5 ms·

AI is a tool and is not going to replace artists any time soon. Proper 3D art generators don't even exist yet. The ones that do are useless toys. We aren't eve

by zirgs 3y ago

AI is a tool and is not going to replace artists any time soon. Proper 3D art generators don't even exist yet. The ones that do are useless toys. We aren't even close to generators that can output anything even close to what a beginner 3D artist can produce. And yes - it will make sense to physically draw stuff, because it's a much better way to tell the AI what to do. You can massage prompts all day and you will still not get what you want. Providing a pose, depth map, normal map or a reference image gives the AI a lot more information than just a prompt. I don't see that changing any time soon. You simply can't describe every single detail in a propmpt. An even if you could - it's still quicker to make a rough sketch of what you want instead of writing a goddamn novel in the prompt textbox.

doublerabbit 3y ago
I'm fed up of the line: AI is a tool and is not going to replace artists any time soon. Take a look at the VFX industry; it's starting to crumble. I'll wager within five-ten years, ML Generated Art will be churning out content of that an experienced artist is capable of. In seconds, compared to months, years it takes for an artist. And once we master the formula of emotion, it's game over. Stream AI/ML a real-life drone fed weather catastrophe and watch it produce an realistic journalistic news cast. A manual-operated lathe was once assisted with human input, that then evolved in to an automated lathe, that then was aided by CAD and now with the aide of 3D printers, you no longer need the manual labor that once used to manually create an object from a block of wood, metal. AI/ML is the new lathe of the digital world. It's a powerful tool that right now can aide with artists. But that will evolve, concept work won't be required and skill will be lost. It's destined to be. It will replace artists, writers, journalists, news casters and other creative outlets. Why? Because you don't have to pay AI.
- donkeyd 3y ago
  > I wager $50 five-ten years, that we'll be churning out content that an experienced artist is capable of. I wager $50 that 'artists' will still exist and that this becomes a tool for those artists if they just accept it. We all have phones that can make great photos, yet I still paid for someone to photograph my wedding, because they are much, much better than anyone with a phone. Just understanding all the knobs of generative AI takes a lot of time. I feel like the only thing actually impacted by this soon is the stock photography content farm game. Because if stock imagery is good enough, AI generated images might be good enough.
  - doublerabbit 3y ago
    I did edit my post, but case still stands. > Just understanding all the knobs of generative AI takes a lot of time. We have more technological people in the field who can understand the knobs faster than we've ever had before. ML now has the ability to figure it's own knobs. Who knew about Linux in 1994, compared to now? Then: not a lot, now? Half the internet. Steam engines, very mechanical. Back then to drive a train, you needed to be trained, work with the conductor, driver. Now? A train driver operates a lever. Now AI are replacing those jobs for driver-less trains. Our local subway is exercising the idea. ML, AI? Just search github and you'll find dime-a-dozen projects created from young-adults. It's only going to take a generation to burst this thing wide open. I'm a 34 SysAdmin, it's past my time to jump in on the bandwagon. Not much I can do apart from feeding the servers that churn the cog. > Yet I still paid for someone to photograph my wedding, because they are much, much better than anyone with a phone. If you didn't have to pay and had some AI, ML do it for you producing the same results, would you? The role of an artist will be replaced, they will co-exist. But the skill of actually producing the image will turn in to menial work; where for what their talent was once worth, skill learnt will suffer to be. Anyone can type a "A fairy-elf of a dystopian world with a abandoned castle fighting off a horde of bionic-flies". All you would need is an artist to brush up on the artwork to make it feel more "human". Maybe for the initial design, but once done. Why would you pay the artist, when you've already got the concept image required to be trained upon?
