This one gets me. Like a pianist saying that a keyboardist isn’t really a musician.
And then a graphics artist comes in and insults AI art then goes back to their sett program and sets a bunch of masks and changes variables to get a perfect paint brush blend with zero technique involved- just setting parameters- turning data into a picture.
The AI art debate… I get it. A lot of people could lose work, possibly their industry. But… not everyone has their knowledge or talent but they enjoy being able to see things they imagine “come to life.”
When we went to switchboards the phone operator all but vanished. Replaced by a “smart machine.”
Modern cameras and apps can allow literal children to take beautiful shots. They can save 10000000 quick pick images and even sort for the “best” ones. Software or insult functionality can even compose and frame the image etc.
Of course I don’t hear many serious photographers bemoaning smelling like a morgue and spending hours developing and hundreds or thousands in chemicals and tools, having photos ruined etc. but developing was a skill and a major part of the skill of photography. We made photography more accesible and more accesible and now you have a music studio and auto tune and an orchestra and 10,000+ instruments, a Photo Booth, dark room, editing room, near pro level quality images capture; animation and video, 3D effects capability and more in the palm of your hand or in your lap.
People seem to love 3D printers without regard to all the vast skill sets and professions those threaten.
Abilities to simplify the work of machinists and drafters and create complex items at home. The looming obsolescence of sculpting and molding and all manner of skills that tend to take years or life to master and often still require aptitude.
Robots weld but we still use humans. Robots paint but we still use humans. Robots sculpt but we still use humans. Robots fly and take pictures and we can automate all manner of things that still have humans. Many are niche applications or small scale and independent, but humans still value skill and creativity. People who can pay for the “human touch” often do. When people argue that quality or whatever are superior in “hand made” goods- people who can afford those usually do and other people don’t have to live without because they can’t afford the “good stuff.” It just makes things more accesible.
“It’s about ip theft man. Feeding AI the art of others without credit!” Oh boo hoo. Because no human artist has ever been taught, inspired by, influenced by, or straight up learned by copying other peoples art. Every single cartoon just has similar styles and cues because every one of the artists on them happened to draw that way despite never having seen any other cartoon art.
So I mean, I get it. Art is a skill, and there is design theory and psychology and all these things involved. Wether it is design for programs or websites, corporate logos and brand images, cartoons, “high art” or pop culture or whatever- artists are often abused, under appreciated, taken for granted etc. if it were so easy to do- why would you need an artist at all? Do it yourself. You can’t? I Guess it isn’t that easy. And when the artists hands in the word and someone says “$X for this? Me/my kid/whatever coukd have done that for free!” Well… why didn’t you then? It’s harder than that.
That said- yeah. If I drew pictures for a living a robot that draws pictures of what you tell it to for basically free would scare the crap out of me too. But let’s just be real. It isn’t about politics or integrity or human creativity or intellectual property or credit or whatever else. It’s about jobs and money.
AI is going to take jobs. The top artists will generally be fine. They’ll staple a chicken to an old record and throw rhino blood on it and sell it to the Met for a cool million still.
The guy with all the rich friends out west will still have studios and producers making work for him or he’ll get a job as “AI supervisor” or something as a sweet heart gig.
There will still be web projects and programs and such that will need at least one human to communicate with the teams and keep the AI pointing down the right path.
The so so artists, the artists without patrons and pals- they might be screwed.
People selling commissions for $1-100 online might take a hit. The people making a penny a frame working in animation are likely to lose all their leverage after finally getting to a point where the plight of animators was JUST starting to possibly get the mainstream support to push for better pay or conditions.
Those people have it in their self interest to want to put the brakes on “artistic” AI, but most other people have nothing but benefits to look forward to in the short term.
Lower cost for art and animation and more accesible tools could mean a boom in animated films and television. More creators might be able to get their ideas n front of audiences. Small business could access the types of services that would have been cost prohibitive before. Everyday non artistic people could take things in their imaginations and see them realized as images. Self made comics and graphic novels or even home made animations akin to the golden age of flash animation when it was super easy to make little shorts- but still prohibitive to those who couldn’t create with conventional or digital art tools.
The real danger though- beyond to artists- is really that there will likely be a handful of AI juggernauts holding all the keys. Yet another wave of monolithic entities with their hands in every aspect of society siphoning money and gaining influence.
There are likely long term repercussions to art, how we perceive it and view it and interact with it, quality and diversity, etc. economic impacts and wealth redistribution and such. A slippery slope as AI rolls out and improves and we decide where it is legal or socially acceptable to deploy it.
But… art is art.
Comments
And then a graphics artist comes in and insults AI art then goes back to their sett program and sets a bunch of masks and changes variables to get a perfect paint brush blend with zero technique involved- just setting parameters- turning data into a picture.
The AI art debate… I get it. A lot of people could lose work, possibly their industry. But… not everyone has their knowledge or talent but they enjoy being able to see things they imagine “come to life.”
When we went to switchboards the phone operator all but vanished. Replaced by a “smart machine.”
Modern cameras and apps can allow literal children to take beautiful shots. They can save 10000000 quick pick images and even sort for the “best” ones. Software or insult functionality can even compose and frame the image etc.
People seem to love 3D printers without regard to all the vast skill sets and professions those threaten.
Robots weld but we still use humans. Robots paint but we still use humans. Robots sculpt but we still use humans. Robots fly and take pictures and we can automate all manner of things that still have humans. Many are niche applications or small scale and independent, but humans still value skill and creativity. People who can pay for the “human touch” often do. When people argue that quality or whatever are superior in “hand made” goods- people who can afford those usually do and other people don’t have to live without because they can’t afford the “good stuff.” It just makes things more accesible.
So I mean, I get it. Art is a skill, and there is design theory and psychology and all these things involved. Wether it is design for programs or websites, corporate logos and brand images, cartoons, “high art” or pop culture or whatever- artists are often abused, under appreciated, taken for granted etc. if it were so easy to do- why would you need an artist at all? Do it yourself. You can’t? I Guess it isn’t that easy. And when the artists hands in the word and someone says “$X for this? Me/my kid/whatever coukd have done that for free!” Well… why didn’t you then? It’s harder than that.
AI is going to take jobs. The top artists will generally be fine. They’ll staple a chicken to an old record and throw rhino blood on it and sell it to the Met for a cool million still.
The guy with all the rich friends out west will still have studios and producers making work for him or he’ll get a job as “AI supervisor” or something as a sweet heart gig.
There will still be web projects and programs and such that will need at least one human to communicate with the teams and keep the AI pointing down the right path.
People selling commissions for $1-100 online might take a hit. The people making a penny a frame working in animation are likely to lose all their leverage after finally getting to a point where the plight of animators was JUST starting to possibly get the mainstream support to push for better pay or conditions.
Those people have it in their self interest to want to put the brakes on “artistic” AI, but most other people have nothing but benefits to look forward to in the short term.
There are likely long term repercussions to art, how we perceive it and view it and interact with it, quality and diversity, etc. economic impacts and wealth redistribution and such. A slippery slope as AI rolls out and improves and we decide where it is legal or socially acceptable to deploy it.
But… art is art.