6 ms·

I don't know why we keep framing artists like they're textile workers or machinists. The whole point of art is human expression. The idea that artists can be "

I don't know why we keep framing artists like they're textile workers or machinists. The whole point of art is human expression. The idea that artists can be "automated away" is just sad and disgusting and the amount of people who want art but don't want to pay the artist is astounding. Why are we so eager to rid ourselves of what makes us human to save a buck? This isn't innovation, its self destruction.

hunter2_ 4y ago
> The whole point of art is human expression. For someone seeking sound/imagery/etc. resulting from human expression (i.e., art), it makes sense that it can't be automated away. For someone seeking sound/imagery/etc. without caring whether it's the result of human expression (e.g., AI artifacts that aren't art), it can be automated away.
BoiledCabbage 4y ago
Because when people discuss "art" they are really discussing two things. Static 2D images that usually serve a commercial purpose. Ex logos, clip art, game sprites, web page design and the like. And the second is pure art whose purpose is more for the enjoyment of the creator or the viewer. Business wants to fully automate the first case and must people view it has nothing to do with the essence of humanity. It's simply dollars for products - but it's also one of the very few ways that artists can actually have paying careers for their skills. The second will still exist, although almost nobody in the world can pay bills off of it. And I wouldn't be shocked it ML models start encroaching there as well. So a lot of what's being referred to is more like textile workers. And anyone who can type a few sentences can now make "art" significantly lowering barriers to entry. Maybe a designer comes and touches it up. The short sighted part, is people thinking that this will somehow stay specific to Art and that their cherished field is immune. Programming will soon follow. Any PM "soon enough" will be able to write text to generate a fully working app. And maybe a coder comes in to touch it up.
lolinder 4y ago
Most art consumed today isn't about human expression, and it hasn't been for a very long time. Most art is produced for commercial reasons with the intent of making as much profit as possible. Art-as-human-expression isn't going anywhere because it's intrinsically motivated. It's what people do because they love doing it. Just like people still do woodworking even though it's cheaper to buy a chair from Walmart, people will still paint and draw. What is going to go away is design work for low-end advertising agencies or for publishers of cheap novels or any of the other dozens of jobs that were never bastions of human creativity to begin with.
- PhasmaFelis 4y ago
  I think fine artists and others who make and sell individual art pieces for a living will probably be fine, yeah. (Or at least won't be struggling much worse than they are already.) There are a lot of working commercial artists in between the fine art world and the "cheap novels and low-end advertising agencies" you dismiss, and there's no reason to think AI art won't eat a lot of their employment.
  - archontes 4y ago
    Of course it will. Their employment isn't sacred. They have a skill, we're teaching that skill to computers, and their skill will be worth less. I don't pay someone to run calculations for me, either, also a difficult and sometimes creative process. I use a computer. And when the computer can't, then I either employ my creativity, or hire a creative.
    - PhasmaFelis 4y ago
      Okay, but that's a different argument from your original. First you said "only bad artists will lose their jobs," now it's "good artists will lose their jobs but I don't care."
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - lolinder 4y ago
        It's a different person. I'm the person you first replied to, and I don't believe good artists will lose their jobs. This was my reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34005604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34005604 I also agree that artist employment isn't sacred, but after extensive use of the generation tools I don't see them replacing anything but the lowest end of the industry, where they just need something to fill a space. The tools can give you something that matches a prompt, but they're only really good if you don't have strong opinions about details, which most middle tier customers will.
eikenberry 4y ago
The idea that artists can be automated away is really just kind of dumb, not because people like AI created art and can get it cheap, but because it has no real impact on the "whole point" of the art... for the creation of the art. Pure art, as human expression, has no dependency on money. Anecdotally I very much enjoy painting and music (and coding) as art forms but have never sold a painting nor a song in my life. Just because someone won't pay you for something doesn't mean it has no value. As far as money goes... long run artists will still make money fine as people will value the people generated (artisanal) works. Just as people like hand-made stuff today, even though you can get machine-made stuff way cheaper. You may not have the generic jobs of cranking out stuff for advertisements (and such) but you'll still have artists.
- krapp 4y ago
  The conversation isn't about you or your hobby, it's about professional artists and illustrators, who are already being automated away by AI.
  - astrange 4y ago
    Professional artists have no chance of being automated away. They need all the productivity tools they can get. The ones at risk (and complaining the most) are semipro online artists who sell one image at a time, like fanart commissions.
    - krapp 4y ago
      I follow plenty of artists on Elon's hellsite and professional artists of all stripes are upset about it. Jobs are already disappearing, being replaced entirely by AI and "prompt engineers" or people just using AI to copy someone's style for their portfolio. Granted, it isn't endemic yet, but the big Indiana Jones stone ball of progress is definitely rolling in that direction.
  - eikenberry 4y ago
    That is not what the post I was responding to was about, it was about the art as human expression. Nothing was said about it as a profession and making money creating art makes zero difference as to the worth of the art.
soerxpso 4y ago
You're defining the word "art" in one sentence and then using a completely different definition in the next sentence. Where are these people who want art, as you've defined it, but don't want to pay? Most of the people you're referring to want visual representations of their fursonas, or D&D characters, or want marketing material for their product. They're not trying to get human expression. In the sense that art is a 2D visual representation of something, or a marketing tool that evokes a biological response in the viewer, art is easy to automate away. This is no different than when the camera replaced portraitists. We've just invented a camera that shows us things that don't exist. In the sense that art is human expression, nobody has even tried to automate that yet and I've seen no evidence that expressionary artists are threatened.
- noobermin 4y ago
  It's ironic seeing your earlier comment on chatgpt coding and then this. If anything is easier to automate, it's programming which can be rigorous and have rules while art really isn't, it's only "easy" for those who don't understand it, which is what the person is actually talking about. You're in for a rude awakening when you get laid off and replaced with a bot that creates garbage code that is slow and buggy but works and so the boss gets to save on your salary. "But it's slow, redundant, looks like it was made by some who just copy and pasted endlessly from stackoverflow" but your boss won't care, he just needs to make a buck.
melagonster 4y ago
Is not programming a type of art? what is type of it is debatable theme in many years.

