robocalypse probably never: a.i. & art
I used to be a professional graphic designer. I quit for a variety of reasons. Like the time I wanted to teach a couple of my coworkers Photoshop, and my boss said, "Well, if you do that, what will I need you for?" Or the fact that none of my superiors could genuinely tell that my work was any better than what they could whip up in Canva. It absolutely was; but if they couldn't see it, did it matter?
I've thought about this a lot lately with all the A.I. business going on. The whole "will A.I. replace artists/writers/etc" conversation seems to be focused on whether A.I.-generated content can ever be as good as human art. Whether it will ever be, in every perceivable way, equivalent to human art.
I don't think that's the right question, though, and I don't think that's what's really bothering people. It's not what's really bothering me.
When I quit graphic design, I went back to school to study biology and psychology, with vague ideas of maybe switching into computer science and A.I. learning. I presented one paper about affective computing, thought about it a bit more, and decided it wasn't the field for me.
I don't think a computer can ever meaningfully simulate being human; I don't think we'll ever see the kind of truly indistinguishable A.I. everyone always thinks is just around the corner. I'm not worried that an algorithm with a typewriter will ever produce Shakespeare.
What worries me is that, whenever computers do reach their limits of simulated creativity, whatever slapdash approximation of human art they're able to produce will be good enough for most people. That they won't be able to tell any meaningful difference, the same way my boss thought anybody who could work Photoshop could replace me.
Right now, there are no end of websites pushing A.I. tools to generate blog posts and essays and articles purported to be equivalent to or better than human-written ones. Websites are already full of their output. If you're looking solely at things like that, it can feel like there soon won't be any place for human writing. The same with all the A.I.-generated "art". If everyone's so impressed with the seven-fingered image mashup nonsense these tools crank out, maybe there's no point in humans even bothering to make their own art anymore.
But there are two things I've been thinking about that contradict that.
One: I've touched on this a bit, but all the A.I. generated stuff ranges from amusing nonsense on the high end, down to absolute incoherent garbage. However good it's supposedly going to get any minute now, it's going to have limits. As a friend just pointed out to me, it sure can't fucking physically paint yet. I can definitely see art that is fully outside A.I.'s wheelhouse becoming more valuable because of that. Even with writing, just to take one example, everyone who's paying for it on the internet right now knows that there are a few things A.I. is okay at and a fuckload it's bad at. Even the content farms are saying "do not submit A.I.-generated garbage to us." If you want good writing, you need a human. Humans who can fucking write may end up being more valuable thanks to A.I., not less.
Two: This one's a little less concrete, but I think it should be even more important, because I think there are more important things about art than its monetary value. Even though my ex-boss probably still thinks Canva is better than me, I fucking know better. And there are quite a few other people who know better, too. One time, my workplace did this pop culture event, and I made a flier for it that I knew the target audience would think was cool. And I was right, because not only did it help bring in record numbers of attendees, one girl literally asked me to print her a fresh copy of the flier to keep with her other souvenirs of the event. No one ever fucking did that about a flier a coworker bashed out in five minutes using clipart.
My point is, you cannot make art for the 75% or 90% or 99.99998% of people, as the case may be, who can't tell the difference between it and computer-simulated garbage. You already don't. You don't make it for the people who don't get it; you make it for the ones who do. No matter how much of a content-farmed corporate hellscape the world of professional creativity becomes, you have to ultimately be in it for those rare moments where it connects with somebody. Those are not going away unless the machines replace every single human with a Terminator or whatever the fuck.
So no, I'm not really that worried about A.I. replacing me any more than I'm worried about ignorance and apathy replacing me. The SEO-content-monetisation-engagement drones are more than welcome to keep asking chatbots to generate shitty blog posts for each other to not read. It doesn't have any more to do with me than it ever did.
7 notes
·
View notes
I am going to try and put this in as few words as possible, because my roommate and I spent an hour talking about this today; but there is truly nothing more incredible to me than human creativity.
Like, you’re telling me someone made this? You’re telling me this art came from someone’s own hand? You’re telling me this story came from someone’s mind? You’re telling me that someone as flawed and mortal and lost as me made this?
There is a beauty in math and in science, I am not here to argue that. But mathematics existed long before us. Science will exist long after us. And while the knowledge we have is a wonder, it is not ours. We did not make one and one equal two, we only learned and accepted that it did.
But our art is not universal. Our music was born through us. Our writing will die with us. And there is so much more beauty in knowing that we have made something. People have language and culture and poetry not because it was fact, but by our own whim and design.
This is something AI can never fulfill. An algorithm cannot create, it can only compile. A computer generated image has no link to us, to human emotion. To human flaw and struggle and passion.
Art is beautiful, and creation is the most powerful thing a person can do. Your stories, your art, hell, your fanfic and original characters, they exist not because of universal laws of math and physics, but because of your mind and skill; and if that isn’t the most amazing thing in the world, then what is?
71 notes
·
View notes
You know, I at least understand some level of why people want to use AI to write them things. I am not a very good writer, I rarely have enough of a cohesive idea of what I'm trying to make to turn it into a coherent story. I am sympathetic to ex, people plugging a prompt into a program to generate something like a fanfic (especially one containing triggering content) they can't legally/reasonably commission, assuming it just stays on their hard drive vs being posted alongside legitimate writing.
But this is baffling to me.
Like the reason I found this was I was scrolling through notes on this post, full of reblogs of people responding to the prompt. Writing prompt posts with decent amounts of notes literally hand you dozens of free short stories on whatever the post is about. Someone, usually several someones, has completed the task for you already! ...But instead you clog the notes up with your entry courtesy of The Homework Machine™️.
Idk something about that is just an exceptional illustration of how making art has been warped into this mindless "Create Content™️" action. Making more similar stuff ceases to be a "wow two cakes" situation when people are just filling the table with a bunch of cheap bland store bought cakes that push the ones acting on inspiration further back.
8 notes
·
View notes