Traveller, TAS, and AI

[Sigtrygg]

The fundamental difference is that Carpet, rug and car making machines are assembling the respective materials in a fashion and order that was already determined and designed (by a person).

The weavers are skilled craftsmen, creators, they are now out of work, Now you are being dis-igneous denigrating their work to below that of someone who pushes a brush around a piece of paper.

Are you saying that a printer equivalent to the person who created the image? I don't think that was your intent but that's a reasonable extrapolation of your opinion that a machine weaving a carpet is the doing the same job as the person who designed the carpet.

I am referring to the craftsman that has been replaced. As to printing, that has also seen human artisans replaced by machinery. Cutting type blocks, assembling the typeface, once skilled human jobs, gone.

Or the robot welding a door onto a car might as well have designed the car.

Today the same computer may control both, they design and supervise the assembly robots... (ok, not likely to be the same machine)

As the word "creating" can be ambiguous I would argue that the distinction should best be described as between Assembly / Manufacture vs Design.

Creative endeavors by humans ALWAYS include design an CAN include assembly / manufacture.

AI (currently) can only assemble / manufacture based on (increasingly complicated) variant algorithms built with training data as the base Design component.

Products are already designed by algorithms, they have focus groups and gather market data, survey data etc and then let the algorithms do their thing. It used to be people studying all this and then deciding concepts, now the data and the algorithms decide concepts.

I wonder why they use machines, is it cost saving, efficiency, the massive amount of data they can process? Don't know. And I do know they often get it wrong. A new product is brought to market and all the algorithms say it should be a hit, instead the human consumer says no thanks.

 

[Sigtrygg]

The better comparison is xxxx identifying as xxxx in order to participate in xxxx because they cannot compete in their own lanes, thereby stealing opportunities from people who worked hard to develop their skills.

Which is why skilled humans have been replaced by automation.

What makes artist exempt?

 

[Sigtrygg]

I'm not talking about appreciation. I'm saying, if I draw a Car. Is it wrong if I used a photorealistic style vs Anime? What is the OBJECTIVE right way to draw a Cat? If you can't answer that than maybe you can understand how any creative exercise fundamentally differs from a mathematical one.

Draw the car anyway you want to, different people will appreciate it in different ways, personally I don't care one bit which style you use. There are no art police who will arrest you for the wrong style choice.
Are you drawing a concept of a car or are you drawing a Camry without the rights to do so? What about if the car you draw looks a bit like a Camry?

Because if you got 1000 artists to create a picture of a gauss rifle there would not be an objectively correct picture? And since a computer is only able to "generate" based on training data created by people, the computer's picture is nothing but the manipulator and recombination of the subjective and personal creations of the human artists.

So why is the human version any better? If I ask a human artist to draw me a gauss rifle and do the same with a AItist how does the human artist know what a gauss rifle looks like unless they copy it?

I'm sorry. I was operating under the assumption that there was a base value / respect for the concept of creativity and that your position was simply that there was no demonstrative difference between Human and Machine creations.

I fail to see how a human artist synthesising all the art they have observed, copied, learned from is any different to a computer doing the same.
It;s akin to the various animal artists that make the news every now an then, an elephant throws paint at a wall and the artistic community waxes lyrical about the elephant's creativity,

Therefore I tried to demonstrate that there was a distinction because machines are not capable of true creativity.

I understand your point, and I agree, there is something unique to how we perceive human creativity, but the free will philosophers out there will tell you free will is an illusion and if so then so is creativity.

If you are coming into this with the intent to question the value of creativity itself... that is a larger debate than I am prepared to respond to.

I don't think I am equipped to debate a question of that depth, as I said it gets into the realm of determinism, free will and the like. I can't decide which to pursue next, theology or philosophy.

A big thank you for a good discussion.

 

[Arkathan]

Which is why skilled humans have been replaced by automation.

What makes artist exempt?

