3 ms·

In the near future, we will have less art made by professionals and more art made by hobby artists (with or without AI support). It will be a tough time for pr

In the near future, we will have less art made by professionals and more art made by hobby artists (with or without AI support). It will be a tough time for professional artists, but personally I don't believe we will "lose the human spark" in this transition. If all AI art is soulless, new artists will rise that can put the missing part back in. How many amazing potential creations have been lost because their creators did not have the time or money to make them? I'm looking forward to see what these people will create in the coming decade!

shortrounddev2 2y ago
I think without financial support you're not going to get very good art. Some of the greatest artists of the renaissance were only able to spend all day painting because they had patrons. My city has lots of public art because the government spends money on it.
- DrSiemer 2y ago
  They won't suddenly stop spending that money now that AI can help with the basics. Cultural expenses are a great way to buy reputation.
- SR2Z 2y ago
  I'm struggling to understand this take because we already have the meme of the starving artist and their angelic patron. What you're claiming is essentially that when tools make it faster and easier to create art, art gets worse. In the past this has certainly not been true - every new tool has led to new and wonderful forms of art. I'm not sure why it would change now.
  - shortrounddev2 2y ago
    I believe there's a substantive difference between digital art tools like photoshop or illustrator and LLMs. LLMs do not create "art", they create images. Previously, you had to PAY an artist to create art. Now, you pay for an API to create an image loosely based on the specifications you give it. As a result, there is less art in the world.
    - nh23423fefe 2y ago
      you said there was a "substantive difference" but you just gave an ungrounded definition?
      - shortrounddev2 2y ago
        I'm not quite sure how to define the difference, but I can tell you that LLMs do not create art, and never will.
    - SR2Z 2y ago
      Art models, to me, are very powerful paintbrushes. The technical skill of the artist is less important, but their ability to create art that makes people FEEL is more important than ever.

shortrounddev2 2y ago

I think without financial support you're not going to get very good art. Some of the greatest artists of the renaissance were only able to spend all day painting because they had patrons. My city has lots of public art because the government spends money on it.

DrSiemer 2y ago
They won't suddenly stop spending that money now that AI can help with the basics. Cultural expenses are a great way to buy reputation.
SR2Z 2y ago
I'm struggling to understand this take because we already have the meme of the starving artist and their angelic patron. What you're claiming is essentially that when tools make it faster and easier to create art, art gets worse. In the past this has certainly not been true - every new tool has led to new and wonderful forms of art. I'm not sure why it would change now.
- shortrounddev2 2y ago
  I believe there's a substantive difference between digital art tools like photoshop or illustrator and LLMs. LLMs do not create "art", they create images. Previously, you had to PAY an artist to create art. Now, you pay for an API to create an image loosely based on the specifications you give it. As a result, there is less art in the world.
  - nh23423fefe 2y ago
    you said there was a "substantive difference" but you just gave an ungrounded definition?
    - shortrounddev2 2y ago
      I'm not quite sure how to define the difference, but I can tell you that LLMs do not create art, and never will.
  - SR2Z 2y ago
    Art models, to me, are very powerful paintbrushes. The technical skill of the artist is less important, but their ability to create art that makes people FEEL is more important than ever.