Crazy Taxi: World Tour announced and it's using generative AI

Quoting: Slaxer

Quoting: scaineAh, the "it's just a tool" argument. I'm not a fan of this.

Me neither, I hate it. It's the start of something that has largely only existed in science-fiction, and something that has never existed before in human history - but it's just a tool, they say. Yes, I'm aware that in its current state it's technically still not anything close to what the term "artificial intelligence" implies, but still. I feel like I'm being gaslit whenever someone says it.

Quoting: spymastermattIn particular your point about how you would make a bad table because you lack the skills, demonstrates for me exactly what I'm talking about. Here we have an actual game studio, who's professionals are using it as a tool and we are slating it because we assume suddenly that they've fired all the professionals and had people with no creative skill use the tool.

As an artist by trade, I'm not worried about AI replacing artists. That's not the problem. I just believe that the painstaking monotony of sculpting every scale on a dragon, or modeling the treads of a tire by hand, or having the discipline involved in painting something like the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel over years is what makes art beautiful. There is always an element of pain in any form of creation, and it's the secret ingredient to good art. Hypothetically, if you knew that every piece of Renaissance art in Italy was actually just made by a machine, do you think it'd be worth flying over to Italy to see? They'd completely lose their significance. AI isn't going to enable artists to be more creative by liberating them from hard work. At the very least, its use by artists is eventually going to make artists lazier and less skilled at their craft. At most, it's going to make art pointless.

I can't do art to save my life. But I do a bit of writing, and I will say that if someone tells a large language model "Write me a book about this" and thinks it's theirs because they had an idea (which apparently does happen) . . . that's incredibly stupid. Most of the ideas in a book are created in the process of writing it; you might start with a basic framework, but it's while you're knocking out paragraph after paragraph that you make it rich, developing the ideas you had, coming up with new ones in the flow of making. You'll think "OK, gonna write a few pages about this" and a couple of pages in you realize there's this other stuff that can connect in. You realize who a character is as you write dialogue and it comes out a particular way. I wouldn't be surprised if art can be kind of like that too.

None of that is going to happen if you're just getting AI to fill up the word count.

Quoting: Slaxer

Quoting: scaineAh, the "it's just a tool" argument. I'm not a fan of this.

Me neither, I hate it. It's the start of something that has largely only existed in science-fiction, and something that has never existed before in human history - but it's just a tool, they say. Yes, I'm aware that in its current state it's technically still not anything close to what the term "artificial intelligence" implies, but still. I feel like I'm being gaslit whenever someone says it.

Quoting: spymastermattIn particular your point about how you would make a bad table because you lack the skills, demonstrates for me exactly what I'm talking about. Here we have an actual game studio, who's professionals are using it as a tool and we are slating it because we assume suddenly that they've fired all the professionals and had people with no creative skill use the tool.

As an artist by trade, I'm not worried about AI replacing artists. That's not the problem. I just believe that the painstaking monotony of sculpting every scale on a dragon, or modeling the treads of a tire by hand, or having the discipline involved in painting something like the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel over years is what makes art beautiful. There is always an element of pain in any form of creation, and it's the secret ingredient to good art. Hypothetically, if you knew that every piece of Renaissance art in Italy was actually just made by a machine, do you think it'd be worth flying over to Italy to see? They'd completely lose their significance. AI isn't going to enable artists to be more creative by liberating them from hard work. At the very least, its use by artists is eventually going to make artists lazier and less skilled at their craft. At most, it's going to make art pointless.

So to draw the analogy again, is the bespoke table made by a carpentry workshop less valuable because they used a CNC to cut the top and bore the fixing holes? Did they put less creative design into it because they used the machine?

Yes there is awe in the ability to do something prior to the machines - the pyramids are impressive not because we couldn't possibly make them today, but because they were made without modern machinery - but that doesn't mean I would consider building a large scale building without the use of cranes today anything other than insane.

For me what makes good art is either the above, or mostly the choice of subject and detail.
For me the Mona Lisa is not a good painting because it took a long time and was difficult to paint, but because the choice of expression is so enigmatic and not really seen in other paintings.

