(no subject)
Aug. 18th, 2022 01:35 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
brin_bellway[cw: discourse, (arguably) apocalypse]
[part 1; part 2; Wayback part 1; Wayback part 2] (by Alexander Wales)
I don't have the guts to say this to his face, but I think he's full of shit.
It's like...he never actually seems to consider the readers' perspective. Here, most notably:
>>I think that in modern times, this is already a huge problem, and AI art is going to make it so much worse. I walk into a library or a bookstore sometimes and see how many of these things are on display, and I feel that same feeling, that there’s so much content you could drown in it all. It makes that howling feeling more intense, as my own contributions to the culture are rendered insignificant.
There's a flipside to that drowning: he *claims* AI art is going to make it so much worse, but from the readers' perspective *the book market is already at full saturation, and so it cannot become meaningfully more so*. We've all heard the jokes about Infinite TBR Lists, right? Why bother having an AI write you something--once the novelty's worn off, anyway--when it's just going to make your TBR list infinity+1?
To deal with the overwhelming possibility-space of books they *could* read, readers in my experience resort to *recommendations*: the social aspect of reading has become more important than ever. Reading a book knowing that nobody else is ever going to read it is *less* lonely than writing something knowing that nobody else is ever going to read it, but it's still lonely: the relationship isn't just between writers and readers, it's between readers and other readers. Please, dude, think for five seconds about the number of times you've read or watched or occasionally listened to something *primarily* because its associated community looked fun, because you wanted to participate in conversations about it with your friends. Or are you telling me your answer is zero?
I was willing to believe him that the visual-art market will look insane after this, because the visual-art market *already* looks completely insane to me: I know I don't understand how [people who think it's possible for visual art to be worth $100] think, so I'll defer to others on predicting how such people will react to AI art being available for pennies.
(although I have to say, a post about technology disrupting the market for paintings that *never talks about the invention of photography* feels...off)
But, as a reader, this doesn't feel true to me at all. I could see myself using this for pornography, but even then only because I have very narrow tastes. For everything else, I have plenty enough to read already, and people to share it with. Why pay more for less?
[part 1; part 2; Wayback part 1; Wayback part 2] (by Alexander Wales)
I don't have the guts to say this to his face, but I think he's full of shit.
It's like...he never actually seems to consider the readers' perspective. Here, most notably:
>>I think that in modern times, this is already a huge problem, and AI art is going to make it so much worse. I walk into a library or a bookstore sometimes and see how many of these things are on display, and I feel that same feeling, that there’s so much content you could drown in it all. It makes that howling feeling more intense, as my own contributions to the culture are rendered insignificant.
There's a flipside to that drowning: he *claims* AI art is going to make it so much worse, but from the readers' perspective *the book market is already at full saturation, and so it cannot become meaningfully more so*. We've all heard the jokes about Infinite TBR Lists, right? Why bother having an AI write you something--once the novelty's worn off, anyway--when it's just going to make your TBR list infinity+1?
To deal with the overwhelming possibility-space of books they *could* read, readers in my experience resort to *recommendations*: the social aspect of reading has become more important than ever. Reading a book knowing that nobody else is ever going to read it is *less* lonely than writing something knowing that nobody else is ever going to read it, but it's still lonely: the relationship isn't just between writers and readers, it's between readers and other readers. Please, dude, think for five seconds about the number of times you've read or watched or occasionally listened to something *primarily* because its associated community looked fun, because you wanted to participate in conversations about it with your friends. Or are you telling me your answer is zero?
I was willing to believe him that the visual-art market will look insane after this, because the visual-art market *already* looks completely insane to me: I know I don't understand how [people who think it's possible for visual art to be worth $100] think, so I'll defer to others on predicting how such people will react to AI art being available for pennies.
(although I have to say, a post about technology disrupting the market for paintings that *never talks about the invention of photography* feels...off)
But, as a reader, this doesn't feel true to me at all. I could see myself using this for pornography, but even then only because I have very narrow tastes. For everything else, I have plenty enough to read already, and people to share it with. Why pay more for less?
no subject
Date: 2022-08-18 08:09 pm (UTC)Capitalists love the concept of art-as-regurgitory but the thing is, they’ve already done it with Save The Cat et al, and if you listen to stuff like the PRH and S&S publisher hearings the top brass have NO IDEA what makes things popular and all but admit to throwing around money randomly. The book market only takes on books that can be “comp(ared)” to similar books published in the last 3-5 years, ensuring an eternal present of sales. The Marvel Cinematic Universe takes up more and more of all visual media, etc. There is more and more money being pushed into homogeneous slopifying of media, and AI art is just another push in that direction, not a “change”.
Also I’m not sure if this guy is familiar with those who commission DnD character art, either. People who are satisfied with “good enough” are already trawling Pinterest and using picrews for images. The point of commissioning is getting an amount of specificity and art direction you can’t get elsewhere, and I’m not sure if AI as a super advanced doll maker will take much of that away, considering those already exist.
no subject
Date: 2022-08-20 01:13 am (UTC)