The marketing and business side of things I can see. But to me, the point of art is not merely "good writing" or entertainment or even the "product" created. The point is that it is a window into the human psyche or subconscious. Using AI in any way within your own work immediately disqualifies it from that. Finding inspiration within yourself to finish the thing when you are stuck is the entire point of doing the thing, imo.
Perhaps, but without external stimuli we shunt most of our inspiration. Our ideas come from what we experience in the world. Lock a child in a padded cage and he'll have no means to draw inspiration. AI that generates content can be effective fuel to that fire, just like when we watch TV or read the works made by others.
"Our ideas come from what we experience in the world."
Agreed! But looking at screens is a different thing than experience. Reading the works of others is a different thing as well. When "watching" you are just looking at something someone else created. When reading, your own brain has to reassemble everything on the page from scratch in your own personal way, you aren't just "looking".
edit: But, at least watching TV might actually spark a thought or idea within your mind organically, that is different from feeding your story into a computer and having it tell you what you could do next or how to get unstuck. It is no longer your work at that point and should be marked as such, "collaborative work". It is no longer a creation that was born strictly from within you.
What we experience mainly involves the things we see and hear.
Isn't feeding a machine a prompt to tell it what to create all that different than telling another human what to create? The end goal is the same, just different means to achieve them.
Or, how about if someone paints a picture using photoshop. Are they any less an artist because they didn't use a physical canvas? Should the person who use Photoshop flag his own work as 'collaborative' because Photoshop helped him? I understand the point you make, and agree to it somewhat. However, the end point I'm trying to make about AI is that it shouldn't take away meaning of the results it helps generate, especially if you still add your own raw artistic/literary skills in conjunction with AI.
"Isn't feeding a machine a prompt to tell it what to create all that different than telling another human what to create? The end goal is the same, just different means to achieve them."
Not to me. I want what I read to be evidence of the "human experience".
The problem with what you are proposing is that you can basically take your subconscious’s job and outsource to an algorithm. There are arguments to be made that our minds are nothing more than algorithms, but they aren’t ones we actually comprehend and can replicate. Writer’s Block doesn’t exist, it’s more often than not your conscious mind taking a break to let your unconscious do its magic. I strongly suggest you read “The Kekule Problem” by Cormac McCarthy (it’s an article, really short).
It is an unfortunate symptom of our grab anything not nailed down and strip the copper from the walls moment that we can't allow any time to figure out exactly what a tool is and how to use it wisely.
These are reasonable deductions. While I have a distaste for generative AI when it comes misrepresenting work-in-progress and finished works (which is easier to tell apart in my field of specialty: illustrations), I do acknowledge the usage of AI for the time-wasting busywork.
As it seems now, there's not many AI tools that I see as useful to my current workflow. Until something better comes along, I'll be on standby.
I really don't want to fall out over this but I really had to pick my jaw up from the floor at the "but I'm too busy to learn illustration, writing, and art" part.
Tolkien was busy
Bram Stoker was busy
Jack Vance was busy
Anne McCaffery - busy
Sue Dawe - busy
Ursula LeGuin - busy.
Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails cleaned toilets and lived on bread and butter for months to finance his first demo tapes.
They all got on with it and found ways to work smarter without taking from others. How much technology do you need? Your phone let alone laptop has 1000 labour saving devices and opportunities that don't involve grabbing from other artists' works.
The answer to this question is a simple one. NB I am a professional software developer and I make heavy use of graphic design software in my illuminated poetry - luddite I am not.
Now pickup any paperback from your shelf I guarantee you will see something along the lines of the following:
“Unauthorised digital or print redistribution of this work in full or part is prohibited under copyright law.”
These programs have built up illegal archives of literary and artistic works and are regurgitating hybrids on command. Nothing more than that is happening.
This is the problem that is fast heading towards a legal solution with several multimillion lawsuits waiting to guillotine midjourney et al.
