31 ms·

When DALL-E 2 was released, I remember reading lots of people here in HN saying it would never take the jobs of artists. Well, seems like this argument is aging

When DALL-E 2 was released, I remember reading lots of people here in HN saying it would never take the jobs of artists. Well, seems like this argument is aging badly. This is exactly the type of conversation we need to have as a society. Instead of deluding ourselves that our skills are impossible to be reproduced by a machine, we should strive to build a system with values in which we can find a way to build a good live knowing that everything we do will eventually be better reproduced by AI.

thomascgalvin 4y ago
I just wish I was part of the first generation to benefit from post-scarcity, and not the generation that is going to have to go through the turmoil of getting to post-scarcity.
- thot_experiment 4y ago
  Oh don't worry my guy, the odds that we make it to post-scarcity at all are not super high. Just vibe with the slide down the slippery slope, it's all you can do.
- chii 4y ago
  the generation that went thru the industrial revolution would have said the same thing, except they'd wished they were in your position today. People just don't realize how good today is compared to the past - and of course, how good the future would be (nuclear war notwithstanding).
  - tspike 4y ago
    Any time this argument gets trotted out it's using a baseline of European post-agrarian feudalism. There were definitely peoples in the past who enjoyed a high quality of life for many generations, but they tended to be small groups concentrated in areas of abundance, and were usually among the first to be exterminated by outsiders.
  - borissk 4y ago
    The fact that the industrial revolution created better life for most people doesn't prove an AI revolution will do the same. The classical counter-example are horses - the industrial revolution increased the demand for horses, but once the cars became cheap horses numbers and jobs drastically decreased.
    - chii 4y ago
      But in this scenario, the horses had no agency to become anything else. I refuse to believe humans don't have agency.
      - TeMPOraL 4y ago
        Agency is only half of the equation. The other half is opportunity. With Industrial Revolution, horses had neither. With AI revolution, people may retain agency, but I doubt there will be many opportunities available.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- coffeebeqn 4y ago
  I guess we can get AGI and that will lead to great and numerous inventions. Of course how power works in that world is extremely uncertain. Most likely power would flow to a corporation or an authoritative government unfortunately. Not to the people.
ChatGTP 4y ago
Interesting development, these machines have little value but for economic gain. No one employed, means no one will pay to keep the machines alive which means we go back to where we were before the machines? AI art is just as “worthless” as human art. So at the moment these machines depend on an economy. Art was actually never worth anything until we put a price tag on it ? People were never paid for cave paintings. Maybe what we’re actually going to witness is the end of the idea of money , which I know sounds absolutely absurd, but what else happens ? If machines become sentiment, that’s cool, but at that stage they’re no longer “our property” to force art generation upon, so then what to do we do ? Completely fascinating.
- chii 4y ago
  > No one employed i highly doubt no one will be employed even in the advent of a true AI singularity. Just differently employed - there will be reasons why someone would pay for your labour.
  - ChatGTP 4y ago
    Yeah, my theory is there will just be more shit to do, more startups, more tech, more than ever before. More ways to scale your business, spend your free time, yada yada yada. Also most western countries have severely aging populations, there’s are big problem there which automation can help with, if it’s applied right.
- blackoil 4y ago
  Player does not care if graphics or code of the game are created by a person or AI. For them it matters how much fun they are having and for companies how low the cost are.
kodah 4y ago
AI won't take a thought workers job. It just sucks the life out of it. Like the person who wrote this post, I make bespoke software. I tinker, I experiment, and I produce high quality results in reasonable timelines. Executives could not give a shit about that, except that those qualities in me are a good signal that I am dependable. Now, if most companies allow AI bottom performers will speed up and their quality will likely slightly increase. As with most things, those on the top end of the spectrum will need to regress to the mean to compete. The result will be that mediocrity takes over because the AI will be in charge of the boilerplate, which is often the foundation for the rest of your code. You can either find enjoyment in the boilerplate being rote and finding places to spend your time in a higher level of abstraction or you can let what used to be your passion sail away like a little red balloon on a windy day.
- rafaelero 4y ago
  > AI won't take a thought workers job. I don't understand how you can hold this position considering not only where we are but also the rate of progress in AI. It has been taking thought workers job and it will increasingly do so in the future until the surplus cognitive workers offer is just so minimal that it's not worth to automate it.
  - kodah 4y ago
    What jobs have been totally replaced thus far?
    - fxtentacle 4y ago
      Didn't all major companies do mass-firings recently? What do you expect will happen if an entry-level software engineer becomes 2x as productive? You need 2x less, so you fire half the team.
      - spoiler 4y ago
