I've been through a few AI posts these two weeks, and the obvious needed measure here seems to be quality control.
With it, there could indeed be innovation. Automisation isn't of course inherently bad, if it actually frees people up to do other things. But without quality control, you're going to drive people out of industries and the resulting work will either be very poor, or insanely expensive. Honestly, if you wanted your portrait sketched in 1823, that would likely have cost you today's equivalent of $20. Not anymore. And well, who really misses it, in this time of selfies? Abstract art however has flourished, which has of course also heavily influenced film; meanwhile, a painted portrait is now a luxury item. As is experiencing live art. Is that better or worse? Depends whom you ask...
Clothing, I'd say, is a bit of a sadder tale. Clothing made to measure costs an absolute fortune. Clothing off the rack is both poor quality and expensive. Because quality costs more to produce and you have to pay three times as much for the privilege of a little decent cloth.
If there'd been a law that you're simply not allowed to sell clothing that will fall apart after three washes, things may have been different. Now, the only way to find decent quality clothing for a reasonable price is second hand, and God help you if you have any requirements. You have to throw yourself to the mercy of art students (lack experience tailoring), or make it yourself, which not all of us could if they wanted to.
Whether or not AI is using fanfic and project Gutenberg to write story isn't that important. By it's whole setup, AI can only copy and recombine, not truly innovate. AI books will probably be very bland, based on which tropes get used the most. If it is going to be used to write ad copy, uh, well, ad copy is what we all go to do to sell out anyway. If it's all that's going to be offered bookwise, we have a problem. Now, there is some form of quality control in books - fine, 90% of it is "will this sell", but still. The absolute worst of it does not often get adapted. If that doesn't matter anymore, we may be in for a rough ride.
Corporations care only about money and have no eye for quality. They will try to sell you any dreck. And they will always drive creatives to the fringes. Creatives are their enemies! All the humanities to a certain extent, boohoo, why can't we be shit to people? So there will have to be a movement against that, too. Europe does that with state sponsored arts grants (which they always cut again, I'm not naieve about those), and quality control of goods can and should exist for anything automated. It can simply be made mandatory to have a trained expert go over anything that is being allowed on the market (if this isn't already the case). Fail to do this (and the US probably will), and it will probably be very bad. But this isn't the first time human expression has been partly automated. We're still here. And I'm pretty sure "manipulating AI to do something cool" will become just another art form, just like, say, sampling.
The race to the bottom is something you can protect people from. But you can't really do it without some kind of third party interference. And that has it's own issues, as always.
areudirty
2087
annaxmalina
dededos
pixelskylines
discoholicmusic
kaledo-art
snowghoul
