[HN Gopher] AI won't make artists redundant - thanks to informat...
___________________________________________________________________
AI won't make artists redundant - thanks to information theory
Author : stared
Score : 100 points
Date : 2023-02-19 10:39 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (p.migdal.pl)
(TXT) w3m dump (p.migdal.pl)
| aczerepinski wrote:
| I hire artists to turn my terrible sketches into decent looking
| stickers, generally in a fun, cartoony style.
|
| For the last two ideas I tried midjouney and the best I could get
| from it was an additional reference to send to an artist. I
| watched a few YouTube tutorials that offered some interesting
| techniques for getting better and better images from midjouney,
| but to my eyes those midjouney experts seem awfully flexible
| about what the final output will be. They're dancing with the AI
| but not fully wielding it.
|
| Perhaps next time I'll hire both an artist and a midjouney expert
| and compare results that way.
| kyleyeats wrote:
| If it's just a character, you want Stable Diffusion. If it's a
| "scene" then you might want Midjourney.
| nestorD wrote:
| That is a very good point: having tight control on style and
| composition is significantly harder than getting a good-looking
| image with those techniques (it is doable but it takes practice
| to learn how to engineer prompt accordingly)
| smusamashah wrote:
| Look into ControlNet. Midjourney is not very customizable.
| Checkout reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion for examples of
| controlnet. You can turn your sketches into art with it.
| thenoblesunfish wrote:
| I have a hard time being worried until AI actually becomes
| comparable to human intelligence (and then art will probably be a
| lesser concern amongst others). Why? Because art is about the
| generation of things that people find appealing, which you can
| automate, but it's as much about am emotional conversation
| between people (using a "language" words can't replicate),
| interest in artists as people, and doing novel things. My
| suspicion is that whatever great thing people can do with AI, in
| the ways it exists now, people will get bored with it very, very
| quickly and move on to something they feel is more soulful.
| doublerabbit wrote:
| I want to make a cartoon. Who can produce the imagery faster?
| Either spend $ commissioning an artist or spend money entering
| text in to a computer.
|
| "A teddy bear walking though a park". If I don't choose the
| artist, the artist is out of the job and the AI wins.
|
| You could say someone needs to train the AI with an artwork
| dataset but once that's initially done, its over, considering
| that studios are the main supplier to artists income.
|
| Does this not cause redundancies?
| bamboozled wrote:
| Be realistic and practical here, in what situation are you
| going to start typing into a computer "A teddy bear walking in
| a park" and then start to do anything with the images it
| generates in a case where you would've entrusted and artist or
| designer to make something for you ?
|
| What about when you need different scales, different colors,
| different this and that, are you going to sit there and keep
| prompting for this ?
|
| I've worked with people who are _really_ good with Illustrator,
| they can change and produce images for different purposes in a
| ridiculously short amount of time already. The ting is, even if
| I _could_ recruit AI to do it, I probably wouldn 't and just
| want someone else to take care of it. To make favicons and
| screw around with thumbnails and vector images and the list
| goes on.
|
| There's also the fact that, some people have an eye for style
| and application of it. Even when I've tried to use DALL-E,
| which I never have successfully because it always generates
| something weird enough to be unusable, I've not been confident
| that my own personal selection is good enough, I'm not a
| designer, I don't have an eye for art or color, or style etc.
| It's not my profession to know what's nice. I don't want that
| responsibility, so I outsource it.
| nonbirithm wrote:
| The problem arises if a bunch of studios start adopting AI
| assisted workflows to increase productivity and the studios
| that are holdouts get left behind because it would no longer
| be economically viable to continue animating without AI. It
| could be similar to how traditional cel animation has
| declined in use. If AI assisted output clears the bar for
| consumers, then it's probably good enough for managers.
|
| People using AI professionally probably won't put the raw
| output of DALL-E straight into the finished work either, I've
| seen artists that use Stable Diffusion to generate a base
| image and then do heavy amounts of editing with Photoshop or
| similar.
| bamboozled wrote:
| We're talking about digital art and it would actually piss
| me off (a lot) if I didn't have original copies of the art
| I paid for to be modifiable later. Especially if I was
| using the work commercially.
|
| I can of course imagine a situation where I might be able
| to get a PSD file or vector from DALL-E, but honestly I
| can't imagine myself sitting there telling DALL-E how I
| want it to modify my PSD in minute details, I'd just pay
| someone to do it.
|
| This is where I think there is a practical misunderstanding
| when people talk about this subject, there is a lot of
| fiddly work and minutia that goes on with art which I just
| think people don't realize.
| wokwokwok wrote:
| Imagine a world where AI art tools are commonly used.
|
| Ignore the messy legal and moral issues; just imagine, for a
| moment. What's changed?
|
| These tools effectively enable artists to:
|
| - generate a variety of concepts for some desired output
|
| - render out the detail, lighting and shading that has
| traditionally been done by hand
|
| - convert existing images and concepts into artistic 'styles'
|
| You want a set of icons? You want a custom font?
|
| The effort is reduced from weeks or work to days, if that.
|
| People will have to learn to use them; just like any other tool.
|
| So really, what _actually changes_?
|
| Two things, specifically spring to mind:
|
| - The existing skills that people have to do these things become
| obsolete.
|
| - The number of people needed to do the _current job_ that
| artists are employed to do is drastically reduced.
|
| That's what's going to happen, and it's happening already. You
| need people to paint tween frames for your animated video? Well,
| 2 guys in a basement can do it now instead of a team of 10.
|
| Yeah, you still need the key frames... but the mechanical shading
| and drawing that employs of lot of people, _specifically_ in the
| animation industry, is going to be _ERADICATED_.
|
| In corporate teams, will your 'design team' of 5 people be cut to
| 1? Probably not.
|
| ...but, those industries _don 't employ the majority of
| creatives_. The _majority_ of artists do not draw concept art.
| They do mechanical technical processes in VFX and animation.
|
| There will be new companies, and new roles.
|
| ...but, a lot of people will find the mechanical work that earns
| them their daily living wage will replaced by a much more
| efficient automated process. Those people may, perhaps, be able
| to re-train and get new creative roles doing other things.
|
| ...
|
| What the 'anti-AI' movement has won is a short reprieve until the
| 'ethical' and 'watermarked' corporate AI art generators roll out,
| and get accepted as industry standard. Maybe that's a good thing?
| I dunno.
|
| I think it's fair to sat that the cat is out of the box now.
|
| In the future, there will not be industrial scale human drawn 2d
| art. That industry will no longer exist. Hopefully the people
| currently in that industry can find other creative roles (or
| retire) by the time that happens.
|
| When photography came out, it had a similar impact on hand drawn
| photo-realistic paintings; and I think you can see thing,
| historically. It's not that no one does it any more. It's that it
| has become a niche job, that is technically inferior to just
| taking a photo.
|
| That's where this is headed for 2D artists.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| >What the 'anti-AI' movement has won is a short reprieve until
| the 'ethical' and 'watermarked' corporate AI art generators
| roll out,
|
| They've managed to get some NSFW models shut down, but have
| they achieved anything else?
|
| MSFT looks like they want to go full steam ahead with this, and
| they have pretty good lawyers who will not be frightened by a
| few frivolous lawsuits.
| wokwokwok wrote:
| I think the case of https://arstechnica.com/information-
| technology/2023/02/netfl... shows that the movement has had a
| tangible delaying effect of becoming industry standard.
|
| I don't believe they'll be successful in stopping things from
| happening... but I think it's pretty undeniable that it's
| caused things to slow down in wide scale corporate adoption.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Presumably Netflix's only mistake was tweeting about it,
| though?
|
| I don't see how anyone would have found out otherwise.
| A_D_E_P_T wrote:
| There's a mistaken assumption here. The author seems to believe
| that these generators operate on the basis of random chance,
| hence a 200x200 pixel image in RGB has a possibility space of
| 10^300000 images.
|
| ...But an overwhelming majority of those images are random noise,
| and are effectively homogeneous and interchangeable. They're
| perfectly identical.
|
| Like human artists, the image generators are (very strongly)
| biased to create "structured" images, which are derivative of
| existing artistic works or natural representations in the form of
| photographs. In principle, there's no a priori qualitative
| difference between the AIs and humans in this respect -- no human
| art is created de novo, but is always a continuation of, or a
| reaction to, existing forms.
|
| Further, there's no reason to believe that (a) the size of the
| possibility space matters in a quantitative sense, and (b) that
| AIs will never be as capable of qualitative "originality" -- in
| conception, composition, or subject matter representation -- as a
| human artist would be.
| stared wrote:
| I put my caveats on indistinguishable images. And three is the
| challange - to make a better estimation of an effective number
| of distinguishable images.
|
| > (b) that AIs will never be as capable of qualitative
| "originality" -- in conception, composition, or subject matter
| representation -- as a human artist would be.
|
| Sure, AI already creates original things. The point is that
| questions like "create a drawing that presents friendship" can
| be approached from many, many different, and what is crucial -
| subjective, ways.
| hgs3 wrote:
| What's sad about AI is peoples reaction to it. The defensiveness
| from artists misses the point: Technology should better our lives
| and free us to pursue our passions. The real problem is under our
| current economic model, it has the opposite effect. Instead of
| getting defensive, we should be rethinking the role of our
| economy. Sadly (and cynically) I suspect we won't see change
| until AI comes for the CEO's and politicians.
| The_Colonel wrote:
| AI will make many, but not all, artists redundant.
|
| As usual, the lower skill/value work will be automatized sooner.
| Platforms like fiverr will probably suffer a lot, but so will
| many "for hire" artists. High value work will remain to be
| exclusive for humans.
|
| Many high value artists (programmers ...) started as low value
| and worked themselves up. But if the low value segment is eaten
| up by AI then the path will be destroyed as well. I wonder if
| this will make classical education more valuable (after
| graduation you're starting as high value producer) and further
| increase class division.
| Kamq wrote:
| > I wonder if this will make classical education more valuable
| (after graduation you're starting as high value producer)
|
| I haven't noticed a correlation between formal education and
| the people that I would describe as "high value producers".
| That could be a bias because the median person without a degree
| doesn't get hired at all, but if we're removing mid-tier and
| below devs from the work pool, that's going to eliminate most
| of the people I know with CS or SE degrees.
| The_Colonel wrote:
| > I haven't noticed a correlation between formal education
| and the people that I would describe as "high value
| producers".
|
| I agree, but I would argue that people without formal
| education have to usually work their way up.
|
| Basically, if I'm a high school drop out, then I'm very
| unlikely to land a job at FAANG right away. Quite possibly I
| will have to start in some low value job to get some
| credibility. But if AI eats most of these jobs, then it also
| removes the possibility for the high school drop outs to move
| up.
