Don't worry. People who can actually paint will mercilessly attack the insecurities of anyone who is too serious about prompts. The artists hardly made money before and the AI will just take more off the table. All they (we) will have left is spite.
In case you don't know, AI art is not an AI pumping out art by itself.
A human prompter has to prompt the AI.
The prompter can perfectly understand 'police brutality'/'shelled hometown', as they are human, just like the artist.
Artists feel threatened, because they invested 90% of their time in drawing skills, which went from unthinkable to automate, to AI surpassing 90% of artists in 8 months.
Not exactly everyone. I will continue to pay artists for their art. Once the AI will train mostly on derivative works produced by itself, with most artists whose work was used without asking to originally train the AI out of business, it will be very fun. Those who will be able to use all that stuff as a new kind of raw material to create pristine art will be a tiny minority, and it will really be a new chapter in the art book. For everybody else, the marvellous AI will be in the hands of the lords of social media, producing an infinite stream of uninsteresting stuff you love watching while scrolling the infinitely long page depicting the sterile desert we contributed to create teaching the machine what we like and what we don't. Very fun, indeed. An AI generated mirror of our mediocrity, with no way out. And please, don't start telling me that our brains work the same and that every piece of art is derivative work. Human beings are a little bit more complex than a neural network.
In the renaissance paintbrush skills were a prerequisite for being for an artist, and maybe tomorrow’s artists will use giant GPU cluster with some ‘AI’ in them as paintbrushes.
Maybe, the only creative skills that will matter in the future (from a future art historian perspective) will be the ones to program or use AI.
Bu I don’t think the game is over:
- if you find AI art tools too demeaning and they make you feel that you’re only a dumb prompt writer, become or convince a programmer to build a better tool that connects with your own creative mind
- Or, come up with a new form of art that rebels against the current technological things. Your predecessors were able to raise a middle finger to photography by inventing new abstract forms of art
People aren't angry/worried because they don't have a competitive advantage any more--people are angry/worried because they sense (I think correctly!) that AI will eliminate the part of their work that they find enjoyable.
Artists, by and large, don't do art because they enjoy having art--they do art because they like /the process/ of producing art. If that process can be done faster and better by AI, then yeah, sure, they /might/ be able to still do art for a living (some artists will be able to leverage their experience to maintain an advantage; other, less flexible ones will lose work)--but the work they do will likely not be commensurate to the work they were doing before, and will likely be less enjoyable to them.
The thing that worries people about AI is that it'll make all creatives into middle-managers.
I agree with the moderator, AI will push artists to their limits and force them to become creative which is the most important skill of an artist. Technicality isn't enough nowadays, doesn't matter if you can paint like Raphael, you need to be creative like Picasso or Dali.
Man I feel for the artists. Seen a lot of outcry among people I've worked with too. It just seems so unfair. Like what are we doing? We automated away one of the most pleasing, satisfing and skill intensive endeavours humans can undertake. A dreadful reality we'll probably have coming to our jobs soon enough too.
Bitter truth is though, it's not going away. The genie is out of the bottle, and if you are a talented artist, you absolutly need to embrace AI. If you take a look at DeviantArt AI section for example you'll see: The bar has been raised. It's masterpiece next to masterpiece now. Talented artists + AI = Simply stunning work.
It feels heartless, but what can we do, will you be able to stay competive without AI? It feels you'll be just hampering yourself for idealistics reasons.
AI will certainly be a tool that artists use, but non-artists will use it too so very few will ever have the need to pay an artist for their work. The only work artists are likely to get will be cleaning up AI output, and I doubt they'll find that to be very fulfilling or that it pays them well enough to make a living.
When it's harder to make a career in the digital world (where most of the art is), it's more likely that many artists will never get the opportunity to fully develop their artistic gifts and personal style at all.
If artists are lucky then maybe in a few generations with fewer new creative works being created, AI almost entirely training on AI generated art will mean that the output will only get more generic and simplistic over time. Perhaps some people will eventually pay humans again for art that's better quality and different.
Sorry if this comes off as harsh but, AI is not stopping anyone from drawing. The person looking at AI and then fretting about the future, and then not drawing is the person preventing the drawing from happening.
The same thing happened to bank tellers with the ATM. Jobs change and so do industries. Art's become more niche.
That may be true of the kind of art that people go to galleries for, or hang on their walls and admire. But most professional artists make a living off of commercial work. If AI image generation advances far enough, many of those people could be out of a job. The purity of art won't save them.
