AI/LLMs AI art bans are going to ruin small 3rd party creators

[soviet]

But a LOT of creative work is purely commercial.

No it isn't. Name some examples.

 

[Bill Zebub]

No it isn't. Name some examples.

I'll put a bold stake in the ground: just about everything.

Let's take movies for example. You can bet that if executives at Netflix believed that reducing the spend on "artistic value" of a movie by $X would mean a decline in revenue of some fraction of X, they'd do it. It's a commercial decision. The creatives who work on the project may not think they are making art, but the people who own the movie think they are making a product to be sold.

Again, I'm not as cynical as you seem to be about the general population's appreciation for artistic quality, so I think that calculus will produce a less traumatic result than some fear. On the other hand, the AI might get better. So we'll see.

EDIT: But if it's true that most people won't notice or care about the difference, then, yeah, movies will be all AI sooner rather than later. So let's hope my less cynical view is right.

 

[soviet]

I'll put a bold stake in the ground: just about everything.

Let's take movies for example. You can bet that if executives at Netflix believed that reducing the spend on "artistic value" of a movie by $X would mean a decline in revenue of some fraction of X, they'd do it. It's a commercial decision. The creatives who work on the project may not think they are making art, but the people who own the movie think they are making a product to be sold.

Again, I'm not as cynical as you seem to be about the general population's appreciation for artistic quality, so I think that calculus will produce a less traumatic result than some fear. On the other hand, the AI might get better. So we'll see.

I notice that once again you have made quite a big leap, from 'just about all works of art and design that exist' to 'Netflix movies', but nonetheless:

You are saying that your position is that the writing, direction, acting, and production of such movies (or all movies) are all purely commercial calculations, with the only consideration being projected revenue, and no consideration is given whatsoever to craft or art or message or ethics? If they could make $1 more by doing something abhorrent, they would do so?

 

[Bill Zebub]

I notice that once again you have made quite a big leap, from 'just about all works of art and design that exist' to 'Netflix movies', but nonetheless:

Which part of "just about everything...for example" was hard to understand?

I mean, FFS, you actually wrote, "Name some examples." So now you're getting hot under the collar because I named an example?

You are saying that your position is that the writing, direction, acting, and production of such movies (or all movies) are all purely commercial calculations, with the only consideration being projected revenue, and no consideration is given whatsoever to craft or art or message or ethics? If they could make $1 more by doing something abhorrent, they would do so?

Abhorrent?* I guess it depends on whose definition. But in addition to the immediate revenue to be gained (or lost) they would figure in long term reputational costs to their business.

Again, I am arguing that craft and art and message and ethics all sell, because I am less cynical than you appear to be about the general population. I am saying that if you are right, or rather if what I thought you were saying is correct, then yes we will see just about all creative work quickly turn into AI Slop because, being ignorant troglodytes, we will continue to buy it.

But we're not ignorant troglodytes, so I don't see that actually happening.

Do you understand the difference?

*I would define "abhorrent" to mean something like, "glorifying Nazism". But maybe to you it means "replacing human digital artists with AI" or even just "bad art". I'm not sure how you made the leap to that word so I'm just guessing.

 

[soviet]

Which part of "just about everything...for example" was hard to understand?



Abhorrent?* I guess it depends on whose definition. But in addition to the immediate revenue to be gained (or lost) they would figure in long term reputational costs to their business.

Again, I am arguing that craft and art and message and ethics all sell, because I am less cynical than you appear to be about the general population. I am saying that if you are right, or rather if what I thought you were saying is correct, then yes we will see just about all creative work quickly turn into AI Slop because, being ignorant troglodytes, we will continue to buy it.

But we're not ignorant troglodytes, so I don't see that actually happening.

Do you understand the difference?

*I would define "abhorrent" to mean something like, "glorifying Nazism". But maybe to you it means "replacing human digital artists with AI" or even just "bad art". I'm not sure how you made the leap to that word so I'm just guessing.

I'm not all that cynical about the general population. Most people reject AI slop and rightly so. You've tried to portray your acceptance of AI as the majority view but I think that's false.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'm not all that cynical about the general population. Most people reject AI slop and rightly so. You've tried to portray your acceptance of AI as the majority view

Ummm, where did I say that? I've been saying all along that I think people have better taste than (I thought) you were claiming.

but I think that's false.

Then what are you worried about? If the majority recognizes artistic quality, and cares about it, and AI can't replicate it, what's the panic about?

 

[soviet]

Ummm, where did I say that? I've been saying all along that I think people have better taste than (I thought) you were claiming.



Then what are you worried about? If the majority recognizes artistic quality, and cares about it, and AI can't replicate it, what's the panic about?

I'm bored of this now, I will disengage.

 

[pawsplay]

Not everyone recognizes artistic quality, but that's why taste leaders exist. If no one is really looking at quality, eventually, the quality will degrade to where most people will notice it.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Not everyone recognizes artistic quality, but that's why taste leaders exist. If no one is really looking at quality, eventually, the quality will degrade to where most people will notice it.

This sort of reminds me of the argument a friend of mine used to make...a professor of history and political science...that it is important for political parties to have strong influence over elections because they serve the role of vetting candidates to make sure that qualified people get into office.

This was from about 2013.

Oops.

 

[Bill Zebub]

In fact, the more I think about this, the more non-sensical that argument is, and the more I'm surprised that anybody "liked" it. (Except that often we click 'like' on things that agree with our general stance, without necessarily interrogating the logic itself.)

The phrase "but that's why taste leaders exist" suggests intentionality, as if people have gotten together to agree that this is an important rheostat, and therefore appoint certain people to be taste leaders. As far as I'm aware, authoritarian societies that have attempted to do exactly that have not produced great art.

Rather, taste leaders emerge because there is a market for them, and they emerge through market forces, I suspect because people are afraid of making poor choices and want a trusted source, or they don't even realize they are being influenced by taste leaders. But it's all market driven; there's no guarantee that the people get in that position actually have good, you know, taste. Surely we don't have to argue about whether the historical landscape is littered with "bad taste" that nevertheless became exceedingly popular.

Taste leaders are absolutely no guarantee that good taste prevails.