Keyword ‘artificial’ nothing creative about it. Our world is losing everything of value. Creativity, emotion, morality, ethics, kindness, love, humanity, beauty & the ability to take the time to appreciate any of it. Technology has stolen our humanity. IMHO.
I tried Dall-E. As a photographer and artist ( not mutually exclusive), I was bored. Maybe the younger generation will find it boring too. On the other hand, DALL-E is a spectacular creation , a toy, a tool, created by someone and credit should go to him for his monumental efforts and success. But as with all toys, we don’t have to play with them if we don’t want to.
That was my opinion as well. I could see the elements they were composed of, jammed together in a very rough effort to imitate a style, but not successful at creating art that actually looked like the art they were imitating except in the most superficial way.
I’m not an artist, haven’t taken any art classes but do like art and have many pieces at home. So, basically a typical consumer. To me, that Picasso piece looks really good. This is going to affect real artists in a big way.
Go look at Desmoiselles D'Avignon or Guernica -- significant amounts of abstraction. Tell me which part of that picture has ANY abstraction whatsoever - maybe the figure's left cheekbone. That's it. There is some exaggeration and some exaggerated colors. There is also the problem, of course, that if you give a machine a learning set that consists of all of an artist's art across periods and call it "ARTIST NAME STYLE", you get the average product when you ask for "ARTIST NAME STYLE" and it will closely resemble none of the periods. Although I would argue here that the machine simply took the Picasso cubist self portrait and did little with it to even look cubist.
Agree 100%. When I see this non-art, it reminds me of so many young people. I call them "shruggers." Nothing really moves them. Laughter comes from the snarky, not really wit and being clever. I was thinking about the young people who participated in the violence of 2020; breaking windows, destroying businesses all for their perceived causes. How would they react to a grandparent dying; or the serious illness of a parent that might require them caring for them. We've created our own brand of A.I. people and yes, Leslie Benjamini, they've stolen our humanity.
I respect your opinions. I do believe that art is contemplative; our observations are key. If I plug in "People sitting at a diner counter," I don't think I'll get anything remotely like Edward Hopper's "Nighthawks."
Mark Rothko's work does nothing for me, yet he is considered a genius in the world of abstract painters. Indifference is also an emotion, though some would debate that.
Sorry to state this viewpoint, but by and large our world never really had very much of value. “Creativity, emotion, morality, ethics, kindness, love, humanity, beauty & the ability to take the time to appreciate any of it” have always been the infinitesimal exception to the overall rule, and the overwhelming majority of humanity have only endured short and brutish lives, or ones of quiet desperation.
Yes but we’ve always had a sunny day or the thrill of falling in love or a glass of water when you’re really thirsty. Moments of happiness. The older I get, the more I realize that that’s all you can expect from life. You do what you need to do and enjoy a simple pleasure now and then. Life is beautiful.
You sound like the author of Koheleth. Which makes me think maybe there is someone taking all the scripture from around the world and doing an AI religion. Seems as useful as AI art.
I think this cynicism is borne of the human tendency, both individually and collectively, to remember the bad parts vividly but forget the good parts. That's evolutionary science, and it's important to know that people have that hardwired tendency.
If you know that it is your survival brain telling you everything is bad, you can take the step forward to your conscious brain, which realizes that every moment of every day can be filled with beauty and love if only you take the responsibility of making it yourself.
That has always been the promise and the punishment of this reality we share.
Oh my gosh, yes! It's one of the great promises of Christ, if you really learn how to do this, it's impossible for anybody to oppress you. It destroys the entire premise and worldview of "privilege."
If you'd like a real life example, read about Corrie ten Boom living in a Nazi concentration camp with joy and love. "The Hiding Place"
I just happened across a book on my bookshelf last night. I read the whole book in a few hours. THE TIMEKEEPER by Mitch Albom. Granted that it was written in 2012 before the world was completely ruined in the last few years but it really touched me & made me even sadder for what we have lost. @AO your comment is the most depressing thing that I have read in a very long time.
The things you list are available to all. But first you must notice and appreciate the little things. Most of us are not going to be daVinci or Mother Teresa.
You are quoting Thoreau with the "quiet desperation". I agree lots of lives are lived that way but that does not preclude them from appreciating beauty in any form.
I think you are describing the world of technology addiction, that hallucinogenic world where the phone dictates reality to you.
I promise you those wonderful things all still exist in the real world, but we are losing our ability to find, nurture, and celebrate as the machine in the phone takes over. And as long as hate, division, and outrage feed the machine in the phone, those things will continue. The machine's name is Legion and it has access to virtually every part of every person's life.
But I promise, outside of that false world of the cell phone, real humans still walk their pilgrimages singing, dancing, and celebrating life.
Technology is incapable of stealing. Those who have given up their humanity in the quest for technology have done so willingly. Bill Gates and his ilk are the idol builders of the modern word.
Oh it's an opinion, and yes, I believe it's a fact as well. Using art originally produced by another has always been considered theft. AI steals from art originally produced across the centuries to compose its pictures. Not an artistic bone in its "body", only a human with good computer skills. Not the same thing.
Ditto for novels. There would be no Harry Potter without Tolkien, for instance. And no Tolkien without old Norse Tales. How many movies are based on the fairy tales, books, or comics written by others. How often do we compare the movie vs the original book, sometimes liking the movie's interpretation and sometimes hating it. But each time someone reconstructs another's work they add something of their own to it, whether for better or worse. Imitation is what humans do, and creativity is whatever we add to what went before.
I agree with you Leslie. Books are an art form like every other art form. To use the storyline of a Mitch Albom book and put my own name to it after changing names and places it would still be called plagiarism, which it would be.
As brilliant a writer I may believe I am, I stole his work.
Imitation is the most popular form of flattery...but develop your own art style.
Photography and computer produced pictures are beautiful, no denying it. It's a skill. Not an art.
I have a friend who paints as a realist. Her paintings reproduce perfectly what the camera lens has snapped. Even though she is reproducing a scene anyone can look at, or snap a photo of, her work is jaw-dropping because it wasn't produced mechanically. That is art and talent.
Even as her painting is a reproduction of that same photograph of bluebonnets seen by thousands, her painting is unique as a work of art by the simple fact it was produced by a human hand.
"Regardless, the subsequent AI results can be considered both creative and imaginative."
Emphasis on the words "CAN be." As others have said, can also be considered to *not* be either creative or imaginative. The difference, IMO, between H. sapiens and other animals being the ability to imagine. Ability to imagine a desired or feared future, right? Imagine what the past might-a been.
"nor can we understand how the outcomes were derived."
To me, this is dangerous problem. When does it make sense to apply what a computer has come up with, if You don't understand how it came up with it? With people, one can (to an extent) say what one believes the future will hold, and it can be evaluated on what the ideas are based on. Computer?
I am a ( world renown) photographer. Do you know how many people look at my work and say “ I can do that on a computer”? It’s BS , of course. It’s a mindset.
Nothing has been stolen. We are being distracted and bowled over by a shallow simulacrum of humanity. Take that headset off now and then. It's the end of Brave New World.
I was speaking generally, not only to anyone in specific. Apologies for any offense. I'm thinking of more to say generally, as I work with data science and machine learning all the time and have thoughts about pluses, minuses, applications, and misapplications.
It is my understanding the Covid lockdowns created that boom. Cooking stores and sites too. Probably anything that deals with working with one's hands.
When COVID lock downs began, a kid at Home Depot said "every day is Saturday." It took me a while to realize that he meant, before only Saturdays were busy, but now every day is busy.
You bring to mind the saying, “ Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.” Of what use is AI that uses our language , understands our fears & joys? Is this for people who can’t find meaningful relationships with humans? I suppose you think it’s a good idea to have robots that are so human like that they have all these characteristics to buy to have sexual relationships with thereby bypassing having to deal with real humans & all the messiness of humanity.
I suggest that we are *inferring* what You base Your conclusions on, based on what all You've written in the past.
Same as You just did.
People make mistakes. For example, You erroneous conclusion that we are *compelled* to infer what You are thinking/feeling/intuiting. That's what empathy is largely all about, right?
So I would suggest that You're being hypocritical if You think You didn't just do what You complained about us doing. That's just me. ICBW. You?
I believe You're too close to AI to see what it's doing. You said Yourself that nothing moves You. There was discussion whether indifference was an emotion and all that kind-a stuff.
Me? I think it's a delusion to think that AI systems will "understand our fears and joys." Don't tell me You think computers are a silicon-based life form? Are You *that* delusional? That unplugging and advanced AI systems is *murder?*
It wouldn't surprise me if You agree with some or all-a that.
AI will, no doubt in the future, be able to *emulate* an understanding of emotions, right? I suppose You believe that if a computer can pass an emotion-based version of the Turing Test, then it will be conscious? If it can emulate consciousness enough to fool people, does that make it a conscious entity?
Computers today pass the Turing Test. You think they're actually intelligent?
