[wincy]

These look nice. It seems it’s been confirmed these aren’t AI generated. But want to say even if they were, I’d have no problem with them being AI at all. This is one of those wedge issues that people get all activated about (it felt like the conversation was more nuanced when the models were more of toys and had too many fingers like Stable Diffusion) but to me it feels analogous to someone being mad that someone isn’t being carried via palanquin through the market after the motorized scooter has been invented. Sure, the scooter isn’t quite as maneuverable and you lose a certain majesty, but it’ll get most of the job done in most of the cases.

A new tool exists that reduces labor and makes something previously out of reach accessible to everyone. I don’t really care about the unemployed palanquin operators, I just care about achieving my goals.

The market will definitely make the decision here and just like photoshop was just too good to pass up, more and more art you interact with is going to be AI generated. The smart artists will just lie about it, because why wouldn’t they?

[mschild]

I generally disagree with your stance (though I respect it as your opinion) and would like to offer you a different view on this. It might take a bit to explain my point so please bear with me.

Using AI for creative purposes, specifically ones where the creative input is the goal, is one usage of AI that I strongly dislike. Art has always been seen and used to express something. It could be emotions, it could be a perspective, it could be a political opinion, or something entirely different. Every person doing art has an intention behind their performance. The intent may not even always be obvious to the artist, and sometimes the intent is money, but its there nonetheless. The end result of that intent can also be good or bad art.

For me it doesn't really matter what the thought behind a specific piece of art is, as long as there was one. I may not like a specific piece of art or even the intention behind it, but I also don't have to. I may not even understand a specific piece but that's also fine.

With AI, there is no intent. The AI isn't thinking. It doesn't know why a pixel was placed where it was placed, its just going off an algorithm and data that it was trained on. There was no idea, no thought, behind it.

The person prompting the AI is not the artist. They are not the creator and no matter how much work they put into the prompt, the result is not their creation. AI is not a tool in the traditional sense of how we might view a hammer or a camera, its an executor. If I were to go to Fiverr and tell a person to create an image for me, would you consider me the creator of that image? I wouldn't and I think most other people wouldn't either. The process of commissioning an image on the platform might even be exactly the same. You form a prompt, send a message to an artist, get a result, ask for refinement until you're satisfied with the result.

[vova_hn2]

> The person prompting the AI is not the artist.

I don't think that the parent comment argued that they are, but okay.

> If I were to go to Fiverr and tell a person to create an image for me, would you consider me the creator of that image?

Can you consider a movie director to be the creator of a movie? They are just telling other people what to do.

[mschild]

> I don't think that the parent comment argued that they are, but okay.

I think they did. They specifically said how a new tool is available and putting things into reach for people that previously wasn't. In the context about creating art, that reads to me like they do mean that prompters are considered the creators.

> Can you consider a movie director to be the creator of a movie? They are just telling other people what to do.

If the "only" thing the director is doing, in the most literal sense, is directing then no, I don't.

I'm not an expert in media production though but from the sparse amount of interviews I have seen a lot also write the scripts and are involved in a lot more than just directing.

I think ultimately this is just something we disagree on :)

[therealdrag0]

Do you consider a director of a film a creator?

[mschild]

If the "only" thing the director is doing, in the most literal sense, is directing then no, I don't.

I'm not an expert in media production though but from the sparse amount of interviews I have seen a lot also write the scripts and are involved in a lot more than just directing.

[Planktonne]

> it’ll get most of the job done in most of the cases

This is not a very high standard for art.

Particularly not in this case, when the current art is a reference to, and for fans of, art that was all about authenticity. It's also art on a product that is very much not aiming for the 'just get it done' market.

If all I care about is the destination, then sure: use the most resource-efficient method. In this and in every other situation where there are other considerations, reducing everything to efficiency is absurdly reductionist.

[sokoloff]

How many people have a print of “Starry Night” or “Girl with a Pearl Earring” in their house vs how many have a hand-painted on canvas edition (original or copy)?

At some point, a significant increase in resource efficiency improves certain aspects of many things, even art.

[wincy]

People watch The Simpsons despite it being farmed out to animators in Korea and using digital tools for the composition of the frames. Nobody is complaining that Matt Groening isn’t hand animating every frame.

I used ChatGPT to make myself a picture based on a concept of a story I’ve been kicking around in my head for awhile. That picture made me so happy. It just wouldn’t exist twenty years ago.

The efficiency we’re seeing now is in moving from idea to execution. I think that’s a good thing. The thing we’ll see now is curation of taste. People with good taste are going to be the ones to succeed in a market where there are no barriers to entry. I can understand why that would upset people who spent years cultivating a skill.

[dpcx]

Thinking that an AI generated image is somehow more efficient to make than a high res photo followed by a print is a bit odd to me.

[Planktonne]

> At some point, a significant increase in resource efficiency improves certain aspects of many things, even art.

I'll agree with that incredibly-hedged claim, sure. I'm not against efficiency at all.

As before though, it's not the only consideration. It would have been even more efficient to give all the people with a copy of Girl with a Pearl Earring a blank canvas, or even nothing at all, but that would be missing the point.

