re: ai fuels creativity
Response to Imperfect's article: ai fuels creativity.
An interesting response to my thoughts around GenAI
A couple of things I'd like to get out of the way first.
This paragraph:
"Speaking of attention, artists using any technique aren't magically immune to apathy, negative reactions, or outright witch hunts. Artists using generative AI as sparingly as once continue to get lambasted by fair-weather fans, brigaders, and even rogue actors. Such harassment can result in said artists doubling down, submitting to demands, or worse, disappearing from the Internet altogether. That's not a slice of the Internet that I want to be a part of."
I would like to hope this isn't aimed at me, but I'll make my stance perfectly clear, I do not condone the abuse or harassment of anyone. I totally agree that shouldn't be a part of the internet to be involved with and I would implore anyone who is partaking in the discussion to refrain from doing so.
Education around the subject is needed on both sides as is a fair and honest discourse, do not resort to insults, abuse or harassment, instead, improve your argument.
Secondly, I want to make clear that I'm not against the use of General AI in creativity, we've been using it for years after all. My thoughts are around the use of Generative AI, which (my understanding) is when you use a prompt and the AI generates a piece of media.
The act of creating has always been accessible to anyone, this is why the gatekeeping argument is on shaky ground at best, I believe what people mean when they say it's more accessible is that they can now create things that look like they want them to look, in short - they're talking about taste.
Perhaps it's better to watch this quote about creative process by Ira Glass.
"Artists are the arbiter of what their art means to them, not necessarily what it means to the appreciators of their art. If an artist's meaning of their art is to look pretty or be "well presented, superficial dross", then so be it. If you yearn for artists intending different meanings or using traditional methods, source them out and gift them your utmost attention."
I'd hope it doesn't mean the same to the viewer as to the creator, I'd like to believe that works of creativity bring viewers and acclaim because it resonates something within the viewer that is personal to that viewer but enough to warrant them feeling a connection to me (the artist).
I'm interested in the words 'traditional methods'. What are you classing as 'traditional methods'? There are plenty of digital creators out there not using GenAI worth gifting my attention to.
Now, with regards to these quotes:
"Please. You let bread machines knead your dough, but you don’t write think-pieces on how that makes you a loser."
"AI is just the toaster for your thoughts. It doesn’t replace your creativity; it browns it evenly, maybe adds a nice crunch."
"Whether it’s a heating element or a large language model, the point is the same: The bread still gets toasted. The ideas still get served."
It's an interesting take, it seems to be touching more on AI as a whole, but as a question, at what point does the idea (or the outcome) stop being yours? This take is essentially saying you feed us the 'bread', we'll make it better and it's okay because the 'idea' still gets out there.
In other words, it's all about convenience. Yes, we do let bread machines knead our dough, yet we find ourselves saying how much better it tastes when we do it ourselves.
I would also like to refer to these quotes from this Ollie Anders article
"... they are getting products without need of their own skill to make it or financially through hiring someone else to, but it ignores the entitlement of choosing to bypass those requirements."
"... But to feel as though you deserve artwork when you cannot make it yourself is a back-handed compliment to those who can. Artists put the time and effort to hone their skills to be able to do things themselves; they earned it. To deny the need to learn to make art but feel entitled to get it anyway devalues creative expression on the whole."
There will always be a reason for using GenAI for anyone who wants to find one, but I believe it's harmful, not just for the industry but for the individual partaking in the practice, you're diluting your own voice, opinions and experiences through GenAI.
Finally, I've no doubt that most people reading have seen this in some form, but it's worth included, it's Hayao Miyazaki's thoughts on an artificial intelligence