| ZephyrBlu wrote:
| I don't think education has anything to do with this. AI tools
| are pretty easily accessible to anyone and you don't need a
| "classical education" to wield them.
|
| If anything, I think the necessity of education is going to be
| weakened further and more quickly in the next decade.
| bamboozled wrote:
| What a nice sounding dystopian future you've described there.
| ZephyrBlu wrote:
| What's dystopian about it?
| bamboozled wrote:
| Having people not really needing education and just
| becoming dumb consumers of AI products? Sounds like a
| boring future.
| ZephyrBlu wrote:
| We already have too many people going to university. Less
| people getting degrees would be a net positive. Knowledge
| and education is still important, but credentialed
| education is reducing in value.
|
| Not sure why people using AI tools would mean they're
| "dumb consumers". Are we "dumb consumers" of IDEs?
|
| Credentials mattering less and more AI tools sounds like
| a very interesting future to me.
| bamboozled wrote:
| _If anything, I think the necessity of education is going
| to be weakened further and more quickly in the next
| decade._
|
| You used the term "education" not "degrees".
| ZephyrBlu wrote:
| In this context "classical education" referred to
| degrees, and I shortened that to "education". I thought
| it was obvious from context that by "education" I meant
| degrees.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I think they point they were making was that a job as a
| lower-skill artist was a potential on-ramp to a job as
| higher-skill artist.
|
| It isn't obvious at this point what the skill ceiling is, on
| using AI tools, since they've only been around for a couple
| months.
| karmakaze wrote:
| I wouldn't say thanks to information theory, but rather on human
| tendency to be bored with repeated styles. It doesn't matter how
| good the tech is, but if it comes out like Michael Bay movies or
| anything else that we learn to recognize, people are going to
| want 'more original' art. The other difference is that the point
| of art is to express and evoke emotions, it's an open question
| whether that can be done effectively without having feelings
| during the process.
| thenoblesunfish wrote:
| Bingo - solving the problem of making "good" AI art seems close
| to solving the problem of making AI human.
| karmakaze wrote:
| I wouldn't make that strong a statement anymore. The level of
| play by AlphaGo/Zero seems to demonstrate creativity and
| understanding that we would only attribute to humans. That is
| to say I can't say for certain that emotion couldn't be
| faked, and we don't know that human emotion is super-special,
| only that it's complex.
| galleywest200 wrote:
| Do they demonstrate creativity, or is that just us
| romanticizing it? Maybe these games really are just
| reducible to numbers at the end of the day.
| ttjjtt wrote:
| This is a good take and under appreciated generally. Already
| theres an identifiable generic flavour to much AI art. Just
| knowing that it's AI generated makes it feel somewhat lifeless.
| Not because of the end product is lacking , but because of the
| awareness of the production method. it's less engaging if you
| know a machine spat it out, especially once you recognise and
| become bored by the stylistic markers that indicate machine
| generation. That will play into the spending calculation of,
| for example, advertising agencies, particularly high end brand
| work.
| [deleted]
| jsemrau wrote:
| I think so too. AI might affect applications like Photoshop if
| the result of the provided output is good enough. Stable
| Diffusion is going into this direction. While ChatGPT is nice,
| real authors and journalists create value by bringing in a
| nuanced and subjective insights based on their
| research/expertise/ideology.
| elif wrote:
| Personally, I highly value the vanilla perspective of chatGPT's
| explanations compared to picking through some authors bias to
| try to find truth for myself. What you are calling value is
| nice for entertainment purposes or perhaps some heuristic
| understanding and essentialization... But it is usually at
| expense of nuance and truth.
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| Wish I could filter this conversation to those who are actually
| artists by profession. A little hard to hear a whole bunch of
| non-artists telling them what they should do or feel about this.
| turtleyacht wrote:
| That's interesting. HN has a software bent on startups and
| such. As if programming is one of The Known Ways to create
| something. Fundamentally, our instructions are executed by a
| _machine_ to some effect, one of which could be profit.
|
| I wonder if artists are having their "software moment": a
| decade from now (or sooner) they will say, "Adobe Photoshop is
| the _assembly language_ of digital art; use these AI frameworks
| /prompts/GPU cloud mix to do X and Y."
|
| From that perspective, it's just pragmatic. No one writes
| assembly unless it's either for passion or practical.
| pixl97 wrote:
| This is a strange line of thought. I mean, yes we'll get a
| whole bunch of bullcrap posts from people not involved, but
| effectively you're instead reducing the conversation to "Lets
| give the artist their 15 minutes of neo-luddism".
|
| Artists are not the first group to fall under the hammer of
| technology and automation, and they will not be the last. I'm
| sure most blacksmiths thought themselves artists that worked
| hard to master a craft after years of work, and now a press
| stamps out that same work in seconds. This is hitting people
| hard now because things we think of as distinctly human are now
| being accomplished by machines (though was this not true in the
| past?).
|
| There are discussions for artists here, but there are plenty
| more for all of society. Jobs will get replaced and change in
| form at an ever increasing rate due to technology if trends
| keep up. Will the rate of technology change job requirements
| faster than humans can retrain? If it does what are nations and
| societies going to do about this. Much like the AI safety
| issues, we need to answer these large scale issues now before
| artists and programmers are stabbing each other in the streets
| for breadcrumbs while multitrillionares that own the technology
| live like gods.
| HeavyStorm wrote:
| How do you vote down a link?
| nickthegreek wrote:
| With the flag button. You won't have access to it til you get
| 500 upvotes I believe.
| GaggiX wrote:
| >an open-source Stable Diffusion, which is a basis for multiple
| projects, including commercial Midjourney.
|
| source? The model behind Midjourney looks quite different from
| Stable Diffusion, to me it looks like a model conditioned to
| image embeddings (like Karlo or Dalle 2) instead of text
| embeddings, also I don't see any mention of the Creative ML
| OpenRAIL-M license on their website, when they experimented with
| SD in August they added it but it has not been there for months,
| To me it is clear that MJ has trained a new diffusion model from
| scratch, it is also noticeable by the difference in performance,
| even for a model trained in AI image recognition it struggles
| with images generated by Nijijourney (MJ but finetuned for anime)
| while it has an easy time with anime images generated by SD and
| its finetuned models [1], which means that the distribution of
| images is very different.
|
| [1]: https://huggingface.co/spaces/saltacc/anime-ai-detect
| mdp2021 wrote:
| > _Will there be room for human artists?_
|
| When the details of the machine's output will have a justifiable
| foundation, then the machine _will_ be an artist.
|
| Before that, you employ <<human artists>> because they have those
| missing modules.
|
| The need is in those missing modules. The agent who has them can
| "do everything" or cooperate with other specialized agents - like
| in normal work.
| AstixAndBelix wrote:
| AI won't make artists redundant because it does not experience
| human sensations. The only thing an AI can do is read the flow of
| data we make available to it, which is text, audio and video.
|
| An AI will never be able to represent what it means to be subject
| to police brutality, because it cannot feel being beaten and
| humiliated by a cop.
|
| An AI will never be able to paint an anti-war poster from the
| perspective of someone who has felt the ground shake due to
| shelling of their hometown, because an AI has not lived there for
| 30 years and does not know the feeling.
|
| The only way AI will make artists redundant would be if it became
| completely human, which is contradictory since at that point it
| would be a real artist
| medler wrote:
| You're being downvoted for contradicting the AI hype machine,
| but you are completely correct. Humans have been creating art
| for at least tens of thousands of years, and none of the
| reasons we create art will ever be fulfilled by AI.
| Zetobal wrote:
| You are reading too many coffee table books.
| AstixAndBelix wrote:
| You are reading too much Twitter
| Zetobal wrote:
| But I don't.
| AstixAndBelix wrote:
| And I don't read coffee table books, so now what?
| Zetobal wrote:
| Ok. :]
| bazoom42 wrote:
| You are discounting fiction then. Lots of art describe or
| depict things the artist never personally experienced.
| klibertp wrote:
| It's not that clear-cut. Humans can empathize, to the point
| where observing someone getting hurt flares similar neural
| response to the one in the hurt person. Sufficiently vivid
| imagination in conjunction with a lot of research can give
| you an experience "close enough" to the real deal to be able
| to write about it. I've witnessed an author falling into a
| deep, clinical depression solely due to the subject they
| decided to tackle. Not every person is capable of such a deep
| dive into an experience they nominally don't have, but
| authors and artists tend to be able to do this. In such a
| setting, "personal experience" is a fluid term, not
| necessarily synonymous with "he was there at the time
| personally" or "it happened to him personally".
|
| When you wake up from a nightmare, you're covered in cold
| sweat, you have trouble breathing normally, your hands are
| shaking - did you "personally experience" what you've dreamed
| of? Authors and artists are in a business of dreaming like
| that while awake, and sharing those dreams with others.
|
| The AI will surely get there at some point, as others noted,
| once you model embodiment and imagination it's game over. But
| it's not as close as others seem to think, in my opinion.
| anonylizard wrote:
| 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.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| > they invested 90% of their time in drawing skills, which
| went from unthinkable to automate,
|
| Except that the AI doesn't automate drawing, it automates the
| creation of an image of a drawing.
|
| I have a friend who is an amateur water colour painter. I
| have no doubt that an AI/ML application can produce pictures
| that look very much like pictures of his pictures. But at the
| moment at least it is utterly unable to create the actual
| artwork.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| All of that is true, but as soon as you model subjectivity and
| embodiment with any kind of credibility it's game over.
|
| The current generation of tools doesn't do that. It's
| essentially a very sophisticated parrot making speech-like
| noises it doesn't understand.
|
| But a couple of generations from now, I think it's going to be
| much less straightforward.
|
| Also, the thing about genius is that it's subjective. In the
| arts it's more or less synonymous with mastery of a medium with
| impactful novel insight.
|
| You could argue that AI systems are well on their way to
| mastering visual media. It's not _quite_ true, but that 's
| because the people training these systems are not artists, and
| so far they're selecting work that looks a bit Social Media and
| Game-Ish rather than Art Museum and Contemporary Show-ish.
|
| I don't see any reason in principle why that couldn't be fixed
| with better training.
|
| So what about impactful novel insight? The point here is
| there's a kind of cultural and perceptual feedback process
| which selects certain works out of semi-random cultural noise.
| There are always a lot of artists making a lot of work, and
| most of it is not that interesting. Selecting interesting work
| doesn't require intent, it just needs a feedback loop.
|
| So if you create a situation in which a community rates the art
| and selects certain works/algorithms/training sets over others,
| I suspect the impactful and novel insight will happen
| automatically.
|
| Sentience or subjectivity are not required. In fact you'll get
| an automated version of what happens already, where different
| communities with different levels of education and
| sophistication select different kinds of work for their own
| reasons, and some are considered "works of genius" for reasons
| that may be as political and cultural as artistic.
