What are some books that will help me understand AI's impact on art and artists?

If you're skeptical of the idea that artists as a whole are about to face some existential problems, just look at this
archive.org/details/1111101000-robots

So, it makes tumblr drawings?

NPCs and undiscerning midwits will be content with AI "art"

ai.googleblog.com/2022/04/pathways-language-model-palm-scaling-to.html
Turns out AI can create novel explanations of things

The AI defeat of Lee Sedol used tactics that were never seen before.

That doesn't mean it's creative. For example, evolution might seem the product of a creative force but in reality it's a product of chance and necessity, within certain parameters. Rock formations might seem the product of a creative force, but they're a product of chance too, within certain parameters. Perhaps there was a creative force behind defining the parameters, and this is certainly the case with any AI, but that doesn't mean the AI is creative in itself.

Why does necessity preclude creativity? If I write a sonnet to woo a lady, is that 'uncreative' because it ultimately serves the necessity of procreation?

Like always, the profane masses such as OP will continue to consume excrement while true art will continue to be created and enjoyed by the real humans. The only difference is that the excrement you slop up will be even more vile and empty.

One small problem: so what?

Don't pretend you'll magically be able to tell the difference once the technology advances enough. has already conceded 'creativity' as dependent on the nature/intention of the creator, rather than being a quality of the work itself. This means that 'creative' and 'uncreative' art is indistinguishable.

Attached: 1_HHUeLYdJosHkerJUNKWGrg.png (950x708, 962.82K)

Best post
Nigger STEM post

Nigga wut
T. oil paint user

>GPT-4 will automate most fiction writing.
Not even state of the art machine learning can undress and redress a character properly.
Nor can it deal with negations.

What was that AI website that writes stories based on one sentence input?

AI Dungeon?

>a computer can apply filters to an existing image
wow
very art
such deep
wow
le commit sudoku because pwnt by a box of switches

Artists are all pretentious faggots who deserve to be replaced by machines.

'art' made by machines will be like looking at a sunset or flower. it might be beautiful, sublime even, but it's not art.

Now define art

If you think that image is just depicting a filter, you don't understand what neural networks are and should stay out of this thread.

vimeo.com/369531132

>you don't understand what neural networks are and should stay out of this thread

Go back.

Any books that explain that the answer to the God Paradox is AI?—that indeed humans are superior to God because humans can create something larger than itself (which God cannot even achieve)?

>vimeo.com/369531132
>ZOMG LE ANIMADED FILDERS EGGSDEE
>but super cereal because muh lofi beats to study to fr fr on god
Enjoy being a slave to a fucking computer program while human beings laugh at you.

That's some top shelf pilpul; the college education to which you are eternally indebted will surely serve you well.

Nobody who talks like this has ever actually tried to program any kind of algorithm, let alone an actual genetic algorithm or neural meme network, to accomplish shit and solve problems.
AI is not going to end up anything like you faggots imagine. All of the absolute best examples that are supposed to be so earth-shattering are, as you can see in this thread, only good for making half-assed copies of things humans already came up with. By their very nature, they will never be able to move past that.

This. Art has an inherent human element to it. No human input means it's not art.

Robots lack the consciousness to make quality art. At this point most of it is just decent.

I read this and was unimpressed lol Marxists are gay

It's hilarious how the same people have been saying the same thing for decades now and just keep pushing back the date. I remember when self-driving cars were going to completely destroy the trucking workforce in 10 years, every 10 years, for the past 50 years.

You faggots are worse than the global warming doomsayers, both groups consist exclusively of idiots trying to appear smart.

So can schizophrenics

>ITT: denial

this scared the living shit out of me.
it's over.

art has evolved beyond painting, performance artists are out here starving themselves and have sex with corpses and id like to see a robot do that

IT'S FUCKING OVER

>some dude who eats his own shit in front of an bored audience is the same as the AI who will imitate Michelangelo

You’re on Yea Forums you STEM nigger, nobody here gives a shit about technology.

You should.

no im not saying its the same, im saying art has evolved beyond the canvas into performance. something a robot cant do

>In the mid-1970s, his Los Angeles performances, events and installations were influenced by the 'Poor Theatre' of Jerzy Grotowski, as well as the cathartic exposure of personal experiences seen in the work of Viennese actionist artist Rudolf Schwarzkogler and early feminist performance art. Several of his early events were held in private or in front of a small number of witnesses. Scare was an encouragement to examine the physical effects of fear. Duncan donned a disguise and fired a blank-loaded pistol at point-blank range at two carefully selected participants, Tom Recchion and Paul McCarthy, chosen “...because they were close friends who would not expect anything like this to happen to them and who would be able to appreciate the event as I intended it”.[3] Bus Ride sexually stimulated unsuspecting passengers on a city bus with a liquid poured into the ventilation system in order to observe the results.[4] Blind Date, involving intercourse with a female corpse followed by a vasectomy, both conducted in private, was presented as an audio-only event to an audience in a darkened warehouse, a demonstration of how men are conditioned to turn emotional suffering into rage.[5] An untitled character-exchange event with McCarthy was held in private in McCarthy's studio, where Duncan recorded actions to video that McCarthy immediately erased.

