I can't bring myself to believe that artificial intelligence will bring an end to creative labor. you can't reduce creative labor to the artifacts it produces, and that the value of those artifacts doesn't inhere purely in their form. sure, I think a lot of the value in art comes from, like, visceral spectacle, but some amount also comes from being able to identify and appreciate the choices made in their production—and people are really good at identifying and distinguishing these choices

which isn't to say that new technology doesn't alter displace creative labor, because it obviously does that (and has for thousands of years). but there's a reason that it takes twenty minutes for the credits of a pixar movie to scroll past, and I think it's at least partially because the availability of automated tools opens up larger possibility spaces for sophisticated and interesting creative choices

here's an extreme example of what I mean—from an AI paper about interpolating latent space in GANs (the technology lately touted as producing "the first piece of AI-generated art" christies.com/features/A-colla) has a lot of math but then ends in a sentence stating, essentially, "I want to make it pretty, how do I make it pretty???" (from this paper users.aalto.fi/~laines9/public)

@aparrish cold take:
(auction) sales do not correlate to artistic merit

· · brutaldon · 0 · 0 · 0
Sign in to participate in the conversation

cybrespace: the social hub of the information superhighway jack in to the mastodon fediverse today and surf the dataflow through our cybrepunk, slightly glitchy web portal support us on patreon or liberapay!