If your work is of so low quality that an algorithm that only generates "shitty art" (by popular consensus) puts you out of work, then you don't deserve to get paid for your "art." It's Schrödinger's art: it's really bad and good at the same time, good enough to put artists out of work.
People don't get paid for work that machines can do. It's not a novel concept.
I'm not sure where you consensus is coming from but AI art is getting really, really good. I used to be able to easily tell what was AI art when others couldn't but that's changing fast.
It's been trained on some of the best artwork. Various artists have been told their artwork looks like AI, meanwhile it's actually the other around. Already in the app stores there are many games full of AI art that the average person without an artist's eye probably can't see the difference compared to something a human made.
I think art is very different from other jobs, it's more like the soul of humanity. When we look back through time, we mainly look at the art and what it can tell us, only a niche portion of people will care about the other things.
If we let machines do everything, even create our culture and art, what is left for us? Just to be consumers?
A lot of people are saying that a) AI generates slop that no one needs, and b) AI is putting human artists out of work.
If the machine can do art that's indistinguishable from human art, and art is the soul of humanity, then the machine may have a soul? I've told the machine to create art, I've showed the art to humans, and the humans were touched by it. It evoked an emotion, like art is supposed to.
My personal anecdote: I've used a diffusion model to generate a short video based on a 50 year old photograph, the only photo my dear friend has of his late father that he never got to know. The 10-second video showed the man lifelike, happy and smiling, generated from a photo on which he looked morose. My friend was brought to tears when I showed it to him.
> My personal anecdote: I've used a diffusion model to generate a short video based on a 50 year old photograph, the only photo my dear friend has of his late father that he never got to know. The 10-second video showed the man lifelike, happy and smiling, generated from a photo on which he looked morose. My friend was brought to tears when I showed it to him.
That's beautiful.
These tools will help people find more meaning in our short lives.
> If your work is of so low quality that an algorithm that only generates "shitty art" (by popular consensus) puts you out of work, then you don't deserve to get paid for your "art."
> People don't get paid for work that machines can do. It's not a novel concept.
Thank you! I'm sick of sounding like an apologist. This is simply the science of economics.
>> No shame in proudly presenting a tool with "putting people out of work" as a feature.
I am so tired of this type of attitude. I've read this endlessly and it does a whole lot of nothing for nobody.
This isn't putting anyone out of work. The games simply would not be made in the first place.
Someone might not pursue game dev because they can't build the art for it themselves. Now they have options.
>> Lovingly handcrafted artwork is what I like in video games [...]
Then you go buy that thing and stop dunking on people for making tools.
Give those artists you care about your money. Let the rest of us enjoy the new tools and the work created with them.
You don't weep for all the i18n experts when someone makes a nice open source datetime library. So stop doing it here.
Software engineers constantly have to learn new things and adapt. The artists will do the same.
If they actually start using the tools, maybe they can start making games and movies and things of a scale and scope they could never have done before.
The things you can accomplish with video models are downright impressive:
Someone told me, "But you didn't hire any hard-working stop motion animators."
Yes, that's right. Because it never would have been made before. Because stop motion animating a 4-minute Superman fandom short didn't make economic sense.
I always find it funny that people are up in arms about artists supposedly losing their jobs, but have no problems with doctors losing their jobs to AI advancements.
Replace the people who actually contribute to society and no issues, but god forbid the pixel artist can't get paid to doodle anymore.
Of course they're going to lose their job. ChatGPT is already replacing a bunch of requests that would otherwise be at a walk-in clinic. AI is being shown to be a better diagnostician in many cases than physicians. AI is rapidly reducing the need for radiologists.
You think in 20 years you have more doctors than today? Please.
My wife is a pediatric ER doctor. There has been no decrease in visits since ChatGPT came out. If anything there have been more because ChatGPT over recommends ER visits.
Expert systems have been able to diagnose many illnesses better than doctors for decades but they have replaced precisely zero doctors for many reasons, but the biggest is that they can’t accept liability for their recommendations.
No company will ever release a consumer medical product that doesn’t tell 99% of patients they should check with their doctor.
Also do you have any idea how many times my wife has said something to friends and family like “no you don’t need to go to the ER, you can wait and if their fever doesn’t go away in X days see their pediatrician during normal hours. It’s likely a virus and nothing can be done anyway”, only to have that person take their child to the ER because they want a doctor to look at their kid and tell them face face that nothing is wrong.
A phone call with an expert they know isn’t enough to replace an in person visit. ChatGPT will never be enough.
As far as radiologists go, they haven’t been replaced yet despite people saying it would happen for years. And they are in a unique position where people never actually see them.
But even if all image reads are done with AI, they can always retrain as interventional radiologists.
> AI is rapidly reducing the need for radiologists.
I work in radiology. This isn’t true. Having the AI circle the obviously broken bone, and put a ‘maybe fracture’ on anything vaguely difficult to interpret is a waste of time.
I also receive ‘AI’ referrals. They are hot trash and generate more work that the worst human referral. They sound like they are saying something sensible. But they aren’t.
I think it's fair to feel bad for how AI is going to eat all of our lunches (either now or 5min from now).
But at the end of the day, you either accept it or pitch an alternative. What's the alternative? Freeze tech advancement at 2020's tech in your country? At what expense, and for what gain?
The guillotine will be the alternative if we don't figure out how society is going to function and distribute resources when there is minimal demand for human labor.
