Years ago when it was a thing. Our family company used to build film sets as well as dramatic ride backgrounds like "The Grand Canyon" for Disney World. Good money back in the day .. secret skills, learnt on the hoof.
An evolution of mistakes made on BBC sets, which were industry accepted "bread n butter" testing grounds .
We should embrace AI in cases where it can assist and not replace human ingenuity. Regardless of what happens, people will appreciate a real actor and a real painter over an artificial substitute. To avoid confusion, real painters and actors could evidence their work by opening up art and film studios to the public. People could pay to watch a painter paint (while being able to enjoy accompanying features such as refreshments and opportunities to paint their own pictures etc). I think as long as the real thing can be discerned, there will always be a an appreciation of it by at least moderately sophisticated people.
I share your concerns about AI and the devaluing of the human aspect of art. I am also terrified about what it could do to employment for huge sectors of the economy. But I would be lying if I said that I hadn't benefitted from it both professionally and creatively.
I am currently writing an illustrated novel (every page of prose has an illustration or comic panels to accompany it), and I am using AI to help generate the backgrounds for the illustrations, as well as help me come up with graphic visuals for my world such as flags, logos, and icons.
Even with AI assistance, this thing has become a labour that has devoured hundreds of hours. I work full time, and I have a family to support. Without AI I am confident to say that I would NEVER get it done, and there would be one more story untold.
Is it selfish of me to use AI this way, knowing the dangers? I don't know. All I can say is that, for me, it has turned an impossible daydream into a distant possibility.
I think if we get clear on what art is we become more aware of how much it is a purely human process and product, then we can relegate AI product to its proper place, either as a mere adjunct in commercial art (get the AI to do umpteen scabbards for a videogame, pick the best one, tweak it), or as something to be mangled, whose accidents are to be used to make real art.
[Which was always how (speaking as an old musician) we treated synths back in the early days, in the 80s, and later digital fx as they started coming in - the least important thing was their "official" use, what they were designed to do, the most important thing was the MISUSE of them that sparked imagination in a way that wouldn't have been possible before the possibility of that particular kind of imagination-sparker arose.]
So what is it really, what's going on when an artist is creating? It think it's something like the firming up and bringing into concrete reality of some evanescent vision in the mind. And that's the "struggle" aspect of it.
One senses something "there" that wants to be born, and the struggle is to get it out in as pure a form as possible. This might suggest I'm thinking of the Mozart thing of having some work fully formed in the mind, but it needn't be that grand - even if it's just moving from one step to another in a carving, or a writing, there's always sometihing inside that seeks expression in a way that FITS IN with what came before. In either case (fully-formed from the brow of Athena or piece building on piece) the mind senses a structure out there in possibility space.
So once we're clear on that, then it becomes absolutely obvious that the name of "art" should be reserved for that uniquely human process (one might say it could be called anything, but that would be denying the diachronic aspect, the history and social context stretching back, the way that all art/music, etc., forms are in part a dialogue between artists down the decades).
[Incidentally, it's probably within most peoples' experience that when they're very, very tired and just about falling asleep they get into what's called a "liminal" state and suddenly it seems like one has access to the "rough working of the mind" - a kind of bibble-babble or speaking in tongues. It seems like the mind works in all known cases on a "generate-and-test" pattern, whether in terms of knowledge seeking or creativity. Part of the mind throws up patterns and another part judges or tests the product of that "generate" part of the mind and says, "yes, no, maybe with this tweak." Etc. The test or critic seems to be the part that filters for communicability: any old pattern might express a private truth or beauty, but to be communicable to others, it has to fit into the larger picture of what people are saying to each other, doing, etc., it has to be understandable.]
My biggest concern with AI film slop is that in the future people will be able to instruct an AI, which has been catechized on their own personal digital footprint to know everything about them, to produce a tailored film made specifically to entertain them personally. The day this happens is the day culture as such dies.
We have already deterritorialized entertainment and reterritorialized it into cyberspace niches. First the internet homogenized, then it fractionated. Now the lingo and references I use are alien to my neighbors and friends but familiar to random people scattered around the globe and if I ever encounter one of them in the wild I am unlikely to know. I just found out that one of my coworkers who has worked for us for two years is a based fren because his youtube handle used part of his real name and he sent a superchat during a stream I was watching and accidentally doxxed himself to me when one of the stream hosts, whom had met him before, asked him if he was (Real name) from (nearby city name) and he confirmed. How many others have I met and never made the connection with?