I saw a fantastic sculpture in Birmingham UK made out of knives from an amnesty. It must have taken hours to put together, but that's not what made it impressive. It was good art (to me) because of what it represented.

Quoting: Purple Library Guyif someone tells a large language model "Write me a book about this" and thinks it's theirs because they had an idea (which apparently does happen) . . . that's incredibly stupid.

Absolutely agree, 100%!

But if someone develops an entire story, with a good plot and character development and twists and turns and they get the AI to actually put it into words because they just can't, and then they enrich it by reading it back and tweaking and adding and refining to make it the story they had in their head but could never express because of their ADHD, is their story less good because they couldn't write each individual word?

This, as you might have guessed, is a real story about a friend of mine who has fantastic ideas for stories, and describes great scenes from this particular book they would love to write, but can't. AI might give them the chance to do so. And yes you're absolutely right, the story has changed and refined and got better each time they've come to me over the years and said "I've changed this bit and added this bit between those scenes and tweaked this characters backstory a bit". But they're still doing that despite not writing a complete book, just snippets.

I guess my analogy in this case would be is the songwriter who writes clever lyrics, less of a songwriter because they can't sing it themselves? Should we scorn them for using a singer instead of just singing it themselves like a real artist

Again, we've taken the idea that AI can make a book given a one sentence prompt and blanket swept that that must therefore be the only way people use it

I get the idea when the tires have "flames", but what's with the green glow?

Quoting: spymastermatt

Quoting: Purple Library Guyif someone tells a large language model "Write me a book about this" and thinks it's theirs because they had an idea (which apparently does happen) . . . that's incredibly stupid.

Absolutely agree, 100%!

But if someone develops an entire story, with a good plot and character development and twists and turns and they get the AI to actually put it into words because they just can't, and then they enrich it by reading it back and tweaking and adding and refining to make it the story they had in their head but could never express because of their ADHD, is their story less good because they couldn't write each individual word?

This, as you might have guessed, is a real story about a friend of mine who has fantastic ideas for stories, and describes great scenes from this particular book they would love to write, but can't. AI might give them the chance to do so. And yes you're absolutely right, the story has changed and refined and got better each time they've come to me over the years and said "I've changed this bit and added this bit between those scenes and tweaked this characters backstory a bit". But they're still doing that despite not writing a complete book, just snippets.

Ignoring any and all other concerns: As long as they don't then imagine that they've actually written a story, and try to claim copyright to the result, I guess it would be fine? I'm sure it feels rewarding for them to get that story out. They haven't become an author, more like an amateur editor, but still, good for them.

I think the situation would be different if they'd actually written the whole story to the best of their ability, and used these tools to give them suggestions on how to make it better. A lot more effort, but there's a reason even established authors work for months, sometimes years, to write a novel, even with getting help and feedback from professional editors and readers. Most of us haven't got the talent or the patience for that, but that doesn't make it okay to just outsource the bulk of the effort.

Quoting: spymastermattI guess my analogy in this case would be is the songwriter who writes clever lyrics, less of a songwriter because they can't sing it themselves? Should we scorn them for using a singer instead of just singing it themselves like a real artist

The analogy doesn't work. Why wouldn't they be called a songwriter after writing a song? They'll get their share of the royalties. They just can't be called a singer. Just like your friend isn't an author after prompting and editing a book.

Quoting: spymastermattAgain, we've taken the idea that AI can make a book given a one sentence prompt and blanket swept that that must therefore be the only way people use it

No, what you've done is ascribe a lack of understanding to people with valid criticisms of the technology and how it is being used in the real world. Sure, some people react with their gut, but critics do include a lot of people who are actually in the know, but crucially not invested.

I know this is not the first time we've sacrificed something important, like the environment, for profit and/or convenience. But it sucks every time.

Quoting: SlaxerAs an artist by trade, I'm not worried about AI replacing artists. That's not the problem.

Yeah, the AI is incapable of replacing artists, but it's capable of chewing up all the artists' works and spitting out something more or less acceptable by an executive. So yeah, it won't replace artists but it will be used (by CEOs) as a replacement for a junior illustrator, who with some work, persistence and money (to support day-to-day living) might have grown to be an artist, something that will now be a bit harder...