AI made artists worthless

[agu]

Now that AI has evolved to a point where you can type whatever you want in a small text box and get decent results, can you imagine what it'd be like in 5 or 10 years from now? Everyone is already trying out the multiple generators we have available to the public and having a lot of fun with them, getting real results and sharing them at no cost even though they're usually rough results for now, in the future there would be no need for any new artists at all, from illustrators to musicians to painters to writers, they would all be replaced and everything could be handled better and exactly to your tastes by the AI, with minimal effort on your part and the model evolving and getting better every single time, even movies are being produced and tweaked with the power of machine learning, imagine how far it can go when it learns to properly write its own fictional universe and characters, it's bound to be the best fantasy series because it would have no human error problems like forgetting parts of lore or purposely retconning, this is a win for everyone so people could focus on more important subjects like STEM and medicine instead.
Like it happened when TV was introduced there were people saying there's always gonna be a spot for radio but they were just delaying the inevitable truth of technology going forward, with or without them, the same thing will happen to old-style artists and people who think art made by a real person is somehow better than something made by AI artists (which is ridiculous) are just refusing to see the world around them change. Because we're in the early stages of the replacement there are people who will say AI-produced art has no real merit by using arguments such as it having no "heart" and "passion" but Artificial Intelligence will get better and better at every occasion it's almost unfair to compare it to raw human "talent" (which is subjective in a topic like art). They have no chance.
I think we've passed a point where we can safely say AI killed the artist, and I'm glad to see where this goes.
Will you keep supporting a dying industry like art or will you move forward with AI?

[𝕎𝔸𝕃𝕋𝔼ℝ]

Publicado originalmente por agu:

Publicado originalmente por Irene ❤:

AI art is boring to look at.
It's just mixing some google images and applying a filter.
That style is new right now, but it'd get boring in a few months.

That's what art is about isn't it? Something boring like a self portrait might be entertaining for someone else, and AI can always get better at being less boring.

It's boring. Most people people play around with it for like 10 minutes and it becomes unoriginal. At best, it's going to disrupt small commission artist, but if you're looking for something really particular it's worthless.

[Zero, Dark Knight]

oh no the livelihood of modern artists who want to spray paint for 5 seconds and make 50 million off a modern art museum are at risk, nooooooooooooooooo what will we do!

[Birds]

Publicado originalmente por Zero, Dark Knight:

oh no the livelihood of modern artists who want to spray paint for 5 seconds and make 50 million off a modern art museum are at risk, nooooooooooooooooo what will we do!

Those are the artists least likely to be impacted by this.

[Xero_Daxter]

"Why Modern Art sucks?"

Well if the Mona Lisa was drawn today would it still be good art? It's a legit question.

[Zero, Dark Knight]

Publicado originalmente por Xero_Daxter:

"Why Modern Art sucks?"

Well if the Mona Lisa was drawn today would it still be good art? It's a legit question.

yes it would be because it took effort and time **if** it was painted in 100% the same way :/
Also talent.

[Birds]

Publicado originalmente por Eréndira:

But anyways, I don’t think you guys wanna think about this, just complain or create false insecurities over the future and AI.

Publicado originalmente por Xero_Daxter:

"Why Modern Art sucks?"

Well if the Mona Lisa was drawn today would it still be good art? It's a legit question.

Only if the dark money slush fund people who determine the value of art say it is.

AI art will never impact them.

[Q-T_3.14.exe]

Publicado originalmente por Xero_Daxter:

"Why Modern Art sucks?"

Well if the Mona Lisa was drawn today would it still be good art? It's a legit question.

Draw a clothed and nude versions and observe which one gets more, views, comments, ratings and favorites.

[ice]

There are still people who believe traditional art is superior to digital art and are willing to pay much more for it

[Xero_Daxter]

Publicado originalmente por Q-T_3.14.exe:

Publicado originalmente por Xero_Daxter:

"Why Modern Art sucks?"

Well if the Mona Lisa was drawn today would it still be good art? It's a legit question.

Draw a clothed and nude versions and observe which one gets more, views, comments, ratings and favorites.

I have a feeling someone already did the ladder already. >.>

[Xero_Daxter]

Publicado originalmente por downpour:

AI art is lame. Literally no soul or passion or skill put into anything it's just type in a few words and bam. It's especially cringe when people who do that have the audacity to call themselves "artists" and have pages dedicated to the pictures as if they did all that with their hard work or even watermark it like. The future is very lame.

Why you think I watermark my pictures?

[Vinz Clortho]

Computers don't make "art". They make an artificial recreation of it.
To make art, you have to have feelings. You can't make art with logic only. You have to have something to say and a computer has nothing to say.

[agu]

Publicado originalmente por downpour:

AI art is lame. Literally no soul or passion or skill put into anything it's just type in a few words and bam. It's especially cringe when people who do that have the audacity to call themselves "artists" and have pages dedicated to the pictures as if they did all that with their hard work or even watermark it like. The future is very lame.

