Imagine a "studio" where the directive is simply to "maximize profits" when making films and the AI is left to figure everything out. It will build a process that is dedicated to that principle, and we can expect marketing that pitches movies that are not even made yet and then creates them in almost real time to get "feedback" from consumers. It will do away with film as an event, a block of time, and turn it into a personal, mutable lifestyle. And suppose YOU like happy endings.... you will get those. AI will cram them down your brain. Most likely, this power will be used to generate CONTENT that makes you CRAVE CONTENT - psychologically driven wedges that manipulate you at every turn. This is real nasty mind "control" type stuff, and we are just at the edge of it.
To this, I reflect on the decision to prop up the corn market and win votes in fly over states. Corn, the history of corn, and must notably corn syrup is public record. The government subsidizing corn production has had the consequence that products were introduced that target the consumer's cravings and we have an epidemic of people addicted to sugar made from corn syrup. This is what the AI will bring - among other unintended, unforeseen consequences.
On the other hand, AI is a tool.
How many times have you had shots or sequences that you wanted to do but could not figure them out, couldn't make them practical? I am not even talking about special effects. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to explain a movie shot to an AI tool, have it understood, and then map out or even create the shot? No lost time in pre-production or post-production. It can suggest the best ways to shoot the live principles and live sound. It would be an enormous step in the storytelling process.
"The tool could act as a gigantic, untiring, assistant."
The tool could act as a gigantic, untiring, assistant. I think that computers were actually meant for this role - as servants and assistants. They are not equals. Why are we trying to make them "create?" For what reason?
On the engineering side, making machines that think and create is a natural extension of searching for how the brain works and what life means. To put this in Star Wars context... we should be designing R2D2 and C3PO rather than the Death Star. We should be designing AI as an assistant. That should be the default role. It should not be designed to be a "smart tool" that comes to life and crushes us.
"A.I. as a tool in artwork..."
Since AI art generating tools have been trained in an illegal and unethical manner, they should not be used for any reason. Human color flatters for comics exist. I have met a few in my time. I know that the pressure to use the new tools is enormous, but I am not in favor of stepping on the backs of artists who had no choice or consent in allowing their copyrighted materials to be batch sampled. I have spoken with several artists and creators in different fields including print, music, and film who want to use a seal to indicate that works are 100% human made. Not sure if this will catch on but the sentiment is that "dirty tools" should not be accepted by creative industries. Not now. Not ever. Pay for a human colorist or painter.
"we should not accept these tools until "clean" versions can be made from scratch using only public domain or compensated images as source material."
Part of the great appeal of artwork - even artwork prepared for mass consumption - is that it is authentic and the result of a creative process. The copyright offices are correct to not to want to protect AI generated works. As creators, we should not accept these tools until "clean" versions can be made from scratch using only public domain or compensated images as source material. If material cannot be protected against unapproved use, no intellectual property is safe.
"How does the use of AI imagery corrupt the art marketplace?"
One - illegal sampling, called scraping, of copyrighted material. The base images AI is trained on and regurgitates are scraped-without-permission-or-payment artworks created by flesh and blood creators. Not from public domain or "free to use."
TWO - floods the market - Human-generated content will get pushed out by AI-generated content in the marketplace just by sheer speed/volume alone. This is achieved because images can be generated in fractions of a second compared to the time it may take a human to create an equivalent image.
T H R E E - the ubiquity of images will coat the market and warp the expectations of audiences and viewers will not be sophisticated enough to tell the difference.
FOUR - FREE STUFF (not free at all...). AI-generated images will become so instant and so "free" that real artists and creators will be unable to compete financially. The audience does not realize that they are being roped into an "engagement" environment where they will be force-fed advertising and have digital psychological profiles built (and sold and re-sold) out of their behavior online. The use of AI images, video, chat, etc., is just the crack/fentanyl used by the corporations and governments to control minds and persuade passions.
If you don't think this is a real concern, ask yourself how often you get pop-up windows now that beg for your attention. How bad will this be in five years' time or less? Is AI-generated imagery unethical? YES. Anything that scrapes copyright materials without permission for any reason is BOTH unethical and illegal. Is it here to stay? Will it crush us in our sleep?
Just my opinion. Just a thought.
Buy HUMAN-MADE, now and for the future!