Paul
The realm of art is now residing in the future. And it’s not a pretty sight to behold.
My hunch is that quite a few of the people who are reading this article are also people who enjoy watching comedy shows that air late at night. When I was younger, late-night sitcoms had a tendency to be highly unfunny and full of repetitive jokes that were created with the purpose of appealing to the widest audience possible. This was especially true of those that aired on cable television. But at the same time as we’ve entered the age of peak television, we’ve also entered the age of peak late-night television.
Late-night comedians have also taken on the somewhat unfair mantle of often being a source for breaking news in our stratified media landscape. This is because we no longer turn in unison to the same broadcast and news outlets, and the concept of a common knowledge base is quickly disappearing before our very eyes. This is due to the fact that we no longer all turn to the same broadcast and news providers at the same time.
It shouldn’t be essential for me to watch John Oliver’s monologue in order to have an in-depth comprehension of the critical issues that are confronting the world in the present day. Late-night comedy is frequently the only outlet that devotes any amount of time to the important issues of the day because the large networks are taking an approach to most topics these days that is comparable to that of the newspaper USA Today. This has resulted in late-night comedy being the only outlet that does so (just the bare minimum amount of ink that is necessary).
This is not intended to be a rant against current events, nor is it meant to be a recommendation for comedies that broadcast late at night. Rather, it is intended to explain why I found myself watching a segment on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver about a new service called Mid journey. This service allows people to use artificial intelligence to create digital artwork by typing in a series of keywords, and it was featured in the segment. The program discussed a brand new service that was introduced called Mid journey.
Even though the user is not directly responsible for any of the sketching or painting, the computer will generate its best possible estimate of the user’s purpose based on the words that they select to enter into the program. This estimation is based on the words that the user enters into the program. It should not come as a surprise that the results span the whole spectrum, from exemplary to appalling. The major objective of the segment is to stimulate hilarious responses from the viewers in the audience. Nevertheless, the realization that something, like not only has the possibility of existing but also already does, raises red signals for every creative person, irrespective of the industry in which they operate.
After seeing that episode, just a day or two later, I came across a news piece about an artificially intelligent rapper who had lost its record deal. The article was about how the rapper had been unable to perform. You did get that sentence right the first time. In addition, I have a lot of inquiries concerning it. To begin, it is difficult to comprehend how a record contract could have been made with a rapper who does not really exist. Second, I’m curious as to how they taught rap to the artificial intelligence system. Third, who precisely is the A.I. rapper trying to conceal their identity?
As it turned out, the last component was the reason why the rapper’s contract was canceled, which brings up the more relevant question of why a contract was even offered in the first place. It turns out that two people who are not African American came up with the idea for the digital gangster rapper, who was decked out in every stereotype that some people tend to assume of African-Americans in general. The digital gangster rapper was dressed in a way that resembled a person who would be considered a gangster.
I’m not going to get into the complete history of blackface and minstrel performances in this article for a number of reasons. That is a topic that may be investigated in more detail in a specialized article, book, or documentary series. Let’s just pretend, for the purpose of the argument, that a live minstrel show cannot be compared to its online equivalent.
Naturally, the echoes of the past did not stop there when they reached that point. The actual rapper’s voice was sampled and utilized for the simulated performance by the artificially intelligent avatar in order to get the record contract. However, the situation had been manipulated by the producers in order to steal the talent from the human artist, convert it into something that could be manipulated more easily by using ones and zeros, make a financial profit off of the artist’s work, and then cut the artist out of the financial profits entirely. This is quite comparable to the actions of a great number of shady music producers over the entirety of the industry’s existence.
As more information surrounding the A.I. rapper became available to the public, the record company made the decision to terminate the contract and alter its previous plans. The increasing level of worry voiced by the general public prompted this action to be taken. The question is, how come they were not able to recognize the fault in the approach when it was initially offered to them?
And, turning the subject away from worries about cultural appropriation for a second, what are some of the potential ramifications that this will have on the music business in the years to come? We are now living in a world where autotune can make even a terrible shower singer seem like a songbird, and this world is only going to get more advanced in the coming years. Since I am a person who is deemed to have “musical problems,” the idea that a computer can make me sound like Marvin Gaye is quite enticing to me as a person who is in this category.
