Hi, new guy here. @radicaledward pointed me to your newsletter (not necessarily this post tho). I'll be upfront -- I love AI art. I love playing with it. And I feel a bit puzzled as to why the hate for it is so tangible you can taste it in the air as it metastasizes from the pulsating anger of some folks. Don't get me wrong, I can understand why they don't like it, I just feel the level of hate is somehow disproportionate to the "threat" it somehow poses. As an (hobby) author, I view AI art the same as my learning another author's style (which at minimum I only pay something like $8 to learn -- is that enough?). As a translator (my day-time, full-time job), I use AI tools to speed my work. People laud AI tools when they benefit us. Some translators were shaking in their boots couple years back with the rise of AI translation. Did the public care then? Heck no, they embraced it and gladly fed the AI engines millions of examples a day (perhaps a slight exaggeration) as they globetrotted. So... what's my point? I think, perhaps, just a little, we are blowing this out of proportion. Should there be laws and protection for human works? OF COURSE. But perhaps could we leave the palpable hate for anyone who enjoys and plays with AI art at home? Please? Heck, I love my little AI projects. Am I ever going to try and pass them off as something I did? NEVER. Do I recognize that the AI learned from others to create it? ABSOLUTELY. But so did Picasso, and all the other "great" artists and composers and authors and... who came before us. We all start somewhere. We all learn and grow. I hope AI does, too.
"I’m also a big believer in the idea that to name something is effectively kill it. Or, at the very least, by naming it you sort of lock it in place. Which makes me wonder if generative-AI art is going to be looked back on as a revolution in art for a very different reason than AI evangelists think it will be. It’s basically going to make everyone want to make stuff that DOESN’T look like this."
And I think this is very true. AI art may continue to improve to the point that it's as good and interesting as human made art, but human artists will definitely adapt to this (probably they already are). And that's pretty cool.
To answer the question of whether you are part of the problem now. The answer is: yes, yes you are.
I, for one, welcome our robot overlords.
Hi, new guy here. @radicaledward pointed me to your newsletter (not necessarily this post tho). I'll be upfront -- I love AI art. I love playing with it. And I feel a bit puzzled as to why the hate for it is so tangible you can taste it in the air as it metastasizes from the pulsating anger of some folks. Don't get me wrong, I can understand why they don't like it, I just feel the level of hate is somehow disproportionate to the "threat" it somehow poses. As an (hobby) author, I view AI art the same as my learning another author's style (which at minimum I only pay something like $8 to learn -- is that enough?). As a translator (my day-time, full-time job), I use AI tools to speed my work. People laud AI tools when they benefit us. Some translators were shaking in their boots couple years back with the rise of AI translation. Did the public care then? Heck no, they embraced it and gladly fed the AI engines millions of examples a day (perhaps a slight exaggeration) as they globetrotted. So... what's my point? I think, perhaps, just a little, we are blowing this out of proportion. Should there be laws and protection for human works? OF COURSE. But perhaps could we leave the palpable hate for anyone who enjoys and plays with AI art at home? Please? Heck, I love my little AI projects. Am I ever going to try and pass them off as something I did? NEVER. Do I recognize that the AI learned from others to create it? ABSOLUTELY. But so did Picasso, and all the other "great" artists and composers and authors and... who came before us. We all start somewhere. We all learn and grow. I hope AI does, too.
I really like the Garbage Day substack because he researches trends online and I find that kind of stuff fascinating, but he wrote a good segment on AI art as well: https://www.garbageday.email/i/107209078/whats-coming-next-for-ai
The part that struck me:
"I’m also a big believer in the idea that to name something is effectively kill it. Or, at the very least, by naming it you sort of lock it in place. Which makes me wonder if generative-AI art is going to be looked back on as a revolution in art for a very different reason than AI evangelists think it will be. It’s basically going to make everyone want to make stuff that DOESN’T look like this."
And I think this is very true. AI art may continue to improve to the point that it's as good and interesting as human made art, but human artists will definitely adapt to this (probably they already are). And that's pretty cool.
I guess, for me, it all comes down to whether or not you like the art. Does it resonate with you? If so, does it matter how it came about?