In this case, the soulless automation is trying to create something that SHOULD have soul behind it.
The automation is trained by people. If those people have agendas, then the AI has an agenda. Like the algorithms at Google burying common sense while promoting stupidity. Or truth being suppressed because it is inconvenient to those in charge.
Then the government colludes to shape the proletariat. We already see that documented. Social credit scores.
No joy, just mindless conformity and soul crushing tedium of menial labor.
Nothing to aspire to.
It is as stupid and as counterproductive to society as having a computer replace your child on a playground or removing whatever hobby you enjoy because some talentless hack can do it with a computer.
You justify removing people from jobs because it has happened before.
So where does it end? At what point do governments start eliminating large swaths of the population because robots can do the work better and people are no longer "needed?" Or rather, people who don't conform to the orthodox ideology are just too inconvenient? What becomes of the people who remain, reduced to drones who are either obedient to their overlords or made examples of?

 

[Tforbes]

The weavers are skilled craftsmen, creators, they are now out of work, Now you are being dis-igneous denigrating their work to below that of someone who pushes a brush around a piece of paper.

I would say that the person who designed the carpet pattern SHOULD be valued higher than the person who followed the instructions to replicate it. I'm not denigrating anybody. Everybody and everything has value but the initial design and creation is more valuable than any reproduction. (iteration is different and I could say it is certainly possible for a revision to be more valuable than the initial design but that would, once again, be a creative activity)

I am referring to the craftsman that has been replaced. As to printing, that has also seen human artisans replaced by machinery. Cutting type blocks, assembling the typeface, once skilled human jobs, gone.

I'm not saying and have never said that all jobs should be exclusively done by humans. My point is that the creativity required for an initial design is and should be valued higher than the manufacture of any reproduction. If compared fairly, a Human worker following instructions to create something vs a machine creating that same thing with the same instructions, there is no question that the precision and speed would result in the machine coming out on top.

Today the same computer may control both, they design and supervise the assembly robots... (ok, not likely to be the same machine)

Please share with me a single car model which was designed by a machine WITHOUT any previous instruction or guidance from a human designed.

Products are already designed by algorithms, they have focus groups and gather market data, survey data etc and then let the algorithms do their thing. It used to be people studying all this and then deciding concepts, now the data and the algorithms decide concepts.

Without the guidance or instruction of the humans who designed the program could the algorithm do anything? Without the input of the focus groups? All algorithms or AI can do is follow increasingly complex instructions (some of which are to refine its own instructions which makes it difficult for the Human designers to fully comprehend) to determined outcomes. Humans still can't even create a true random generator.

One day, possibly one day very soon, the complexity of AI's algorithms will match of even exceed human heuristics, but it is not this day. In my opinion, frankly, trying to claim equivalency between the Human creative process and generative AI does more harm to AI development by lowering the bar. Toddler's learning to trace their letters and put them in fun unique orders to create new words are NOT as good as professional painters, writers, or engineers. One day they might be, but you won't catch me arguing that it's fine to hire little Timmy to design a bridge because he's looked at a lot of bridges so he can trace and mix and match different parts to make something that looks new.

 

[Sigtrygg]

In this case, the soulless automation is trying to create something that SHOULD have soul behind it.

I agree, but that is based on my feelings, not any actual objective reality.

The automation is trained by people. If those people have agendas, then the AI has an agenda. Like the algorithms at Google burying common sense while promoting stupidity. Or truth being suppressed because it is inconvenient to those in charge.

The same charge can be levied at the education and indoctrination of the youth in public education dictated by the governement.

Then the government colludes to shape the proletariat. We already see that documented. Social credit scores.
No joy, just mindless conformity and soul crushing tedium of menial labor.
Nothing to aspire to.

Modern slavery in all but name.

It is as stupid and as counterproductive to society as having a computer replace your child on a playground or removing whatever hobby you enjoy because some talentless hack can do it with a computer.

Why are birth rates falling? Why is immigration the current solution to working age population decline. Why are humanoid robots only a couple of years away...

You justify removing people from jobs because it has happened before.

