AI Can't Make Art, Only Rip It Off | The Backdrop

I’m generally skeptical of AI, and broadly agree with your points in the video. But there’s one question I haven’t been able to answer for myself: can AI prompting ever be practiced as a genuine art form, where a sense of intentionality comes from the person prompting the machine? I’m doubtful, because it seems that people are drawn to AI prompting to *avoid* dedication to craft and self-reflection, but I do think exceptions are possible. I just haven’t seen it, and wouldn’t know what that would look like.

AI will be the junk food of the art world. There will still be chefs, innovators, and other talented humans creating quality products. But the masses will be rotting their brains alongside their bodies with cheap junky input. It really isn't much different than the current "content" landscape. The people that produce the junk food content will shift the labor behind it to engineering the most desirable, cheap, binge-inducing thought Twinkies.

So.. is a Warhol art or isn't it?

“What an interesting and lovely video essay from Darren.” “I think I’ll read a few comments…oh.” Sometimes I regret being literate.

SW, keep Darren happy pls. I love gaming, however his entertainment coverage rounds out the channel in the best ways. His analysis is top notch and thought provoking. +puns

Not sure if auteur directors is the best prism to look at the impact of AI. The Studio Ghibli filter is only a toy but its practical use would be on the lower levels. AI seems to be surrounding creativity and squeezing it. AI started in the media that talks about and 'analyses' creative endeavors. Articles, videos, posters, tik toks. Now it's getting in on low level art production like on late night with the devil. I suspect it will soon be employed to devalue and eliminate a lot of roles that don't spring to mind as quickly as director. My thinking is that we'll see AI used for stuff like ADR, Storyboarding, concept artists, computer generated assets, possibly less prominent parts of the soundtrack if not further. The product of this could be that movies start being budgeted based on these roles being fulfilled by AI tools constraining directors (auteurs included) from using the people with talent (those skills being lost over time as well) and also leading to more homogenisation of the media landscape. AI won't replace what auteurs chose to create but will replace the 1000's of talented and unthanked folk who bring those visions to life.

Just wait until the tech bros that have Occhams Razored themselves into believing that if they don’t bring about the inevitable AI supergod then it’s going to put everyone into “I have no Mouth but I must scream” go mainstream.

What's with the doubled audio around 9:17? Anyway... A lot of the "art" made by human artists is not particularly creative either, but it at least has the potential to develop into something greater. GenAI pretty much by definition is derivative. If all you want is another generic anime babe, that's fine - but that's a lost opportunity for a human artist to use that generic artwork as a building block towards building a fresh style. One of the core problems with art of all sorts is that many more people want to be artists than can be sustained by the people looking to absorb that art; this is a large part of why artists of all types are notoriously underpaid. GenAI is now consuming a large chunk of that already small market.

Darren's essay has really helped me crystallize my thinking on this - bravo for addressing the issue so clearly. I recently finished reading The Bright Sword by Lev Grossman, and there's a line in there (spoken about Hadrian's Wall, built by the Romans against the natives in northern Britain) that seems to speak to the fundamental problem with AI art: "The wall is death. An empire that builds its walls in stone has stopped growing. And an empire that is not growing is dying." Widespread adoption of AI forecloses the possibility of creativity, by drawing a wall around the existing universe of content -- perhaps this is best illustrated in the prediction that AI models will run out of "training material" (i.e. stolen works from which to copy) as early as 2026. At the same time, the production companies still hold the keys to the kingdom, and they can use their AI tools to effectively replace human creation with computer amalgamation for virtually all widespread, commercially available content. The end result is a cultural ouroboros of stagnation and decay. All of this, ironically, led and cheered on by tech bros who constantly whine about empathy causing "the death of Western civilization."

One thing that the "AI is here to stay!!!" crowd doesn't ever seem to consider is just how expensive and energy intensive it is to train and run these programs. In 2024, AI data training centers - the things that allow these "incredible programs to grow exponentially!!!" were so energy intensive that they came in 11th place on the global index of energy consumption. That's more than most First World Countries. It's been predicted by MIT that by 2026, AI centers will be FIFTH on that list... consuming more energy than the ENTIRE NATION OF JAPAN.

I have often wondered about that. Yes it can only take parts and remix them, but that's what most artists do anyway. Which got me back to games, like way back when in LoL there was no ingame timer for the dragon spawn, and people lost their shit when it was announced there will be one. "Oh no, my skill at knowing when six minutes are up will be RUINED. Now everyone knows!!" Which brings me back to AI. The ideas still need to come from people if anything of value is to be created, that much is clear. AI itself cannot do anything with the prompt "make art". But if a person has a clear goal in mind, a valid idea, maybe unique and interesting, why would it be frowned upon if that person uses AI to make it real? To use a tool to allow them to express themself? Why shouldn't there be a timer in the game, so people can focus on actual decision making instead of being stopwatches? I think many incredibly creative people never see the light of day because for whatever reason they never learned to craft their ideas into reality. AI is a tool, nothing more (even if marketing parasites work overtime to sell it as more), and i am totally in favor of giving more people access to tools that let them be creative. That shouldn't take away from artists that spend hundreds of hours learning to draw or compose, obviously, but summarily dismissing AI art as wrong is also not the way. What IS wrong about AI art is the blatant copyright infringement and literal theft perpetrated by the big companies that train the models. But that is something true for many things, and the only solution to that is separation of head and body of CEOs. Ain't ever happening sadly.

I think there will always be a market for slop, just like there is always a market for actual art. I consider facebook, twitter and tiktok to be concentrated slop, but lots of people seem to find them worthwhile or entertaining. We as consumers now have an unfortunate responsibility to be discerning about what we engage with, but I think real art will continue to surprise and delight, usually by subverting the established trends and, as you said, putting in the effort. By definition AI can't give us anything we don't already have, so the market for novelty will never disappear.

In case SW is at all worried about losing money, the fact that someone is willing to say basic truths about terrible things happening in the world (DM in particular here) is a big part of the reason why I’m still here.

Great “content” Darren!

I just really enjoy your take on things even when I disagree, it seems to me that it comes from a place of thoughtful consideration and a knowledge/facts based approach...

This ain't it chief. All on board on the traditionalist gate keeper AI hate bandwagon. AI is here to stay no matter how much "Artists" complain. It won't replace artists it will replace those that don't incorporate AI into their workflows. It is not stealing art. It training off of it and doesn't copy any of it. It is fair use. It is not worse for the enviroment than a celeb's carbon footprint. Deepfakes and other such may get better but we need education to counteract it. AI is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less.