        A smart company will realise it's better to be 2x productive for the same money than to be at the same productivity for half the money.
gwbrooks 4y ago
>> This is exactly the type of conversation we need to have as a society. Comments like this always make me wonder: How would that happen? Here in the U.S., there's relatively little appetite for job-saving labor protections and, once you leave the regulatory sphere, everyone -- employers, employees, consumers of products and services -- is consistently self-interested. Not saying that sort of societal conversation is impossible; just saying I don't have the imagination to see how it could happen with actionable results in the 2023 version of the U.S.
- jay_kyburz 4y ago
  I don't think the conversion we need to have is about how to stop it, its about what we do with all the unemployed artists, accountants, journalists, truck and taxi drivers. Do we pay half of them to dig holes, then pay the other half to fill them? We just need to keep the economy wheel turning while everybody finds new meaningful work.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    Who is "we"? The rich will decide, and probably that they can do without most of the "we".
    - Radim 4y ago
      I agree with that sentiment, just a small correction: It's not the rich who will decide; it's the powerful. In the classical sense of "capacity to impose will" – up to and including the capacity to turn off {machines, humans, institutions}. There's a strong correlation between wealth and power, but those groups are not identical. And neither are their staying prospects in the coming years.
      - Radim 4y ago
        On seconds thoughts, interestingly, that difference between "wealth" and "power" also becomes relevant when quantifying your "most" in They can do without MOST of the "we". Like, how many people do the wealthy/powerful actually need? What level of automation will allow maintaining their lifestyle, including: 1. Biological needs: Food & a sufficiently diverse pool of mates for themselves and their children. 2. A social hierarchy large enough to flex their power beyond mere biological survival (very important to primates). I'd expect this number to be strictly smaller than for 1), so likely not a concern: as long as there are enough people to biologically sustain a population, there are enough people to subjugate. 3. Technological scaffolding to produce, maintain and bootstrap (in case of calamities) said automation. Currently humans are a necessary physical substrate for the continued inflow of energy that automation needs. I don't have the numbers but the footprint to run even a single power plant must be tremendous: a large and complex society, once you include 2nd order effects. Without energy, the machines don't go "VRRROOM" and neither does AI. And if the human population drops too low to interfere with any of these points, the automation was self-defeating. It doesn't matter how rich or powerful you were. I mean, I'm sure someone somewhere ran the numbers and has a plan ready, while the rest of us wax lyrical about "just find a new job LOL" and UBI. Although to be fair, there are also preppers, who've taken the above analysis to its logical conclusion.
melagonster 4y ago
unfortunately, we have capitalism. in our society, if people and their kids starving and dying, we think this ia justice.
- ChatGTP 4y ago
  That’s because it’s a minority of people in that situation, once it’s > 50% facing prospects like that, it all changes in the blink of an eye. No one gives a crap until it’s your own child, then it’s probably too late.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Second sentence yes, first sentence… well, the potato famine comes to mind. Change happened, yes, but it's not necessarily fast even in such situations.
- xdennis 4y ago
  This is childish. People are starving more in non capitalist societies.
  - melagonster 4y ago
    yes, their kids are starving. but our kids will starve. this is our problem.
  - kentrado 4y ago
    I think the ones you are referring to are still capitalist as companies are owned by an elite "capitalist" and the workers have no say in their workplace.
orbital-decay 4y ago
It didn't take OP's job, though. It gave them another tool that produces better output, but which they don't happen to like (in contrast to their colleague who doesn't have issues with it).
- nirvdrum 4y ago
  It didn't take the job in the sense that the OP is still employed. It changed the job into something that barely resembles what the OP was hired to do. It's not quite constructive dismissal, but many people choose fields for reasons of maximizing income. It's hard to stay motivated doing something you hate, especially when a week ago your job had you doing something you love. And that says nothing about the OP's ethical quandry about IP laundering. I might be too cynical, but given the reported productivity gains, it's quite possible the company decides they can do with a single artist. Or if less skilled artists can generate similar results with suitable AI prompts, it'll probably drive wages down, making the OP expendable. I'd imagine at the very least it sets a ceiling on advancement.
  - orbital-decay 4y ago
    The reality is that an artist in a mobile games company is hired for their technical skills, with very little creative freedom. The real artist is usually the art director or a similar position responsible for stylistic/creative/conceptual decisions. If your job is mostly technical, be ready to re-learn and reshape your skills when your tool goes the way of cel animation. I personally had to do this at least three times in 25 years, not entirely from scratch of course, but I had to relearn the vast majority of my skills. And I think I'll need to do more of it to stay relevant. So to me it's pretty normal. The work of a creative professional is to deliver meaning. If you can't separate this from your tools and are only able to enjoy one specific tool, you have to question yourself what you're doing in the field. (yes, I'm also being too cynical)
