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
> making art is vastly more difficult than the huge majority of computer programming that is done

Creating art is not that much harder than programming, creating good art is much harder than programming. That's the reason that a large majority of art isn't very good, and why a large majority of Artists don't make a living by creating art.

Just like the camera didn't kill the artist, neither will AI. For as long as art is about the ideas behind the piece as opposed to the technical skills required to make it (which I would argue has been true since the rise of impressionism) then AI doesn't change much. The good ideas are still required, AI only makes creating art (especially bad art) more accessible.