Why do AI bros and other staunch AI defenders seem happy about the potential of killing off the creative industries?

It’s because AI enthusiasts are genuinely proud and in awe of their work, and those that are still staunchly pro-AI are unaware of how much damage they have already done.

Two key facts:

• Generative AI is powerful and amazing
• Generative AI was immediately sold to the capital-owning class and is now being developed and guided by the motivations of profit

Freya Holmér does excellent analysis at around the 43:00 mark. She notes that AI represents a story of human triumph, and the innate quality or “coolness” that lies in that. But on the other hand, she explains how generative AI has quite quickly become entirely devorced from positively amplifying human expression. Exceptions to this exist, where people use AI creatively as an extension of themselves, but are exceptions only and not the rule.

I see other threads here discussing “is there even demand for authentic human art?” And those discussions ignore that yes, there is, and that authentic human art was scraped from copyright holders on the internet without their consent. “Is there even demand for human art?” is what is being asked, when the technology in question was immediately bought up and exploited by billion-dollar companies who are gaining immensely more value from generative AI than even the most lucrative AI-artist.

I encourage “AI bros” reading this to look around and engage with the art world. Genuinely. If you have always wanted to be a screenwriter or painter hobbyist, go engage with those stories. Go and see the human experiences, training and techniques that are visible in every line and brush stroke. Creativity is quite a wonderful and powerful thing and I always encourage it.

Then, after you have experienced these works to a new degree, look back. Don’t even ask “is AI good”—because we all agree, it’s an amazing feat. Instead ask “do I want this technology to be monopolized by corporate interests?”

These are people without talents who have to pay creatives for cool things. All they are thinking is that they’ll be able to get the creative assets themselves for free from now on, to run their businesses or whatever. That’s it. They don’t care about the cow when they believe they’re going to get the milk for free.

The invention of production lines didn't mean that nobody appreciated hand-built cars any longer - it just meant a cheaper option was now available to more people.

The invention of phonographs, records, cd etc, didn't mean that nobody appreciated live music anymore - it just meant that there was now a more accessible option available.

Every job in arts and engineering can, has and will be automated to some extent - it doesn't mean the death of those industries, or a lack of appreciation for the creativity involved.

I think the real benefit comes from when the creatives use the tools to do the heavy lifting. Every new innovation sees a glut of low-effort money-saving cash-ins. After a while, however, these fall to the wayside as the people who actually have the skills take over again.

More than ten years ago, I wrote a song for my daughter. I recorded it, animated a little video, and uploaded it to youTube. I'd written several more songs for her, but had never found the time necessary to actually record the songs and create videos for them. Because of AI tools, I've finally been able to make significant headway on a couple of songs/videos that I've had rattling around in my head for years.

We're just in a transition period. Like George Lucas's over-reliance on CG in the prequels - although it looked pretty great at the time but now looks thoroughly artificial.

Everyone's frame of reference is their own IQ...

So for some people AI seems as smart as their frame of reference, or even better.

They assume their frame of reference is everyone's, so we're in that weird period where dumb people are super excited about AI, and smart people still think it's a gimmick.

Those people who find AI impressive, see it as a means to level the playing field, and it will eventually.

It just means the smarter you are, the longer it's going to take to be impressive. Because your frame of reference is just a higher standard.

They'd never be as creative as a creative person, so to them it's switching from relying on a person they have no control over or influence on, to a computer program that will do whatever is asked. To them it generates the same quality as a person, don't forget the most popular media caters to the lowest common denominator, this is the same thing.

Like, it makes sense from their perspective. You just need to realize everyone has a different perspective.

It's human variation

AI can only replace creative industries if the content it produces is better in which case it's a win for the people consuming that content. When it comes to creators themselves, it'll be harder to earn a living that way but on the other hand, none of the artists I know are making it for the money and they would continue making it even if AI was better. Myself included.

However, I don't think it's either-or situation. AI will just come alongside human made content. There's a ton of content creators I'd continue following no matter how good AI would get.

How can someone not value the ingenuity and creativity behind a work of art?