People are already creating more art than we actually need (witness how hard it is to make a living as an artist). Now just wait till the AIs become serious competition at that too.
Yeah, but professional artists rely on people finding value on their artistic production. If AI can produce such a high quality output, then this is going to devalue their skills. Sure, they can still do it for the pleasure of producing art, but that's more like a hobby than a job.
A lot of people don't have the motivation to learn all the necessary techniques to get to a capable level of artistry. I have a feeling some of those people are too insecure about themselves to enjoy creating art by hand. Those people will probably be drawn to AI tools instead, where they don't have to think deeply about themselves and their experiences to have a finished result in a few minutes. Those people will probably enjoy whatever process AI gives them, because before they had no process that didn't feel like subjection to self-flagellation for hundreds of hours, but some part of them still wanted to produce "art" anyway.
That is not to say that most people feel that way. In the long run that kind of thinking is detrimental to creativity and a healthy spirit. But it gives those people a voice where they wouldn't have had one before, whether or not that's a net positive overall. It's probably going to create a sort of artificial codependent relationship between the artist and AI that serves as an enabling device for quick results with little to no introspection. In the past that probably would have reached its limit at the sketching phase or something, but now you can get somewhat decent results with that mindset, shattering the ages-old idea that only hard work can create passable final results, and the convincing nature of the outputs will encourage people to entrench themselves further in that mindset instead of taking the harder path.
But of course there are shades of grey. There is nothing stopping professional artists with a lot of confidence from generating a base image and doing significant editing work in Photoshop. Even if there's no joy in it, for a certain lower bar of quality like placeholder/concept art, I think the productivity gains will outweigh arguments about virtue, especially once the tech managers have all awoken to the endless possibilities AI provides.
One more thing, I'm very interested in how humanity as a collective whole can "choose to use" AI for any given purpose. Who's deciding what to use AI for? The "douches" smart enough to uncover the math that's always been there and publicize their results? The laypeople that find the papers online, develop their own versions and spread the results around link aggregators because they think it's a cool weekend project? It's going to be nearly impossible to completely control either group, although the researchers are probably going to adhere to a stronger code of ethics than any random person on the Internet.
But as of right now, what stops the researchers from developing a future AI that you can attach to a skateboard and use to pull off perfect versions of any given trick every time? It would ruin the experience for traditional skateboarders that have spent hundreds of hours learning the same tricks, that's for sure. But what stops them from attempting to develop that if enough prior art was there?
I have a feeling that most regulations and laws are written in blood. I think most AI researchers at this stage don't have enough foresight to look even a couple of months into the future with regards to potential consequences after the release of a new breakthrough. Maybe they figure it's better to release their results right away and let the world at large sort out the effects. It's going to take a few more Stable Diffusions disrupting and dehumanizing other art forms for enough people to shout at governments that something must be done to stop ourselves from becoming too innovative.
And even after that we probably won't have universal international law or code of ethics banning the development of new AI. Not until it's reached the perception of gain-of-function research in the eyes of the public, which would mean widespread association of AI with the life or death of millions. And unless that happens someone that isn't affected by those regulations could release a better AI into the world.
Idk why people think that the ai art is going to discourage people from irl painting and drawing. I used to take pics of my paintings and put different filters on them to help pick the next colors, and now i can do that with ai to see possible places for shading or other changes.
The old excuse from AI researchers was that once AI takes all the mundane jobs, people will be free to become artists. Ask artists now what they think about AI. A whole lot of them aren't very happy about it.
It's not the same thing. These are people who strived their whole lives to learn to draw and paint and make something of their own. It's not just their livelihood being stolen, it's their own work. They aren't saying not to use generative AI to make art, they are saying they don't want their art to be used to train it.
Artists are still needed to make input for AI, they aren't completely replaced by a machine.
Most professional artists will be unemployed and hobbyist artists using AI seems to be kind of against the point of creating art for the art of creation.
But for one-click self-expression, AI tools will certainly come in handy.
Yeah, this is really just artists poisoning themselves hoping AI dies. It'll take away from them using their creativity to actually capitalize and they'll just spend their time trying to go against relatively intelligent people on their own turf.
It's never been about the craft. A lot of people can draw and paint in this world. People pay more money for art because of the individual behind it and its provenance. AI generated content will probably remain relegated to stock imagery or cheap mass produced prints sold at retailers.
reply