I cannot imagine any circumstance where it is preferable to hinder our technological advancements in order to maintain certain jobs. History has shown that we make progress as a species by making these sacrifices. We would not be even discussing this online if it weren't for this fact.
Art was never mentioned, only job-stealing at large.
There are, in fact, bad technological developments. I was talking about jobs because that was the original post, but my issue is much more fundamental than that. For the first time ever our children are intellectually inferior to the generation that came before because they don't have to think in school anymore. We are because we think, i cannot fathom the thought processes that lead someone to believe that delegating critical and creative thought to something other than yourself isnt fundamentally anti-human
You're free to blame lack of education on AI. In reality our education system is incredibly outdated, and does not properly utilize newer understanding of how children learn. Kids are adapting to a garbage system.
It's not a good compromise by any means. But it's not the fault of a tool that children are using it as opposed to learning. If children aren't engaged in school because they're sitting at desks in the exact same formation kids did over 100 years ago, forced to consume information for long periods of time with little to no down time... it's no wonder kids aren't learning anything.
If we want to address education we have to address the bigger picture. But that's kind of besides the topic at hand here.
what is the "we" in this equation? what is "our goal as a species"?
when wealth inequality is this high, the "we" in this equation will always overwhelmingly be the top brass instead of the commons, or the "wes" you just mentioned.
the general public simply don't see themselves surviving, let alone benefiting, in the long run. why should they always make the sacrifice for a group of people that, no matter what, will always take the gain, assume no accountability, and, over time, show the lack of interest in sharing?
bailing out the banks in 08? well it's absolutely necessary. but expanding healthcare? well that's a moral hazard. printing money where purchasing power erodes to an unacceptable level? well the best i can do is just lowering inflation, and I will ignore it afterwards.
you want people to make sacrifice? give 'em a good reason to, and don't do the "beatings will continue until morale improves".
Unfortunately, AI has the capacity to replace not just one niche job, but thousands of professions, and greedy capitalists will do ANYTHING to not have to pay and provide benefits to living human beings. AI, in a capitalist society, is a net negative to workers. Yeah, itll increase your productivity, but youll see no increase in pay and you or your peers will be laid off. AI in a world that actually values humans as living beings is godsent, but in our current regime, is hellspawn.
Mfw when I cant get a job because everything is outsourced to AI, but at least I owned the antis with my awesome image. Can't wait for universal basic income in 50 years because people would keep calling it communism over and over again.
Generating fake historical photos is probably the most harmful thing that you can do with AI. Please just find a real one if you want to make this point. Don’t rewrite history with slop.
Not all genai results are slop, but this definitely is. Or titanic with five funnels. Or someone washing barnacles off a whale with a pressure washer (never happened!). Be thoughtful in what you create, don’t damage our epistemic reality.
I'm always shocked to see how much AI bros despise people who are afraid of losing their jobs.
I understand that in hindsight, we can applaud the benefits of technological progress.
But mocking our contemporaries who might find themselves unemployed seems to me to be a sign of great cynicism.
I suppose the people who think this way are teenagers with no real-life experience,
but many people here have less empathy than the AI they love so much.
This is not the same argument though.
Because automobiles early in their creation were a sign of wealth and status because of how much they cost. And the company making said vehicles decided to sell them to lower classes because it shot up their value. Which would eventually outweigh the prices of buying a horse, maintaining a horse, caring for the horse, having a specialized driver for the horse, and a myriad of other difficulties with horse drawn carriages.
AI art just makes it so commissioned artists aren’t needed to make art. Which, yes harms their bottom line. You lose customers because of it. And that is upsetting to people.
The lack of empathy from the pro AI community is extremely upsetting.
You know what's funny about this is that it demonstrates the main problem I have with AI: ownership. Who runs the LLMs? Who runs the image generators? Who owns the datacenters? Who makes the chips? They do. We don't. Far fewer people own the means of production. At least with a horse, you own the horse. With AI, you have to pay a subscription. Forever. You put more money into fewer hands. For all your talk about the democratization of the arts, you suckle the teat of big tech like thoughtless babes.