Their point of view is that if people do actually value this then there will always be a market for it.

If they don't, there won't.

I suppose a long time ago the radio and gramophone looked like they'd been the end of live performing musicians but they still exist, everything's just continually changing..

The general scene can do much more now. It's a tool and silly to stick your head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist. Understandably, it brought up the bar for entry level work but it will bring up the quality and the sheer amount eventually.

All facets of gen ai are a real boon for things like indie video games and animations once you get past the constant pessimism. I'm insanely excited for llm driven npcs and things of that nature as well.

It also makes correcting documents a breeze work wise. I'd give a lot just for that tbh.

Why do people who post loaded questions approve of pedophilia and torturing kittens?

It's legitimate to question why we would want to replace human artistry with AI. Somebody might have asked the same question about replacing hand tools with power tools. But I wouldn't be a longtime amateur woodworker if all I had to work with was hand tools - the work would be far too time consuming and the learning curve much too high. Or ask content creators who are able to get their ideas in front of the public without learning HTML, CSS or Javascript, what they think of content creation tools. Was making MySpace etc. available 20 years ago a bad thing because it changed our view of programming?

Enabling millions of people to jump traditional entry barriers is a good thing, even if it means we no longer look at the creative process as being reserved for people with natural talent or years of training. TBH you might as well object to Bob Ross teaching people easier ways to paint, or to people who teach breadbaking on YouTube - it turns out bread is dead simple btw, you should try it.

But more to the point, the genie is out of the bottle, and no amount of objection is going to stuff it back in.

I'm someone who talks about AI a lot on lemmy, people might call me pro AI although I consider myself to be neither pro nor anti, but admittedly, optimistic about AI in general. I work with people in the creative industry, artists, writers, designers, you name it.

As others have mentioned already, your question to my knowledge does not reflect most people's view on AI neither online and even less so in real life. And I talk and participate in communities that are overwhelmingly pro AI. The "AI bros" you mention sound like caricatures to me.

There are some who have become bitter by lies and misinformation spread about AI that are intentionally hateful as a kind of reverse gotcha, but thats about it. You have those on the anti AI side as well for different reasons.

I dont consider AI to be anywhere close to being a threat to the industry, other than indirectly through the forces of capitalism and mismanagement. Your question indeed seems very insane to me. Most people that use and talk about AI to me seem more interested in using it to make new creative works, or enhance existing works to greater depth in the same time. Creative people are human too and have limited time, and often their time is already cut short by deadlines and their work has been systematically undervalued even before AI.

AI as it currently stands on its own simply has no feeling of direction. Without much effort you can get very pretty, elegant, interesting, but ultimately meaningless things from it. This cannot replace anyone, because such content while intriguing doesnt capture attention for long. It also cannot do complex tasks such as discussing with stakeholders or remaining consistent across work and feedback.

With a creative person at the wheel of the AI though, something special can happen. It can give AI the direction it needs to bring back that meaning.

This is a perspective a lot of people miss, since they only see AI as ChatGPT or Midjourney, not realizing that these are proprietary (not open source) front ends to the technology that essentially hide all the controls and options the technology has, because these things are essentially a new craft on their own and to this day very little people are even in the progress of mastering them.

Everyone knows about prompts, but you can do much more than that depending on the model. Some image models allow you to provide your own input image, and even additional images that control aspects of the image like depth, layout, outlines. And text models allow you to pack a ton of pre existing data that completely guide what it will output next, as well as provide control over the internal math that decides how it comes to its guess for the next word.

Without a creative and inventive person behind the wheel, you get generic AI material we all know. And with such a person, you get material at times indistinguishable from normal material. These people are already plentiful in the creative industry, and they are not going anywhere, and new people that meet this criteria are always welcome. Art is for everyone, and especially those who are driven.

