12 ms·

Although we talk a lot about disruption, only very few technologies are truly disruptive. You can tell by the panic and awe in the air whether you're dealing wi

by gizmo 4y ago

Although we talk a lot about disruption, only very few technologies are truly disruptive. You can tell by the panic and awe in the air whether you're dealing with real disruption or incremental change. Dropbox made filesharing easier. It's a good product, but not disruptive. Nobody panicked that Dropbox would make their job redundant. Uber was hard on the taxi industry, but fundamentally you still have drivers taking people from A to B. First you had to call the cab company now you use an app. It's an improvement, but not truly disruptive. Not like level 5 self-driving cars would be. Amazon and Walmart by contrast did disrupt entire industries. Independent book shops and mom&pop retailers saw the writing on the wall. They knew they couldn't survive facing this kind of competition, and largely, they didn't. Stable Diffusion (and similar tools) fall in this last category of truly disruptive technologies. It's going to destroy the livelihoods of the majority of independent artists in a way that looks inevitable to me. These new tools boost artist productivity by 100x and that means good artists will be producing much more art than ever before. This pushes cost down and quality expectations way up. Some artists will adapt and thrive in this new environment, but the majority won't. It won't be long until making a living with photoshop will become as hard as making a living playing guitar. This is good for society but bad for many individual artists. There will be a backlash. People will insist that SD art isn't real art. Artists will fight back, and lose. Because SD isn't going anywhere. This is what disruption looks like, and it isn't pretty.

