6 ms·

The problem with the AI generated images is that it's abundant and anything abundant doesn't have a market value. So, if an artist's work makes 100$ per work a

by mrtksn 3y ago

The problem with the AI generated images is that it's abundant and anything abundant doesn't have a market value. So, if an artist's work makes 100$ per work an AI system which can generate the same quality work but 1,000,000 pieces a day this won't end up the AI system generating 100 million dollars a day. It will simply rise the bar for artists instead. Which is a good thing for the society as a whole because the baseline will be very good and the work of the talented artists will be highly valued. Adobe can eat the market of mediocre artists if they are the only one with this technology so they can control the output rate and create artificial scarcity. They are not the only one with this technology.

hef19898 3y ago
Either AI created graphics arrived to late for the NFT craze, or they arrived in time to give them a second spring. Being serious so, human art is what it is because it requires effort. AI art doesn't require nearly as much, is generic and abundant. In short, boring.
- web007 3y ago
  Effort is not a measure of quality or value in art. Remember: Duct tape + banana + wall + 3 minutes = incredibly valuable and controversial art. Me taking a year to paint a detailed depiction of a bowl of fruit = worthless, terrible art. Results are what people care about, not effort.
  - waboremo 3y ago
    Your examples contradict your ending statement. If results are what people care about, neither of those would have value.
    - ljf 3y ago
      People cared a lot: https://www.gq.com/story/suddenly-the-koons-is-this-100k-banana https://www.gq.com/story/suddenly-the-koons-is-this-100k-ban...
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  There's so many places where you don't need "real" human touched art but you could do with stylized custom images. Midjourney and friends make it a million times harder to make a living doing small time commissioned art, stuff like dungeons and dragons character and world art, furry commissions and smut, and hobby art in general.
numpad0 3y ago
I think the incoming popularity of generative AI won’t simply raise the bar, but at first devalue itself, then make AI generations irrecognizable. The public will start to fail to recognize an art is there, when human discretion is not found. There is a sci-fi prediction that humans would eventually reduce to a thing with an eye and a finger that only presses a button, and machines would do the rest; I take it as an optimistic view that it means humans remain relevant, and that human values only come from humans.
krapp 3y ago
The problem with AI generated images, in this context, is that they can be used to imitate the style of specific artists, meaning any unique talent and vision those artists have no longer has market value. The scenario you describe isn't actually a business model anyone is following, except maybe morons shitting AI porn onto instagram and trying to flog their patreons. Obviously AI generated art has market value to companies with creative staff because AI is designed to devalue and commoditize the work of actual artists, such that the work of all artists can be replicated by someone on Mechanical Turk writing prompts for pennies a day (or some equivelent low-wage plebian drone.) AI has already been used to steal commissions from working artists, and companies are already firing their entire creative teams to lean entirely into AI generation. The better the technology gets, the worse the situation gets for working artists because that's the plan. I don't see how anyone can have witnessed the glee with which AI techbros danced on the graves of the art industry, ridiculing and harassing artists, calling them gatekeepers and fascists, and telling them their careers were doomed, and think this will benefit artists in any way. I really want that to change, because I find this technology fascinating, but as of now the well has been poisoned, the bridges burned, war declared, and most artists with actual talent would rather starve in the street than touch anything AI.
- incrudible 3y ago
  The artists that are hurt by this have neither a name nor a distinctive style, they are the ones whose work was derivative itself, who already struggled to get paid for expensive manual labor. Then you have the artists who matter, whose work is valued because it has their name on it, regardless of what process was used to create it. AI will be just another tool they may choose to use.
  - krapp 3y ago
    The narrative that the only artists affected by AI are mediocre and derivative and thus deserve what they get, is just propaganda. AI was trained to replicate the distinctive style of artists who "have a name" and "matter," and those artists likely work for companies that are training in-house AIs on their own IPs as we speak. "struggled to get paid for expensive manual labor?" You seem to have a contempt for most working artists, because most struggle to get paid regardless of talent, not because they're incompetent but because art of any kind has always been a difficult market. And yes, it's hard work, which many people fail to appreciate. You're really illustrating my point more than I think you intend to.

by mrtksn 3y ago

hef19898 3y ago

Either AI created graphics arrived to late for the NFT craze, or they arrived in time to give them a second spring. Being serious so, human art is what it is because it requires effort. AI art doesn't require nearly as much, is generic and abundant. In short, boring.

web007 3y ago
Effort is not a measure of quality or value in art. Remember: Duct tape + banana + wall + 3 minutes = incredibly valuable and controversial art. Me taking a year to paint a detailed depiction of a bowl of fruit = worthless, terrible art. Results are what people care about, not effort.
- waboremo 3y ago
  Your examples contradict your ending statement. If results are what people care about, neither of those would have value.
  - ljf 3y ago
    People cared a lot: https://www.gq.com/story/suddenly-the-koons-is-this-100k-banana https://www.gq.com/story/suddenly-the-koons-is-this-100k-ban...
mrguyorama 3y ago
There's so many places where you don't need "real" human touched art but you could do with stylized custom images. Midjourney and friends make it a million times harder to make a living doing small time commissioned art, stuff like dungeons and dragons character and world art, furry commissions and smut, and hobby art in general.

numpad0 3y ago

I think the incoming popularity of generative AI won’t simply raise the bar, but at first devalue itself, then make AI generations irrecognizable. The public will start to fail to recognize an art is there, when human discretion is not found. There is a sci-fi prediction that humans would eventually reduce to a thing with an eye and a finger that only presses a button, and machines would do the rest; I take it as an optimistic view that it means humans remain relevant, and that human values only come from humans.

krapp 3y ago

The problem with AI generated images, in this context, is that they can be used to imitate the style of specific artists, meaning any unique talent and vision those artists have no longer has market value. The scenario you describe isn't actually a business model anyone is following, except maybe morons shitting AI porn onto instagram and trying to flog their patreons. Obviously AI generated art has market value to companies with creative staff because AI is designed to devalue and commoditize the work of actual artists, such that the work of all artists can be replicated by someone on Mechanical Turk writing prompts for pennies a day (or some equivelent low-wage plebian drone.) AI has already been used to steal commissions from working artists, and companies are already firing their entire creative teams to lean entirely into AI generation. The better the technology gets, the worse the situation gets for working artists because that's the plan. I don't see how anyone can have witnessed the glee with which AI techbros danced on the graves of the art industry, ridiculing and harassing artists, calling them gatekeepers and fascists, and telling them their careers were doomed, and think this will benefit artists in any way. I really want that to change, because I find this technology fascinating, but as of now the well has been poisoned, the bridges burned, war declared, and most artists with actual talent would rather starve in the street than touch anything AI.

incrudible 3y ago
The artists that are hurt by this have neither a name nor a distinctive style, they are the ones whose work was derivative itself, who already struggled to get paid for expensive manual labor. Then you have the artists who matter, whose work is valued because it has their name on it, regardless of what process was used to create it. AI will be just another tool they may choose to use.
- krapp 3y ago
  The narrative that the only artists affected by AI are mediocre and derivative and thus deserve what they get, is just propaganda. AI was trained to replicate the distinctive style of artists who "have a name" and "matter," and those artists likely work for companies that are training in-house AIs on their own IPs as we speak. "struggled to get paid for expensive manual labor?" You seem to have a contempt for most working artists, because most struggle to get paid regardless of talent, not because they're incompetent but because art of any kind has always been a difficult market. And yes, it's hard work, which many people fail to appreciate. You're really illustrating my point more than I think you intend to.