Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

it_cant_be_difficult t1_ixv5eyp wrote

All these leaps in text to image generation in the last few years has got to leave a lot of artists and creatives worried. The technology isn't there yet to get a precise enough result, but in the next 10 years surely it will reach a point wear the output is faster than a human and just as good? An artist's job will no longer be to make great art or animations, but to know how to write good prompts to get the AI to make good art, then just refining the output into a finished product.

Having said that, I'm sure people were saying the same when we moved from hand drawn animations to digital animations. Maybe even more creative jobs will be born out of this new technology instead.


Kittyionite t1_ixvzzl1 wrote

3D art student here: It's kinda worrying, but at the same time you need to understand that working in 3D isn't like working in 2D, where you are drawing it all by hand. The hardest part of working in 3D (at least in my opinion) is getting your computer to cooperate with you. Your job as a 3D artist is to basically work with a computer in various fashions to produce complex images. I think A.I. generated stuff is definitely going to shake things up a ton, but artists will just pivot to work with the new tech, as they have done many times.

The hard part of 3D stuff has always been getting a computer to understand what we as humans want out of it, and this just brings us closer.


SimiKusoni t1_ixwstma wrote

>artists will just pivot to work with the new tech

I think the point is not so much that it will completely replace artists, even with significant improvements you'd still need an actual artist to come and touch things up and make sure the output is desirable in the first place, but rather if you have 10 3D artists and this new tech makes them twice as productive you can hire half the number of staff.

It may not completely replace artists in anything other than extreme situations, like indie studios that don't mind if the models are a bit iffy or they have to do some work themselves, but it doesn't need to replace you entirely to devalue your work.

It's the same with most new technology. Automation lets you do the same amount of work with less staff, and typically with less skilled staff at that.


zizn t1_ixxwewe wrote

Would be nice to get some solid retopo ai models. But I think 3D will take a lot of necessary progress to kill off. That whole realm is such a behemoth with all kinds of intricacies and requirements. It’s definitely not been primed to allow for workflows to be as vague as “input thing, output result”.

That said, I don’t think career art is safe. One of my many unfortunate realizations is that career art is nothing all that different from a regular job, it just exploits creative technical ability. Unless you’re the 1%, start your own business, something like that. Definitely don’t think jobs like basic graphic design, modeling, rigging, roto, are particularly invulnerable, but they’re currently still needed. But if the tech gets there, I get the sense that industries will be eager to have the same work done for a fraction of the price, even if there are hurdles along the way. The good part is: perhaps art can get back to its roots and actually be about creative expression. Bad part is that it may become far less sustainable as a source of income. I would personally love to see people treading CG more like a traditional art form, but it absolutely does not pave the path to getting a job. Fast, clean, done, again is the mantra for jobs. Predictable, efficient, the type of thing that AI can improve upon.


Kryptosis t1_iy4r2oz wrote

Were Art Careers ever safe though? I see no real difference now. People buy the art they want. If they want AI they’ll get that easily but I imagine most people wont want to decorate their homes etc with AI generations.

A “reliable art career” doesn’t seem real to me. There would always be flux and uncertainty when your income depends on peoples emotional response to your creations.

Even in the most corporatized, rigidly enforced work environment an artist could be simply replaced by another artist who has a preferable or momentarily popular style.


Kryptosis t1_ixwn9nu wrote

It’s also no easy thing to just slap in a description and get consistent results across all your inputs. As you say figuring out how to get the AI to draw what you are asking it to is a wildly complex task that takes ages to practice and refine for EACH input. Weeks and months in some advanced cases.

That is an artistry. A modern technical artistry but art nonetheless.


Something_Sexy t1_ixv6t2d wrote

Artbreeder has been amazing for people who play ttrpg and need character designs without having to traditionally pay an artist to do it.


