3 ms·

Am I facetious for saying that you'd simply buy it? Artists will become style makers.

kodah 4y ago
That's the trajectory if we stay on this path. Artists would essentially become AI power users. The question upstream of that is, do you think this is a good path? Personally, I think AI has done about as much as crypto, maybe even less. I can't think of a single use of AI that I couldn't do without.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  AI image recognition is widely in use for real products today. I use it pretty regularly to identify plants. Have even used it a few times to identify electrical or mechanical parts.
  - kodah 4y ago
    I use it for that too, I said things I couldn't do without.
    - Gigachad 4y ago
      Considering you can move to the middle of the jungle and survive with sticks and stones, that covers essentially everything.
      - kodah 4y ago
        Loads of insight from a dude named Gigachad. Colour me surprised.
Applejinx 4y ago
Not at all. I'm no great artist but I did about 440 episodes of a webcomic some years ago. That's hundreds of times what I'd need to train an AI on that style. Now consider if I'd made that, trained the AI, and then DID NOT SHARE IT. Suddenly, I've got an AI thing that other people don't have (not directly, they can eventually have a second-order knockoff of it) made to express an intention that knockoffs won't have. So I'd have both the story to tell (hence the original training set) and the means to automate the creation of it. You've already got artists/technicians making things like Clip Studio brushes, things that transform a stroke into a very different style or dump scatterings of clip art for texture. This is literally the same thing only way more sophisticated. Just because you have a 'foliage brush' doesn't mean you can draw a woodland scene, it just makes the texture rendering trivial. Just because you can type 'woodland scene' doesn't make it a SCENE, it just makes the image rendering trivial. Does it serve a story purpose? What does the imagery do, beyond just existing? The mere existence of 'imagery in X style' is rapidly going to become really boring. Once 'an image can look like anything at all' becomes commonplace, to be impressed by that will be about as sophisticated as being impressed that plastic is shiny. It becomes all about 'what did you do with it?' and that is where artists come in.

That's the trajectory if we stay on this path. Artists would essentially become AI power users. The question upstream of that is, do you think this is a good path? Personally, I think AI has done about as much as crypto, maybe even less. I can't think of a single use of AI that I couldn't do without.

Gigachad 4y ago
AI image recognition is widely in use for real products today. I use it pretty regularly to identify plants. Have even used it a few times to identify electrical or mechanical parts.
- kodah 4y ago
  I use it for that too, I said things I couldn't do without.
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    Considering you can move to the middle of the jungle and survive with sticks and stones, that covers essentially everything.
    - kodah 4y ago
      Loads of insight from a dude named Gigachad. Colour me surprised.

Applejinx 4y ago

Not at all. I'm no great artist but I did about 440 episodes of a webcomic some years ago. That's hundreds of times what I'd need to train an AI on that style. Now consider if I'd made that, trained the AI, and then DID NOT SHARE IT. Suddenly, I've got an AI thing that other people don't have (not directly, they can eventually have a second-order knockoff of it) made to express an intention that knockoffs won't have. So I'd have both the story to tell (hence the original training set) and the means to automate the creation of it. You've already got artists/technicians making things like Clip Studio brushes, things that transform a stroke into a very different style or dump scatterings of clip art for texture. This is literally the same thing only way more sophisticated. Just because you have a 'foliage brush' doesn't mean you can draw a woodland scene, it just makes the texture rendering trivial. Just because you can type 'woodland scene' doesn't make it a SCENE, it just makes the image rendering trivial. Does it serve a story purpose? What does the imagery do, beyond just existing? The mere existence of 'imagery in X style' is rapidly going to become really boring. Once 'an image can look like anything at all' becomes commonplace, to be impressed by that will be about as sophisticated as being impressed that plastic is shiny. It becomes all about 'what did you do with it?' and that is where artists come in.