Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Kinexity t1_iypfdpo wrote

Reply to comment by Baron_Samedi_ in Clip Studio gives up under pressure by Sieventer

There will always be a place for artists creating for the sake of creating BUT market for creating on demand by human artists will shrink to a fraction of current size. Current models are just tools but that will not be true for the future ones. What you said is another variation of "humans will never automate themselves out of work because AI is just another tool for work not a replacement for worker". If you tried to estimate if this statement is true by analysing past changes (first agricultural revolution, industrial revolution) then you may think it would be true but the reason is that you wrongly assumed that past past performance is indicative of future results while it's not. A year ago without hiring an artist if I wanted some digital drawing of something I wouldn't be able to get it unless it was already available on the internet - today I can just start up SD and make what I want. It's not perfect and requires loads of tweaking but I am technologically literate so with enough time I can get satysfying results. I am not able to create anything but still a large chunk of my potential artistic needs has been fullfilled without direct input of an actual artist. Moving forward tech literacy needed to use those tools will go down while possibilities will go up. There will be a point where human artists making custom works will only have a job not because an AI will be worse but because some people will specifically request a work made by a human. There may be no upper limit to human creativity but this implies there will also be no limit to AI "creativity".

And before you say "long time" again: this is where AI image generation was in 2014. Unlike much of this sub I do not share the optimism of AGI before 2040 and other impossible timelines but it is ignorant to not take into account that the field of image generation moves fast and will probably continue to do so and unlike eg. language models you can already run it on middle range hardware.

1

Baron_Samedi_ t1_iyqfigj wrote

A year ago, you were not paying for art, either, my dude. Ask me how I can tell.

If a publishing house wants original art, which department is going to generate it and tweak it to fit their needs? Accounting? Marketing? Managers?

You are imagining that the current market will not evolve to include entirely new artforms which humans develop and design.

21st Century creatives are not to be compared with early 20th Century farm hands. While automation was putting agriculture jobs out to pasture, creatives were taking advantage of automation to build Hollywood and invent new jobs for creatives and blue collar workers alike.

You can still look at linear progress to get a clue about how creative humans will adapt to accellerating, non-linear progress:

  • Photography did not do away with painting. Instead, it spawned new artforms that eventually even included the need for more traditional artists (i.e., animation);

  • Film and TV did not do away with literature, photography, sculpture, or painting - it borrowed from them, to the benefit of all, and also created a market for new artforms, such as VFX and 3D digital art.

  • Digital art did not kill off film, TV, photography, sculpture, or painting - but rather adapted a lot of their aesthetic and storytelling ideas to give us new interactive art - like videogames.

Art-associated professions and specializations have exploded with every new innovation.

If you think creative folks are not inventive enough to make the most of the singularity, then you don't actually know many creatives.

  • AI will generate images, music, stories, objects, etc faster and better than most human artists? Cool! I look forward to the day when a single art generalist can develop better video games than any in existence all by themselves. Because that will mean larger groups of cooperating creatives can spawn entirely new artforms which exploit that fact. We are going to use that ability to create some wild shit that you never imagined. New mediums will be spawned, and artists will create new jobs for themselves. Outdoor festivals are going to be nuts.

TLDR: New markets developed by creatives will replace old ones. And until that occurs, there is still plenty of room for creatives to work in.

0

[deleted] t1_iyql9oc wrote

>If a publishing house wants original art, which department is going to generate it and tweak it to fit their needs? Accounting? Marketing? Managers?

There absolutely is a limit to human creativity. And yours has been reached with that comment.

Why would I ever turn to a bloody publishing house, when I go straight to the AI myself? Children who draw animu pictures were the first to go. Self-appointed mediaries are following suit. Good riddance.

5

Baron_Samedi_ t1_iyqlo3c wrote

Spoken like someone who was jealous in school because the creative kids all seemed to be having fun while you were sulking in front of your computer. Art generating AIs have really got y'all crawling out of the woodwork, lately, praying for a little bit of dark schadenfreude.

