Hacker News Reader

Comment by fullshark | Hacker News Reader

“It's hateful. It is antithetical to the life force that exists in all of us.”

As we move to a world where art is totally devalued, the early returns are not promising at all imo for AI generated music. It doesn't seem to make great art, but to allow talentless people simulate great art for cheap. It doesn't seem to inspire humans at all, it just makes them annoyed and angry.

Its primary use case to me seems to be "create royalty-free music for my amateur tiktok/youtube video that sounds how I want it to sound." That's valuable as long as the royalty-free thing exists, but no one is sitting around excited about the idea of prompting AI-Tupac rap to about them or their personal interests.

View on HN

Genuine art will never be totally devalued. Art is fundamentally a form of communication. AI “art” will never be genuine art until it’s produced by some genuine intelligent being.

As for economic value, such as in the case of paintings or sculptures worth millions, that has always been about supply and demand, status and signaling. A form of communication in its own right, albeit not born of introspection.

AI doesn't devalue art, it devalues corporate pablum.

But guess what many artists earn their living off, when they haven't made it with their vocation yet.

Expect a wave of artists moving into education to make ends meet.

> Art is fundamentally a form of communication. AI “art” will never be genuine art until it’s produced by some genuine intelligent being.

So recordings of whale songs are art? IFF whales are intelligent?

And field recordings of factory equipment and wind blowing through leaves are not art?

If a painter paints in the woods and no one's there to see it, is it art? Does it become art when it's seen?

I'm really curious about what people see as the "real" at the heart of art. It seems to be more complicated than mere human creativity. I just like to make things and I enjoy things other people make when they challenge me. I don't understand art.

I’d say whalesong is art in the same way that a photograph of a whale is art. And the artist is the photographer or person recording and producing the whalesong.

We don't know whether a letter from the past was written by a human or by a committee of people who wanted to be trolls and all used the same name together (this happens). We won't know whether intentful communication was written by a robot either.

> AI “art” will never be genuine art until it’s produced by some genuine intelligent being.

The ultimate Turing test?

Alternatively read as "I'm struggling to come to grips with the fact that the life force that exists in all of us is becoming more and more likely to simply be a series of surprising and emergent properties of simple cellular automata."

I get the point you're making, but I'd argue that even when stated in a reductive fashion, the complex system that leads simple cellular automata to artistic expression is orders of magnitude more elegant and special than AI.

As always, there’s a relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/2933/

Things being devalued is awesome. It means more people can afford them. Keeping things being luxury was never a sign of progress.

> but no one is sitting around excited about the idea of prompting AI-Tupac rap to about them or their personal interests

Are you kidding? I specifically asked AI to generate songs about joys of programming and I was rewarded with very catchy and inspiring "Code until your dream compiles!" in the style of 80s rock/pop and among other things soft female voice singing about romantic love for her code "I know it's just text, it's true. But it's in my IDE's hue."

It's a goldmine. I haven't had so much fun "creating" "music" for at least few decades.

And I'm definitely not alone. Some AI generated catchy songs on funny subjects already started to circulate as memes.

I don't care for human artists that never thought about creating something like that even though they theoretically could.

The artists that get mimicked are the lucky ones. Last famous singers of humanity.

I mean, I am, as are several others I know (although the majority find it abhorrent from an art perspective).

I don’t have any dreams of using it to make high art, but at the very least it should be fun for memes. I wouldn’t mind being able to make a shitty song out of a friends funny misphrasing or having a silly song to play over a video of my dog doing something silly.

I’ve done the same for other things. I’ve made some one-off get well cards for people with AI generated silly images relating to them. I’ve definitely used it for Hugo sites where the page looks worse with images removed.

I use it frequently when I’m not sure my interest will hold out enough to be worth trying to get a friend to make real art, because the effort is so lopsided. I can make a Hugo site in 30 minutes and drop it in less than that because I’ve invested so little; asking someone to spend hours making art for it means they’re investing more effort than I am into a project that I’ll probably forget about.

After watching Apple's take, this seems to be their approach. A user can generate a quick AI image, in a few different styles, to basically joke around with friends or get a quick relevant image to stick in a paper. While professionals currently use stock photos which may get someone paid, a vast majority of images used for this purpose will not be published, and people are doing a Google Image search, finding something, and copying it into their paper/presentation. Replacing that with AI isn't really hurting anyone's livelihood, it's just saving time. I'm sure stock photography will take a hit as well, but I could see major publications still using it to differentiate themselves from sites operating on a tighter budget using AI, or to get accurate pictures of what is being talked about rather than something from AI that's deemed close enough.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com