Nothing will kill art itself, GenAI will simply be incorporated as another tool
Killing the ability to make money from art AND the bs that corporations are pulling in regards to AI, profit and making line go up is what people are mad about, but that anger is constantly misplaced leading to lines of thought like this lol
I believe this states the take many have - much like nobody batted an eye about auto-contrast, content-aware fill, or line smoothing.
They weren’t trying to replace humans with programs, weren’t causing huge environmental impact, and weren’t trained on stolen content.
It’s the ham-handed implementation that most are opposed to, combined with the obnoxious techbro mentality.
I don’t understand why generative AI will kill making money from art. As you said, it’s just a tool.
If an artist can make a web comic in a fraction of the time they used to, they can multiply their output and thus possibly sell to more. A good gen AI artist would also be a good prompt engineer, which would also mean an expanded skillset. Game developers, architects, engineers, could also speed up their work to hit the ground running instead of doing a bunch of repetitive stuff.
Everybody has to adapt to AI. Adapt or die, it’s quite simple.
You’re thinking of art in terms of a product. It’s not. Art is an expression of creativity. People drawn to it will do it just because they can. They make money from it because capitalism doesn’t give them many other opportunities to provide a basic living.
“Adapt or die” is a cute phrase when it’s not being applied to yourself.
Using AI to generate the things that are in my head is still an expression of creativity, is it not? Some people use paintbrushes, some people use computer aided design and let it be printed or built by others, some people use AI. Why aren’t those expressions of creativity?
Adapt or die is a fact of life. We all have to adapt to change, if I didn’t have to, I’d be perfect. I’m nowhere near perfect. Neither are artists.
We do decide that. Because progress will not be stopped. If we’d let people’s jobs stand in the way of progress we’d still be picking berries naked in the woods.
Progress does not at all require an “adapt or die” mindset. Not at all. And it’d still be barbaric if we did. More barbaric than picking berries naked in the woods.
Yes. Not at the expense of other forms of art, though.
Which art forms are dying because of AI?
Because you decided it is. Society does not have to be built that way.
I didn’t decide anything, it’s just life. Move or get left behind. It’s how nature works. That’s just evolution. You don’t have to like it, but it’s a fact.
Maybe ask artists who have their work stolen to feed AI models that then take their job.
Does the death of an artist kill an art form? As you said, art is an expression of creativity. That is expressed in many ways. People have created art before AI and they will continue creating art after. Art isn’t just painting, or drawing, or acting, of sculpting, it can be found in sports, in engineering, in science, in the kitchen, on the playground, in our words, in our expressions, in fact it is everywhere around us. Attributing the death of creative expression to AI is misrepresenting the infinite ways it can be expressed.
Again, this is a problem because capitalism made it one.
I disagree, it’s a problem because people don’t want to evolve.
We are not nature.
We are a part of nature, or you claiming we are unnatural? What even is unnatural? Viruses modify host cells and subvert them to become virus factories, is that unnatural? Monkeys, crows, turtles, dolphins, ants, and a host of other animals use tools to achieve myriad goals.
We can make different decisions besides brutal evolutionary pressure.
Everything is constantly changing. Everything is “evolutionary pressure”. We are in no way unique in our existence. As a species, we aren’t special.
I disagree, it’s a problem because people don’t want to evolve.
Oh. So you’re a social darwinist that believes that they are special enough that they’ll never be in the crosshairs. Great. Here’s hoping that you gain some empathy and a better understanding of human evolutionary and societal history (hint: altruism and caring for others who are unable to provide for themselves is the rule, not the exception).
. . . People have created art before AI and they will continue creating art after . . .
All of which would be great in a society that isn’t capitalist. While we still have a capitalist society, artists are having their livelihood taken away.
Again, this is a problem because capitalism made it one.
I disagree, it’s a problem because people don’t want to evolve.
Which is a brutal opinion to have.
We are a part of nature, or you claiming we are unnatural?
We are not slaves to nature. We can make decisions that are healthy for humanity. Killing people’s livelihoods so that billionaires can become trillionares is not healthy.
Everything is constantly changing. Everything is “evolutionary pressure”. We are in no way unique in our existence. As a species, we aren’t special.