Re: the discussion of the humanity that computers have stolen... correct me if I'm wrong. You appear not to have muchuva problem with that. You wrote, "unlike you i have no idea what i;m missing. oh wait, yes i do and i don't care." Isn't there a possibility that this is a symptom of the AI Age, and not an advantage? I'm talking about *most* people. True, more and more people will probably like the idea of taking out the "messiness" that emotions can bring up. But the majority at *this* time?
Who are you talking to? I did not say “ nothing moves me.” You are contradicting yourself, you said earlier that AI will understand our fears & joys. Unplugging AI is murder…do you rant on like often? Am I delusional enough to believe this? Where did I write that Unlike you, I have no idea what I am missing? Are you on drugs or mushrooms? As far as I am concerned, you either misunderstood what I wrote or you are on some kind of mind trip.
TY for Your reply, I guess, but I think You're mistaken about what I wrote. I was quoting *Golfer: hit ball, find ball* all throughout, not *You.* I was asking "Golfer: hit ball, find ball" if *he* thought unplugging AI is murder. Believe it or not, some people do. *Not* me. Not on Your life!
I understood what You wrote, gave You a couple or more *likes,* and was *agreeing* with You pretty much. Read what I wrote over again with that viewpoint, if You want, and hopefully it will make more sense.
If not, tell me why, and I'll try to explain better. There were several points involved, but I probably didn't write it out that well.
BTW (By The Way), I smoked pot, off and on, until a couple decades ago. Mushrooms? Only once, about four decades ago. (My conscience is clean. ;-)
You expressed a viewpoint that I disagree with. I probably did come across as condescending. Sorry. But I don't see how Your viewpoint allows for what most people see as the very definition of what living is about. What creativity is all about. Mebbe I should-a addressed that more. And kept it to just that one point.
The problem I have isn't with You, but with the viewpoint.
You left yourself open to comments when you shared that you are not moved by music, art or dance. That you don’t emote much. That you are indifferent, I believe the word was. The opposite of emotional. You are 66. I am 76, I am sad for you that you are not moved by the creativity and talent that any of the above mentioned arts have. Not everyone will be moved equally by all & I am sure you are not alone but if you ever tried to emulate any of these arts maybe you would appreciate the creativity & talent that they take. I would add writing into the list. I have been brought to tears by a poem, a book, a painting. If you don’t want any one to comment about you, then I suggest that you don’t leave yourself open by sharing your feelings.
Going back to the "bulk" of Your comments. First of all, the "bulk" of Your comments isn't measured quantitatively. The "bulk" is measured by the depth of Your comments, which was about Your emotions.
As to creativity, it goes back to my original questions, which You CHOSE to view as personal attacks. It comes down to things being similar and different, in similar and different Ways. So as not to confuse You as much as I did in the above, I'll start with one fundamental question. There is, in my mind, a correct answer to this question. But I allow I could learn more, and may change my mind about things. Always.
Do make a distinction between carbon-based LIFE-forms and silicon-based NONlife-forms?
"to abrasive as you, let me ask 'are you too close to your emotions?'"
See, I don't consider that abrasive. I consider that a valid question. One I'd hafta think/feel/intuit some more before answering. Dunno I will.
And You can say You don't feel emotions much, and not when reading these comments. Mebbe You're not as wise as You think, and have never learned that other people *frequently* see one better than one can see oneself. I've used that knowledge for more than five decades to try to evaluate myself objectively. You?
It believe it was You who went off on the tangent of not being emotive, and not seeing the value of emotions. You:
"i've heard this most of my 66 year old life. nothing really moves me. music doesn't. paintings certainly do not. nor sculptures. i appreciate the talent and dedication, but it ends there."
In response to James's offer of condolences:
"none required. unlike you i have no idea what i;m missing. oh wait, yes i do and i don't care."
Some, people like You mebbe, would take that as a personal attack. Me? I have a thicker skin than that. That You at least *appear* to have a pretty thin skin when it comes to the *least* bit of contradiction, indicates You have responded emotionally. Despite what You've said. Just like some people would react emotionally thinking You've been pretty condescending, talking about Your expertise in AI the way You have.
This may surprise You. The basic conflict we have is that we are similar in a lotta ways. I don't have an artistic bone in my body. I appreciate people and sunsets. But I realize these latter aspects are based on emotional responses, where You *appear* to believe You don't emote much. And You *appear* to believe Your attitude speaks for itself.
Me? I recognize a *lack* where You are satisfied with not emoting. But it *appears* that You have a notion that You don't *have* emotions. Am I telling You what You think, or inferring something based on what You've said? Am I offering You a chance to clarify what You're saying? YES, FOOL. (But not requiring any such thing, of course. Only a fool requires somebody else to do something, right?)
Because if You think You *don't have* emotions, then I would wonder, is all. I have an insatiable curiosity about people, is all. It being insatiable, it doesn't bother me when my appetite to know other people isn't sated. It never will be.
“Happiness and freedom begin with a clear understanding of one principle: Some things are within our control, and some things are not. It is only after you have faced up to this fundamental rule and learned to distinguish between what you can and can't control that inner tranquility and outer effectiveness become possible.”
I dunno much about outer effectiveness, but inner tranquility is a nice benefit.
You control what You write. I don't claim to have any control over what You write. Necessarily, You have no control over what I write.
If You're gonna write BS, You may get called on it. Grow up.
AI images aren't for artists, they're for businesses who don't want to pay artists. They don't care that the images are soulless, they just want more control over the process of selling images and using images to sell things. DALL-E won't be used to make art, it will be used for advertisements (already ugly) and entertainment (just barely interesting to the numb and trained.)
That's the bigger issue. I've already said elsewhere that it is still "art" in a sense because art is in the eye of the beholder, not just in the artistic process. There is also a certain amount of creativity involved. It should just go into a different category of art.
I use it (Midjourney) and find it fun and therapeutic. However, what happens to those in the profession of the graphic arts and related fields. This is free and companies have already used it for articles, magazine covers, etc. When a person knows the system they can come up with things that are just as amazing as what a graphic artist would come up with and it's all open source. That's the ethical dilemma to me. Are businesses going to pay professionals when they can do things for free? Of course not.
Iconography, image's and symbol's are a projection of an inner world human reality, in antiquity, often expressing something language could not fully describe. The airbrushing, creation, and placement of images and symbol's, for the express purposes of psychological manipulation and outcome, by business and political propagandist's, is now so common place, daily life so subsumed with its presence, we hardly notice it but, we are not immune from its impact. It's like a drip feed narcotic that shapes unconscious reality, numbs the senses and blunts perception of the world almost in the same way an addict seeks to escape it. The narcosis is apparent in the person unable to detach themselves from their cell phones. There is a toxicity in it. Especially electronics. In some aspects the entire article and discussion is the equivalent of junkies talking about a new form of smack. Are we losing objective human reality and imagination to a manipulated, manufactured and heavily propagandized cyber entity? Where's the line?
How many times on the "net" has a depth conversation between people you respect been bludgeoned and your chain of thought and emotional connection destroyed by the mindless continuous blaring insertion of meaningless ads which seemingly take no notice of the legitimate human experience being engaged? If real ART, by word, brush or stone is an attempt at the human transcendent isn't the real question at hand how do we come to terms with the overload of a profane anti-human reality that not only denies the sacred but seeks to abolish it all together?
There are all levels of art. If you are talking iconography you are on a higher level and using more of an art history term. Years ago when my then 5 year old daughter drew a crayon picture of the tree outside, it was still art but the term iconography wouldn't come to mind. There are also brilliant paintings that are portraits or scenery in which the artist isn't attempting to do something that language cannot fully describe. Art is a big field.
Still, I agree with much of what you say. Narcosis, toxicity, the addiction, etc. I'm keenly aware of it and have my feelers up all the time because it's everywhere. Even with general information overload on the internet, few people spend time to comprehend and think through information. Since technology isn't going anywhere and getting worse as far as true social connection goes, the question become about what do we do with it? I believe it's about understanding the game and having some control as opposed to just mindlessly taking it in. The problem with that is I find that a lot of people simply don't want to do that, they like the addiction and it kind of goes into Fahrenheit 451 territory. It's a far bigger subject and problem than AI art. My choices are to figure out how to deal with it by understanding what's going on or "getting off the grid" and living in a cave. On the general subject my guess is that we would almost completely agree.
AI art is a "what do we do with it" situation because it's not going anywhere and will become more and more prevalent. I can see it as a form of art based on the outcome but in it's own category as I said. When I play around with it I actually do use creativity & sometimes try to stump it. If something comes out of it unexpectedly as is often the case, it leads my mind into thinking of other ideas so for me it's not entirely a mindless process. I'm a musician, a song writer, so I do understand the whole creative process in making something and this isn't that but I don't think it's all bad. The pitfalls become the larger junkie parts of tech in general as well monetization issues or yes, propaganda. Those things of course already exist, they are already problems, so this is just a new layer. In general on a larger scale these tech droning things are things we both have to be aware of and plan a strategy so we are not just blown about like the wind. IMO.
