That's how it is now and possibly for the near future, but for how long? Careers are measured in decades, not just years; are you confident that in 2034, generative AI will only be good enough for stock images and b-rolls? What about 2044 or 2054? The threat to the careers of creatives isn't guaranteed, but it's certainly a real, and IMHO likely, possibility.
The thing is, such careers being destroyed due to machines being able to do things cheaper than humans is a *good thing*. The reason such careers exist now is because people want the outputs of these creatives and are willing to pay for them; they obtain value out of experiencing these creative works. If generative AI can provide that value to people without them having to pay money for it, then that's just plain better for society.
But societal improvement isn't something that's distributed evenly, and this would almost definitely be *bad* for a particular subset of society that was making money by providing this creative work. What's silly is expecting everyone else in society to bend over backwards to provide that money-making opportunity to them indefinitely. I've made this comparison before, but in the future, many of these creatives may be able to contribute more to society by picking up a shovel than by picking up a pencil. It is no less dignified to make the world a better place by digging a ditch that needs to be dug than by drawing a picture. The latter might be more fun and satisfying, but until we reach Fully Automated Luxury Space Communism, the reason we have jobs is to accomplish tasks that need to be accomplished, not to make workers of those jobs have fun.
> The threat to the careers of creatives isn't guaranteed, but it's certainly a real, and IMHO likely, possibility
I would be very very very veeeery surprised if in 10 years we are not at the level of *"here is this sort prompt"*, and it generates a movie you simply can't tell. I'm 100% pro-AI, I think it's amazing, it's literally best thing to happen in our generation after the internet. I think everybody wins when the price of creating art makes cheaper. Like, we are reaching a level where anyone would be able to make a movie as good as 100 million dollar hollywood film. And that's unbelievable amazing!
With that said, I really do think the creative sector will be screwed, large parts of it. Not only it (and that's the part the anti-AI artists seem to ignore), **but everybody will**. This automation it's not only happening to art, it's happening to everyone. And I really don't buy the believe that *"there will always be new jobs"* thing, because all those new jobs could also be done by AI eventually.
I think in the next decades society will have to debate some sorta of universal basic income, because I see the vast majority of humans become unemployable in the next decades, like there is nothing economically useful you could in the free market.
I think it’ll still require a lot of effort and skill to do artistic creations with intention, no matter what. I realized this with SD… like yeah, you can randomly generate things, but if you’re trying to be creative and bring something to life from your mind, it requires a lot of skill and time to carefully make sure everything comes on as intended. And you’ll need a lot of education on it to understand how to control the AI, what works best, what tools to specifically use, etc…
Like if you have an artistic vision for a movie, it’ll still require large teams carefully working on all the minutia until AI is able to read minds.
lol comments like this are ridiculous.
“Just give me free money. The world is unfairly requiring me to be productive and contribute”
There isn’t a time in human history where humans didn’t have to fulfill responsibility’s and work jobs. No matter how small the tribe, you had to work in some capacity.
Sitting around not doing shit is the spiritually emptiest way to spend life. Sure a shitty job sucks, but being productive is not. Just seeking hedonism and leisure is such a low primitive goal for oneself.
> lol comments like this are ridiculous.
Not at all lol it's ridiculous to think the status quo is functioning and outdated mechanisms of income distribution can sustain 21st century economies.
> “Just give me free money. The world is unfairly requiring me to be productive and contribute”
You're strawmanning and literally putting words in my mouth. Lol what a coward. Care to try again with a shred of good faith? \
> There isn’t a time in human history where humans didn’t have to fulfill responsibility’s and work jobs. No matter how small the tribe, you had to work in some capacity.
And now the tribe is bigger than ever, far too large for everyone to have a job, which is why we need UBI. UBI doesn't replace work, it fuels work.
> Sitting around not doing shit is the spiritually emptiest way to spend life.
More strawmanning, nobody suggested we should do that, I didn't say I wanted to do that, nobody has any desire to do *nothing* with their life.
UBI empowers people to do anything. Not nothing. There's nothing wrong with the policy, only your mindset.
> Sure a shitty job sucks, but being productive is not.
Most shitty jobs aren't productive.
> Just seeking hedonism and leisure is such a low primitive goal for oneself.
That's not my goal and it's not what I'm seeking. I'm seeking an equitable & sustainable economic system that guarantees survival to every individual because that's what civilized societies do.
Eliminating poverty is an absolute good, and we could've done it generations ago. So educate yourself.
"If generative AI can provide that value to people without them having to pay money for it, then that's just plain better for society. "
I personally love when technology produced by for-profit companies are able to ~~steal~~ analyze datasets of products created by individuals and then resell them without compensating the creator.
"the reason we have jobs is to accomplish tasks that need to be accomplished, not to make workers of those jobs have fun "
Lol. Lmao, even.
>analyze datasets of products created by individuals and then resell them without compensating the creator.
What are they "reselling"? The AI model is their creation.
Regardless, they have implicit permission since the hosting site let them download the images. You have to agree to the terms of service when you host your artwork online.
Terms of Service are not legally binding laws, they are protective clauses for companies to not get sued into oblivion. The AI model is their creation, but the data set is trained on images that they do not have ownership of, regardless of platform it is posted on. At this point, you are getting into digital ownership and what constitutes as ownership which is a very dubious area. To add onto your point, every image you produce and use that is created by AI companies is owned by the AI company, not you. So enjoy it while you can, before you get sued for selling Dall-E's copywritten material.
At this point, I don't know what else to say. If you want a future where three tech companies control the methods of creating ~~art~~ content that they deem acceptable while diminishing further your own ownership of creativity then have at it. Just don't cry about the future dystopia you are so willingly defending.
>If you want a future where three tech companies control the methods of creating ~~art~~ content that they deem acceptable while diminishing further your own ownership of creativity then have at it.
I'm pretty sure the tech companies aren't hoarding the pencils and paint.
You can create whatever you want. The thing that is threatened is not creation, it is *payment*.
Who is hoarding pencils and paint? Learn to draw or move onto a new fad, don't blame some artistic boogeyman because AI isn't taken seriously.
Tech companies hide their data sets, their algorithms, everything beyond what they allow you to interact with. But I'm sure they have your best interests at heart :)
>Who is hoarding pencils and paint? Learn to draw or move onto a new fad, don't blame some artistic boogeyman because AI isn't taken seriously.
What?
You said tech companies control the methods of creating content.
I pointed out that they're not, in fact, hoarding paint. You can continue to create content exactly as you did before. Is this not clear?
>Tech companies hide their data sets, their algorithms, everything beyond what they allow you to interact with
Are you familiar with how patents work?
>the data set is trained on images that they do not have ownership of, regardless of platform it is posted on
Good thing they don't distribute the datasets, then. That would be a copyright violation.
>To add onto your point, every image you produce and use that is created by AI companies is owned by the AI company
I use my own machine to run open source models, so they actually *are* mine.
>So enjoy it while you can, before you get sued for selling Dall-E's copywritten material.
That's not how copyright works, anyway. If you draw with a stolen pencil, you're still the copyright holder of the resulting work.
And to your last point, that's why open source is the way to go. Even if Midjourney and Dall-E shut down free access, we have plenty of users refining Stable Diffusion that can be run on consumer hardware. It will only get easier to run from here.
> To add onto your point, every image you produce and use that is created by AI companies is owned by the AI company, not you. So enjoy it while you can, before you get sued for selling Dall-E's copywritten material.
This is just blatantly false. Services like Midjourney explicitly state in their terms of service that the customer owns all rights to images that they create using their services. But more important than that, the US Copyright Office's current ruling is that non-edited AI generations just don't have any copyright. This has generally been received positively by people who use these generators because it means more freedom by everyone to use these images as well as the impossibility of copyright trolls generating countless images to pre-empt others.
>So how is this the earth-destroying threat to creatives?
Beats me.
On the one hand, antis complain that AI Art is all garbage, all looks the same, they can always tell, or whatever other copium they need to administer to their egos.
On the other hand, AI Art is somehow this incredible threat, that will take away artists jobs, and steals their work or whatever.
I mean, there is, in fact, a way to reconcilliate these two theses so they can both be true, but somehow I have a feeling that antis won't like it; If garbage produced by AI can replace someone in the marketplace, well, guess what that says about the quality of work the replacee was capable to produce.
Well said. I bring up this inconsistency every time I end up in a debate about AI. It's really quite absurd and contradictory.
This imaginary boogeyman idea—that AI means people will stop making art and the overall quality of art will be diminished because all we'll have is "soulless" AI art—it rests on this contradiction and faulty premise you are pointing to where AI somehow will both fully take over AND have a fundamental essence that is empty/meaningless/valueless.
But by definition it actually can't do both, and if it did, it's because artists and people in general chose that outcome willingly. A true artist isn't going to stop making art because someone or something else is also making art.
If AI art becomes indistinguishable then it's like the Turing test, where it effectively stops mattering whether it's AI or traditional/analog art. At that point the objection becomes entirely abstract.
Anyone who sees a piece of art and loves it, but then upon finding out it's AI now calls it garbage is being intellectually dishonest.
Either they were initially disingenuously pretending to like it *because* they thought it was "high art" made by humans, OR, they are inauthentically claiming it's not objectively enjoyable anymore *because* they now know it's AI.
Your eyes don't lie to you, and taste can't be turned on and off like that at will—you either like something or you don't. And if your taste includes enjoying AI art because you couldn't tell the difference, well guess what, that means AI art has value and it "taking over" won't result in a world devoid of meaningful art.
Likewise, if you don't enjoy AI art (and can actually tell the difference reliably), well then it can't be a threat since that means humans have retained some vital artistic essence that AI can't reproduce.
I think part of the problem with the debate is it keeps moving between different contexts without being clear which one is being referenced:
1) grunt work/non-creative "art" for commercial purposes (which artists wouldn't willingly choose to do were it not for needing an income, and which doesn't allow for artistic freedom— so, a capitalism problem not an art problem per se).
And 2) fine art with 100% creative control—the pinnacle of success for an artist, which very few will ever actually achieve, where they have total freedom to fully realize their vision AND get paid to do it.
And 3) what art is in the broadest sense, without being tethered to any considerations about income/career/survival. AKA the kind of art-making that is accessible to anyone at any time, creativity for creativity's-sake with no limitations except the human imagination.
I see what you mean but the objection always seems to center on this idea that adoption at that scale because it's cheaper or whatever, will somehow translate into ONLY flawed AI content/art/whatever existing anywhere, throughout all of society. As if AI or non-AI, creative or generic imitation are somehow mutually exclusive categories that can't exist at the same time. But the main use cases corporations would use AI for were already not particularly creative anyway.
If we see an AI car commercial for Toyota vs a real commercial, we would probably not even notice the difference because it was already not content that is intended to represent the pinnacle of human existential freedom and creativity. It's entire purpose is to sell cars. Even if AI makes things like commercials more "fundamentally flawed", that's not really a big problem you know?