Justify? No, it can never be just to take away someones livelihood, to deny them and their family. But it will continue regardless. I find it odd that so many lives have been destroyed thanks to "progress" and as we move to a post-industrial communication technology age that the degradation of the human condition is accelerating. It's almost as if it were deliberate rather than a reaction to flawed economic and societal models.

So where does it end? At what point do governments start eliminating large swaths of the population because robots can do the work better and people are no longer "needed?"

They have had a rehearsal already, assisted dying laws, murdering unborn babies up to the point of birth, drug dependence. Check out causes of death in Canada...

Or rather, people who don't conform to the orthodox ideology are just too inconvenient?

I think we both know the answer to that.

What becomes of the people who remain, reduced to drones who are either obedient to their overlords or made examples of?

At least there will still be artists.

Seriously. The rich will live on, they will surround themselves with human amusements, including artists. As long as you entertain them you are useful...

 

[Sigtrygg]

I would say that the person who designed the carpet pattern SHOULD be valued higher than the person who followed the instructions to replicate it.

Weaving the carpet is as skilled if not more skilled than drawing a pattern.

I'm not denigrating anybody. Everybody and everything has value but the initial design and creation is more valuable than any reproduction. (iteration is different and I could say it is certainly possible for a revision to be more valuable than the initial design but that would, once again, be a creative activity)

I would contest that. A skilled carpenter, any actual artisan craft, requires a lot more training than the design.

I'm not saying and have never said that all jobs should be exclusively done by humans. My point is that the creativity required for an initial design is and should be valued higher than the manufacture of any reproduction.

Again, why is a designer given more credit than the craftsman who has to train for decades to achieve the skill to realise the design?

If compared fairly, a Human worker following instructions to create something vs a machine creating that same thing with the same instructions, there is no question that the precision and speed would result in the machine coming out on top.

So why is it ok to replace a skilled craftsman with a machine and not a designer?

Please share with me a single car model which was designed by a machine WITHOUT any previous instruction or guidance from a human designed.

I will get some links...

Without the guidance or instruction of the humans who designed the program could the algorithm do anything?

So if there is a human behind the machine, and a human writing the algorithm, what is wrong with that human using that machine and algorithm to do art, it is the same thing is it not? A human has given instruction, a human has designed/created the algorithm...

Without the input of the focus groups? All algorithms or AI can do is follow increasingly complex instructions (some of which are to refine its own instructions which makes it difficult for the Human designers to fully comprehend) to determined outcomes. Humans still can't even create a true random generator.

So if algorithms and Ai are following human instructions it is a human using the computer as a tool, so why not have that tool create art?

One day, possibly one day very soon, the complexity of AI's algorithms will match of even exceed human heuristics, but it is not this day.

Despite the MSM and pop sci I think the rise of intelligent machines is still a long way off. Computers are still nothing more than on/off switches, I like to convince myself that there is more to consciousness and our brains than lots of on/off switches.

In my opinion, frankly, trying to claim equivalency between the Human creative process and generative AI does more harm to AI development by lowering the bar. Toddler's learning to trace their letters and put them in fun unique orders to create new words are NOT as good as professional painters, writers, or engineers. One day they might be, but you won't catch me arguing that it's fine to hire little Timmy to design a bridge because he's looked at a lot of bridges so he can trace and mix and match different parts to make something that looks new.

Now that is a convincing argument, I can definitely agree with that

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

I have a slightly different aspect to the topic.

I know that this reference is USA-specific (https://www.copyright.gov/ai/), but Part 2 of the report does describe certain international approaches (Japan, China, UK, India and Canada to name a few).

If I follow the process described in Part as "Expressive Inputs" or otherwise modify material originally generated by AI technology to such a degree that the modifications meet the standard for copyright protection, that represents a significant difference between purely generative AI artwork.

My avatar on this forum is an example of a photograph of me, that I ran through AI to create something new. It has soul (Look at the smiling goofball).

The images below show an object created in a 3D printer application, that followed the expressive input process I described.

Unfortunately, this would no longer be allowed (as I read the new policy)

 

[Terry Mixon]

I have a slightly different aspect to the topic.

