A lot of people call the photography example a “false equivalency” when it comes to AI but there are many, many more legitimate examples.

It just seems that opinions on this topic are so polarized and full with misinformation and emotional responses rather than factual ones.

>>105793701 (OP)
all of those quotes turned out to be correct

>>105793701 (OP)
>Why are those in creative communities so afraid of new technology?
Nigga what. Have you seen the amount of seethe generated by Rust, webp and h265 in the so called "technical communities"? Everyone hates everything new.

In short, it's because of political signalling. I was into AI even before chatgpt came out and I regularly told people about it, and nobody cared. Even at the beginning of chatgpt it was just a cool tech thing, and most people were amused by the novelty of it. Do you think it's normal that everyone has an opinion about AI now? No, normalfags don't care about technology under normal conditions.
We had early rudimentary image generators and for a while they were completely nonpolitical. You could talk about them and show them to anyone and they'd be like "huh that's interesting". Nothing about AI replacing artists or chatgpt destroying the environment, since these aren't natural organic reactions a person would have to something like this in a vacuum.
Think of what it means that all of the backlash came at the same time. Everybody has an opinion now because of social in-group signalling and the virality of the issue, it's been adopted as an issue that determines which side of the political fence you are on.

>>105793701 (OP)
the synthesizer point is absolutely retarded because you still have to compose and play keyboards. many synthesizers are insanely complex compared to traditional instruments. things like sequencers, samplers and DAWs did more damage than synthesizers alone could.

>>105794557
>things like sequencers, samplers and DAWs did more damage
Try posting that to /dmg/

>>105794557
>things like sequencers, samplers and DAWs did more damage
Try posting that to /dmp/

>>105793701 (OP)
People back then were fully within their right to claim that e.g. photography was not a true artistic medium. Despite what the lay deviantart donut steel illustrator would have you believe, you don't get to decide that what you create is art simply because you say it is, or because you put effort or craft into it. Art does not owe its inception to the artist, but to the observer. That is what we mean when we say that art is subjective.
You can STILL to this day make the argument that photography isn't a true artistic medium, if you want to. The reason that's not a very widely held opinion is because most people who have had any sort of exposure (lol) to the medium have witnessed art within it, in some form or another.

>>105794920
(cont) The same can't be said for AI generated images, or writing, or music. I'm sure many people will affirm or deny its artistic merit for base political reasons one way or the other, but largely speaking AI as a medium simply hasn't produced anything worthy of discussion in its own right, divorced from any meta conversation about "art" or "AI" as a whole.
The big thing that sets AI apart from every other medium IMO is that it lacks precisely what most people find moving, which is intent. (What did the author mean when he said the curtains were blue, etc.) The output of an image model is so many layers removed from its input that, to the observer, any artistic intent the author may have had is entirely obscured, including the fact that there was any intent to begin with. Any such image you see could have itself been generated by a language model. There is no one on the other end, there is no one speaking to you, no one to resonate with. There's no meaning in any of it.

"cable television is going to kill movie theaters!!"
"netflix is going to kill movie theaters!!"

can't imagine why

>>105793701 (OP)
Low effort bait, but I'll bite anyway.
>Printing press
People being able to read is a wholly net positive for the world.

>Jacquard loom
Probably correct, but it has been replaced by something even more efficient that the original complaints are rather adorable in comparison. Economies of scale demand highly efficient, high volume production methods. A regular loom team, even one in every city, couldn't keep up.

>Photography
This is factually wrong. There are so many things photographers can do that it's wild. Between DoF, exposure control, lens filters, and even in post production the options are endless.

>Mechanical reproduction of art
This is correct, but having gone to several art museums and seen some very famous paintings, I wasn't impressed. I'd rather see a high quality scan on my computer where I can zoom in and view as I please from the comfort of my own room.

> Music synthesizer
Entirely wrong. Music composition and production are both highly artistic endeavors. "It takes no soul to push a button" is the same level of brain-dead as "It takes no soul to press a key on a piano".

>>105793701 (OP)
The problem with AI is that they want to use it to replace people, not "as a tool".".
That's why artists, photographers, etc are afraid of it. It doesn't help that pajeets use it to spam and further ruin the (already ruined) internet.

>>105793701 (OP)
They actually said this about piano. It put harpsichordists out of work.