mejutoco 4y ago
> People will insist that SD art isn't real art. Artists will fight back, and lose. When talking about Stable Diffusion and art there are usually two different aspects of art. I am not going to try to define art, but sometimes we refer to art as illustration, or stock images (what SD puts in danger) and some as broad modern art. I am no trying to say that one is more valuable than the other, but want to qualify these two, because some art is not painting pretty pictures. In the modern art interpretation artists will not lose to SD. SD will enable them to do different things. There are many examples of famous artists that commission the execution of an artwork fully, without painting, sculpting or doing any other work. I remember an example of an artist paying illegal immigrants to hold a wall (that could not stand by itself) in a gallery, to touch on social issues. I am not an expert in art. My point is, in modern art SD will be one tool more (although it might create new influences) at the service of the human that gives it meaning.
- rco8786 4y ago
  Worth noting that this is also currently on the HN front page: https://waxy.org/2022/09/online-art-communities-begin-banning-ai-generated-images/ https://waxy.org/2022/09/online-art-communities-begin-bannin...
  - mejutoco 4y ago
    Interesting one, thanks. By the nature of it that art community excludes huge areas of art (concept art, performance art, land art, …). Basically anything that is not a 2d image (sometimes animated) on a screen. To me it matches exactly what I meant with the first type of art, although I admit it is a crude categorisation. If they charged a small amount per submission probably the would stop users submitting 40 images per second.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Huh, was not expecting Fur Affinity to be a poster child for such a ban. The surprise is not because it’s furry — the art scene is such a large fraction of the furry economy that the introduction of AI art is approximately equivalent to introducing modern farming to, IDK, the 1850s or something — but rather because of that site’s lack of reputation with regards to technology. Although, perhaps that explains why the quotation is “That content generated can reference hundreds, even thousands of pieces of work from other artists to create derivative images.” rather than the billions in the training sets.
    - Paracompact 4y ago
      This was actually predictable, if one was listening to the buzz around the different communities when the "this waifu/pony/fursona/etc. does not exist" generators were first introduced. Every community seemed to love the spectacle, except for the furry community, who were noticeably more on edge about it. I still don't really know what to attribute the attitude to, but it seems to be a pattern.
      - ben_w 4y ago
Jevon23 4y ago
>It's going to destroy the livelihoods of the majority of independent artists in a way that looks inevitable to me. Why is SD going to destroy the livelihoods of artists when machine language translation hasn't put human translators out of work yet? I don't think there's been any industry that's been ended by AI yet, and yet people are strangely confident that art is going to be the first.
- ljp_206 4y ago
  I am becoming more and more convinced that many techy folks near the AI scene saw that SD et alia can create an image that convincingly (and perhaps even indistinguishably) looks like a very nice digital painting, and based on that data point alone are calling artists obsolete.
  - idontpost 4y ago
    I've played around with Dall-E a bit and based on trying to create weird ideas like an army of toddlers in plate armor riding corgis into a medieval battle or a bear riding a bicycle pulling a semi truck, I'm fully convinced that it's over-blown. It can recreate data close to what it has already seen, just like all neural network techniques. It does poorly outside that domain.
- moultano 4y ago
  Some art, technical and scientific illustration in particular, requires a great deal of precision, and ability to interpret information. That work isn't going away any time soon, and is similar to what is required of professional translation. A lot of art does not require that.
  - Jevon23 4y ago
    Are you under the impression that right now, as of today, the publicly-available AI models are ready to replace humans for all types of art outside of scientific and technical illustration? Because that's not true at all. The AI can't even draw hands yet. To say nothing of its ability to handle multiple people and objects interacting in complex scenes. I'm concerned that the discussions about AI art on forums like HN get distorted because you have people sharing their views on art here, even though they don't actually have a serious and nuanced appreciation of art and they don't have a good understanding of all the types of work that artists do. Maybe you'd be fine with reading a comic book where everyone has seven melting fingers, but people who take comic books seriously as an artistic medium would not.
enord 4y ago
You quite studiously compared every ostensible disruption to the preceding state of the art to (quite convincingly IMO) reveal the material consequeces to be… less than world shattering, shall we say. Your example of Amazon and walmart does the converse. And yet, with «stable diffusion» it is just so. Disruption is declared wholesale, without even passing mention of the preceding state of the art of computer generated art. Not to put too fine a point on it, but do you not see the own goal here?
- simonw 4y ago
  I don't see it. Can you expand a little more by what you mean here?
  - enord 4y ago
    Gp calls out certain declarations of disruption to be hot air, then argues the point. Gp then proceeds to declare «Stable Diffusion» to be Capital D disruptive, bemoans the unfortunate destiny of the world’s now disrupted artists but, curiously, does in fact not argue the point.
nemothekid 4y ago
>Stable Diffusion (and similar tools) fall in this last category of truly disruptive technologies. It's going to destroy the livelihoods of the majority of independent artists in a way that looks inevitable to me. These new tools boost artist productivity by 100x and that means good artists will be producing much more art than ever before. I'll believe it when I see it. How many self sufficient, independent digital artists are actually making a living doing something other than webcomics or furryporn? SD is amazing technology for sure, but this notion that it's going to incredibly disruptive is the latest in a long line of AI hype. It ignores the simple fact that there is already more art produced and uploaded onto the internet, every hour, than can meaningfully be consumed. Independent artists already had to compete with millions of art uploaded very minute, what is a few million more?
- cerol 4y ago
  > I'll believe it when I see it. I'll second that. Hell. Even ATMs haven't automated bank tellers yet. Nor has Kindle replaced physical books.
simiones 4y ago
> Stable Diffusion (and similar tools) fall in this last category of truly disruptive technologies. I really don't see it. What tools like SD, DALL-E etc do is essentially similar to what Google Image Search does, except that the results are presented differently - instead of showing you the results it has indexed in some order, it picks features from the results it has trained on with some priority, and presents a kind of amalgam view of the entire collection at once. The only significant advantage compared to Google Image Search is that AI-generated art is getting around copyright, allowing you to publish it legally under your own name. This makes it very similar to Uber, which got around taxi regulations that were impeding market access. Essentially, if we ignore copyright, there are relatively few illustration problem you could have where DALL-E/SD/... would help more than searching for an existing image. Branding is an obvious one, where the need for unique-ness is not only legal, but also practical. The other is that DALL-E/SD/etc can also sometimes produce combinations of unrelated images, thought that is offset by just how bad their results are in other places where there is plenty of existing art to choose from (especially anything involving images of humans).