| Satam wrote:
| AI just needs to be better at creating art from instructions than
| a hired artist is.
|
| And we already know great art can be created following a prompt -
| hired artists interpret their client's instructions all the time
| (concept art, game art, movie art, etc.).
| bamboozled wrote:
| _hired artists interpret their client 's instructions all the
| time (concept art, game art, movie art, etc.)._
|
| I cannot disagree with this comment any more, I hire creative
| people to help me to create things which isn't in my skillset.
| I don't hire them to tell them what I want entirely. Sometimes
| I'd at least describe what I want, but often they will say,
| well that's good but how about...
|
| That is a huge part of the value add for me personally. If I
| knew what I wanted, half the battle would be one, AI or not.
| Satam wrote:
| I don't think we disagree. Artists help you turn a relatively
| short and vague description into a finished artwork. The
| clients usually already provide very little information in
| comparison to the number of decisions needed to complete the
| work (e.g. choosing composition, theme, style, colors,
| lighting, etc.).
|
| Working from vague prompts is exactly what the current AIs
| do. Follow up questions and ability to do precise edits are
| likely next steps in the evolution.
| zenith035 wrote:
| Founder of dreamphilic.com here. Based on our users I am seeing
| some trends: 1. Great artists are generating great prompts and
| thus great images because at the end it all comes down to your
| imagination. 2. I expected most users to be young population but
| what I see is they are mostly people of age 35 and above. 3.
| Creative people are enjoying it. People who are not good at using
| artistic tools or don't have access to those expensive tools but
| have good imagination can also see their imaginations come to
| life, thanks to AI.
| bilsbie wrote:
| The valuable art will simply become more performative. We still
| pay a ton for live music even though we can hear the same music
| for dirt cheap.
|
| We pay a ton for theatre when we can just watch a movie or
| recorded play.
|
| We have adapted to cheap art many times before.
| neovialogistics wrote:
| It doesn't matter whether diffusion programs or even more
| rarefied approaches to solution spaces can capture the essence of
| human-produced art.
|
| Markets are fundamentally about perceived value instead of actual
| value. Algorithmically generated creative works do not have to
| compete in the field of actual value; they has to compete in the
| field of perceived value. Let's be real, almost all customers of
| art - whether they pay before or after the production - are
| pretty bad at estimating actual value.
|
| More philosophically, it's not possible to empower humans above
| human superorganisms. You make a successful walled garden or you
| fail to reproduce your ideals into the future.
| tpush wrote:
| What is "actual value"?
| Jensson wrote:
| In fine art? Social signalling. AI generated art is like
| artificial diamonds.
| zakki wrote:
| In the case of diamond it seems better to choose the
| artificial one. Especially the real one's price is
| controlled.
| [deleted]
| Dalewyn wrote:
| That is a bunch of minced words to explain a very simple
| concept:
|
| People judge results, not effort.
|
| You don't buy a product because the producer put in <X> effort,
| you buy it because it's good (FSVO good).
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| Food Safety and Veterinary Office? Fire Service Vehicle
| Operator?
| Satam wrote:
| > Hey GPT, what does FSVO mean in the above
|
| > "FSVO" stands for "For Some Value Of". In the given
| statement, "FSVO good" means that the product is considered
| good to some extent, though the degree of goodness may vary
| depending on personal opinions and preferences.
| beedeebeedee wrote:
| > People judge results, not effort.
|
| That may be true for graphic art for movies, video games,
| websites, etc, but not for fine art. In fine art, the
| resulting artwork is judged much less by the result than what
| went into it. The artworld already is deluged by art, so the
| narrative around the art and the artist is the most important
| differentiating element.
| chewonbananas wrote:
| What I've seen from all the AI lately is a lot of vague uncanny
| valley images that somehow don't fit. They're too perfect and
| even when they try to be imperfect it's too intentional.
| moth-fuzz wrote:
| AI won't make artists redundant because you don't pay an artist
| for a picture in the first place, you pay them for their
| creativity, their ideas, which may eventually result in a
| picture. You know, their _artistry_. Too many artists devalue
| themselves and their livelihood by defining their work as
| entirely mechanical, entirely defined by their material product.
| Art is more than just produce. You'd think _artists_ would be the
| first to say that.
| rightbyte wrote:
| The value in artist is their skill in realizing their
| creativity. I can be creative too but but sure as hell I can't
| paint it.
| neatze wrote:
| I wait when game from like Dark Souls series is released and all
| concept art is generated by AI, to me it seems such game will
| have no style consistency, it will look like game that is is put
| together from market place props (eg. cheap garbage).
|
| Because AI can generate very good looking art works, I don't
| think it is all there in making compelling, consistent, and
| visually pleasing art, simply because there are feed back loops,
| between multiple people, from concept art to end product.
| SunghoYahng wrote:
| - 3 years later -
| turtleyacht wrote:
| _The whole game is generated._
|
| It brings on a renaissance of game designers, because now
| ideas can be iterated and polished instead of dumping
| thousands of hours into prototyping.
|
| AI can create the skeleton (for now), but we need new AI
| models for the meta-analysis (game balance, replayability,
| novel mechanics).
|
| And AI game reviewers to curate that, because we won't have
| time to play everything.
| pxoe wrote:
| it sure as hell will displace artists and wreck art market.
| people are already choosing to pay couple bucks for an app to get
| some "art" from a random company that repackages stable
| diffusion, which was built on unlicensed art, instead of paying
| an actual artist to create something. and when called out on
| their choice, people make excuses like 'it's just for fun', 'it's
| cheaper than paying an artist', 'i don't have money for an actual
| commission' (and yet, somehow they have enough money to pay for
| an app). apps are currently actively undercutting and pricing out
| artists, and it is working for the apps, which also get free
| promo with every customer that gleefully posts their results.
|
| apps can set any price they want on what costs very little to
| create - there's some compute, storage, etc. - but they can just
| repackage existing models, train on unlicensed artwork, get all
| the parts for free, and then price it (and undercut) any way they
| want. there's a lot of leeway on how aggressively can a service
| like that price it's "goods" which are basically free to make,
| and can be made in no time, at enormous scale. there's infinite
| possibilities for predatory pricing when the base price is
| approaching zero. actual human artists, who do commission work,
| which take time to complete, and are worked on one piece at a
| time, can hardly compete. even an entire market (or a piece of
| it), full of different artists, hardly can.
| Vecr wrote:
| That's only a market problem if they are "dumping", i.e.
| selling under their price of production in order to gain more
| market share. Like Uber subsidizing their actual product with
| VC money and gaining more market share. I think you can
| sustainably sell the images for pennies as long as you run your
| own hardware and keep a lookout for unnecessary costs/middlemen
| (AWS, various paid Google products, etc.)
| fatih-erikli wrote:
| Great artist will steal from AI and leave the 95% of artists
| redundant.
| elif wrote:
| I think artists will just have to leverage the tech on a larger
| scale to be effective. No matter how it's created, the best art
| will still have value..
|
| It may not be economical to, for instance, have an entire studio
| of dozens or hundreds of artists produce an animated film with an
| anticipatory budget.. but I suspect it will still be quite
| profitable for a handful of artists and some AI to produce that
| same film in a shorter time period.
|
| Or it may be profitable for a 13 year old kid to produce that
| film in his spare time. In that way, I see it as a sort of
| artistic renaissance where new voices are found and the pace of
| artistic acceleration is unprecedented.
| ilyt wrote:
| They are not worried about making all artists redundant, they are
| worried about making most artist redundant.
|
| Instead of needing to pay for mediocre artist to get mediocre art
| that's good enough for a purpose, now the AI taught on the good
| artist (all subjective of course) can produce similarly mediocre
| art that's fit for purpose.
|
| It's equivalent to replacing all of the simple CRUD web devs with
| AI that does good enough job
| caseymarquis wrote:
| Interestingly, it might be easier to replace mid-skill artists
| than mid-skill developers (not to say both won't happen over
| time). The key difference is that when generating art, you can
| say "Make A in-the-style B.", get what you want, and move on.
|
| Meanwhile, you have to live with the consequences of AI
| generated code.
|
| Case in point: My wife was trying to build a system to generate
| POs per vendor from a series of workorders a couple weeks ago.
| She was using AirTable, which vastly simplifies the creation
| and use of relational databases. Given a lack of database
| experience, the structure that she made was misaligned with
| what she actually needed (and completely denormalized). Putting
| it into production would have caused major problems over time.
|
| This made me realize that writing code is only one of the
| barriers to entry in software. Eliminating this barrier
| effectively gives everyone in the world access to a small team
| of incredibly junior developers who have no idea what they're
| doing.
|
| Just like mismanaged DIY home projects create more work for
| professional contractors, I think AI might -oddly enough-
| create more positions for mid-tier and higher developers.
| ilyt wrote:
| It most definitely is for simple reason - non interactivity.
| Image doesn't need to be told what clicking this button does
| or how that pop up menu needs to animate or million other
| interactions.
|
| > Just like mismanaged DIY home projects create more work for
| professional contractors, I think AI might -oddly enough-
| create more positions for mid-tier and higher developers.
|
| It might also create a lot of jobs for "AI crafters" - know
| enough about it to craft good prompts about what client wants
| and have enough graphic editing knowledge to tweak and mix AI
| input to create what is needed. It probably will also empower
| "one man shops" dealing in small customized websites for
| customers, replacing or augmenting what now stock images are
| used for.
| junglistguy wrote:
| "AI won't make artists redundant"
|
| Of course it will make them redundant. All it takes is one
| "creative" in place of several graphic designers. What you write
| are just theories. Do you know what the design process looks
| like? How many "human problems" are there along the way?
|
| Only the ARTISTS will remain. Artists whose work you will want to
| buy. Such a fancy for the rich.
| college_physics wrote:
| Only society can make artists redundant. If people want to get
| their "art" by digitally rehashing what real artists did in the
| past then we don't need artists.
|
| How exactly things will play out is not clear: photography did
| not eliminate painting. Algorithms will not eliminate more
| "manual" creative work. Some new genres might emerge.
|
| Ultimately what is a more important problem is that the
| commercialization of artistic production was always challenging.
| When you can create infinite replicas with semi-random variations
| it only makes the problem worse.
| CatWChainsaw wrote:
| Commercialization of anything and everything is the real
| capital P Problem that needs solving, in the grand scheme of
| things.
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| Exactly. Art as an economic industry may die out. As a career,
| it may be reduced to a much smaller scope. But we'll always be
| able to express ourselves artistically - maybe even more so if
| AI frees up more time in which to do so.
| bamboozled wrote:
| ...or enjoy making art with other people to use in our
| commercial endeavors ?
|
| Like, it might actually be fun to work with creatives to make
| art. It's one of the areas of my work I actually really
| enjoy. I can't imagine prompting DALL-E to be as fun and
| enjoyable, nor would it be "creative".
