How will Blizzard handle this new A.I. ?? (SORA)!

[Shadowferal]

In that sense, I'd also challenge the notion of "actual creative human" you put forward. Much like photographers outsourced much of their craft to their equipment, that only resulted in an even greater emphasis of their intellectual faculty - i.e. being able to paint/draw became largely unimportant for that medium while being able to select what you are depicting and in what way became more important. So in much the same way, you could argue that someone who's "just" an AI prompter is simply outsourcing a lot of the creative "manual" work to the AI, while the selection of subject, scene, etc. become all the more important. A case could be made that this is an even purer form of creativity, because all that matters is the thought that goes into the composition, while its execution becomes almost a mundane detail.

The Louvre would have words with you.

[Biomega]

The Louvre would have words with you.

Why? This is almost exactly the debate that was held with the advent of photography. Art and its conceptions change over time. They always have. There's nothing special or surprising about that.

[Relapses]

But AI itself isn't really a genre of content, it's merely a tool for creation. And I think it'd be more comparable to a new style of animation that people will get more accustomed to over time. Sorta like the gradual shift from 2D animation to 3D animation, or from a western animation style to a more japanese style or to a hyper-cartoony 'bean mouth' style. The way I see it, it isn't here to replace, it's here to exist. Like just because we have 3D animation now doesn't mean that all other styles have to go away. Just because we have AI generated content doesn't mean all other types go away either; it will simply exist alongside in various degrees. Just like how 3D is even mostly used in live action films in the form of Visual Effects. These are tools to assist production, not to replace.

Right -- I'm actually with you here. I don't mean to come off like I hate AI or that I think it's terrible and all applications of it are bad. I've seen some absolutely incredible applications for it, particularly for music videos.

Here are a few examples of what I mean:







In each of these music videos the AI actually lends itself pretty well to the presentation, elevating these songs to something that they otherwise may not have been able to achieve. That's, fundamentally, I think, art ... even if it's aided by computers. This stuff I'm perfectly okay with and I'd love to see more.

That said, I can tell instantly that each of these videos are AI-assisted. It still has a very distinct fluidity to it which is immediately discernable -- a bit of an uncanny valley. I don't know if the current neural network AIs will ever be able to get around this and I think that's the innate problem with them. There are people who think that this form of AI is going to be its own separate form of media consumption and while I see where they're coming from I'm still not fully sold that's how it's going to play out.

- - - Updated - - -

Why, though?

What is it, precisely, that is "dystopian" about that? Other than some simplistic nonhuman=bad equation.

There's a bit of a Catch 22 here. The current models learn from humans, right? But what will future models learn from if we all-but-abandon traditional human creativity in lieu of vastly more efficient AI? Past AI? That's before we even consider how this discourages people from ever taking interest in creative fields in the first place. People already get meme'd for taking up degrees in art. Are colleges going to stop traditional art classes to teach students how to better write prompts instead? I don't know. It just feels... strange. Like I said in my previous posts, I'm not even sure if the current iteration of AI can even get to a point where that's even a question but on a philosophical level I'd simply rather live in a world where creative people at least... exist, y'know?

[epigramx]

Obviously the tech will improve

Promised Improvements are often exaggerated, because there are billions of dollars to be made by those companies ..promising improvements.

The deep truth is that it may take decades; computational power alone will not eliminate uncanny valley; A.G.I. will need much more.

[Soeroah]

"Oh wow, people are mad at the idiot post I made expressing a hope thousands of people lose their livelihoods because I'm jealous at their learned skills"

No shit. I've seen some dumb takes in my time but wow.

As for the thread's purpose, Blizz won't care if people use AI to make fan art, they'll care if people try to then sell what they create for a profit.

[Biomega]

There's a bit of a Catch 22 here. The current models learn from humans, right? But what will future models learn from if we all-but-abandon traditional human creativity in lieu of vastly more efficient AI?

That would be bad.

If it happens.

It won't, though. You can't stop humans from being creative. It's practically an innate drive. It can wax and wane across a society based on the circumstances, but for tens of thousands of years, no matter where and no matter when, humans have made art. Not simply for gain or profit, either. We can't help ourselves.

What's going to change is how many people are professional artists. To be sure. But we're not going to just stop making art because AI can do it better and faster.

And as I said, chances are what'll happen is we'll just make more of the kind of art AI can't do or is bad at.