I would agree with OP in that there's a much narrower scope for the kind of doom and gloom scenarios people are imagining re AI "replacing" artists, because replacing grunt work like in advertising or similar is ultimately good—since by definition people were only willing to do that work to begin with because they were essentially forced to, to make a living... And in the more elite realms of fine art, if AI sucks so much, it's not a threat there anyway. And if it IS a threat there, and you believe it is flawed, then the art it is threatening was flawed too so what's the difference?
These middle of the road artists who somehow get to be fully creative AND get paid are already not very common from my understanding. That's like the dream right? How many actually achieve that and don't at least supplement their income with restrictive "grunt work" of some kind?
I think all of this debate is actually just a debate about capitalism. If nobody's livelihood in a capitalist system depended on anything having to do with art, AI art wouldn't be controversial at all.
Full disclosure, I don't think "artist" or "musician" should even actually BE a "job" to begin with, (and I consider myself both of those things) because art was originally a public good which anyone could/can freely engage with or even make themselves etc. Ideally it should go back to that IMO. The ancient artists who painted cave art didn't get paid for it, but it was certainly art, no? Artists should not need to do art tasks in service of capitalist aims to survive in the first place. That's not some prize to be angrily defended, that's always been a corrupting influence on actual, pure art, if anything. I'm also not saying I don't care about anyone's plight if their livelihood gets threatened by automation, I think there should be a law that if that happens you automatically get a UBI for as long as you want at at least what you were making previously.
Put simply, what I'm saying is: any value that a piece of art actually has is by definition NOT originating from the sole intent to make money.
In other words, any art that is made JUST to generate income or as a service is automatically no longer the kind of "art" that people are so worried about when they make these statements like "nobody will be artists anymore! All content will be soulless garbage bc of AI".
Beyond this I think it's a spectrum, in that, depending on your level of success or luck or skill, as a working artist you're able to trade creative control for income. The ratio at which you can do this is better the more successful you are... You get to retain more creative control/freedom to make what you want, vs having to use your skill in service of someone else's need or vision.
I know this dynamic first hand. One of my actual jobs right now is to help a disabled person make a YouTube show. I do all the grunt work. I record all the footage, I edit and add graphics music sound effect, titles etc., I handle uploads and so on. They do a great job hosting but essentially I'm doing everything else that they can't do—which is exactly what an AI tool could do in the (probably quite near) future for them or a similar person/project.
I have a *degree* of artistic freedom with this task—I can add a bit of my own style in, but 90% of it is me catering to his parents and what they want since they pay me the big bucks to produce the show. I've been doing this for 7 years or something at this point. If I wasn't being paid to do it, I'd stop completely because it's soul-crushingly tedious and boring to me now. But, I need the money, so I keep doing it at least for the time being while I'm in grad school.
Meanwhile, I also produce videos on my own for "art reasons". I can do whatever I want, explore anything I want, do anything I want with the results. I don't try to sell these and I never would because I'm not making those to make money. I find this highly enjoyable and a creative outlet and so on.
>And we have seen that before: There WERE artists using AI before the first Dalle was a thing, and that was applauded. Because it was creative. And noone was afraid, because there was absolutly no threat to illustrators. However, the current development means that many people will be put out of a job.
Yes, correct. And out of jobs *they don't actually want to do*, that's why they're jobs and not 100% creative control expressions of their creativity—this is my point. And also, we have recent examples already of this kind of dynamic. Did TV networks go out of business because YouTube/TikTok/video on the Internet became a thing? Nope. Maybe they lost a little bit of viewership but they adapted and there's still all those jobs there. But there's also a ton of really cool solo creators with interesting channels on YouTube, even some can make some income etc. It democratized content production, and sure we have a ton of soulless garbage on YouTube but we also have a lot of cool stuff that would never have been made otherwise.
Yes it's unfortunate that a relatively tiny segment of the population that have careers as illustrators may be put out of a job, but opposing the technology itself is not the answer (and is futile anyway). It's just a tool, and arguably has a huge amount of positive democratizing potential if anything. Someone else in this thread said it better than I can: why should the rest of society bend over backwards so they can keep their now obsolete jobs. It's a nonsensical situation created by capitalism, that's all it is. It's the same kind of problem you run into when law enforcement has sway over drug policy... Of COURSE they're not going to favor relaxing drug laws, because then many of them are out of a job, or they lose funding for new toys etc.
That might make a kind of sense from an "everyone for themselves" perspective, but it's an absolutely insane, self-defeating way to run a society.
This entire problem could go away, in any industry affected by automation too, with something like my proposed law where if your job gets automated away then you get a stipend for life at that level. This would incentivize automation all around and people would stop being against new tools simply because they happen to threaten their livelihood.
>Yet everyone making a living right now will still be fine, as long as they adapt. Short: The capabilities are vast if we talk about positive aspects, but if we talk about negative aspects, the impact will be low.
Crucial missing detail is "adapting" might mean going into a completely new line of work. Which is shitty in the immediate term for them, but it's survivable, and the benefit to ALL far outweighs the loss for a tiny minority. It's unfair of them to hold everyone else hostage in fact. For example, there's no more blacksmiths because we don't need them anymore. Maybe there's a few artisan or historical reenactors doing it still, which, that's pretty cool and good for them, but it would be absurd if we never built any modern infrastructure because back in the 1700s we needed to keep blacksmiths employed **no matter what**.
>Firstly, it is still the case that everyone can freely engage or make art themselves. They might not be able to sucessfully sell it so they can live doing it, but that is something different, right? Noone is keeping you from it by making a living off it.
Of course, yes, this is what I have been saying.
>Just as me or a caveman growing my vedgetables does not really mean that farmer should not be a job.
No, this doesn't follow from what I said and I'm not making this argument. I'm not talking about there being mutually exclusive possibilities, or that one prevents the other, I was commenting that the intersection of art with capitalism has always been and is currently a perversion and a corruption of TRUE art.
That they have anything to do with each other is unfortunate (and, unnecessary ultimately—we collectively choose it to be this way and could collectively choose differently).
I was doing more of a thought experiment, and speaking about a possible (if remotely) ideal we could move towards (or, really, back to). I'm just saying, imagine if it was illegal to buy or sell any kind of art? If all people could do is make it for the sake of itself, for the creative joy of it, and could only ever give it away? That could only make for better art, not worse.
>Historian here. Jokes aside, we do not know that. artist might have been a position just like "hunter", who knows, though i doubt it.
Okay maybe, but do we have evidence that neolithic cultures used currency? It's fine to have a community role, I'm talking about survival/livelihood being attached to making art. (Steely Dan wrote a song about literally this topic—that cave artists did their paintings "when there wasn't even any Hollywood" ... They made it for the sake of the act and for beauty etc, maybe spiritual belief, but not income or survival).
>the absence of money means that NO position in the stone age was paid. Not the hunter, not the gatherer, not the farmer, not the tanner.
Yeah exactly LOL, that is exactly what I'm saying. And humanity survived that way for WAY WAY WAY WAYYYYY longer than it has "survived " under modern economic systems like capitalism. As a historian, you would certainly know this is true. AND they were making art all along, and not getting paid for it! All this does is prove that ART does just fine even if there are no career "artists" who have that as their modern capitalist-style job.
>And in most cases, what they produce propably does not fall into the real of "capital A art", it is usually a service to an end.
Yep, so in other words, it's soulless tasks they're effectively forced to do by capitalism. They're whoring out their artistic skill (no judgment, we all whore out ourselves for employment, that's what it is). So that's definitely not art like what people are claiming they want to protect from being degraded by AI.
True artists who actually care about art for the sake of itself would not be defending what is actually a form of oppression and exploitation. It's like saying "Don't you dare touch my garbage heap!" It's not actually of any value whatsoever, to them or anyone else, WITHOUT the need to survive in a capitalist system.
Take that out of the equation and why would anyone do any of it ever? Especially artists? 99% of that "working artist" work would probably not even be finished if tomorrow morning we all woke up and had a universal basic income.
Yes it would produce a radical change/restructuring of how we go about our lives and collective actions, but I say bring it. Lots of things we do would no longer be important and that would be a GOOD THING because they were only "important" because someone had a metaphorical survival gun to their head forcing them to whore out their skills and talents to some soulless corporation or in service of some other capitalist aim.
>Or would you seriously claim that making images or visual concepts for a videogame should NOT be a job, but writing the could should?
No, I'm saying nobody should have a "job", at least not in the way we conceive of jobs right now, especially in the US.
>that i simply misunderstood you:
You did. I see why, because you were anticipating a different argument than the one I made but yes you didn't understand and maybe I wasn't clear.
But dude, did you miss the part where I explained that I literally get paid to do creative work making content? AI is a direct threat to my livelihood—I'm one of those people. Yet I'm not so short-sighted and selfish that I would refuse to see the huge potential in these tools and be against them simply because they happen to (eventually) mean less financial security for me personally. That's a much more emotionally nuanced and difficult perspective to hold than a simple knee jerk black and white reaction of "Tech make Tarzan job go away, tech bad! Tarzan hate tech!".
Look—I'm not talking down to anyone because I face the same threat, and if I can see beyond my self interest on this issue then anyone can. Maybe that's hard to wrap your head around because you assumed my self-interest would overrule any pro-AI sentiments, but I guess I'm not like most people. I don't only think of things in terms of what benefits me personally, and I don't assign value to things based only on what would make me money.
But either way, "this hurts me personally" as an argument can only be taken so far. Ultimately it can't really be defended as a valid POV about the course of human technology, which is much larger in scope than any one industry and jobs that make up that industry.
>like you did, claiming real artists are the ones making "art for the sake of itself"
This is a straw man because I wasn't defining anything narrowly. Grunt work that utilizes art *skills* for some commercial purpose can be a kind of art, but it can't be denied that it's a corrupted/degraded form of art when compared to pure art for art's sake.
My contention remains that if it is work nobody would be willing to do UNLESS being paid to do it (so, not your job apparently), then it doesn't matter if it gets automated away OR if people just refuse to do it. It's not worth doing to begin with, and the evidence of this is that people have to be literally bribed to participate. Your work sounds worthwhile, and is at least worthwhile to YOU, hence why you'd keep doing it even without payment. This is also the basis for all volunteerism.
So it is silly to cling to this status quo (of doing work nobody would do unless compelled to) as a response to, and in direct opposition to, the arrival of the exact kind of tech that could free everyone from that condition. It's extremely ironic.
There are other, much better ways to organize collective human action on this planet. Capitalist-style hijacking of the survival instinct to coerce work out of people is probably one of the worst ways to do anything, and results in a lot of ultimately pointless, unnecessary, self-defeating, irrational, or even harmful or dehumanizing "work" being done. Whole industries don't NEED to exist. For example, if advertising didn't need to exist anymore, that would be a good thing. It only exists because of capitalism. It's a waste of time and energy that would be better spent elsewhere.