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| No, definitely not. It's a sad fact that many people have
| to do what most of us would consider 'boring' work in our
| day-to-day lives. Prompting DALL-E may not be 'as creative'
| as not using it, in the same way that using Photoshop tools
| might not be 'as creative' as painting with a brush, but
| that doesn't invalidate either process.
| anonylizard wrote:
| This entire article misses critical developments in the AI art
| space. Controlnet was just released last week. It allows for
| precise fine-tuning of the image with skeletal positions, depth
| maps, outline sketches, etc. It has been exceptionally received
| in the AI art community, because pure-text-prompting precisely
| runs into the issue described in the article. You can only convey
| so much information with text prompts.
|
| That being said, artists in general still don't want to touch
| controlnet. Because despite controlnet solving their complaints
| about how the AI isn't controllable precisely, it doesn't solve
| the real problem, that drawing skills are massive devalued.
|
| Artists will still exist, but most likely as hybrid 3d-modellers,
| AI modelers (Not full programmers, but able to fine-tune models
| with online guides and setups, can read basic python), and
| storytellers (like manga artists). It'll be a higher-pay, higher-
| prestige, higher-skill-requirement job than before. And all those
| artists who devoted their lives to draw better, find this to be
| an incredibly brutal adjustment.
|
| PS: Despite how people made fun of 'proompters', or predicted
| that prompting would be automated away. The skill ceiling to good
| AI art has radically increased. There's now 10 different fine-
| tuned models you need to learn the basics of, each with different
| strengths. There's thousands of LORAs to insert into prompts to
| precisely reproduce a subject that the base model has no
| information on. There's 20 parameters to tune, each with
| different effects. There's VAEs which affect coloring and fine-
| details. Now there's controlnet, and you'd better learn blender
| to rig basic skeletons to feed it. This likely suggests the
| future of an AI-augmented economy: People become AI wranglers.
| Wordpress was supposed to make blogging easier, instead it
| spawned an industry of WP wranglers.
| visarga wrote:
| > This likely suggests the future of an AI augmented economy:
| People become AI wranglers. Wordpress was supposed to make
| blogging easier, instead it spawned an industry of WP
| wranglers.
|
| Good counter for "AI will steal our jobs". When competition
| starts to use AI+human, you got to level up. And since everyone
| has the same base AIs, the differentiating factor is still
| human.
| LASR wrote:
| Yeah this post seems like it will not stand the rest of time.
|
| The fundamental conceptual shift is the emergent behaviors
| displayed by these models. And that is highly unforeseeable.
|
| We're not working with machines that do what they're built to
| do. They're doing more. And every day we discover something new
| they're capable of doing.
|
| Making any sort of statement about the limits of this
| technology is going to be shortsighted.
| mirsadm wrote:
| The opposite is also true. People overestimate what is
| possible and underestimate how much more effort and time is
| required to start replacing industries.
| TomSwirly wrote:
| > Artists will still exist, but most likely as hybrid
| 3d-modellers, AI modelers (Not full programmers, but able to
| fine-tune models with online guides and setups, can read basic
| python)
|
| Why should artists have to learn fucking Python!? There are so
| few jobs open to people who don't _want_ to "learn to code",
| this was one of the last, and that's going too.
|
| > This likely suggests the future of an AI-augmented economy:
| People become AI wranglers.
|
| So we don't get to create ourselves anymore. No drawing, no
| making music, no programming even. We just give prompts to AI
| programs. Which means we are worthless, because any bozo can do
| this.
|
| I hate this timeline so much. It's like all the worst and most
| mediocre parts from every SF future, with an extra dose of
| stupidity and greed on top.
|
| (And I'm a computer programmer.)
| cmdialog wrote:
| At the end of the day, we are not going to see AI art in the
| Guggenheim, or any of those other museums where the finest art
| in the world resides. AI art is and will always be a novelty.
| Real art comes from the human spirit. It is not about technical
| execution, and not just about painting a pretty picture. In
| actual art we want to see humanity, something that AI will
| never, ever truly know about.
|
| Seems like a lot of people are missing this point, and it seems
| like a lot of people have a chip on their shoulder about being
| unable to create art, and believing they can express the deep
| recesses of their feelings and psyche and everything else that
| makes us human by proxy through AI, and thus completely missing
| the point of creating art in the first place.
| echohack5 wrote:
| I think even without AI art we are well past the point of art
| in famous galleries making sense. Isn't most of this just
| thinly veiled money laundering anyway?
|
| I imagine we WILL see AI art in a famous gallery for exactly
| this reason. Except it will be lauded for the imagination of
| the creator and the tweaks they made, not their drawing
| ability.
| ohdannyboy wrote:
| These are great platitudes, and as a fellow human I like the
| idea that only we can create "real" art, but I don't know how
| to justify that idea. I have no chip on my shoulder about
| art, it's not part of my identity at all. Computer
| programming is, though, and I fully expect it to affect my
| industry in the next decade.
|
| The current fine art market is extremely unmeritorious so I
| agree that AI art will never make it to the Guggenheim. That
| isn't a good metric since the human curators will never allow
| it to happen. The metric will be the industry. Will ai start
| composing scores for movies? Promotional posters? Art that's
| sold outside of expensive curated galleries (etsy, ect)?
|
| It's possible that humans will keep their stranglehold on
| these and I hope that's the case... But I wouldn't bet on it.
| mouzogu wrote:
| thanks was looking for something like this.
|
| SD has been great at giving lots of new ideas but frustratingly
| difficult/impossible to iterate on anything.
| ZephyrBlu wrote:
| > _Because despite controlnet solving their complaints about
| how the AI isn 't controllable precisely, it doesn't solve the
| real problem, that drawing skills are massive devalued_
|
| At this point if I was an artist I'd probably be looking for a
| way to leverage my existing skills into AI art, because it
| seems like drawing skills will go the way of the horse and
| carriage.
|
| I feel bad because this has happened so quickly. Previously it
| seems like there was a longer transition period.
|
| This kind of transition has got me thinking the same about
| coding though. If AI programming does indeed take over, my
| programming skills will likely be massively devalued.
|
| If you believe this is going to happen, how should you prepare
| for it? Start learning prompting now? Get involved with
| building these AIs? Etc.
| notahacker wrote:
| > At this point if I was an artist I'd probably be looking
| for a way to leverage my existing skills into AI art, because
| it seems like drawing skills will go the way of the horse and
| carriage
|
| Drawing skills were made redundant for producing most types
| of high quality image _before_ the motor car but people still
| pay for hand drawn items
|
| Not sure AI lowering the skill barrier for and speeding up
| the generation of digital art is really going to change that
| Oxidation wrote:
| > seems like drawing skills will go the way of the horse and
| carriage.
|
| The exact same thing happened to technical drafters when CAD
| destroyed the entire (sub-)industry.
|
| And to typesetting, for that matter[1].
|
| Which is a pity in the human sense and the sense that both
| were forms of artistry and produced things of great beauty,
| both the product and the machines used to enable them, but
| they're simply not economical in the face of Solidworks and
| digital composition. And yet the replacement technologies
| have also enabled a lot more creativity and further advances.
| Objects with complex geometries are now possible to specify
| and manufacture, when they previously could not even be
| accurately drawn.
|
| 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wapping_dispute, where not
| only could the unions not simply oppose the rising sea-level
| of technology, but their failure seriously damaged union
| credibility in general.
| visarga wrote:
| Go with the flow. AI will need humans to be effective, humans
| will need AI to remain competitive. But everyone will have
| the same base models, just like we all have the same web
| search and electricity. AI won't be a competitive advantage,
| it will be a basic requirement.
|
| Do you believe the number and complexity of software
| applications will decrease in the next 10 years because of
| AI, or that it will spawn whole new ecosystems of software
| and new types of jobs? I believe the second is more
| reasonable, we will have higher expectations from software in
| 2033 than in 2023. The easier AI makes it, the more difficult
| we make the tasks.
|
| Human desires fill the available space like air, AI
| exponential is slower than our entitlement. So we still need
| to work.
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| > my programming skills will likely be massively devalued
|
| I see this in the context of the drawing vs. art analogy.
| Yes, your _typing_ and maybe _syntax_ skills will be
| devalued, but your higher level, creative programming skills
| are probably safe for a good long time yet.
| ZephyrBlu wrote:
| I'm sure there will be some overlap, but prompting is
| sufficiently different from programming that I think a lot
| of skills will not translate.
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| They will, because you need to know to prompt for (as an
| example) "a real-time data-tracking and reporting
| application backed by a column database with logical
| replication fed by a task queue, having an isomorphic
| client cached across multiple regions via a CDN."
|
| Without the engineering know-how, your "write me an app
| that displays data from this source in a dashboard"
| prompt might work, but it won't be robust and when it
| doesn't work you won't be able to figure out why.
| fipar wrote:
| Yeah, forget responding to prompts, I want to see A"I"
| respond to pages to troubleshoot its prompt-generated
| software.
|
| "The machine stops" will seem optimistic in hindsight!
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Depends what you mean by 'good long time'. I think at this
| point it's worth acting under the assumption that
| programming will not be a well compensated career in 5-10
| years, and either be prepared to switch to something else
| or try to make a lot of money in the near term.
|
| Also, if I'm wrong then I get to be pleasantly surprised.
| morby wrote:
| AI has yet to completely replace people in any industry.
| I fail to see how it would replace an industry that
| creates massive, complicated code bases in 10 years. Let
| alone 5. All roads seem to point to AI assisted work.
| Programmers will move "higher level". That doesn't mean
| they become poorly compensated.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Probably what the artists used to say.
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| Artists are still as well-compensated as they ever have
| been.
| incone123 wrote:
| I take this as tongue in cheek because the great majority
| of artists are not making a good living just from selling
| their art.
| Filligree wrote:
| The ones who said that, are fine. The skill ceiling for
| AI generation increases by the day, and having previous
| experience with art is a massive force multiplier.
| stevesimmons wrote:
| Especially combined with deep knowledge of the business
| domain you work in.
| vsareto wrote:
| >If you believe this is going to happen, how should you
| prepare for it? Start learning prompting now? Get involved
| with building these AIs? Etc.
|
| If you still want to work as someone who produces code -
| except your personal code factory has changed from brain and
| fingers to AI - then yeah, you should probably do both of
| those things.
|
| Even if you spend 1-2 years and this AI hype doesn't work
| out, you still have those skills to go back to.
|
| Frankly, this mainstream adoption by Google and Microsoft is,
| uh, not going great. So you can afford to observe for now,
| but AI advancements have been made very rapidly, so it's not
| wise to completely ignore it either.
| carapace wrote:
| > If you believe this is going to happen
|
| I believe this is going to happen (and is happening right
| now, in front of us) not just for programmers but for _any_
| role that _can_ be automated.
|
| > How should you prepare for it?
|
| Get equity. I mean ownership stake. If you don't have a
| legal/financial claim on the output of the machine then
| you're about to be part of the worthless surplus from the POV
| of the system.
|
| > Start learning prompting now?
|
| No, the machines will do that well enough in a minute or two.
|
| > Get involved with building these AIs?
|
| No, the machines will do that well enough in a minute or two
| too.
|
| - - - -
|
| Artificial Intelligence destroys scarcity, which is the
| _fundamental_ basis of our societies and economies.
|
| Think about it: _scarcity_ is the very problem that societies
| and economies evolved to solve in the first place.
|
| Now science and capitalism have delivered technology and
| wealth. There _is_ enough to go around if we just worked out
| the logistics, and computers can do that for us in a matter
| of moments. In other words, the "World Game" is not hard!