    - anigbrowl 4y ago
      I personally had to do this at least three times in 25 years [...] So to me it's pretty normal Very relatable, but it seems unwise to just consider it normal. If you find yourself having to retool 3 times within 25 months, you'll be well on the way to burning out.
coldtea 4y ago
It's like how Dropbox would never replace running SFTP and rsync or something to that effect...
nomilk 4y ago
> This is exactly the type of conversation we need to have as a society. Jobs have been disappearing at a high rate for at least a couple of generations now, and have steadily been replaced with new ones, often high paying ones. We can't control which jobs are in high, low, and no demand, so we're best off swimming with the current, whichever way it flows. 1. Accept that professions come and go. 2. Expect jobs to disappear every decade or so and plan accordingly. 3. Look forward to an awesome new job after your current one is made obsolete. That goes for all of us.
- thorncorona 4y ago
  > 1. Accept that professions come and go. 2. Expect jobs to disappear every decade or so and plan accordingly. 3. Look forward to an awesome new job after your current one is made obsolete. That goes for all of us. What can we do? Hope to save enough to not go into more debt for a second degree? Hope that second degree isn’t obsoleted either? As AI becomes more advanced the minimum education and likely IQ required to even get a job that pays above minimum wage will increase. What are we gonna do about the ever increasing N+1% of people who won’t be cost effective versus an AI?
  - Turskarama 4y ago
    The solution is the same one we should have had from the start: take some of the responsibility from peoples careers off individuals and place it on society. As mentioned above, this has always been a problem it's just that now it's a problem for intellectual careers and not just laborers. Education (and re-education) should be at least affordable if not completely free. Unemployment benefits should be enough to live on (if not well) and be freely available to anyone getting an education. If that is "too expensive" then limit it to specific educations which are currently in short supply. And lastly, tax income from investments exactly the same as income from labour. This part is actually necessary because if automation is a future we actually want (and we should!) then this will increasingly become the _only_ form of income.
    - junofan 4y ago
HervalFreire 4y ago
>Well, seems like this argument is aging badly. This is a nice way of putting it. It just shows how people have a tendency to deny a reality that may replace everything they stand for. What you will see as AI continues to get better along the obvious trendline is these "denial" arguments become more and more specific. First the AI will "never" replace jobs, then it will "never" replace specific jobs involving "programming skills" or "skills related to what I do" until eventually when the reality of it all is too all encompassing the arguments will evolve into attacks at AI for being "low quality" or something along those lines. But if AI progresses to the point where the quality of the output becomes undeniably superior to human output the "denial" arguments will inevitably shift to the REAL argument. The heart of it all. What is the purpose of being alive if AI is doing everything? Should we ban it for the sake of the economy for purpose? These arguments of course only occur based off the assumption that the technology will progress so quickly that the repercussions will be hitting everyone like a freight train. If the progression slows down enough then there won't be much opposition. Only acceptance as it slowly assimilates into our society without people noticing the change. If you in your heart are one of these people who has no worry about AI taking over jobs because AI is simply too "stupid" perhaps consider the fact that my description above fits you. Are your arguments evolving along a similar trendline? If so, consider shifting your perspective a bit.
- elforce002 4y ago
  100x this. I think will see something like France but on a global scale.
- juvvel 4y ago
  Comments like this always read as "we can already extrapolate that everything we do will be done better by a machine soon". Pushing back against this argument isn't just ignorance or avoidance of change. It just asks the relevant question of whether we can be so sure that AI does everything "better". But how dare we challenge the hubris of tech bros, right?
  - HervalFreire 4y ago
    Naw there are many possible futures. There is nothing saying the trendline is absolute. However... The future predicted via extrapolation of a trendline is unfortunately more probable and more realistic then a future predicted via mistrust of AI. Artists have already formed lawsuits against companies that own LLMs, this one in the article already involves an artist complaining about his job being more or less replaced. You have to be next level delusional not to consider the extrapolation to programming.
rebuilder 4y ago
