yrgirlkv

"it's yr girl; you already know!"

—dj who is not yr girl and who you do not know at all

sister @cass | mom @pegasus-poetry | writer/designer @ songs for the dusk, sunblack | asexual @ large

icon by @hedgemice.


my main two opinions about AI art are as follows:

  1. i am deeply skeptical of anybody who suggests that AI art is bad because it's "inhuman" or "soulless" or whatever abstract spiritual qualities you want to assign to human-generated art. i'm aware that people who say things like this have good reason to see AI as a threat to their own livelihoods. still, i tend to believe that allowing this sort of sloppiness in principle and rhetoric generally leads to worse outcomes in the long run. i have already seen people dismiss and dehumanize physically disabled artists doing their damnedest to use ethical AI art because their only other option is to stop being creative entirely; i don't doubt that this sort of thing can get worse.
  2. the luddites lost. clothing is largely made in factories today, and bespoke handmade fashion is now a luxury good. "total social rejection" isn't a strategy that anybody has the numbers for, never mind the question of whether it would even work

(prompted by this)


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @yrgirlkv's post:

The idea that AI is inevitable and irresistible is one we are being sold by AI companies who want us to pay them instead of paying artists, apparently completely unaware that most artists barely make the breadline, so where they imagine the money will come from is anybody's guess. Those companies want us to believe that generative systems using the average of past artists' output is the natural next step and that real artists are obsolete, but everything else they have told us is lies so there's no reason to credit this line IMO.

This phase of generative systems is going to get more refined, but it's never going to cross the line into understanding anything - it will never make the jump to knowing what the words or images it spits out mean to a human viewing them. The marketing guys will keep trying to tell us that will change, but the truth is the gulf between here and there is vast. And if they do ever make an AI system that understands what it is making they have created a person, who should get paid for their labour.

In fact I reckon we should be putting together very stringent artificial personhood legislation, expressing the rights of artificial people and the responsibilities of their creators. Not because I expect them to exist any time soon, but because it would create a great disinsentive for AI companies to claim that their next product is indistinguishable from a real human.