In a future where humans forget the tools of creative expression and exploration, what happens to the instinct that brings about the creative act? Does our ingrained desire to explore functionally disappear, like the appendix, or do our creative energies become repressed, relegated to our unconscious? It strikes me that a psychic energy as fundamental as exploration is an immutable characteristic of ours, and that mass repression of such an instinct would sow an enormous instability beneath our feet.
I think Huxley in Brave New World puts forward the best image of this, though it is probably lacking in a bit of realism. Basically, a culture that seeks distraction that lulls them into a sense of complacency and narcissistic navel gazing. I think we are already well down this path. Check out my previous video on the atrophy of imagination. It is not directly about this but it is diagnosing what I think is the core problem. Inevitably a lack of creativity will lead to less creative cultures which will lead to cultural decay in most situations. Given that AI will still be "creative" there is only speculation about what this will do to the culture. I think people will choose to be in a state much like the humans in Wall-e. I get at this on my video on Wall-e btw.
I will check out those videos! Having not yet seen them, I would put forward an image from Dostoevsky's Notes from the Underground, wherein the narrator claims that people, having every material need and desire satisfied, would still tear the structure down for the sake of engaging with anomaly, or even merely something new and unexpected. I think you are right, that many or most will spend their lives looking into Narcissus' pool, but I wonder if the Underground Man's portrait of humanity will ultimately prevail. The stage is certainly set for a war of instincts, between adventure or comfort. I am not sure if you address any of this in the videos you mentioned, but I am looking forward to catching up on them. @@artcanhelp
"Changes the way we approach creative production" is not a great argument against AI-or any tool. The thing that makes us human is our malleability and adaptability. Even things as fundamental as monogamous relationships are a product of culture that were relatively rare in the archeological record. Comparing literate to non-literate people using MRI scans and aptitude tests, the literate have visibly larger prefrontal cortexes and markedly reduced facial recognition abilities. There is no "best" way to be creative. Whatever the tools, we will adapt to be creative with them.
I would not argue that malleability or adaptability is what makes us human. It is certainly what has made us the dominant species on this planet. It is hard to say creativity was a necessity for that domination. Some even say that art and music is a biproduct of our evolutionary process. I disagree with all of those points. We are a unique creature and creativity, especially the exploration part of the process, is uniquely human.
Critical thinking is surely at stake. The vast majority of analogue 'art' (painting, for arguments sake) is less than mediocre, so there's no surprise that AI output follows suit. The vast majority of analogue output lacks the critical exploratory aspect you refer to here and it's one of the reasons it's not interesting. Tools or mediums will not change this, AI allows dull art to made more quickly, but it won't stop good artists from using it to make good work. 'Good art' or interesting art can be made from anything when the artist is critically aware and conceptually rigorous. Thanks for the great content.
This is my biggest concern with AI. The idea of critical thinking, creativity, and human connection being replaced and outsourced is incredibly dangerous.
Ai opens the promise of a never seen expansion in human creative potential. The only people who are against it are those set to loose economically from it - funnily these are the same people which ridiculed rural blue colar workers when they lost their jobs to automation.
Yes, the "learn to code" trope was a condescending simplification of humans. The fact that the shoe is on the other foot know shows that the self righteous folks of the past are merely that, selt righteous. Why would blue collar workers be for AI though regardless of economic impact? What is the upside from their perspective?
The people set to lose economically from AI are not a monolith. It’s unfair to act like everyone in creative or knowledge work looked down on blue collar workers. Many were raised by these blue collar workers, have blue collar workers they love, or were blue collar workers themselves who were told they needed to retrain. They chose what they thought was the safer route, and that doesn’t mean they looked down on anyone. Many felt class solidarity since most creative and knowledge workers were still part of the working class. I’m not cheering for any person being devalued based on the type of work they do. I’m not okay with making any person struggle to justify why they deserve the basics like housing, medicine, and food in an economy that works against them. The adversarial worldview that makes people think some people don’t deserve a decent livelihood is an artifact of history contingency and the economic and political system it created. But many people rejected these notions even if they were powerless to change anything. Also, AI has put blue collar workers in more economic danger than before. Even if generative AI doesn’t affect your job much, AI and machine learning makes it possible for robots to navigate a wider variety of environments and do increasingly complex physical tasks. The people rushing into blue collar work when they lost their creative job means individual blue collar workers lose leverage too.
