DALL-E is an OpenAI neural network that can generate an incredible range of images from text prompts. His website for the company shows off its features, including an illustration of a baby radish walking a dog, an avocado-shaped armchair, and a storefront with “OpenAI” written across the entrance.
I saw some of these images while scrolling through Twitter and I immediately reacted. I did what most people who react instantly on Twitter tend to do. They quoted-tweeted the announcement and declared the invention diabolical. “This would ruin the art,” I continued.
But Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI and former president of startup accelerator Y Combinator, also showed off more of DALL-E’s talents on Twitter. Painting inspired by Banksy’s art showing human-computer interaction; Rabbit detective sitting on a park bench in a Victorian setting; Elephant tea party on the lawn, Especially the more fantastical images.
After my own tweet, I was flooded with replies from 200 techno-optimists. According to them, either I don’t understand artificial intelligence or I don’t understand art. It’s more simple. Techno-optimists don’t understand people.
DALL-E’s defenses range from the cynical, “Trash, what are you afraid of?” The more optimistic “Cameras aren’t scary, right?”
Of course, these are both myopic. Cynics don’t understand that DALL-E can only improve from here. They can’t imagine a world where the amount of data they need to work with increases exponentially, and prompts exist that aren’t generated by engineers who want to see things like:Astronaut riding a horse on the moon” Optimists seem to miss the point that artificial intelligence and cameras are not equivalent technological leaps.
We are accelerating towards a strange future.necessarily bad There’s only one, but not one that I’m excited about. It is a future where media has reached a quality stagnation. The film became a blockbuster hit for the studio. TV shows are algorithmic slop from Netflix and Hulu. Despite their smaller audience numbers, independent films are still distributed and sometimes hotly debated. The preference for widely produced, mass-viewing media creates a dark atmosphere, and finding it on streaming services other than Criterion is a matter of luck.
In the future, more human art, art that is a human expression of someone in a natural and emotional sense, may still exist locally. Some might argue that visual art and all “dead” forms are what they are now. There is an interesting theater, but it is hidden within the scene. Theater has followed the same path as film, with blockbuster dramas like “Hamilton” and “Dear Evan Hansen” making their way to off-Broadway and local productions.
There’s something wonderful about the fact that the artists we know aren’t the most talented people who have ever existed. They are the most fortunate people in history.
In this future, human art may approach folk art driven by singularity and extraordinary passion. It doesn’t have to be this way. I do this because I was called. That’s not something I share with anyone in town. I need to find someone like you.
There is no doubt that we are already on the trajectory of that future. I couldn’t imagine a world that could get any worse. DALL-E is a symbol of this.
A well-meaning tech buddy reached out to me to remind me that DALL-E can only work from what has already been created, so there is always room for human innovation. We don’t know what we don’t know. He didn’t like my answer. So far, the results have been mixed.
You can see this by looking at the influence the Internet has had on photography. More photos are now taken each year than at any point in camera history. Still, even in the halcyon days of Facebook photo albums, long after digitalization, it felt like people were more interested in photos than they are now. Now it’s easy to take pictures. Photos are just as meaningless and ephemeral as text messages.
I yearn for a smaller world. It doesn’t matter if you’re not special globally as long as you’re good locally. It’s not about my own potential, it’s about someone else’s potential.
The human element cannot be replaced by machines
I’m one of those people who believes there were probably many people with his potential and talent. Their paintings deserved to be known just as much, and perhaps even more so.
Humanity in art does not lie solely in one person’s perception. Anyone can do it, but he is the only one who can achieve it by luck, success or any other reason.
In some ways, I realize this is terrible. That’s not fair.
As an artist myself, an artist who doesn’t have a great network, a lot of money, or any special handicap that moves me forward, I need to share the dream of a more democratic world. We all should have access to everything at all times.
However, this will reduce the value of the work. It diminishes the value of art. There is such a thing as too much.
I remember my grandmother. Her grandmother didn’t travel all over the world, she didn’t eat at every restaurant under the sun, and she didn’t see everything a man can see. What does that mean for her? Did she “miss out” her entire life? Or is her ocean the most beautiful simply because it’s the only ocean she’s ever known?
I’m not saying I won’t do anything or see anything.I mean, it’s worth seeing few. Some things are worth something just because you’re lucky.
There’s something wonderful about the fact that the artists we know aren’t the most talented people who have ever existed. They are the most fortunate people in history. It comes with collateral damage, but there is a certain dignity to that loss.
Another way is that no one remembers.
The art is momentary, very personal, and very local. Another hobby of his is limited to a niche. Only for those who seek it. However, history has not taught us anything.