I know that this reference is USA-specific (https://www.copyright.gov/ai/), but Part 2 of the report does describe certain international approaches (Japan, China, UK, India and Canada to name a few).

If I follow the process described in Part as "Expressive Inputs" or otherwise modify material originally generated by AI technology to such a degree that the modifications meet the standard for copyright protection, that represents a significant difference between purely generative AI artwork.

My avatar on this forum is an example of a photograph of me, that I ran through AI to create something new. It has soul (Look at the smiling goofball).

The images below show an object created in a 3D printer application, that followed the expressive input process I described.
View attachment 5238View attachment 5237
Unfortunately, this would no longer be allowed (as I read the new policy)

I'm actually unsure this would be disallowed. Maybe @MongooseMatt could weigh in on this distinction, but I believe the thrust of the new rule was to ban wholly generated AI art rather than something created in another manner and then enhanced. This is more like a photo touch up. Your Avatar might be different as it is more AI generated with a real element rather than a touch up enhancement.

 

[Tforbes]

Weaving the carpet is as skilled if not more skilled than drawing a pattern.

Drawing a pattern? Sure but I'm talking about determining HOW to weave that particular pattern. (over, under, skip, skip, over, over, skip) etc.

I would contest that. A skilled carpenter, any actual artisan craft, requires a lot more training than the design.

hey, what are the first 3 letters in artisan again?

Again, why is a designer given more credit than the craftsman who has to train for decades to achieve the skill to realise the design?

I think I've identified the point of confusion. When I'm saying design what I mean is "determines HOW to do the thing". If a craftsman who has trained for decades is doing nothing more than following a preset set of instructions set out by somebody else... I'm not giving them much credit beyond the physical exertion.

So why is it ok to replace a skilled craftsman with a machine and not a designer?

Pragmatically, if any human job can be done (in its entirety) by a machine then it will and should be done by the machine. The question at odds in this thread (to bring it back to the main point) is that corporations are replacing human workers with machines that can do "enough" of the job to get by while telling the public that the part that gets dropped wasn't all that important in the first place. Mongoose has made a stand here to say that "the human touch" isn't a small insignificant part of the process. It's critical.

I will get some links...

So if there is a human behind the machine, and a human writing the algorithm, what is wrong with that human using that machine and algorithm to do art, it is the same thing is it not? A human has given instruction, a human has designed/created the algorithm...

So if algorithms and Ai are following human instructions it is a human using the computer as a tool, so why not have that tool create art?

If you, or the suits behind Generative AI, wanted to claim that the programmers deserve ownership of anything and everything produced with their program because it as a tool I'd find that far more convincing than the argument that the tool should be credited with creating the art.

I don't think anybody in this thread would disagree that there is nuance to the question of what percentage of AI tips the scales from "AI assisted" to "AI Created" which will need to be adjudicated eventually. But the way society is at this moment, that's like trying to determine how big a fire can your fireplace hold by tossing more wood at it until your house catches alight. Mongoose is essentially just telling us the fireplace is currently decorative and we should put on a sweater if we're cold.... I think this metaphor finally broke me.

Despite the MSM and pop sci I think the rise of intelligent machines is still a long way off. Computers are still nothing more than on/off switches, I like to convince myself that there is more to consciousness and our brains than lots of on/off switches.

Now that is a convincing argument, I can definitely agree with that

I find collectively dunking on Little Timmy's shitty drawing is always the best way to bring a group together.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Drawing a pattern? Sure but I'm talking about determining HOW to weave that particular pattern. (over, under, skip, skip, over, over, skip) etc.

That's the weaver's skill, not the person who drew the picture.

hey, what are the first 3 letters in artisan again?

Coincidence I am sure...

I think I've identified the point of confusion. When I'm saying design what I mean is "determines HOW to do the thing". If a craftsman who has trained for decades is doing nothing more than following a preset set of instructions set out by somebody else... I'm not giving them much credit.

Ever try to forge a sword? How about follow a Michelin star recipe?