What happens when there is no longer any shared cultural focal point at all? Right now at least people watch some of the same shows and movies, listen to some of the same music, but the bespoke AI generated future of entertainment threatens to abolish such shared touchstones of culture perhaps entirely if we aren't on guard against it. My hope is that this will be like AR glasses and VR headsets, a niche curiosity that normal people simply don't choose to engage with and to the pods with the bug people who do.
I suspect this will ultimately have a eugenic effect, much like Professor Duttons Woke Eugenics where those not resilient to the temptation of Nozicks Experience Machine become evolutionary dead ends. One can only hope, it is coming for us either way.
Demanding effort and pain from artists comes from the modern, individualistic, and existential conception of art and AI will destroy this conception but not art itself.
The modern conception of art revolves about the myth of the unique individual struggling to create something unique as a vehicle to impose meaning in the world. The medieval/classical conception of art revolved around representing and serving eternal ideas putting the emphasis on those ideas and not the individual. (Notice that I said representing and not creating because in the classical conception of art nothing new is created).
Ai will force us to come back to a medieval/classical conception of art where the individual matters less and the ideas, stories, and emotions will matter more. And you know what? Good. I’m tired of the modern myths of the struggling individual for freedom and creativity.
I agree that granular control is the key. One of the major issues with the current iteration of AI is its probabilistic method for generating output. It is basically guessing the intent of the prompt. I think this is the real challenge for AI developers in the short-medium term. AGI is not required, but more precise communication of intent definitely is. This applies to all applications of AI, not just art.
I think the lack of granular control the writer points out may be one of the main problems with AI art, as in, when you conceive of making something almost always the finished result is radically different than what you first saw in your mind's eye. In the process of making the thing countless alterations are made when you realise 'a better way to do it'. In filmmaking, you often of great films that some memorable scene was very different in the script but on the day of shooting someone felt ill, there was another suggestion, it was raining etc so they shot it differently and something magical happened.
The low involvement of using AI prompts loses the art-making process but AI also misses those 'happy accidents' that can vastly improve art. AI could produce good work, but I wonder if it will make things more along the lines of Damien Hirst or Patricia Piccinini who presumably make a direction to their craftspeople then return when the thing's done, creating something that's technically accomplished but flat? Greater control may help alleviate that but I wonder if you'd still miss the 'lightning in a bottle', serendipitous quality of great art?
Some great art has apparently been created quickly and easily, e.g. Shakespeare is said to be have written so, also Mozart, but I suspect vast energy was involved all the same.
There is generally some element of automatic routine work in art, e.g. Shakespeare often adapted extant material (e.g. from Plutarch's Lives) often keeping particular phrases, likewise Mozart didn't compose ex nihilo but rather from an existing tradition. I guess AI could function as something like a springboard, or how painters like Titian had apprentices paint the less demanding bits. I don't like it, but to quote Peter O'Hanrahahanrahan, I might have to go along with it.
Presumably Shakespeare and Mozart at those times had great creative energy built up within themselves just waiting for an opportunity to release, like a dam bursting, and so was not in a sense laborious.
I have written some songs which took a lot of effort to create, arrange, and record. A friend of mine has never written one, but recently ‘created’ one by typing a few prompts into AI. It actually sounded quite good.
I must admit my basic reaction to AI in the creative fields is one of hatred, but it’s great the way you address the topic in much more depth and detail.
I despise the default use of the word "content" by people who are on the Internet.
It's very noticeable regsrding people on social media, particularly prostitutes in all but name.
I have no idea how to even get onto & how they make money through social media like Only Fans, TikTok & all the rest which I don't know about, but know exist. These types simply produce totally banal scenes (a much more precise & appropriate word). They think of themselves as business owners. They aren't, but digital technologies allow them to anoint themselves with that dignity.
Years ago when it was a thing. Our family company used to build film sets as well as dramatic ride backgrounds like "The Grand Canyon" for Disney World. Good money back in the day .. secret skills, learnt on the hoof.
An evolution of mistakes made on BBC sets, which were industry accepted "bread n butter" testing grounds .