hunter2_ 4y ago

> The whole point of art is human expression. For someone seeking sound/imagery/etc. resulting from human expression (i.e., art), it makes sense that it can't be automated away. For someone seeking sound/imagery/etc. without caring whether it's the result of human expression (e.g., AI artifacts that aren't art), it can be automated away.

BoiledCabbage 4y ago

Because when people discuss "art" they are really discussing two things. Static 2D images that usually serve a commercial purpose. Ex logos, clip art, game sprites, web page design and the like. And the second is pure art whose purpose is more for the enjoyment of the creator or the viewer. Business wants to fully automate the first case and must people view it has nothing to do with the essence of humanity. It's simply dollars for products - but it's also one of the very few ways that artists can actually have paying careers for their skills. The second will still exist, although almost nobody in the world can pay bills off of it. And I wouldn't be shocked it ML models start encroaching there as well. So a lot of what's being referred to is more like textile workers. And anyone who can type a few sentences can now make "art" significantly lowering barriers to entry. Maybe a designer comes and touches it up. The short sighted part, is people thinking that this will somehow stay specific to Art and that their cherished field is immune. Programming will soon follow. Any PM "soon enough" will be able to write text to generate a fully working app. And maybe a coder comes in to touch it up.

lolinder 4y ago

Most art consumed today isn't about human expression, and it hasn't been for a very long time. Most art is produced for commercial reasons with the intent of making as much profit as possible. Art-as-human-expression isn't going anywhere because it's intrinsically motivated. It's what people do because they love doing it. Just like people still do woodworking even though it's cheaper to buy a chair from Walmart, people will still paint and draw. What is going to go away is design work for low-end advertising agencies or for publishers of cheap novels or any of the other dozens of jobs that were never bastions of human creativity to begin with.