Really the only threat to the creative industry in regards to AI is that some wish to bully and coerce those who use the technology into submission and force them to reject it, and even avoid considering it altogether like dogma. This creates a submissive group that will never learn how to operate AI models. Should AI ever become neccesary to work in the creative industry (it currently doesnt look like it) these people will be absolutely decimated by the ones that kept an open mind, and more importantly, the youth of tomorrow that always is more open to new technologies. This is a story of the ages whenever new technology comes around, as it never treats those that reject it kindly, if it sticks around.

The loom and the Luddites, cars and horses, cameras and painters, mine workers and digging machines, human calculators and mechanical calculators, the list goes on.

So no, being pro AI doesnt neccesarily mean you are participating in the downfall of the creative industry. Neither does being anti AI. But spreading falsehoods and stifling healthy discussion, that can kill any industry except those built on dishonesty.

There seems to be two ways of viewing generative AI. The first, which many anti-AI people take is that Generative AI will be captured by big business and will decimate the creatives financial streams. The outcome will be less art with less meaning and shallow profit seeking art will rule the world.

Then there is the flip side. Everyone in them has a story they want to tell. Everyone has a artistic vision they want to produce. Everyone has a song they want to write and sing. Everyone, if given enough time, talent, practice, resources, and yes, money, could produce something beautiful, deep, and unique to themselves. But they don't. Why? Because there are barriers. Barriers among barriers. It is the hope of the "AI bros" that AI will tear down those barriers and allow more people to create.

But because these people have never created before, their work will obviously not be up to pair with professionals. Just give it time. In the words of Randall Munroe: If we want to write Ulysses, our generation might not be sexting enough.

We don't mourn the loss of blacksmiths who put time and skill into creating a pan or pot. We don't care about the glass blowers who are no longer hired to blow drinking glasses. We don't miss the portrait artists who painted not just for art, but to create an historical record.

History is filled with jobs performed by skilled labor that were made redundant with technology. AI is just a point in a long line.

I can appreciate a sunset or a flower without needing these things to have "a human behind it all".

With that said, art is far from the most important potential application of AI. I am merely amused that right now I can ask a computer to draw a cow in the style of Monet and get a pretty good result. The amazing thing is not present-day capability (which is remarkable but not world-changing) but rather what the rate of progress implies about the near future. I think that a computer better than any human at everything (or at least at every intellectual task) is likely within my lifetime.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

One note I never hear sung is AI's ability to jump-start creative works. EDIT: Proof at the end!

For example, I wrote a horror short that was stuck in my head. What if I had used AI to write it for me? I certainly would not have used the output verbatim, not even close, but it might have presented me some twists, vocabulary, structure, etc., that I had not thought of.

Same goes for code. I had an idea to automate Google Calendar entries with certain events at work. Couldn't quite get it right, had ChatGPT write it. Did it work? Of course not, but I found the pieces I needed to put it together.

Maybe you just need the right words. "explain to my wife what depression is like" That worked well!

I'm extremely creative, but not in the typical artistic ways. What I'm good at is taking junk and upcycling it into useful end products. I could input garbage items I found, see what an image generator or chat does with it. Well, let me put my money where my mouth is.

(Pulled this idea out my butt just now, no planning, testing prompts, totally ad lib, input and output quoted as-is.)

Towed a large, sealed, flat, thick, plastic container out of the river last month. (Fuck me, about sank the canoe untangling it from the dead fall!) ChatGPT: "what can I make with a large, plastic gas tank?"

1. Water Storage Tank

Repurpose the gas tank to store water, especially for outdoor activities like camping, gardening, or as an emergency backup. You can install a spigot at the bottom to make it easy to dispense water.

LOL, that was the idea! Going to hang it in a tree at camp, pump creek water into it with tiny chlorine tabs, make another shower. Or maybe use it for the bathroom I need to make? Hmmm...

2. Compost Bin

With some modifications like drilling holes for ventilation, a plastic gas tank can be transformed into a compost bin. The tank’s large size provides ample room for organic waste.

Great idea, but I've got all the space for compost I need. Although... Put it on a frame so it can be spun?

3. Outdoor Planter

If the gas tank has a sturdy base, it can be converted into a large planter. Cut the tank to create drainage holes, fill it with soil, and plant flowers, vegetables, or herbs.