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Game we just have to get
| over our hangups.
|
| Now here's where it gets really interesting: ChatGPT et. al.
| don't have glands, they don't have emotional trauma, no PTSD
| from being humans-on-Earth for generations, etc. We can
| program them to be sane and perhaps even wise.
|
| We can also attach empirical feedback devices to them, make
| them scientists...
|
| So we have physical abundance and benevolent, sane,
| empirically-grounded AI advisors, how much longer will it
| take to sort things out? I think we could be looking at the
| start of a Golden Age?
| anonylizard wrote:
| I've tried to convince artists to transition to the AI-
| augmented future, since October. There's almost no successes.
| I've seen artist communities on multiple websites, in
| multiple languages. At first they tried to laugh at the AI.
| Now the AI has improved so radically so fast, they
| universally prefer to stick their head in the sand, and ban
| discussion of AI altogether, its all denial and rage.
|
| On the more optimistic side. I see an extraordinary explosion
| in artistic innovation, just look at websites like CivitAI.
| The massive community all training subcomponents of the
| models for each other to share. The models rapidly improving
| every month just through fine-tuning and theoretical
| innovation, without stabilityAI's involvement (They are
| distracted by lawsuits now). There are many 3d-artists
| intensely experimenting with AI art, to say make AI-anime,
| which has illustration qualities on every frame (A previous
| impossibility due to the costs involved).
|
| It seems with AI, it'll really cleave communities in two. The
| ones who eagerly embrace it, seem to enjoy it
| extraordinarily, and achieve quite a lot of popularity and
| success. But the rest just want to pretend it doesn't exist,
| waiting till employers realize that they are no longer
| needed.
|
| Regarding programming, it doesn't appear that AI programming
| can replace humans. Programming is very similar to novel
| writing in terms of complexity for AIs. And AIs are still
| extremely terrible at long-form storytelling. The lesson is
| to aggressively use AI tools as much as possible, to
| understand the long-term weaknesses of AIs, and deliver your
| values in those areas as a human.
| ZephyrBlu wrote:
| I understand AI programming isn't there yet, but it seems
| likely that sometime in the next decade the same thing
| that's happening to artists will happen to programmers.
| epiphonium wrote:
| I've heard the analogy (I think I might have originally
| read it on HN) that software engineers in the 2020s are
| like Detroit auto workers in the 1950s - highly skilled,
| highly paid, and doomed. I hope this is wrong.
|
| I don't think the market for highly technical "computer
| guys" is going to disappear, but the nature of the job is
| probably going to change dramatically. But then it
| wouldn't be the first time - hasn't the job already
| changed completely since, say, the 1980s? I can't imagine
| working in this job before the internet existed, but many
| did. Maybe in another decade or two I'll be saying that I
| can't remember what it was like to do this kind of work
| before AI was this good.
| brookst wrote:
| Already happened. It's called product management and spec
| writing. The vast majority of professional programmers
| today are essentially sign painters working from spec.
| bamboozled wrote:
| _I 've tried to convince artists to transition to the AI-
| augmented future, since October._
|
| This comment is funny, "I've given the artists fair warning
| of 6 months that they're careers are over."
|
| _But the rest just want to pretend it doesn 't exist,
| waiting till employers realize that they are no longer
| needed._
|
| So when the employers fire the artists, who will replace
| them sorry? Will the C-level executives at my company be
| using DALL-E instead? How does it work? Would they just not
| hire a "creative assistant" who will probably hire other
| assistants ?
|
| _I 've seen artist communities on multiple websites, in
| multiple languages. At first they tried to laugh at the AI.
| Now the AI has improved so radically so fast, they
| universally prefer to stick their head in the sand, and ban
| discussion of AI altogether, its all denial and rage._
|
| I'd love to see these raging artist discussions? Can you
| link a few?
| GaggiX wrote:
| >who will replace them sorry?
|
| A group of individuals who will use AI as an
| augmentation, even people with inferior drawing skills
| but able to get better results faster, a man with an
| excavator replaces several people with a shovel.
|
| I'd love to see these raging artist discussions? Can you
| link a few?
|
| I'm not OP but Twitter is full, you can start from
| @kortizart and find all kinds of account of people who
| are illustrators but now only rage against AI art.
| bamboozled wrote:
| I saw almost no "raging" though? Yeah obviously concerned
| about the future of her profession and some difficult
| questions asked about IP theft and copyright, but that's
| about it?
|
| Edit: There is some raging in the replies but it's
| twitter and everyone is raging on there.
|
| There was some raging about Netflix using "AI" to
| generate backgrounds for a cartoon, but ultimately
| everyone will lose, including Netflix if this really is
| very automated, Almost anyone will soon be able to create
| a Netflix so I'll just cancel my subscription and watch
| free generated content uploaded to Youtube I guess?
| UncleEntity wrote:
| > Almost anyone will soon be able to create a Netflix so
| I'll just cancel my subscription and watch free generated
| content uploaded to Youtube I guess?
|
| What's wrong with that?
|
| I pretty much only watch people doing their thing on
| YouTube and I'm entertained enough. I have a couple years
| of tv shows I haven't gotten around to watching because
| of YouTube peeps keeping me interested.
| notahacker wrote:
| I'd also love to see a comparable thread on HN where some
| non-programmer rocks up, starts linking some forms he
| built using a low code tool to prove HN's skills are
| obsolete whilst modestly proposing that everyone here
| should forget about writing code and focus on business
| analysis and sales...
| brookst wrote:
| > that drawing skills are massive devalued.
|
| This is the critical insight. Human _artists_ having nothing to
| worry about. Human _drawers_ do.
|
| The decoupling of concept from execution is old news in most
| forms of art. Writing music and playing an instrument are two
| very different skills, and indeed any session musician will
| tell you that playing instruments well is not as valued as
| writing amazing music.
|
| In fact we went through a similar thing in pop music in the
| 70's and 80's, with the brief moral panic over electronic music
| and people who "just push a button and don't even know know to
| play their instrument." Turns out nobody cares, as long as the
| music is good.
|
| AI art decouples concept from execution for visual art. That's
| all.
| Dzugaru wrote:
| You're not taking into consideration how the actual artists
| actually feel. And, from the first hand - the feeling is
| horrible. Most artists love to draw, the process itself is
| incredibly satisfying. Just like a musician loves his
| instrument.
|
| This is destroying them, stealing the joy from the thing they
| devoted decades of life. My wife is extremely depressed by
| this, to the point I think she'll need serious therapy. She
| still has most of her job, but yeah recent developments like
| ControlNet? Well, shit.
| flangola7 wrote:
| I feel for your wife. It helps her any, many other careers
| and passions are not far behind. I foresee many
| intellectual tasks being automated in as little as three to
| five years.
|
| A friend works in law, mostly handling workplace
| discrimination cases His job will be safe for now, but not
| those of his paralegals and staff who research case law,
| write drafts, and handle everyday communication with
| clients and the courts. Many of them have been in it for
| years and are passionate about helping victims who have
| been hurt by racism and homophobia. One of his most tenured
| employees is an elderly black man well past retirement age,
| who greatly enjoys that he can now help stop the sort of
| discrimination he experienced when he was young. None of
| these people will be able to meaningfully contribute to
| their passion in ten years.
| gonzo41 wrote:
| 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.
| Riverheart wrote:
| You're right. This is harsh. Some people make a living
| off art. Having valuable skills is good for people's self
| esteem. We're not replacing a factory line job, we're
| automating something that takes people 100hrs of classes
| and self practice to master and people have put
| themselves in debt to achieve.
|
| But they can doodle in their spare time while they search
| for another job that isn't being phased out or spend most
| of their day crafting text prompts. Maybe go back to
| college take on some more debt.
| fipar wrote:
| You're not wrong, but when we replace a factory line job
| that person also goes through their own little hell, and
| they probably don't even have the possibility of going
| back to college and taking more debt.
|
| If anything, if it is true that AI will render lots of
| jobs obsolete (I have my doubts), at least there's a
| chance this may allow some empathy to grow in those
| affected. Perhaps we finally get some meaningful social
| change.
| Riverheart wrote:
| I'm unclear how people got the impression that I'm okay
| with people's lives getting upended by automation. As I
| elaborated on elsewhere, my post was to say there was a
| difference in what is being automated, highly skilled
| labor with high time/money/education costs vs something
| you shouldn't require a degree to learn to do.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Whenever I read a thread like this it makes me wonder how
| little most individuals know about the history that came
| before them.
|
| I could take artist out of your statement and put
| blacksmith in and it would be difficult to tell if this
| was wrote in 1890.
|
| Everyone seems to fight automation in an
| individual/industry battle rather at the society level.
| We keep measuring our worth based on work and when we
| finally run out of work we're going to have a problem.
| Riverheart wrote:
| "We keep measuring our worth based on work and when we
| finally run out of work we're going to have a problem."
|
| Yeah, because work pays the bills. Guess what happens
| when you automate faster than social policy changes? More
| unemployed artists than blacksmiths. Also people resist
| change when it threatens their way of life. It's almost
| like the luddites resisting automation are saying slow
| down automation people "when we finally run out of work
| we're going to have a problem".
| brookst wrote:
| Your lack of empathy for factory workers is hurting your
| case. They are real, and train for their jobs, and care
| about the families they provide for.
|
| "technical disruption is hard on people" is a much more
| sympathetic position than "artists should be exempt
| because they're special".
|
| We all face risks. We all have to adapt. We all have
| opportunities from adapting to the world rather than
| clinging to the past. Artists are no different from
| factory workers (or programmers, or bus drivers)
| Riverheart wrote:
| No a lack of empathy here. OP was saying there is little
| difference between automating art and automating a bank
| teller. For factory workers, I'm not saying its a job
| that requires no training but it doesn't requires years
| of college and 40/60k in debt. Clearly the ceiling for
| getting a decent paid job to raise a family without
| massive time/money/education investments is skyrocketing
| but I didn't point that out in my post so obviously I
| don't care.