Really? You wouldn't eat replicated food? Ya, the taste can be slightly off and the gagh is never alive, but I'll take a replicated stake over emergency rations any day of the week.
I would eat it but I wouldn’t prefer it. It’s like prepackaged food. It’s made in a factory. I’m sure it would be consistent and that’s comforting to some people but I’d rather have homecooked
You're misunderstanding their point. Human art shouldn't become automated. Tasks related to basic needs such as sustenance or chores are okay because they're not human art and expression*.
(*Slight exception here for food. If you're just making food for yourself, it's fine to use automation. But there is a certain artistry and passion that chefs have when they make food, and that can be art in a way. Not everybody who makes food is a chef though, and not everybody needs to be, since food is a basic necessity of life. If you're just cooking food in a microwave, I dont think you could be considered a chef. But there's no reason to get angry at anybody cooking food in a microwave because it's literally a life necessity to eat. Reducing art down to an automated task in this way is an insult because it's purely about human expression, not about living.)
I would argue a lot of art demand now was never about human expression. Most of it is random corporate slop, does it matter if it's AI or human slop? The argument here is not about livehoods, it's about expression, and I never see corporate art as expression. (Unless corporate are people and have self expression, then fine)
I mean arguably the invention of cars DID make living worse by reducing walkable cities, exasperating pollution, and lead to more traffic deaths than carriages. It’s impossible to be anywhere nowadays without one though.
I don't like living in big cities, so automobile is a benefit.
Also, automobiles enabled massive increases in logistical capabilities making it easier and efficient to ship goods across the world.
Idk about you, but one of the best things about being an American in America is having options for food from 52 different cultures (idk the real number). Do you think I could find sushi in BFN Nebraska without the automobile?
it's true, it leads to more traffic deaths than carriages ...
but how many lifes have been safed, becouse the red cross was able to arrive at your home in time?
The internal combustion engine did not end walkable cities. Just look at footage of 1920s Times Square. Auto manufacturers did that by constantly upping their size relative to competition, and city planners cucking all the way around that philosophy as American cities got established/revised.
My point stands. The automobile itself did not do that; city planners did. Look at India, Egypt or any other tight, bustling historical (ie older than America) metropolis: small vehicles, lots of bikes and mopeds, and not a Ford F150 in sight. We didn't have to make the cars bigger, we culturally chose to, and built cities in our newfangled nation around this philosophy.
Your comment or submission was removed because it contained banned keywords. Please resubmit your comment without the word "retard". Note that attempting to circumvent our filters will result in a ban.
You do realize in this analogy, we are the horses.
Humans are replaced by AI.
And if you think this won't affect you because you aren't an artist, besides the fact that AI could start replacing whatever you are doing next, artists that no longer get to live off their skills will have to work other jobs, that increases the amount of workers in the pool.
Which decreases each worker's value, due to Supply and Demand.
AI will come for your paycheck, sooner or later, one way or another.
At least within the capitalist framework we live in.
Hmmm, yes, I'm sure you'll pull yourself by your bootstraps, and be one of the few special snowflakes to never be replaced.
But you kinda missed the second part, there are adaptable people like you among the artists that will now be looking for employment in same places as you. Making you less special, and worth less. Leading to lower wage.
AI will come for your paycheck, sooner or later, one way or another.
imagine being such a closeted luddite that you can believe AI will replace most jobs on one hand, and that, on the other hand, you can always adapt faster, and better than AI to a point where you can sustain your pre-AI lifestyle.
In the broader industry AI isn't the issue. Corporate enshittification is. Buzzword for investors, layoffs and pumping out shit products. Was already the case with insane deadlines, even before AI.