Want to impress me? Show me what it can do without it's stolen library. And I haven't even started on how model collapse is showing how VERY broken the toy is…
The marketing and business side of things I can see. But to me, the point of art is not merely "good writing" or entertainment or even the "product" created. The point is that it is a window into the human psyche or subconscious. Using AI in any way within your own work immediately disqualifies it from that. Finding inspiration within yourself to finish the thing when you are stuck is the entire point of doing the thing, imo.
Perhaps, but without external stimuli we shunt most of our inspiration. Our ideas come from what we experience in the world. Lock a child in a padded cage and he'll have no means to draw inspiration. AI that generates content can be effective fuel to that fire, just like when we watch TV or read the works made by others.
"Our ideas come from what we experience in the world."
Agreed! But looking at screens is a different thing than experience. Reading the works of others is a different thing as well. When "watching" you are just looking at something someone else created. When reading, your own brain has to reassemble everything on the page from scratch in your own personal way, you aren't just "looking".
edit: But, at least watching TV might actually spark a thought or idea within your mind organically, that is different from feeding your story into a computer and having it tell you what you could do next or how to get unstuck. It is no longer your work at that point and should be marked as such, "collaborative work". It is no longer a creation that was born strictly from within you.
What we experience mainly involves the things we see and hear.
Isn't feeding a machine a prompt to tell it what to create all that different than telling another human what to create? The end goal is the same, just different means to achieve them.
Or, how about if someone paints a picture using photoshop. Are they any less an artist because they didn't use a physical canvas? Should the person who use Photoshop flag his own work as 'collaborative' because Photoshop helped him? I understand the point you make, and agree to it somewhat. However, the end point I'm trying to make about AI is that it shouldn't take away meaning of the results it helps generate, especially if you still add your own raw artistic/literary skills in conjunction with AI.
"Isn't feeding a machine a prompt to tell it what to create all that different than telling another human what to create? The end goal is the same, just different means to achieve them."
Not to me. I want what I read to be evidence of the "human experience".
The problem with what you are proposing is that you can basically take your subconscious’s job and outsource to an algorithm. There are arguments to be made that our minds are nothing more than algorithms, but they aren’t ones we actually comprehend and can replicate. Writer’s Block doesn’t exist, it’s more often than not your conscious mind taking a break to let your unconscious do its magic. I strongly suggest you read “The Kekule Problem” by Cormac McCarthy (it’s an article, really short).
It is an unfortunate symptom of our grab anything not nailed down and strip the copper from the walls moment that we can't allow any time to figure out exactly what a tool is and how to use it wisely.
Thanks for the different perspectives
These are reasonable deductions. While I have a distaste for generative AI when it comes misrepresenting work-in-progress and finished works (which is easier to tell apart in my field of specialty: illustrations), I do acknowledge the usage of AI for the time-wasting busywork.
As it seems now, there's not many AI tools that I see as useful to my current workflow. Until something better comes along, I'll be on standby.
I really don't want to fall out over this but I really had to pick my jaw up from the floor at the "but I'm too busy to learn illustration, writing, and art" part.
Tolkien was busy
Bram Stoker was busy
Jack Vance was busy
Anne McCaffery - busy
Sue Dawe - busy
Ursula LeGuin - busy.
Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails cleaned toilets and lived on bread and butter for months to finance his first demo tapes.
They all got on with it and found ways to work smarter without taking from others. How much technology do you need? Your phone let alone laptop has 1000 labour saving devices and opportunities that don't involve grabbing from other artists' works.
The answer to this question is a simple one. NB I am a professional software developer and I make heavy use of graphic design software in my illuminated poetry - luddite I am not.
Now pickup any paperback from your shelf I guarantee you will see something along the lines of the following:
“Unauthorised digital or print redistribution of this work in full or part is prohibited under copyright law.”
These programs have built up illegal archives of literary and artistic works and are regurgitating hybrids on command. Nothing more than that is happening.
This is the problem that is fast heading towards a legal solution with several multimillion lawsuits waiting to guillotine midjourney et al.
Want to impress me? Show me what it can do without it's stolen library. And I haven't even started on how model collapse is showing how VERY broken the toy is…
Cheers mate 🍻