38 ms·

I'm sure professional drivers don't like the idea of self-driving cars either.

by ALittleLight 4y ago

mistrial9 4y ago
no - not the same .. what you say is machinery utilitarian, for pay
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  I am neither a professional driver nor a professional artist but I have paid both for their services. In both cases it's an exchange, money to take something somewhere or money for the illustrations I want. They both, from my perspective as a user, could be replaced by software that performs well. I'm reading your comment as saying that there is some sine qua non about art that professional driving lacks - but I think that may just be your bias as an artist. If software produces results that are as good or better than yours, what is lost by replacing artists with software? I'm also not writing this just to dig at professional artists and drivers. I think my career too is in the process of being replaced by software. I have doubts and misgivings about whether this will be entirely good, but it seems clear that it is happening and that most (all?) professions are or will soon be in a similar state.
  - mistrial9 4y ago
    >what is lost by replacing artists with software ? computers are useless, they can only provide answers
omnicognate 4y ago
There are strong reasons to want to eliminate drivers from cars. I'm very optimistic about the overall impact of it on society and the environment if it actually ends up happening. Children's book illustrators, though, really? How do we benefit if we make it impossible for that to be a living? Is there any benefit to you or your children if they look at pictures generated from a machine learning algorithm based on past images instead of by a human artist that was paid for their creation? Is there any benefit to artists? Is there any benefit to society as a whole, or to any individuals except the owners of the algorithms generating the pictures and the publishers who save a relatively minor [1] cost? Personally I doubt ML-illustrated children's books would catch on as anything more than a novelty simply because generating illustrations in this way seems so dystopian, impersonal and tacky, but the way people react to new technology is something I find very hard to predict. [1] Typically between £6,500 and £8,500 per book according to https://www.peopleofpublishing.com/post/how-much-does-a-children-s-book-illustrator-cost https://www.peopleofpublishing.com/post/how-much-does-a-chil...
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  I know multiple people who have ideas for children's books but don't really want to actually produce one in the current system. Easy to understand why people don't follow through creating children's books - it's hard and not very lucrative. Creating a children's book is usually a money losing proposition - most books aren't published and most published books don't sell very well. Imagine taking the cost of illustrating a children's book from 10k USD (plus who knows how much time) to paying a 10 dollar per month fee to create unlimited illustrations? What would that enable? How many more children's books would get produced? How much more happiness for children and would be authors? My mother used to tell us stories about characters she had made up. With a little more time, if this technology existed, she could have illustrated her stories and shown them to us. Or, if this technology gets invented tomorrow, I could create generate the illustrations from what I remember of my mom's stories and share it with her. Why wouldn't I want this? Because professional illustrators would be devalued? Let's not forget the children who lack interesting content or concerned parents who would create it for them. These kids could benefit from a reddit or imgur of children's books and get an infinite scroll of content. If software becomes good enough the infinite scroll could be generated automatically.
  - mistrial9 4y ago
    pass the extra lucre with those clouds, Lucas

I'm sure professional drivers don't like the idea of self-driving cars either.

mistrial9 4y ago

no - not the same .. what you say is machinery utilitarian, for pay

ALittleLight 4y ago
I am neither a professional driver nor a professional artist but I have paid both for their services. In both cases it's an exchange, money to take something somewhere or money for the illustrations I want. They both, from my perspective as a user, could be replaced by software that performs well. I'm reading your comment as saying that there is some sine qua non about art that professional driving lacks - but I think that may just be your bias as an artist. If software produces results that are as good or better than yours, what is lost by replacing artists with software? I'm also not writing this just to dig at professional artists and drivers. I think my career too is in the process of being replaced by software. I have doubts and misgivings about whether this will be entirely good, but it seems clear that it is happening and that most (all?) professions are or will soon be in a similar state.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  >what is lost by replacing artists with software ? computers are useless, they can only provide answers

omnicognate 4y ago

There are strong reasons to want to eliminate drivers from cars. I'm very optimistic about the overall impact of it on society and the environment if it actually ends up happening. Children's book illustrators, though, really? How do we benefit if we make it impossible for that to be a living? Is there any benefit to you or your children if they look at pictures generated from a machine learning algorithm based on past images instead of by a human artist that was paid for their creation? Is there any benefit to artists? Is there any benefit to society as a whole, or to any individuals except the owners of the algorithms generating the pictures and the publishers who save a relatively minor [1] cost? Personally I doubt ML-illustrated children's books would catch on as anything more than a novelty simply because generating illustrations in this way seems so dystopian, impersonal and tacky, but the way people react to new technology is something I find very hard to predict. [1] Typically between £6,500 and £8,500 per book according to https://www.peopleofpublishing.com/post/how-much-does-a-children-s-book-illustrator-cost https://www.peopleofpublishing.com/post/how-much-does-a-chil...

ALittleLight 4y ago
I know multiple people who have ideas for children's books but don't really want to actually produce one in the current system. Easy to understand why people don't follow through creating children's books - it's hard and not very lucrative. Creating a children's book is usually a money losing proposition - most books aren't published and most published books don't sell very well. Imagine taking the cost of illustrating a children's book from 10k USD (plus who knows how much time) to paying a 10 dollar per month fee to create unlimited illustrations? What would that enable? How many more children's books would get produced? How much more happiness for children and would be authors? My mother used to tell us stories about characters she had made up. With a little more time, if this technology existed, she could have illustrated her stories and shown them to us. Or, if this technology gets invented tomorrow, I could create generate the illustrations from what I remember of my mom's stories and share it with her. Why wouldn't I want this? Because professional illustrators would be devalued? Let's not forget the children who lack interesting content or concerned parents who would create it for them. These kids could benefit from a reddit or imgur of children's books and get an infinite scroll of content. If software becomes good enough the infinite scroll could be generated automatically.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  pass the extra lucre with those clouds, Lucas