PhasmaFelis 4y ago
I think fine artists and others who make and sell individual art pieces for a living will probably be fine, yeah. (Or at least won't be struggling much worse than they are already.) There are a lot of working commercial artists in between the fine art world and the "cheap novels and low-end advertising agencies" you dismiss, and there's no reason to think AI art won't eat a lot of their employment.
- archontes 4y ago
  Of course it will. Their employment isn't sacred. They have a skill, we're teaching that skill to computers, and their skill will be worth less. I don't pay someone to run calculations for me, either, also a difficult and sometimes creative process. I use a computer. And when the computer can't, then I either employ my creativity, or hire a creative.
  - PhasmaFelis 4y ago
    Okay, but that's a different argument from your original. First you said "only bad artists will lose their jobs," now it's "good artists will lose their jobs but I don't care."
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - lolinder 4y ago
      It's a different person. I'm the person you first replied to, and I don't believe good artists will lose their jobs. This was my reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34005604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34005604 I also agree that artist employment isn't sacred, but after extensive use of the generation tools I don't see them replacing anything but the lowest end of the industry, where they just need something to fill a space. The tools can give you something that matches a prompt, but they're only really good if you don't have strong opinions about details, which most middle tier customers will.

eikenberry 4y ago

The idea that artists can be automated away is really just kind of dumb, not because people like AI created art and can get it cheap, but because it has no real impact on the "whole point" of the art... for the creation of the art. Pure art, as human expression, has no dependency on money. Anecdotally I very much enjoy painting and music (and coding) as art forms but have never sold a painting nor a song in my life. Just because someone won't pay you for something doesn't mean it has no value. As far as money goes... long run artists will still make money fine as people will value the people generated (artisanal) works. Just as people like hand-made stuff today, even though you can get machine-made stuff way cheaper. You may not have the generic jobs of cranking out stuff for advertisements (and such) but you'll still have artists.

krapp 4y ago
The conversation isn't about you or your hobby, it's about professional artists and illustrators, who are already being automated away by AI.
- astrange 4y ago
  Professional artists have no chance of being automated away. They need all the productivity tools they can get. The ones at risk (and complaining the most) are semipro online artists who sell one image at a time, like fanart commissions.
  - krapp 4y ago
    I follow plenty of artists on Elon's hellsite and professional artists of all stripes are upset about it. Jobs are already disappearing, being replaced entirely by AI and "prompt engineers" or people just using AI to copy someone's style for their portfolio. Granted, it isn't endemic yet, but the big Indiana Jones stone ball of progress is definitely rolling in that direction.
- eikenberry 4y ago
  That is not what the post I was responding to was about, it was about the art as human expression. Nothing was said about it as a profession and making money creating art makes zero difference as to the worth of the art.

soerxpso 4y ago

You're defining the word "art" in one sentence and then using a completely different definition in the next sentence. Where are these people who want art, as you've defined it, but don't want to pay? Most of the people you're referring to want visual representations of their fursonas, or D&D characters, or want marketing material for their product. They're not trying to get human expression. In the sense that art is a 2D visual representation of something, or a marketing tool that evokes a biological response in the viewer, art is easy to automate away. This is no different than when the camera replaced portraitists. We've just invented a camera that shows us things that don't exist. In the sense that art is human expression, nobody has even tried to automate that yet and I've seen no evidence that expressionary artists are threatened.

noobermin 4y ago
It's ironic seeing your earlier comment on chatgpt coding and then this. If anything is easier to automate, it's programming which can be rigorous and have rules while art really isn't, it's only "easy" for those who don't understand it, which is what the person is actually talking about. You're in for a rude awakening when you get laid off and replaced with a bot that creates garbage code that is slow and buggy but works and so the boss gets to save on your salary. "But it's slow, redundant, looks like it was made by some who just copy and pasted endlessly from stackoverflow" but your boss won't care, he just needs to make a buck.

melagonster 4y ago

Is not programming a type of art? what is type of it is debatable theme in many years.