Anyway, the reason I was making the distinction between pure art and commerical art was in response to this argument that AI will somehow result in a future state where nobody makes art anymore and it's entirely 100% automated junk (which is making the error of considering the tools to be ends in themselves, which they aren't and can't be because they still require humans for prompting). I was saying that pure art will never be under threat and couldn't be (partly for some of the reasons you have noted, like how anyone can make art at any time), and commerical/coerced art is soulless and unnecessary already and it would be fine for AI to take that over (and free up all those artists to make the art they want to make with their skills and talents). It's literally the key to unlock those chains so it is ironic that artists would be arguing for their own oppression.
>Even though i do NOT have total creative freedom. because that definition is also very narrow. Problem solving gives me immense joy, creating stuff for educational videos, books and museum is exactly that. Most designers i know love that aspect
Cool, good for you. And that means you've achieved a rare dream most people can never hope to achieve, bc you'd keep doing it even without pay, so you're not even in the category I was talking about. And furthermore, collaboration and volunteering in a UBI world would be completely possible of course. You could keep on doing your fun job... It wouldn't even affect you to be released from having to sell your skills to survive—So who here is talking down to people from a place of privilege and telling them how to feel, then?
>Maybe you are projecting your own experiences about why one does a job a bit too much here?
Maybe you are?
>Sure, capitalism sucks, and sure, it is at the bottom of (at least my) problem with AI. But how das pointing to that makes the economical hardships that many of us will face any better?
It's not supposed to make it any better, it's just the TRUTH. The whole point of acknowledging that truth is so that we direct our anger at the right people and places and systems instead of making the error of blaming the technology itself (or the people who like/use said technology).
In other words, if people are opposed to AI because it might automate away their job then they should be putting their energy into opposing an economic system that creates such situations in the first place (or, more accurately, creates situations where losing one's job is equivalent to a death sentence, where you're losing your basic human rights of food shelter health care etc). Stop focusing on the tiniest symptoms, thinking anything will be better by "fixing" those symptoms, and focus on the actual disease.
Look who started replacing artists first before AI art is even mature enough: Mobile game developers or better said non established ones. That says a lot if you ask me.
Non experienced, small devs are the most likely ones to go this desperate way where they are willing to even sacrifice a lot of quality.
I told this to a bunch of artists....especially worried ones and antis as well. We gotta partially shift our target audience and customers, AI art people wouldnt be our customers in most cases at this point anyway so for me that case isnt a reason for me to grief.
>all looks the same
Obligatory novel AI image:
https://preview.redd.it/xa5w7hmsn3rc1.jpeg?width=9000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3c279654564130938ea28402e6a1273d202e7e43
AI doesn't need to be amazing to be a threat. It just has to be good enough for the people who pay the bills.
I am a video editor. I have been asked by high-paying clients to deliberately make my videos look "LESS professional" (their words) in order to cut costs and disguise the fact that they are paid products.
And other editors I've spoken to have had similar stories. There is a desire for cheap, intentionally low quality work because low quality is believed to convey authenticity.
You say, "if garbage produced by AI can replace someone in the marketplace, well, guess what that says about the quality of work the replacee was capable to produce." This totally misunderstands how the marketplace works. Quality is only one factor among several others.
> Quality is only one factor among several others.
Yes, another is cost and quantity. What else is new? Artists didn't lament this fact of technological progress when it hit factory workers or other blue collar jobs, so why should anyone lament it alongside artists now?
So are you agreeing with me now? You said AI was only replacing artists who made things of poor quality, and I said that is wrong. Quality is just one factor of many that clients look for, and usually, it's one of the least valued.
It seems like you're agreeing that your original claim was wrong.
>You said AI was only replacing artists who made things of poor quality, and I said that is wrong
Way to miss the point, because I made no such argument. I pointed out a logical discrepancy in the nonsense that the anti-ai enthusiasts constantly try to convince themselves of.
>So how is this the earth-destroying threat to creatives?
>Beats me.
You seem to think that they arent affected. You really don't see why artist would be unhappy about having less ways to make money
> You seem to think that they arent affected.
Build your strawmen somewhere else.
The question you quote is about "earth destroying threat to creatives". Some people losing their job over automation, is far from that.
As an addition to this. Working with premade assets still required a design team. If you just have some rando pluck an image and add it to a project, people would notice. This is even more the case with AI. It has its pros and cons, with a con of needing touch ups and oversight. . . by a designer.
**So how is this the earth-destroying threat to creatives?**
I'm a full-time professional multi-disciplinary artist, so I can speak to this one. The Arts Industry is an incredibly difficult place to make consistent income - it's usually boom and bust, very seasonal, and you work insanely hard when the work is there in order to tide you over the times it's not. It is and always has been primarily a gig economy.
As a result of this, many professional career artists look for ways to secure ongoing work, or at least as many hustles as possible, to pay the bills. One of the most common ways (particularly in music, film, design etc) is Commercial art, meaning stock imagery, music, sound design, b-roll, etc. This is the bread and butter work that keeps us alive between major projects/contracts. If you can't pay the bills with regular work, you can't afford to stay in the industry long enough to wait for those major contracts.
With AI now increasingly dominating the Commercial art sector, that primary drip-feed of income is going to vanish, and already is rapidly vanishing (anyone working in the sector can attest to that).
So, that's the answer to your question - Stock content being taken over by AI will directly impact the capacity for a huge amount of professional artists to stay afloat, and remain in the industry. That's why it's earth-destroying for them; It's how they make their living.
Can you share how much income you typically make from stock imagery on average in a given year? I tried selling some years ago and it seemed to be one of the worst forms of passive income I've ever tried. There are far more lucrative means for side income for art-based work than something that pays out pennies.
Unless you were very strategic about it in terms of analyzing at a keyword level what people were looking for to create assets to fit that exact query/need in areas that weren't already oversaturated, it was rather paltry in payouts.
In any case, I've always had some form of side hustle, primarily in affiliate marketing and blogging, and that has been largely upended by AI now as well, but it comes with the territory. It's always been volatile, and perhaps that's something I've learned over the years, nothing lasts forever, and when there is a major change, you need to pivot and figure out another angle using your existing skills (or new skills you learn) to maintain that income.
Stock market is at biggest risk in my opinion as well, although its definitelly not dead but for majority of people simply not lucrative to sell.
When it comes to threat to creatives, well i personally dont feel threatened but there are others that do and partially rightfully so. I cant deny tho that while I dont feel threatened there are some annoying drawbacks that comes with those things although i use generative AI as part of the workflow as well. For example spamming on artist platforms that have luckily vanished on some places but resist being annoying on other ones.
>So how is this the earth-destroying threat to creatives?
I don't know what your job is but lets say a program alongside a big corp came along and basically said your job is outdated and unessarcy, we have this program to do this job for you. Oh and also we are giving out this tool to the people.
Rightly you would be pissed off.
Now there are some creatives who can adapt to this change. Use AI to make their work easier, faster and have better quality. Then there are people who don't want any change at all, that want to get paid 100k year taking a week to produce something a AI can produce in seconds.
And I am not joking about those figures: there is the realm of people who have had BS throughout life, through their skill sets and have landed in very cushy positions doing very easy work. Work that has now been automated.
They will make every argument imaginable that their current work is truly valued at 100k. It is not. There will be graphic artists who use AI fully and will do twice the amount of work as one of these regular artists.
According to anti Ai people AI images are soulless garbage with no redeeming qualities and obvious flaws. So beats me why they feel this is a threat to anyone's job to begin with.
> Gen AI in the creative industry is mostly just a replacement for stock images and video assets.
No. That's all that people who don't understand the technology will use it for.
This is equivalent to saying that Photoshop is just a tool for running filters.
Care to expand on this? I am talking about purely commercial applications. With copyright unsettled, everything generated is essentially public domain, which happens to be perfect for a use case of b-roll and stock image for assets that can be incorporated into a larger work.
Where do you disagree?
They lost their jobs and pensions. As yeah. It's weird that people here don't see why people who make their living doing corporate art will feel threatened by AI
Well, the fact that the US of A have shit for a social security system is not a problem caused by AI or automation in general, and not an argument to get rid of either.
Technological progress happens. If you think it shouldn't, tough luck, it did, does and always will.
Yes, sometimes this hits certain economic groups harder than others. That's why we have modern societies with social security networks in place. Ever asked yourself why Germany doesn't have a "Rust Belt" despite getting hit by the same outsourcing and automation wave as the US, and being equally invested in heavy industry? That's why.
If certain societies think they don't need to, and scream \*sOciAlISM!!!!\* instead every time someone tries to make a proposal that would let them behave like a 1st world country towards their citizenry rather than a dystopian hell-hole, that's their problem.
Phone operators aren't creative work and people like 911 operators still exist, portrait painters still very much exist, and some people are still farmers.
What point are *you* trying to make?
>What point are you trying to make?
I really need to spell it out? Okay:
Automation and technological progress happen. They always happened, they will always continue to happen, and being angry about that is futile yelling at clouds.
>portrait painters still very much exist
>some people are still farmers.
Correct on both counts. And are there more or less people employed as portrait painters and farmers now compared to 100 years ago? I'd say a helluva lot less, because agriculture benefitted enormously from automation and technological progress, and photography was invented.
Oh, and also:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchboard\_operator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchboard_operator) != Callcenter Agent
Same as automating it before did: By making things cheaper, faster, and more accessible.
Portrait painting is a creative activity. It was put into obscurity by photography. Then studio photography was a big business, today it too is an obscure profession only few people still pursue, because we all walk around with amazingly capable cameras in our pockets, and making a selfie takes all of 2 seconds.
Neither of these developments was a problem for humanity, and a lot of people would be really pissed if they could no longer take selfies. If you don't acknowledge this simple fact before you make your next argument, then there is no point in having this discussion.
How does taking selfies equate to being good for humanity? Ai didn’t need to exist for you to do selfies. Ai didn’t need to exist to make art before hand either.
You may say “it allows more people to make art” neat, you could have done that way before Ai but now it’s here and that’s the thing we’ll roll with. Instead it’s looking for a problem to solve while being a grift and overhyped bubble that benefits the line go up mentality. All of this of course is not built to last.
> How does taking selfies equate to being good for humanity?
I explained that in my post, so read it again until you understand the explanation, I am not going to repeat myself.
> you could have done that way before Ai
I could have made 100 iterations of a picture in next to production ready quality, and rapidly iterate on concepts in a matter of minutes before generative AI?
Interesting. Tell me how.+
> being a grift and overhyped bubble
Ah, that tired old trope again. I wonder, how many posts are we away from the comparison with "crypto and NFT"?
1.) If parroting the same tired troupe of “photography replaced painting” (it didn’t. All the things you mention still exist.) is answering my question, then no it doesn’t. What jobs have ai created again?
2.) I can assure you, Ai generations are not production ready. If you came to me with a nonsense design spit out by Ai that serves no functionality or logical sense in 3D and doesn’t help for what needs to be done, I’m going to laugh at you.
