I didn't know if generative ai has a strong enough signature to go through the same evolution, but I wouldn't be shocked if it did.
AI is still in the 2010 autotune phase, where more is better.
Though if 2010, the year that Lost in the World was released, is your marker of an awful era, then I suspect that when generative ai does get used to create real art you will likely not be a fan of that either.
I could come up with a thousand examples, but I remember when I was in college and listening to a lot of 90s music. Blink 182 had this album come out, and I couldn't even listen to 3 seconds of vocals because of the insane amount of pitch correction grinding the life out of everything:
AI is literally the exact opposite of that. We had been building software with ruler-like precision even when it was unnecessary and got in the way. That's the only reason we ever wanted AI to begin with.
One mistake people keep making is the assumption that arbitrary and probabilistic imprecision ("wisdom of the crowd") is automatically equivalent to artistic or experienced/curated choice. It's absolutely not. Another mistake is that approximations are always enough to satisfy all problems, or at least "real world" problems. That's obviously not true either. That's flat out ignorance.
What I’m saying is he made an explicit artistic choice to use AI and it’s an integral part of the work. You can’t tell a creative person they aren’t allowed to do something.
AI is going to be used, and already is used, by creative people for legitimate uses that only enhance the statements they are making.
The fact that lazy people are using it as a shortcut for a lazy audience is not an indictment of AI
I'm saying that less intentional use has less artistic merit. AI hasn't made an impact on the toil involved in the creative process. It's instead another brush.
It all boils down to the fact that humans are not outsourcing anything to AI. If anything, it just raises the bar and makes humans have to work harder. Decision fatigue was already a problem long before this era of AI, and AI can make it worse.
That's exactly what happened to music with beat quantization and autotune. People just zoomed in, nerded out, got snobbier, stopped seeing the forest for the trees, and ultimately produced very boring music from exhaustion. Not only that, but a ton of nuance was lost. We took so much agency away from the performance and made it all march in line and in time. It's up to the audience where the breaking point is.
Exactly. AI generates imitations of the past. So does a paint brush at its fundamental.
That sums it up for me. This "new thing appears, become hot, gets overplayed, people hate it" cycle happens over and over, but that is trendy norms. Meanwhile, creative use will continue to go up and to the right as people learn how to better wield AI to express themselves.
The future won't be "AI in art is bad" but "AI as a tool of artists is powerful, AI as an artist is nonsensical".
Or 22, A Million by Bon Iver.
Nah, they were still keen to let people know it made you a clown.