[bcjdjsndon]

> when the current art is a reference to, and for fans of, art that was all about authenticity

Was it? Was the reason you enjoyed it because a human wrote it? Highly doubtful

[Planktonne]

I think you've misunderstood me. The Lord of the Rings has authenticity as one of its main themes. This is part of the work itself, not to do with its provenance.

[semiquaver]

What does it mean for a thing to be “authentic”? Tolkien hasn’t created anything since he passed away. I hear they used computers to some extent when making the lord of the rings movies, something Tolkien certainly would not have done. Should we thus criticize the movies on the basis of their authenticity?

[Planktonne]

Again, I think you've misread the parent comment here. The Lord of the Rings--the actual books, the content of the work--is partially about authenticity, in the same way that Spiderman is about power and responsibility.

I'm not talking about the provenance of the work, but the content of it.

[semiquaver]

I have not misread anything, my comment still stands.

[bcjdjsndon]

But an AI can create that same authenticity, if it doesn't matter about the actual provenance then

[Planktonne]

We're still not talking about provenance. Where something comes from is not the same as what it is.

The people who want LotR merchandise do so because they care about LotR.

[bcjdjsndon]

> We're still not talking about provenance. Where something comes from is not the same as what it is.

Either define what you mean by authentic, or let us assume that it's a synonym for "something I like"

[mpalmer]

> it feels analogous to someone being mad that someone isn’t being carried via palanquin through the market after the motorized scooter has been invented.

It would be more accurate if for the entire journey, the scooter driver also extolled the virtues of slow, luxurious, human-powered travel.

[voidUpdate]

And the scooter was also stolen

[LastTrain]

“The market” isn’t being honest, robbing is of the ability to decide.

[lentil_soup]

> The market will definitely make the decision here

I don't understand this, the market is not a divine entity, you can choose to be passive about it and let others decide, but there's nothing wrong with people pushing "the market" towards what they see is right. Big corporations do it already so it's perfectly fine for people to call attention on this, campaign against it, etc ... which is what this article is doing

[oneeyedpigeon]

> it feels analogous to someone being mad that someone isn’t being carried via palanquin through the market after the motorized scooter has been invented

If I ordered a taxi and a palanquin arrived, I would at least be asking questions. Although I would still have an issue buying any AI-generated artwork, it would matter a lot less if it were clearly labelled as such from the outset.

[suddenlybananas]

Do you think art is a simple commodity?

[AlecSchueler]

A big franchise tie-in for mass produced notebooks is definitely on the commodity end of the artistic spectrum.

[wincy]

In this specific example, this art is mimicking the artwork on the fronts of the Lord of the Rings novels. The imitation itself is what makes it evocative and nostalgic. Often people want more of the same. So this is precisely the kind of art that is a commodity. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.

A lot of things used to be hand crafted. The care and raising of horses was a respected profession, each horse has a different personality, but we use cars instead now. That doesn’t mean nobody raises horses, if anything the profession has become more prestigious and less of a commodity because the only people raising horses are people who really want to raise horses. Regardless, I’m going to ride my bike (if I can), or drive my car to the store when I’m getting groceries. I’m not thinking about the horse breeders every time I use my cargo bike to get groceries.

Similarly, we’re all free to go out and spend $8,000 on artisanal resin river flow tabletop carved from a single old growth tree. They’re beautiful and I’ve certainly dreamed about it. But a very nice wooden IKEA kitchen table built to exacting specifications and fit for purpose is a mere $899. What we lose when commoditizing these things we gain in access and affordability. This is a good thing, even if there are fewer people making these things.

One last example, since it was one of the biggest catalysts of the Industrial Revolution, while we still have people making couture outfits for specifically for Kim Kardashian, but it’s a good thing that we all have access to textiles that would have been considered impossibly high quality (literally, the thread density and uniformity of the fabrics are so high) 300 years ago.

In retrospect these things are all pretty great, in my opinion.

[ModernMech]

I think that "art" and "graphics on a book meant to sell merchandise to a fanbase" are different things and we have to start making that distinction more clear these days.

[bb123]

If you're asking me to pay for it, then yes.

[libertine]

Because of everything that behavior represents, and the normalization of lying and deceit as a virtue.

I think it's important for a product with a design to have part of the value linked to a human, but the reality is quite different: the vast majority doesn't care.

Just go on Amazon a watch the volume of slop there, and people buy it - it's like our standards for taste are so low at the moment, it's a bit sad because it will only get worse.

[ottah]

> Because of everything that behavior represents, and the normalization of lying and deceit as a virtue.

That's kind of hyperbolic don't you think? We're not talking about people stating a direct falsehood. We're talking about people producing graphic media in a different manner than ten years ago and that not aligning with your sensabilities.

A mandatory disclosure has never been a requirement of artistic expression. I know some people care a great deal about exactly how something is produced, but that doesn't mean anyone has ever had an obligation to disclose the tools, media or sources used to produce a work.

The only thing that we are due is truthful statements about what is chosen to be disclosed. If an artist tells you they spent hours hand painting a work and it was not, than you've got something to complain about. Otherwise it's none of your business.

[wincy]

I mean, love it or hate it, the masses have never been known for their highbrow taste. Those Calvin pissing on something bumper stickers and truck nuts come to mind. I had to almost beg my wife to not buy a sign that said “we don’t go skinny dipping, we go chunky dunking!”.