Correct. I think one positive in holding an objective meaningful center in the best sense is what we're attempting on Substack. I always find myself feeling extreme when I use the word psyop but the heavy investment in misinformation and obfuscation by people who should have my family's best interest at heart leaves me with no other option. We need a new American dialogue. The Assange object lesson and the war on truth speakers on all fronts is frightening. What's the John Lennon line in GIVE PEACE A CHANCE: "..keep talking'"
Agreed and having a good conversation like this on FB would be nearly impossible. Misinformation and obfuscation seems to lead to social media conversations where people already know the answer to the dialogue becomes us vs. them. On things like this and so many other things, "...keep talking" is the answer. I say that because some of my current opinions on these things may change. They are not set. Having good conversations with others has often changed my stance on issues because they see something that I had not considered. Yes indeed, keep talking and there may be hope for us yet.
It’s also for people who can’t afford artists but who have use for custom illustration. I have the pedestrian hobby of playing role playing games with friends online and would gladly take advantage of quick, consistent, illustration that was a bit uninspired- whereas I am not going to spend money on an illustrator for what is essentially an involved way to hang out with a few friends spread out across the country
Good example on where this can be a good thing. There is no loser in that case because $$$ isn't being taken away from anyone else. As an old D&D player myself, I can see how this could make things better... more fun for everyone. I just have contests with friends on who can come up with the best piece and there is quite a bit of creativity involved. There are potential negatives here but also some positives.
"It’s largely a cultural-mining operation with a clever assembly line on top."
One might argue that this is essentially what's happening in the human brain anyway; most of what we would call real "art" is just remixing culture. It looks like the graphic arts are now going to follow a similar trajectory as music: real value will be created through interactive experiences rather than the final product itself, and only those artists who focus on the performance and experience of their craft will be able to support themselves independently.
You make the point that had occurred to me. If all A.I. is really guilty of is mining previous experience and engaging in acts of reassembly, then the result is 'artifice,' all right, because that's exactly what we do. Our dependencies have identical set extensions. If they're the Achilles heel of A.I.'s pretensions to creativity, they must be ours as well.
In particular (from 1855), "As long as 'invention and feeling constitute essential qualities in a work of Art,' the writer argued, 'Photography can never assume a higher rank than engraving.'"
It's just technology. There will continue to be painters and traditional artists, and yes, even photographers.
And only real intelligence weighing values and making decisions behind a set of eyes can do that. The art is not just the end photograph, but the reason for why that shot was taken in the first place.
AI technology produces images - but with no reason or message underlying it. There is nothing meaningful to it.
Cary, I was just about to post that exact thought. I for one envy photographers thier eye for an excellent photo. I do not however, consider it an art, as in the past as now, they were manipulating a device that captured the view. Now that digital everything has come on the scene I find photography even less of an art. Are you computer savvy? You too can be an artist. Nothing talented going on there.
The art of photography is in the eye of the photographer. Not everyone can take a beautiful picture. Digital or not. Digital is just a means of saving & reproduction. It’s when you manipulate the photo that you take away the original creativity & turn it into technology.
All the images we know and love in photography are manipulated images (aside from Polaroids). For example, read Ansel Adams' books on printing.
Looking at a visual field and selecting your image from the infinite possibilities there, choosing the correct lens, aperture, shutter speed to create that image, and then, yes, manipulating the resulting image in SW (as we all used to do with filters, paper, and chemicals in a darkroom; much more slowly and more expensively) surely is where the art is in photography. (Heck, unless you view a photographer's slides (100% capture in camera) on a light table, even the presentation of the image you see is a manipulation.)
According to Adams, the ability to imagine the final image -- which may not look very much the scene before you -- that is: previsualizing, is much of where the art occurs.
Why does a photograph have to be only representational (within the scope of the parameters of the camera)?
I am talking about taking a photograph of low artistic quality and using something like photoshop to turn it into something quite different. I am not talking about cropping or adjusting the light.
I can (sometimes) find that sort of thing very creative. But there is a discussion to be had on where it moves out of photography and into something else. A crap image will always be a crap image (with saturation turned up to 11).
I found this essay interesting; but not very profound. It just seemed like a personal reaction these AI bots. Where does it go from just computer generating images from a few words, to a skilled user "dancing" with the AI to create something very interesting indeed? I don't know.
Photoshop, in the hands of a skilled user, already allows unreal images to be produced, in an almost unlimited way. And people seem to like them and be persuaded by them. And they will fiercely defend that belief, even when it's clear they don't understand the basics of optics, photographic exposure, the lighting produced by sun and moon, etc.
Video images like that are here and getting better by the minute.
My worry is the devaluing of artist's work that may result from these AIs. (Also: Is anyone checking on copyright on the bank of images these things are using? Patent attorney's offices are now using AI to search the web for copyrighted images and following up with actions.)
The younger generations may view DALL-E differently. They have been abysmally educated in the history and depth of Western culture. A generation raised on high tech video games is a generation to embrace DALL-E. They will not understand your objections to it.
Fantastic Walter. It's an impressive circus act, but nothing more than one of those arcade games where you try to grab the item you want from the items in the tank.
Further reading- There was an great essay from Solana discussing DALL-E, regarding possible royalties for the artists DALL-E was trained on.
I read parts of this essay and lost interest. I thought WTF. How is this relevant to anything. I could write an essay on how clouds change shape and it would be about as interesting and as relevant as this was.
What next an essay on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
I would read an essay on how terrifying AI is. Once a computer becomes self-aware we are done.
You know me. I interject off topic crap all the time. Here is an article that proves what we have known all along. Leftist are ignorant hypocrites. Here is an article that proves that it is OK for the left to make fun of gays when it is a conservative they are hammering. It proves just how hypocritically disgusting they are. I wonder where their woke pals are on this:
No surprise here. Two things jumped out at me. First of all, if someone making policy always has to be in the same situation as the people for whom they’re making policy, no policy would happen. Eg. Is a homeless person in Congress making policy on housing?
Second, ugh, the Viagra joke....geez that really gets old. As a woman in her 50s, I’m glad men have help in that area. What am I supposed to do? Stop having s$x because men my age or older have issues? Couples who use ED meds are generally no longer of childbearing age so how does this issue even relate to abortion? 🙄
Here is another off topic piece. On one hand, I hope they get what they wish for. On the other hand, I hope the violence stops but I know it won't.
I do not think the defund the police nuts are just that a bunch of crazy left wingers. I think there is rhyme and reason to their demands and that is to destabilize our governmental system so that out of the ashes the workers will arise, shoulder to shoulder to form a communist paradise.
I don't totally understand the artificial world we are sliding toward, but it is clear that somewhere along the way a lot of people have been tossed into life completely unprepared to live and celebrate it. Copying pictures or literature is not art; I believe it is called plagiarism.
Jumping in late. I use Midjourney and not DALLE-E but the concept is the same. It's not just a blender full of existing art, it draws in geography, and all kinds of other things as well. Yes on the blender part but none the less, the end result is something that the world has never seen before. Art is in the eye of the beholder, not just in the process of the artist. This is just a new category of art that should be separated from other forms of art. My daughter is an art history major in college so I do understand the concern. However, most people who just look at art don't really appreciate that kind of thing. It's a bit like a great musician who was heavily influenced by another musician or a genre. The public doesn't care, they just want it to sound good. The process has been quite therapeutic for me and there actually can be some thought and creativity involved.
I'm a musician so I understand the creative process but I can't do art with my hands to save my life. I have no idea where my daughter got it from. Pottery & sculpture are her primary fields and I'm in awe of her. There is still some creativity in the AI process, at least there is with Midjourney but it's obviously different than creating something from scratch through the process my daughter goes. Since it's not going anywhere I just feel as though it should go in it's own extremely clear category.
My larger concern is what this will do to fields like graphic arts. Since it is open source, there is nothing to stop a company from creating their own art and not paying for the services of a high end graphic artist. There is also no rule that I can't come up with something and sell it to a company for 10% of the price that a graphic artist would receive. I won't because I'm just having fun but some people certainly will. My concerns are not about whether it is art or not, it's about the ramifications of it.
Not to be condescending, but it’s a matter of knowing art history and learning how to appreciate and understand art in the context of history and current times.
“You” is a general statement. Has in you. , anyone. Put in the condescending clause in case you thought “ you”. It’s challenging to text , there’s no intonation.
More accessible than print, which humans are getting too illiterate or lazy to absorb anyway. Will probably replace commercial artists and flood our eyes with more noise than we can/want to observe. Progress is not an unmixed blessing.
Am I a traditionalist? Yes. Let me see what you can produce by your own hand, that kind of ability is art.
