I understand the sentiment, but it's the wrong approach. Better to embrace and integrate than to bitterly fight what's inevitably coming. Every technology has had its negative impact, there's always something that dies and can't be replaced. But, something else takes it place and gets brought to life, and that's beautiful in it's own way.
If the technology replaces humans finding their own values and expressing them with a regurgitation of whatever's the most likely to follow a given set of letters in human writing so far...
well, I for one find that repulsive.
I may be nothing but a stochastic parrot, but my life experience doesn't feel like it, and I have less than no interest in consuming output generated by one.
We may all be stochastic parrots, but we are individually so based on each of our experiences. AI however, is still a lot like getting answers from the same person only there's millions of users asking that person. I think once we have better open sourced models and greater ability for non-technical people to modify their AI's behaviour, we will see the innate human creativity shine through AI. My worry is that LLM's will influence how humans write (even while not using the tools), which will affect the models, which will change our writing styles and so on until languages are homogenised and local/personal linguistic quirks are all but gone.
The only way for this technology to replace humans is if people actively choose generative art over humanity's regenerative art.
Do you think you'll be replacing your artistic consumption with mostly auto-generated fare? If not, then is this repulsion you speak of aimed at generative AI, or is it aimed at some hypothetical other people of less discriminating taste who would actively choose to consume it instead of human art?
I guess I'm late to the party, but it is starting to feel as if complaints about generative art are actually complaints about other people.
Damn kids and their rap music. Get off the lawn, right?
I do worry that as generative AI becomes normalized, many people who could have brought a unique perspective to the world and expressed it in their own way will instead be lured down the path of being guided and influenced by those systems instead of doing the work themselves.
Something like the concerns John Taylor Gatto presents in The Seven Lesson Schoolteacher, but with seductive ease of creation as the primary mode of influence, rather than top-down authority.
If it takes them a few decades to work that out, they'll be past the point in life when mastering artistic and expressive skills is most-effectively learned.
It's not hopeless, but it's absolutely a direction I don't want our culture to go in.
From personal experience, it is never too late to master an art ;)
It is my sincere belief that what this will do is raise the bar and accelerate the growth of human potential -- when people realize how mich nicer their world is when aesthetics form a core component, they'll long for something of more substance and in the medium and long-term this will increase the demand for human art.
Additionally, by giving people a taste of what it feels like to be "creative", the supply side will be stimulated as well -- and eventually, with real-time back-and-forth between artist and machine (such as Krea), this will become just another tool in the box of the artist -- leading to a renaissance in the art world.
But, as always - be the change you want to see! Protect our culture by continuing to share your opinions - and your art.