DukeBeefpunch t1_ixvbkb1 wrote

This is disgusting. AI is supposed to be this amazing thing but all I ever see it used for is to kill culture. As you just gave an example of, this is set to destroy the jobs starting artists need in order to grow. Artbreeder says on it's home page you can "craft" AI art like never before. That's a dangerous statement. It needs to be absolutely clear, if you are utilizing an AI in any artistic endeavor, your not crafting shit.


ozonejl t1_ixvhnr4 wrote

This sounds pretty much like any other old man yells at new technology moment throughout history. “Sampling isn’t real music” yadayadayada. If your visual art is innovative and has a strong point of view, you’re gonna be fine. If you do online commissions of shit like “Pikachu in the style of Gustav Klimt” your career might be in trouble, eventually.


DukeBeefpunch t1_ixvztkt wrote

Yea and every artist starts off innovative and strong, and there's plenty of room for more competition. I'd rather sound like an old man than someone who talks out their ass about things they don't understand.


ozonejl t1_ixwaz0e wrote

The thing is, AI is coming whether you like it or not. You can say “this art isn’t real art” because it’s made by AI and I can say “this car isn’t a real car” because it’s made by robots, but at the end of the day if it gets the job done and people can’t tell, it doesn’t matter. There will always be money for people with an artistic eye who can draw/paint. It’s just that you might have to develop another skill or two.


drixevel-dev t1_ixx3mfa wrote

People are gonna lose their minds once the singularity happens, I'll grab the popcorn.


VizDevBoston t1_ixwdnt0 wrote

Oh yeah clearly you’d never comment on something you know very little about.


Kryptosis t1_ixwmtuh wrote

Yeah mourn the lose of all the coal mining jobs and factory assembly jobs while your at it.

If people want handcrafted they can pay for it


Kinexity t1_ixvn4vn wrote

Yes, you are crafting. If you just generate an image and without anything else you say it's art then it's not because there was no artistic intent. But if you choose between images, tweak those generated, change parameters then the AI is just a tool which let's you express a vision you have in your mind. The effective image will be art because you had an artistic intent. Not everyone is manually skilled enough to be able to express their idea by their own hands. I can't draw for shit but I know how to use some simpler image editing software and can run Stable Diffusion so I can make art of my own. I will not claim it's comparable to works of normal artists but it is art nonetheless.


DukeBeefpunch t1_ixw1yyd wrote

Not everyone is manually skilled enough.....That's why you go through the process of learning! That applies to literally everything in life. If you want to express your idea in art than it should drive you to practice enough to do it and not to buy a shortcut to skill.


Kinexity t1_ixw39dh wrote

Tell engineers they should carve metal parts by hand instead of using CNC mills. Not everyone has time or skill to learn how to draw. Your comment is pure neo-luddism.


DukeBeefpunch t1_ixw4uds wrote

Tell me what engineering has to do with culture? That's mathematics. That's business. Business is not culture. We aren't talking about a product that needs efficiency and speed we are talking about art. Using a program to look at pre existing art for you, conceptualize for you, execute for you is essentially plagerism you just don't know who it is you've plagerized en masse so there's no guilt.


Kinexity t1_ixw6uhk wrote

Well, I just want to point out to you that you've just described most of non AI art that is being created today but you wouldn't say that an artist learning from works of other is plagiarizing, would you? AI isn't going to take away the ability to create from human artists - it's just going to give the ability to create to people not as talented. The final goal is to automate everything such that work is no longer neccesary. This will mean that there will be a period where many people will not be able to do the thing they want for profit but after that they'll get to do all that without worrying about being profitable - and that includes artists. Engineering has nothing do with culture just like making money has nothing to with creating art. Making money is bussiness and

>Business is not culture


zachster77 t1_ixw7jem wrote

You’re 100% right. People disagreeing with you don’t understand the creative generative process.

