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
Setting aside questions of whether there is copyright infringement going on, I think this is an unprecedented case in the history of automation replacing human labor.

Jobs have been automated since the industrial revolution, but this usually takes the form of someone inventing a widget that makes human labor unnecessary. From a worker's perspective, the automation is coming from "the outside". What's novel with AI models is that the workers' own work is used to create the thing that replaces them. It's one thing to be automated away, it's another to have your own work used against you like this, and I'm sure it feels extra-shitty as a result.

>>Alexan+Xh1
I don't know why we keep framing artists like they're textile workers or machinists.

The whole point of art is human expression. The idea that artists can be "automated away" is just sad and disgusting and the amount of people who want art but don't want to pay the artist is astounding.

Why are we so eager to rid ourselves of what makes us human to save a buck? This isn't innovation, its self destruction.

>>MSFT_E+dw1
Because when people discuss "art" they are really discussing two things.

Static 2D images that usually serve a commercial purpose. Ex logos, clip art, game sprites, web page design and the like.

And the second is pure art whose purpose is more for the enjoyment of the creator or the viewer.

Business wants to fully automate the first case and must people view it has nothing to do with the essence of humanity. It's simply dollars for products - but it's also one of the very few ways that artists can actually have paying careers for their skills.

The second will still exist, although almost nobody in the world can pay bills off of it. And I wouldn't be shocked it ML models start encroaching there as well.

So a lot of what's being referred to is more like textile workers. And anyone who can type a few sentences can now make "art" significantly lowering barriers to entry. Maybe a designer comes and touches it up.

The short sighted part, is people thinking that this will somehow stay specific to Art and that their cherished field is immune.

Programming will soon follow. Any PM "soon enough" will be able to write text to generate a fully working app. And maybe a coder comes in to touch it up.