WotC So it seems D&D has picked a side on the AI art debate.
- Status
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
These are the same thing. Do you not think a tool that is purpose-built to take people’s livelihoods is unethical?
Using an algorithm to generate an image based on your description isn’t really expressing yourself, any more than commissioning a human artist to create a piece based on your description is. It’s ultimately an expression of the artist’s interpretation of your description, or of the mathematical formula’s calculations of what elements of existing art are most likely to satisfy the constraints you give it.
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I feel like people are getting taken in by terms like “artificial intelligence” and “machine learning.” These algorithms are not actually intelligent and do not actually learn. They function in a fundamentally different way from human brains. You don’t need arguments about souls or even consciousness, algorithms work differently on a process level than human brains (or, for that matter, any other animals’ brains) do.
Fundamentally, everything you've said here (and, AFAICT, previously in this thread) are exactly the same thing a painter would say about a photograph. A photograph doesn't make art, it only takes an image of what's already there. A photograph of a building or dancer extracts value from the existing artist's labor without compensating those artists. Photography's built in purpose is to take the livelihoods of people who paint pictures. Camera's aren't people, painters are people. Heck, you could even claim that cyanide is inherently unethical if you wanted to.
Photography significantly changed the way we deal with copyright law (and we're still dealing with the details today). But it also created a new field of art. So will AI. And AI also brings it's own set of copyright and other questions. But this absolutism about ethics is simply an appeal to emotion that addresses only the smallest reality of how AI will inevitably effect the real world. Trying to paint AI as black and white can only serve to stifle conversation about important issues.
No I do not feel there is an ethical question of the tool itself. Speaking as an IT guy who has implemented systems that directly led to later staffing reductions, the unethical part is society's failure to catch the humans impacted by these kinds of things rather than blaming the humans for not reskilling fast or luckily enough. That failure is a matter far outside the tech or use of it. the outrage for Artists are simply reeling from being suddenly thrown into an ice cold pool of reality when previously they were poolside enjoying the sun of hearing "we will grow into a creative economy" for decades.
No industry or trade is safe. it was generally assumed that self driving trucks would be the first time we really need to start taking it seriously & talking about the kinds of things being discussed when the recent crop of image & text generation AI tools exploded into the spotlight. Innovation is funny like that though & by chance it wasn't.
see
Pedantic Grognard
Are you simply not aware of what works made Andy Warhol famous? Warhol's career was based on what both MoMA and Wikipedia call "appropriation" of others' images.
It's the argument I have sympathy with, but it applies just as much to demanding that the original artists be compensated for the value Andy Warhol extracted from them, not something new with AI.
Vaalingrade
Legend
Wait.
Why can we not see Warhol as unethical if he profited off others without compensation?
Also, people consistently fail to understand how AI makes art. It isn't 'learning' like we do. AI isn't alive or smart. It's taking an image, dicing it up into data points and then spitting out amalgamations of those pieces that match the data. It is a toddler finding the blue block only really, really fast in succession.
Why can we not see Warhol as unethical if he profited off others without compensation?
Also, people consistently fail to understand how AI makes art. It isn't 'learning' like we do. AI isn't alive or smart. It's taking an image, dicing it up into data points and then spitting out amalgamations of those pieces that match the data. It is a toddler finding the blue block only really, really fast in succession.
Jadeite
Open Gaming Enthusiast
Do you feel that way about any invention that has destroyed people's livelihood or on only when it affects people you care about? The Neolithic Revolution put many hunters and most gatherers out of their job. Once people figured out how to work with copper and bronze, stonechipping became far less sought after. And it only got worse from then. But it's not about purposely taking people's livelihood, that's just a side effect.
And making such statements what constitutes art and what not is gatekeeping at best.
see
Pedantic Grognard
I didn't say you can't. As I said, it's the argument I have sympathy with, it's the argument that has space to move me.
Willie the Duck
Hero
Fundamentally, my position is about what art, as a product, is to me and what I find valuable.
Much like a handmade "artisanal" crafted kitchen knife, hand-knit scarf, or homemade meal made by a loved one; I receive greater personal enjoyment and benefit from the product knowing that it was made individually by a skilled crafter. Part of that is the effort or emotion put into the process. Part of it is the challenge. Part of it is definitely the ethical associations I make with the purchase ('am I supplying someone with a living wage?', 'what do I think about the corporation behind this product line?', etc.).