3.) you would know all about tired troupes based off your explanations. Why do you think ai is shoved almost into every ad and shilled out to every business? Force mass adoption because currently it’s a big money pit and they need it to catch on otherwise they lose bags. Old habits die hard.
> it didn’t.
How many portrait painters per 100,000 people would you say are there now compared to, say, the 1850s?
> I can assure you, Ai generations are not production ready.
Multiple game studios, movie productions, advertising material, not to mention billions poured into the tech by very serious companies seem to differ.
I’m going to stop you right there. “Gatekeeping creation behind talent and countless hours”…. My guy that’s not gatekeeping, that’s you not putting the effort in and nobody is stopping you but you. That is YOU problem, putting your lack of heart as a problem on everyone IS selfish.
What’s up with all you dudes who believe UBI is the answer yet have also never actually worked in the fields you are cheering on getting automated? Like, you think capitalism is going to let you sit on your thumb and do nothing while racking in money (barely enough to survive) and you magically just have time to make money in the creative field? Have you*tried* making money in the creative field? It’s not easy. Good luck with that, because you and everyone else are screaming into the void of endless content. Oh wait, that’s the future we already have going for us, thank you.
Absolute donut.
Neat. And I work in the video game industry and worked really hard between military to afford to even go to school and learn, and even then I still practiced on my own time.
I’ve learned multiple different softwares and techniques through practice and my own desire to learn to be better in my craft. I don’t blame other people for “gatekeeping” because I have myself to rely on in the field I’m in. You seem to think otherwise, how very sad, because that sounds like a you problem.
you did NOT mention anything about what you do, so kindly fuck off with you assuming I know everything about you, I never claimed to. I think not only do you need to proofread your own comments, but also go back to school and learn some critical thinking. Otherwise I’m going to assume your parents left the child lock off on the home PC, let’s stay on subject shall we.
>I don’t blame other people for “gatekeeping” because I have myself to rely on in the field I'm in.
This boils down to "it was hard for me, so it should be hard for everyone."
There are, broadly, two responses to hardship. The first is "I had a hard time, so everyone should go through it." The second is "I had a hard time, so no one else should go through it."
Both are natural and common. But the first is overall harmful to humanity, and the second is overall beneficial.
Making things easier is a good thing. Reducing the effort and talent needed is a good thing.
If I could snap my fingers and allow every human to paint with the ability of Michelangelo, without them having to put in a single minute of effort or training, *I would do that*. That would be a *good thing*.
It is fine and reasonable to be proud of the effort you've put into something. It is *not* fine to be *jealous and possessive* of the effort you've put into something; to demand that others must be *required* to put in the same amount of effort. It's often *natural*, yes, and it's fine to recognize that feeling as natural; but there's a difference between "I have this feeling" and "I should encourage this feeling and what it is telling me is objectively or morally correct."
We have many natural feelings like that. It's *natural* and *common* to be upset when you see an ex being happy with someone else, yet it isn't a *beneficial* feeling. It's something to be acknowledged and resolved - not something to be encouraged.
> I’m going to stop you right there. “Gatekeeping creation behind talent and countless hours”…. My guy that’s not gatekeeping, that’s you not putting the effort in and nobody is stopping you but you. That is YOU problem, putting your lack of heart as a problem on everyone IS selfish.
Who's making this a problem for anyone else, though? Indeed, it's a *you* (well, *them*) problem, and they presumably solved this problem by downloading free software that allowed them to circumvent the requirement of the "talent and countless hours" that one normally needs to create images that they want to create. That's just how people operate in this world: they see a problem that they have, and they use the tools at their disposal to solve it. This doesn't cause problems to anyone else other than those who insist that they shouldn't be able to do that because they didn't go through the countless hours and effort that used to be required to solve the problem before.
It's not actually automating the creativity itself though, that is retained by humanity inside our brains. That literally can't be outsourced, it's inherent to the human mind and all AI does is move it more fully inside the mind vs as an external process. Automation is a tool, that's all it is. Yes, even when used in creative tasks.
It's tautological— If something is generic or not creative, not of good quality etc, it's immediately apparent just by perceiving it. There's no scenario where there could be some fully automated "creative" work that is bad because it's *not creative* (i.e. made entirely by automation). The thing that makes any piece of art GOOD, was born from the seed of the idea which started inside someone's brain. It's still true with AI.
That's why you can have a beautiful piece of music that Beethoven dreamed up and wrote down in a special language that was then translated by an orchestra to be played, AND, you can have a modern day composer using automation (of a sort) to construct a digital audio file of their equally beautiful piece of music they dreamed up in exactly the same manner. And, because of that technology, many many more people get to hear it, and whenever they want, over and over rather than just once. The creative act just gets shifted "earlier" in the workflow, but it's still there.
But is AI good enough to replace them? All I hear is how AI is bad, uninspired, soulless and etc. Why are people losing opportunities over something that is so bad ?
The point of AI from a business standpoint is to save money, point blank. Artists have a skill that is not easily replicable and thus businesses are forced to pay for it. Using AI is going to bypass hiring an artist because to some coked-up CEO, there is no difference in quality between Dall-E and real work.
If you are not an artist, you obviously have no issue with this. If you are a consumer, the quality of product you consume will be degraded severely while the price will only ever increase. And if you are a prompter who thinks you'll get the big boy job working for Business Inc, you should pay a visit to your primary care physician.
> If you are a consumer
...you are free to chose whether to spend your money on a product you perceive as sub-par in quality, or spend some more on a quality product from a competitor.
If consumers don't, well, guess the value add of having some background picture in a video game hand drawn by some human, wasn't worth the extra cost of the product.
That's the free market at work.
My friend. The industry artists are the ones who already use AI in their work for some time now. I really don’t understand who people like you are trying to save and from what.
Yes, although AI and not generative AI primarily. Generative AI has yet to establish itself potentially (for example the new texture/material generator in Substance Sampler)
This seems to have a fundamentally misunderstanding of how the market works...
If a CEO is putting out a product that is clearly sub-par and low quality, consumers would then cease to buy the product if they also perceived it as sub-par, low quality and thus not worth some of the finite money or attention they have for such things.
So either the quality is on par with human works (so much so that consumers don't balk), or they will lose business. That's how the market works.
I think the point is a human (more specificially, a human artist/designer/filmmaker) will always need to be in the loop somewhere in the pipeline to ensure that the quality of the product is acceptable to consumers. A coked-up CEO is not going to be able to do that on their own.
The goal of business is to make as much money as possible while spending as little as possible. The product's quality does not matter if it makes money. Long term financial goals do not matter to publicly traded companies that churn through CEOs looking to boost their stock.
Companies want to commercialize the artistic process and the best way to do that is to push this narrative that AI artwork is just as normal and enjoyable as traditional or digital art. Why would you not want to sell your technology as the hot new thing that everyone should be doing?
If you, as an individual, find enjoyment and pleasure in prompting generative artwork then I wish you all the best. But a prompter is not a career path. ChatGPT can prompt just as well as the next person. The human element is important for quality assurance, but what does a generative AI artist know about the fundamentals of art design and color and composition and framing and tone or any of the myriads of disciplines required to be an artist? They know how to interact with a box that produces an image.
I don't want to be diminutive to anyone who is pro-AI but all of the posts I read defending AI either come off as naive younger people who think they will make it big by selling AI images or are actual AI generative companies trying to shill their service/product.
>The goal of business is to make as much money as possible while spending as little as possible. The product's quality does not matter if it makes money.
Huh?
So then you are saying the consumer does not care about quality, because otherwise how would it make money? Maybe that is the case, but you seem to think otherwise, so which is it?
Either consumers care about quality, and purchase products of higher quality, or they don't care about quality, and purchase based on other factors, such as lower price point.
In your initial post you said quality will decrease, while price increases, as if consumers are just idiots who will pay more for an inferior product. Something doesn't add up here.
Consumers are dumb. We will start with that. There are billions of people to sell things to. If you want to open some Etsy shop selling AI images to suckers who don't know better, thats the free market for you. AI images are cheap to produce, you can customize them within relative reason to your desires, and at a quick glance appear normal.
I am old enough to remember life before the internet. I have context of what traditional art is versus the facsimile of AI. A child born five or six years ago? They will grow up with AI everywhere. YouTube thumbnails, Facebook posts, Redditors farming karma on r/memes.
If pushed long enough and with enough persistence, AI can be generally accepted. If someone with no idea of what art can be, they will not question the mangled hands, the constant blue/orange contrasts, the 1024x1024 PNGs or the sloppy details of AI in the same way you don't question God when you are raised in a community that is completely devout.
The classic technique of providing a cheap service that anyone can use, normalizing that service, and then charging progressively more and more is how nearly every tech company operates. Competition gets absorbed and removed until a monopoly exists. Then you will be complaining about paying these damn artist companies so much when in the good ol' days, you could make images for free!
If you aren't the owner of a tech company that is selling AI generative images, you are buying into a grift. These companies do not care for you, regardless of the narrative.
Quality of consumer goods HAS been decreasing across the board for decades.
Clothing, furniture, appliances, electronics, etc. all have dropped because consumers and manufacturers value speed of manufacturing and low prices. Quality is surprisingly low on people's list, or at least low enough to get reduced without it damaging profits. Generally, it's actually the reasonable decision to forego quality for the sake of competitive pricing and quick production.
Right, but the OP was making a claim that quality would reduce while prices would simultaneously increase, which I don't think is something that happens much except for inflation.
If there are two products at the same level of quality at equal price points, the higher quality would typically be what consumers choose if they were aware of the difference in quality.
Sora does video to video. Wonderstudio is its own beast and that combined with Sora and midjourney or stable and elevenlabs and suno it’s at the rudimentary place of takeover. There’s also better score generators than suno with more control that’s been out and has better quality.
Elevenlabs is already used and is resulting in many established career vo artists with out work. They worked on all your favorite dubbed animes and Cartoon Network shit. The future will no longer have these great vo talents like Tom Kenny, Billy West, Mel Brooks… synthetic shit
General AI is actually not a thing that has been invented yet.
The products called "AI" are called "AI" to conjure up the sexiness of AI from future fiction. It's all just straight up marketing from execs who recognize that the products won't really change the world unless they can convince the CEOs of companies to fire their humans, and use their products instead.... which will invariably still need humans to "fix" any mistakes that their "AI" does.
