zlacker

>>dredmo+(OP)
I've been finding that the strangest part of discussions around art AI among technical people is the complete lack of identification or empathy: it seems to me that most computer programmers should be just as afraid as artists, in the face of technology like this!!! I am a failed artist (read, I studied painting in school and tried to make a go at being a commercial artist in animation and couldn't make the cut), and so I decided to do something easier and became a computer programmer, working for FAANG and other large companies and making absurd (to me!!) amounts of cash. In my humble estimation, making art is vastly more difficult than the huge majority of computer programming that is done. Art AI is terrifying if you want to make art for a living- and, if AI is able to do these astonishingly difficult things, why shouldn't it, with some finagling, also be able to do the dumb, simple things most programmers do for their jobs?

The lack of empathy is incredibly depressing...

>>meebob+kc
> In my humble estimation, making art is vastly more difficult than the huge majority of computer programming that is done.

The value of work is not measured by its difficulty. There's a small amount of people who make a living doing contract work that may be replaced by an AI, but these people were in a precarious position in the first place. The well-to-do artists are not threatened by AI art. The value of their work is derived from them having put their name on it.

If you assume that most programming work could be done by an AI "soon", then we really have to question what sort of dumb programming work people are doing today and whether that wouldn't disappeared anyway, once funding runs dry. Mindlessly assembling snippets from Stackoverflow may well be threatened by AI very soon, so if that's your job, consider the alternatives.