As a self-taught artist I struggle with this new digital world. Art has always been determined by the person viewing it. I've been taught not to be an art snob, but I really do believe that what a computer produces is only regurgitated human artifacts, not art.
The road to this moment was paved by self-styled 'artists' who got everyone to pretend that a banana taped to a wall or a photograph of a crucifix immersed in urine is not only 'art', but 'great art' at the level of the Sistine Chapel. In a domain where everything has become a put-on, advocates for DALL-E and other, similar systems are right at home.
I can't think of any of the purveyors of the new "art" (like the crucifix in urine and the elephant-dung madonna) who weren't using their art to show how far Left they are.
Maybe you're using "Left" in a sense unfamiliar to me. I see it more as a matter of outsized self-importance and a false urgency to do something "new" and "disruptive" or "transgressive", rather than anything overtly political.
Boy, Walter is just the guy to articulate this. He, to me, is like a battery with a wire that is held in a hand and scratched across one pole while wired tightly to the other. What happens is inconsistent and unexpected, but jolts the hell out of you once in a while. I feel like Walter's internal world is panoramic and alien and his words are a pale reflection of it, but sometimes you get the gist and it is haunting. THAT is what tech can't do. The ghost in the machine; the spark of divinity which is the ability to create. We return to a place we always knew and see it for the first time; lovely. Thanks Walter.
This is one of the best articles I have seen on the subject of AI and what it is and isn't. In a nutshell: "DALL-E depends on art already made, on photos already taken, aesthetic assumptions statistically derived, and a language—our language—formed over the centuries by acts of communication innumerable about whose nature the great machine knows nothing. It’s largely a cultural-mining operation with a clever assembly line on top."
It reminds me of the joke about scientists coming to God and saying they have found out how to create life. God says, "OK show me." A scientist reaches down to get a handful of ground. God says, "Whoa there, get your own dirt!".
People misunderstand the use of the term “artificial intelligence.”
To the astonishment of many, there is as yet no such thing as AI. It’s all human-generated code run very quickly. Not a single action performed by the algorithms is the least bit spontaneous. If you ask the algorithm to depart from its parameters it stops because it has no brain, no way to step beyond the code and produce something different than that for which it is programmed.
Google co-opted the work of millions of humans over a decade in order to generate maps with semi-accurate placement of stop signs, crosswalks, etc. and likely everyone reading this site has participated.
The captchas that ask you to click on the stop signs, traffic lights etc are used by Google to generate those maps.
The same applies to DALL-E. If you ask the program to, oh, solve a vector equation for example it will freeze.
Which is one of many reasons I’ll never sit in a “self driving” car. I know how code works and I know there’s not a snowball’s chance in hades the code can handle even the most mundane of traffic hazards.
I refuse to own a vehicle with “anti-collision” sensors for the same reason.
DALL-E users may think they’re creating “art” but all they’re doing is deluding themselves.
Self-driving cars don't have to NEVER have accidents--they just have to have significantly fewer accidents than human drivers.
The interesting argument will come in, though, when a self-driving car has to "decide" whether to injure its occupants or random pedestrians. Though, in our car-centric society, I'm pretty sure courts would side with the cars.
There are already legal arguments about whether or not the provider of a self-driving car can be sued for damages if that car gets into an accident. I’m sure the EULAs for these things will be insane, and like all the other ones, we’ll just click Accept without reading them.
“To the astonishment of many, there is as yet no such thing as AI. It’s all human-generated code run very quickly. Not a single action performed by the algorithms is the least bit spontaneous.”
This statement seems to show a fundamental misunderstanding of machine learning.
The reason ML is so exciting to a lot of people, and why it seems so miraculous, is that the output is not the result of people sitting down and programming the algorithm to generate it. It is the result of feeding millions and millions of examples of training data to a neural network “substrate”, which then can be run on new inputs to approximate a useful output.
The interesting thing is that such algorithms can predict which movies you will like, or can drive a car, or generate a painting, or recognize a face, but internally, they are typically a block box. An algorithm can tell you that you might like a movie, but it doesn’t explain why it thinks that.
And such ML algorithms are all too spontaneous, which is a bad thing. You never know which input is going to produce wildly divergent output. This is part of what makes things like self-driving cars so difficult. 99.9% of the time, a Tesla on autopilot drives down the highway, steering and braking with no problem. Then, there’s a truck in an unexpected place, painted the wrong color, with the sun shining from the wrong direction, and that same Tesla plows into it. In this case, spontaneity is very bad. There is an entire branch of ML devoted to minimizing the possibility of bad outputs from these “adversarial inputs”.
This stuff is happening, and who only knows what the results will be, but I’m already loving how well things like Google Translate and speech-to-text work. Someday, self-driving cars are going to be better than human drivers, and when that day comes, it will be considered irresponsible to not use them.
I just finished an estimate for implementation of “machine learning” for a relatively basic process. I know all too well what is required for a computer to figure out what is a hexagon vs a distorted circle.
Six months of a human being working 40 hrs per week doing nothing but reviewing and correcting the computer’s results and even then the accuracy is less than 90% after the human is sent to do something else and the computer is left to “learn.”
All code has unexpected results when new variables are introduced or the code is expanded. Nothing new there. The most common result: an abend or crash.
The only people I know IRL who are enamored of ML are two who actually work in it and those who haven’t a clue but think Star Trek is around the corner.
Self driving cars are safer than human driven when you compare miles to miles. Yes they make stupid mistakes that humans don't. But humans make stupid mistakes that machines don't.
Self-driving cars don't have the miles compared to humans and they're tested in specific areas and conditions, not in the random day to day traffic that we experience, such as a pop-up road condition that suddenly closes one lane of traffic. They also can't choose to go around a stopped car.
I've read that some of the adverse events with self-drive cars aren't publicized because they don't want to 'unduly alarm' us, which reminds me a bit of the covid vax. Keep us in the dark for our own good, ie the mushroom treatment.
A few years ago, self-driving cars were 7x more likely to get into accidents than human driven. Things must have progressed since then if they are now safer.
Curious that this "fake" art is already winning competitions and beating out "real" artists. Perhaps I'm not as creative as the author, but I generally see imagination and ingenuity as taking experiences one has had and applying them in new and unforeseen ways. Something DALL-E clearly does.
That being said, the author is clearly a talented writer. They should definitely use his work as training material for the next GPT-3 model. That way we can have the great writing without the terrible ideas.
Keyword ‘artificial’ nothing creative about it. Our world is losing everything of value. Creativity, emotion, morality, ethics, kindness, love, humanity, beauty & the ability to take the time to appreciate any of it. Technology has stolen our humanity. IMHO.
And so the burden that falls to our generation and our children's generation is the responsibility to recover them in (and perhaps for) a new age.
Great article!
I forgot to mention spirituality, not so much any one religion but the knowledge that there is something bigger than us in the universe.
Yes. It is known as Dark Matter.
Not for those with faith.
Dark Matter is hypothetical.
True but so is god
The concept of God is self evident, it's the definition that we're having trouble with.
Great article Walter Kirn is really good I look forward to all his articles!
Not only doesn't DALL-E produce art, it isn't even good at mimicry yet. Those pieces are clearly not in the style of Picasso, Van Gogh, etc.
I tried Dall-E. As a photographer and artist ( not mutually exclusive), I was bored. Maybe the younger generation will find it boring too. On the other hand, DALL-E is a spectacular creation , a toy, a tool, created by someone and credit should go to him for his monumental efforts and success. But as with all toys, we don’t have to play with them if we don’t want to.
That was my opinion as well. I could see the elements they were composed of, jammed together in a very rough effort to imitate a style, but not successful at creating art that actually looked like the art they were imitating except in the most superficial way.
I’m not an artist, haven’t taken any art classes but do like art and have many pieces at home. So, basically a typical consumer. To me, that Picasso piece looks really good. This is going to affect real artists in a big way.
Go look at Desmoiselles D'Avignon or Guernica -- significant amounts of abstraction. Tell me which part of that picture has ANY abstraction whatsoever - maybe the figure's left cheekbone. That's it. There is some exaggeration and some exaggerated colors. There is also the problem, of course, that if you give a machine a learning set that consists of all of an artist's art across periods and call it "ARTIST NAME STYLE", you get the average product when you ask for "ARTIST NAME STYLE" and it will closely resemble none of the periods. Although I would argue here that the machine simply took the Picasso cubist self portrait and did little with it to even look cubist.
Agree 100%. When I see this non-art, it reminds me of so many young people. I call them "shruggers." Nothing really moves them. Laughter comes from the snarky, not really wit and being clever. I was thinking about the young people who participated in the violence of 2020; breaking windows, destroying businesses all for their perceived causes. How would they react to a grandparent dying; or the serious illness of a parent that might require them caring for them. We've created our own brand of A.I. people and yes, Leslie Benjamini, they've stolen our humanity.
