3 ms·

> Left unchecked, it’s not hard to imagine AI art crowding out illustrations that took days or weeks for someone to make. This reminds me of what someone from

> Left unchecked, it’s not hard to imagine AI art crowding out illustrations that took days or weeks for someone to make. This reminds me of what someone from the 1800's would say: "If left unchecked, it is not hard to imagine photography crowding out paintings that took days or weeks for someone to make." Or several thousand years ago when the pottery wheel was invented. Or when humans learned to cast metals instead of having to chisel stone. Art is the expression of human creativity. Art transcends the medium. In addition, making art more accessible to more people is a good thing. There are probably a lot of people who did not consider themselves artists, but with creative use of prompts and img-to-img can actually create stunning works. That is a good thing, not a bad thing.

diydsp 4y ago
> "If left unchecked, it is not hard to imagine photography crowding out paintings that took days or weeks for someone to make." Today photography and illustration are segregated. Which is what these artist communities are establishing.
SicSemperUranus 4y ago
It depends what the point is. You wouldn't let a motorcycle participate in a horse race. I think there's a place for AI art and it's fine if "manual art" remains the same. The difference can be arbitrary at times, but art often is.
bryanrasmussen 4y ago
This reminds me of what someone from the 8 years from now will say if this is left unchecked I also will be out of a job like those useless artists all were.
- Natsu 4y ago
  I don't think artists will be out of demand any more than fast food has made people stop eating out. I do think it will cannibalize the lower end of art such that it becomes like working at a fast food joint, though.
biftek 4y ago
> There are probably a lot of people who did not consider themselves artists, but with creative use of prompts and img-to-img can actually create stunning works That doesn't make anyone an artist just like filling in a coloring book doesn't. You're following rigid guidelines and given a very small amount of creative choice. I get it, it's a very powerful feeling watching a computer approximate a prompt to great effect but it's not artistry.
nonbirithm 4y ago
> "If left unchecked, it is not hard to imagine photography crowding out paintings that took days or weeks for someone to make." The difference I see is that photographers don't try to pass off their works as bona fide paintings without telling anyone. Even if they did, it's usually easier to discern whether something is a painting or a photograph than with AI, because there's usually no need to aim for replicating the exact look of a photograph in a painting. AI artists submit their work as digital art, and this distinction is far harder to make owing to the sheer sophistication of the former. The problem is that both use the medium of digital art, but the provenance is different, so there is still a desire to classify them differently. And as discussed, the huge output of these programs makes the need more urgent. The interesting questions in this debate to me involve asking what happens when you take the humanity out of art creation, and how the underlying humans will react to that. Even photographers have to use their legs to go outside, train their eyes to find something interesting and press the shutter button with a fleshy finger, all while having the final output able to be visualized in the process. I'm not sure if "art" has ever been decoupled from humanity at this large of a scale in human history before, and that could signal a significant cultural shift if so. The cultural implications of someone or something being associated with "AI" will outstrip any advancements in technology. Many artists are revered because of the culture surrounding them, not just the specific combination of paints they slathered on a canvas. It is that culture that I think will undergo turbulent changes as a result of the clashes between technologists and the larger art world. If the culture decides that AI-generated art is plagiarism, then this debate will never end. Also, asking "what prompt did you use" is probably going to become an insult with the implied intent of dehumanizing its target in the near future, when applied to certain art spheres.

diydsp 4y ago

> "If left unchecked, it is not hard to imagine photography crowding out paintings that took days or weeks for someone to make." Today photography and illustration are segregated. Which is what these artist communities are establishing.

SicSemperUranus 4y ago

It depends what the point is. You wouldn't let a motorcycle participate in a horse race. I think there's a place for AI art and it's fine if "manual art" remains the same. The difference can be arbitrary at times, but art often is.

bryanrasmussen 4y ago

This reminds me of what someone from the 8 years from now will say if this is left unchecked I also will be out of a job like those useless artists all were.

Natsu 4y ago
I don't think artists will be out of demand any more than fast food has made people stop eating out. I do think it will cannibalize the lower end of art such that it becomes like working at a fast food joint, though.

biftek 4y ago

> There are probably a lot of people who did not consider themselves artists, but with creative use of prompts and img-to-img can actually create stunning works That doesn't make anyone an artist just like filling in a coloring book doesn't. You're following rigid guidelines and given a very small amount of creative choice. I get it, it's a very powerful feeling watching a computer approximate a prompt to great effect but it's not artistry.

nonbirithm 4y ago

> "If left unchecked, it is not hard to imagine photography crowding out paintings that took days or weeks for someone to make." The difference I see is that photographers don't try to pass off their works as bona fide paintings without telling anyone. Even if they did, it's usually easier to discern whether something is a painting or a photograph than with AI, because there's usually no need to aim for replicating the exact look of a photograph in a painting. AI artists submit their work as digital art, and this distinction is far harder to make owing to the sheer sophistication of the former. The problem is that both use the medium of digital art, but the provenance is different, so there is still a desire to classify them differently. And as discussed, the huge output of these programs makes the need more urgent. The interesting questions in this debate to me involve asking what happens when you take the humanity out of art creation, and how the underlying humans will react to that. Even photographers have to use their legs to go outside, train their eyes to find something interesting and press the shutter button with a fleshy finger, all while having the final output able to be visualized in the process. I'm not sure if "art" has ever been decoupled from humanity at this large of a scale in human history before, and that could signal a significant cultural shift if so. The cultural implications of someone or something being associated with "AI" will outstrip any advancements in technology. Many artists are revered because of the culture surrounding them, not just the specific combination of paints they slathered on a canvas. It is that culture that I think will undergo turbulent changes as a result of the clashes between technologists and the larger art world. If the culture decides that AI-generated art is plagiarism, then this debate will never end. Also, asking "what prompt did you use" is probably going to become an insult with the implied intent of dehumanizing its target in the near future, when applied to certain art spheres.