@@artcanhelp of course I am not saying that you or anybody else on this channel told people to lear to code, as you said, but the fact remains that some people's jobs and dignity are clearly worth more than others in the eyes of the mainstream upper-middle class urbanite left, both in the US and Europe. On the opportunities AI can bring for artists, I think they are endless. This can come from something as simple as the democratising effect of accessibility. Imagine you are a highschool student wanting to turn your weired movie ideas into reality. Today, that is basically impossible, but in ten years AI will make it possible for even the poorest person to animate whole movies only through their phone. It also opens up massive opportunities for established artists. Imagine being a video game studio and creating life-like characters that chat with the player in real time, impersonating someone hand crafter by the artist. Or imagine writing an interactive book that responds to an infinite amount of player choices by generation new and exciting stories to explore. Imagine an exhibition in a museum that lets you interact with an artist interpretation of prophets, historical figures, or just random people that have an interesting story to tell. The opportunities are so endless that I really believe that those artists who are ready and willing to embrace this new technology will emerge as the most groundbreaking of their time, as those who have embraced technological change and innovation always have. Those that refuse to will be far more likely to be seen as backwards looking hangovers from an earlier period, likely forgotten or remembered as a quirky but ultimately irrelevant reactionary faction in current cultural development. For this reason, I think that we should actually all learn to code, and learn to code fast to take advantage of the amazing opportunities we are given!
@@artcanhelp The upside for us "non-artistic" folks is that we have a chance to create art of our own with the aide of AI. If we keep the status quo then that would just deprive a huge portion of the population from expressing themselves and leaves only "talented" people to be able to formulate what you imagine and bring it forward to the world to experience.
@@413412nc I apologize if I was communicating that I thought you said "learn to code," in some manner. I did not get that from you. Here is my thought, soon the AI will generate what it "knows" you want to see. Why make your own movie when it makes a movie for you? Having an idea for a movie and then seeing it appear is to creativity as asking for extra cheese at Micky D's is to cooking.
No worries and i appreciate the reply. I like how accessible it has made good art. I use it to create images for short stories I write. I think AI art will become better and more accessible in the future. I don’t see this as a bad thing. I heard your concerns about it stifling creativity, perhaps that happens sometimes. However it could also enhance creativity by lowering barriers to entry, that is true my case. I guess my hope is that artists will embrace this technology and use it to augment their own work.
Yes that is my hope as well. Like I said, I know many writers who have found it helpful like yourself. It really will help writers in particular make more attention getting work since video and image is really good at getting our attention compared to text alone. I suppose my real concern is a child like I was. If I did not need to learn how to draw I would be a very dismal person. @@MrShooter713
@@artcanhelp Visual media is important but from what i've seen it is not necessary in making people value the story there is countless people who have had community built around them with very simplistic drawings (not 'good art' weird body proportions no backgrounds etc). Writing will be affected too, an image on it's own isn't as impactful as with a great story behind it. AI has already written published kids books and I doubt it'll stop there. It's not like you need a thoughtful person to write a book people have been forced to get them out in a month. Is a story more valuable sporting image which itself changes the story, therefore making any image as important as a line of text? What I'm I meant to fell when a political cartoon was full auto generated from the past weeks articles knowing that there was no intent behind it, how do i see others when I can't confirm if the cartoon is AI at all?
don't forget to unplug, recharge with silence
Yes indeed
In a future where humans forget the tools of creative expression and exploration, what happens to the instinct that brings about the creative act? Does our ingrained desire to explore functionally disappear, like the appendix, or do our creative energies become repressed, relegated to our unconscious? It strikes me that a psychic energy as fundamental as exploration is an immutable characteristic of ours, and that mass repression of such an instinct would sow an enormous instability beneath our feet.