I still would argue against AI being able to do art better. There’s a line of thought that art is specifically meaningful because it’s humans thinking about things, but let’s leave that aside for now. Generative models are revealing how many jobs in e.g. entertainment are essentially mechanical, from management’s POV. So far, they’ve just happened to require an artist’s education to do well. Now, the craft part is going out the window, and artistic creativity, if it was ever required, is being pushed out of production roles. This is going to change the type of person who works in entertainment. I expect, while by technical metrics we will probably see quality stay the same or even improve while output increases, we’re also going to see a kind of McDonaldsification of entertainment, even more than we already see, because we’re pushing creative people out of the industry. TL;DR: Process matters. Art is notoriously difficult to manage and predict what will or will not be successful , in large part because it’s a classic greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts thing. Devalue the process, devalue the end product.
Zetobal 4y ago
He is not an artist he is an operator.
karmasimida 4y ago
It is NOT taking artists job in OP though. What happens is that it changes the job into something different.
- s__s 4y ago
  Yes, it changed his job in to something a 6th grader could do with little to no training. In other words, it’s now a meaningless, low-value job that won’t pay well.
- tekknik 4y ago
  There’s too many people in this thread claiming this. This artist did not lose their job, correct. This artist is currently underemployed. Most of us can predict the rate of AI improvement, and realize soon his job will be entirely replaced once they can bridge the gap. My wife and I were recently talking about hiring some artists to do some work for us. However with generative AI, we decided to instead have her do the work using the AI tools instead. The result, less artists hired. This is how it’s going to be from now on. The only hope is if humans find more opportunity with this power.
nec4b 4y ago
>> I remember reading lots of people here in HN saying it would never take the jobs of artists. Well, seems like this argument is aging badly. And yet nobody lost his job. He wasn't fired. He is unhappy because automation equalized the playing field and mediocre artists became good enough with the right tools. The technology enabled him and other artists to be more productive. It feels similar to the best ditch digger getting angry at the invention of excavator, because he doesn't stand out anymore.
- Laaas 4y ago
  They could fire him and only keep the other artist though. It's likely they have more capacity now than needed, which if they halve, they can spend more money on a good developer.
- cyrialize 4y ago
  He's also angry because now his job has completely changed. He enjoyed spending his time making 3D models. Now that expectations have shifted because of these tools he has to use them. He went from making things from scratch to writing prompts instead.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    Okay so? Back in the day people trained up for 2D art, and then suddenly not long after 3D graphics came around. Imagine working on Final Fantasy 6, and then being told you now have to do 3D art for Final Fantasy 7. Amazingly, despite 3D graphics, in the year 2023 there are now more employed 2D pixel artists than there were in the 90s. They are still making new games for the NES! So while I’m sad for this person’s loss of love for their current job, I’m sure they will be able to find work.
    - cyrialize 4y ago
      I understand where you're coming from. I don't think this person really fears losing their job. It's more that their current job, and probably all future ones, will be done in a way that they dislike. That is a valid complaint. There are probably some employed pixel artists that liked creating things pixel by pixel and are disliking the fact that their job is radically changing since these tools create an expectation for faster output. I apologize if I came across arguing with anyone. I just wanted to call out that to me - it doesn't seem like this person thinks they are going to lose their job. They did their job in a way that they really enjoyed. That's changed. Does that happen all the time in other industries? Yes. Is it valid to point out that this has happened before? Yes. Will this person be able to find work? Yes. This person is just expressing their frustration. With the way all these tools are progressing, I imagine we are going to be seeing posts like these more in the future.
Hoasi 4y ago
> When DALL-E 2 was released, I remember reading lots of people here in HN saying it would never take the jobs of artists. Well, seems like this argument is aging badly. And yet, the more I play with these image models, the less I worry they might replace all artists. Granted, it will commoditize some skills, such as photo bashing, mockups, and visual exploration. It is a "creative" tool in a way, in the sense that a prompt can give unexpected results, such as associations that were uncalled for. But as much as you can replace higher-paid video game concept artists, you'll still need people to operate these text-to-image tools. We are past the initial discovery days, where all the results look incredible, and even the public will grow more discerning. Artists can't ignore these tools. As tools for the individual, they can be a lever. As a full-time, corporate job? Not so much. That is to say, as a job, this is not different from many other bullshit jobs. Prompting all day long is as fun as filling boxes in Excel. That will probably attract a new crowd of less specialized workers, and artists will have no choice but to adapt. Digital artists could find new ways of expression using traditional art (a luxury), diversify, and engage in content creation. There are many alleys to confront pessimism, despair, and the fear of becoming obsolete. Artists thrive in adversity and uncertain situations because they are problem-solvers first. Imagination is their job. Photography made portrait artists redundant, but it didn't eliminate artists. It will change the nature of an artist's job and kill some of the joy in some cases, but it will trigger creative responses, too.