Maya, i call them the "whatevers" but i like your description even better, "shruggers." may i quote you? pdemarco@prioritythinking.com
Sure. Thank you.
I respect your opinions. I do believe that art is contemplative; our observations are key. If I plug in "People sitting at a diner counter," I don't think I'll get anything remotely like Edward Hopper's "Nighthawks."
Mark Rothko's work does nothing for me, yet he is considered a genius in the world of abstract painters. Indifference is also an emotion, though some would debate that.
I don't think he would comply.
Condolences.
@Leslie
Sorry to state this viewpoint, but by and large our world never really had very much of value. “Creativity, emotion, morality, ethics, kindness, love, humanity, beauty & the ability to take the time to appreciate any of it” have always been the infinitesimal exception to the overall rule, and the overwhelming majority of humanity have only endured short and brutish lives, or ones of quiet desperation.
Yes but we’ve always had a sunny day or the thrill of falling in love or a glass of water when you’re really thirsty. Moments of happiness. The older I get, the more I realize that that’s all you can expect from life. You do what you need to do and enjoy a simple pleasure now and then. Life is beautiful.
You sound like the author of Koheleth. Which makes me think maybe there is someone taking all the scripture from around the world and doing an AI religion. Seems as useful as AI art.
Sounds like personal observation which lead to a healthy perspective to me.
Thus our new God
I think this cynicism is borne of the human tendency, both individually and collectively, to remember the bad parts vividly but forget the good parts. That's evolutionary science, and it's important to know that people have that hardwired tendency.
If you know that it is your survival brain telling you everything is bad, you can take the step forward to your conscious brain, which realizes that every moment of every day can be filled with beauty and love if only you take the responsibility of making it yourself.
That has always been the promise and the punishment of this reality we share.
And taking that responsibility is incredibly freeing.
Oh my gosh, yes! It's one of the great promises of Christ, if you really learn how to do this, it's impossible for anybody to oppress you. It destroys the entire premise and worldview of "privilege."
If you'd like a real life example, read about Corrie ten Boom living in a Nazi concentration camp with joy and love. "The Hiding Place"
What a sad perspective.
I just happened across a book on my bookshelf last night. I read the whole book in a few hours. THE TIMEKEEPER by Mitch Albom. Granted that it was written in 2012 before the world was completely ruined in the last few years but it really touched me & made me even sadder for what we have lost. @AO your comment is the most depressing thing that I have read in a very long time.
It is a very thought provoking book. I enjoyed it.
Thank You.
And yet, most cling to life with all they have.
The things you list are available to all. But first you must notice and appreciate the little things. Most of us are not going to be daVinci or Mother Teresa.
You are quoting Thoreau with the "quiet desperation". I agree lots of lives are lived that way but that does not preclude them from appreciating beauty in any form.
I just started reading Gilbran, "our comfort becomes our fetters."
Sadly 🥲🥲
I think you are describing the world of technology addiction, that hallucinogenic world where the phone dictates reality to you.
I promise you those wonderful things all still exist in the real world, but we are losing our ability to find, nurture, and celebrate as the machine in the phone takes over. And as long as hate, division, and outrage feed the machine in the phone, those things will continue. The machine's name is Legion and it has access to virtually every part of every person's life.
But I promise, outside of that false world of the cell phone, real humans still walk their pilgrimages singing, dancing, and celebrating life.
I hope so, however I think the last 2-3, years have taken the joy out life.
Technology is incapable of stealing. Those who have given up their humanity in the quest for technology have done so willingly. Bill Gates and his ilk are the idol builders of the modern word.
Maybe willingly, more like brainwashing. Slowly drawn in not realizing where it would end.
I agree. But "mimicry" is what struck the biggest note with me.
This is what all AI is, the statistical extraction from the body of human works.
Not a fan of bald statistics either.
I don't view that as an opinion. Seems more like one-a the facts of life, such as it is these days...
Oh it's an opinion, and yes, I believe it's a fact as well. Using art originally produced by another has always been considered theft. AI steals from art originally produced across the centuries to compose its pictures. Not an artistic bone in its "body", only a human with good computer skills. Not the same thing.
Ditto for novels. There would be no Harry Potter without Tolkien, for instance. And no Tolkien without old Norse Tales. How many movies are based on the fairy tales, books, or comics written by others. How often do we compare the movie vs the original book, sometimes liking the movie's interpretation and sometimes hating it. But each time someone reconstructs another's work they add something of their own to it, whether for better or worse. Imitation is what humans do, and creativity is whatever we add to what went before.
I disagree, for instance this book The Timekeeper by Mitch Albom was extremely creative & very original. And I have read others as well.
I agree with you Leslie. Books are an art form like every other art form. To use the storyline of a Mitch Albom book and put my own name to it after changing names and places it would still be called plagiarism, which it would be.
As brilliant a writer I may believe I am, I stole his work.
Imitation is the most popular form of flattery...but develop your own art style.
Photography and computer produced pictures are beautiful, no denying it. It's a skill. Not an art.
I have a friend who paints as a realist. Her paintings reproduce perfectly what the camera lens has snapped. Even though she is reproducing a scene anyone can look at, or snap a photo of, her work is jaw-dropping because it wasn't produced mechanically. That is art and talent.
Even as her painting is a reproduction of that same photograph of bluebonnets seen by thousands, her painting is unique as a work of art by the simple fact it was produced by a human hand.
"Regardless, the subsequent AI results can be considered both creative and imaginative."
Emphasis on the words "CAN be." As others have said, can also be considered to *not* be either creative or imaginative. The difference, IMO, between H. sapiens and other animals being the ability to imagine. Ability to imagine a desired or feared future, right? Imagine what the past might-a been.
"nor can we understand how the outcomes were derived."
To me, this is dangerous problem. When does it make sense to apply what a computer has come up with, if You don't understand how it came up with it? With people, one can (to an extent) say what one believes the future will hold, and it can be evaluated on what the ideas are based on. Computer?
I am a ( world renown) photographer. Do you know how many people look at my work and say “ I can do that on a computer”? It’s BS , of course. It’s a mindset.
It's so wrong and condescending.
Nothing has been stolen. We are being distracted and bowled over by a shallow simulacrum of humanity. Take that headset off now and then. It's the end of Brave New World.
I don’t own a headset. Don’t assume anything. It just makes an ass out of you.
Well, an ass out of u and me :)
I was speaking generally, not only to anyone in specific. Apologies for any offense. I'm thinking of more to say generally, as I work with data science and machine learning all the time and have thoughts about pluses, minuses, applications, and misapplications.
Yes and no. The art supply stores are booming. These times produce the kind of angst necessary for the creative arts.
Art supply stores don’t supply creativity, only tools.
It is my understanding the Covid lockdowns created that boom. Cooking stores and sites too. Probably anything that deals with working with one's hands.
When COVID lock downs began, a kid at Home Depot said "every day is Saturday." It took me a while to realize that he meant, before only Saturdays were busy, but now every day is busy.
IMO AI in the wrong hands, which it already is, Elon Musk agrees, will be the ruination of humanity.
You bring to mind the saying, “ Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.” Of what use is AI that uses our language , understands our fears & joys? Is this for people who can’t find meaningful relationships with humans? I suppose you think it’s a good idea to have robots that are so human like that they have all these characteristics to buy to have sexual relationships with thereby bypassing having to deal with real humans & all the messiness of humanity.
I suggest that we are *inferring* what You base Your conclusions on, based on what all You've written in the past.
Same as You just did.
People make mistakes. For example, You erroneous conclusion that we are *compelled* to infer what You are thinking/feeling/intuiting. That's what empathy is largely all about, right?
So I would suggest that You're being hypocritical if You think You didn't just do what You complained about us doing. That's just me. ICBW. You?
"We" is myself and Leslie Benjamini, who is the other on this long thread of pseudo-discourse.
I believe You're too close to AI to see what it's doing. You said Yourself that nothing moves You. There was discussion whether indifference was an emotion and all that kind-a stuff.
Me? I think it's a delusion to think that AI systems will "understand our fears and joys." Don't tell me You think computers are a silicon-based life form? Are You *that* delusional? That unplugging and advanced AI systems is *murder?*
It wouldn't surprise me if You agree with some or all-a that.
AI will, no doubt in the future, be able to *emulate* an understanding of emotions, right? I suppose You believe that if a computer can pass an emotion-based version of the Turing Test, then it will be conscious? If it can emulate consciousness enough to fool people, does that make it a conscious entity?
Computers today pass the Turing Test. You think they're actually intelligent?
Re: the discussion of the humanity that computers have stolen... correct me if I'm wrong. You appear not to have muchuva problem with that. You wrote, "unlike you i have no idea what i;m missing. oh wait, yes i do and i don't care." Isn't there a possibility that this is a symptom of the AI Age, and not an advantage? I'm talking about *most* people. True, more and more people will probably like the idea of taking out the "messiness" that emotions can bring up. But the majority at *this* time?