- echelon 4y ago
  My startup can make you sing as Taylor Swift. Not like Taylor Swift. As Taylor Swift. We'll have our new product out very very shortly. We're at end times.
  - simiones 4y ago
    Is this sarcasm, or do you think this is somehow impressive?
    - echelon 4y ago
      Not sarcasm. I'm working in this space and you can check my bio. If you're not excited by these rapidly improving results, then I don't know what to tell you. I think you can extrapolate what lies just ahead if you think about it. I've been a tech pessimist for the last two decades of my life, and I can strangely now state that this is the most important and exciting time of my entire life and career. Everything we know is about to change. I can't believe that this is the timeline we're in and that it's actively unfolding now. It's like a dream. It's hard to grasp and come to terms with. Just think for a second about what these models are doing. This is going to happen to every product category. Think too about Carmack's recent claims.
lambdaloop 4y ago
Like the other commenters have written here, art is a lot more fluid than you give it credit for. Professional illustrators will always have work, but their work may be in a different shape than current one, relying on AI as an additional tool to generate images for their clients. In any case, a big part of the work for illustrators do is in refining the vision of their client and exploring the space of art this way. This is as much of an issue with the current AIs, you need to ask for something very specific to get a good looking image. Iterating to produce a quality image can take hours. As for art more broadly, it is much greater than visual art. It will be interesting to see the new ways people find to express themselves with these new tools.
- echelon 4y ago
  We're in month one of these tools, so I think your predictions are incredibly short sighted. > Like the other commenters have written here, art is a lot more fluid than you give it credit for. And the new workflows will be as well. > Professional illustrators will always have work They're in work because the job takes 10,000 hours to learn and individual pieces take 2-10 hours to create. Not anymore. The dam got busted. > In any case, a big part of the work for illustrators do is in refining the vision of their client and exploring the space of art this way. You tell the illustrator, "I don't like the arm". They come back the next day with something new. You tell FancyIllustrator.AI or whatever the same and you can draw a squiggly and have ten new concepts to refine from. Game over. > This is as much of an issue with the current AIs, you need to ask for something very specific to get a good looking image. Iterating to produce a quality image can take hours. This is month one. Everything is about to be disrupted. Even the big tech companies. This is the biggest singular moment of Innovator's Dilemma in human history.
  - enord 4y ago
    Ok captain cocksure, this being month one: What was practitioners in the field of computer generated art able to do in month minus one, how has this changed subtstantively, and do they offer any experience, criticism or understanding of the practice that might still apply? If not, which and why? I’m as bedazzled by the blinkenlichten of prompts and generated images as the next guy, but I must confess I don’t have the foggiest what those guys were (and probably still are) doing before Dall-E. If the needle really is bending against the post I would take their word for it.
0xa2 4y ago
It is disruptive but only to one type of art - flat. So yes, since we are in front of screens most of the time flat will disrupt some. But art is more than that.
- morisy 4y ago
  For a while, there's been a few ML based tools that have been given flat images and generated 3D renders: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7j4f6U7FJ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7j4f6U7FJ4 I think that machine learning models will quickly hit some walls that feel unintuitive due to a lack of training data, but I also wouldn't want to bet on which ones.
evrydayhustling 4y ago
OP characterizes the disruption as "unbundling idea creation from substantiation". In the modern art world, this actually happened a long time ago! Warhol made famous the ancient notion that popular artisans could have their work produced by an army of assistants, rather than making it themselves, which allowed artists to focus on concept (and marketing). Digital technology has already accelerated this process a lot, allowing artists to communicate prototypes efficiently and supervise implementations of their work on the other side of the world. What's new is how AI makes this dirt cheap and accessible, not just folks who can earn the admiration of assistants. People are focused on the plight of the artist-creator, but I also wonder what will happen to the legions of substantiators already out there in the world.
SilasX 4y ago
> Uber was hard on the taxi industry, but fundamentally you still have drivers taking people from A to B. First you had to call the cab company now you use an app. It's an improvement, but not truly disruptive. Not like level 5 self-driving cars would be. >Amazon and Walmart by contrast did disrupt entire industries. Independent book shops and mom&pop retailers saw the writing on the wall. They knew they couldn't survive facing this kind of competition, and largely, they didn't. Sorry, I’m still not seeing the distinction you’re making between these cases. You say that with Uber, it makes no difference because there are still drivers going from “point A to B” (a pickup to a destination), but it was a huge difference with Walmart because small shops “saw the writing on the wall”. But … in both cases you have the same service still being provided (rides and retailing) and the unprofitability of smaller providers (small shops vs taxicab companies). If there is a difference between the two, could you highlight it clearly and in plain language?
evancoop 4y ago
Why does this simply threaten artists? At what point is code a type of creative expression? When are the IDEA for a novel technology and the chops to implement equally viable applications of AI? Artists are losing today, but why are they in any way more vulnerable? They just seem to be next on the chopping block.
lofaszvanitt 4y ago
Oh, when you are required to use implants to do your job... and you don't want to, because you think your body is sacred and those implants must be returned at the end of your job... well then you are disrupted. "There will be backlash"
nullc 4y ago
> People will insist that SD art isn't real art. For 99.999% of art that is commercially relevant no one cares if it's "real" or not. The problem here isn't necessarily that these tools change the story for "real" art, it's that they change the story for _commercially relevant_ art which has always tended towards uninspired and formulaic. There are a lot of artists that have hobbies in art they consider meaningful while making a living with commercial art that can be software-displaced.
psadri 4y ago
> This is good for society but bad for many individual artists. If something affects a large group of individuals, it will eventually have an impact on society as well.
bergenty 4y ago
People will be incapable of distinguishing AI art from the “real” thing. Or people will just start claiming AI generated art as their own human made creations. The lines will become indistinguishable.