And the reality is that AI will be coming for many jobs that used to be considered creative. If humans had meaningful work lined up to replace those jobs, it’d be one thing. But all we have is low wage commoditized service jobs that can’t yet be automated.



blizardfires t1_ixxfnta wrote

These people all seem to think the gains of AI will be distributed equitably so we can all have better lives. That’s just not how free market capitalism works.


zachster77 t1_ixxg5co wrote

Definitely. Though we don’t really know how it would work in free market capitalism. We’re so caught up in crony capitalism we can’t even see the corruption.


blizardfires t1_iy0e99j wrote

>in crony capitalism we can’t even see the corruption.



nardev t1_ixvcj3m wrote

Don’t look at it like that. Try this: one artist will now be able to create game assets for the whole game in a matter of days. You still need to hand pick, curate, etc. Or: an artist will be able to make his own museum on his own with no help from 3D artists or programers. Or a thousands of other ways to look at it. It’s just technology. Art will remain art. AI (computers) just remove the mundane.


makse_djaole t1_ixwp4ax wrote

Thing about making your game in days, or making your own musem using AI is - nobody will care. Why would I or anyone else waste my time playing games somebody else made, or looking at someone else's art, when I can just make my own?


nardev t1_ixycu0e wrote

Well, then by that rationale art is superflous. Which it is not. So your point is somehow lacking. Something is off. This is just another tool. Someone still needs to use and direct it.


makse_djaole t1_ixyhe3m wrote

That's the thing, it's not just another tool, this is something completely new. Yes, you have to use AI and you have to direct it, but it doesn't take much time to learn how to do that, especially when compared how much time it takes to learn how to draw or model or code. And it's just going to get easier.


nardev t1_iy0apv3 wrote

And why is that a bad thing? I just can’t accept the argument that one should stick with old tools of the trade in order to…not sure what really. Even tools without AI have helper functions that curve lines for you automatically and proportionally, etc.


DukeBeefpunch t1_ixw0hmx wrote

Thinking your way, you just eliminated dozens of jobs, and what would you gain? A game comes out faster and shittier? More soulless?


nardev t1_ixw1cnp wrote

why would it be shittier? instead of spending time on mundane design choirs the artist can more quickly iterate over ideas and even finetune them by hand in default design tools. or the designer can always use the old tools of the trade as well from scratch. the people will always appreciate the better outcome, however it is done. and in this case it seems that the artist/designer will have more power and options, not less.


Tip_Odde t1_ixxtg87 wrote

Facts not feelings fam, get your emotions in check.


merkitt t1_ixvhj3m wrote

Once AIs put out of business the very artists whose work was used to train them, the models will begin to stagnate without new inputs. Feeding AI generated images back into the models will likely result in the artistic version of deformities. If this process takes longer than a generation, we may not have any artists left to pick up the pieces...


poobearcatbomber t1_ixvnzet wrote

People will still create when there is no financial reward — although much less. There still will be plenty of data to train on.

It will certainly limit the creative expression of the human race, but the profit machines that drive this innovation don't care about that. Human expression doesn't drive revenue.


Kinexity t1_ixvnip1 wrote

You need to allow yourself to dream bigger. At some point we will create models able to create new styles. Also it's a potential job for artists to be employed just to create things to teach AI on them.


EchoingSimplicity t1_iy08mri wrote

Nope. You can feed AI on a hand-picked database of the best of the best of generated images. I'll give an example: generate one hundred thousand images of hands, have one hundred people sort through all of these photos, doing one hundred images a day. Delete any hands that are outright anatomically incorrect. Then, feed this back into the AI until it learns to generate better hands. Repeat this process for anything.

In fact, this is already happening with Midjourney. They track which photos their users select, then they feed those photos right back into the model. Coincidentally, Midjourney v4 is currently regarded as the best image generation model available at the moment. It's considered to be far ahead of the competition at the moment. No points for guessing why.


PanderTuft t1_ixygvif wrote

I reprocess and sample past AI work for consistent new AI generations already.


poobearcatbomber t1_ixvojlp wrote

In 10 years, a lot more jobs than artists will be automated through AI. This problem will have to be addressed at a broad scale. Some of the most profitable professions right now could be automated — such as engineers and surgeons not to mention the lower paying jobs already in their way out like factory workers and customer service.


Cncfan84 t1_ixvxxtt wrote

I'm a 3d artist, this shit terrifies me. This will have me out of a job in the not so distant future. I'll be retraining next year.


Fleaslayer t1_ixx4vq7 wrote

I graduated with a computer science degree in 85, and at the time prior were working on auto code generation. The were articles saying programmers would become unnecessary. Nearly 40 years later and auto code has gotten much better but we need more programmers than ever.

