As an artist, I think it is a net negative for us. Disregarding the copyright issue, I think it’s also consolidating power into large corporations, going to kill learning fundamental skills (rip next generation of artists), and turn the profession into a low skill minimum wage job. Artists that spent years learning and perfecting their skills will be worth nothing and I think it’s a pretty depressing future for us. Anways thoughts?
You raise some interesting points that lead me to think about some further questions:
Artists use lots of other techniques to speed up the process, and when an artist knows value, tone, shape, line, perspective, etc, and the techniques of masters, the addition of modern technology (not AI) can result in amazing work. Is AI just another tool?
I imagine we’re not too far off connecting an algorithm to a 3D printer, so this might soon be sculptures, etc, not just digital images.
My knowledge of AI is limited. So if I’ve misunderstood something that you understand better, let me know. So…
China is perhaps the world leader in AI because it can rely on such a large dataset. The western equivalent data is more fragmented, so less useful for modelling. AI will be implemented in China as part of its socialism with Chinese characteristics to improve working conditions, automate jobs, reduce the working day, etc. Like the automated farming in Xinjiang. Doing so will create more free time for people in China to spendv making art, etc.
There’s a contradiction, here: freeing up the time for humans to fully realise themselves seems to rely on the very technologies that might make some activities redundant – and those are the activities that humans might need to perform to fully develop the human spirit. A veritable Catch 22.
Leading to…
Would you argue that e.g. China should abandon AI developments to avoid the risk of undermining art? (I’ll assume here that there is a risk.)
So much of what is accepted and promoted as art is distorted by capitalism. There’s an idea that ‘proper’ art is to be found in galleries, probably inside a frame and behind glass. Is this kind of art the paradigm of art?
If not, then who determines what is art?
Personally, I’ll still be visiting traditional and modern galleries even if AI art really takes off. And where I have the money, I’ll continue to support artists. So there will still always be a place for techniques invented in every epoch.
Which leads to by final two interrelated question for now…
I am not an expert but my partner is an aspiring animator and up to this date they have been motivated to make that dream come true. This has been devastating to many artists. Everyone deserves to have dreams, something to work for. For a lot of people, they don’t have anything but art and the dream of being able to “make it” as an artist. We are both married and gay so obviously we won’t be having children, and we don’t want any - so, it just feels like right now people really make it a point to make it known that they hate artists and that nobody deserves to have a dream or work toward a job that they like.
I think that reading through these replies have turned me off completely to exploring communism for the time being. I’m critical of capitalism and have been curious about exploring different ways of society existing outside of the devastating effects of capitalism, but it is sad that people even here don’t seem to value artists, and a couple of people have been openly hostile to question the development of AI in art. I refuse to believe that AI is being developed to create a utopia in many cases, I think it is seeking to displace many of us. I don’t know if the government would step in if everyone lost their job, and were completely unmotivated to continue on with life without something to look forward to.
Even more the technology is developed directly by people that want to displace people completely (I know Elon Musk is a huge investor for AI art programs). I don’t understand why anybody would want to defend the practice as a good thing.
I understand wanting to automate a job that is pure drudgery but people actually enjoy making art.
I want to make a few points and perhaps reiterate what @kig_v2@lemmygrad.ml said: you can see it more now that others joined in the conversation, but there is no set view on art by communists, so don’t let a few disagreements put you off. Also, it may be helpful to separate the views of individual communists from the idea of communism. And that’s what I wanted to clarify…
Communism is the end goal. It’s never been achieved. People may call themselves communists who aspire to bringing in a communist (or, first, a socialist) revolution. But it’s not possible to talk to anyone who has lived in a fully communist society to find out what they think of art. We can only ask people who are imperfectly working things out under the distorting influence of capitalism.
The question in the OP was about thoughts on AI art, so that’s what people discussed. Most people answering that question in any setting, even artists, communists, or communist artists will not be basing their view on considered art theory. Commenting on posts like this on Lemmygrad is a way for people to work out what they think. And people around here regularly change their minds after a mini struggle session.
As kig_v2 said MLs (Marxist Leninists) will propose that their view aligns with Marxist theory – it’s what Marxists do. This can result in the type of comment that I think has particularly annoyed you. This is where an ML remarks on a historical fact, such as that AI technology is here, and that capitalists will use it to their advantage like they use every other technology.
MLs can appear to be nihilistic in this and imply that we cannot or should not do anything about the historical fact. But that’s a mischaracterisation, I think.
Some very brief theory to help make the above clearer. The Marxist world outlook is called dialectical and historical materialism. From this perspective, Marxists criticise capitalism not just for its moral failings but also (perhaps mainly) because they see that capitalism is not sustainable for being riddled with unsolvable contradictions. Marxism is the study of the process of change, and it sees change as driven by internal contradiction.
This applies to everything. Including to the internal contradictions of AI, and AI art – as processes interconnected with other, broader processes.
Anyway, if you’re interested in what someone has to say about art who has both read art theory and Marxist theory, you may enjoy John Berger’s, Ways of Seeing. His Landscapes and Portraits are also very good compilations of vignettes on famous artworks.
Thanks for the book recommendations, I’ll check it out!
You’re welcome. Berger also made a BBC series with the same title (the book might be based on the series) but I’ve never been able to find a copy (I haven’t looked that hard, mind).
After being on this thread today, I decided I’m going to take a break from being online at this point at least as it relates to politics. Thanks for the book recommendations and also your insight about communism.
There has been a couple of people here who have been very nice and seem to be interested in socialism to help other people and are taking into account these big questions about what it means to he human, and what makes life worth living. I appreciate yours and their insight in this thread.
Thanks very much for your insight and also the books recommendations. I’ll see if I can find a copy at the library and keep thinking about these issues. Maybe I can try to see if there’s a way that Marxism fits and offers any insight and answers.
I thought about it and we live in a really difficult time with all of these changes and everything that is going on with the world. It isn’t easy.
drawing in-betweens all day is the definition of drudgery. if an AI can do it with a human checking the results it would mean a human can make more keyframes. it would mean increased profits for studios under capitalism rather than more jobs for animators, sure, but under socialism if arts are funded and developed by state grants it would mean more independent animation groups could put out more original animations that look better because all of the human effort goes to storyboards, keyframes, choosing colors carefully, tightening up the script, and so on.
The thing is that technology is being developed to replace artists, not to help them create more.
Would you rather work 3 years on a short or work on 3 shorts a year? Embrace the tech that exists. Your time has value. More than what you’re being paid for it.
That would be the case if we were talking about artist-aiding AI, not artist-replacing AI. One would be very much welcome to replace the menial aspects of animation, the other would render us moot.
I said this to another person, but AI is being developed to replace artists, not to help make them more productive. If something so central to what makes it worth being alive is being replaced, then what is the point? It’s okay to not embrace some technology. It doesn’t make you a Luddite.