Who are you talking to? I did not say “ nothing moves me.” You are contradicting yourself, you said earlier that AI will understand our fears & joys. Unplugging AI is murder…do you rant on like often? Am I delusional enough to believe this? Where did I write that Unlike you, I have no idea what I am missing? Are you on drugs or mushrooms? As far as I am concerned, you either misunderstood what I wrote or you are on some kind of mind trip.
TY for Your reply, I guess, but I think You're mistaken about what I wrote. I was quoting *Golfer: hit ball, find ball* all throughout, not *You.* I was asking "Golfer: hit ball, find ball" if *he* thought unplugging AI is murder. Believe it or not, some people do. *Not* me. Not on Your life!
I understood what You wrote, gave You a couple or more *likes,* and was *agreeing* with You pretty much. Read what I wrote over again with that viewpoint, if You want, and hopefully it will make more sense.
If not, tell me why, and I'll try to explain better. There were several points involved, but I probably didn't write it out that well.
BTW (By The Way), I smoked pot, off and on, until a couple decades ago. Mushrooms? Only once, about four decades ago. (My conscience is clean. ;-)
Sorry that I misunderstood. Please forgive me.
Apology NOT accepted, because No NEED to apologize. (So forgiveness not necessary. :-)
TY for reply.
For not being very emotive, You sure are touchy.
You expressed a viewpoint that I disagree with. I probably did come across as condescending. Sorry. But I don't see how Your viewpoint allows for what most people see as the very definition of what living is about. What creativity is all about. Mebbe I should-a addressed that more. And kept it to just that one point.
The problem I have isn't with You, but with the viewpoint.
What's Your excuse for the personal attack?
No matter. Day done.
Yeah, me too.
So... ... ?
I'm *assuming* You're trying to contradict something I "said." I'm not seeing what.
On the contrary. Your inability to understand sheds light on You, not me.
You left yourself open to comments when you shared that you are not moved by music, art or dance. That you don’t emote much. That you are indifferent, I believe the word was. The opposite of emotional. You are 66. I am 76, I am sad for you that you are not moved by the creativity and talent that any of the above mentioned arts have. Not everyone will be moved equally by all & I am sure you are not alone but if you ever tried to emulate any of these arts maybe you would appreciate the creativity & talent that they take. I would add writing into the list. I have been brought to tears by a poem, a book, a painting. If you don’t want any one to comment about you, then I suggest that you don’t leave yourself open by sharing your feelings.
You make comments like "you aren't very wise" and have the GALL to complain about *others* making "personal attacks" on You?
Gimme a break.
You yourself said. Nothing more to say to you. Circular argument. Not interested?
Going back to the "bulk" of Your comments. First of all, the "bulk" of Your comments isn't measured quantitatively. The "bulk" is measured by the depth of Your comments, which was about Your emotions.
As to creativity, it goes back to my original questions, which You CHOSE to view as personal attacks. It comes down to things being similar and different, in similar and different Ways. So as not to confuse You as much as I did in the above, I'll start with one fundamental question. There is, in my mind, a correct answer to this question. But I allow I could learn more, and may change my mind about things. Always.
Do make a distinction between carbon-based LIFE-forms and silicon-based NONlife-forms?
Sorry. The more You write, the more factually incorrect Your replies are getting. That due to You reacting emotionally, instead-a logically.
I ask a *reasonable* question and this is Your reply?
"to abrasive as you, let me ask 'are you too close to your emotions?'"
See, I don't consider that abrasive. I consider that a valid question. One I'd hafta think/feel/intuit some more before answering. Dunno I will.
And You can say You don't feel emotions much, and not when reading these comments. Mebbe You're not as wise as You think, and have never learned that other people *frequently* see one better than one can see oneself. I've used that knowledge for more than five decades to try to evaluate myself objectively. You?
It believe it was You who went off on the tangent of not being emotive, and not seeing the value of emotions. You:
"i've heard this most of my 66 year old life. nothing really moves me. music doesn't. paintings certainly do not. nor sculptures. i appreciate the talent and dedication, but it ends there."
In response to James's offer of condolences:
"none required. unlike you i have no idea what i;m missing. oh wait, yes i do and i don't care."
Some, people like You mebbe, would take that as a personal attack. Me? I have a thicker skin than that. That You at least *appear* to have a pretty thin skin when it comes to the *least* bit of contradiction, indicates You have responded emotionally. Despite what You've said. Just like some people would react emotionally thinking You've been pretty condescending, talking about Your expertise in AI the way You have.
This may surprise You. The basic conflict we have is that we are similar in a lotta ways. I don't have an artistic bone in my body. I appreciate people and sunsets. But I realize these latter aspects are based on emotional responses, where You *appear* to believe You don't emote much. And You *appear* to believe Your attitude speaks for itself.
Me? I recognize a *lack* where You are satisfied with not emoting. But it *appears* that You have a notion that You don't *have* emotions. Am I telling You what You think, or inferring something based on what You've said? Am I offering You a chance to clarify what You're saying? YES, FOOL. (But not requiring any such thing, of course. Only a fool requires somebody else to do something, right?)
Because if You think You *don't have* emotions, then I would wonder, is all. I have an insatiable curiosity about people, is all. It being insatiable, it doesn't bother me when my appetite to know other people isn't sated. It never will be.
Sorry, Golfer. Epictetus:
“Happiness and freedom begin with a clear understanding of one principle: Some things are within our control, and some things are not. It is only after you have faced up to this fundamental rule and learned to distinguish between what you can and can't control that inner tranquility and outer effectiveness become possible.”
I dunno much about outer effectiveness, but inner tranquility is a nice benefit.
You control what You write. I don't claim to have any control over what You write. Necessarily, You have no control over what I write.
If You're gonna write BS, You may get called on it. Grow up.
AI is already doing this to steer our thoughts and passions to influence our voting
AI images aren't for artists, they're for businesses who don't want to pay artists. They don't care that the images are soulless, they just want more control over the process of selling images and using images to sell things. DALL-E won't be used to make art, it will be used for advertisements (already ugly) and entertainment (just barely interesting to the numb and trained.)
That's the bigger issue. I've already said elsewhere that it is still "art" in a sense because art is in the eye of the beholder, not just in the artistic process. There is also a certain amount of creativity involved. It should just go into a different category of art.
I use it (Midjourney) and find it fun and therapeutic. However, what happens to those in the profession of the graphic arts and related fields. This is free and companies have already used it for articles, magazine covers, etc. When a person knows the system they can come up with things that are just as amazing as what a graphic artist would come up with and it's all open source. That's the ethical dilemma to me. Are businesses going to pay professionals when they can do things for free? Of course not.
Iconography, image's and symbol's are a projection of an inner world human reality, in antiquity, often expressing something language could not fully describe. The airbrushing, creation, and placement of images and symbol's, for the express purposes of psychological manipulation and outcome, by business and political propagandist's, is now so common place, daily life so subsumed with its presence, we hardly notice it but, we are not immune from its impact. It's like a drip feed narcotic that shapes unconscious reality, numbs the senses and blunts perception of the world almost in the same way an addict seeks to escape it. The narcosis is apparent in the person unable to detach themselves from their cell phones. There is a toxicity in it. Especially electronics. In some aspects the entire article and discussion is the equivalent of junkies talking about a new form of smack. Are we losing objective human reality and imagination to a manipulated, manufactured and heavily propagandized cyber entity? Where's the line?
How many times on the "net" has a depth conversation between people you respect been bludgeoned and your chain of thought and emotional connection destroyed by the mindless continuous blaring insertion of meaningless ads which seemingly take no notice of the legitimate human experience being engaged? If real ART, by word, brush or stone is an attempt at the human transcendent isn't the real question at hand how do we come to terms with the overload of a profane anti-human reality that not only denies the sacred but seeks to abolish it all together?
Just sayin'.
There are all levels of art. If you are talking iconography you are on a higher level and using more of an art history term. Years ago when my then 5 year old daughter drew a crayon picture of the tree outside, it was still art but the term iconography wouldn't come to mind. There are also brilliant paintings that are portraits or scenery in which the artist isn't attempting to do something that language cannot fully describe. Art is a big field.
Still, I agree with much of what you say. Narcosis, toxicity, the addiction, etc. I'm keenly aware of it and have my feelers up all the time because it's everywhere. Even with general information overload on the internet, few people spend time to comprehend and think through information. Since technology isn't going anywhere and getting worse as far as true social connection goes, the question become about what do we do with it? I believe it's about understanding the game and having some control as opposed to just mindlessly taking it in. The problem with that is I find that a lot of people simply don't want to do that, they like the addiction and it kind of goes into Fahrenheit 451 territory. It's a far bigger subject and problem than AI art. My choices are to figure out how to deal with it by understanding what's going on or "getting off the grid" and living in a cave. On the general subject my guess is that we would almost completely agree.