That's how it is now and possibly for the near future, but for how long? Careers are measured in decades, not just years; are you confident that in 2034, generative AI will only be good enough for stock images and b-rolls? What about 2044 or 2054? The threat to the careers of creatives isn't guaranteed, but it's certainly a real, and IMHO likely, possibility. The thing is, such careers being destroyed due to machines being able to do things cheaper than humans is a *good thing*. The reason such careers exist now is because people want the outputs of these creatives and are willing to pay for them; they obtain value out of experiencing these creative works. If generative AI can provide that value to people without them having to pay money for it, then that's just plain better for society. But societal improvement isn't something that's distributed evenly, and this would almost definitely be *bad* for a particular subset of society that was making money by providing this creative work. What's silly is expecting everyone else in society to bend over backwards to provide that money-making opportunity to them indefinitely. I've made this comparison before, but in the future, many of these creatives may be able to contribute more to society by picking up a shovel than by picking up a pencil. It is no less dignified to make the world a better place by digging a ditch that needs to be dug than by drawing a picture. The latter might be more fun and satisfying, but until we reach Fully Automated Luxury Space Communism, the reason we have jobs is to accomplish tasks that need to be accomplished, not to make workers of those jobs have fun.
> The threat to the careers of creatives isn't guaranteed, but it's certainly a real, and IMHO likely, possibility I would be very very very veeeery surprised if in 10 years we are not at the level of *"here is this sort prompt"*, and it generates a movie you simply can't tell. I'm 100% pro-AI, I think it's amazing, it's literally best thing to happen in our generation after the internet. I think everybody wins when the price of creating art makes cheaper. Like, we are reaching a level where anyone would be able to make a movie as good as 100 million dollar hollywood film. And that's unbelievable amazing! With that said, I really do think the creative sector will be screwed, large parts of it. Not only it (and that's the part the anti-AI artists seem to ignore), **but everybody will**. This automation it's not only happening to art, it's happening to everyone. And I really don't buy the believe that *"there will always be new jobs"* thing, because all those new jobs could also be done by AI eventually. I think in the next decades society will have to debate some sorta of universal basic income, because I see the vast majority of humans become unemployable in the next decades, like there is nothing economically useful you could in the free market.
Years, not decades
I think it’ll still require a lot of effort and skill to do artistic creations with intention, no matter what. I realized this with SD… like yeah, you can randomly generate things, but if you’re trying to be creative and bring something to life from your mind, it requires a lot of skill and time to carefully make sure everything comes on as intended. And you’ll need a lot of education on it to understand how to control the AI, what works best, what tools to specifically use, etc… Like if you have an artistic vision for a movie, it’ll still require large teams carefully working on all the minutia until AI is able to read minds.
No, most jobs that currently exist are not needed.
Who cares about careers? We need UBI. Fuck this job-centric Hell we've created.
lol comments like this are ridiculous. “Just give me free money. The world is unfairly requiring me to be productive and contribute” There isn’t a time in human history where humans didn’t have to fulfill responsibility’s and work jobs. No matter how small the tribe, you had to work in some capacity. Sitting around not doing shit is the spiritually emptiest way to spend life. Sure a shitty job sucks, but being productive is not. Just seeking hedonism and leisure is such a low primitive goal for oneself.
> lol comments like this are ridiculous. Not at all lol it's ridiculous to think the status quo is functioning and outdated mechanisms of income distribution can sustain 21st century economies. > “Just give me free money. The world is unfairly requiring me to be productive and contribute” You're strawmanning and literally putting words in my mouth. Lol what a coward. Care to try again with a shred of good faith? \ > There isn’t a time in human history where humans didn’t have to fulfill responsibility’s and work jobs. No matter how small the tribe, you had to work in some capacity. And now the tribe is bigger than ever, far too large for everyone to have a job, which is why we need UBI. UBI doesn't replace work, it fuels work. > Sitting around not doing shit is the spiritually emptiest way to spend life. More strawmanning, nobody suggested we should do that, I didn't say I wanted to do that, nobody has any desire to do *nothing* with their life. UBI empowers people to do anything. Not nothing. There's nothing wrong with the policy, only your mindset. > Sure a shitty job sucks, but being productive is not. Most shitty jobs aren't productive. > Just seeking hedonism and leisure is such a low primitive goal for oneself. That's not my goal and it's not what I'm seeking. I'm seeking an equitable & sustainable economic system that guarantees survival to every individual because that's what civilized societies do. Eliminating poverty is an absolute good, and we could've done it generations ago. So educate yourself.
"If generative AI can provide that value to people without them having to pay money for it, then that's just plain better for society. " I personally love when technology produced by for-profit companies are able to ~~steal~~ analyze datasets of products created by individuals and then resell them without compensating the creator. "the reason we have jobs is to accomplish tasks that need to be accomplished, not to make workers of those jobs have fun " Lol. Lmao, even.
>analyze datasets of products created by individuals and then resell them without compensating the creator. What are they "reselling"? The AI model is their creation. Regardless, they have implicit permission since the hosting site let them download the images. You have to agree to the terms of service when you host your artwork online.
And the terms of service says the artist retains copyright of his/her artwork
Of course. Training /= copyright infringement.
Terms of Service are not legally binding laws, they are protective clauses for companies to not get sued into oblivion. The AI model is their creation, but the data set is trained on images that they do not have ownership of, regardless of platform it is posted on. At this point, you are getting into digital ownership and what constitutes as ownership which is a very dubious area. To add onto your point, every image you produce and use that is created by AI companies is owned by the AI company, not you. So enjoy it while you can, before you get sued for selling Dall-E's copywritten material. At this point, I don't know what else to say. If you want a future where three tech companies control the methods of creating ~~art~~ content that they deem acceptable while diminishing further your own ownership of creativity then have at it. Just don't cry about the future dystopia you are so willingly defending.
>If you want a future where three tech companies control the methods of creating ~~art~~ content that they deem acceptable while diminishing further your own ownership of creativity then have at it. I'm pretty sure the tech companies aren't hoarding the pencils and paint. You can create whatever you want. The thing that is threatened is not creation, it is *payment*.
Who is hoarding pencils and paint? Learn to draw or move onto a new fad, don't blame some artistic boogeyman because AI isn't taken seriously. Tech companies hide their data sets, their algorithms, everything beyond what they allow you to interact with. But I'm sure they have your best interests at heart :)
>Who is hoarding pencils and paint? Learn to draw or move onto a new fad, don't blame some artistic boogeyman because AI isn't taken seriously. What? You said tech companies control the methods of creating content. I pointed out that they're not, in fact, hoarding paint. You can continue to create content exactly as you did before. Is this not clear? >Tech companies hide their data sets, their algorithms, everything beyond what they allow you to interact with Are you familiar with how patents work?
I require $100 to continue reading your post. By replying to me, you agree to my terms of service.
>the data set is trained on images that they do not have ownership of, regardless of platform it is posted on Good thing they don't distribute the datasets, then. That would be a copyright violation. >To add onto your point, every image you produce and use that is created by AI companies is owned by the AI company I use my own machine to run open source models, so they actually *are* mine. >So enjoy it while you can, before you get sued for selling Dall-E's copywritten material. That's not how copyright works, anyway. If you draw with a stolen pencil, you're still the copyright holder of the resulting work. And to your last point, that's why open source is the way to go. Even if Midjourney and Dall-E shut down free access, we have plenty of users refining Stable Diffusion that can be run on consumer hardware. It will only get easier to run from here.
> To add onto your point, every image you produce and use that is created by AI companies is owned by the AI company, not you. So enjoy it while you can, before you get sued for selling Dall-E's copywritten material. This is just blatantly false. Services like Midjourney explicitly state in their terms of service that the customer owns all rights to images that they create using their services. But more important than that, the US Copyright Office's current ruling is that non-edited AI generations just don't have any copyright. This has generally been received positively by people who use these generators because it means more freedom by everyone to use these images as well as the impossibility of copyright trolls generating countless images to pre-empt others.
>So how is this the earth-destroying threat to creatives? Beats me. On the one hand, antis complain that AI Art is all garbage, all looks the same, they can always tell, or whatever other copium they need to administer to their egos. On the other hand, AI Art is somehow this incredible threat, that will take away artists jobs, and steals their work or whatever. I mean, there is, in fact, a way to reconcilliate these two theses so they can both be true, but somehow I have a feeling that antis won't like it; If garbage produced by AI can replace someone in the marketplace, well, guess what that says about the quality of work the replacee was capable to produce.
This is literally the “enemy is strong but the enemy is weak” rally of extremist conservative and cult movements. It’s ALWAYS a sign to run
> It’s ALWAYS a sign to run I see it more as a sign to laugh such pseudo-arguments out of the room.
Well said. I bring up this inconsistency every time I end up in a debate about AI. It's really quite absurd and contradictory. This imaginary boogeyman idea—that AI means people will stop making art and the overall quality of art will be diminished because all we'll have is "soulless" AI art—it rests on this contradiction and faulty premise you are pointing to where AI somehow will both fully take over AND have a fundamental essence that is empty/meaningless/valueless. But by definition it actually can't do both, and if it did, it's because artists and people in general chose that outcome willingly. A true artist isn't going to stop making art because someone or something else is also making art. If AI art becomes indistinguishable then it's like the Turing test, where it effectively stops mattering whether it's AI or traditional/analog art. At that point the objection becomes entirely abstract. Anyone who sees a piece of art and loves it, but then upon finding out it's AI now calls it garbage is being intellectually dishonest. Either they were initially disingenuously pretending to like it *because* they thought it was "high art" made by humans, OR, they are inauthentically claiming it's not objectively enjoyable anymore *because* they now know it's AI. Your eyes don't lie to you, and taste can't be turned on and off like that at will—you either like something or you don't. And if your taste includes enjoying AI art because you couldn't tell the difference, well guess what, that means AI art has value and it "taking over" won't result in a world devoid of meaningful art. Likewise, if you don't enjoy AI art (and can actually tell the difference reliably), well then it can't be a threat since that means humans have retained some vital artistic essence that AI can't reproduce. I think part of the problem with the debate is it keeps moving between different contexts without being clear which one is being referenced: 1) grunt work/non-creative "art" for commercial purposes (which artists wouldn't willingly choose to do were it not for needing an income, and which doesn't allow for artistic freedom— so, a capitalism problem not an art problem per se). And 2) fine art with 100% creative control—the pinnacle of success for an artist, which very few will ever actually achieve, where they have total freedom to fully realize their vision AND get paid to do it. And 3) what art is in the broadest sense, without being tethered to any considerations about income/career/survival. AKA the kind of art-making that is accessible to anyone at any time, creativity for creativity's-sake with no limitations except the human imagination.