thomascgalvin 4y ago

I just wish I was part of the first generation to benefit from post-scarcity, and not the generation that is going to have to go through the turmoil of getting to post-scarcity.

thot_experiment 4y ago
Oh don't worry my guy, the odds that we make it to post-scarcity at all are not super high. Just vibe with the slide down the slippery slope, it's all you can do.
chii 4y ago
the generation that went thru the industrial revolution would have said the same thing, except they'd wished they were in your position today. People just don't realize how good today is compared to the past - and of course, how good the future would be (nuclear war notwithstanding).
- tspike 4y ago
  Any time this argument gets trotted out it's using a baseline of European post-agrarian feudalism. There were definitely peoples in the past who enjoyed a high quality of life for many generations, but they tended to be small groups concentrated in areas of abundance, and were usually among the first to be exterminated by outsiders.
- borissk 4y ago
  The fact that the industrial revolution created better life for most people doesn't prove an AI revolution will do the same. The classical counter-example are horses - the industrial revolution increased the demand for horses, but once the cars became cheap horses numbers and jobs drastically decreased.
  - chii 4y ago
    But in this scenario, the horses had no agency to become anything else. I refuse to believe humans don't have agency.
    - TeMPOraL 4y ago
      Agency is only half of the equation. The other half is opportunity. With Industrial Revolution, horses had neither. With AI revolution, people may retain agency, but I doubt there will be many opportunities available.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
coffeebeqn 4y ago
I guess we can get AGI and that will lead to great and numerous inventions. Of course how power works in that world is extremely uncertain. Most likely power would flow to a corporation or an authoritative government unfortunately. Not to the people.

ChatGTP 4y ago

Interesting development, these machines have little value but for economic gain. No one employed, means no one will pay to keep the machines alive which means we go back to where we were before the machines? AI art is just as “worthless” as human art. So at the moment these machines depend on an economy. Art was actually never worth anything until we put a price tag on it ? People were never paid for cave paintings. Maybe what we’re actually going to witness is the end of the idea of money , which I know sounds absolutely absurd, but what else happens ? If machines become sentiment, that’s cool, but at that stage they’re no longer “our property” to force art generation upon, so then what to do we do ? Completely fascinating.

chii 4y ago
> No one employed i highly doubt no one will be employed even in the advent of a true AI singularity. Just differently employed - there will be reasons why someone would pay for your labour.
- ChatGTP 4y ago
  Yeah, my theory is there will just be more shit to do, more startups, more tech, more than ever before. More ways to scale your business, spend your free time, yada yada yada. Also most western countries have severely aging populations, there’s are big problem there which automation can help with, if it’s applied right.
blackoil 4y ago
Player does not care if graphics or code of the game are created by a person or AI. For them it matters how much fun they are having and for companies how low the cost are.

kodah 4y ago

AI won't take a thought workers job. It just sucks the life out of it. Like the person who wrote this post, I make bespoke software. I tinker, I experiment, and I produce high quality results in reasonable timelines. Executives could not give a shit about that, except that those qualities in me are a good signal that I am dependable. Now, if most companies allow AI bottom performers will speed up and their quality will likely slightly increase. As with most things, those on the top end of the spectrum will need to regress to the mean to compete. The result will be that mediocrity takes over because the AI will be in charge of the boilerplate, which is often the foundation for the rest of your code. You can either find enjoyment in the boilerplate being rote and finding places to spend your time in a higher level of abstraction or you can let what used to be your passion sail away like a little red balloon on a windy day.

rafaelero 4y ago
> AI won't take a thought workers job. I don't understand how you can hold this position considering not only where we are but also the rate of progress in AI. It has been taking thought workers job and it will increasingly do so in the future until the surplus cognitive workers offer is just so minimal that it's not worth to automate it.
- kodah 4y ago
  What jobs have been totally replaced thus far?
  - fxtentacle 4y ago
    Didn't all major companies do mass-firings recently? What do you expect will happen if an entry-level software engineer becomes 2x as productive? You need 2x less, so you fire half the team.
    - spoiler 4y ago
      A smart company will realise it's better to be 2x productive for the same money than to be at the same productivity for half the money.

