3 ms·
I’ve asked an artist if artists should be worried about the newest generative AI capabilities. This is his (translated) response: > Artists? Pencil laborers, m
by Lucasoato 3y ago
I’ve asked an artist if artists should be worried about the newest generative AI capabilities. This is his (translated) response:
> Artists? Pencil laborers, more like.. I am in favor of using AI in visuals. It will eliminate a lot of mere decorators, and won’t even slightly affect the artists. I hope AI as a technology has the same effect on the world of ART as the invention of photography had: it got rid of a lot of empty landscape copiers. Impressionism was born shortly after that. See, I believe many cursed photography, but Monet never saw it as a problem.
- brookst 3y agoThis. It’s no different than the impact word processors had on typists. The idea that low-level sign painting is “art” is silly. And to the extent AI encroaches on “real”, it just enables artists to operate at a higher level, much like word processors allow authors to focus on craft rather than typing.
- antisthenes 3y agoThis is an extremely elitist take. Obviously you're never worried about AI/Computers/Immigrants (underline your "reason" of choice) if you're in the top 1% of your field. It's like people who developed a bunch of their own libraries and then worked as a google Architect for 10 years giving everyone else advice on job hunting. From a utilitarian point of view, I see his reason for saying it (not a great loss for society if the bottom 50% of some industry falls out), but it's still a very privileged take (some would even say tone-deaf)
- Lucasoato 3y agoVan Gogh, Manet, Gauguin would beg to differ! Being a true artist doesn’t imply being in the top 1%, having privilege or any economical reward at all. …and that won’t change with AI as well, there will always be artists who will be recognized as great only after their death.