If your work is of so low quality that an algorithm that only generates "shitty art" (by popular consensus) puts you out of work, then you don't deserve to get paid for your "art." It's Schrödinger's art: it's really bad and good at the same time, good enough to put artists out of work.
People don't get paid for work that machines can do. It's not a novel concept.
I'm not sure where you consensus is coming from but AI art is getting really, really good. I used to be able to easily tell what was AI art when others couldn't but that's changing fast.
It's been trained on some of the best artwork. Various artists have been told their artwork looks like AI, meanwhile it's actually the other around. Already in the app stores there are many games full of AI art that the average person without an artist's eye probably can't see the difference compared to something a human made.
I think art is very different from other jobs, it's more like the soul of humanity. When we look back through time, we mainly look at the art and what it can tell us, only a niche portion of people will care about the other things.
If we let machines do everything, even create our culture and art, what is left for us? Just to be consumers?
A lot of people are saying that a) AI generates slop that no one needs, and b) AI is putting human artists out of work.
If the machine can do art that's indistinguishable from human art, and art is the soul of humanity, then the machine may have a soul? I've told the machine to create art, I've showed the art to humans, and the humans were touched by it. It evoked an emotion, like art is supposed to.
My personal anecdote: I've used a diffusion model to generate a short video based on a 50 year old photograph, the only photo my dear friend has of his late father that he never got to know. The 10-second video showed the man lifelike, happy and smiling, generated from a photo on which he looked morose. My friend was brought to tears when I showed it to him.
> My personal anecdote: I've used a diffusion model to generate a short video based on a 50 year old photograph, the only photo my dear friend has of his late father that he never got to know. The 10-second video showed the man lifelike, happy and smiling, generated from a photo on which he looked morose. My friend was brought to tears when I showed it to him.
That's beautiful.
These tools will help people find more meaning in our short lives.
> If your work is of so low quality that an algorithm that only generates "shitty art" (by popular consensus) puts you out of work, then you don't deserve to get paid for your "art."
> People don't get paid for work that machines can do. It's not a novel concept.
Thank you! I'm sick of sounding like an apologist. This is simply the science of economics.
>> No shame in proudly presenting a tool with "putting people out of work" as a feature.
I am so tired of this type of attitude. I've read this endlessly and it does a whole lot of nothing for nobody.
This isn't putting anyone out of work. The games simply would not be made in the first place.
Someone might not pursue game dev because they can't build the art for it themselves. Now they have options.
>> Lovingly handcrafted artwork is what I like in video games [...]
Then you go buy that thing and stop dunking on people for making tools.
Give those artists you care about your money. Let the rest of us enjoy the new tools and the work created with them.
You don't weep for all the i18n experts when someone makes a nice open source datetime library. So stop doing it here.
Software engineers constantly have to learn new things and adapt. The artists will do the same.
If they actually start using the tools, maybe they can start making games and movies and things of a scale and scope they could never have done before.
The things you can accomplish with video models are downright impressive:
Someone told me, "But you didn't hire any hard-working stop motion animators."
Yes, that's right. Because it never would have been made before. Because stop motion animating a 4-minute Superman fandom short didn't make economic sense.
People don't get paid for work that machines can do. It's not a novel concept.