    - zirgs 3y ago
      > But the skill of actually producing the image will turn in to menial work; I don't see why it is a problem. Most people don't even give a shit about how much effort you put into the work. They only care about the end result. Spending a lot of time on something doesn't make it more valuable.
      - doublerabbit 3y ago
        > Most people don't even give a shit about how much effort you put into the work. They only care about the end result. Spending a lot of time on something doesn't make it more valuable. If you gave me a hammer and chisel, you won't get an end result, you'd get something that looks like junk. Compared to someone who put's time and effort in to mastering the skill, you will get an end result.
- zoky 3y ago
  Yeah, okay, sure buddy. Let me know when AI can make a better buggy whip than an actual human being.
  - doublerabbit 3y ago
    You think a human makes them now?
kypro 3y ago
> AI is a tool and is not going to replace artists any time soon. It has for my personal projects. I used to hire freelance designers often. I see no need anymore. > Proper 3D art generators don't even exist yet. The ones that do are useless toys. We aren't even close to generators that can output anything even close to what a beginner 3D artist can produce. Disagree, unless you believe we weren't that close to good 2D art generators a few years ago. Maybe 3D is different, but things can move surprisingly fast. > And yes - it will make sense to physically draw stuff, because it's a much better way to tell the AI what to do. Is that drawing? I write music as a hobby. If you told me I could strum some chords and give a model a rough beat and it would produce music 10x better and a 10,000x faster than myself I'd just stop doing it. What's the point? It's the complexity that makes it interesting, not the output. I'm guessing the fun part of being an artist isn't creating the rough initial sketches, but the complexity of getting the exact shadings and fine details perfect. Perhaps some people view it differently though.
- zirgs 3y ago
  3D models are a lot more complicated. You need to generate models, materials and textures separately. Need to split the model in separate parts that make sense. Need to know where to use spline meshes, where to use instancing, how to group meshes and so on. Also which format to pick? Gltf is a good choice, I guess. But it's pretty limited compared to formats like .blend or .max. One of my favourite examples is a clockwork mechanism. Current 2D AIs always generate complete nonsense, because they have no idea how a clockwork mechanism works. A much more advanced model is required for something like that and it currently doesn't exist. A model like that is the bare minimum for 3D.
ben_w 3y ago
> AI is a tool and is not going to replace artists any time soon "Not any time soon" in computer years is "not in the next nine months or so". > Proper 3D art generators don't even exist yet. The ones that do are useless toys. We aren't even close to generators that can output anything even close to what a beginner 3D artist can produce. The original DALL•E was terrible. DALL•E 2 was 15 months later, and was good enough to be interesting. 15 months after DALL•2, out comes SDXL. That it is still better to use a sketch than an ex-nihilo prompt: I agree, but it doesn't seem to support your claim "not going to replace artists" — if a talentless hack can wipe stains of Nacho cheese from their fingers into a vague humanoid shape with the same attention to anatomical correctness as a child with crayons, take a photo of the now un-recyclable waste, and get useful result when they ask an AI to turn in into "a wizard riding a motorcycle up the side of the Empire State Building"… then talented artists already have an economic problem.

