If they could draw or make music, they wouldn’t need a robot to do it, and they clearly want to but don’t have the skills.
What it’s actually highlighted is how overworked and underpaid everyone is now. When a single salary could comfortably support a whole family, people had more time. When only one person needed to leave the house to earn money, the rest of the family had time during the day to help with the domestic work: dishes, laundry, gardening, etc. Then the evenings could be spent indulging hobbies.
Now that we live in a world where you need to have a dual income to barely get by, both partners are working 8-10 hours per day for the paycheck and then coming home to another 2-3 hours of domestic work. It’s fucking exhausting and there isn’t time to focus on quilting, whittling, playing music, or any of the other fun and creative hobbies that my grandparents got to be into.
So these AIdiot tech bros come along and offer to sell you the feeling of doing those hobbies without having to spend the time or energy to actually do them? It’s shitty, but I understand why a lot of people are taking that deal.
But wait, there’s more:
Houses cost so much that people don’t have space to do hobbies they used to. There’s no garage or shed to set up as a maker space or studio or to setup drums or a weaving loom or painting canvases.
Intensive parenting is now the norm and the expectation. Kids can’t play in front of the house like they used to. They can’t go out and knock on friend’s doors and go to the playground without a parent from every household going along. The only time children can be left is with a screen, and you’re a villain if you do that.
Expectation from romantic partners also comes into the mix. After all the time and energy drain from the things above, there is nothing left in the tank. My wife would then not be a happy camper if I told her I’m going to be in the garage for an hour for my creative hobby.
Some disposable income is also required (variable amount depending on which hobby you take up).
If you look at the history of work in the US though, there was only a short window of time that you had that extra time. Unless you were wealthy, your kids started to work at a very young age. Have you seen the pics of kids where they look like they could haggle with you and rob you? The teenage years are a relatively new concept.
Also, most of the boomer and older generations:
- Had no therapy
- Had no entertainment or education to let them know what’s possible. It was by who you had contact with.
- If you were a POC, your life was most likely hell
- If you were gay, your life was most likely hell.
- If you were a woman, you life was most likely hell.
Yes, the goal is for everyone to get back to the lives of upper middle class, white men.
The middle class sprung out of a post war boom and the ruling class snatched that shit right back.
Yes, the goal is for everyone to get back to the lives of upper middle class, white men.
Oligarchs: Fine, then none of you poors will have it good!
I’m a musician, dudes come up to me like listen to this song I made, and it’s obviously suno…
I call them out on it and they’re like mumble mumble.
Is ai the only tool which makes a form of artwork “not count” for you or anything else?
People looking for a get rich quick scheme. Can’t afford to live otherwise.
I think this is it. I don’t think people are making music for the love of the art and all that. I think they’re taking a shortcut to potentially produce some sort of side hustle. It’s presumably a “make a song that sounds like a mix between artist X and artist Y,” and then a fine tuning via prompts from there. We live in a generation of hustles and influencers, and AI is great for both of those things. Those things are, unfortunately, just terrible for society on the whole.
It’s cool though, it’ll all come to a head, and we’ll see what happens!
They’d still do this even if they had the opportunity to not do it.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again-- the only thing AI is good at is defrauding others. It’s literally what it is trained to do.
I think AI is interesting for studying emergent behavior from highly dynamic systems. I’ve looked — we humans don’t really have a formal scientific study of emergence. The subject is broke up
Apart from graphic design and advertising, art is difficult and risky for billionaires to profit off of. Human artists are notoriously flaky and difficult to work with. This is one reason Larry Ellison bought WB.
Billionaires want public schools to turn out people who are as close to robots as possible. We all know they’d prefer actual robots, but that’s not happening anytime soon, regardless of all the hype. So, public schools drop anything not reliably connected to billionaires profits. They’re thrilled at the prospect of getting rid of human artists.
