It's an interesting take on a subject that I've been following for some time. Before I had a career as a commercial photographer, way back in 1981, I did digital imaging on PDP 11 clustered computers attached to an array of Data General removable hard drives. I heard similar arguments. Soon we would not need humans because, in lets say 10 years, or 20 years computers will be smarter than humans. So far this hasn't happened, and probably never will, because humans are creating the algos that power this stuff. It's only as good as the algo can make it. Seth Godin has his own take on many things, but it's only an opinion. Your absolutely spot on in your analysis. I think this AI thing is just adding to the tools, but it isn't going to take over. It's just another tech opium dream where all the things we desire will magically appear out of a bunch of code. Interestingly enough, the winner of this years award at some state fair said in discussing how he created it said getting the words right wasn't easy. Seems as if it's just another creative avenue to explore because it's not like anything else and shows some promise.
I do not have a problem with AI per se. I have enjoyed Topaz, found some good uses for Chat GPT although I still "write" my own material. It is good for research.
I was shocked by his flippant dismissal of artists concerns with "all ideas should be free" nonsense. His books are copyrighted, ya know.
And to say to people who have struggled and bled over creating their art to now just STFU and stop whining, we all get to use your stuff because it's cool absolutely blows my mind.
The take he had was alarmingly anti-human, anti-compassion, anti-artist. NOT something I would ever have expected him to say.
And the nonsense about artists being inspired was the same thing as a machine spitting out composites of pixels is beyond nonsensical.
Or was he trying to say the machine was somehow inspired by all of its input?
Perhaps we have reached that level of crazy, but I am not riding that wagon of stupid... heh.
I think AI has its place, but I also think that it should play by the same rules we all have to play by - and one of those rules is "Attribution".
I want to see the attribution of its supposed "art" just as everyone of us must disclose ours.
I may be less testy then... naww, I'm kind of an ass. Can't help it.
I've been reading Seth Godin since at least the 1990's. Just like any other influencer he has a schtick and he has an audience. He's also been successful in the digital space, so just like Prof Galloway, he can afford a certain type of attitude. I shot advertising content for years, worked with some amazing creatives, probably because I came from the digital side before it became mainstream. I'm retired but I still keep my hand in it through stock, earning "pin money" I use AI everyday in my workflow. I keep up with my favourite clients who are now management, group creative director, or owners of their own shops. I haven't heard any of them embrace it. Only to fool around with. Back in the 2000s there were some Japanese and other shops in the region were using similar tech, and still do today. I get the impression that it's not taking over from humans, mostly because they are hiring, not laying off because they have a computer system. I think this is just another tech trend with all of the tech sector and hedge funds betting on the Next New New Thing. I think that the smartphone displacing a lot of cameras has more impact on the way images are monetized, and there is some career path, than any Generative AI will destroy. And if it does, then I'm sure it's just going to be a lateral arabesque to another New New Thing;0)
It's an interesting take on a subject that I've been following for some time. Before I had a career as a commercial photographer, way back in 1981, I did digital imaging on PDP 11 clustered computers attached to an array of Data General removable hard drives. I heard similar arguments. Soon we would not need humans because, in lets say 10 years, or 20 years computers will be smarter than humans. So far this hasn't happened, and probably never will, because humans are creating the algos that power this stuff. It's only as good as the algo can make it. Seth Godin has his own take on many things, but it's only an opinion. Your absolutely spot on in your analysis. I think this AI thing is just adding to the tools, but it isn't going to take over. It's just another tech opium dream where all the things we desire will magically appear out of a bunch of code. Interestingly enough, the winner of this years award at some state fair said in discussing how he created it said getting the words right wasn't easy. Seems as if it's just another creative avenue to explore because it's not like anything else and shows some promise.
Thanks for the good comment.
I do not have a problem with AI per se. I have enjoyed Topaz, found some good uses for Chat GPT although I still "write" my own material. It is good for research.
I was shocked by his flippant dismissal of artists concerns with "all ideas should be free" nonsense. His books are copyrighted, ya know.
And to say to people who have struggled and bled over creating their art to now just STFU and stop whining, we all get to use your stuff because it's cool absolutely blows my mind.
The take he had was alarmingly anti-human, anti-compassion, anti-artist. NOT something I would ever have expected him to say.
And the nonsense about artists being inspired was the same thing as a machine spitting out composites of pixels is beyond nonsensical.
Or was he trying to say the machine was somehow inspired by all of its input?
Perhaps we have reached that level of crazy, but I am not riding that wagon of stupid... heh.
I think AI has its place, but I also think that it should play by the same rules we all have to play by - and one of those rules is "Attribution".
I want to see the attribution of its supposed "art" just as everyone of us must disclose ours.
I may be less testy then... naww, I'm kind of an ass. Can't help it.
Thanks again... great comment.
I've been reading Seth Godin since at least the 1990's. Just like any other influencer he has a schtick and he has an audience. He's also been successful in the digital space, so just like Prof Galloway, he can afford a certain type of attitude. I shot advertising content for years, worked with some amazing creatives, probably because I came from the digital side before it became mainstream. I'm retired but I still keep my hand in it through stock, earning "pin money" I use AI everyday in my workflow. I keep up with my favourite clients who are now management, group creative director, or owners of their own shops. I haven't heard any of them embrace it. Only to fool around with. Back in the 2000s there were some Japanese and other shops in the region were using similar tech, and still do today. I get the impression that it's not taking over from humans, mostly because they are hiring, not laying off because they have a computer system. I think this is just another tech trend with all of the tech sector and hedge funds betting on the Next New New Thing. I think that the smartphone displacing a lot of cameras has more impact on the way images are monetized, and there is some career path, than any Generative AI will destroy. And if it does, then I'm sure it's just going to be a lateral arabesque to another New New Thing;0)