AI art is a "what do we do with it" situation because it's not going anywhere and will become more and more prevalent. I can see it as a form of art based on the outcome but in it's own category as I said. When I play around with it I actually do use creativity & sometimes try to stump it. If something comes out of it unexpectedly as is often the case, it leads my mind into thinking of other ideas so for me it's not entirely a mindless process. I'm a musician, a song writer, so I do understand the whole creative process in making something and this isn't that but I don't think it's all bad. The pitfalls become the larger junkie parts of tech in general as well monetization issues or yes, propaganda. Those things of course already exist, they are already problems, so this is just a new layer. In general on a larger scale these tech droning things are things we both have to be aware of and plan a strategy so we are not just blown about like the wind. IMO.
Correct. I think one positive in holding an objective meaningful center in the best sense is what we're attempting on Substack. I always find myself feeling extreme when I use the word psyop but the heavy investment in misinformation and obfuscation by people who should have my family's best interest at heart leaves me with no other option. We need a new American dialogue. The Assange object lesson and the war on truth speakers on all fronts is frightening. What's the John Lennon line in GIVE PEACE A CHANCE: "..keep talking'"
Catch you on the turn around.
Agreed and having a good conversation like this on FB would be nearly impossible. Misinformation and obfuscation seems to lead to social media conversations where people already know the answer to the dialogue becomes us vs. them. On things like this and so many other things, "...keep talking" is the answer. I say that because some of my current opinions on these things may change. They are not set. Having good conversations with others has often changed my stance on issues because they see something that I had not considered. Yes indeed, keep talking and there may be hope for us yet.
It’s also for people who can’t afford artists but who have use for custom illustration. I have the pedestrian hobby of playing role playing games with friends online and would gladly take advantage of quick, consistent, illustration that was a bit uninspired- whereas I am not going to spend money on an illustrator for what is essentially an involved way to hang out with a few friends spread out across the country
Good example on where this can be a good thing. There is no loser in that case because $$$ isn't being taken away from anyone else. As an old D&D player myself, I can see how this could make things better... more fun for everyone. I just have contests with friends on who can come up with the best piece and there is quite a bit of creativity involved. There are potential negatives here but also some positives.
So, you're admitting the existence of the Soul. LOL
"It’s largely a cultural-mining operation with a clever assembly line on top."
One might argue that this is essentially what's happening in the human brain anyway; most of what we would call real "art" is just remixing culture. It looks like the graphic arts are now going to follow a similar trajectory as music: real value will be created through interactive experiences rather than the final product itself, and only those artists who focus on the performance and experience of their craft will be able to support themselves independently.
You make the point that had occurred to me. If all A.I. is really guilty of is mining previous experience and engaging in acts of reassembly, then the result is 'artifice,' all right, because that's exactly what we do. Our dependencies have identical set extensions. If they're the Achilles heel of A.I.'s pretensions to creativity, they must be ours as well.
A small point, but “Weightlifting Cat” is most definitely not painted (generated) in the style of van Gogh.
Weightlifting Cat reminded me more of Dogs Playing Poker than of Starry Sky
This sounds like early criticism of photography.
https://daily.jstor.org/when-photography-was-not-art/
In particular (from 1855), "As long as 'invention and feeling constitute essential qualities in a work of Art,' the writer argued, 'Photography can never assume a higher rank than engraving.'"
It's just technology. There will continue to be painters and traditional artists, and yes, even photographers.
But the camera still has to be aimed..
And only real intelligence weighing values and making decisions behind a set of eyes can do that. The art is not just the end photograph, but the reason for why that shot was taken in the first place.
AI technology produces images - but with no reason or message underlying it. There is nothing meaningful to it.
Cary, I was just about to post that exact thought. I for one envy photographers thier eye for an excellent photo. I do not however, consider it an art, as in the past as now, they were manipulating a device that captured the view. Now that digital everything has come on the scene I find photography even less of an art. Are you computer savvy? You too can be an artist. Nothing talented going on there.
The art of photography is in the eye of the photographer. Not everyone can take a beautiful picture. Digital or not. Digital is just a means of saving & reproduction. It’s when you manipulate the photo that you take away the original creativity & turn it into technology.
All the images we know and love in photography are manipulated images (aside from Polaroids). For example, read Ansel Adams' books on printing.
Looking at a visual field and selecting your image from the infinite possibilities there, choosing the correct lens, aperture, shutter speed to create that image, and then, yes, manipulating the resulting image in SW (as we all used to do with filters, paper, and chemicals in a darkroom; much more slowly and more expensively) surely is where the art is in photography. (Heck, unless you view a photographer's slides (100% capture in camera) on a light table, even the presentation of the image you see is a manipulation.)
According to Adams, the ability to imagine the final image -- which may not look very much the scene before you -- that is: previsualizing, is much of where the art occurs.
Why does a photograph have to be only representational (within the scope of the parameters of the camera)?
I am talking about taking a photograph of low artistic quality and using something like photoshop to turn it into something quite different. I am not talking about cropping or adjusting the light.
I can (sometimes) find that sort of thing very creative. But there is a discussion to be had on where it moves out of photography and into something else. A crap image will always be a crap image (with saturation turned up to 11).
I found this essay interesting; but not very profound. It just seemed like a personal reaction these AI bots. Where does it go from just computer generating images from a few words, to a skilled user "dancing" with the AI to create something very interesting indeed? I don't know.
Photoshop, in the hands of a skilled user, already allows unreal images to be produced, in an almost unlimited way. And people seem to like them and be persuaded by them. And they will fiercely defend that belief, even when it's clear they don't understand the basics of optics, photographic exposure, the lighting produced by sun and moon, etc.
Video images like that are here and getting better by the minute.
My worry is the devaluing of artist's work that may result from these AIs. (Also: Is anyone checking on copyright on the bank of images these things are using? Patent attorney's offices are now using AI to search the web for copyrighted images and following up with actions.)
For example, no one else on this trip I recently took saw this image in the scene:
https://www.instagram.com/p/Ci6SOS1JKB0/
This image was fully previsualized. And it took a fair bit of manipulation in SW to achieve it. (Mostly just global parameters and cropping.)
There is more than one image there, I’m not sure which you are referring to.
Main one, blue ridges.
💯
This is a photography, in manipulated by computes. It’s” in camera”. https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRw6MImE-NDZMxbW2G26VFvE4J1Bk5EQLv0cQ&usqp=CAU
Thanks for the article on photography.
The younger generations may view DALL-E differently. They have been abysmally educated in the history and depth of Western culture. A generation raised on high tech video games is a generation to embrace DALL-E. They will not understand your objections to it.
Fantastic Walter. It's an impressive circus act, but nothing more than one of those arcade games where you try to grab the item you want from the items in the tank.
Further reading- There was an great essay from Solana discussing DALL-E, regarding possible royalties for the artists DALL-E was trained on.
I read parts of this essay and lost interest. I thought WTF. How is this relevant to anything. I could write an essay on how clouds change shape and it would be about as interesting and as relevant as this was.
What next an essay on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
I would read an essay on how terrifying AI is. Once a computer becomes self-aware we are done.
You know me. I interject off topic crap all the time. Here is an article that proves what we have known all along. Leftist are ignorant hypocrites. Here is an article that proves that it is OK for the left to make fun of gays when it is a conservative they are hammering. It proves just how hypocritically disgusting they are. I wonder where their woke pals are on this:
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/hes-never-seen-a-vagina-never-seen-a-naked-woman-msnbc-uproariously-mocks-lindsey-grahams-sexuality-as-ruhle-goes-off-rails/
No surprise here. Two things jumped out at me. First of all, if someone making policy always has to be in the same situation as the people for whom they’re making policy, no policy would happen. Eg. Is a homeless person in Congress making policy on housing?
Second, ugh, the Viagra joke....geez that really gets old. As a woman in her 50s, I’m glad men have help in that area. What am I supposed to do? Stop having s$x because men my age or older have issues? Couples who use ED meds are generally no longer of childbearing age so how does this issue even relate to abortion? 🙄
Here is another off topic piece. On one hand, I hope they get what they wish for. On the other hand, I hope the violence stops but I know it won't.
I do not think the defund the police nuts are just that a bunch of crazy left wingers. I think there is rhyme and reason to their demands and that is to destabilize our governmental system so that out of the ashes the workers will arise, shoulder to shoulder to form a communist paradise.
Here is the article:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/25/us/minneapolis-crime-defund-invs/index.html
More left wing hypocrisy form the woke assholes:
https://dnyuz.com/2022/09/25/sundance-liked-her-documentary-on-terrorism-until-muslim-critics-didnt/
I don't totally understand the artificial world we are sliding toward, but it is clear that somewhere along the way a lot of people have been tossed into life completely unprepared to live and celebrate it. Copying pictures or literature is not art; I believe it is called plagiarism.
It’s like not copying the exact sentences but changing the words around. Copy all the same. It’s the same language put in a blender.