We should embrace AI in cases where it can assist and not replace human ingenuity. Regardless of what happens, people will appreciate a real actor and a real painter over an artificial substitute. To avoid confusion, real painters and actors could evidence their work by opening up art and film studios to the public. People could pay to watch a painter paint (while being able to enjoy accompanying features such as refreshments and opportunities to paint their own pictures etc). I think as long as the real thing can be discerned, there will always be a an appreciation of it by at least moderately sophisticated people.
I share your concerns about AI and the devaluing of the human aspect of art. I am also terrified about what it could do to employment for huge sectors of the economy. But I would be lying if I said that I hadn't benefitted from it both professionally and creatively.
I am currently writing an illustrated novel (every page of prose has an illustration or comic panels to accompany it), and I am using AI to help generate the backgrounds for the illustrations, as well as help me come up with graphic visuals for my world such as flags, logos, and icons.
Even with AI assistance, this thing has become a labour that has devoured hundreds of hours. I work full time, and I have a family to support. Without AI I am confident to say that I would NEVER get it done, and there would be one more story untold.
Is it selfish of me to use AI this way, knowing the dangers? I don't know. All I can say is that, for me, it has turned an impossible daydream into a distant possibility.
A good example, thank you.
I think if we get clear on what art is we become more aware of how much it is a purely human process and product, then we can relegate AI product to its proper place, either as a mere adjunct in commercial art (get the AI to do umpteen scabbards for a videogame, pick the best one, tweak it), or as something to be mangled, whose accidents are to be used to make real art.
[Which was always how (speaking as an old musician) we treated synths back in the early days, in the 80s, and later digital fx as they started coming in - the least important thing was their "official" use, what they were designed to do, the most important thing was the MISUSE of them that sparked imagination in a way that wouldn't have been possible before the possibility of that particular kind of imagination-sparker arose.]
So what is it really, what's going on when an artist is creating? It think it's something like the firming up and bringing into concrete reality of some evanescent vision in the mind. And that's the "struggle" aspect of it.
One senses something "there" that wants to be born, and the struggle is to get it out in as pure a form as possible. This might suggest I'm thinking of the Mozart thing of having some work fully formed in the mind, but it needn't be that grand - even if it's just moving from one step to another in a carving, or a writing, there's always sometihing inside that seeks expression in a way that FITS IN with what came before. In either case (fully-formed from the brow of Athena or piece building on piece) the mind senses a structure out there in possibility space.
So once we're clear on that, then it becomes absolutely obvious that the name of "art" should be reserved for that uniquely human process (one might say it could be called anything, but that would be denying the diachronic aspect, the history and social context stretching back, the way that all art/music, etc., forms are in part a dialogue between artists down the decades).
[Incidentally, it's probably within most peoples' experience that when they're very, very tired and just about falling asleep they get into what's called a "liminal" state and suddenly it seems like one has access to the "rough working of the mind" - a kind of bibble-babble or speaking in tongues. It seems like the mind works in all known cases on a "generate-and-test" pattern, whether in terms of knowledge seeking or creativity. Part of the mind throws up patterns and another part judges or tests the product of that "generate" part of the mind and says, "yes, no, maybe with this tweak." Etc. The test or critic seems to be the part that filters for communicability: any old pattern might express a private truth or beauty, but to be communicable to others, it has to fit into the larger picture of what people are saying to each other, doing, etc., it has to be understandable.]
My biggest concern with AI film slop is that in the future people will be able to instruct an AI, which has been catechized on their own personal digital footprint to know everything about them, to produce a tailored film made specifically to entertain them personally. The day this happens is the day culture as such dies.
We have already deterritorialized entertainment and reterritorialized it into cyberspace niches. First the internet homogenized, then it fractionated. Now the lingo and references I use are alien to my neighbors and friends but familiar to random people scattered around the globe and if I ever encounter one of them in the wild I am unlikely to know. I just found out that one of my coworkers who has worked for us for two years is a based fren because his youtube handle used part of his real name and he sent a superchat during a stream I was watching and accidentally doxxed himself to me when one of the stream hosts, whom had met him before, asked him if he was (Real name) from (nearby city name) and he confirmed. How many others have I met and never made the connection with?
