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
The idea that artists can be automated away is really just kind of dumb, not because people like AI created art and can get it cheap, but because it has no real impact on the "whole point" of the art... for the creation of the art. Pure art, as human expression, has no dependency on money. Anecdotally I very much enjoy painting and music (and coding) as art forms but have never sold a painting nor a song in my life. Just because someone won't pay you for something doesn't mean it has no value.

As far as money goes... long run artists will still make money fine as people will value the people generated (artisanal) works. Just as people like hand-made stuff today, even though you can get machine-made stuff way cheaper. You may not have the generic jobs of cranking out stuff for advertisements (and such) but you'll still have artists.

>>eikenb+jV1
The conversation isn't about you or your hobby, it's about professional artists and illustrators, who are already being automated away by AI.