I'm guessing you won't be replaced anytime soon, though your tools might change.


metekillot t1_ixxzg32 wrote

That's a good guess but also consider the breakthroughs we're making with quantum computing. I hardly understand a fucking thing about it but I've been reading that some theories behind the unique nature of consciousness are due to quantum mechanics, and if we're able to manipulate those mechanics we may be closer to creating truly conscious machines then we think.


Fleaslayer t1_ixy059w wrote

Not my field of expertise - I do real time control systems - but I don't think we're that close. I mean, there are really cool things getting done, especially with machine learning, but nothing in the vicinity of a conscious AI that I'm aware of. Not even the grand parent of one.


metekillot t1_ixy0bz1 wrote

10 years of advancement today would have been 40 or 50 years back in the day. Who knows what's over the next hill? Science rules.


Flaky_Bee_2599 t1_ixypqmg wrote

I'm not an AI expert, but I'm pretty sure general AI is thought of as a "decades away, if ever" sort of thing.


hvdzasaur t1_ixwtbql wrote

Look at what the actual output of that is, it's practically unusable. I've done work in this field, and while this is genuinely impressive and a step up from previous work. It doesn't really have any practical use beyond rapid exploration. Arguably the most impressive thing about this is the natural language processing to 3d synthesization, and the speed at which it does it. How this would be used is to quickly synthesize rough ideas, modify them, and then send them to outsourcing alongside concept art guidelines for final asset production.

Production of 3d assets these days is already largely outsourced, but art direction and dressing is still going to be needed. What will be truly revolutionary if an one could derive context, style and intent behind an existing scene or concept piece, and just feed you models or 3d elements that would best fit within the environment or character. Not even synthesization, just asset suggestion is already a gargantuan task. Promethean still largely works off natural language and meta data, but not from one shot image or geometric data, for now. But you still need a person to properly direct towards a desirable output.

We're still miles off from replacing actual artists.


Tip_Odde t1_ixxtdiy wrote



I work in tv, no we're not miles off. Go ask anyone who used to work in transcriptions.


hvdzasaur t1_ixyiiau wrote

Yes, because transcription is a form of artistic expression. /s

3D art involves a lot of different subtask and disciplines, and most of them involve some form of artistic direction, to varying degrees. We've long been automating aspects of the job, but it didn't result in a replacement of jobs, yet.

Ultimately this will end up being just another tool to do the job faster.


Tip_Odde t1_iy3pjlr wrote

The people who worked in it for decades would certainly say there was "an art to it" but I agree they are vastly different. Unfortunately for you, they got chopped about a decade ago and tech has been growing at an exponential rate since. The difference in tech is equally vast, if not more so.

Yes, they are tools that will make work faster but you're relying too much on stuff that hasn't happened specifically to you. You need to look at the bigger picture. Another example, editors. We used to have an editor and maybe two assistant editors per episode. Within a decade it will be one or two editors for the entire season running a team of "virtual" editors that do the basics. The people who are in their 30/40s at the top of their artistic fields arent going anywhere for decades and the number of jobs in these industries will be ever dwindling.


ixramuffin t1_ixympqg wrote

Your comment will not age well. Come back in 5 years.


hvdzasaur t1_ixz38je wrote

Yeah, it's not like I professionally worked in this research field and 3d art for the past few years. My job was literally to work with this tech and exploring ways to introduce this into production pipelines, both game development, and related industries.

3d has always been a field that moves fast, very fast, and continuously learning to use new tech is and will be a part of the job. Effectively using generative AI will become a part of the skillset moving forward.


HerrSchnabeltier t1_ixw1s8l wrote

Retraining to do something that will be equally displaced by these developments? ;-)

Don't be terrified, be open to whatever and however it will affect the craft, incorporate it or don't (there is space for both).

Change is constant and when there's nothing you can do about it, there's no need to worry. If there is something you can do about (or despite) it, there is no need to worry either.


Cncfan84 t1_ixw65j0 wrote

I'm thinking UX design, seems safer from AI. I suppose terrified isn't the correct word but it does worry me, I create photo real marketing lifestyle images to sell products and my days are numbered. I don't want to be jumping into a new career in a few years in my early 40s, competing with everyone else being forced to do the same thing. You can't fight change so I may as well just get on with it.


