It’s about whether that cost of resources is worth it. Similar to what it takes crypto to verify/conclude a transaction compared to a credit card or a bank transfer via your bank’s app.
The cost may be reduced but if I’m understanding it right, it should never reach Google search levels simply because of what it needs to do to return a result.
There is a lot of wasteful behaviour that modern society expects that has no basis in reality when taking into account limited resources and the climate crisis. Getting or normalizing AI search engines for queries that could’ve been done on Google is just incredibly wasteful behaviour given the circumstances, but obviously it’s not the only industry that is doing, has done or will do this. We are simply accelerating towards our own destruction for frankly quite a pathetic return.
The comparison to crypto is simply inappropriate. 99%+ of energy used by bitcoin mining is entirely wasteful because all those GPU flops produce no result. Whereas the output of chatGPT has demonstrated extraordinary value to me with respect to productivity.
None of your criticisms are actually about AI, you just don’t like the business culture associated with it. For example, they could charge the real cost of each query instead of subsidizing it and people would react by better managing their use of the service. Or they could make a conscious choice to only use 100% renewable energy sources to power their product.
We could live in a world where AI use has negligible effect on the climate, the true costs are placed on the user, the data was trained on 100% copyright-free materials and still we’d have AI art submissions to the Pokemon contest.
An an artist who has explored all sorts of vehicles of self expression, I absolutely hate it. It’s lazy, there’s no soul or life into the drawing, and what’s worse is we are losing faith in ourselves that we have to rely on a machine to do the work for us.
ITT: “artists” mad that the computer produce their work product in a fraction of the time it takes them, and this ability is free to use for the unwashed masses.
Don’t worry, it will come for all our jobs that happen at a computer. Turns out coloring pixels was both interesting to programmers and not as hard as other, more profitable tasks. The time will come. Just wait a few years (months?).
Other blockchains offer much lower climate impact as they don’t use proof of work systems, such as XRP. BTC is a dinosaur in terms of technology (kinda like AOL was at the beginning of the consumer internet).
In terms of AI we use it all the time at work and it’s super helpful for productivity. It needs checking and you need to know what you want to get out of it, but it’s pretty incredible.
In terms of AI artwork - yeah it loses all of its charm. Art is about human creativity and emption. AI cannot give this even if it’s really good. I genuinely wonder how digital artists will combat it.
I’m not an artist but I agree with the artists sentiment. Current ai images feel soulless, flat or just outright bad. If that’s not spicy enough, this recent illustration contest is the weakest I’ve ever seen. Most of the art looks flat and repetitive, because of the usage of ai.
I agree ai is going to disrupt industry, probably in a way we’ve never experienced, but the beauty of art is you can see the artists voice in their work. Sure a company can replace stock art with ai images. But when discussing actual art, ai images feel like a tv dinner, bland, flavorless but easy to make and technically get the job done.
mocking them by saying “artists” specifically in quotes and equating the time & effort they’ve put into their craft to be the same as “coloring pixels” isn’t the own you think it is.
I meant it more to include the many complaining about AI-generated art that would not in any other context include themselves with artists.
Also it’s important to be able to recognize that digital art is just that, coloring pixels. Most human tasks have a much more simple explanation that could be used to describe them, and I was pointing out that automation and machines will come for all of them. It’s only a matter of time. Nothing really to be upset about.
I firmly believe art an expression of subjective experience, possibly and maybe only for the sake of relating with others who also experience the world in some way.
A person’s subjective experience of the world is the only thing that informs what they create. AI tools only have an objective experience of the world, so they themselves of course are not creating authentic art (yet, at least, but I believe they may in the future.) And the human using the AI tool has not experienced all of the information that has gone into the art produced by the AI tool, so it can’t be authentic. I also think anything made by a person, if expressed meaningfully, is art; it doesn’t have to conform to some other person’s definition of “good” art.
Tl;dr, in my opinion, AI art produced by humans can’t be truly authentic… having said that, art produced by any true intelligence, artifical or not, can be art.
This gets at the true nature and divide of the issue:
Some feel art is merely a tangible product, or provided experience, while others feel, as you and I, that it is a process.
I’m gonna push it farther: It doesn’t just feel soul-less it IS soul-less. Where I would define the “soul” as a specific intentional cultural process behind the decisions.
As an artist, I’ve sat through a fair share of bad art, but it was produced by professionals and peers with quite a portfolio. Hell, I’ve made what I think is bad art. Considering what I just quoted and said, I think that some of my bad art was not art at all. I was getting paid to create a piece, and I had to just do it. It felt empty and meaningless, but ir was what they wanted…
But we do have to, IF we are arguing that AI art produced by LLMs and artbots today is art, we do have to define art in a way that AI today can pass the test. I’ve still not seen that posted.
…and different way. Love this! Art allows us to express things that are often not expressible in other ways.
It’s what these threads do:
Artists have always been a bit quick to defend and dismiss new forms of art. I have to admit. When jazz Fusion hit the scene, many old masters claimed it wasn’t jazz because “it didn’t swing and wasn’t from New Orleans.” They claimed synthesizer music was not music because they weren’t “Playing” an instrument. So practically no “music” made after 1970 is actually music.
So I still think a big part of this debate rests on how the AI truly is impacting the process on a case-by-case basis. It’s easy to try to lump it all together, but “easy” rarely solves any problems.
Found 60 results for 'AI art should be considered real art status:public'
There’s a lively debate about whether AI art should be considered real art over in The Great AI Art Debate. Opinions are varied, with discussions about the nature of art, creativity, and the impact of AI on the arts.
The thread “Will AI replace Pokemon card artists?” also delves into the implications of AI in artistic fields specific to our interest, Pokemon cards. Catch it here.
Oh, you want my take? AI might churn out some visually impressive pieces, but the heart and soul of art lie in the unique human experience and creativity—things AI can only mimic, not embody. It’s like comparing a masterfully crafted Charizard card to a printed replica. Technically accurate, but the magic? Missing. So, AI art? Cool tech, but it’s a soulless Mimikyu in a Pikachu costume.