I mean, pause for a second and ask yourself why you would gloat over AI potentially hurting the very people whose unpaid labor was used to create it. How fucking cringe is that?

Regardless... Jokes on you. If creatives - for whom precarity amid an ever shifting landscape is an old acquaintence - cannot thrive amid the singularity, then non-creative types are well and truly fucked.

What you should be praying for is that we invent solutions that are helpful for everyone, rather than licking your chops at the prospect of our failure.

Seriously, what kind of cave troll relishes the thought of any independent thinker's failure? You need to do some soul searching, man.

You would go to a "publishing house" because {collectives of creatives + AIs} will always come up with something more fun and interesting than {not-creative you + AIs can}.

−1

[deleted] t1_iyqoke2 wrote

>Spoken like someone who was jealous in school because the creative kids all seemed to be having fun while you were sulking in front of your computer.

I love ad hominems like this. You see, I don't spend my time spamming art subreddits with bitter and whiny opinions. But you on the other hand... yikes. AI art is living rent free in your head.

>If creatives - for whom precarity amid an ever shifting landscape is an old acquaintence - cannot thrive amid the singularity, then non-creative types are well and truly fucked.

Interesting. I've seen a lot of bizarre claims of pseudospeciation, but rarely among those lines.

Btw, what you described there has nothing to do with the singularity. At all.

>You would go to a "publishing house" because {collectives of creatives + AIs} will always come up with something more fun and interesting than {not-creative you + AIs can}.

This is pure nonsense. Tantamount to telling me that you know my tastes better than myself.

2

Baron_Samedi_ t1_iyr0483 wrote

Naw, noticing that you seem weirdly bitter about creative folks' very existence is not an ad hominem. It is just an observation.

Yes! I am obsessed with AI art generators. And I do participate in a lot of discussions about the implications of them. Thanks to that, I have had a lot of chances to imagine the upsides and downsides of them from multiple perspectives.

I am excited about the future potential they offer. They will live rent free in my head until I figure out everything I can about them. That is the way toward mastery of any new medium.

That doesn't mean I have to love everything about them uncritically.

  • I don't claim to know your tastes, but I am 100% certain that the output of one guy (who "can't wait" for artists to go extinct) + an AI... is destined to be less interesting than, say, Pixar Studios + AI.
1

[deleted] t1_iyrhxkj wrote

>creative folks

Who are these people? Do they all agree with you? Do you speak on their behalf? Are you saying that science and technology are distinctly non-creative? Is my ability to draw contingent on whether or not I agree with your opinions? Is there a crayon lodged in your brain?

>Yes! I am obsessed with AI art generators.

Sure you are. Obsessed with poisoning the well and destroying the entire effort.

>Pixar Studios + AI

Is that you, Disney Corp? I shit you not, I already wanted to ask that in my previous reply. Good God, I held up hope that at least you'd have the decency to mention something like Studio Ghibli.

Thanks, but no thanks.

2

Baron_Samedi_ t1_iyrj9cu wrote

Dude, you are boring and clearly incapable of holding a normal conversation. Quit creeping on me and go bother literally anyone else.

0

[deleted] t1_iyrlz4k wrote

Aww, did I figure out that's you're a petty control freak and a stooge for the mainstream?

2

Baron_Samedi_ t1_iyrmcri wrote

No, you are just a weird yappy dog that won't stop following me.

0

[deleted] t1_iyrn9bg wrote

Public forum, same comment section and you keep replying. If you don't like it, block me.

2

Baron_Samedi_ t1_iyrnw85 wrote

I keep replying... with requests for you to fuck off.

I could also report you for harrassment and get your account banned. But instead, I could trust you to do the right thing and leave me alone when I ask you to.

0

[deleted] t1_iyrody7 wrote

Because your comments are nice, lovely and not inflammatory at all. And you just keep on replying.

2