This isn't art. This is pure shit.

>so, it makes tumblr drawings?
>so, it makes renaissance paintings?
>so, it makes animations?
>so, it makes movies?
>so, it makes 3D sculptures?
>so, it makes 3D games with complex stories and characters?
Cope. In the future you WILL be reading books better than Shakespeare and Dante written by an AI and made in approximately 15.84 seconds and you WILL like it.

Attached: gigabot.png (805x993, 556.81K)

Why are all AI fags such midwits

>Cope. In the future you WILL be reading books better than Shakespeare and Dante written by an AI and made in approximately 15.84 seconds and you WILL like it.
That would be impossible, an ai could make a cheap pulp novel given enough data, but there arent thousands of shakespeares to create a second shakespeare from.

No I won’t because I’m a contrarian

They're called Black people and if you weren't busy oppressing them every day of their lives they would be producing new Shakespeares every day. Ever heard of monkeys on typewriters?

>LALALA I can't hear you there's no way most art will be made obsolete in a matter of decades go back to /sci/!
I'm glad you faggots will be made redundant. Totally incapable of facing reality.

Attached: 1_kfyldkjlKFIS0lyKgO848Q.jpg (1400x1409, 635.58K)

AI is to abstract art as the camera was to realistic art. There's a reason your average person has no need of a portrait artist these days.

The last Talk Talk albums were so unique because they recorded a bunch of musicians experimenting with different instruments and sounds at a time and then made use of editing technology that was then new to combine the outcomes of these sessions, creating results that would be difficult to come up with if they tried to compose a song following a more standard approach

I think when AI gets so advanced that people are able to generate music, art, landscapes and even faces and voices of their choice by inputting certain parameters you'd see something similar to that, we'll no longer be so restrained by our technical abilities, by a budget, or even by a media format because it would do a lot of the heavy lifting for us. And the more options you have available, the more you're able to experiment, push boundaries and get into territory that an algorithm replicating available data patterns would not be able to. Human art itself becomes robotic when it's so labor-intensive that it must be continuously edited and dumbed down in order to fit formulas that are approved by the market so it can turn a profit, paradoxically AI could get rid of part of this problem and give some of us more creative freedom, and as a bonus the hacks will all be made superfluous and become unemployed

This. If anything, AI will write genre fiction better than any human ever could. It'll put fantasy writers, lowbrow erotica peddlers, DUDE SCIENCE bros etc. all out of business. Because of the iterative way in which AI learns, the formulaic way in which most genre fiction novels are written will lend to AI an easy facilitation. Genre fiction almost exclusively has that fifth-grader level of writing combined with only nominally differentiable variations on the same structure, e.g.:
>hero's journey, but the big bad is a machine that loves you
>magic, but the magic is made of blood
>enemies are niggers except their skin is actually green and they're called orcs
Genre fiction is unique in that it strips almost all of the human out of the artistic medium. It takes the death of the author to its absolute extreme, in that no touch of the author's artistry—his skill with the medium itself, the way in which he interacts with it, the tiny little elements of human subjectivity that are peppered everywhere in great literature—can be allowed to shine through for fear of alienating the highly-targeted commercial demographics. AI will just be able to do that better.

I don't see how an AI will be able to do the equivalent of what Joyce did. Maybe it'll be able to slurp up all the Joyce-data and write an imitation, but furthering the medium will be on human beings. If art in its most pure form is human expression, an AI will be forever unable to exceed mimicry, because AI is not human.

AI can already copy Bach pretty well and the technology is in its infancy, it'll be able to imitate Joyce. If anything with a huge body of text to draw on it'll be able to have an even higher density of allusions.

Joyce wasn't brilliant because he alluded to more things than anyone else.

Well, his mastery and/or experimental use of language is the primary reason he's considered great, allusion density is secondary, imo, but literature is probably running out of tricks on the former front. Whatever magic you think (insert author) has, AI can and will learn to copy it eventually. However, at the end of the day, it can only copy, not create anything truly new, at least for now. AI will end up being to assist artists in various ways to create new works.

This is why I don't worry at all about "perfection" too much with respect to contemporary rules of writing. I refuse to allow an AI to assist me in any way. I will position myself to be one of a very few artists anticipating their rejection of AI in favor of the purely human. AI will, in effect, be another industrial revolution. It'll drive the bar for human craftsmanship even higher by again pushing up the quality of goods on average. This is what happened with the industrial revolution, after all: a poor cobbler or shoemaker goes out of business when his goods are more expensive and lower quality than what can be mass produced better and more cheaply at a factory. For all the mystique and novelty of AI, this will be more or less its same effect.

The difference is that intellectual work will now be threatened as well. There's no reason to believe otherwise. The shitty writers will have to actually learn the craft of writing or find something else to do. They will be the cobblers and shoemakers of the machine learning revolution.