I understand it's a tool – but that only counts for me if it's used as a tool, and not the means to the output. Prompting is not the same as creating. Having the idea is only part of it; the pursuit of bringing it to life is the true creative endeavour. I fail to see how asking a chatbot to make something for you provides any fulfilment.
I enjoy the process of creating art myself, and it's why I will continue to do it.
But, I struggle with these kinds of arguments because they are the same ones that were originally used to criticize photography as an art form. Photography is very different than painting, but we've come to accept it as a different kind of art. Skill with a brush is replaced with skill to find specific scenes in life.
I suspect AI tools are the same. It's too early to know what kind of art they might create, and it might be different than what we've created in the past. But it still can be art.
Someone made a similar comment to me on Twitter that, and I'm quoting here: "I would have made this argument with computer music when drum machines and synthesizers were released" but that's not true. I learned classical instruments first and later when found them loved electronic synthesis. You still had precision control of every element with specificity at detailed levels. Knobs and filters. The photography analogy is similar - I think that one involves quite a bit more in terms of staging a shot, lighting, being somewhere physically to capture the image. You and I were both born into a world with both technology and hand crafted work and so won't make the luddite arguments. The camera is good and a unique instrument with its own level of control.
With this I think diminishing returns on automated output are real in all things. And pros know when to use both. Christopher Nolan uses CGI, but also elected to crash a physical 747 into a building in Tenet. He could have used CGI for this whole scene, but must have found that unsatisfying. Or maybe it was just for fun - hey there's nothing wrong with that, too.
With that! I think prompting an image to pair with something like a story you wrote yourself is fine. You might never be that good at photography, not able to go to a specific place and it works "well enough" to pair with something human created. It won't make it into a gallery or timeless collection because there's no context behind it, and that's fine - I think pairing these things with some human elements helps a lot and it can work. The use depends. It still wouldn't be in an actually unique style, but it might work. Alone and by itself I don't think it's any different than pawing through iStock photo and finding something though. And equally unfulfilling, at least to me.
We have a language for photography today because it's developed as an art form, but that didn't exist when it started. Similar with AI, you can't expect it to have a fully formed language and process when it's so new.
My comparison is to the advent of photography, not the mature art form it is today.
It's an interesting point but given we have language for things our senses touch already unless it invents net new things we have no description for (maybe a very advanced AI will) I think we can talk about the output with creative language that exists.
For now a real use for gen AI I can see being useful immediately would be b-roll in movies. That's really cool if you had no budget and can suddenly have some cool connective shots that work well enough. I don't even know you'd tell the audience AI was used here, just like they'd never know it was b-roll. Always appreciate your thinking Sean.
I'm working on a piece on a similar topic. There are a lot of people who think the creative process is just copying stuff you like as closely as possible and therefore AI is just a computer doing what humans have done. But this is ignoring the fact that all art forms have evolved and don't look or sound the way they did at their inception. But then we've farmed out the hard parts of a lot of things to computers, so why should creative pursuits be any different?
I remember way back in school when ai wasn’t as popular as today we use to draw and paint with our own hands. The feeling was good. We felt proud of ourselves that we’ve created something special. Though it wasn’t perfect, it still felt amazing.
I don’t get the same feeling when I use ai. I feel indifferent . Deep down I know I didn’t create that.
Great post. I wrote much the same here – https://www.trend-mill.com/p/glibhi-fication-is-ai-at-its-worst
I understand it's a tool – but that only counts for me if it's used as a tool, and not the means to the output. Prompting is not the same as creating. Having the idea is only part of it; the pursuit of bringing it to life is the true creative endeavour. I fail to see how asking a chatbot to make something for you provides any fulfilment.
I enjoy the process of creating art myself, and it's why I will continue to do it.
But, I struggle with these kinds of arguments because they are the same ones that were originally used to criticize photography as an art form. Photography is very different than painting, but we've come to accept it as a different kind of art. Skill with a brush is replaced with skill to find specific scenes in life.
I suspect AI tools are the same. It's too early to know what kind of art they might create, and it might be different than what we've created in the past. But it still can be art.
Someone made a similar comment to me on Twitter that, and I'm quoting here: "I would have made this argument with computer music when drum machines and synthesizers were released" but that's not true. I learned classical instruments first and later when found them loved electronic synthesis. You still had precision control of every element with specificity at detailed levels. Knobs and filters. The photography analogy is similar - I think that one involves quite a bit more in terms of staging a shot, lighting, being somewhere physically to capture the image. You and I were both born into a world with both technology and hand crafted work and so won't make the luddite arguments. The camera is good and a unique instrument with its own level of control.
With this I think diminishing returns on automated output are real in all things. And pros know when to use both. Christopher Nolan uses CGI, but also elected to crash a physical 747 into a building in Tenet. He could have used CGI for this whole scene, but must have found that unsatisfying. Or maybe it was just for fun - hey there's nothing wrong with that, too.
With that! I think prompting an image to pair with something like a story you wrote yourself is fine. You might never be that good at photography, not able to go to a specific place and it works "well enough" to pair with something human created. It won't make it into a gallery or timeless collection because there's no context behind it, and that's fine - I think pairing these things with some human elements helps a lot and it can work. The use depends. It still wouldn't be in an actually unique style, but it might work. Alone and by itself I don't think it's any different than pawing through iStock photo and finding something though. And equally unfulfilling, at least to me.
We have a language for photography today because it's developed as an art form, but that didn't exist when it started. Similar with AI, you can't expect it to have a fully formed language and process when it's so new.
My comparison is to the advent of photography, not the mature art form it is today.
It's an interesting point but given we have language for things our senses touch already unless it invents net new things we have no description for (maybe a very advanced AI will) I think we can talk about the output with creative language that exists.
For now a real use for gen AI I can see being useful immediately would be b-roll in movies. That's really cool if you had no budget and can suddenly have some cool connective shots that work well enough. I don't even know you'd tell the audience AI was used here, just like they'd never know it was b-roll. Always appreciate your thinking Sean.
Outstanding essay.
I'm working on a piece on a similar topic. There are a lot of people who think the creative process is just copying stuff you like as closely as possible and therefore AI is just a computer doing what humans have done. But this is ignoring the fact that all art forms have evolved and don't look or sound the way they did at their inception. But then we've farmed out the hard parts of a lot of things to computers, so why should creative pursuits be any different?
“Photoshopped” used to carry similar baggage. We’ll normalize a certain amount of the latest automation tool.
You’re spot on talking about the imperative of the voice and idea behind a piece of creative output.
Human creativity will endure; I’m less sure social media platforms do.
I remember way back in school when ai wasn’t as popular as today we use to draw and paint with our own hands. The feeling was good. We felt proud of ourselves that we’ve created something special. Though it wasn’t perfect, it still felt amazing.
I don’t get the same feeling when I use ai. I feel indifferent . Deep down I know I didn’t create that.
Thanks for sharing