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
If you were transported back to the 19th century, would you have empathy for the loom operators smashing mechanical looms?

Art currently requires two skills - technical rendering ability, and creative vision/composition. AI tools have basically destroyed the former, but the latter is still necessary. Professional artists will have to adjust their skillset, much like they had to adjust their skillset when photography killed portrait painting as a profession.

>>Curiou+pC
> AI tools have basically destroyed the former

Do you people think art is relegated to digital images only? No video? No paintings, sculptures, mixed media, performance art, lighting, woodwork, etc etc. How is it possible that everyone seems to ignore that we still have massive leaps required in AI and robotics to match the technical ability of 99% of artists.