Jumping in late. I use Midjourney and not DALLE-E but the concept is the same. It's not just a blender full of existing art, it draws in geography, and all kinds of other things as well. Yes on the blender part but none the less, the end result is something that the world has never seen before. Art is in the eye of the beholder, not just in the process of the artist. This is just a new category of art that should be separated from other forms of art. My daughter is an art history major in college so I do understand the concern. However, most people who just look at art don't really appreciate that kind of thing. It's a bit like a great musician who was heavily influenced by another musician or a genre. The public doesn't care, they just want it to sound good. The process has been quite therapeutic for me and there actually can be some thought and creativity involved.
The people who care are curators.
Glad you are enjoying the process.
I'm a musician so I understand the creative process but I can't do art with my hands to save my life. I have no idea where my daughter got it from. Pottery & sculpture are her primary fields and I'm in awe of her. There is still some creativity in the AI process, at least there is with Midjourney but it's obviously different than creating something from scratch through the process my daughter goes. Since it's not going anywhere I just feel as though it should go in it's own extremely clear category.
My larger concern is what this will do to fields like graphic arts. Since it is open source, there is nothing to stop a company from creating their own art and not paying for the services of a high end graphic artist. There is also no rule that I can't come up with something and sell it to a company for 10% of the price that a graphic artist would receive. I won't because I'm just having fun but some people certainly will. My concerns are not about whether it is art or not, it's about the ramifications of it.
Not to be condescending, but it’s a matter of knowing art history and learning how to appreciate and understand art in the context of history and current times.
“You” is a general statement. Has in you. , anyone. Put in the condescending clause in case you thought “ you”. It’s challenging to text , there’s no intonation.
More accessible than print, which humans are getting too illiterate or lazy to absorb anyway. Will probably replace commercial artists and flood our eyes with more noise than we can/want to observe. Progress is not an unmixed blessing.
Change the channel. Hit the off button.
Am I a traditionalist? Yes. Let me see what you can produce by your own hand, that kind of ability is art.
As a self-taught artist I struggle with this new digital world. Art has always been determined by the person viewing it. I've been taught not to be an art snob, but I really do believe that what a computer produces is only regurgitated human artifacts, not art.
Excellent article.
The road to this moment was paved by self-styled 'artists' who got everyone to pretend that a banana taped to a wall or a photograph of a crucifix immersed in urine is not only 'art', but 'great art' at the level of the Sistine Chapel. In a domain where everything has become a put-on, advocates for DALL-E and other, similar systems are right at home.
You make a very good point. Art itself--as a concept--has been hijacked by Leftists for decades. Art is whatever the Left says is art.
I don't think this is a right-left thing, but some other dynamic in the culture.
I can't think of any of the purveyors of the new "art" (like the crucifix in urine and the elephant-dung madonna) who weren't using their art to show how far Left they are.
Maybe you're using "Left" in a sense unfamiliar to me. I see it more as a matter of outsized self-importance and a false urgency to do something "new" and "disruptive" or "transgressive", rather than anything overtly political.
Boy, Walter is just the guy to articulate this. He, to me, is like a battery with a wire that is held in a hand and scratched across one pole while wired tightly to the other. What happens is inconsistent and unexpected, but jolts the hell out of you once in a while. I feel like Walter's internal world is panoramic and alien and his words are a pale reflection of it, but sometimes you get the gist and it is haunting. THAT is what tech can't do. The ghost in the machine; the spark of divinity which is the ability to create. We return to a place we always knew and see it for the first time; lovely. Thanks Walter.
are you an AI?
https://www.lehigh.edu/~mhb0/Dennett-WhereAmI.pdf
This is one of the best articles I have seen on the subject of AI and what it is and isn't. In a nutshell: "DALL-E depends on art already made, on photos already taken, aesthetic assumptions statistically derived, and a language—our language—formed over the centuries by acts of communication innumerable about whose nature the great machine knows nothing. It’s largely a cultural-mining operation with a clever assembly line on top."
It reminds me of the joke about scientists coming to God and saying they have found out how to create life. God says, "OK show me." A scientist reaches down to get a handful of ground. God says, "Whoa there, get your own dirt!".
AI can create art when it gets its own dirt.
Love this!
People misunderstand the use of the term “artificial intelligence.”
To the astonishment of many, there is as yet no such thing as AI. It’s all human-generated code run very quickly. Not a single action performed by the algorithms is the least bit spontaneous. If you ask the algorithm to depart from its parameters it stops because it has no brain, no way to step beyond the code and produce something different than that for which it is programmed.
Google co-opted the work of millions of humans over a decade in order to generate maps with semi-accurate placement of stop signs, crosswalks, etc. and likely everyone reading this site has participated.
The captchas that ask you to click on the stop signs, traffic lights etc are used by Google to generate those maps.
The same applies to DALL-E. If you ask the program to, oh, solve a vector equation for example it will freeze.
Which is one of many reasons I’ll never sit in a “self driving” car. I know how code works and I know there’s not a snowball’s chance in hades the code can handle even the most mundane of traffic hazards.
I refuse to own a vehicle with “anti-collision” sensors for the same reason.
DALL-E users may think they’re creating “art” but all they’re doing is deluding themselves.
Self-driving cars don't have to NEVER have accidents--they just have to have significantly fewer accidents than human drivers.
The interesting argument will come in, though, when a self-driving car has to "decide" whether to injure its occupants or random pedestrians. Though, in our car-centric society, I'm pretty sure courts would side with the cars.
There are already legal arguments about whether or not the provider of a self-driving car can be sued for damages if that car gets into an accident. I’m sure the EULAs for these things will be insane, and like all the other ones, we’ll just click Accept without reading them.
Thank you Ma'am.
“To the astonishment of many, there is as yet no such thing as AI. It’s all human-generated code run very quickly. Not a single action performed by the algorithms is the least bit spontaneous.”
This statement seems to show a fundamental misunderstanding of machine learning.
The reason ML is so exciting to a lot of people, and why it seems so miraculous, is that the output is not the result of people sitting down and programming the algorithm to generate it. It is the result of feeding millions and millions of examples of training data to a neural network “substrate”, which then can be run on new inputs to approximate a useful output.
The interesting thing is that such algorithms can predict which movies you will like, or can drive a car, or generate a painting, or recognize a face, but internally, they are typically a block box. An algorithm can tell you that you might like a movie, but it doesn’t explain why it thinks that.
And such ML algorithms are all too spontaneous, which is a bad thing. You never know which input is going to produce wildly divergent output. This is part of what makes things like self-driving cars so difficult. 99.9% of the time, a Tesla on autopilot drives down the highway, steering and braking with no problem. Then, there’s a truck in an unexpected place, painted the wrong color, with the sun shining from the wrong direction, and that same Tesla plows into it. In this case, spontaneity is very bad. There is an entire branch of ML devoted to minimizing the possibility of bad outputs from these “adversarial inputs”.
This stuff is happening, and who only knows what the results will be, but I’m already loving how well things like Google Translate and speech-to-text work. Someday, self-driving cars are going to be better than human drivers, and when that day comes, it will be considered irresponsible to not use them.
I just finished an estimate for implementation of “machine learning” for a relatively basic process. I know all too well what is required for a computer to figure out what is a hexagon vs a distorted circle.
Six months of a human being working 40 hrs per week doing nothing but reviewing and correcting the computer’s results and even then the accuracy is less than 90% after the human is sent to do something else and the computer is left to “learn.”
All code has unexpected results when new variables are introduced or the code is expanded. Nothing new there. The most common result: an abend or crash.
The only people I know IRL who are enamored of ML are two who actually work in it and those who haven’t a clue but think Star Trek is around the corner.
Self driving cars are safer than human driven when you compare miles to miles. Yes they make stupid mistakes that humans don't. But humans make stupid mistakes that machines don't.
Self-driving cars don't have the miles compared to humans and they're tested in specific areas and conditions, not in the random day to day traffic that we experience, such as a pop-up road condition that suddenly closes one lane of traffic. They also can't choose to go around a stopped car.
I've read that some of the adverse events with self-drive cars aren't publicized because they don't want to 'unduly alarm' us, which reminds me a bit of the covid vax. Keep us in the dark for our own good, ie the mushroom treatment.
A couple of decades ago tech claimed cars would run on a Microsoft platform.
The joke among us was “Reboot at 70 MPH sounds exciting.”
Test them with Bill Gates in the 'drivers' seat lol!
A few years ago, self-driving cars were 7x more likely to get into accidents than human driven. Things must have progressed since then if they are now safer.
Curious that this "fake" art is already winning competitions and beating out "real" artists. Perhaps I'm not as creative as the author, but I generally see imagination and ingenuity as taking experiences one has had and applying them in new and unforeseen ways. Something DALL-E clearly does.
That being said, the author is clearly a talented writer. They should definitely use his work as training material for the next GPT-3 model. That way we can have the great writing without the terrible ideas.