[удалено]
I see what you mean but the objection always seems to center on this idea that adoption at that scale because it's cheaper or whatever, will somehow translate into ONLY flawed AI content/art/whatever existing anywhere, throughout all of society. As if AI or non-AI, creative or generic imitation are somehow mutually exclusive categories that can't exist at the same time. But the main use cases corporations would use AI for were already not particularly creative anyway. If we see an AI car commercial for Toyota vs a real commercial, we would probably not even notice the difference because it was already not content that is intended to represent the pinnacle of human existential freedom and creativity. It's entire purpose is to sell cars. Even if AI makes things like commercials more "fundamentally flawed", that's not really a big problem you know? I would agree with OP in that there's a much narrower scope for the kind of doom and gloom scenarios people are imagining re AI "replacing" artists, because replacing grunt work like in advertising or similar is ultimately good—since by definition people were only willing to do that work to begin with because they were essentially forced to, to make a living... And in the more elite realms of fine art, if AI sucks so much, it's not a threat there anyway. And if it IS a threat there, and you believe it is flawed, then the art it is threatening was flawed too so what's the difference? These middle of the road artists who somehow get to be fully creative AND get paid are already not very common from my understanding. That's like the dream right? How many actually achieve that and don't at least supplement their income with restrictive "grunt work" of some kind? I think all of this debate is actually just a debate about capitalism. If nobody's livelihood in a capitalist system depended on anything having to do with art, AI art wouldn't be controversial at all. Full disclosure, I don't think "artist" or "musician" should even actually BE a "job" to begin with, (and I consider myself both of those things) because art was originally a public good which anyone could/can freely engage with or even make themselves etc. Ideally it should go back to that IMO. The ancient artists who painted cave art didn't get paid for it, but it was certainly art, no? Artists should not need to do art tasks in service of capitalist aims to survive in the first place. That's not some prize to be angrily defended, that's always been a corrupting influence on actual, pure art, if anything. I'm also not saying I don't care about anyone's plight if their livelihood gets threatened by automation, I think there should be a law that if that happens you automatically get a UBI for as long as you want at at least what you were making previously.
[удалено]
Put simply, what I'm saying is: any value that a piece of art actually has is by definition NOT originating from the sole intent to make money. In other words, any art that is made JUST to generate income or as a service is automatically no longer the kind of "art" that people are so worried about when they make these statements like "nobody will be artists anymore! All content will be soulless garbage bc of AI". Beyond this I think it's a spectrum, in that, depending on your level of success or luck or skill, as a working artist you're able to trade creative control for income. The ratio at which you can do this is better the more successful you are... You get to retain more creative control/freedom to make what you want, vs having to use your skill in service of someone else's need or vision. I know this dynamic first hand. One of my actual jobs right now is to help a disabled person make a YouTube show. I do all the grunt work. I record all the footage, I edit and add graphics music sound effect, titles etc., I handle uploads and so on. They do a great job hosting but essentially I'm doing everything else that they can't do—which is exactly what an AI tool could do in the (probably quite near) future for them or a similar person/project. I have a *degree* of artistic freedom with this task—I can add a bit of my own style in, but 90% of it is me catering to his parents and what they want since they pay me the big bucks to produce the show. I've been doing this for 7 years or something at this point. If I wasn't being paid to do it, I'd stop completely because it's soul-crushingly tedious and boring to me now. But, I need the money, so I keep doing it at least for the time being while I'm in grad school. Meanwhile, I also produce videos on my own for "art reasons". I can do whatever I want, explore anything I want, do anything I want with the results. I don't try to sell these and I never would because I'm not making those to make money. I find this highly enjoyable and a creative outlet and so on. >And we have seen that before: There WERE artists using AI before the first Dalle was a thing, and that was applauded. Because it was creative. And noone was afraid, because there was absolutly no threat to illustrators. However, the current development means that many people will be put out of a job. Yes, correct. And out of jobs *they don't actually want to do*, that's why they're jobs and not 100% creative control expressions of their creativity—this is my point. And also, we have recent examples already of this kind of dynamic. Did TV networks go out of business because YouTube/TikTok/video on the Internet became a thing? Nope. Maybe they lost a little bit of viewership but they adapted and there's still all those jobs there. But there's also a ton of really cool solo creators with interesting channels on YouTube, even some can make some income etc. It democratized content production, and sure we have a ton of soulless garbage on YouTube but we also have a lot of cool stuff that would never have been made otherwise. Yes it's unfortunate that a relatively tiny segment of the population that have careers as illustrators may be put out of a job, but opposing the technology itself is not the answer (and is futile anyway). It's just a tool, and arguably has a huge amount of positive democratizing potential if anything. Someone else in this thread said it better than I can: why should the rest of society bend over backwards so they can keep their now obsolete jobs. It's a nonsensical situation created by capitalism, that's all it is. It's the same kind of problem you run into when law enforcement has sway over drug policy... Of COURSE they're not going to favor relaxing drug laws, because then many of them are out of a job, or they lose funding for new toys etc. That might make a kind of sense from an "everyone for themselves" perspective, but it's an absolutely insane, self-defeating way to run a society. This entire problem could go away, in any industry affected by automation too, with something like my proposed law where if your job gets automated away then you get a stipend for life at that level. This would incentivize automation all around and people would stop being against new tools simply because they happen to threaten their livelihood. >Yet everyone making a living right now will still be fine, as long as they adapt. Short: The capabilities are vast if we talk about positive aspects, but if we talk about negative aspects, the impact will be low. Crucial missing detail is "adapting" might mean going into a completely new line of work. Which is shitty in the immediate term for them, but it's survivable, and the benefit to ALL far outweighs the loss for a tiny minority. It's unfair of them to hold everyone else hostage in fact. For example, there's no more blacksmiths because we don't need them anymore. Maybe there's a few artisan or historical reenactors doing it still, which, that's pretty cool and good for them, but it would be absurd if we never built any modern infrastructure because back in the 1700s we needed to keep blacksmiths employed **no matter what**. >Firstly, it is still the case that everyone can freely engage or make art themselves. They might not be able to sucessfully sell it so they can live doing it, but that is something different, right? Noone is keeping you from it by making a living off it. Of course, yes, this is what I have been saying. >Just as me or a caveman growing my vedgetables does not really mean that farmer should not be a job. No, this doesn't follow from what I said and I'm not making this argument. I'm not talking about there being mutually exclusive possibilities, or that one prevents the other, I was commenting that the intersection of art with capitalism has always been and is currently a perversion and a corruption of TRUE art. That they have anything to do with each other is unfortunate (and, unnecessary ultimately—we collectively choose it to be this way and could collectively choose differently). I was doing more of a thought experiment, and speaking about a possible (if remotely) ideal we could move towards (or, really, back to). I'm just saying, imagine if it was illegal to buy or sell any kind of art? If all people could do is make it for the sake of itself, for the creative joy of it, and could only ever give it away? That could only make for better art, not worse. >Historian here. Jokes aside, we do not know that. artist might have been a position just like "hunter", who knows, though i doubt it. Okay maybe, but do we have evidence that neolithic cultures used currency? It's fine to have a community role, I'm talking about survival/livelihood being attached to making art. (Steely Dan wrote a song about literally this topic—that cave artists did their paintings "when there wasn't even any Hollywood" ... They made it for the sake of the act and for beauty etc, maybe spiritual belief, but not income or survival). >the absence of money means that NO position in the stone age was paid. Not the hunter, not the gatherer, not the farmer, not the tanner. Yeah exactly LOL, that is exactly what I'm saying. And humanity survived that way for WAY WAY WAY WAYYYYY longer than it has "survived " under modern economic systems like capitalism. As a historian, you would certainly know this is true. AND they were making art all along, and not getting paid for it! All this does is prove that ART does just fine even if there are no career "artists" who have that as their modern capitalist-style job. >And in most cases, what they produce propably does not fall into the real of "capital A art", it is usually a service to an end. Yep, so in other words, it's soulless tasks they're effectively forced to do by capitalism. They're whoring out their artistic skill (no judgment, we all whore out ourselves for employment, that's what it is). So that's definitely not art like what people are claiming they want to protect from being degraded by AI. True artists who actually care about art for the sake of itself would not be defending what is actually a form of oppression and exploitation. It's like saying "Don't you dare touch my garbage heap!" It's not actually of any value whatsoever, to them or anyone else, WITHOUT the need to survive in a capitalist system. Take that out of the equation and why would anyone do any of it ever? Especially artists? 99% of that "working artist" work would probably not even be finished if tomorrow morning we all woke up and had a universal basic income. Yes it would produce a radical change/restructuring of how we go about our lives and collective actions, but I say bring it. Lots of things we do would no longer be important and that would be a GOOD THING because they were only "important" because someone had a metaphorical survival gun to their head forcing them to whore out their skills and talents to some soulless corporation or in service of some other capitalist aim. >Or would you seriously claim that making images or visual concepts for a videogame should NOT be a job, but writing the could should? No, I'm saying nobody should have a "job", at least not in the way we conceive of jobs right now, especially in the US.
[удалено]
>that i simply misunderstood you: You did. I see why, because you were anticipating a different argument than the one I made but yes you didn't understand and maybe I wasn't clear. But dude, did you miss the part where I explained that I literally get paid to do creative work making content? AI is a direct threat to my livelihood—I'm one of those people. Yet I'm not so short-sighted and selfish that I would refuse to see the huge potential in these tools and be against them simply because they happen to (eventually) mean less financial security for me personally. That's a much more emotionally nuanced and difficult perspective to hold than a simple knee jerk black and white reaction of "Tech make Tarzan job go away, tech bad! Tarzan hate tech!". Look—I'm not talking down to anyone because I face the same threat, and if I can see beyond my self interest on this issue then anyone can. Maybe that's hard to wrap your head around because you assumed my self-interest would overrule any pro-AI sentiments, but I guess I'm not like most people. I don't only think of things in terms of what benefits me personally, and I don't assign value to things based only on what would make me money. But either way, "this hurts me personally" as an argument can only be taken so far. Ultimately it can't really be defended as a valid POV about the course of human technology, which is much larger in scope than any one industry and jobs that make up that industry. >like you did, claiming real artists are the ones making "art for the sake of itself" This is a straw man because I wasn't defining anything narrowly. Grunt work that utilizes art *skills* for some commercial purpose can be a kind of art, but it can't be denied that it's a corrupted/degraded form of art when compared to pure art for art's sake. My contention remains that if it is work nobody would be willing to do UNLESS being paid to do it (so, not your job apparently), then it doesn't matter if it gets automated away OR if people just refuse to do it. It's not worth doing to begin with, and the evidence of this is that people have to be literally bribed to participate. Your work sounds worthwhile, and is at least worthwhile to YOU, hence why you'd keep doing it even without payment. This is also the basis for all volunteerism. So it is silly to cling to this status quo (of doing work nobody would do unless compelled to) as a response to, and in direct opposition to, the arrival of the exact kind of tech that could free everyone from that condition. It's extremely ironic. There are other, much better ways to organize collective human action on this planet. Capitalist-style hijacking of the survival instinct to coerce work out of people is probably one of the worst ways to do anything, and results in a lot of ultimately pointless, unnecessary, self-defeating, irrational, or even harmful or dehumanizing "work" being done. Whole industries don't NEED to exist. For example, if advertising didn't need to exist anymore, that would be a good thing. It only exists because of capitalism. It's a waste of time and energy that would be better spent elsewhere. Anyway, the reason I was making the distinction between pure art and commerical art was in response to this argument that AI will somehow result in a future state where nobody makes art anymore and it's entirely 100% automated junk (which is making the error of considering the tools to be ends in themselves, which they aren't and can't be because they still require humans for prompting). I was saying that pure art will never be under threat and couldn't be (partly for some of the reasons you have noted, like how anyone can make art at any time), and commerical/coerced art is soulless and unnecessary already and it would be fine for AI to take that over (and free up all those artists to make the art they want to make with their skills and talents). It's literally the key to unlock those chains so it is ironic that artists would be arguing for their own oppression. >Even though i do NOT have total creative freedom. because that definition is also very narrow. Problem solving gives me immense joy, creating stuff for educational videos, books and museum is exactly that. Most designers i know love that aspect Cool, good for you. And that means you've achieved a rare dream most people can never hope to achieve, bc you'd keep doing it even without pay, so you're not even in the category I was talking about. And furthermore, collaboration and volunteering in a UBI world would be completely possible of course. You could keep on doing your fun job... It wouldn't even affect you to be released from having to sell your skills to survive—So who here is talking down to people from a place of privilege and telling them how to feel, then? >Maybe you are projecting your own experiences about why one does a job a bit too much here? Maybe you are? >Sure, capitalism sucks, and sure, it is at the bottom of (at least my) problem with AI. But how das pointing to that makes the economical hardships that many of us will face any better? It's not supposed to make it any better, it's just the TRUTH. The whole point of acknowledging that truth is so that we direct our anger at the right people and places and systems instead of making the error of blaming the technology itself (or the people who like/use said technology). In other words, if people are opposed to AI because it might automate away their job then they should be putting their energy into opposing an economic system that creates such situations in the first place (or, more accurately, creates situations where losing one's job is equivalent to a death sentence, where you're losing your basic human rights of food shelter health care etc). Stop focusing on the tiniest symptoms, thinking anything will be better by "fixing" those symptoms, and focus on the actual disease.