Has nobody considered the angle that slopping is fun? It doesn’t make you an artist, nor an author, nor a musician. But it makes a thing at your direction and you can point at it and say “this vaguely resembles the idea in my brain”. For some people, that’s enough.
(this has been part 4 on my Nuanced Opinions Regarding AI)
That’s why the zeitgeist needs more time to settle on the perception of LLMs. It’s a cool toy, but people shouldn’t be getting it in their head that it gives them a shortcut to becoming a professional.
You gotta understand what it’s good for as a tool and realize it’s not going to do your job for you.
The problem is that it’s utility is basically correlated with your skill on a given subject because you can’t reasonably hope to guide it to what you actually want if you aren’t already pretty skilled. Contrarily, the perceived “benefit” or “coolness” it provides you is inversely correlated with your skill but with like 3x the slope of utility.
If you are needing to navigate a pool of text as an expert in a field, it’s obscenely useful and the holes/pitfalls are super evident. The less skilled you are as a user the more magical and beneficial it all looks, which is scary.
Edit I said some of that backwards . More skill more actually useful, less skill the more it seems useful and cool but will screw you up.
In slightly more than a day, I got a working save editor generated by my local AI, a Qwen-Next model. Given a couple more years of AI development, I will be able to have some really old and obscure games remastered.
I agree. I think AI fills a creativity gap for average users - worth making quickly once, not worth pursuing an artist to make it.
I don’t think AI will replace appreciation for human art, as human art is as much about soul as it is skill. AI can only ever do half the equation, but it’s the half that the average person doesn’t have and isn’t quite willing to pursue.
I’m sure there’s an argument to be made that AI copying human art is watering down the value of art, but with how people recoil after finding out it’s AI, I think the bigger risk is never having it disclosed in the first place.
I don’t think that it fills a creativity gap. It circumvents it. It’s a parasite. It gets in the way of you actually being creative and gives you a cheap dopamine hit instead of anything of substance. People learning how to do the things they want to do is what actually bridges that gap.
Sadly. They’re all going to disappear. The new generations don’t want to work for things. And learning takes effort. They can be validated through creating artificial music.
I didn’t think this is true at all. People love making stuff and there’s a lot of younger people who are into things like crochet.
That is because you cannot use AI to crochet a coffee mug coaster. Take a look at in the AI “music” subs and communities. Tens of thousands of wannabe hack “musicians” all pretending to have written music.
It’s fucking gross.
If people didn’t still want to make things, craft stores wouldn’t exist. Music stores wouldn’t exist. Guitars would be a rarity. I follow a lot of zoomers who have entire channels dedicated to making things.
You think this shit happens overnight?
Bruv we’ve had industrial clothes making for decades and people still make their own clothes because they want to. People will still want to make art even with slop everywhere.
The question has never been whether people want it. I think it’s pretty clear they do. The problem is whether people want to spend the time in money, or skill, to get it.
I would love to be able to paint sci-fi pinups. But do I want to trade 10k hours of other stuff I’m already better at to do it? Once I painted them, would I truly love the work, or would I just see all the imperfections and be grumpy about it?
Artists have it hard. They spend unending hours on their passion and, in the end, see everything through a critical lens. And when they spend a month of time on something amazing, no one wants to trade a day of salary to own a copy, or a month of salary to own the original.
AI is so wildly popular because it’s cheap, and through the lens of the consumer (read untrained eye), the best of it evokes emotions they get from a piece that would go for hundreds or thousands of dollars.
The true fucked up part. If the courts all say NFG, dump all your diffusion models that are full of copyrighted material. They’d just go back and commission artists in distressed places and rebuild the models from properly purchased material and we’ll be right back where we are.
Still image diffusion isn’t even expensive to run,
Have you considered the end result is not the purpose? The doing of art is what gives it meaning, to the artist and the viewer. It’s what makes it satisfying, even if it didn’t turn out how you wanted exactly.
The end result is what other people see and what gets you paid. That’s why people want to do it via AI.