Pragmatically, if any human job can be done (in its entirety) by a machine then it will and should be done by the machine. The question at odds in this thread (to bring it back to the main point) is that corporations are replacing human workers with machines that can do "enough" of the job to get by while telling the public that the part that gets dropped wasn't all that important in the first place.

The public will keep swallowing what they are fed until it is too late to do anything about it.

Mongoose has made a stand here to say that "the human touch" isn't a small insignificant part of the process. It's critical.

And I applaud them for having an ethical stance

But at the same time it is costing the livelyhood of small publishers who can not afford human artists.

I have seen altruistic artists starting to offer art packs for TAS use, I assume they are independently wealthy and are doing the art for fun but that means they are taking the work from paid artists so the paid artist still suffers loss of income.
Or do they.
Are paid artists losing work because single party publishers can't afford to use them and use AI instead or would those small publishers just use free art. And if there is free art why can AI not learn from the free art. And then the small publisher can use the AI. The human artist is not going to get any less money, the small publisher was never going to use them, they can't afford the over head.

How is providing free artwork not the same as using AI artwork, they both cost the artist their livelihood.

But now I am rambling.

If you, or the suits behind Generative AI, wanted to claim that the programmers deserve ownership of anything and everything produced with their program because it as a tool I'd find that far more convincing than the argument that the tool should be credited with creating the art.

Corporations never credit their workers, the IP always goes to the company, or at least is has done so since Edison showed how to do it.

I don't think anybody in this thread would disagree that there is nuance to the question of what percentage of AI tips the scales from "AI assisted" to "AI Created" which will need to be adjudicated eventually. But the way society is at this moment, that's like trying to determine how big a fire can your fireplace hold by tossing more wood at it until your house catches alight. Mongoose is essentially just telling us the fireplace is currently decorative and we should put on a sweater if we're cold.... I think this metaphor finally broke me.

I find collectively dunking on Little Timmy's shitty drawing is always the best way to bring a group together.

Once again, great discussion.

 

[Arkathan]

I have a slightly different aspect to the topic.

I know that this reference is USA-specific (https://www.copyright.gov/ai/), but Part 2 of the report does describe certain international approaches (Japan, China, UK, India and Canada to name a few).

If I follow the process described in Part as "Expressive Inputs" or otherwise modify material originally generated by AI technology to such a degree that the modifications meet the standard for copyright protection, that represents a significant difference between purely generative AI artwork.

My avatar on this forum is an example of a photograph of me, that I ran through AI to create something new. It has soul (Look at the smiling goofball).

The images below show an object created in a 3D printer application, that followed the expressive input process I described.
View attachment 5238View attachment 5237
Unfortunately, this would no longer be allowed (as I read the new policy)

Did someone create the model in a 3D app? There is a difference between AI (give me a photo of this and that) and virtual digital photography: pose and skin a model that you have a license for, add a background apply lighting set focal length, render image. That is not AI.

 

[steelbrok]

I would say that the person who designed the carpet pattern SHOULD be valued higher than the person who followed the instructions to replicate it.

That's an essentially class based argument. It's fine for the proles to lose their jobs but not the middle/upper class artists

 

[Tforbes]

That's the weaver's skill, not the person who drew the picture.

Right. So, in this instance the weaver is ALSO the designer because they determined how to replicate the picture.

Ever try to forge a sword? How about follow a Michelin star recipe?

No I have not but, as I understand it, variations and imperfections in the metal mean a blacksmith has to be flexible and change their approach with each sword. They can't rely on following a rigid set of instructions handed down to them. That said, if some Master blacksmith DID write a detailed set of instructions which covered every possible eventually and advised exactly how to address them then I would give them more credit than the blacksmiths who follow it. Same does for cooks following a recipe. There's thought, care, and hard work that does into determining how to cook a meal with the specific ingredients in front of you. Even if you are ostensibly following a recipe. hat said, if some Master blacksmith DID write a detailed set of recipe which covered every possible eventually and advised exactly how to address them then I would give them more credit than the cooks who simply follow it... wait I think i made a mistake somewhere.