That's before we even consider how this discourages people from ever taking interest in creative fields in the first place. People already get meme'd for taking up degrees in art.

That's not really a big problem. A lot of those degrees aren't for making art as much as they are for critical analysis of art. And a good portion are also art forms AI will not encroach on anytime soon, like performing arts (excepting film, of course, where it absolutely will). What'll happen is things will shift the same way they shifted when we stopped training as many blacksmiths and farriers and whatnot as those jobs were replaced by industrialized manufacturing. That's just part of progress.

Are colleges going to stop traditional art classes to teach students how to better write prompts instead?

It's possible. And what's wrong with that? We stopped doing stenography classes and started teaching people typing instead. Completely mundane transition. And as I said earlier, a lot of those classes are about critical thinking about art anyway, and that remains relevant. Analyzing art was always mostly about what art means to us, anyway; not what it meant to the artist. You can critically analyze AI art, too. In fact speaking as a professor of literature, I relish the prospect of finally getting people to abandon the idea of author intentionality and trying to approach text by finding out "what the author meant to say" rather than what the text is actually saying. We don't require authorial intent to interpret what a text does. Audiences are way more important. And the same goes for a lot of art, too. And besides, you can simply transition into a new conception of authorship and consider the promp rather than the AI.

I don't know. It just feels... strange.

That seems to be the prevailing argument in many of these debates, I've found. It's effectively and at its core an Argument from Ick fallacy. Which is fine. There's value in visceral responses. They just don't have a ton of discursive purchase.

Like I said in my previous posts, I'm not even sure if the current iteration of AI can even get to a point where that's even a question but on a philosophical level I'd simply rather live in a world where creative people at least... exist, y'know?

And they will. Until we stop being human one way or another (or whatever the transhumanists want to get to). Human beings are creative, almost whether they want to or not. All that will change is how we express it, and how much, and - most crucially - how much of it we can use to make a living. Creativity won't disappear. It can't, really.

[Shadowferal]

There's a bit of a Catch 22 here. The current models learn from humans, right? But what will future models learn from if we all-but-abandon traditional human creativity in lieu of vastly more efficient AI? Past AI? That's before we even consider how this discourages people from ever taking interest in creative fields in the first place. People already get meme'd for taking up degrees in art. Are colleges going to stop traditional art classes to teach students how to better write prompts instead? I don't know. It just feels... strange. Like I said in my previous posts, I'm not even sure if the current iteration of AI can even get to a point where that's even a question but on a philosophical level I'd simply rather live in a world where creative people at least... exist, y'know?

Hmf...the truly creative go home, and the AI learns from the mediocre and less.

[arandomuser]

99.9% of use of these AI will be foreign intelligence agencies using it to disrupt society with misinformation

for the 0.01% that is used for actualy business purposes if you could get it to do alot of the hard work of making a cinematic, but the content of that cinematic is still basically what the author intended it could only be good, because i know people always wanted more CGI cinematics but its been too expensive because of how much work it takes rendering all of the individual parts but if you can just get ai to do it i think it will be good for video games

[Glaziola]

The second someone makes a video of Jaina and Thrall and puts it behind a paywall (like Patreon!) they'll send in the Ninjas.

Wait, is this nintendo?!

[loras]

Wait, is this nintendo?!

"Nintendo™ is a copyrighted name, cease and desist using our intellectual prooperty!" - Nintendo, probably

[mbit2]

99.9% of use of these AI will be foreign intelligence agencies using it to disrupt society with misinformation

Just look at tech news and you see us universities working hard on manipulating online discourse with ai chatbots. Since its public you can expect companies to buy their own bots too.
Everyone is gonna do it. Future real challenge is finding the human among all the botposts.

[loras]

99.9% of use of these AI will be foreign intelligence agencies using it to disrupt society with misinformation

for the 0.01% that is used for actualy business purposes if you could get it to do alot of the hard work of making a cinematic, but the content of that cinematic is still basically what the author intended it could only be good, because i know people always wanted more CGI cinematics but its been too expensive because of how much work it takes rendering all of the individual parts but if you can just get ai to do it i think it will be good for video games

It first has to get out of dog-uncanny-valley first.
But yeah the involved processing power does make that seem likely.

As always though it will bite them in the ass, as people learn to distrust video imagery and government agencies alike by default. The old east bloc countries are a very good reminder of what that does to its own system, governments and people.