It's not just for politics but fairness. You can't just one day up and decide to make something illegal that others depending on for livelyhood. It's good enough that it limits growth of the banned thing.
Sure you can. It just takes backbone, which is rarely found in the political class.
If I, as a voter, voted for a politician who promised to ban dumping mercury in the local river, I don't expect them to say "Oh, but any company already dumping mercury in the river can keep doing so, because we don't want to hurt people's livelihood." That's not what I voted for.
Ok, but if you are investing capital in some sort of production line or industrialization you are not going to want to do that in an area where you might just lose your entire investment instantly; instead, you're just going to invest it in Texas or China. Of course with more extreme examples like yours you do have to put some cost on the existing companies to get it fixed, but it would be something with a smaller cost like having to dispose of the mercury properly (whereas in this article's examples they just flat out ban these things, which you can't do to existing factories).
For sure there would be a disincentive to "invest" in the area where you might lose the investment. That would be intentional. As a voter, I specifically don't want companies to be making those kinds of "investments" in my region. Go "invest" your dirty industry in China. If California's reputation for harshly regulating these things prevents these kinds of businesses from opening here in the first place, I consider that Working As Intended. We could make that reputation even stronger by not grandfathering things.
I hear this often and it's such a strange view of art, like the only thing that matters is scale and speed. It's a perspective so colored by mechanization that it fails to account for other philosophies in art. Think of what, say the Arts and Crafts movement was all about!
That is unlike any artist that I know and I know quite a lot of them. They love their work and the process but they also need to eat. And that included those mentioned above.
There is a tremendous amount of "art" that is produced for purely commercial reasons. It employs many thousands of people. These roles are definitely threatened by image generators.
Agree that if you are Artist this is not going to be a big concern to you.
Also, many (I would even venture to say most) of the great artists most people know of earned their bread with intermittent commercial contracts, even rote advertising commissions in the 19th/20th century.
Art is about creating something from scratch. This isn't creating anything but cobbling together elements of scraped/stolen content to generate an imitation of prior work.
I think this is a fundamentally adverserial mindset and so you should be prepared for others to treat you in kind (i.e. to attack you and minimize the value of your work)
Why am I getting the impression that it's your ego that got hurt?
If you like art, then you don't necessarily care about the process, you just want it to keep being produced. Artists obviously want to engage in their profession, because they have the passion to pursue the creation of art. Said passion is now twisted into gatekeeping.
When you take a look around the internet, you can see an incredible amount of beautiful art being made through manual processes by artists and they voluntarily publish a lot of their work for free. The cost and personal enrichment argument is pretty weak here. If anything, the causality could even go in the opposite direction: Artists might want to earn money to pursue their passion.
Let's be honest for a second here. It's legitimate to feel that human created art is expensive and cost prohibitive for your particular needs. Art for professional or personal purposes is usually commissioned, aka made to order, hence it cannot be a mass market commodity.
These manual processes are also inherently limited due to the fact that the entire scene (character, outfit, pose, lighting, perspective) is baked in. If there is a process that doesn't have this limitation that's great, but if the lifting of limitations in one area isn't enough to counteract the loss in quality in other areas that the manual process didn't use to run into? Suddenly that is gate keeping even though the issue at hand is that the quality isn't good enough yet?
There's also an obvious parallel to frameworks and libraries in software development. If the software ecosystem lacks flexibility and customizability or has the wrong abstraction for the problem at hand, you will need to drop down a layer and do things the old fashioned way. A manual artist can produce a character template, a set of clothes or a background design from scratch and combine it with the higher level tools. An AI-only artist is inherently limited in that regard and yet that's supposed to be the future?
I think you are agreeing with me since my point was that AI is a force multiplier and will enable manual artists to create (and iterate) faster and on much bigger projects.
Prices will go down, not because people can directly generate art, but because you could hire an artist to complete the same scope of work for 1/10th the cost.
The artists I know didn't make money from art to begin with. One is a part time baker who illustrates his life in his journal, thousands upon thousands of sketches and paintings documenting his entire life. That's the person I commission when I want to make a nice personalised presents. Of course I could ask chatgpt to shit me out the blandest drawing humanity as laid eyes upon for free but that's not the point.
It seems like what people like you want to build is a matrix style "life in a pod" world, the most optimal way to spend life: as cheap as possible, as easy as possible, as bland as possible, no struggle, no hardships, no efforts, nothing matters as long as it's cheap and "better" (while not being able to define "better")
Modernism wasn't about "pushing limits of what's possible" either. It was first and foremost a period style itself. That style included experimentation and "pushing some limits" but art in general wasn't that, then, before or after (which is also why those limits went right back, and literature for example returned to far more classical forms after modernism's era passed - it didn't kept pushing at limits).
An aspect of art is this pursuit of pushing boundaries within the confines of what is considered good. Would an artist with an infinite image generator be interested in pushing said boundaries? Maybe but they will definitely miss out on getting stuck on an idea and coming up something completely new
AI isn't a tool for creating art in the same way as a paintbrush or clay. AI is describing a painting you want, then having someone else creating the artwork for you. You aren't doing art in the same way hiring a sculptor isn't doing sculpting.
AI is well on the way to eliminating human made art since the skills to actually make art will be lost to the skill of being able to describe art. You know, since the only thing that matter is reducing costs.
AI is a productivity tool.
Instead of working on a single graphic, the artist can now work on the entire marketing campaign.
Instead of spending a year working on background special effects for a single scene, one could now personally produce full featured films.
It will be a golden age where the core differentiating factor is true talent and ideas and execution and not any gatekeeping by degrees, connections or budget.
A very large fraction of everything we collect as great art marking our history was made on commission. The GGP is showing their complete ignorance of the history of art.
>Art is about pushing limits of what's possible and AI just raises those limits
Says who?
Being an artist means different things to different people, but at the very least I believe it requires an interest in your craft, a desire for personal growth, and a yearning to express yourself.
There was a MP Peta Murphy 2023 push to ban gambling ads in Australia. Seems gambling industry decided to take over the narrative and deflect to banning social media for kids (who often dont have much money for gambling).
Didn't screamers evolve sophisticated intelligence? Is that what happens if we use claw and let it write its own skills and update it's own objectives?
Goal of any business in principle is profit, by your terms all of them are misaligned.
Matter of fact is that customers are receiving value and the value has been a good proxy for which company will grow to be successful and which will fail.
I'm being neither pedantic nor cynical. Do you need a refresher on value proposition vs actual outcomes on the last few decades of breathlessly hyped tech bubbles? Executive summary: the portions of tech industry that attract the most investment consistently produce the worst outcomes, the more cash the shittier the result. It's also worth noting that "value" is defined as anything you can manipulate someone to pay for.
Price of oil collapsed leading to mass shortages of everything. They also decided to allow more individual freedoms to protest which people promptly used to overthrow the system.
reply