Perhaps it speaks to my rather economically pampered position in society that I can afford to care how the things I purchase are produced*, but for many of us who will never likely have to worry about starving to death, it's going to be a major distinguisher between products will want to buy and those we won't. Probably more and more so if technology continues to make society sustainable on a fraction of the total population working in existence-vital roles** and the creative arts might end up being an avenue to keep everyone else employed***. At some point (I think we're approaching it now), art that someone actually has to sit down and create with paint and brush is going to be luxury product simply by virtue of the effort and challenge required in the making (that was kind of true already for things we buy in the form of prints as opposed to the actual canvas, given how much can be accomplished by completely non-AI digital editing).
*but then on the other hand in the discussion of art (much less art in leisure pass-time books) we're inherently pretty far down Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
**and we prevent the waiting cataclysms waiting on the horizon
***if that's a goal
Regardless, I don't see buying AI art to be 'unethical' -- it is a tool, after all, and so long as the tool is being used by another vendor who also will use the profits to feed their family and whatnot they seem ethically equivalent to me. However, I do see it as a lesser product, same as I would if I found out that my handmade artisanal kitchen knife was a cookie-cutter product with no effort or my loved one had served me takeout they pretended was theirs.
I will say that I'm not particularly convinced that AI learning from the wealth of human artistic creation being equivalent to artists learning from the an existing body of artistic knowledge and tradition. The reason is that art, specifically, is something I consider a form of communication. It's not some kind of 'soul' I am looking for, but cognition and awareness and existence as a societal being. The intentionality is part of the product. I've found sunsets and wilderness scenes and even patterns of color in parking lot water from leaked engine oil that are prettier than some art that I've seen, but there's still a distinction between the two (sometimes even when I'd rather frame the oil spill if it could be preserved).
Much like a handmade "artisanal" crafted kitchen knife, hand-knit scarf, or homemade meal made by a loved one; I receive greater personal enjoyment and benefit from the product knowing that it was made individually by a skilled crafter. Part of that is the effort or emotion put into the process. Part of it is the challenge. Part of it is definitely the ethical associations I make with the purchase ('am I supplying someone with a living wage?', 'what do I think about the corporation behind this product line?', etc.).
Perhaps it speaks to my rather economically pampered position in society that I can afford to care how the things I purchase are produced*, but for many of us who will never likely have to worry about starving to death, it's going to be a major distinguisher between products will want to buy and those we won't. Probably more and more so if technology continues to make society sustainable on a fraction of the total population working in existence-vital roles** and the creative arts might end up being an avenue to keep everyone else employed***. At some point (I think we're approaching it now), art that someone actually has to sit down and create with paint and brush is going to be luxury product simply by virtue of the effort and challenge required in the making (that was kind of true already for things we buy in the form of prints as opposed to the actual canvas, given how much can be accomplished by completely non-AI digital editing).
*but then on the other hand in the discussion of art (much less art in leisure pass-time books) we're inherently pretty far down Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
**and we prevent the waiting cataclysms waiting on the horizon
***if that's a goal
Regardless, I don't see buying AI art to be 'unethical' -- it is a tool, after all, and so long as the tool is being used by another vendor who also will use the profits to feed their family and whatnot they seem ethically equivalent to me. However, I do see it as a lesser product, same as I would if I found out that my handmade artisanal kitchen knife was a cookie-cutter product with no effort or my loved one had served me takeout they pretended was theirs.
I will say that I'm not particularly convinced that AI learning from the wealth of human artistic creation being equivalent to artists learning from the an existing body of artistic knowledge and tradition. The reason is that art, specifically, is something I consider a form of communication. It's not some kind of 'soul' I am looking for, but cognition and awareness and existence as a societal being. The intentionality is part of the product. I've found sunsets and wilderness scenes and even patterns of color in parking lot water from leaked engine oil that are prettier than some art that I've seen, but there's still a distinction between the two (sometimes even when I'd rather frame the oil spill if it could be preserved).
- Status
Similar Threads