Personally, I could sink 10k hours into whatever visual art and I’ll never be good at it. I don’t enjoy it either. I can only hire an expensive artist or use AI if I want something made. Since using AI art sucks, I’ve opted not to continue work on the video game I started work on a while ago. An alternative is to pay for asset packs from a studio that sells them, but then it’s just an asset flip.
How soullessly capitalist it is to think the only purpose of art is what money you can make off of it. Who cares about meaning, the almighty dollar is the only thing important in life.
is not the purpose? The doing of art is what gives it meaning, to the artist and th
I’m in a business that has a lot of artists. These are observations I make.
I’m also in the business of art abd I’m standing by what I said.
have a nice one
edit: Ohh a downvote from agent_nycto on “have a good one”, in that case, welcome to my blocklist of people that aren’t worth hearing from, don’t worry you’re in like company with all the other trolls.
Creating a piece of art myself is different than enjoying someone else’s creation. There’s a place for both. Lots of respect for, say, professional musicians. They have natural skills and years of hard work that I don’t and no amount of hobbying will get me close to them. But I still find satisfaction in twiddling around on a piano and writing my own tunes. AI helping people enjoy their hobby more is a good application, IMO.
Contrast that with people using it to “side-hustle” and try to scrape up some easy dollars by flooding the world with passionless slop, that’s a different thing.
No amount of AI in the creation of music is good. Learn how to not use it.
I respectfully disagree and think hobbies are for enjoyment. If someone makes music for personal enjoyment with the help of AI tools, good for them. If another person finds joy in making “real” music without AI assist, good for them too.
This… this is the reasonable course that’s shunned by our divisive culture nowadays. I personally don’t have the time or the space, but I do have a computer, so I use what tools I have. Local models ftw
I’ll take my downvotes now 😞
Jk, I’m on an instance that disables downvotes. Meaning folks have to write coherent comments for me to be aware they think I’m dumb/wrong/eeeeevil.
I could see tinkering with local models being a very satisfying hobby. I’ve always been curious about how accurate they can get on sentiment. E.g., a southern US woman saying “bless your heart” can have implied condescension while other regions it may be more of a straightforward good-faith comment; how and how well does a model get trained on that sort of thing.
I think not everyone who wants to be artistic can be. I sort of hear music composition in my head. But despite playing a musical instrument all through college, I could never play anything by ear. And memorizing music was really hard. So if AI could get what I hear in my head out, that would be astounding. It can’t yet, but you get my point. I also have poor fine motor skill, so drawing is out. Even with a computer and mouse it just is too hard. That said, I think what this really says is that people have a desire to consume more art, and they are willing to use AI to get it.
If you had the education, you’d know how to do all the things you say you want to do.
Perhaps how I said it wasn’t clear. When I said playing an instrument through college, I meant getting lessons and playing with official school and college bands. I had lots of education. I understand logically how to do the things. But I was unable. It takes more than education to be an artist.
I genuinely disagree.
Making something, regardless of skill level or whether you achieve what idea you had in making it, is what makes an artist. A poor artist or one that’s not the best ever is still a valid artist, right? Then that should apply to you as well.
Hm, I suppose it is a question on semantics then. In the context of the original post, there is art I would like to create, but cannot, and if AI could help me achieve what I envision, that wouldn’t be a bad thing. So I suppose I could ohrase it as, not everyone can be the artist they want to be. In my case, sure, I could compose some music technically. But the massive gap from what is in my head and what would come out would be so frustrating I would not enjoy the hobby. And that is why I don’t do it. So if AI could make it so I would be willing to do it, that would be a good thing.
That would be a good thing? You don’t want a challenge or to grow? Develop a skill? You don’t get a sense of accomplishment if you just have a computer steal other people’s effort for you.
What? I want the computer to help me make the art I have in my head. How is that stealing? I want to say more crescendo, or make the low line lower. Or have me hum something and it write it. Then combine it with something else I hummed.
