Tantes article is well worth your time:
(…) Everybody would love to be an artist. It’s generally seen to be a positive quality to be creative, expressive. But it used to mean at least some commitment, some doing of the work. No longer. If you can think it, some “AI” can generate it. A cat playing minecraft while debating Socrates? Sure thing, here’s 10 versions of it. (…) How liberating, isn’t it? Art is democratized! “Creative privilege” (yes I have seen that batshit term seen being used earnestly) destroyed!
But all we have done is created a machine that you can give your “idea” and it returns the most average milktoast representation of it. Your reaction of “this is exactly what I imagined” says more about the long road ahead that that idea still needed to go than about how good these systems are.
Just yesterday during our daily walk I discussed the impact of "AI" on 'creative' jobs with my friend Oli, and it very quickly turned into a discussion about what is seen as 'creative' in the industry (hello 'content creators', hello stock photography or -illustration, hello marketing lingo) vs. 'true' creativity, and this is exactly what Tante is pointing out in this article.
I think AI has the potential to burn through all these 'hollow' pseudo creative jobs, and it remains to be seen if the value of 'true' creativity (and art) finally will have its place in the so called creative industries. I suspect the 'idea guys' never valued creativity, and one can only speculate if the exploited creatives of the past are now set free because AI takes over in those simulations of creativity, or if they lose the income for those industry jobs that never really valued their creativity anyway.
Webrocker