gwbrooks 4y ago

>> This is exactly the type of conversation we need to have as a society. Comments like this always make me wonder: How would that happen? Here in the U.S., there's relatively little appetite for job-saving labor protections and, once you leave the regulatory sphere, everyone -- employers, employees, consumers of products and services -- is consistently self-interested. Not saying that sort of societal conversation is impossible; just saying I don't have the imagination to see how it could happen with actionable results in the 2023 version of the U.S.

jay_kyburz 4y ago
I don't think the conversion we need to have is about how to stop it, its about what we do with all the unemployed artists, accountants, journalists, truck and taxi drivers. Do we pay half of them to dig holes, then pay the other half to fill them? We just need to keep the economy wheel turning while everybody finds new meaningful work.
- coldtea 4y ago
  Who is "we"? The rich will decide, and probably that they can do without most of the "we".
  - Radim 4y ago
    I agree with that sentiment, just a small correction: It's not the rich who will decide; it's the powerful. In the classical sense of "capacity to impose will" – up to and including the capacity to turn off {machines, humans, institutions}. There's a strong correlation between wealth and power, but those groups are not identical. And neither are their staying prospects in the coming years.
    - Radim 4y ago
      On seconds thoughts, interestingly, that difference between "wealth" and "power" also becomes relevant when quantifying your "most" in They can do without MOST of the "we". Like, how many people do the wealthy/powerful actually need? What level of automation will allow maintaining their lifestyle, including: 1. Biological needs: Food & a sufficiently diverse pool of mates for themselves and their children. 2. A social hierarchy large enough to flex their power beyond mere biological survival (very important to primates). I'd expect this number to be strictly smaller than for 1), so likely not a concern: as long as there are enough people to biologically sustain a population, there are enough people to subjugate. 3. Technological scaffolding to produce, maintain and bootstrap (in case of calamities) said automation. Currently humans are a necessary physical substrate for the continued inflow of energy that automation needs. I don't have the numbers but the footprint to run even a single power plant must be tremendous: a large and complex society, once you include 2nd order effects. Without energy, the machines don't go "VRRROOM" and neither does AI. And if the human population drops too low to interfere with any of these points, the automation was self-defeating. It doesn't matter how rich or powerful you were. I mean, I'm sure someone somewhere ran the numbers and has a plan ready, while the rest of us wax lyrical about "just find a new job LOL" and UBI. Although to be fair, there are also preppers, who've taken the above analysis to its logical conclusion.

melagonster 4y ago

unfortunately, we have capitalism. in our society, if people and their kids starving and dying, we think this ia justice.

ChatGTP 4y ago
That’s because it’s a minority of people in that situation, once it’s > 50% facing prospects like that, it all changes in the blink of an eye. No one gives a crap until it’s your own child, then it’s probably too late.
- ben_w 4y ago
  Second sentence yes, first sentence… well, the potato famine comes to mind. Change happened, yes, but it's not necessarily fast even in such situations.
xdennis 4y ago
This is childish. People are starving more in non capitalist societies.
- melagonster 4y ago
  yes, their kids are starving. but our kids will starve. this is our problem.
- kentrado 4y ago
  I think the ones you are referring to are still capitalist as companies are owned by an elite "capitalist" and the workers have no say in their workplace.

orbital-decay 4y ago

It didn't take OP's job, though. It gave them another tool that produces better output, but which they don't happen to like (in contrast to their colleague who doesn't have issues with it).

nirvdrum 4y ago
It didn't take the job in the sense that the OP is still employed. It changed the job into something that barely resembles what the OP was hired to do. It's not quite constructive dismissal, but many people choose fields for reasons of maximizing income. It's hard to stay motivated doing something you hate, especially when a week ago your job had you doing something you love. And that says nothing about the OP's ethical quandry about IP laundering. I might be too cynical, but given the reported productivity gains, it's quite possible the company decides they can do with a single artist. Or if less skilled artists can generate similar results with suitable AI prompts, it'll probably drive wages down, making the OP expendable. I'd imagine at the very least it sets a ceiling on advancement.
- orbital-decay 4y ago
  The reality is that an artist in a mobile games company is hired for their technical skills, with very little creative freedom. The real artist is usually the art director or a similar position responsible for stylistic/creative/conceptual decisions. If your job is mostly technical, be ready to re-learn and reshape your skills when your tool goes the way of cel animation. I personally had to do this at least three times in 25 years, not entirely from scratch of course, but I had to relearn the vast majority of my skills. And I think I'll need to do more of it to stay relevant. So to me it's pretty normal. The work of a creative professional is to deliver meaning. If you can't separate this from your tools and are only able to enjoy one specific tool, you have to question yourself what you're doing in the field. (yes, I'm also being too cynical)
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    I personally had to do this at least three times in 25 years [...] So to me it's pretty normal Very relatable, but it seems unwise to just consider it normal. If you find yourself having to retool 3 times within 25 months, you'll be well on the way to burning out.