Your examples are both situations where a human is responsible for both the design and manufacture versions of "creating" something.

The public will keep swallowing what they are fed until it is too late to do anything about it.

And I applaud them for having an ethical stance

But at the same time it is costing the livelyhood of small publishers who can not afford human artists.

Is it Mongoose's responsibility to protect the livelihoods of small publishers who cannot afford human artists? Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying Mongoose wants to "screw the little guy" but they done HAVE TO protect them either. For their own reasons, Mongoose has decided that prohibiting AI art, despite the potential harm to "small publishers", was the right decision in order to do what they could to support human artists and artworks.

I have seen altruistic artists starting to offer art packs for TAS use, I assume they are independently wealthy and are doing the art for fun but that means they are taking the work from paid artists so the paid artist still suffers loss of income.

Whether the art was made by a human and released for free or made by a human and charged, it was made by a human. Taken to the extreme, if an individual artist has to suffer so the "soul" of human art can continue, is that worth it? That comes back to our side-stepped landmine of "does creativity have value"

Are paid artists losing work because single party publishers can't afford to use them and use AI instead or would those small publishers just use free art. And if there is free art why can AI not learn from the free art. And then the small publisher can use the AI. The human artist is not going to get any less money, the small publisher was never going to use them, they can't afford the over head.

If the only factor of any importance was money in the short term then, sure. There's no difference. If an individual small publisher can't afford an individual paid artist then they don't hide the individual paid artist and the individual paid artist doesn't get paid. If instead, AI art proliferates unchecked to the point where expectations for art are watered down to the point where consumers don't care, then the collective profession of paid artists disappears. (and don't get me started on the downward slope in quality once Generative AI starts having to use Generated AI content as training data...)

How is providing free artwork not the same as using AI artwork, they both cost the artist their livelihood.

I think this question has 2 answers.
1. Whether free or paid art, it is HUMAN art. It has the "human touch" which I mentioned earlier is worth something. (Even if we're unable to quantify what that is and it only gets harder the better Generative AI gets)
2. A Human made the choice to give their own art away. We've gotten used to the concept that Humans do things which intentionally hurt other Humans. We're not ready to accept Machines willfully hurting humans.

But now I am rambling.

and here I thought that's how we'd both decided to spend our afternoons. hahah

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

Did someone create the model in a 3D app? There is a difference between AI (give me a photo of this and that) and virtual digital photography: pose and skin a model that you have a license for, add a background apply lighting set focal length, render image. That is not AI.

I created that model in a 3D app, integrating licensed components and ones I created using 3D Builder.

 

[Tforbes]

That's an essentially class based argument. It's fine for the proles to lose their jobs but not the middle/upper class artists

This was a point of confusion which I regret and attempted to correct later on. I didn't mean that the person who draw a picture of the pattern should be valued higher than the person who weaved the pattern itself.

I meant that the person who figured out HOW to weave the pattern (presumably by doing it the first time) should be valued higher than the person who replicated the steps by following instruction. The value "ranking" is in that very specific circumstance and does not correlate beyond that. Additionally, if the 2nd person iterated on the process and figured out HOW to weave the pattern BETTER or FASTER, then I would again value that higher than somebody who later came along and followed the new and improved process.

Ultimately my point was that creativity and design is present in all things done by humans and not (yet) present in things done by machines.

 

[Arkathan]

I created that model in a 3D app, integrating licensed components and ones I created using 3D Builder.

So NOT AI.

 

[Arkathan]

That's an essentially class based argument. It's fine for the proles to lose their jobs but not the middle/upper class artists

Considering that even the AI guys admit the artists can't make a living, not so much upper class, except a rare few.
The irony is that the left's journalists were telling people losing their jobs to learn to code (until it was their turn - then it was a hate crime) and now AI is trying to take away those jobs too.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

So NOT AI.

Left image, bland model by untalented artist (me)
Right image, processed by AI

 

[jwlovell]

Well, if mixed use is against the rules for Commercial TAS work, does this apply to mainstream Mongoose publications as well?

Like the comics?