Holy shit! I've been plotting on making floating, yoga-pad mats so I can grow in the creek without animals screwing it up. I have circular saw blades, can fit pots I already have or scrounge for free. I can make my own soil from local organic muck and sand. Let's see, play around with the buoyancy. Guess what I'm doing tomorrow. Hot DAMN am I stoked!

tl;dr: AI will add to our creative endeavors, not replace them.

They absolutely hate anyone who is better than them at anything. They hate programmers. They hate artists. They hate their secretary that knows more about them than they do.

Getting rid of everyone would soothe their egos.

Becau$e rea$ons.

Hello,

Let me chime in as someone who would probably fall under your definition of an AI defender.

How do I defend AI? Well, I think AI really flips the world on it's head. Including all the good and the bad that comes from it. I still think the industrialization is a good metaphor. Things changed a lot. A lot of people were pissed. Now we don't mind as much anymore, because it's the new normal, but at the time, most people weren't happy about it.

Same with AI. I think overall it's a plus, but obviously it comes with new pitfalls. LLM hallucinations, the need for more complex copyright and licensing definitions, impersonation, etc. . It's not entirely great, but I totality, when the dust settles, it will be a helpful tool to make our lives easier.

So why do I defend AI? Basically, because I think it will happen, whether you like it or not. Even if the law will initially make it really strict, society will change their mind about it. It might be slowly, but it's just too useful to outlaw.

Going back to industrialization metaphor, we adapted it over a longer period of time. Yes, it forever changed how most things are made, but it wasn't necessarily a bad thing. It's just a thing. And even though lots of logistics chains are streamlined, there's always gonna be handmade things and unique things. Ofc, not everything is handmade, but some important things still are. And for both of them, there's some stuff that's totally fine to be automated, and then there's some stuff that just loses it's value if we just gloss over with automation.

Now I don't want AI to just roam free (ofc not, there's some really bad stuff happening and I'm not pretending that it's not) but what we need is laws and enforcement against it, and not against AI.

Imagine if most countries outlawed AI. It would make all AI companies and users move operation to that one country that still allows it, making it impossible to oversee and enforce against. So we better find a good strategy to allow it for all the things where it doesn't do damage.

Now let me address some specific points you brought up;

In the near future no one will "need" to be a writer

But isn't this already how it's going? Only people who wanna be a writer are one, anf it's good that way.

Also, AI can only remix the art that's already there, so if you're doing something completely unique, AI won't ever be able to replace you. I find that somehow validating for the people who make awesome and unique art. I think that's how it should be.

Do these people not see or feel the human behind the art at all?

I do. And that's the exact reason I'm not concerned. Everyone who puts in the work to make something very particular to them should not be impacted in any way.

Now there's an argument to be made how consent for training data is given (opt-in / opt-out) and what licensing for the models can and should look like, but this is my very basic opinion.

Are these really opinions you have encountered outside of the internet?

I may have about one friend out of 30 who thinks like me.

I mean I am living proof we exist, but I can't say this is a popular opinion, which is fair.

I don't want people to mindlessly agree, I want them to come their own opinions because of their own research and presumptions.

I also don't expect you to agree with me, but I hope some people will understand my perspective and maybe this brings a bit more nuance to this bipolar conversation.

with ai making content they will never have to worry about some sort of original content upsetting the selling of continous reboots.

That's hype. AI is just another sort of hammer. In the hands of a talented artist, they can churn out masterpieces in hours instead of days. Polarising people is modern marketing. Threating peoples bread and butter is a good way to do that.

I'm no AI bro, but I do think this concern is a bit overblown. The monetary value in art is not in simply having a picture of something, a whole infamous subset of "modern art" commands high prices despite being simple enough that virtually anybody could recreate it. A lot is simply in that people desire art created by a specific person, be it a painting that they made, or commissioning a still active artist to create something, or someone buying a band's merch to support their work. AI simply does not have the same parasocial association to it. And of course, it doesn't at all replicate the non-monetary value that creating something can give to someone.