|
| Honestly this whole "adapt" thing is a load of nonsense
| parroted by people who aren't immediately under threat
| and have nothing to fear. Who is going to adapt at
| 30/40/50 years old? How about people who just graduated
| art school? Go right back into college? Please.
|
| Edit: For the record, I care about anyone getting
| displaced but not all displacement is of equal level. If
| highly educated/skilled labor is now at risk this world
| isn't prepared for what's about to come.
|
| Edit2: Removed my mischaracterization comment. Was wrong
| to assume bad faith in this response.
| Zababa wrote:
| Maybe not as big as what's happening with AI, but I can
| see my parents constantly having to adapt to Microsoft's
| new redisign of Windows, or <software> having a new
| version, or laws changing. And that's for jobs considered
| relatively safe and boring (accounting).
|
| As for art school, I've always heard that it was more fun
| than IT/computer science/accounting but way more
| dangerous, as in you weren't guaranteed a job at all. Not
| everyone has heard that, of course, not everyone has the
| time/skills/resources to plan their career. I don't
| really know what to say except that it sucks for them. On
| the other hand the lower bar of entry may bring way more
| art in general, like it did with digital art.
| Riverheart wrote:
| Well here's another thing, replacing horse carriages with
| cars was a major boon for civilization that sped up
| industrialization, led to more jobs (car builders,
| mechanics, drivers, gas station attendants, road
| builders, traffic lights and sign manufacturers), enabled
| shipping of goods cross country, increase tourism, and
| allow more flexibility in work and living area. It was
| worth the trade off. And cars were simpler back in the
| day whereas now they're all computerized. Cars were also
| expensive enough that they took a while to spread to the
| public.
|
| We know why rote labor is being automated. Not just to
| squeeze as much money out as possible but to reduce
| failures and liability and increase productivity. If a
| factory pumps out more medicine to save more lives who
| can judge maybe automation was worth the tradeoff.
|
| But art? Is this something civilization needed to try
| automating? It's not going to create more jobs than it
| replaces. It's not going to advance society to the next
| industrial level. It's not filling a demand because we're
| already flooded with more media than we could ever
| consume.
|
| Stability is important for society and tossing golden
| apples around "because" and telling people to "adapt" to
| senseless chaos is awful. People will get squeezed out
| and career change is a bigger deal than adapting from
| paper to digital.
|
| They're not guaranteed jobs so why make it harder to get
| them? So failed artists can compete for jobs with the
| factory, fast food and coal workers whose time is written
| on the wall? Even Social Workers need a degree and they
| get paid nothing.
|
| All automation and credentialed professions reduce the
| pool of low barrier to entry jobs available and forces
| people into higher education brackets to stay competitive
| but, at least in the US, that comes with massive debt to
| pay off and you start at an entry level salary. There is
| no UBI or safety net short of your parent's basement.
| This is not long term sustainable.
|
| You could argue that general AI will be worth the
| tradeoff in the end. That may be true but it seems the
| tech is outpacing social policy and we'll be scrambling
| to fix the issues instead of preparing for them.
| robswc wrote:
| I was under the impression that it has _always_ been hard
| to make a living as an artist.
|
| I think this is just a truth people will have to accept.
| I used to make music and quickly realized I would have to
| dedicate 1000s of hours to it if I ever wanted to make it
| a career. This is simply because there were 1000s of
| other people that wanted to also make it a career.
| tylersmith wrote:
| Many people have hobbies that are low value skills and
| they have to work doing things outside their passion if
| they want to be higher value. This isn't unique to people
| who draw for a living it's just new to them and they'll
| have to adjust.
| Shaanie wrote:
| One big difference is that art is typically a passion
| job, whereas most of the previously automated jobs
| weren't. Being able to draw for a living also takes way
| longer to learn than being a bank teller, or data entry
| etc, did.
|
| Not that it matters, AI is only going to get better from
| here. I'd also feel depressed if I made my living doing
| digital art.
| sdiacom wrote:
| Obviously I don't get to tell your wife, or anyone else,
| how to feel about this. And there is a very real and very
| impactful thing in that, if you enjoy _and_ make a living
| out of hand-drawn art, AI art will make it harder to _make
| a living_ out of something you enjoy. There 's no way
| around that, and I don't mean to deny that feeling. It
| always sucks when the circumstances around your craft and
| your source of income change.
|
| But I don't think AI art can possibly take away from the
| beauty and enjoyment that can be found in drawing and
| making art. You mention how a musician loves playing their
| instrument. I can download a music edition software and
| summon a virtual orchestra out of my speakers in seconds.
| But does this take anything from the musician? Is their
| feeling any less true, their music any less meaningful to
| themselves and to those who listen? If I bring my laptop to
| a party and play Vivaldi's seasons on it, will that elicit
| the same reaction as if I play it in the living room's
| piano?
|
| If language models eventually get good enough at
| programming that I'm out of a job, I won't derive any less
| enjoyment out of programming. I'll be a lot poorer, sure,
| but I will still enjoy the process of coming up with a way
| to express constraints in code, even if a machine can do it
| for me in the blink of an eye. Just like I find it relaxing
| to do the dishes myself when I'm anxious, even if I have a
| perfectly good dishwasher. Just like how people who enjoy
| solving Sudokus don't find it less fun just because
| automatic Sudoku solvers exist. The journey is the
| destination.
|
| And for the record, I don't think human art will disappear
| because of AI art, or human programming will disappear
| because of AI programming. If there's one thing that's
| demonstrably true through the history of humanity, is that
| humans have a strong human-centric bias. The sooner we
| commodify something and remove the human element from it,
| the sooner we bring that human element back, now elevated
| to the status of luxury and catered to a niche.
|
| Let me explain what I mean: I can buy black garlic in a
| plastic container for cheap, but I can also go to the
| weekend farmer market and pay three times as much for black
| garlic from a lady who lives up the mountains and can tell
| me the shape of the jar she fermented it in. IKEA makes
| perfectly good furniture that you can use to play board
| games for less than a hundred, but board game enthusiasts
| pay hundreds or thousands for custom furniture with nooks
| and bezels to stop the tokens from sliding out. Glass
| blowing as a form of art continues to exist, regardless of
| the availability of perfectly fine, industrially-made glass
| appliances. It's just in artisanal fairs in Venice, not in
| your living room.
|
| And sure, you won't be able to make a living anymore out of
| cranking out uninspired corporate Memphis for bay-area
| startups, or drawing cartoon furries for Twitter randos on
| commission. And, in a way... thank fuck for that, right?
| The combinatorial space of drawing people with smooth
| curves in fantasy skin colors using technological
| appliances in collaborative settings can be exhausted by an
| AI, and you can actually focus on making art that breaks
| the mold, art that hasn't been made before, art that is
| meaningful to _you_. You can imbue art with meaning and use
| art to communicate with other humans, while the "art" that
| ticks out boxes and replaces placeholders in landing pages
| can be cranked out by AI.
|
| Yes, it will be harder to make a living out of that, but
| I'm sure it won't be impossible. Computers have been able
| to generate Mondrian paintings since the 80s, and that
| hasn't made Mondrian paintings any less valuable. An AI may
| be able to produce the exact same drawing that you do, but
| it can't imbue human meaning in it.
| visarga wrote:
| > You can imbue art with meaning and use art to
| communicate with other humans
|
| Yes, but the moment you publish one piece the AIs will be
| able to crank variations on it at the push of button. So
| artists might think twice about publishing.
| pixl97 wrote:
| "If I plant a seed and grow a plant, someone else could
| take the seeds and grow their own plant. Instead I'll
| burn the field to the ground."
| egypturnash wrote:
| Drawing furry porn commissions _is_ meaningful to me. It
| 's _fun_ to sit around getting paid for drawing horny
| cartoons. It 's a fucking _blast_ , it feels like I am
| _cheating at life_ to have this be part of my job. It 's
| also easy and pays a nice hourly rate. And it's a human
| communication - I am helping someone express their
| feelings, desires, and fantasies. I am giving them
| _permission_ to indulge in crazy fantasies and to feel
| beautiful, powerful, and desirable. Thank fuck that
| communication between myself and my clients can be
| automated away by a program! Thank fuck I 'm freed from
| being a part of what binds a community of weirdos
| together!
|
| Drawing Corporate Memphis bullshit for startups is a
| _great_ way to transfer a big chunk of VC money from some
| Bay Area jerkoffs to an artist living somewhere much
| cheaper, where it can pay multiple months of their rent
| for not much work, and maybe even let them have some
| luxuries and /or financial cushions. Thank fuck that all
| that money can extend the startup's runway a tiny bit
| further now instead! Thank fuck those artists won't have
| to wrestle with the feelings that comes from getting paid
| better for a few hours of corporate work than for
| anything they've poured their passion into!
|
| If you're regularly taking on client work, then you have
| places to _play_ and _experiment_ while still getting
| what you need to pay your bills, and even if you 're just
| turning the crank to make another piece that fits in with
| everything else you've made, you're getting a tiny bit
| better at making art with every drawing you do, and you
| can bring that _back_ to the time you spend on your crazy
| personal work. If you take some other job to make ends
| meet, your rate of progress slows way the hell down. I
| 've seen it happen. Friends who used to draw a lot better
| than I did twenty years ago now just draw as a hobby, and
| draw just like they did back then; me and my friends who
| made it my job have spent the last twenty years _drawing_
| , and it shows in our work. Thank fuck that's endangered!
| Thank fuck we, too, might have a bunch of recurring gigs
| collapse out from under us! Thank fuck those of us who
| embrace becoming an AI wrangler for a corporation will be
| asked to do tons more stuff for the same pay, or less!
|
| How do you propose the artists who are now blissfully
| freed from the work that _pays their bills_ should pay
| the rent on their homes and studios, and to pay for their
| tools and materials, while still spending all their time
| making art that "breaks the mold, hasn't been made
| before, and is meaningful to the artist"? How do you
| propose they should find the time to hone the skills
| needed to do this? Because doing that is _a lot of work_.
| pixl97 wrote:
| As to your question, UBI.
|
| Artists are the ones now experiencing what the Luddites
| did. Smashing the looms didn't stop more looms from being
| built. Also, now the average person can afford fabric
| because of the technology.
|
| Simply put as we move into a world where most needs can
| be provided by technology keeping up the 'winner take
| all' method of capitalism so many subscribe to isn't
| going to work.
| egypturnash wrote:
| What are _you_ doing to make UBI a reality?
|
| How will we support ourselves until the extremely
| unlikely event that becomes a reality?
|
| What are you doing to support artists through this shitty
| transition? Hint: Calling us "luddites" and vaguely
| waffling about the hoped-for death of capitalism is
| pretty much the opposite of supporting us.