by gizmo 4y ago

mejutoco 4y ago

> People will insist that SD art isn't real art. Artists will fight back, and lose. When talking about Stable Diffusion and art there are usually two different aspects of art. I am not going to try to define art, but sometimes we refer to art as illustration, or stock images (what SD puts in danger) and some as broad modern art. I am no trying to say that one is more valuable than the other, but want to qualify these two, because some art is not painting pretty pictures. In the modern art interpretation artists will not lose to SD. SD will enable them to do different things. There are many examples of famous artists that commission the execution of an artwork fully, without painting, sculpting or doing any other work. I remember an example of an artist paying illegal immigrants to hold a wall (that could not stand by itself) in a gallery, to touch on social issues. I am not an expert in art. My point is, in modern art SD will be one tool more (although it might create new influences) at the service of the human that gives it meaning.

rco8786 4y ago
Worth noting that this is also currently on the HN front page: https://waxy.org/2022/09/online-art-communities-begin-banning-ai-generated-images/ https://waxy.org/2022/09/online-art-communities-begin-bannin...
- mejutoco 4y ago
  Interesting one, thanks. By the nature of it that art community excludes huge areas of art (concept art, performance art, land art, …). Basically anything that is not a 2d image (sometimes animated) on a screen. To me it matches exactly what I meant with the first type of art, although I admit it is a crude categorisation. If they charged a small amount per submission probably the would stop users submitting 40 images per second.
- ben_w 4y ago
  Huh, was not expecting Fur Affinity to be a poster child for such a ban. The surprise is not because it’s furry — the art scene is such a large fraction of the furry economy that the introduction of AI art is approximately equivalent to introducing modern farming to, IDK, the 1850s or something — but rather because of that site’s lack of reputation with regards to technology. Although, perhaps that explains why the quotation is “That content generated can reference hundreds, even thousands of pieces of work from other artists to create derivative images.” rather than the billions in the training sets.
  - Paracompact 4y ago
    This was actually predictable, if one was listening to the buzz around the different communities when the "this waifu/pony/fursona/etc. does not exist" generators were first introduced. Every community seemed to love the spectacle, except for the furry community, who were noticeably more on edge about it. I still don't really know what to attribute the attitude to, but it seems to be a pattern.
    - ben_w 4y ago

Jevon23 4y ago

>It's going to destroy the livelihoods of the majority of independent artists in a way that looks inevitable to me. Why is SD going to destroy the livelihoods of artists when machine language translation hasn't put human translators out of work yet? I don't think there's been any industry that's been ended by AI yet, and yet people are strangely confident that art is going to be the first.

ljp_206 4y ago
I am becoming more and more convinced that many techy folks near the AI scene saw that SD et alia can create an image that convincingly (and perhaps even indistinguishably) looks like a very nice digital painting, and based on that data point alone are calling artists obsolete.
- idontpost 4y ago
  I've played around with Dall-E a bit and based on trying to create weird ideas like an army of toddlers in plate armor riding corgis into a medieval battle or a bear riding a bicycle pulling a semi truck, I'm fully convinced that it's over-blown. It can recreate data close to what it has already seen, just like all neural network techniques. It does poorly outside that domain.
moultano 4y ago
Some art, technical and scientific illustration in particular, requires a great deal of precision, and ability to interpret information. That work isn't going away any time soon, and is similar to what is required of professional translation. A lot of art does not require that.
- Jevon23 4y ago
  Are you under the impression that right now, as of today, the publicly-available AI models are ready to replace humans for all types of art outside of scientific and technical illustration? Because that's not true at all. The AI can't even draw hands yet. To say nothing of its ability to handle multiple people and objects interacting in complex scenes. I'm concerned that the discussions about AI art on forums like HN get distorted because you have people sharing their views on art here, even though they don't actually have a serious and nuanced appreciation of art and they don't have a good understanding of all the types of work that artists do. Maybe you'd be fine with reading a comic book where everyone has seven melting fingers, but people who take comic books seriously as an artistic medium would not.