And I have plenty of areas to be challenged, and to develop. But only 24 hours in a day. I can’t be an expert in everything. But that doesn’t mean I couldn’t enjoy a greater variety of things if I had help.And where do computers take the pictures they mash together for your convenience?
You aren’t making anything. You’re tracing.
There’s “skills,” and then there’s innate talent, and then there’s practice. Anyone who embraces AI art clearly doesn’t have the innate talent to recognize it’s crap, and their rabid eagerness to jump on the latest trend implies they probably doesn’t have the patience required for practice either.
Not that music and art classes and exposure aren’t important, but 12 years of mandatory gym classes definitely didn’t turn me into an athlete (if anything, it made me hate physical activity. Maybe if we had gone on hikes instead of playing dodgeball…)
But you know how to play dodgeball. Do you know what composition is?
If not, or even the fact that question is tricky for people, is to illustrate my point. People want to be able to draw, and we aren’t being taught how.
Sure I know how to play dodgeball, and I’ve had many, many gym classes worth of practice, but I was always absolute shit at it. Similarly, you can teach composition (or color theory or whatever other art technique you want), and have your students practice it, but most are never going to be more than just okay at creating art. “People just need to be taught the arts and then they won’t be seduced by the siren song of AI!” assumes that education can overcome innate limitations. I will never be a good athlete, just as most people will never be good artists/musicians/writers. Meanwhile here’s a tool that will produce (what AI users think is) an impressive facsimile of the real thing, and at a fraction of the effort with almost no barrier to entry.
I feel that the idea that only certain magically wired people can be artists is a myth. I also think that our idea that only good artists are valid is some capitalistic nonsense. “Bad” artists are also valid artists, and our attitude around people creating things should change.
My sibling is trying to launch an AI music career and it drives me off a fucking cliff. No shit, one of the songs they made was used at a funeral and I nearly barfed. What’s worse, whenever I try to talk any sort of serious subject, about shit in the world, or what I’m dealing with in my personal life, their advice is to find a creative outlet Iike theirs.
Looking forward to the holidays after that banger they prompted for my birthday!
What the fuck is an “AI music career”? Like, they’re writing prompts for AI songs and then hoping people will pay money for this songs?
They’re also stealing music from REAL musicians like me and trying to sell it and replace us. Fuck em, hope they fucking die.
Disgusting. I’d crawl out of my grave and strangle someone if they pulled this.
Truthfully you sound like you’re trying to bring someone down who is having a good time. I’m a pro artist from before AI and doing even better now that people can being their ideas to me in a way that looks better than scratches on napkin.
AI didn’t make it so you can’t make money off music and writing. That ship sailed long ago. You do that shit for the love of the game. A human doing it makes it worth more now not less.
I honestly didn’t ever consider that being a pro artist involves bringing other peoples ideas to life. I had some idealistic image of artists bringing their own ideas to life I guess. I guess singer-songwriter is its own genre for a reason
The problem is the fucking stealing of other people works.
lol people down voted you. People be nuts
C’est la vie
i dont think it does.
because if people wanted to do the arts, they’d do the arts. while schools are expensive, sitting at home and writing lyrics or sketching out drawing isnt.
What using AI does, is let them get adoration from fools and idiots without having to make an effort in lifting a finger.
If you gave me a Star Trek Replicator, I’m gonna be eating all kinds of gourmet shit. It doesnt mean I want to be a world class chef, it just means I’m a lazy fat fuck that wants excess without effort or cost.
Arts in state schools isn’t about mastering a particular medium, it’s about introducing learners to the different forms art can take and giving access to specialised equipment that’s too expensive for them to buy without committing to the art form. Sketching and lyrics writing are fine for some, but others won’t learn they want to learn more about photography, or sculpture, or pottery, or an instrument, or any number of other things if they don’t actually get the opportunity to try it. If more people understood art, AI artists wouldn’t get that adoration in the first place.
Stolen valor