I think Huxley in Brave New World puts forward the best image of this, though it is probably lacking in a bit of realism. Basically, a culture that seeks distraction that lulls them into a sense of complacency and narcissistic navel gazing. I think we are already well down this path. Check out my previous video on the atrophy of imagination. It is not directly about this but it is diagnosing what I think is the core problem. Inevitably a lack of creativity will lead to less creative cultures which will lead to cultural decay in most situations. Given that AI will still be "creative" there is only speculation about what this will do to the culture. I think people will choose to be in a state much like the humans in Wall-e. I get at this on my video on Wall-e btw.
I will check out those videos!
Having not yet seen them, I would put forward an image from Dostoevsky's Notes from the Underground, wherein the narrator claims that people, having every material need and desire satisfied, would still tear the structure down for the sake of engaging with anomaly, or even merely something new and unexpected. I think you are right, that many or most will spend their lives looking into Narcissus' pool, but I wonder if the Underground Man's portrait of humanity will ultimately prevail. The stage is certainly set for a war of instincts, between adventure or comfort.
I am not sure if you address any of this in the videos you mentioned, but I am looking forward to catching up on them.
@@artcanhelp
"Changes the way we approach creative production" is not a great argument against AI-or any tool. The thing that makes us human is our malleability and adaptability. Even things as fundamental as monogamous relationships are a product of culture that were relatively rare in the archeological record. Comparing literate to non-literate people using MRI scans and aptitude tests, the literate have visibly larger prefrontal cortexes and markedly reduced facial recognition abilities. There is no "best" way to be creative. Whatever the tools, we will adapt to be creative with them.
I would not argue that malleability or adaptability is what makes us human. It is certainly what has made us the dominant species on this planet. It is hard to say creativity was a necessity for that domination. Some even say that art and music is a biproduct of our evolutionary process. I disagree with all of those points. We are a unique creature and creativity, especially the exploration part of the process, is uniquely human.
@@artcanhelpdolphins creative? monkeys? crows? and the various aliens? 🐬🦧🐒🐦⬛👽
I really enjoy your channel
Thank you!
Critical thinking is surely at stake. The vast majority of analogue 'art' (painting, for arguments sake) is less than mediocre, so there's no surprise that AI output follows suit. The vast majority of analogue output lacks the critical exploratory aspect you refer to here and it's one of the reasons it's not interesting. Tools or mediums will not change this, AI allows dull art to made more quickly, but it won't stop good artists from using it to make good work. 'Good art' or interesting art can be made from anything when the artist is critically aware and conceptually rigorous. Thanks for the great content.
This is my biggest concern with AI. The idea of critical thinking, creativity, and human connection being replaced and outsourced is incredibly dangerous.
Supplanting creativity or supplementing? That is the question.
for practiced creatives it will just supplement, but for the next generation? My fear is that it will supplant.
Ai opens the promise of a never seen expansion in human creative potential. The only people who are against it are those set to loose economically from it - funnily these are the same people which ridiculed rural blue colar workers when they lost their jobs to automation.
Yes, the "learn to code" trope was a condescending simplification of humans. The fact that the shoe is on the other foot know shows that the self righteous folks of the past are merely that, selt righteous. Why would blue collar workers be for AI though regardless of economic impact? What is the upside from their perspective?
The people set to lose economically from AI are not a monolith. It’s unfair to act like everyone in creative or knowledge work looked down on blue collar workers. Many were raised by these blue collar workers, have blue collar workers they love, or were blue collar workers themselves who were told they needed to retrain. They chose what they thought was the safer route, and that doesn’t mean they looked down on anyone. Many felt class solidarity since most creative and knowledge workers were still part of the working class.
I’m not cheering for any person being devalued based on the type of work they do. I’m not okay with making any person struggle to justify why they deserve the basics like housing, medicine, and food in an economy that works against them. The adversarial worldview that makes people think some people don’t deserve a decent livelihood is an artifact of history contingency and the economic and political system it created. But many people rejected these notions even if they were powerless to change anything.