I can, at most, imagine it getting integrated into things like advertising where one really doesn't care who created the work; but even then there's probably still value in having a human artist review the result to be sure of it's quality, and that kind of art tends to add the least cultural value anyway.

That isn't zero impact obviously, that kind of advertisement or corporate clip art or such does still pay people, but it's a far cry from the end of creative human endeavor, or even people getting paid to be creative.

Creative is great, industry not so much.

What would be the point of AI replacing people to create art?

The essence of art is that it came from the mind and talent (or skill) from another human being. It's a thread connecting our humanity through time and space.

No one will be looking back at AI art the same way we look back hundreds or thousands of years at paintings, sculptures, musical compositions, or even real photographs.

We might enjoy some AI generated content for the novelty, but it's soulless.

"Hey, there's Evan. "He's a young guy. "He likes the Stereophonics."

My daughter (15f) is an artist and I work at an AI company as a software engineer. We've had a lot of interesting debates. Most recently, she defined Art this way:

"Art is protest against automation."

We thought of some examples:

• when cave artists made paintings in caves, perhaps they were in a sense protesting the automatic forces of nature that would have washed or eroded away their paintings if they had not sought out caves. By painting something that could outlast themselves, perhaps they wished to express, "I am here!"
• when manufacturing and economic factors made kitsch art possible (cheap figurines, mass reprints, etc.), although more people had access to "art" there was also a sense of loss and blandness, like maybe now that we can afford art, this isn't art, actually?
• when computers can produce images that look beautiful in some way or another, maybe this pushes the artist within each of us to find new ground where economic reproducibility can't reach, and where we can continue the story of protest where originality can stake a claim on the ever-unfolding nature of what it means to be human.

I defined Economics this way:

"Economics is the automation of what nature does not provide."

An example:

• long ago, nature automated the creation of apples. People picked free apples, and there was no credit card machine. But humans wanted more apples, and more varieties of apples, and tastier varieties that nature wouldn't make soon enough. So humans created jobs--someone to make apple varieties faster than nature, and someone to plant more apple trees than nature, and someone to pick all of the apples that nature was happy to let rot on the ground as part of its slow orchard re-planting process.

Jobs are created in one of two ways: either by destroying the ability to automatically create things (destroying looms, maybe), or by making people want new things (e.g. the creation of jobs around farming Eve Online Interstellar Kredits). Whenever an artist creates something new that has value, an investor will want to automate its creation.

Where Art and Economics fight is over automation: Art wants to find territory that cannot be automated. Economics wants to discover ways to efficiently automate anything desirable. As long as humans live in groups, I suppose this cycle does not have an end.

Because AI bros love the smell of their own farts and they get off by convincing other people that they should also smell their farts. (Only partly /s)

But more seriously, I'd say it's just a symptom of the world we live in where there is tremendous pressure to commodify and commercialize everything in the most "efficient" way possible, including creativity.

They’re high on their own supply.

People who are divorced from the fallout of their creation. More corporate-think where they chase the objective that costs jobs in favor of the bottom line, even if it’s a shitty idea, and just let it “sort itself out”. The “sorting out” part being not having to deal with any moral, emotional, or financial consequences personally for the result of their pursuits.

The best example I can think of, and this is being very generous to the AI bros, is that they're trying to compare it to obsolete creative positions. Think about animation. Each frame used to have to be hand drawn and colored entirely by hand. There was a lot of heavy lifting going on in the process that weren't necessarily creative but still required for the final product. I think they're trying to say that we'll need less work like this.

I'm not sure I agree or how accurate their claims are.

Edit: I'm just explaining what I think their point of view is. It's not my personal opinion.

Because they like money, and anything they say about creative industries is just silly words they don’t mean that you shouldn’t take seriously. Zero meaning in anything they say 🤷‍♂️

There are people out there without any kind of conscience or memorse. If they can somehow make a profit, they'll sell somehing to you or anyone who is willing to listen.

Same reason why Israelis are fine with doing genocide in gaza