Hacker News Reader

Comment by a_bonobo | Hacker News Reader

Two potential counter-arguments:

1) When artists 'steal' from others, they generally build something 'new'. AI can't really create anything 'new'. Case in point: Umberto Eco's The Name Of The Rose steals the plot and outline from crime stories, steals the library idea from Borges, and steals the murderer's motive from Eco's medieval manuscript (forgot which one). Yet the outcome is something completely new. Same goes for hip-hop music; sampling is at its core, but the final music that comes out is nothing like what it samples, the samples are just a part of something new.

2) when artists steal from each other, it's generally poor artists ripping off other poor artists. No money can flow. When a million/billion-dollar company rips off poor artists to make more money via generative AI it's a different story. Money could flow but it doesn't.

View on HN

a_bonobo.... I think you're digging in the right vein here, but to perhaps to make the point clearer we could separate the discussion into two:

In an AI laden world

1) How are artists relevant

2) How are artists fairly compensated

I believe the answer to 1) is as you say, simply in the word 'new'. AI functionally remixes toward a mean. You can improve the impression of this with exquisite sources or more nuanced algorithms, but the result is always, literally, average.

I believe that an artist works out of an authentic story that is much more than the sum of their influences, and is uniquely their own. This story is the value proposition that is offered to an appreciant - it is an expression of identity that rises above the noise, and that can be joined. Mechanisms of payment have changed with the gyrations of technology, culture, and power since the concept of 'art' was birthed. But as long as there is a distinctive story in an artist's work, I believe there will always be a path to compensation.

Too your first point, I am not sure what constitutes new or novel here. I've seen the AI do exactly the type of borrowing from different sources you describe and producing something that seems very new to me. Though I admit, often these are under human direction with some carefully chosen sentences. Is that enough to generate something really new?

To your second point, most of the work I've seen generated from these models were done for free. It could be argued that these tools add to an artists toolbox rather than take something away. I can see for example where one poor artist could create a computer game of the same quality that it takes a triple-AAA game company to do today. Is that good or bad?

Why would you say AI can't create something new? It should be abler to merge ideas from its training data and create something like "The Name Of The Rose".

ChatGPT is able to write lyrics about a topic of my or its choice in the style of an unrelated philosopher for example. It creates something new by mixing ideas from different modalities.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com