| brookst wrote:
| The human impact is real, but how is it different from how
| carriage drivers felt about the automobile, or how typists
| felt about the word processor?
|
| I'll submit that people who feel horrible have mistaken the
| commodity and value-add aspects of their jobs. AI does not
| make someone an artist, but nor does great hand-eye
| coordination and good brush technique. The actual art is
| concept; brushes and canvas and AI are tools.
|
| I'm sorry that the decoupling of creation from performance
| is making people you care about feel bad, but really this
| is hundreds of years old news for most artists (musicians,
| architects, sculptors, etc).
|
| People who enjoy drawing can still draw, just like people
| who enjoy playing instruments can still play instruments.
| TomSwirly wrote:
| > The human impact is real, but how is it different from
| how carriage drivers felt about the automobile, or how
| typists felt about the word processor?
|
| Because driving a car or typing is entirely different
| from making art.
|
| > People who enjoy drawing can still draw, just like
| people who enjoy playing instruments can still play
| instruments.
|
| "You can just sit at home and play your little
| instrument, and not bother anyone, is that good for you?"
|
| Your contempt for art and artists is just awful. It makes
| me despair for humanity.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Eh, using your line of thought in a reductionist manner
| would simply lead to "it was a mistake to crawl down from
| the trees".
|
| Humans change technology, technology changes humans. It
| is a tale older than civilization.
|
| Also, many people would consider racing a car a form of
| art in itself. Same with riding horses that cars caused
| the general replacement of.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| >The human impact is real, but how is it different from
| how carriage drivers felt about the automobile, or how
| typists felt about the word processor?
|
| it's probably different in the way that the parent poster
| described, that artists found drawing an emotionally
| satisfying process whereas people typing probably didn't
| think setting styles in MS Word made them complete.
| DennisP wrote:
| People who have never found their paid work so
| emotionally satisfying are worse off, not better. At
| least professional artists have gotten to spend some of
| their working lives that way.
| egypturnash wrote:
| <3
|
| Good luck to your wife. This is fucking horrible. Being in
| an industry that Silicon Valley shitheads are ruining
| _sucks_.
| TomSwirly wrote:
| > Turns out nobody cares, as long as the music is good.
|
| Actually, all those people who lost their professions they
| spent their lifetime working on, they care, rather a lot.
|
| > indeed any session musician will tell you that playing
| instruments well is not as valued as writing amazing music.
|
| Yes, in 2023 they say this, but I assure you when "session
| musician" was a common profession, that no one said this.
|
| When I first started in music, if you wanted your piece of
| music, you had to pay instrumentalists to play it, and this
| was a valuable professional skill.
|
| > Turns out nobody cares, as long as the music is good.
|
| And the music is not good either.
|
| When did everyone become so sociopathically detached from the
| welfare of others? It's just horrifying.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Hear of that group called the luddites?
|
| This is just the latest chapter in the same book. The
| solution has almost never been stopping technology but
| distribution of the benefits to all members of the society.
| That is unless you want one entity to play winner take all
| in the end.
| DennisP wrote:
| Even human drawers might do all right, if they're selling
| physical drawings. People will still put hand-painted
| canvasses on their walls, just like people still enjoy an
| acoustic guitar concert, even if the guitarist isn't world-
| class. The authentic connection with a human being is where
| the art survives. If you're not an amazing artist, you can
| still be an authentic one.
|
| But if you're just churning out commercial illustrations,
| then sure, an AI can do that now, or soon.
| Riverheart wrote:
| "This is the critical insight. Human artists having nothing
| to worry about. Human drawers do."
|
| The reason why amazing music is valued so much is because
| there's so much music that you have to be amazing to be
| noticed. Art has had that problem for a long time. Someone
| spends 100hrs of talent on a masterpiece and we say "meh,
| seen a thousand of that quality"
|
| Learning theory is easier than applying it so becoming an
| artist is easier and now artists have more competition. Not
| advocating against AI art but it's obviously going to have a
| negative effect.
| brookst wrote:
| Do you think synthesizers and sequencers have had a
| negative effect on music?
| Riverheart wrote:
| Probably. I'm not qualified to weigh the pros/cons of it.
|
| The internet is amazing but now a stranger from halfway
| across your world can drain your bank account. What
| doesn't have a negative effect?
| jakeinspace wrote:
| In some ways, yes! At least for pop. I'm a huge fan of
| electronic music and synthesizers, but lowering the
| technical barrier to entry has resulted in some
| particularly bland pop music over the years making it to
| the top of the charts, for all the usual reasons of how
| music promotion is broken. I still think synths,
| sequencers, drum machines, and DAWs are a net plus to
| modern music, but there are of course negatives if you
| look for them.
| noobermin wrote:
| I'm not an artist, but my fiance is an animator. Generally,
| something similar exists in stock assets (photos, assets like
| vector files, other such things). We had a discussion on
| whether the existence of stock assets means drawing is no
| longer necessary to be an artist, and her answer was it still
| is something you should be able to do because knowing how to
| draw is the best way to learn the fundamentals of art in
| general, knowing how parts of a body work in a drawing or
| animation, and generally something is "good" vs. "bad," etc.
| However, as someone who isn't a fine artist, she doesn't have
| time to generate everything frame by frame, so she doesn't do
| it for every project she works on, but that knowledge is
| invaluable and one you can only obtain from knowing how to
| draw.
|
| I think the best analogy I understand it is as is it is like
| assembly language or low level programming in general. I
| certainly do not have the time to program every piece of code
| I write in asm but having done projects in asm is invaluable
| as a coder[0], given how much it informs my mental model of
| how the code I write actually works. That understanding is
| beyond valuable and is something that puts you a rung above
| everyone else who just copies things from SO without knowing
| what they do. I think AI for devs, to the extent that it will
| evolve, will still be as such. People who primarily find it
| amazing today I find either 1) use it as a productivity boost
| for things that need a lot of boiler-plate[1], or 2) are SO-
| copy-pasters who are just amazed they have to think even
| less. A LOT of the "AI artist" community are the artist
| equivalent of the 2nd, honestly, and it's easy to detect AI
| art because it's generated by people who are not really
| artists, and in similar fashion either don't know the
| fundamentals or who only create "good" work by nearly
| directly copying other art pieces.
|
| Also, to critique your analogy, what you guys are saying is
| along the lines of "given DAWs, why learn to play an
| instrument at all?" Except a plain look at any _good_
| composer will show they know how to play at least one
| instrument, even if they don 't play all their music on that
| instrument, there is no doubt knowing how to play clearly
| makes you a better composer. I mean, can you even imagine a
| composer who cannot even play piano, or guitar? Sure a
| composer need not be a virtuoso concert pianist, but they
| should at the very least be able to play the chords of the
| very song they've composed. Nothing thus far teaches the
| human mind deep understanding of something more than _doing_
| that thing does. It is so clearly obvious in music and
| programming and the only reason people keep saying you can be
| an artist having never learned to draw is because such people
| simply do not understand art or composition at all.
|
| [0] I'm not really a software developer but a computational
| scientist, and so I won't say I'm a developer, but still
| understanding of data structures, algorithms, discrete math
| in general, and yes asm is invaluable for me.
|
| [1] As someone outside of the dev space, I don't know why you
| people don't just make better interfaces instead of juggling
| 9 yamls and 3 environments for every project, or just roll
| your own interface and reduce the boiler-plate yourself.
| bilqis wrote:
| I think that "AI" (there is not even a drop of an actual AI in
| the current technology) is overhyped and barely can handle any of
| jobs people wanted it to do. It's maybe good for sketching, be
| that code, text or images, but not for final product, and won't
| be any time soon. As it was with all "AI" products in the past,
| it's over advertised by ML bros and grifters.
| klibertp wrote:
| Half an hour trying to force one of the models to spit a manga-
| style picture of a character... with correct number of arms and
| legs. No successes so far. It's frankly disgusting most of the
| time, prob due to uncanny valley-like effect - it's kinda
| close, but not quite there. Not to mention, I'm sure I did
| _not_ put "amputee" in the prompt, but I got a few pictures
| that should be honestly tagged with "guro"... and I wasn't even
| trying for NSFW!
|
| Same experience with code: Github Copilot is 90% right 100% of
| the time. Its suggestions for comments and docstrings are so
| bad I would never accept them in a code review, basically your
| old "a++ # adds 1 to a"; the generated code is always wrong,
| and the bigger the chunk of code generated the more wrong it
| is. It's kind of OK as a replacement for Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V and for
| generating boilerplate... which shouldn't be there in good code
| anyway.
|
| I suspect that for every impressive output we see there are
| tens of thousands of trash outputs someone had to wade through.
| Further, the less popular your prompt and the smaller the
| representation of what you want in the model, the harder it is
| to get something even remotely resembling what you want.
| Though, I'm not a "prompt engineer" (WTF is that...), so maybe
| I'm just using it wrong...
| anonylizard wrote:
| You guys need to understand, that the skill ceiling for AI
| art is very high. Its not some iphone-selfie tier technology.
| Go to Civitai.com and huggingface, to start comprehending how
| many AI models there are, and how powerful the latest models
| are. It takes at least two weeks of intense usage to get the
| hang of the basics/parameters and produce good output. AI art
| in the end will probably be dominated by professionals
| because of the increasing skill requirements.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| Reading the comments it seems that everyone assumes that art is
| always and only presented as pixels on a screen. Whereas most of
| the art in my house is hand painted on canvas and wood, hand
| embroidered, hand knitted, hand woven, hand thrown and decorated
| pottery. One picture was hammered out of a sheet of pewter.
|
| One of my favourite places is the Henie-Onstadt Art Centre
| sculpture park, another is Vigelands Anlegg in Oslo, no pixels in
| either place.
|
| So why does everyone seem to think that art is only flat, lit,
| pixels on a flat surface?
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| except that I can take an AI generated image and burn it into
| wood or acid etch on metal with a CNC machine, or 3d print it.
| bamboozled wrote:
| I think the exact same thing, obviously because we're on hacker
| news where most people seem to be hoping they can spend their
| days prompting machines for art so they can replace "artists"
| and save some money.
|
| It's actually funny when I think about it because most people
| wouldn't know what image to use and how to use it even when it
| was generated for them, there's even a skill in selecting art.
|
| You could argue enough good photos have already been taken that
| all practically all photographers should have already been made
| redundant since the year 2000, we still have photographers.
| turtleyacht wrote:
| That reminds me of Ira Glass' quote about taste: artists know
| it when they see it.
|
| Or why it's a mystery some folks prefer tabs vs spaces, or
| recoil from what they consider shoddy code.
|
| Somewhere in the discipline of point, line, and perspective,
| in the composition of shapes and their organization, is the
| artifact of amalgamated neurons, to be observed by yet
| another consciousness.
|
| I wonder if AI art will just help generate more gacha games.
| And one may wonder, of the limited time left on this planet,
| what really could we spend it on?
|
| The library of every book contains no meaningful work in the
| search. The space of all generated art is oblivion.
| throwaway47291 wrote:
| I think if people are ignoring AI's limitations, it's more
| out of fear that programming is next than having something to
| gain. I doubt having the money/labour that's currently used
| creating art for something else would help me in a noticeable
| way:
|
| -the money would just trickle up
|
| -not that much money is spent on it anyway
|
| -world becomes more depressing, nothing you look at had any
| effort put into it, no-one had to believe in an advert on any
| level, instead it's the output of a machine optimised to
| trick you (as one of a shrinking number of people with any
| agency) to spend and therefore make the machine stronger.
|
| -artists/potential future artists decide to learn to code
| instead?
