Looking forward to scratch-n-sniff Odorama GenAI!
If GenAI can overcome its generic output issue and somehow can tap into some algorithm that gives it more creativity, then I think it will not be like polyester, and it will revolutionize art like photography or film did in the early 20th century.
For a time, it was popular to use ChatGPT to translate text into "pirate speak," or something similar. You don't seem much of that anymore.
It was a reaction to the fact that too many contemporary painters in the region focused on landscapes, capturing the beauty of the area through rigid photorealism. This was seen to TPG as derivative and completely missing the essence of painting; after all, cameras were now able to take increasingly vivid shots of natural landscapes, and as such the value of such paintings began to decline.
An excerpt from their manifesto:
The Transcendental Painting Group is composed of artists who are concerned with the development and presentation of various types of non-representational painting; painting that finds its source in the creative imagination and does not depend upon the objective approach.
The word Transcendental has been chosen as a name for the group because it best expresses its aim, which is to carry painting beyond the appearance of the physical world, through new concepts of space, color, light and design, to imaginative realms that are idealistic and spiritual. The work does not concern itself with political, economic, or other social problems. Methods may vary.
One future is in realtime hypercontextualization... Art installations which prize subjectivity more than TPG could ever hope to achieve in their time, creating the abstract not from the mind of the artist, but the observer. Art which is not just observed subjectively, but created subjectively, the observer being able to fully experience themselves from new angles, guided by the hand of the artist.
These installations may be physical or digital, and will use all sorts of signals as input. Local signals, remote signals, colors, shapes, sounds, brain waves, weather patterns, HUMINT, data dumps, trending topics... you name it. Any information will be fair game for integration and resynthesization. Observers will weep, will walk away with a new feeling or realization about themselves, will stay up that night staring at the ceiling and contemplating deep, unearthed aspects of themselves. And for some installations, the observer may continue to participate with the installation over a period of time, whether in person or digitally, and sometimes in a way which incorporates the interactions between observers. This kind of experience is only possible at scale with generative art.
And while still a pipe dream 10 years ago, it's become an increasingly viable reality, especially with the recent upgrade to GPT 4o's generation capabilities, or tools like Sora, or the incredible community tooling around Stable Diffusion, etc.
We will overshoot with GenAI and over use it. Eventually rolling back and finding a better balance.
Lewis Mumford had an essay about this - how we don’t need turn the speakers up to 10 just because we can.
This is almost always the case. It's very rare that an improvement is better than the original in everything.
The new thing is always sold as universally better, and some times it takes a while for the mass consciousness of people to figure out that the new is better in some respects but the old is still better in others.
I agree on polyester, though. I sweat and itch wearing polyester clothing, even relatively low blends. Maybe not an issue for everyone, but to me it’s clearly an inferior fabric.
Strangely, while I disagree completely with the writer, I actually think he is completely correct in his analogy, although not the way he intended. I don’t believe AI will be a revolution the way Spinning Jenny, electronic computer or the Internet were. I believe it will be exactly like polyester, in a sense that it will be hyped for a bit, then people find the hype a bit of a silly fad, and after a while just get bored of it while it has become ubiquitous and plain common.
Same way the oat milk carton will be designed by an AI bot directed by some senior advertising agent - as it probably is already - and some video game turned blockbuster video is slapped together by a supervisor and bunch of bots - as it probably is already - but people will flog to see something that is masterful and make them feel genuine human emotions.
AI is a tool like any other and while I’m certain some future creative master will use it to make something truly stunning, without human creativity and innovation it will just churn out some boring slag that while vaguely useful nevertheless make us feel kinda bored and empty inside - kinda like my polyester sweatpants.
Nailed it.
Not in active wear / sports clothing!
PeterHolzwarth•1d ago
"Our era's particular neoliberal hyper-connected, hyper-capitalist economy is creating a lot of profit for a few people.."
I feel is off base: the last 20 years has seen the absolute carpet-bombing of the very definition of American middle class. An entire new layer of workers (tech workers in their tens upon tens upon tens of thousands) make salaries that blow the old-trend / old-trajectory middle class out of the water.
I understand that the modern tech world has created billionaires in astonishing numbers, but I dislike skipping over the part where vast numbers of people in America are making in some cases full-on double what a without-them income trajectory would see for our middle class. FAANG salaries aren't representative - I get it. But those FAANG salaries are being paid to vast numbers of people - and salaries that what I'll call a "conventional" middle class person blanches at.
Tech cities are experiencing massive inflation in no small part due to this entirely new explosion of what we have to now call the new "upper middle class," at a scale that is unprecedented in the moderate-range past.
Tech has created a wild number of billionaires - I understand that. But it has also created an entirely new, and substantially large, additional income-demographic slice that didn't exit much before.
So to disagree with the author, tech has created unprecedented wealth for a very large number of people.
protocolture•1d ago
gsf_emergency•1d ago
(I also get the robotech ref, thanks for the nostalgia!)
decimalenough•1d ago
If we generously assume that there are 3x as many engineers employed at various non-FAANGs that pay competitive salaries, we still only get ~400,000 people, or around 0.1% of the population of the US.
There's one, maybe two major cities in the US where this has visibly impacted the entire local market: SF and Seattle. Everywhere else tech employment is more or less a rounding error.
Just to confirm I'm not pulling these figures entirely out of my ass, Pew Research says the "upper-income tier" has grown from 14% in 1971 to 21% in 2021 (+7%), but the "middle class" (median income $90k in 2021 dollars) has shrunk from 61% in 1971 to 50% (-11%) in 2021.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/04/20/how-the-a...
hansvm•1d ago
alwa•1d ago
The Pew link is fascinating me, thank you for sharing it! One thing that stands out to me is just how extreme the upper-class skew is—its median being 10x the median lower-class income. That helps me contextualize the types of graph that describe the “decline of the middle class” as a share of total wealth: it makes it seem more like a story of “lots of middle-class families’ wealth is wealthy in global terms and also growing, but a shocking number of families have shockingly much money too.” To some degree a story of middle class decline relative to the people richer than them—but to an even greater degree, a story of a burgeoning upper class.
Certainly you’re right that highly-paid tech workers are a drop in that bucket. To me, though, the overall numbers frustrate the “decline of the middle class” narrative to some extent. I guess it’s considerably worse to sink from prosperous classes to lower-class than it is to rise from the middle to the upper class—still, the net slice of the population affected by the change is smaller than I would have guessed.
vrx-meta•1d ago
It has made a LOT for a few people and sure a lot for many. The pay increases exponentially up the corporate hierarchy. Maybe, the author is trying to highlight that.
jrflowers•1d ago
You make a good point. Tens of thousands is a huge number, that’s gotta be like what, most people? Probably at least half of the total number of people.
Now I personally don’t have the time or attention span to count all of the people but I don’t reckon that the number of them is so big that “tens of thousands” doesn’t make up an enormous percentage of everybody. There would have to be so many people that I wouldn’t be able to picture them all, which is preposterous, so tens of thousands has to be astronomical in the grand scheme of things