Great post as we desperately need more conversation in between "ban all AI art" and "lol at salty artists". It's a nuanced topic that deserves nuance.
I'm incredibly skeptical that any "ethical" AI attempts will succeed. Market forces win 99% of the time, as you suggest may happen. Though I don't think Whole Food analogy is completely apt because Whole Food is selling ethics _and_ health. People don't just want organic because it's more ethical but because they think it's better food. Consumers are ultimately largely self-centered and want the best thing.
So if they want the best thing, is that human art or AI art. I'd say almost certainly AI art if you count a talented human artist who includes AI in is toolchain as AI art, because having additional tools at your disposal is unlikely to make you worse (if used appropriately). So people will want AI art.
I also find the conversation on this topic very clouded by the culture wars and incentives. Certainly VCs and AI startup execs have incentive to over-hype the positives and downplay the negatives. But there's also a dynamic where social media has become polarized so people feel forced to choose a "side". So when someone is upset about AI art, it's unclear if they're an artist genuinely concerned about plagiarism and economic impact, or just a terminally online complainer who wants to criticize anything associated with Silicon Valley. I feel a lot of pushback to AI art is effectively a social media fad - not all of it, but a lot of it.
We're probably zoned in on artists right now, and to a lesser extent coders, because that's what the models are generating right now, but I have an odd suspicion that in the medium term, artists and engineers might be the _safest_ from AI, precisely because the AI is a remix machine, and needs something to remix. My first pass at AI art seemed amazing, but I quickly ran into the limitataions, realization you need to give it references images and train LoRAs. And so I ask - who will make reference images?
Whether in art or engineering, I see AI needing some sort of human "spark", and there still may be demand for human spark. I see artists as being much safer than many office jobs that involved more rote work precisely because they can provide that spark.
But it's so difficult to predict how things play out. The only thing I feel strongly about is we need more viewpoints and options between "let's just do what tech execs want with no pushback" and "ban it all , we hate new technology". Hopefully there is a happier middle path.
thanks for weighing in so thoughtfully, I find this topic to elicit a lot of emotions on all sides, and Im glad you agree that the likely outcomes or perhaps ways through these feelings might reside in more nuance than is currently being offered by the many voices. But Im also glad that there’s a layer of human friction in all these things and good that these conversations come up to ask us to keep making the process and the tools and the culture it creates better.
Great post as we desperately need more conversation in between "ban all AI art" and "lol at salty artists". It's a nuanced topic that deserves nuance.
I'm incredibly skeptical that any "ethical" AI attempts will succeed. Market forces win 99% of the time, as you suggest may happen. Though I don't think Whole Food analogy is completely apt because Whole Food is selling ethics _and_ health. People don't just want organic because it's more ethical but because they think it's better food. Consumers are ultimately largely self-centered and want the best thing.
So if they want the best thing, is that human art or AI art. I'd say almost certainly AI art if you count a talented human artist who includes AI in is toolchain as AI art, because having additional tools at your disposal is unlikely to make you worse (if used appropriately). So people will want AI art.
I also find the conversation on this topic very clouded by the culture wars and incentives. Certainly VCs and AI startup execs have incentive to over-hype the positives and downplay the negatives. But there's also a dynamic where social media has become polarized so people feel forced to choose a "side". So when someone is upset about AI art, it's unclear if they're an artist genuinely concerned about plagiarism and economic impact, or just a terminally online complainer who wants to criticize anything associated with Silicon Valley. I feel a lot of pushback to AI art is effectively a social media fad - not all of it, but a lot of it.
We're probably zoned in on artists right now, and to a lesser extent coders, because that's what the models are generating right now, but I have an odd suspicion that in the medium term, artists and engineers might be the _safest_ from AI, precisely because the AI is a remix machine, and needs something to remix. My first pass at AI art seemed amazing, but I quickly ran into the limitataions, realization you need to give it references images and train LoRAs. And so I ask - who will make reference images?
Whether in art or engineering, I see AI needing some sort of human "spark", and there still may be demand for human spark. I see artists as being much safer than many office jobs that involved more rote work precisely because they can provide that spark.
But it's so difficult to predict how things play out. The only thing I feel strongly about is we need more viewpoints and options between "let's just do what tech execs want with no pushback" and "ban it all , we hate new technology". Hopefully there is a happier middle path.
thanks for weighing in so thoughtfully, I find this topic to elicit a lot of emotions on all sides, and Im glad you agree that the likely outcomes or perhaps ways through these feelings might reside in more nuance than is currently being offered by the many voices. But Im also glad that there’s a layer of human friction in all these things and good that these conversations come up to ask us to keep making the process and the tools and the culture it creates better.