What happens when there is no longer any shared cultural focal point at all? Right now at least people watch some of the same shows and movies, listen to some of the same music, but the bespoke AI generated future of entertainment threatens to abolish such shared touchstones of culture perhaps entirely if we aren't on guard against it. My hope is that this will be like AR glasses and VR headsets, a niche curiosity that normal people simply don't choose to engage with and to the pods with the bug people who do.
I suspect this will ultimately have a eugenic effect, much like Professor Duttons Woke Eugenics where those not resilient to the temptation of Nozicks Experience Machine become evolutionary dead ends. One can only hope, it is coming for us either way.
Hey Woes,
I just listened to Future Magic Part 1
It was a great essay as expected.
However, it was rather ironic to listen to an AI generated voice read your essay lamenting the advance of AI.
I miss regularly hearing your voice now that you no longer do the Monthly Gram.
Perhaps once in a while you could do the voice recording of your essays??
Sincerely
Joe Boston
Demanding effort and pain from artists comes from the modern, individualistic, and existential conception of art and AI will destroy this conception but not art itself.
The modern conception of art revolves about the myth of the unique individual struggling to create something unique as a vehicle to impose meaning in the world. The medieval/classical conception of art revolved around representing and serving eternal ideas putting the emphasis on those ideas and not the individual. (Notice that I said representing and not creating because in the classical conception of art nothing new is created).
Ai will force us to come back to a medieval/classical conception of art where the individual matters less and the ideas, stories, and emotions will matter more. And you know what? Good. I’m tired of the modern myths of the struggling individual for freedom and creativity.
I agree that granular control is the key. One of the major issues with the current iteration of AI is its probabilistic method for generating output. It is basically guessing the intent of the prompt. I think this is the real challenge for AI developers in the short-medium term. AGI is not required, but more precise communication of intent definitely is. This applies to all applications of AI, not just art.
I think the lack of granular control the writer points out may be one of the main problems with AI art, as in, when you conceive of making something almost always the finished result is radically different than what you first saw in your mind's eye. In the process of making the thing countless alterations are made when you realise 'a better way to do it'. In filmmaking, you often of great films that some memorable scene was very different in the script but on the day of shooting someone felt ill, there was another suggestion, it was raining etc so they shot it differently and something magical happened.
The low involvement of using AI prompts loses the art-making process but AI also misses those 'happy accidents' that can vastly improve art. AI could produce good work, but I wonder if it will make things more along the lines of Damien Hirst or Patricia Piccinini who presumably make a direction to their craftspeople then return when the thing's done, creating something that's technically accomplished but flat? Greater control may help alleviate that but I wonder if you'd still miss the 'lightning in a bottle', serendipitous quality of great art?
Some great art has apparently been created quickly and easily, e.g. Shakespeare is said to be have written so, also Mozart, but I suspect vast energy was involved all the same.
There is generally some element of automatic routine work in art, e.g. Shakespeare often adapted extant material (e.g. from Plutarch's Lives) often keeping particular phrases, likewise Mozart didn't compose ex nihilo but rather from an existing tradition. I guess AI could function as something like a springboard, or how painters like Titian had apprentices paint the less demanding bits. I don't like it, but to quote Peter O'Hanrahahanrahan, I might have to go along with it.
Presumably Shakespeare and Mozart at those times had great creative energy built up within themselves just waiting for an opportunity to release, like a dam bursting, and so was not in a sense laborious.
I would never print an AI image and hang on my wall. However, I am very much looking forward to the first AI movie made by a non-Big Studio person.
I think the difference is if AI replaces a vision it becomes creepy while if it replaces tools it is, well, just another, improved tool.
I have written some songs which took a lot of effort to create, arrange, and record. A friend of mine has never written one, but recently ‘created’ one by typing a few prompts into AI. It actually sounded quite good.
I must admit my basic reaction to AI in the creative fields is one of hatred, but it’s great the way you address the topic in much more depth and detail.
I despise the default use of the word "content" by people who are on the Internet.
It's very noticeable regsrding people on social media, particularly prostitutes in all but name.
I have no idea how to even get onto & how they make money through social media like Only Fans, TikTok & all the rest which I don't know about, but know exist. These types simply produce totally banal scenes (a much more precise & appropriate word). They think of themselves as business owners. They aren't, but digital technologies allow them to anoint themselves with that dignity.