coldtea 4y ago

It's like how Dropbox would never replace running SFTP and rsync or something to that effect...

nomilk 4y ago

> This is exactly the type of conversation we need to have as a society. Jobs have been disappearing at a high rate for at least a couple of generations now, and have steadily been replaced with new ones, often high paying ones. We can't control which jobs are in high, low, and no demand, so we're best off swimming with the current, whichever way it flows. 1. Accept that professions come and go. 2. Expect jobs to disappear every decade or so and plan accordingly. 3. Look forward to an awesome new job after your current one is made obsolete. That goes for all of us.

thorncorona 4y ago
> 1. Accept that professions come and go. 2. Expect jobs to disappear every decade or so and plan accordingly. 3. Look forward to an awesome new job after your current one is made obsolete. That goes for all of us. What can we do? Hope to save enough to not go into more debt for a second degree? Hope that second degree isn’t obsoleted either? As AI becomes more advanced the minimum education and likely IQ required to even get a job that pays above minimum wage will increase. What are we gonna do about the ever increasing N+1% of people who won’t be cost effective versus an AI?
- Turskarama 4y ago
  The solution is the same one we should have had from the start: take some of the responsibility from peoples careers off individuals and place it on society. As mentioned above, this has always been a problem it's just that now it's a problem for intellectual careers and not just laborers. Education (and re-education) should be at least affordable if not completely free. Unemployment benefits should be enough to live on (if not well) and be freely available to anyone getting an education. If that is "too expensive" then limit it to specific educations which are currently in short supply. And lastly, tax income from investments exactly the same as income from labour. This part is actually necessary because if automation is a future we actually want (and we should!) then this will increasingly become the _only_ form of income.
  - junofan 4y ago

HervalFreire 4y ago

>Well, seems like this argument is aging badly. This is a nice way of putting it. It just shows how people have a tendency to deny a reality that may replace everything they stand for. What you will see as AI continues to get better along the obvious trendline is these "denial" arguments become more and more specific. First the AI will "never" replace jobs, then it will "never" replace specific jobs involving "programming skills" or "skills related to what I do" until eventually when the reality of it all is too all encompassing the arguments will evolve into attacks at AI for being "low quality" or something along those lines. But if AI progresses to the point where the quality of the output becomes undeniably superior to human output the "denial" arguments will inevitably shift to the REAL argument. The heart of it all. What is the purpose of being alive if AI is doing everything? Should we ban it for the sake of the economy for purpose? These arguments of course only occur based off the assumption that the technology will progress so quickly that the repercussions will be hitting everyone like a freight train. If the progression slows down enough then there won't be much opposition. Only acceptance as it slowly assimilates into our society without people noticing the change. If you in your heart are one of these people who has no worry about AI taking over jobs because AI is simply too "stupid" perhaps consider the fact that my description above fits you. Are your arguments evolving along a similar trendline? If so, consider shifting your perspective a bit.

elforce002 4y ago
100x this. I think will see something like France but on a global scale.
juvvel 4y ago
Comments like this always read as "we can already extrapolate that everything we do will be done better by a machine soon". Pushing back against this argument isn't just ignorance or avoidance of change. It just asks the relevant question of whether we can be so sure that AI does everything "better". But how dare we challenge the hubris of tech bros, right?
- HervalFreire 4y ago
  Naw there are many possible futures. There is nothing saying the trendline is absolute. However... The future predicted via extrapolation of a trendline is unfortunately more probable and more realistic then a future predicted via mistrust of AI. Artists have already formed lawsuits against companies that own LLMs, this one in the article already involves an artist complaining about his job being more or less replaced. You have to be next level delusional not to consider the extrapolation to programming.

rebuilder 4y ago

I still would argue against AI being able to do art better. There’s a line of thought that art is specifically meaningful because it’s humans thinking about things, but let’s leave that aside for now. Generative models are revealing how many jobs in e.g. entertainment are essentially mechanical, from management’s POV. So far, they’ve just happened to require an artist’s education to do well. Now, the craft part is going out the window, and artistic creativity, if it was ever required, is being pushed out of production roles. This is going to change the type of person who works in entertainment. I expect, while by technical metrics we will probably see quality stay the same or even improve while output increases, we’re also going to see a kind of McDonaldsification of entertainment, even more than we already see, because we’re pushing creative people out of the industry. TL;DR: Process matters. Art is notoriously difficult to manage and predict what will or will not be successful , in large part because it’s a classic greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts thing. Devalue the process, devalue the end product.

