3 ms·
I’m skeptical that Al will replace artists. The existence of computer chess and go, though superior in every way, has not killed interest in human competition.
by chongli 4y ago
I’m skeptical that Al will replace artists. The existence of computer chess and go, though superior in every way, has not killed interest in human competition. I see no reason we couldn’t have the same thing happen with art: people see AI art as a novelty and something worth studying but otherwise preferring human art for its relevance to the human condition.
- 0xrisk 4y agoI agree. It was telling that in what I perceived to the non story of the midjourney created image winning the county art fair, many of the other prizes were for activities that machines have been better at than humans for decades. Fruit canning. Furniture construction. The replacement narrative is overblown, but these tools are going to augment human artists considerably.
- kaibee 4y agoThe problem is that competition in chess, in games, has always been for the sake of the game itself and the fun in playing it. 'game playing' is its own reward, there is no other entity interested in paying for results of chess games, even 'interesting' chess games. If there was, you could setup instances of Stockfish to play against each other and dominate that market. This is not true of the artist market. While yes, many artists get into it for the fun/satisfaction of producing their own artworks, the reason that they can remain in it long term is that there are other entities in paying for the results of their work. See: game studios, film studios, etc. Before AI, the only way to get the assets for these various projects produced was by paying artists/experts for their work. Now, the production of those building blocks can be automated.