enord 4y ago

You quite studiously compared every ostensible disruption to the preceding state of the art to (quite convincingly IMO) reveal the material consequeces to be… less than world shattering, shall we say. Your example of Amazon and walmart does the converse. And yet, with «stable diffusion» it is just so. Disruption is declared wholesale, without even passing mention of the preceding state of the art of computer generated art. Not to put too fine a point on it, but do you not see the own goal here?

simonw 4y ago
I don't see it. Can you expand a little more by what you mean here?
- enord 4y ago
  Gp calls out certain declarations of disruption to be hot air, then argues the point. Gp then proceeds to declare «Stable Diffusion» to be Capital D disruptive, bemoans the unfortunate destiny of the world’s now disrupted artists but, curiously, does in fact not argue the point.

nemothekid 4y ago

>Stable Diffusion (and similar tools) fall in this last category of truly disruptive technologies. It's going to destroy the livelihoods of the majority of independent artists in a way that looks inevitable to me. These new tools boost artist productivity by 100x and that means good artists will be producing much more art than ever before. I'll believe it when I see it. How many self sufficient, independent digital artists are actually making a living doing something other than webcomics or furryporn? SD is amazing technology for sure, but this notion that it's going to incredibly disruptive is the latest in a long line of AI hype. It ignores the simple fact that there is already more art produced and uploaded onto the internet, every hour, than can meaningfully be consumed. Independent artists already had to compete with millions of art uploaded very minute, what is a few million more?

cerol 4y ago
> I'll believe it when I see it. I'll second that. Hell. Even ATMs haven't automated bank tellers yet. Nor has Kindle replaced physical books.

simiones 4y ago

> Stable Diffusion (and similar tools) fall in this last category of truly disruptive technologies. I really don't see it. What tools like SD, DALL-E etc do is essentially similar to what Google Image Search does, except that the results are presented differently - instead of showing you the results it has indexed in some order, it picks features from the results it has trained on with some priority, and presents a kind of amalgam view of the entire collection at once. The only significant advantage compared to Google Image Search is that AI-generated art is getting around copyright, allowing you to publish it legally under your own name. This makes it very similar to Uber, which got around taxi regulations that were impeding market access. Essentially, if we ignore copyright, there are relatively few illustration problem you could have where DALL-E/SD/... would help more than searching for an existing image. Branding is an obvious one, where the need for unique-ness is not only legal, but also practical. The other is that DALL-E/SD/etc can also sometimes produce combinations of unrelated images, thought that is offset by just how bad their results are in other places where there is plenty of existing art to choose from (especially anything involving images of humans).

echelon 4y ago
My startup can make you sing as Taylor Swift. Not like Taylor Swift. As Taylor Swift. We'll have our new product out very very shortly. We're at end times.
- simiones 4y ago
  Is this sarcasm, or do you think this is somehow impressive?
  - echelon 4y ago
    Not sarcasm. I'm working in this space and you can check my bio. If you're not excited by these rapidly improving results, then I don't know what to tell you. I think you can extrapolate what lies just ahead if you think about it. I've been a tech pessimist for the last two decades of my life, and I can strangely now state that this is the most important and exciting time of my entire life and career. Everything we know is about to change. I can't believe that this is the timeline we're in and that it's actively unfolding now. It's like a dream. It's hard to grasp and come to terms with. Just think for a second about what these models are doing. This is going to happen to every product category. Think too about Carmack's recent claims.

lambdaloop 4y ago

Like the other commenters have written here, art is a lot more fluid than you give it credit for. Professional illustrators will always have work, but their work may be in a different shape than current one, relying on AI as an additional tool to generate images for their clients. In any case, a big part of the work for illustrators do is in refining the vision of their client and exploring the space of art this way. This is as much of an issue with the current AIs, you need to ask for something very specific to get a good looking image. Iterating to produce a quality image can take hours. As for art more broadly, it is much greater than visual art. It will be interesting to see the new ways people find to express themselves with these new tools.