by zirgs 3y ago

doublerabbit 3y ago

I'm fed up of the line: AI is a tool and is not going to replace artists any time soon. Take a look at the VFX industry; it's starting to crumble. I'll wager within five-ten years, ML Generated Art will be churning out content of that an experienced artist is capable of. In seconds, compared to months, years it takes for an artist. And once we master the formula of emotion, it's game over. Stream AI/ML a real-life drone fed weather catastrophe and watch it produce an realistic journalistic news cast. A manual-operated lathe was once assisted with human input, that then evolved in to an automated lathe, that then was aided by CAD and now with the aide of 3D printers, you no longer need the manual labor that once used to manually create an object from a block of wood, metal. AI/ML is the new lathe of the digital world. It's a powerful tool that right now can aide with artists. But that will evolve, concept work won't be required and skill will be lost. It's destined to be. It will replace artists, writers, journalists, news casters and other creative outlets. Why? Because you don't have to pay AI.

donkeyd 3y ago
> I wager $50 five-ten years, that we'll be churning out content that an experienced artist is capable of. I wager $50 that 'artists' will still exist and that this becomes a tool for those artists if they just accept it. We all have phones that can make great photos, yet I still paid for someone to photograph my wedding, because they are much, much better than anyone with a phone. Just understanding all the knobs of generative AI takes a lot of time. I feel like the only thing actually impacted by this soon is the stock photography content farm game. Because if stock imagery is good enough, AI generated images might be good enough.
- doublerabbit 3y ago
  I did edit my post, but case still stands. > Just understanding all the knobs of generative AI takes a lot of time. We have more technological people in the field who can understand the knobs faster than we've ever had before. ML now has the ability to figure it's own knobs. Who knew about Linux in 1994, compared to now? Then: not a lot, now? Half the internet. Steam engines, very mechanical. Back then to drive a train, you needed to be trained, work with the conductor, driver. Now? A train driver operates a lever. Now AI are replacing those jobs for driver-less trains. Our local subway is exercising the idea. ML, AI? Just search github and you'll find dime-a-dozen projects created from young-adults. It's only going to take a generation to burst this thing wide open. I'm a 34 SysAdmin, it's past my time to jump in on the bandwagon. Not much I can do apart from feeding the servers that churn the cog. > Yet I still paid for someone to photograph my wedding, because they are much, much better than anyone with a phone. If you didn't have to pay and had some AI, ML do it for you producing the same results, would you? The role of an artist will be replaced, they will co-exist. But the skill of actually producing the image will turn in to menial work; where for what their talent was once worth, skill learnt will suffer to be. Anyone can type a "A fairy-elf of a dystopian world with a abandoned castle fighting off a horde of bionic-flies". All you would need is an artist to brush up on the artwork to make it feel more "human". Maybe for the initial design, but once done. Why would you pay the artist, when you've already got the concept image required to be trained upon?
  - zirgs 3y ago
    > But the skill of actually producing the image will turn in to menial work; I don't see why it is a problem. Most people don't even give a shit about how much effort you put into the work. They only care about the end result. Spending a lot of time on something doesn't make it more valuable.
    - doublerabbit 3y ago
      > Most people don't even give a shit about how much effort you put into the work. They only care about the end result. Spending a lot of time on something doesn't make it more valuable. If you gave me a hammer and chisel, you won't get an end result, you'd get something that looks like junk. Compared to someone who put's time and effort in to mastering the skill, you will get an end result.
zoky 3y ago
Yeah, okay, sure buddy. Let me know when AI can make a better buggy whip than an actual human being.
- doublerabbit 3y ago
  You think a human makes them now?

kypro 3y ago

> AI is a tool and is not going to replace artists any time soon. It has for my personal projects. I used to hire freelance designers often. I see no need anymore. > Proper 3D art generators don't even exist yet. The ones that do are useless toys. We aren't even close to generators that can output anything even close to what a beginner 3D artist can produce. Disagree, unless you believe we weren't that close to good 2D art generators a few years ago. Maybe 3D is different, but things can move surprisingly fast. > And yes - it will make sense to physically draw stuff, because it's a much better way to tell the AI what to do. Is that drawing? I write music as a hobby. If you told me I could strum some chords and give a model a rough beat and it would produce music 10x better and a 10,000x faster than myself I'd just stop doing it. What's the point? It's the complexity that makes it interesting, not the output. I'm guessing the fun part of being an artist isn't creating the rough initial sketches, but the complexity of getting the exact shadings and fine details perfect. Perhaps some people view it differently though.

zirgs 3y ago
3D models are a lot more complicated. You need to generate models, materials and textures separately. Need to split the model in separate parts that make sense. Need to know where to use spline meshes, where to use instancing, how to group meshes and so on. Also which format to pick? Gltf is a good choice, I guess. But it's pretty limited compared to formats like .blend or .max. One of my favourite examples is a clockwork mechanism. Current 2D AIs always generate complete nonsense, because they have no idea how a clockwork mechanism works. A much more advanced model is required for something like that and it currently doesn't exist. A model like that is the bare minimum for 3D.

ben_w 3y ago

> AI is a tool and is not going to replace artists any time soon "Not any time soon" in computer years is "not in the next nine months or so". > Proper 3D art generators don't even exist yet. The ones that do are useless toys. We aren't even close to generators that can output anything even close to what a beginner 3D artist can produce. The original DALL•E was terrible. DALL•E 2 was 15 months later, and was good enough to be interesting. 15 months after DALL•2, out comes SDXL. That it is still better to use a sketch than an ex-nihilo prompt: I agree, but it doesn't seem to support your claim "not going to replace artists" — if a talentless hack can wipe stains of Nacho cheese from their fingers into a vague humanoid shape with the same attention to anatomical correctness as a child with crayons, take a photo of the now un-recyclable waste, and get useful result when they ask an AI to turn in into "a wizard riding a motorcycle up the side of the Empire State Building"… then talented artists already have an economic problem.