Are you able to quantify the amount of soul or passion put into something? Can you look at an artwork and say "wow, this has 72% passion and x amount of soul"? I seriously don't see how you'd be able to tell the difference, especially in a few years from now.

[sotaponi]

It's more a problem of digitalization and the relatively low complexity the digital world requires. Whereas the "AI" is fed all the information by human actors, but then still creates a relatively low complexity product.

After all, real art happens in reality. And I will simply keep repeating this ad nauseum...

A real artist has a canvas. And a real artist has to interpret the world and then move his/body... it requires the ability to even get to a point from which to interpret the world. Which requires ridiculous computational power. And still, despite that, drawn art is just a less complex simulacrum of the real world, ultimately.

Now take a low complexity "AI" which is fed all of this information: Musk's bad robot, and similar "deep learning" AIs, make use of hardware larger than the human brain, but can render only poorly a simple scene, still throwing artefacts all over the place, and misinterpreting everything, despite taking way longer for it than a human. And if you compare this to even a sparrow's tiny brain, and what an amazing navigator this tiny sparrow is... (the brain of a sparrow is much smaller than even a human brain; this kind of "AI" could easily be argued a complete waste of resources, created only to serve somebody's petty indulgence)...

When people have NDEs, they render hyperreal worlds. In which case, one might argue even the real world (and amazing locations such as Cinque Terre) to be in some sense a work of art, that can during e.g. dreams even appear as abstract. Whereas paintings are merely a more or less abstract simulacrum of what you might see in a dream or reality or somesuch. And what you feed into the computer is not even that. Because it's that low in complexity.

Point being: AIs won't build amazing fountains in reality. They can't even interpret or navigate reality, because the hardware is not there. And, as NDEs (and natural neurohormones such as DMT) show, human minds can create hyperreal worlds even without external input. And to build an artistic fountain in reality might be that complex.

Publicado originalmente por Q-T_3.14.exe:

Publicado originalmente por agu:

Why not? Wouldn't you call photography art?

Sure. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Photography is a simulacrum. If you get all serious about it, you might argue that even a canvas isn't real art. And that real art necessarily has you see it akin to how it happens during reality or NDEs/DMT or dreams.

Here you might argue that the entire "we will at some point live in a metaverse pod" idea is extremely devolutionary. Because humanity goes from rendering complex things that can be seen and experienced (also during NDEs, day-dreaming, etc)... to a poor low-complexity virtual world. In which this poor AI can of course "compete."

Also in regards to plot-holes in lore: Reality as we experience it has no plot holes whatsoever. In which case your argument is pretty arbitrary in order to glorify "AI," only because the modern artist doesn't move his/her own body anymore, but is instead entirely immersed within a digital low complexity environment.

Because surely there's a difference between "building" a "fountain" in minecraft by stacking 10 blocks, and doing it in reality. Whereas, of course, the AI will copy the fountain humans (and the universe) created in reality. Still it won't be able to recreate said copy in reality, nor something beyond (again, think NDEs/DMT and the worlds people render). Which makes the AI itself a simulacrum of an artist. It's not a real artist. Albeit surely a useful and fun tool to some degree.

[Sir Dookface McFerretballs]

Machine learning isn't going to make a person that does traditional art obsolete.

It's going to be the next big tool in almost every digital artist's tool box.

If you don't like it, then don't use it. A lot of artists are acting like Machine Learning art generation is going to break into their houses and kick them in the teeth and break all their paintbrushes and force them to use the machine learning art generation at gunpoint or something.

I saw this same crap about digital editing and photoshop when it got big.

It was the same "Blah blah blah it doesn't have a SOUL" and "blah blah blah it isn't REAL art" and so on.

Yet now a lot of those very artists that complained like little babies, now wouldn't know how they could survive without the digital editing and paint programs and tablets they now have one or more of.

Machine learning (A.I.) art will open a world of art to people that couldn't do it otherwise while giving established artists more tools to make their art even better.

The machine learning art genie is already out of the bottle OPEN-SOURCE and FREE.

Just like photoshop and such, there will be people and companies that abuse it. But be glad the source code is out there making it harder for a single company to monopolize it.

As for referencing other people's styles... Isn't that pretty much all art anyway? "Oh I like this pose" or "I use this style". People often learn how to do art by copying and modifying other people's art/styles.

Hell, just look at anime, that's the easiest to copy because it is all so similar.

I'm sure the people that were still painting on cave walls with their fingers, poop, and blood were angry when the first caveman used berries and a brush to paint naughty pictures on the walls instead.

"Ooga booga... Paintbrush art not have soul finger poop art do... Paintbrush art not REAL art! Ugga Dugga!"

How about leaving the decision of what is "real" art or not up to the individual?

[Zero, Dark Knight]

*types into a text bar*
*presses enter*

I am now an artist.