zlacker

[parent] [thread] 2 comments
1. pfisch+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-12-15 22:38:05
If you are looking for a bunch of low quality art there are tons of free sources for that already. If this is what you mean when you say "putting artists out of work" you are really talking about less than 1% of where artist money is spent.
replies(1): >>keving+Wb
2. keving+Wb[view] [source] 2022-12-15 23:50:54
>>pfisch+(OP)
OK, so your argument here is "it doesn't matter because the art being replaced by AI is cheap and/or mass-produced"? What happens once the quality of the network-generated art goes up and it's able to displace more expensive works? What is the basis for your argument that this is "less than 1%"?
replies(1): >>pfisch+xd
◧◩
3. pfisch+xd[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 00:02:39
>>keving+Wb
Art will get better and we will have artists that use AI tools to produce a lot more of it faster and entirely new professions will emerge as an evolution in art occurs and the world gets better.

This is like saying that photoshop is going to put all the artists out of work because one artist can now do the work of a team of people drawing by hand. So far these AIs are just tools. Tools help humans to produce more and the economy keeps chugging ever upwards.

There is no upper limit of how much art we need. Marvel movies and videogames will just keep looking better and better as our artists increase their capabilities using AI tools to assist them.

Daz3d didn't put modelers and artists out of work, and what Daz and iClone can do is way way more impressive(and useful in a professional setting) than AI Art.

[go to top]