That’s complete bullshit. Evolution cares about your ability to reproduce and nothing else. The fact that we have things that do not help this goal is proof that our society is something beyond mere evolution.
I don’t understand why generative AI will kill making money from art. As you said, it’s just a tool.
If an artist can make a web comic in a fraction of the time they used to, they can multiply their output and thus possibly sell to more.
You’re presenting the scenario of an artist using a tool to create more art. I think the concern is someone who would have hired an artist uses the tool themselves to make art instead of hiring the artist. Hence the comment @cm0002@lemmy.world made that GenAI won’t kill art, but it will kill the ability to make money from art.
This isn’t a new thing that just started with GenAI though. Entire professions of commercial art evaporated with the introduction of computers. How many typesetters were employed by major newspapers around the world 50 years ago? With the introduction of computers the number has drastically reduced. This is also true of graphic artists that used to work all day over a light box, waxer, and Exacto knife. Now all of that is done with far fewer people in a computer. I don’t see how GenAI different from those technologies and how they impacted artist jobs.
and means lower costs, see: “reasons people like the march of progress for 100”
Objectively incorrect. The actual costs of AI “art” are astronomically higher than the costs of hiring artists. When was the last time an artist needed a fission reactor and enough potable water to supply a moderately sized city over the course of their lives, much less for the completion of a project?
The corpos running the scam just haven’t made the financial costs to end users align with reality yet. They’re trying to destroy livelihoods and get businesses stuck in vendor lock-in first so that they have no competition when they open the valves of the real costs. Generative AI under this hyper-capitalist regime is a net negative for the species.
Someone doesn’t understand the Luddite movement what so ever… Sad. Really really sad to see this level of ignorance blindly defended on Lemmy. Genuinely, pitiful. Educate yourself on the history of … everything. The Luddites and the guilded age would be excellent places to start.
If a process that takes 10 weeks for producing an animated movie/show now only takes 1 week, that’s a significant reduction in production timeline meaning more can be produced, or that time can be used to improve other production tasks
Not under capitalism. It means 10x the poverty for artists, which was already made fun of as an underpaying career path…
You ignorant lot are truly pathetic. Educate yourselves on the Luddites and the guilded age for starters… An increase in productivity is not as black and white under capitalism.
Nothing will kill art itself, GenAI will simply be incorporated as another tool
Killing the ability to make money from art AND the bs that corporations are pulling in regards to AI, profit and making line go up is what people are mad about, but that anger is constantly misplaced leading to lines of thought like this lol
I believe this states the take many have - much like nobody batted an eye about auto-contrast, content-aware fill, or line smoothing. They weren’t trying to replace humans with programs, weren’t causing huge environmental impact, and weren’t trained on stolen content. It’s the ham-handed implementation that most are opposed to, combined with the obnoxious techbro mentality.
I don’t understand why generative AI will kill making money from art. As you said, it’s just a tool.
If an artist can make a web comic in a fraction of the time they used to, they can multiply their output and thus possibly sell to more. A good gen AI artist would also be a good prompt engineer, which would also mean an expanded skillset. Game developers, architects, engineers, could also speed up their work to hit the ground running instead of doing a bunch of repetitive stuff.
Everybody has to adapt to AI. Adapt or die, it’s quite simple.
You’re thinking of art in terms of a product. It’s not. Art is an expression of creativity. People drawn to it will do it just because they can. They make money from it because capitalism doesn’t give them many other opportunities to provide a basic living.
“Adapt or die” is a cute phrase when it’s not being applied to yourself.
Using AI to generate the things that are in my head is still an expression of creativity, is it not? Some people use paintbrushes, some people use computer aided design and let it be printed or built by others, some people use AI. Why aren’t those expressions of creativity?
Adapt or die is a fact of life. We all have to adapt to change, if I didn’t have to, I’d be perfect. I’m nowhere near perfect. Neither are artists.
Yes. Not at the expense of other forms of art, though.
Because you decided it is. Society does not have to be built that way.
We do decide that. Because progress will not be stopped. If we’d let people’s jobs stand in the way of progress we’d still be picking berries naked in the woods.