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Because that's what 99% of the people employed for their
| artistic skills are doing.
|
| I doubt AI will have much effect on the tiny number of people
| who can make a living by producing art to hang up in your
| house. It's the people doing illustrations for
| magazines/websites/packaging/etc. who are fucked in the
| medium/long term.
| im3w1l wrote:
| People will 100% start hanging AI art on their walls. The
| killer feature is being to customize the artwork to exactly
| what you want. It's just a question of time and not a lot of
| it either.
| krapp wrote:
| >So why does everyone seem to think that art is only flat, lit,
| pixels on a flat surface?
|
| Everyone doesn't think that. It just happens that digital art,
| both as a medium and as an industry, is the only kind of art
| relevant to conversations about AI, because that is the medium
| of artwork that AI generates, and that is the industry that is
| being disrupted by it.
| turtleyacht wrote:
| Yes, that is interesting: so digital artists can go back to
| traditional methods. Like a game where you scan in crayon
| textures. It's a unique look. More handcrafted.
|
| Maybe AI will bring about a sea change in how we express these
| traditional works in the digital context.
|
| It's true we miss a huge chunk of art by just considering
| pixels. Museums are dedicated to the idea that art and
| expression are intertwined, and that context--both past and
| present--brings a unique experience to the observer.
|
| Curators certainly aren't generating those longform
| descriptions next to art pieces. Someone had to think deeply,
| analyze, and type that out.
| imaginationra wrote:
| Artist here: Article is an idealistic take not based in reality-
| the Jeff Koons of the world will be safe with their 30 million
| balloon art sales.
|
| Everyone else is going to be rekt.
|
| All of the work my artist friends do is for businesses-
| businesses trying to make the biggest profit. Ai art generators
| are faster/cheaper/more flexible. The artists are done and now
| it's all about the prompt engineers that don't need to be artists
| to excel.
|
| Market will decide what to pay "artists" but seems like it will
| be a race to the bottom. Artist types I know are preparing
| accordingly.
| simion314 wrote:
| And older artists said the same about computer art, things like
| :" this new artists do not know to mix paints or prepare a
| canvas". Artists can adapt and use this new tools and do their
| job faster, you might have to sell a logo cheaper but you might
| be able to make them 20 times faster.
| stared wrote:
| My point is that unique digital art won't be replaced even by a
| hypothetical perfect AI image generator.
|
| When it comes to the digital art workforce - it is likely to be
| strongly affected.
|
| > Others might fall into a gap of "nice skills, but not yet
| that offer a business advantage". Furthermore, the lower entry
| barrier to create any art is likely to result in the average
| quality going down - not unlike that plastic made manufacturing
| cheaper, but also less durable.
|
| And you are right that, sadly, in many kinds of digital art, it
| will be a race to the bottom.
| hanoz wrote:
| Out of interest, how _are_ they preparing accordingly? It 's
| not remotely my own field but I'm starting to wonder how I
| should be guiding my children who have tallent for art, in
| light of all this.
| imetatroll wrote:
| The harsh reality as far as I can tell is that the prospect
| of making a living as an artist, which was already slim if we
| are being honest, has now shrunk to near zero.
|
| They should be learning about the AI field in order to create
| their art. That might be the only skill worth money when they
| are older.
| anonylizard wrote:
| Draw comics, or really manga in particular. The only real
| challenge in AI art, that won't be solved any time soon, is
| storytelling: chaining multiple panels together for coherent
| stories. Even ChatGPT cannot tell a coherent story longer
| than 2 paragraphs. Being able to write a long story well,
| requires understanding world modelling, human motivations ,
| etc, AGI tier abilities.
|
| Also, expose them to AI-art. If they lose interest in art
| after seeing AI art, that means they were never meant to be
| artists, they merely like to draw, not to make art. And
| drawing alone is not really economically useful anymore.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| Don't worry, soon AI will be a wonderful story teller for
| adults and children alike <smiling face with smiling eyes
| emoji>.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| > they merely like to draw, not to make art
|
| My take is that computers don't make art at all, they are
| incapable of doing so. They can produce content at
| astonishing rates though. But content is not artwork.
|
| You can maybe assemble content into artwork, but that's up
| to the person doing it. Are they an artist, doing work to
| elevate it into art? Or are they a fraud, who is just
| taking content the computer gives them and calling it art.
|
| Some people call those frauds "prompters"
|
| Anyways, if you enjoy drawing you are an artist. The
| mechanical process of creating is way more important to the
| artistic process than the end result.
|
| Unless you only view art as a commercial output.
| bamboozled wrote:
| What on earth's name make you think comics are safe?
|
| It's ChatPGT mixed with DALL-E no? I mean if you believe so
| strongly like everyone else that the job of the artist is
| done for, why would a comic artist be safe at all ?
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Presumably a skilled artist using SD can produce comics far
| faster than an artist on their own can? Or is it hard to
| get the model to draw consistent characters etc.
| kyleyeats wrote:
| I was working on a comic two weeks after SD came out.
| There were lots of problems. I've watched all of them
| disappear. The only one remaining is wardrobe
| consistency.
| anonylizard wrote:
| Yes, far far faster, in full colour too. Traditionally,
| manga artists took photos and applied filters on them, to
| serve as the background for the manga panels. Its just
| that time consuming to draw things in detail, that they
| didn't bother. AI is like this, but 100x more radical
| productivity boost. It will be a huge boon for manga
| artists, who traditionally had to work regular 80 hour
| weeks, even with assistants. Their core skillset is
| storytelling, panelling, not drawing.
|
| The 'consistent character' issue is already solved by
| LORAs, just draw 15 images of the character in different
| poses, feed it to the AI, and it outputs a 300MB model
| that you can add-on to your prompt to reliably reproduce
| any character.
| mattmanser wrote:
| There's no money in comics, it's like saying "be a rock
| star".
|
| Most comic book artists are (in financial terms) absolute
| failures, regardless of talent.
|
| Surely for art, the route to replicable success is graphic
| design, animation, computer game art, etc.? Something the
| dumb ML AIs you see today probably won't ever be able to
| replace, you'd need some sort of AI capable of creation to
| do it.
| anonylizard wrote:
| "There's no money in comics, it's like saying "be a rock
| star"."
|
| There's no money in western comics.
|
| Successful manga artists regularly earn millions. Simply
| put, western comics got left far behind in storytelling
| techniques, creative ideas, because it got stuck in
| superhero #12831.
|
| Even in the US, the vast majority of top selling 'graphic
| novels' are mangas, not comics.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| > Successful manga artists regularly earn millions
|
| "Successful" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
|
| Most Mangaka make less than minimum wage.
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| AI is shifting the balance of power from technical ability
| and quality of tools to creativity/vision (and ability to
| market). The only "art" job left is going to be something
| akin to an art director.
|
| Expose your children to a wide variety of art, books, music,
| food, travel and so forth. Teach them why (aesthetically)
| good things are good and bad things are bad. Also, encourage
| them to create stuff for an audience so they learn how to
| present things, gauge people's tastes and become comfortable
| with failure young.
| golol wrote:
| But you should realize that any artist learning prompt
| engineering should be a better AI-artist than a non-artist
| learning prompt engineering. After all, art is not jsut about
| technique but also creativity, composition, theme etc., right?
| And an artist can furthermore touch up the AI generated product
| manually if necessary.
| robswc wrote:
| Yep. I spent a good hour trying to generate some stuff with
| DALLE. I then asked a friend that works in media and he was
| able to give me ideas for a prompt that worked almost
| immediately.
|
| AI art is fun and _sometimes_ it can replace some things but
| at the end of the day, I don't really want to mess around
| prompting over and over. If I pay an artist $100 for
| something, I couldn't care less how they make it. I feel like
| AI can be another tool. I'll even make a bold prediction. In
| 10 years, we will still have "Graphic designers" and "digital
| artists" the ceiling will just be raised similar to how it
| was when photoshop became more commonplace.
| hackernewds wrote:
| sure. but you need 1 prompt engineer producing work
| equivalent to 100s of artists*artist_hours
|
| not to mention, prompt engineering doesn't seem like a
| particularly technical job either
| robswc wrote:
| That is true. I mean, I'm sure this will negatively
| effect quite a few people... I just don't see it
| replacing the majority of artists anytime soon.
| UncleEntity wrote:
| Sounds like a job for us pot smoking slackers who studied art
| history to me.
| Riverheart wrote:
| What leads you to believe those problems won't be solved in
| the next few years? What stops me from having ChatGPT provide
| feedback on my prompts to make them more artistic? Maybe I
| just pay some artist to touch my stuff up for me if they're
| desperate for work or maybe the output gets good enough that
| I don't.
| golol wrote:
| Id say these tasks (coming up with a good artiatic theme
| for a company) when considered in the full limit of their
| potential complexity are AGI
| bamboozled wrote:
| There will just be people who are employed to wield these
| tools, select, curate and combine these images into whoever
| commissioned the work.
|
| I don't know who all these tools are really aimed at? As a
| software engineer, I'd still prefer to pay someone to mess with
| any type of "art" or design while I focus on other things.
|
| I mean even if I had an AI program that I could use to code, to
| do SRE, to do images, to do accounting etc, I still think
| someone would need to be in charge or making these things
| happen, or else I'd just be busy prompting machines all day,
| which sounds mad fatiguing and boring.
| Avicebron wrote:
| I think the real question is what does "making these things
| happen" realistically pay, pennies on the hour to sit in
| front of a screen and maybe elevate that to the 1/10,000
| person who has to come hit a few keys to get the station
| running again?
| bamboozled wrote:
| How much do you actually pay an artist now? I've payed for
| graphical artists before, it wasn't all that expensive and
| I could've probably done it myself, they could've just been
| stealing someones work already, but it was just easier to
| pay someone to be "responsible" for it. Which is often what
| I'm paying for.
| marban wrote:
| LOL https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/18/arts/jeff-koons-
| sculpture...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-19 23:02 UTC)