Zetobal 4y ago

He is not an artist he is an operator.

karmasimida 4y ago

It is NOT taking artists job in OP though. What happens is that it changes the job into something different.

s__s 4y ago
Yes, it changed his job in to something a 6th grader could do with little to no training. In other words, it’s now a meaningless, low-value job that won’t pay well.
tekknik 4y ago
There’s too many people in this thread claiming this. This artist did not lose their job, correct. This artist is currently underemployed. Most of us can predict the rate of AI improvement, and realize soon his job will be entirely replaced once they can bridge the gap. My wife and I were recently talking about hiring some artists to do some work for us. However with generative AI, we decided to instead have her do the work using the AI tools instead. The result, less artists hired. This is how it’s going to be from now on. The only hope is if humans find more opportunity with this power.

nec4b 4y ago

>> I remember reading lots of people here in HN saying it would never take the jobs of artists. Well, seems like this argument is aging badly. And yet nobody lost his job. He wasn't fired. He is unhappy because automation equalized the playing field and mediocre artists became good enough with the right tools. The technology enabled him and other artists to be more productive. It feels similar to the best ditch digger getting angry at the invention of excavator, because he doesn't stand out anymore.

Laaas 4y ago
They could fire him and only keep the other artist though. It's likely they have more capacity now than needed, which if they halve, they can spend more money on a good developer.
cyrialize 4y ago
He's also angry because now his job has completely changed. He enjoyed spending his time making 3D models. Now that expectations have shifted because of these tools he has to use them. He went from making things from scratch to writing prompts instead.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  Okay so? Back in the day people trained up for 2D art, and then suddenly not long after 3D graphics came around. Imagine working on Final Fantasy 6, and then being told you now have to do 3D art for Final Fantasy 7. Amazingly, despite 3D graphics, in the year 2023 there are now more employed 2D pixel artists than there were in the 90s. They are still making new games for the NES! So while I’m sad for this person’s loss of love for their current job, I’m sure they will be able to find work.
  - cyrialize 4y ago
    I understand where you're coming from. I don't think this person really fears losing their job. It's more that their current job, and probably all future ones, will be done in a way that they dislike. That is a valid complaint. There are probably some employed pixel artists that liked creating things pixel by pixel and are disliking the fact that their job is radically changing since these tools create an expectation for faster output. I apologize if I came across arguing with anyone. I just wanted to call out that to me - it doesn't seem like this person thinks they are going to lose their job. They did their job in a way that they really enjoyed. That's changed. Does that happen all the time in other industries? Yes. Is it valid to point out that this has happened before? Yes. Will this person be able to find work? Yes. This person is just expressing their frustration. With the way all these tools are progressing, I imagine we are going to be seeing posts like these more in the future.

Hoasi 4y ago

> When DALL-E 2 was released, I remember reading lots of people here in HN saying it would never take the jobs of artists. Well, seems like this argument is aging badly. And yet, the more I play with these image models, the less I worry they might replace all artists. Granted, it will commoditize some skills, such as photo bashing, mockups, and visual exploration. It is a "creative" tool in a way, in the sense that a prompt can give unexpected results, such as associations that were uncalled for. But as much as you can replace higher-paid video game concept artists, you'll still need people to operate these text-to-image tools. We are past the initial discovery days, where all the results look incredible, and even the public will grow more discerning. Artists can't ignore these tools. As tools for the individual, they can be a lever. As a full-time, corporate job? Not so much. That is to say, as a job, this is not different from many other bullshit jobs. Prompting all day long is as fun as filling boxes in Excel. That will probably attract a new crowd of less specialized workers, and artists will have no choice but to adapt. Digital artists could find new ways of expression using traditional art (a luxury), diversify, and engage in content creation. There are many alleys to confront pessimism, despair, and the fear of becoming obsolete. Artists thrive in adversity and uncertain situations because they are problem-solvers first. Imagination is their job. Photography made portrait artists redundant, but it didn't eliminate artists. It will change the nature of an artist's job and kill some of the joy in some cases, but it will trigger creative responses, too.