Kryptosis t1_ixwnp2o wrote

Or you could stay on top of trends and develop the skills to produce the AI images yourself? It’s not actually as easy as a simple google search if you’re doing professional level work. It takes skills and practice to get consistent results and your job will eventually condense and morph into that. As you say, just get in with it. Learning that is.


makse_djaole t1_ixwptlq wrote

It's not easy - now. It will be much easier next year. And even easier in ten years.

Another thing is that some people think it's not moral to claim something AI made as their own.


Kryptosis t1_ixwqcgy wrote

Eh I think there’s a bottom line for how easy it’s ever going to be. Even when we get the the point of brain chips producing art we imagine we’re going to need people educated in competition and lighting etc to imagine them in the first place.

We might get the the point where you just say “male on our bike in the woods” but it won’t be able to pick the best one for you. It’ll always need guidance. And that’s a job.


staffan_spins t1_ixvje5e wrote

I agree but there will still be room & surge for authenticity. Like why is film cameras still a thing? Why are there blacksmiths, shoemakers & painters using the exact same 500+ year old techniques when we have better, faster & cheaper alternatives? Jobs will be affected in great scale but the value of something human made / hand crafted will rise.

3D has always been superexpensive, borderline snobby & exclusive so personally, I’m welcoming this with open arms.


Fierydog t1_ixw8fqx wrote

It's like complaining about the invention of computers or machines.

A person today using a computer is many times more productive than before they were the norm. I'm sure a lot of people "lost" their jobs because a single person using computers and software can now do the same job in a day that used to take 20 people a week.

Machines everywhere are constantly automating task in every industry and "taking away" jobs.

The only way to stop it is to decide that we should never progress our technology.

It's inevitable.

I'm sure there will still be plenty of artist in the future and they will still be needed, but the concept of what they do might be different.


Gabo7 t1_ixwj1lp wrote

>but to know how to write good prompts to get the AI to make good art

That will be extremely short-lived.

If an AI can get to do art better than a human, then writting the best prompts possible will be way easier, and better than any human could.


Beaan t1_ixwc8w7 wrote

I dunno. I'm pretty skeptical honestly. If the past two decades have made me realize anything it's that how far we think AI and tech CAN go rarely ends being how far they actually go. No doubt these AIs are incredibly impressive right now but until they get to the point everyone is afraid of I'm not all that convinced they're gonna get there. I think it's just as likely the technology hits a wall where it isn't able to get any better and we aren't going to be able to figure out how to get it to get any better.


someguyfromtheuk t1_ixvx4vx wrote

Once the AI figures out how to draw furry porn artists are gonna go bankrupt


SatanLifeProTips t1_ixxcm6a wrote

5-10 years ago the ‘spoken story creation software’ in the last season of Westworld was pure fantasy.

Now it’s highly plausible within a decade.


dunyged t1_ixxr92p wrote

You won't even need to know how to write good prompts for the AI, it should eventually be able to take a look at your internet history and media and texting styles to extrapolate exactly what you want better than any human could.


Grantus89 t1_ixybvc7 wrote

It’s just the same issue as every other industry, everything will get automated. It’s just that the creative industries thought they wouldn’t be affected or at least thought they would be the last to go and it’s proving not to be the case.


craybest t1_ixyc0lm wrote

Se are worried indeed. But mostly about the ethics of it. Considering all these AI software are useless without actual artists. And it basically mixes and matches stuff taken without consent from artists. It's a really ugly thing to be honest. I hope we can reach a point where it's not as damaging to actual artists. For now we can try to adapt.


Atanakar t1_ixyopgp wrote

People give too much credit to AI. Sure the generated images sometimes look good from afar, but they often have these tiny details that just don't fit and that our brains so easily detect.

Also not as much creative power, meaning and emotion as human artists. Sure they compose from human art but some is lost.

The real improvement will be the human artist + AI tool combo. That's what's gonna bring masterpieces to the world. And it will still need a human.