Also, AI has put blue collar workers in more economic danger than before. Even if generative AI doesn’t affect your job much, AI and machine learning makes it possible for robots to navigate a wider variety of environments and do increasingly complex physical tasks. The people rushing into blue collar work when they lost their creative job means individual blue collar workers lose leverage too.
@@artcanhelp of course I am not saying that you or anybody else on this channel told people to lear to code, as you said, but the fact remains that some people's jobs and dignity are clearly worth more than others in the eyes of the mainstream upper-middle class urbanite left, both in the US and Europe.
On the opportunities AI can bring for artists, I think they are endless. This can come from something as simple as the democratising effect of accessibility. Imagine you are a highschool student wanting to turn your weired movie ideas into reality. Today, that is basically impossible, but in ten years AI will make it possible for even the poorest person to animate whole movies only through their phone. It also opens up massive opportunities for established artists. Imagine being a video game studio and creating life-like characters that chat with the player in real time, impersonating someone hand crafter by the artist. Or imagine writing an interactive book that responds to an infinite amount of player choices by generation new and exciting stories to explore. Imagine an exhibition in a museum that lets you interact with an artist interpretation of prophets, historical figures, or just random people that have an interesting story to tell. The opportunities are so endless that I really believe that those artists who are ready and willing to embrace this new technology will emerge as the most groundbreaking of their time, as those who have embraced technological change and innovation always have. Those that refuse to will be far more likely to be seen as backwards looking hangovers from an earlier period, likely forgotten or remembered as a quirky but ultimately irrelevant reactionary faction in current cultural development. For this reason, I think that we should actually all learn to code, and learn to code fast to take advantage of the amazing opportunities we are given!
@@artcanhelp The upside for us "non-artistic" folks is that we have a chance to create art of our own with the aide of AI. If we keep the status quo then that would just deprive a huge portion of the population from expressing themselves and leaves only "talented" people to be able to formulate what you imagine and bring it forward to the world to experience.
@@413412nc I apologize if I was communicating that I thought you said "learn to code," in some manner. I did not get that from you. Here is my thought, soon the AI will generate what it "knows" you want to see. Why make your own movie when it makes a movie for you? Having an idea for a movie and then seeing it appear is to creativity as asking for extra cheese at Micky D's is to cooking.
I’m a big fan of AI generated art and I hope to see that technology expanded.
I mean this with the best intention. I am not trying to criticize your taste. There are aspects of it that I like as well. What do you like about it?
No worries and i appreciate the reply. I like how accessible it has made good art. I use it to create images for short stories I write. I think AI art will become better and more accessible in the future. I don’t see this as a bad thing. I heard your concerns about it stifling creativity, perhaps that happens sometimes. However it could also enhance creativity by lowering barriers to entry, that is true my case. I guess my hope is that artists will embrace this technology and use it to augment their own work.
Yes that is my hope as well. Like I said, I know many writers who have found it helpful like yourself. It really will help writers in particular make more attention getting work since video and image is really good at getting our attention compared to text alone. I suppose my real concern is a child like I was. If I did not need to learn how to draw I would be a very dismal person.
@@MrShooter713
True. That is a valid point.
@@artcanhelp Visual media is important but from what i've seen it is not necessary in making people value the story there is countless people who have had community built around them with very simplistic drawings (not 'good art' weird body proportions no backgrounds etc).
Writing will be affected too, an image on it's own isn't as impactful as with a great story behind it. AI has already written published kids books and I doubt it'll stop there.
It's not like you need a thoughtful person to write a book people have been forced to get them out in a month.
Is a story more valuable sporting image which itself changes the story, therefore making any image as important as a line of text?
What I'm I meant to fell when a political cartoon was full auto generated from the past weeks articles knowing that there was no intent behind it, how do i see others when I can't confirm if the cartoon is AI at all?