6 ms·

I absolutely have seen it. A lot. It's dressed up as Luddism, more often expressed as "you shouldn't be able to have those results because I spent years honin

I absolutely have seen it. A lot. It's dressed up as Luddism, more often expressed as "you shouldn't be able to have those results because I spent years honing my craft" which may or may not be followed by "...and if we allow this, those years were wasted and I'm out of a job, along with millions of others".

TeMPOraL 4y ago
> It's dressed up as Luddism > "...and if we allow this, those years were wasted and I'm out of a job, along with millions of others" Given that the quoted part is highly likely to happen, and not just in art, I hope we're no longer considering "luddism" to be a pejorative.
- bawolff 4y ago
  Luddites were a real group, who really did lose their jobs to technical progress. So it seems fair. Technical progress does really require adaption sometimes. We don't criticize luddites because we think they were wrong about change being a real thing.
  - odessacubbage 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - jhbadger 4y ago
      Why would anyone have to articulate that? They are programs that allow people to make the pictures they have in their minds into a form that others can now look at. People who otherwise wouldn't be able to make these pictures before (because they were bad at drawing or whatever) now can. That's not "necessary" but then again nothing about art really is. It's just fun.
    - bawolff 4y ago
      Almost all technology is unnesaray. Who needs farming when you can hunt and gather?
      - zirgs 4y ago
        Our population is way too high for hunting & gathering to be sustainable. Modern farming tech is absolutely necessary to avoid widespread famine.
    - CamperBob2 4y ago
      If the generators are genuinely creative, then they are as necessary as any human artist. If the generators are not creative, then what's the problem?
  - regularfry 4y ago
    Yep. They were, broadly speaking, right in their predictions, and catastrophically terrible in aligning their tactics to their stated aims.
- fennecfoxy 4y ago
  If the preservation of industries is really that important, where are all the tears for horseback couriers? Hell, the entire horse industry, really. I wouldn't consider it a pejorative either because I don't see artists mobbing datacenters to smash A100 clusters with pitchforks.
fennecfoxy 4y ago
You are absolutely correct. The reaction from artists is sheer terror disguised as a dialogue about whether a machine can learn to make art by looking at other peoples' works just as another human would learn. I see it as a slow transition though; there's still plenty a human artist can offer over any current model even with a carefully curated prompt. But yes, eventually the whole industry will die down. Especially seeing as models can now generate sounds, 3d models, textures, natural placement of objects on a map, etc. Like everything we've invented a tool to help us do things faster and it will displace people. Tough to say whether it's right or wrong but it's what we've done all through history; move on from one technology to the next. I wonder if traditional artists complained/fretted when digital art/tablets were getting big, hmm.

TeMPOraL 4y ago

> It's dressed up as Luddism > "...and if we allow this, those years were wasted and I'm out of a job, along with millions of others" Given that the quoted part is highly likely to happen, and not just in art, I hope we're no longer considering "luddism" to be a pejorative.

bawolff 4y ago
Luddites were a real group, who really did lose their jobs to technical progress. So it seems fair. Technical progress does really require adaption sometimes. We don't criticize luddites because we think they were wrong about change being a real thing.
- odessacubbage 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - jhbadger 4y ago
    Why would anyone have to articulate that? They are programs that allow people to make the pictures they have in their minds into a form that others can now look at. People who otherwise wouldn't be able to make these pictures before (because they were bad at drawing or whatever) now can. That's not "necessary" but then again nothing about art really is. It's just fun.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    Almost all technology is unnesaray. Who needs farming when you can hunt and gather?
    - zirgs 4y ago
      Our population is way too high for hunting & gathering to be sustainable. Modern farming tech is absolutely necessary to avoid widespread famine.
  - CamperBob2 4y ago
    If the generators are genuinely creative, then they are as necessary as any human artist. If the generators are not creative, then what's the problem?
- regularfry 4y ago
  Yep. They were, broadly speaking, right in their predictions, and catastrophically terrible in aligning their tactics to their stated aims.
fennecfoxy 4y ago
If the preservation of industries is really that important, where are all the tears for horseback couriers? Hell, the entire horse industry, really. I wouldn't consider it a pejorative either because I don't see artists mobbing datacenters to smash A100 clusters with pitchforks.

fennecfoxy 4y ago

You are absolutely correct. The reaction from artists is sheer terror disguised as a dialogue about whether a machine can learn to make art by looking at other peoples' works just as another human would learn. I see it as a slow transition though; there's still plenty a human artist can offer over any current model even with a carefully curated prompt. But yes, eventually the whole industry will die down. Especially seeing as models can now generate sounds, 3d models, textures, natural placement of objects on a map, etc. Like everything we've invented a tool to help us do things faster and it will displace people. Tough to say whether it's right or wrong but it's what we've done all through history; move on from one technology to the next. I wonder if traditional artists complained/fretted when digital art/tablets were getting big, hmm.