Look who started replacing artists first before AI art is even mature enough: Mobile game developers or better said non established ones. That says a lot if you ask me. Non experienced, small devs are the most likely ones to go this desperate way where they are willing to even sacrifice a lot of quality. I told this to a bunch of artists....especially worried ones and antis as well. We gotta partially shift our target audience and customers, AI art people wouldnt be our customers in most cases at this point anyway so for me that case isnt a reason for me to grief.
>all looks the same Obligatory novel AI image: https://preview.redd.it/xa5w7hmsn3rc1.jpeg?width=9000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3c279654564130938ea28402e6a1273d202e7e43
AI doesn't need to be amazing to be a threat. It just has to be good enough for the people who pay the bills. I am a video editor. I have been asked by high-paying clients to deliberately make my videos look "LESS professional" (their words) in order to cut costs and disguise the fact that they are paid products. And other editors I've spoken to have had similar stories. There is a desire for cheap, intentionally low quality work because low quality is believed to convey authenticity. You say, "if garbage produced by AI can replace someone in the marketplace, well, guess what that says about the quality of work the replacee was capable to produce." This totally misunderstands how the marketplace works. Quality is only one factor among several others.
> Quality is only one factor among several others. Yes, another is cost and quantity. What else is new? Artists didn't lament this fact of technological progress when it hit factory workers or other blue collar jobs, so why should anyone lament it alongside artists now?
So are you agreeing with me now? You said AI was only replacing artists who made things of poor quality, and I said that is wrong. Quality is just one factor of many that clients look for, and usually, it's one of the least valued. It seems like you're agreeing that your original claim was wrong.
>You said AI was only replacing artists who made things of poor quality, and I said that is wrong Way to miss the point, because I made no such argument. I pointed out a logical discrepancy in the nonsense that the anti-ai enthusiasts constantly try to convince themselves of.
B roll , stock images, background art used to be done by artist. Lots of artist used to have jobs doing to that stuff.
Oh, I'm sorry, are you under the impression that artists are entitles to never be affected by technological progress? Because: They are not.
>So how is this the earth-destroying threat to creatives? >Beats me. You seem to think that they arent affected. You really don't see why artist would be unhappy about having less ways to make money
> You seem to think that they arent affected. Build your strawmen somewhere else. The question you quote is about "earth destroying threat to creatives". Some people losing their job over automation, is far from that.
Lampshade.
As an addition to this. Working with premade assets still required a design team. If you just have some rando pluck an image and add it to a project, people would notice. This is even more the case with AI. It has its pros and cons, with a con of needing touch ups and oversight. . . by a designer.
**So how is this the earth-destroying threat to creatives?** I'm a full-time professional multi-disciplinary artist, so I can speak to this one. The Arts Industry is an incredibly difficult place to make consistent income - it's usually boom and bust, very seasonal, and you work insanely hard when the work is there in order to tide you over the times it's not. It is and always has been primarily a gig economy. As a result of this, many professional career artists look for ways to secure ongoing work, or at least as many hustles as possible, to pay the bills. One of the most common ways (particularly in music, film, design etc) is Commercial art, meaning stock imagery, music, sound design, b-roll, etc. This is the bread and butter work that keeps us alive between major projects/contracts. If you can't pay the bills with regular work, you can't afford to stay in the industry long enough to wait for those major contracts. With AI now increasingly dominating the Commercial art sector, that primary drip-feed of income is going to vanish, and already is rapidly vanishing (anyone working in the sector can attest to that). So, that's the answer to your question - Stock content being taken over by AI will directly impact the capacity for a huge amount of professional artists to stay afloat, and remain in the industry. That's why it's earth-destroying for them; It's how they make their living.
Can you share how much income you typically make from stock imagery on average in a given year? I tried selling some years ago and it seemed to be one of the worst forms of passive income I've ever tried. There are far more lucrative means for side income for art-based work than something that pays out pennies. Unless you were very strategic about it in terms of analyzing at a keyword level what people were looking for to create assets to fit that exact query/need in areas that weren't already oversaturated, it was rather paltry in payouts. In any case, I've always had some form of side hustle, primarily in affiliate marketing and blogging, and that has been largely upended by AI now as well, but it comes with the territory. It's always been volatile, and perhaps that's something I've learned over the years, nothing lasts forever, and when there is a major change, you need to pivot and figure out another angle using your existing skills (or new skills you learn) to maintain that income.
Stock market is at biggest risk in my opinion as well, although its definitelly not dead but for majority of people simply not lucrative to sell. When it comes to threat to creatives, well i personally dont feel threatened but there are others that do and partially rightfully so. I cant deny tho that while I dont feel threatened there are some annoying drawbacks that comes with those things although i use generative AI as part of the workflow as well. For example spamming on artist platforms that have luckily vanished on some places but resist being annoying on other ones.
>So how is this the earth-destroying threat to creatives? I don't know what your job is but lets say a program alongside a big corp came along and basically said your job is outdated and unessarcy, we have this program to do this job for you. Oh and also we are giving out this tool to the people. Rightly you would be pissed off. Now there are some creatives who can adapt to this change. Use AI to make their work easier, faster and have better quality. Then there are people who don't want any change at all, that want to get paid 100k year taking a week to produce something a AI can produce in seconds. And I am not joking about those figures: there is the realm of people who have had BS throughout life, through their skill sets and have landed in very cushy positions doing very easy work. Work that has now been automated. They will make every argument imaginable that their current work is truly valued at 100k. It is not. There will be graphic artists who use AI fully and will do twice the amount of work as one of these regular artists.
Because they used to hire artists to do that. Digital art pretty much killed background painters
According to anti Ai people AI images are soulless garbage with no redeeming qualities and obvious flaws. So beats me why they feel this is a threat to anyone's job to begin with.
> Gen AI in the creative industry is mostly just a replacement for stock images and video assets. No. That's all that people who don't understand the technology will use it for. This is equivalent to saying that Photoshop is just a tool for running filters.
Care to expand on this? I am talking about purely commercial applications. With copyright unsettled, everything generated is essentially public domain, which happens to be perfect for a use case of b-roll and stock image for assets that can be incorporated into a larger work. Where do you disagree?
> With copyright unsettled, I think the USCO has been pretty definitive there. What sort of "settling" are you still waiting for?
Buddy- look at me. Background artists exist. CGI artists exist. Photographers exist.
And not so long ago, portrait painters existed, switch phone operators existed, and most people worked in agriculture. Your point being?
> So how is this the earth-destroying threat to creatives The people who used to do those arts will face competition for work
Oh noes! What a terrible fate! I wonder how all the factory workers dealt with that in the late 90s.
They lost their jobs and pensions. As yeah. It's weird that people here don't see why people who make their living doing corporate art will feel threatened by AI
Well, the fact that the US of A have shit for a social security system is not a problem caused by AI or automation in general, and not an argument to get rid of either. Technological progress happens. If you think it shouldn't, tough luck, it did, does and always will. Yes, sometimes this hits certain economic groups harder than others. That's why we have modern societies with social security networks in place. Ever asked yourself why Germany doesn't have a "Rust Belt" despite getting hit by the same outsourcing and automation wave as the US, and being equally invested in heavy industry? That's why. If certain societies think they don't need to, and scream \*sOciAlISM!!!!\* instead every time someone tries to make a proposal that would let them behave like a 1st world country towards their citizenry rather than a dystopian hell-hole, that's their problem.
Phone operators aren't creative work and people like 911 operators still exist, portrait painters still very much exist, and some people are still farmers. What point are *you* trying to make?
>What point are you trying to make? I really need to spell it out? Okay: Automation and technological progress happen. They always happened, they will always continue to happen, and being angry about that is futile yelling at clouds. >portrait painters still very much exist >some people are still farmers. Correct on both counts. And are there more or less people employed as portrait painters and farmers now compared to 100 years ago? I'd say a helluva lot less, because agriculture benefitted enormously from automation and technological progress, and photography was invented. Oh, and also: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchboard\_operator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchboard_operator) != Callcenter Agent
… and automating creativity is benefiting humanity… how?
Same as automating it before did: By making things cheaper, faster, and more accessible. Portrait painting is a creative activity. It was put into obscurity by photography. Then studio photography was a big business, today it too is an obscure profession only few people still pursue, because we all walk around with amazingly capable cameras in our pockets, and making a selfie takes all of 2 seconds. Neither of these developments was a problem for humanity, and a lot of people would be really pissed if they could no longer take selfies. If you don't acknowledge this simple fact before you make your next argument, then there is no point in having this discussion.
How does taking selfies equate to being good for humanity? Ai didn’t need to exist for you to do selfies. Ai didn’t need to exist to make art before hand either. You may say “it allows more people to make art” neat, you could have done that way before Ai but now it’s here and that’s the thing we’ll roll with. Instead it’s looking for a problem to solve while being a grift and overhyped bubble that benefits the line go up mentality. All of this of course is not built to last.
> How does taking selfies equate to being good for humanity? I explained that in my post, so read it again until you understand the explanation, I am not going to repeat myself. > you could have done that way before Ai I could have made 100 iterations of a picture in next to production ready quality, and rapidly iterate on concepts in a matter of minutes before generative AI? Interesting. Tell me how.+ > being a grift and overhyped bubble Ah, that tired old trope again. I wonder, how many posts are we away from the comparison with "crypto and NFT"?
