zlacker

> "The first is that textual input and treating the model as a function (command in -> result out) are sufficient for anything. No, this is a fundamentally deficient way to give artistic directions, which is further handicapped by primitive models and weak compute."

This is the first wave of half decent AI.

But more importantly, you are vastly underestimating the millions of small jobs out there that artists use as a stepping stone.

Think of the millions of managers who would happily be presented with a choice of 10 artistic interpretations, and pick one for the sake of getting a quick job done.

No way on earth this isn't going to make a major impact. Empathy absolutely required.

>>slimeb+(OP)
So empathy as in being considerate they are losing their jobs right? Not that AI art generation is inherently a bad thing? Or that they or I can doing anything about it?

>>slimeb+(OP)
If small pointless jobs able to be done by machines are so great then lets get rid of computers, power tools, and automation so we can get those unemployment numbers down… why can’t we find a solution that doesn’t hamper progress? At the end of the day progress saves lives.

>>slimeb+(OP)
Also those millions of managers will soon be redundant, what they do is often quite trivial.

>>chrisc+L2
This is very black and white thinking.

One can see AI tools as progress here while also recognising that this is likely to have a huge impact on a lot of lives.

>>Nursie+vg
Actually all progress will definitely will have a huge impact on a lot of lives—otherwise it is not progress. By definition it will impact many, by displacing those who were doing it the old way by doing it better and faster. The trouble is when people hold back progress just to prevent the impact. No one should be disagreeing that the impact shouldn't be prevented, but it should not be at the cost of progress.

>>chrisc+Z81
I very much agree, and I feel the campaigns to stop AI image generation in its tracks are misguided.

I do wonder what happens as the market for the “old way” dries up, because it implies that there is no career path to lead to doing things better - any fool (I include myself) can be an AI jockey, but without people that need the skills of average designers, from what pool will the greats spring?

>>Nursie+Xe1
The gun made it so that even a dainty person could kill a strong person. However, some people are better shooters than others. It will just shift the goal post so that a new skill is required. Being strong is still a thing… just maybe not the most important when in a gun fight.

>>chrisc+T04
I don’t see this situation as analogous or even particularly useful - we’re not talking about gun fights, we’re talking about art and design, and whether we will see fewer great artists and designers as the market for moderate or learner artists and designers dries up.

It doesn’t really matter to humanity if strong people can still win fights, but it might matter if artists and designers who do produce great, original work stop being produced. It probably even matters to the AI models because that forms part of their input.