echelon 4y ago
We're in month one of these tools, so I think your predictions are incredibly short sighted. > Like the other commenters have written here, art is a lot more fluid than you give it credit for. And the new workflows will be as well. > Professional illustrators will always have work They're in work because the job takes 10,000 hours to learn and individual pieces take 2-10 hours to create. Not anymore. The dam got busted. > In any case, a big part of the work for illustrators do is in refining the vision of their client and exploring the space of art this way. You tell the illustrator, "I don't like the arm". They come back the next day with something new. You tell FancyIllustrator.AI or whatever the same and you can draw a squiggly and have ten new concepts to refine from. Game over. > This is as much of an issue with the current AIs, you need to ask for something very specific to get a good looking image. Iterating to produce a quality image can take hours. This is month one. Everything is about to be disrupted. Even the big tech companies. This is the biggest singular moment of Innovator's Dilemma in human history.
- enord 4y ago
  Ok captain cocksure, this being month one: What was practitioners in the field of computer generated art able to do in month minus one, how has this changed subtstantively, and do they offer any experience, criticism or understanding of the practice that might still apply? If not, which and why? I’m as bedazzled by the blinkenlichten of prompts and generated images as the next guy, but I must confess I don’t have the foggiest what those guys were (and probably still are) doing before Dall-E. If the needle really is bending against the post I would take their word for it.

0xa2 4y ago

It is disruptive but only to one type of art - flat. So yes, since we are in front of screens most of the time flat will disrupt some. But art is more than that.

morisy 4y ago
For a while, there's been a few ML based tools that have been given flat images and generated 3D renders: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7j4f6U7FJ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7j4f6U7FJ4 I think that machine learning models will quickly hit some walls that feel unintuitive due to a lack of training data, but I also wouldn't want to bet on which ones.

evrydayhustling 4y ago

OP characterizes the disruption as "unbundling idea creation from substantiation". In the modern art world, this actually happened a long time ago! Warhol made famous the ancient notion that popular artisans could have their work produced by an army of assistants, rather than making it themselves, which allowed artists to focus on concept (and marketing). Digital technology has already accelerated this process a lot, allowing artists to communicate prototypes efficiently and supervise implementations of their work on the other side of the world. What's new is how AI makes this dirt cheap and accessible, not just folks who can earn the admiration of assistants. People are focused on the plight of the artist-creator, but I also wonder what will happen to the legions of substantiators already out there in the world.

SilasX 4y ago

> Uber was hard on the taxi industry, but fundamentally you still have drivers taking people from A to B. First you had to call the cab company now you use an app. It's an improvement, but not truly disruptive. Not like level 5 self-driving cars would be. >Amazon and Walmart by contrast did disrupt entire industries. Independent book shops and mom&pop retailers saw the writing on the wall. They knew they couldn't survive facing this kind of competition, and largely, they didn't. Sorry, I’m still not seeing the distinction you’re making between these cases. You say that with Uber, it makes no difference because there are still drivers going from “point A to B” (a pickup to a destination), but it was a huge difference with Walmart because small shops “saw the writing on the wall”. But … in both cases you have the same service still being provided (rides and retailing) and the unprofitability of smaller providers (small shops vs taxicab companies). If there is a difference between the two, could you highlight it clearly and in plain language?

evancoop 4y ago

Why does this simply threaten artists? At what point is code a type of creative expression? When are the IDEA for a novel technology and the chops to implement equally viable applications of AI? Artists are losing today, but why are they in any way more vulnerable? They just seem to be next on the chopping block.

lofaszvanitt 4y ago

Oh, when you are required to use implants to do your job... and you don't want to, because you think your body is sacred and those implants must be returned at the end of your job... well then you are disrupted. "There will be backlash"

nullc 4y ago

> People will insist that SD art isn't real art. For 99.999% of art that is commercially relevant no one cares if it's "real" or not. The problem here isn't necessarily that these tools change the story for "real" art, it's that they change the story for _commercially relevant_ art which has always tended towards uninspired and formulaic. There are a lot of artists that have hobbies in art they consider meaningful while making a living with commercial art that can be software-displaced.

psadri 4y ago

> This is good for society but bad for many individual artists. If something affects a large group of individuals, it will eventually have an impact on society as well.

bergenty 4y ago

People will be incapable of distinguishing AI art from the “real” thing. Or people will just start claiming AI generated art as their own human made creations. The lines will become indistinguishable.