>>105795179
True, though just scroll Sora AI gallery as an example. You can see so many unique ideas,of course there is some thoughtless stuff, but there is clearly intent. It’s not just, make blue curtains, there is a lot of thought put into how the prompt is constructed just like there is thought put into how something is coded.

>>105795292
Yeah some of these are factually wrong but these are quotes of people when these things were first invented, their response to the matter.

>>105793701 (OP)
just retards
some people also think VOCALOID is talentless slop made by machines
just don't listen to retards
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcOEqxH3FOQ

but "new technology" isn't always what you think it is
The latest Windows version is not new technology, it is DRM and a way to waste your time, and make life hell.
Name one good feature. Now explain why they can't port that to Windows 95 or Windows XP or Windows 10 and try no to sound retarded. You can't. They can bring the new technology to older systems but they refuse to do so.

People aren't afraid of new technology.
They hate its implementation most of the time.

Meanwhile VOCALOID has concerts with live music, cgi, anime characters, and they sell mass produced figures and merch and nobody complains because all the technology is cool

Nobody real actually hates tech. They hate big tech. Shills encourage people to hate tech instead of big tech to try and fool them into using big tech slop instead of actually using tech so they become slaves.
It's just all a scam.

Because it makes them irrelevant and superfluous. Which isn't a good thing, but it also can't be stopped.

>>105795404
Same thing happens with misinformation. People say AI is bad because people can use it to make misinformation really quick,

But then we should delete photoshop right? And any tool that could be used to doctor photos?

Just because something can be used for bad doesn’t mean it’s inherently bad, just bad actors. If someone killed someone’s with a hammer does that mean we should stop using hammers?

>>105793701 (OP)
simple
they fight for career security
i wish tech autists were this self-aware instead of being perfect replaceable goycattle

>>105795353
>there is clearly intent
I'm not talking about intent to create something, I'm talking about intent to convey meaning. My point is that it's nigh impossible to parse for certain what was intentionally placed by the human and what was filled in by the machine. If there is intent to convey meaning at all, it's completely lost in the process of prompt -> output.

>>105794214
Man fuck webp tho.

Also AI imagery isn't art, it doesn't belongs in creative communities, AI is tech, it belongs on the other tech speculative niches like crypto, NFTs and Metaverse, this is so obvious but apparently so fucking hard for people to understand.

>>105793701 (OP)
1. because it poses a perceived threat to their livelihoods
2. because a lot of boosters specifically advertise it as a threat to their livelihoods and celebrate the idea it might put artists out on the street.
3. because, by making it very easy to create something that looks like content, it does pose one unambiguous threat to the livelihoods of artists and entertainment of everyone else: a massive increase in AI generated "noise" when looking for "signal"

i have a fairly neutral view: i don't think AI competes with most digital artists in communities (furry, comics, etc) because a large part of what they're selling is a personal brand rather than the art. AI can generate the Mona Lisa, but the value in the Mona Lisa isn't in the picture - it's in da Vinci's name. i don't think most artists are conscious of this, so they naturally worry. i think it'll screw over freelance illustrators, but a chunk of what they were doing was already marginal - corporate memphis clipart libraries etc were already taking generic business illustration work away.
so AI boosters who think traditional artists are going to be (in their view, deservedly) screwed over, or that AI art will soon have parity of status with traditional art, are most likely wrong. AI doomers, who think they're going to lose their commissioners to AI, are also most likely wrong.

>>105795179
also this, particularly for text. a pretty AI generated picture is pretty on its own, but the post i've just typed loses all meaning if you imagine it's just the output of a statistical model that plucked up the most likely sequence of words to follow your question, rather than the product of a human mind trying to answer it.

>>105794557
Amen. I spent a few hours trying to get the hang of FM synthesis and eventually got the kind of bass sound I was thinking of. Grabbed my bass and turned on the pedal rack, got the sound I wanted in a few minutes. The only thing the synth lets me do is play shit I can't physically play on a guitar, otherwise it's way more fucking complicated.
>>105795205
Shitty movies killed movie theaters, and they're killing Netflix too.

the printing press is a different issue from the rest.
But, a profound sense of loss for artisans who had to dedicate their time and effort to master something.
Now it's automated, and any pleb can create seemingly similar but often lesser things, without the experienced pursuit.
The lack of pursuit is often why artists will claim manufactured things as "soulless".