To what extent, though, does that mean that I actually have the ability to sing? I’d say no. However, the situation of the rapper whose performance was canceled shows to us that we have quickly arrived at a point when the requirement of the human being is rapidly decreasing. This is something that we should be aware of. It is sufficient to choose a few voice samples and hashtags that are pertinent to your article, and you are finished. You have the ability to replace Whitney Houston as the best singer of all time. And to put the icing on the cake, you won’t have to pay her a single penny for her assistance in all of this.
The field of visual arts is going to go through the same thing at the same time as other creative forms. The night before, I watched part of Trevor Noah’s show (yes, he’s another late-night comedian), and he related a story about an artist created by artificial intelligence that won first place in a competition. The artist claims that artificial intelligence was responsible for the development of around ninety percent of the prize-winning artwork. In addition to sending in the preliminary keywords, he also finished up some work in Photoshop. Nevertheless, the majority of the strenuous work was accomplished by an algorithm.
What larger problems does that bring up, putting aside for the time the question of the quality of the ultimate product? If the individual who uploaded the picture was only responsible for 10 percent of the work, how can we even refer to that person as the artist who made the piece? He is the one who came up with the first collection of keywords that were utilized to create the image. As a result, it is plausible to argue that the picture would not be there if he were not present since it would not have been possible without him.
On the other hand, the computer was responsible for all of the delicate brushwork, lighting, and composition, all of which are things that can take human beings decades to accomplish. [citation needed] From a technical point of view, I am unable to state with absolute certainty if the image that won him the competition was a photograph or a painting. A great degree of photorealism has been achieved in this work. Despite the fact that it is technically a painting, the implications for photographers are rather obvious. However, the opposite is true for painters.
If a client can have a computer create an image for them, there is no need for them to pay you thousands of dollars in creative fees and license expenses for you to take a picture of their products. It is a fact that there will most likely be some sort of price involved, and this is accurate.
There is no doubt that a cottage industry that is comparable to the production of visual effects for movies and television will rise up around AI pictures, and there will surely be new leaders in this developing profession who seek increased compensation for their services. The functioning of capitalism looks just like that. However, does this suggest that our whole professional lives are on the verge of being taken over by machines?
Consider the example of a photographer who specializes in product photography as a point of reference. Let’s imagine for a moment that Coca-Cola needs to come up with brand-new advertising in order to publicize the introduction of its newest flavor Coke. A revolving Coke can that plays music and displays text is going to be the centerpiece of the advertising.
There is a good chance that it would be much more cost-efficient for Coca-Cola to input the dimensions and hex values of its can into a computer and have it produce the photorealistic visuals of the spinning can as opposed to hiring a complete camera team. This is because there is a good chance that the computer would produce more accurate results. This is something that can be done without any problems at all.
As was previously mentioned, they may even engage an artificially intelligent musical artist to come up with a catchy tune for the ad that they can use without having to pay any royalties or other fees to the song’s owner.
As someone whose job focuses more on people than it does on things, it would be easy for me to convince myself that a computer couldn’t possibly accomplish what I do because my work is typically centered on people. However, because my job focuses more on people than it does on things, it would be impossible for a computer to accomplish what I do.
On the other hand, for me to presume such a thing would be a clear example of presumptuous behavior. I’m going to go ahead and assume that other people share my aversion to the ones and zeros in digital numbers. I mean, let’s be real: even if you adore Marvel movies, what are they, at their heart, if not simply a monument to fantastic effects that lasts for two and a half hours? I’m not trying to be a downer, but let’s be honest. And if we are to believe the number of tickets that have been purchased, folks don’t seem to mind.
Since director Ridley Scott was forced to use a CGI version of actor Oliver Reed for sections of the film Gladiator due to the actor’s unexpected death three weeks before the completion of the main filming, we have been debating the ethical difficulties that surround the digital manipulation of human performances. This is because Ridley Scott was forced to use a CGI version of Oliver Reed due to the actor’s unexpected death.
Since then, 22 years have passed, and technological advancement has only proceeded to accelerate to the point that the great majority of today’s blockbuster blockbusters contain large numbers of avatar stuntmen and women performing physical feats that are impossible for actual humans to accomplish. I won’t even begin to debate the terrible mediocrity of today’s superhero movies since it appears that not only are artificial intelligence avatars being used on screen but also artificial intelligence algorithms are being used to write the screenplays for these movies.
I can freely admit that for a little period there, I was attempting to be snarky. Can you say for sure that Netflix doesn’t use some kind of backward algorithm that keeps track of the movies you watch and sends that information to another artificial intelligence machine that then uses it to create scripts that are aimed at appealing to the widest possible audience? If we’re being completely honest, this is a reasonable question to ask. Can you say for sure that Netflix doesn’t use some kind of backward algorithm?
