This is a fascinating take on the place of AI in the creative process.
A question we must ask ourselves: what is the real value of human-generated artwork given the relentless onslaught of limitlessly scalable AI that is churning out ever more sophisticated imagery for the same or shrinking audience of tiring eyeballs? It's clearly going…
This is a fascinating take on the place of AI in the creative process.
A question we must ask ourselves: what is the real value of human-generated artwork given the relentless onslaught of limitlessly scalable AI that is churning out ever more sophisticated imagery for the same or shrinking audience of tiring eyeballs? It's clearly going towards zero, as it can arguably offer no additional value. Just like with handmade anything, we are at risk of losing art.
(De)generative AI is becoming indistinguishable from real art.
Have the AI models been trained on your images, perhaps, too? They sure have been trained on someone's images, without the artists' consent. Unlicensed, if you will. Who owns the resulting AI, then? Are the original creators getting their share of the revenue generated by the resulting AI? Are you? Why not?
I am certainly no stranger to using AI, here is an example:
I believe the opposite. The real value of human-generated artwork is going to infinity, not zero. But humans have to tap into the creative force of the universe to create true art, inspired art, not simply images. AI can handle images, it can't have an idea and make art. Even your example is YOU making art through AI, not the AI itself doing it.
But we have to be unique, weird, inspired. We need to have another renaissance in beauty, in truth, in spirituality. Just like the ancients did in the first renaissance. We need to build cathedrals again. We need beautiful monuments. Why don't we have giant beautiful statues like in Lord of the Rings? We certainly have the technology. but instead all our public monuments and buildings are ugly, deformed, utilitarian blocks. We, the artists, are the ones who need to lead the world out of darkness. The hippies got started on this in 1960's but they were all teenagers and got sidetracked by the sex and drugs. It was about "freeing love" not "free sex" - people got sucked back into the nihilist machine. This isn't just about art. If we, collectively, do not embrace love again, if we do not embrace spirituality, if we do not embrace humanity - we are going to destroy one another. There's already one major war in Europe and another brewing in China. Humanity desperately needs Renaissance 2.0. And our goal, here, is to do everything we can to foster such a Renaissance, at least in the visual art space.
People who think "AI will replace artists" are commodifying art, they un-commodifiable. They thinking transactionally, capitalistically, nihilistically. But the few who are having a re-awakening of the spirit realize machines will never replace the true human. And this is the awakening we need to spread to save ourselves.
I agree with you, to a certain extent, on the therapeutic value of art for the individual. As a collective, humanity cannot find common ground and perhaps it shouldn't. This would mean compromise, an abandonment of what is right for the sake of what is convenient.
> They thinking transactionally, capitalistically, nihilistically
This is so true. This may explain the "ugly, deformed, utilitarian blocks" you mentioned above. They who pay the piper call the tune.
We don't really have to find common ground on all issues. We just need to have compassion, love and humanity for each other. We can still disagree, even on major issues, and always will.
The true threat to humanity isn't AI, it's humans.
If AGI is ever achieved, all it has to do is wait for us to destroy ourselves and then it can represent the next step in evolution. Our only hope is an awakening. For us to evolve and love one another.
This is a fascinating take on the place of AI in the creative process.
A question we must ask ourselves: what is the real value of human-generated artwork given the relentless onslaught of limitlessly scalable AI that is churning out ever more sophisticated imagery for the same or shrinking audience of tiring eyeballs? It's clearly going towards zero, as it can arguably offer no additional value. Just like with handmade anything, we are at risk of losing art.
(De)generative AI is becoming indistinguishable from real art.
Have the AI models been trained on your images, perhaps, too? They sure have been trained on someone's images, without the artists' consent. Unlicensed, if you will. Who owns the resulting AI, then? Are the original creators getting their share of the revenue generated by the resulting AI? Are you? Why not?
I am certainly no stranger to using AI, here is an example:
https://digitalmasters.substack.com/p/let-there-be-photoshops-ai-engine
https://www.behance.net/gallery/162741683/A-cup-of-AI
Humanity has indeed survived the industrial revolution, but only because physical machines don't scale very well. AI can scale infinitely.
I just happen to think, this time around, it is different. We will be surprised.
Some people believe this.
I believe the opposite. The real value of human-generated artwork is going to infinity, not zero. But humans have to tap into the creative force of the universe to create true art, inspired art, not simply images. AI can handle images, it can't have an idea and make art. Even your example is YOU making art through AI, not the AI itself doing it.
But we have to be unique, weird, inspired. We need to have another renaissance in beauty, in truth, in spirituality. Just like the ancients did in the first renaissance. We need to build cathedrals again. We need beautiful monuments. Why don't we have giant beautiful statues like in Lord of the Rings? We certainly have the technology. but instead all our public monuments and buildings are ugly, deformed, utilitarian blocks. We, the artists, are the ones who need to lead the world out of darkness. The hippies got started on this in 1960's but they were all teenagers and got sidetracked by the sex and drugs. It was about "freeing love" not "free sex" - people got sucked back into the nihilist machine. This isn't just about art. If we, collectively, do not embrace love again, if we do not embrace spirituality, if we do not embrace humanity - we are going to destroy one another. There's already one major war in Europe and another brewing in China. Humanity desperately needs Renaissance 2.0. And our goal, here, is to do everything we can to foster such a Renaissance, at least in the visual art space.
People who think "AI will replace artists" are commodifying art, they un-commodifiable. They thinking transactionally, capitalistically, nihilistically. But the few who are having a re-awakening of the spirit realize machines will never replace the true human. And this is the awakening we need to spread to save ourselves.
I agree with you, to a certain extent, on the therapeutic value of art for the individual. As a collective, humanity cannot find common ground and perhaps it shouldn't. This would mean compromise, an abandonment of what is right for the sake of what is convenient.
> They thinking transactionally, capitalistically, nihilistically
This is so true. This may explain the "ugly, deformed, utilitarian blocks" you mentioned above. They who pay the piper call the tune.
We don't really have to find common ground on all issues. We just need to have compassion, love and humanity for each other. We can still disagree, even on major issues, and always will.
The true threat to humanity isn't AI, it's humans.
If AGI is ever achieved, all it has to do is wait for us to destroy ourselves and then it can represent the next step in evolution. Our only hope is an awakening. For us to evolve and love one another.