Progress does not at all require an “adapt or die” mindset. Not at all. And it’d still be barbaric if we did. More barbaric than picking berries naked in the woods.
You’re right, it doesn’t need to be die, but saving jobs isn’t the way. Universal basic income is.
Which art forms are dying because of AI?
I didn’t decide anything, it’s just life. Move or get left behind. It’s how nature works. That’s just evolution. You don’t have to like it, but it’s a fact.
Maybe ask artists who have their work stolen to feed AI models that then take their job. Again, this is a problem because capitalism made it one.
We are not nature. We can make different decisions besides brutal evolutionary pressure.
Does the death of an artist kill an art form? As you said, art is an expression of creativity. That is expressed in many ways. People have created art before AI and they will continue creating art after. Art isn’t just painting, or drawing, or acting, of sculpting, it can be found in sports, in engineering, in science, in the kitchen, on the playground, in our words, in our expressions, in fact it is everywhere around us. Attributing the death of creative expression to AI is misrepresenting the infinite ways it can be expressed.
I disagree, it’s a problem because people don’t want to evolve.
We are a part of nature, or you claiming we are unnatural? What even is unnatural? Viruses modify host cells and subvert them to become virus factories, is that unnatural? Monkeys, crows, turtles, dolphins, ants, and a host of other animals use tools to achieve myriad goals.
Everything is constantly changing. Everything is “evolutionary pressure”. We are in no way unique in our existence. As a species, we aren’t special.
Oh. So you’re a social darwinist that believes that they are special enough that they’ll never be in the crosshairs. Great. Here’s hoping that you gain some empathy and a better understanding of human evolutionary and societal history (hint: altruism and caring for others who are unable to provide for themselves is the rule, not the exception).
All of which would be great in a society that isn’t capitalist. While we still have a capitalist society, artists are having their livelihood taken away.
Which is a brutal opinion to have.
We are not slaves to nature. We can make decisions that are healthy for humanity. Killing people’s livelihoods so that billionaires can become trillionares is not healthy.
That’s complete bullshit. Evolution cares about your ability to reproduce and nothing else. The fact that we have things that do not help this goal is proof that our society is something beyond mere evolution.
You’re presenting the scenario of an artist using a tool to create more art. I think the concern is someone who would have hired an artist uses the tool themselves to make art instead of hiring the artist. Hence the comment @cm0002@lemmy.world made that GenAI won’t kill art, but it will kill the ability to make money from art.
This isn’t a new thing that just started with GenAI though. Entire professions of commercial art evaporated with the introduction of computers. How many typesetters were employed by major newspapers around the world 50 years ago? With the introduction of computers the number has drastically reduced. This is also true of graphic artists that used to work all day over a light box, waxer, and Exacto knife. Now all of that is done with far fewer people in a computer. I don’t see how GenAI different from those technologies and how they impacted artist jobs.
If 1 person can make 10x the art, then 1 person can do the job of 10, meaning 9 people are out of work.
and means lower costs, see: “reasons people like the march of progress for 100”
Objectively incorrect. The actual costs of AI “art” are astronomically higher than the costs of hiring artists. When was the last time an artist needed a fission reactor and enough potable water to supply a moderately sized city over the course of their lives, much less for the completion of a project?
The corpos running the scam just haven’t made the financial costs to end users align with reality yet. They’re trying to destroy livelihoods and get businesses stuck in vendor lock-in first so that they have no competition when they open the valves of the real costs. Generative AI under this hyper-capitalist regime is a net negative for the species.
Someone doesn’t understand the Luddite movement what so ever… Sad. Really really sad to see this level of ignorance blindly defended on Lemmy. Genuinely, pitiful. Educate yourself on the history of … everything. The Luddites and the guilded age would be excellent places to start.
Or it means 10x the art in the world.
If a process that takes 10 weeks for producing an animated movie/show now only takes 1 week, that’s a significant reduction in production timeline meaning more can be produced, or that time can be used to improve other production tasks
Not under capitalism. It means 10x the poverty for artists, which was already made fun of as an underpaying career path…
You ignorant lot are truly pathetic. Educate yourselves on the Luddites and the guilded age for starters… An increase in productivity is not as black and white under capitalism.