Therefore, it is not even remotely out of the question that in a society that increasingly views art as merely content, that sheer practicality will dictate that the majority of the content that we consume within the next ten to fifteen years, if not sooner, will be created almost entirely in a computer. This is not even remotely out of the question in a society that increasingly views art as merely content. This forecast is not even the slightest bit implausible, and none of those possibilities is even the slightest bit implausible. The question that naturally emerges is, as persons who are creative, what steps can we take to solve this problem?
It is possible for the enterprising businessperson to consider this scenario and arrive at the conclusion that the only way to make money as an artist in the future is to become the puppet master behind the development of artificial intelligence art. This is one of the possible outcomes of this scenario. In the year 2022, if I were Benjamin Braddock’s plastic-obsessed neighbor, it is quite probable that I would persuade the hapless hero to pursue a career in artificial intelligence.
However, as an artist whose career has spanned both the analog and digital generations, the idea of handing over even a small portion of my creative production to a computer feels fundamentally unjustified to me. Even if it were only a fraction of what I produce, I would not feel comfortable doing so. That in no way suggests that what you stated is inaccurate. When it comes to the percentage of our work that should be generated by a computer versus the percentage that should be created “in camera,” so to speak, each of us is comfortable with our work to varying degrees, and the degree to which we are comfortable depends on the nature of the work that we do.
Similar to how the body will instinctively reject a blood transfusion, I have a personal inclination to have a negative reaction to works of art that have been made by a machine. On the other hand, that is something that is entirely dependent on the person, with factors such as my age and personal preferences playing a part in the outcome. As the technology behind computer graphics continues to progress, it is getting harder to tell the difference between computer-generated art and the real world. As a direct consequence of this, my own boundary in the sand will most definitely shift.
A few of days ago, I made the decision to watch Braveheart again, which is one of my all-time favorite movies. The movie is well-known for its epic battle sequences, which depict hordes of warriors from opposing armies fighting in conflict across vast landscapes. These sequences are the reason for the film’s popularity. When I first saw it at the theatre, I did not realize that a significant percentage of the troops that appeared in the fight scenes had been created digitally. I was unaware of this fact. On the other hand, this was something that had to be done in order to have such a large number of soldiers there.
Today, this would be considered common practice, but when it was first introduced, it was a ground-breaking innovation. They did have a sizeable pool of suitable extras that could play the part of soldiers. However, in order to make the picture look more complete, they utilized virtually twice or even three times as many of those extras as they needed to. At least in my perspective, putting digital technology to use in such a manner appears to be an acceptable approach to put it to use. The filmmakers were nonetheless able to get the great bulk of the job done practically despite the challenges they faced. They merely finished the remaining part of the difficult task that they had done before with these digital fighters in order to maintain the expenditures within the budget that had been allowed. I was completely unbothered by it, and while I was watching the movie, I wasn’t even aware that it was happening.
Contrast that with a contemporary superhero movie, in which not only the actors but also the scenery and over half of the items are constructed from scratch using digital materials. Actors play their parts in front of green screens (or the more recent and immersive virtual LED walls), while the rest of the set is literally generated by a computer. Green screens can also be used.
In this day and age, there are still real individuals working in the field of visual effects, and it is the job that they do that makes it possible for digital worlds to exist. Therefore, it cannot be compared to a setting built by artificial intelligence because of its unique characteristics. Visual effects artists on the human side are analogous to deities in the computer realm. It is impossible for my mind to disconnect itself from the idea that I’m watching ones and zeros transformed into avatars rather than actual people, and as a result, I find that the majority of these modern action movies fail to elicit an emotional response from me. This is the primary reason why I find myself emotionally disengaging from them. This is something that bothers me about the vast majority of these contemporary action flicks.
Despite the fact that we are flawed, there is value in humans. This cannot be denied. In point of fact, it is our flaws that give us that little something extra that makes it possible for an audience to relate to a character and see a little piece of themselves in that character. This is because our weaknesses give us that little something more that makes us human. The peculiarities that give humans their one-of-a-kind quality are one of the most notable aspects of their species.
Despite the fact that Audrey Hepburn once noted that she had an unnaturally long neck, I defy anyone to look at her and conclude that she was anything other than lovely. Bogart, Humphrey’s speech was characterized by a lisp. Jimmy Stewart’s career was not hindered in the least by his awkward and stilted manner of speaking; on the contrary, it became one of his trademarks and became one of his defining characteristics.