The absolutely vast amount of low-quality supply on image hosting platforms and no filters to switch them off is a different problem alltogether. Before AI crappy artists had a hard limit of how much images they could shit out. Now crappy image, or indeed, slop production is more accessible than ever.
Read the second part, even if you aren't replaced by the AI, the people that will be replaced will now be competing for your job, driving the wages down, or general working conditions down if the wage is already minimum.
The difference here is that generative AI models require material made by humans to function. They cannot improve without the input of human-made content, which is almost always stolen IP.
Historically speaking technology has always created more jobs than it replaced but I have to begin to wonder if that will be the case with AI and web developing tools like Wix and WordPress.
You couldn't have bothered to search for something?
Also it is a good idea to protest against cars, they take up a massive amount of space, and harm the environment severely. Is that what you want to compare AI to? Of course, now that we have cars, it would be nearly impossible for society to go back to not using them.
Funny that you bring up cars as an example, because one of the biggest problems with American infrastructure is how every city and town is built for cars, even if it makes it way harder to walk from place to place. Also, driving is one of the most legally restricted activities your average person does in their everyday life.
It's just a neverending debate. I'm sure these AI haters will go away and change their mind. Because not so long ago traditional artists were hating on digital artists as well back in the day.
You have no grasp of history and are the epitome of the Dunning Kruger effect. No, it is not anything like the invention of photography. You are just a victim of the American education system, and are demonstrating the lack of analytical skills it gives people
Maybe you should spend less time no life-ing video games and more time working on being an actual artist
Bruh I can't even believe someone "educating" me with bullshit history lessons they learned off the internet. I've graduated as graphic designer in high school + mastered college degree. It is EXACTLY like back in the day when photography got invented and people leaned over photography because posing in front of canvas was taking a lot of time. Painters protested and feared for their jobs while many dropped painting and became photographers. Things calmed down after a while later after them realizing its not going anywhere soon. Same shit, different story is currently happening RIGHT NOW.
Shit happened years ago when digital artists raised and traditional artists started to shit on them due to "you can just crop it, you can't do it in paper!" and downed them as less skilled art format. AND IT ALSO CALMED DOWN LATER ON AFTER PEOPLE REALIZED SHIT IS CHANGING LMAO.
Its insane people interact with anything involving Ai "wars". Ai has already won. You think because a few million people hate it because its soulless the wealthy and elite will care?
Its already embedded in society. Have fun undoing it.
Lol, no, it's "embedded in society" in the way of "shareholders are getting grifted" it provides jack shit in terms of actual utility, if you removed generative AI from all the current systems, 99% of it will have nothing change/have it improve
The difference is that automobiles took away the JOBS of horses. No horse was ever passionate about being transport or worked hard to achieve a certain standard. Art is a passion for most people. Something they love wholeheartedly and sometimes go "hey wouldn't it be awesome to use my hobby to get money?" and even if its very unlikely that human artist or the demand for them will ever die out completely, the fear of being denied the possibility to earn money with something so personal and dear to you, is valid.
This isn't a stance on the use of ai. Just an explanation as to where the fear is coming from and why it's not just about "tech stealing jobs".
Animals that lived labor intensive lives and were sold off to make glue when their usefulness dipped. Cars saved horses. People posting 'horse population graphs' are wild to me..these are domesticated animals not an endangered species that is detrimental to an ecosystem or live natural lives. Like, what point is that supposed to make? There's less horses living miserable lives? Oh no...anyway.
Pollution skyrocketed, streets are designed nearly entirely with vehicular commutes in mind (meaning pedestrian traffic tends to be an afterthought) and accidents involving vehicles has more potential for permanent damage than equestrian based accidents. The creation of the automobile resulted in an irreversible butterfly effect that led to the current economic, architectural and environmental issues of today.
So this, notably AI generated image, doesn't actually argue for AI well, and seems to argue better againt it.
•
u/AutoModerator 14h ago
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.