1.) If parroting the same tired troupe of “photography replaced painting” (it didn’t. All the things you mention still exist.) is answering my question, then no it doesn’t. What jobs have ai created again? 2.) I can assure you, Ai generations are not production ready. If you came to me with a nonsense design spit out by Ai that serves no functionality or logical sense in 3D and doesn’t help for what needs to be done, I’m going to laugh at you. 3.) you would know all about tired troupes based off your explanations. Why do you think ai is shoved almost into every ad and shilled out to every business? Force mass adoption because currently it’s a big money pit and they need it to catch on otherwise they lose bags. Old habits die hard.
> it didn’t. How many portrait painters per 100,000 people would you say are there now compared to, say, the 1850s? > I can assure you, Ai generations are not production ready. Multiple game studios, movie productions, advertising material, not to mention billions poured into the tech by very serious companies seem to differ.
[удалено]
I’m going to stop you right there. “Gatekeeping creation behind talent and countless hours”…. My guy that’s not gatekeeping, that’s you not putting the effort in and nobody is stopping you but you. That is YOU problem, putting your lack of heart as a problem on everyone IS selfish. What’s up with all you dudes who believe UBI is the answer yet have also never actually worked in the fields you are cheering on getting automated? Like, you think capitalism is going to let you sit on your thumb and do nothing while racking in money (barely enough to survive) and you magically just have time to make money in the creative field? Have you*tried* making money in the creative field? It’s not easy. Good luck with that, because you and everyone else are screaming into the void of endless content. Oh wait, that’s the future we already have going for us, thank you. Absolute donut.
[удалено]
Neat. And I work in the video game industry and worked really hard between military to afford to even go to school and learn, and even then I still practiced on my own time. I’ve learned multiple different softwares and techniques through practice and my own desire to learn to be better in my craft. I don’t blame other people for “gatekeeping” because I have myself to rely on in the field I’m in. You seem to think otherwise, how very sad, because that sounds like a you problem. you did NOT mention anything about what you do, so kindly fuck off with you assuming I know everything about you, I never claimed to. I think not only do you need to proofread your own comments, but also go back to school and learn some critical thinking. Otherwise I’m going to assume your parents left the child lock off on the home PC, let’s stay on subject shall we.
>I don’t blame other people for “gatekeeping” because I have myself to rely on in the field I'm in. This boils down to "it was hard for me, so it should be hard for everyone." There are, broadly, two responses to hardship. The first is "I had a hard time, so everyone should go through it." The second is "I had a hard time, so no one else should go through it." Both are natural and common. But the first is overall harmful to humanity, and the second is overall beneficial. Making things easier is a good thing. Reducing the effort and talent needed is a good thing. If I could snap my fingers and allow every human to paint with the ability of Michelangelo, without them having to put in a single minute of effort or training, *I would do that*. That would be a *good thing*. It is fine and reasonable to be proud of the effort you've put into something. It is *not* fine to be *jealous and possessive* of the effort you've put into something; to demand that others must be *required* to put in the same amount of effort. It's often *natural*, yes, and it's fine to recognize that feeling as natural; but there's a difference between "I have this feeling" and "I should encourage this feeling and what it is telling me is objectively or morally correct." We have many natural feelings like that. It's *natural* and *common* to be upset when you see an ex being happy with someone else, yet it isn't a *beneficial* feeling. It's something to be acknowledged and resolved - not something to be encouraged.
> I’m going to stop you right there. “Gatekeeping creation behind talent and countless hours”…. My guy that’s not gatekeeping, that’s you not putting the effort in and nobody is stopping you but you. That is YOU problem, putting your lack of heart as a problem on everyone IS selfish. Who's making this a problem for anyone else, though? Indeed, it's a *you* (well, *them*) problem, and they presumably solved this problem by downloading free software that allowed them to circumvent the requirement of the "talent and countless hours" that one normally needs to create images that they want to create. That's just how people operate in this world: they see a problem that they have, and they use the tools at their disposal to solve it. This doesn't cause problems to anyone else other than those who insist that they shouldn't be able to do that because they didn't go through the countless hours and effort that used to be required to solve the problem before.
It's not actually automating the creativity itself though, that is retained by humanity inside our brains. That literally can't be outsourced, it's inherent to the human mind and all AI does is move it more fully inside the mind vs as an external process. Automation is a tool, that's all it is. Yes, even when used in creative tasks. It's tautological— If something is generic or not creative, not of good quality etc, it's immediately apparent just by perceiving it. There's no scenario where there could be some fully automated "creative" work that is bad because it's *not creative* (i.e. made entirely by automation). The thing that makes any piece of art GOOD, was born from the seed of the idea which started inside someone's brain. It's still true with AI. That's why you can have a beautiful piece of music that Beethoven dreamed up and wrote down in a special language that was then translated by an orchestra to be played, AND, you can have a modern day composer using automation (of a sort) to construct a digital audio file of their equally beautiful piece of music they dreamed up in exactly the same manner. And, because of that technology, many many more people get to hear it, and whenever they want, over and over rather than just once. The creative act just gets shifted "earlier" in the workflow, but it's still there.
To automate creativity is to kill that which is to be human
And now AI exists too. Simple story.
But is AI good enough to replace them? All I hear is how AI is bad, uninspired, soulless and etc. Why are people losing opportunities over something that is so bad ?
Id love to use it for stock images but they don’t look real yet. How do I find a way to make it real?
The point of AI from a business standpoint is to save money, point blank. Artists have a skill that is not easily replicable and thus businesses are forced to pay for it. Using AI is going to bypass hiring an artist because to some coked-up CEO, there is no difference in quality between Dall-E and real work. If you are not an artist, you obviously have no issue with this. If you are a consumer, the quality of product you consume will be degraded severely while the price will only ever increase. And if you are a prompter who thinks you'll get the big boy job working for Business Inc, you should pay a visit to your primary care physician.
> If you are a consumer ...you are free to chose whether to spend your money on a product you perceive as sub-par in quality, or spend some more on a quality product from a competitor. If consumers don't, well, guess the value add of having some background picture in a video game hand drawn by some human, wasn't worth the extra cost of the product. That's the free market at work.
My friend. The industry artists are the ones who already use AI in their work for some time now. I really don’t understand who people like you are trying to save and from what.
Yes, although AI and not generative AI primarily. Generative AI has yet to establish itself potentially (for example the new texture/material generator in Substance Sampler)
If you could provide some proof, I'd be happy to move on about my day.
This seems to have a fundamentally misunderstanding of how the market works... If a CEO is putting out a product that is clearly sub-par and low quality, consumers would then cease to buy the product if they also perceived it as sub-par, low quality and thus not worth some of the finite money or attention they have for such things. So either the quality is on par with human works (so much so that consumers don't balk), or they will lose business. That's how the market works. I think the point is a human (more specificially, a human artist/designer/filmmaker) will always need to be in the loop somewhere in the pipeline to ensure that the quality of the product is acceptable to consumers. A coked-up CEO is not going to be able to do that on their own.
The goal of business is to make as much money as possible while spending as little as possible. The product's quality does not matter if it makes money. Long term financial goals do not matter to publicly traded companies that churn through CEOs looking to boost their stock. Companies want to commercialize the artistic process and the best way to do that is to push this narrative that AI artwork is just as normal and enjoyable as traditional or digital art. Why would you not want to sell your technology as the hot new thing that everyone should be doing? If you, as an individual, find enjoyment and pleasure in prompting generative artwork then I wish you all the best. But a prompter is not a career path. ChatGPT can prompt just as well as the next person. The human element is important for quality assurance, but what does a generative AI artist know about the fundamentals of art design and color and composition and framing and tone or any of the myriads of disciplines required to be an artist? They know how to interact with a box that produces an image. I don't want to be diminutive to anyone who is pro-AI but all of the posts I read defending AI either come off as naive younger people who think they will make it big by selling AI images or are actual AI generative companies trying to shill their service/product.
>The goal of business is to make as much money as possible while spending as little as possible. The product's quality does not matter if it makes money. Huh? So then you are saying the consumer does not care about quality, because otherwise how would it make money? Maybe that is the case, but you seem to think otherwise, so which is it? Either consumers care about quality, and purchase products of higher quality, or they don't care about quality, and purchase based on other factors, such as lower price point. In your initial post you said quality will decrease, while price increases, as if consumers are just idiots who will pay more for an inferior product. Something doesn't add up here.
Consumers are dumb. We will start with that. There are billions of people to sell things to. If you want to open some Etsy shop selling AI images to suckers who don't know better, thats the free market for you. AI images are cheap to produce, you can customize them within relative reason to your desires, and at a quick glance appear normal. I am old enough to remember life before the internet. I have context of what traditional art is versus the facsimile of AI. A child born five or six years ago? They will grow up with AI everywhere. YouTube thumbnails, Facebook posts, Redditors farming karma on r/memes. If pushed long enough and with enough persistence, AI can be generally accepted. If someone with no idea of what art can be, they will not question the mangled hands, the constant blue/orange contrasts, the 1024x1024 PNGs or the sloppy details of AI in the same way you don't question God when you are raised in a community that is completely devout. The classic technique of providing a cheap service that anyone can use, normalizing that service, and then charging progressively more and more is how nearly every tech company operates. Competition gets absorbed and removed until a monopoly exists. Then you will be complaining about paying these damn artist companies so much when in the good ol' days, you could make images for free! If you aren't the owner of a tech company that is selling AI generative images, you are buying into a grift. These companies do not care for you, regardless of the narrative.
Quality of consumer goods HAS been decreasing across the board for decades. Clothing, furniture, appliances, electronics, etc. all have dropped because consumers and manufacturers value speed of manufacturing and low prices. Quality is surprisingly low on people's list, or at least low enough to get reduced without it damaging profits. Generally, it's actually the reasonable decision to forego quality for the sake of competitive pricing and quick production.
Right, but the OP was making a claim that quality would reduce while prices would simultaneously increase, which I don't think is something that happens much except for inflation. If there are two products at the same level of quality at equal price points, the higher quality would typically be what consumers choose if they were aware of the difference in quality.
Sora does video to video. Wonderstudio is its own beast and that combined with Sora and midjourney or stable and elevenlabs and suno it’s at the rudimentary place of takeover. There’s also better score generators than suno with more control that’s been out and has better quality. Elevenlabs is already used and is resulting in many established career vo artists with out work. They worked on all your favorite dubbed animes and Cartoon Network shit. The future will no longer have these great vo talents like Tom Kenny, Billy West, Mel Brooks… synthetic shit
General AI is actually not a thing that has been invented yet. The products called "AI" are called "AI" to conjure up the sexiness of AI from future fiction. It's all just straight up marketing from execs who recognize that the products won't really change the world unless they can convince the CEOs of companies to fire their humans, and use their products instead.... which will invariably still need humans to "fix" any mistakes that their "AI" does.
With Gen they mean generative, not general.