A few months ago, I was watching the 1997 action film Face/Off, which was directed by John Woo and was distributed in the United States. In a particular sequence in the film, the two major characters, who are represented, respectively, by Nicolas Cage and John Travolta, engage on a race against one another in a speedboat. At some point, there is a collision between two boats, which leads in the two major characters being expelled from the vessel and launched flying into the air as a result of the collision.
The movie has been shown to me several times, but it wasn’t until this particular viewing that it dawned on me how painfully obvious it was that the people jumping out of the boat in the wide shot were most definitely not John Travolta and Nicolas Cage. Prior to this viewing, I had been under the impression that the people jumping out of the boat in the wide shot were John Travolta and Nicolas Cage. It makes perfect sense. Because of this, there is a profession known as stuntman. [Cause and effect]
And it’s not as if I didn’t already know, deep down in the recesses of my mind, that there’s no way the two stars would truly execute that feat on their own. There’s simply no way they could do it. However, given all that was going on in the movie, I was able to put my doubts to rest and simply go along with what was happening. To add insult to injury, are you aware of what? It was a triumph in every respect.
These kinds of stuntmen would have been replicated with the help of computer avatars if the movie had been made today. They would have been able to digitally superimpose the faces of Nicolas Cage and John Travolta onto those avatars, and they would very certainly have utilized visual effects in order to generate the boats and the writhing bodies. On the other hand, I can’t help but think that there wouldn’t have been nearly as much interest in it if it hadn’t happened that way. Witnessing the struggle of a genuine person, even if that person has flaws or deficiencies, can evoke a strong emotional response.
The persistent dedication of Tom Cruise to doing stunts in real-world environments is one of the key aspects that contributed to the success of the newly released sequel to Top Gun called Top Gun: Maverick. This motion film most likely contains a significant amount of computer-generated special effects. However, if you keep them to a minimum as much as you possibly can, you will give your audience a greater chance to connect with the narrative you are presenting to them. mostly due to the fact that everything that you are observing is, in fact, true. It’s a real live person! One may readily empathize with this.
Therefore, as we continue to careen our way toward a future in which artificial intelligence is going to start taking away a larger and larger chunk of the creative jobs in which many of us make our living, I suspect that the most effective weapon we will have in our defense will be the very fact that we are imperfect in and of ourselves. This is because we continue to careen our way toward a future in which artificial intelligence is going to start taking away a larger and larger chunk of the creative jobs in which many of us make our living. It’s possible that at first glance the question doesn’t make much sense, but what is it about people that machines will never be able to perfectly replicate? The humanity that lies inside us.
If the totality of your artistic expression is dependent on your ability to expose correctly in accordance with your light meter, you run the risk of running into problems along the way. This method is already within the scope of what computers are capable of doing. Just think about all of the different things that your camera, in its current configuration, could be able to perform for you.
However, regardless of the number of megapixels that your camera possesses, it will never be able to replicate the one-of-a-kind aesthetic that you possess. Your artistic voice is the culmination of all of the experiences that you’ve had throughout your life, regardless of whether or not those events were directly related to art. Your artistic voice is the sum total of all of the emotions you’ve felt during the course of your life. It is only possible for an individual to reach greatness by devoting their entire being to the pursuit of excellence in their chosen field of work and artistic endeavors.
As time goes on, there will undeniably be a growing amount of pressure placed on you to give over an increasing portion of your artistic production to a variety of kinds of technology. This pressure will undoubtedly increase as time goes on. And there is no doubt that new technologies will develop, which will offer you with the potential to make art and convey tales that are more powerful than they have ever been before. However, you must first investigate the factors that initially sparked your interest in pursuing a career in the arts.
Was the only purpose of your endeavor to get a result in the quickest and most cost-effective manner possible? Were you just aiming to get wealthy and famous as fast as you could? Or did you make the decision to become an artist because you were convinced that you had something significant to say to the world? When you thought about your life being a magnificent ballad, did you think that you earned the chance to add a verse?
As artists, there is no way around the undeniable truth that more and more of our work will be done via automated procedures. On the other hand, advances in scientific knowledge and technological know-how will never be able to match the significance of human intuition. Our potential for original thought will assure our continued existence. Our humanity is the only thing that will ensure our survival. And we as artists will emerge victorious from this ordeal. Regardless matter what SkyNET may assert in its defense.
