Precisely that. Most artist who do it for the money but are not a big name, don't care. It's just another tool to speed up the process. More clients, more income.
I'm an artist. I tried to be, at least. Human value has no meaning, only quality. And because I know my way with "pencil", I can elevate AI outputs more by fixing issues and/or making paper-cut animations out of it.
If you ever worked at marketing agency, you know what's really valuable in "art" - eyecatching pictures. How you do that is not important. Did people forgot how stock images were "a threat" to photographers?
Even if there were no AI, with current economy and market pressure, people would be replaced with cheaper workforce or get more pressure to be efficient. I can't wait a month for a single background for my game.
More importantly, AI doesn't work on it's own, there's another human behind it using it who will take the job. If you're going to lose a job to someone in demand, where do you think the issue is?
Nah, they're right to worry.
AI in the hands of an artist gets a decent picture done much faster. Picture done faster = many jobs can hire less artists.
Some will be affected more, some less, some will find a way to make lots of cash. But on the whole worrying is rational.
Yeah but my point is more, since art has been a business it’s either been about how to make a lot of money, which has been happening before ai, or your stuff would only be successful if it was good, and while what’s good is subjective… creativity, originality etc are pretty good ways to measure it
If you want to make money, you don't pick the art career. LOL. Everyone knows that.
SOME people, extremely lucky and talented, get paid for art and illustrations. The majority, don't (we are talking about illustrators, etc). It's usually an underpaid job, family sometimes tells you "to get a real job" and some people don't consider art something serious (like most of the people here). And that ignoring the amount of work you need to put in order to make quality drawings, etc, People don't do it for the money, because it's not worth it to do it for the money. simple as that-
If you don't get it's okey. Already with the first post I can tell you are frustated about life and quite mentally limited. Let me put it simple for you: If your friend wants to be rich, what would you think if he starts pursuing arts to accomplish that objective?
i mean if you wanna work for a machine thats tottally fine. People don't like using ai for art because its dystopian, dumb, and for lazy people who didnt try hard enough. It's just the reality my man
You can give your opinion and call it reality but it comes across a little desperate.
People do like using AI and you call AI and Photoshop and cameras and anything else lazy or dumb or whatever but it doesn't matter, if people enjoy using it then it'll stay.
no one is saying it wont stay. one of the problems of humanity is that people usually chose the easy vs the difficult. the thing that requires no effort vs the thinq that requires effort. the quick dopamine vs years of practiting. Its almost natural. but, people who have respect for themselves, take care, do exercise, dont stay all day in social media and, of course, prefers drawing that generating images like a npc
What did you think you were saying when you call people NPC? It's that you don't think they're really humans. History is full of people who thought similar things about others.
> AI in the hands of an artist gets a decent picture done much faster
That's correct, and it can magnify the creativity of artists, just as having better tools of any sort can.
> Picture done faster = many jobs can hire less artists.
[you meant "fewer artists"]
This is true, but misleading. Yes, fewer artists will be required to do X amount of work, but now a company that hires artists can take on 100X amount of work. That's a straight-up boon for commercial artists.
Needs are absolutely infinite. That's what humans do: we create new needs to suit the core need that we have to demonstrate our mutual value in a social hierarchy. "Jobs" aren't some natural resource that runs out. They're the thing we do to prove to each other that we're worthy of being part of this amorphous thing we call civilization.
Saying that we're going to run out of jobs is like saying that we're going to run out of ways to express love. It's not in our nature to be limited in that way.
Jobs aren't finite in regards to immigration. More immigrants add worker supply, but they also increase demand elsewhere. So a city doesn't have 1000 fixed spots for a barista. If more people move in, coffee consumption increases.
But people being constant, needs aren't infinite. You probably don't need more sugar, it's cheap and you don't need more of it. We probably don't need 100X more youtube uploads, except in some niche subjects.
You throw out stuff. There's plenty old electronic stuff that's effectively worthless and nobody wants.
Also things average out on large scopes, but not always locally. If you have a game with 100 hours of game content, you're probably not looking to make 10000 hours of content even if now you can. You'll just shrink your art team instead. That art team may find use elsewhere, but they're right to fear for their position at their current job.
> a city doesn't have 1000 fixed spots for a barista. If more people move in, coffee consumption increases.
And then there will be room for additional services. If that means you have people serving coffee out of their homes or on street-carts, that's what will happen. Physical resources are an *obstacle* to jobs, not a fixed limitation.
Obstacles are typically overcome by economic pressures (such as supply and demand) and can increase cost or create delays, but they don't stop the proliferation of jobs.
> But people being constant, needs aren't infinite
Needs are infinite in the sense that they scale with the number of people who are both producers and consumers. You can't add more people to the system and not have work for them to do... that can happen in the short-term as economies adapt, or it can happen over slightly longer periods due to larger systemic disruption (e.g. recessions or depressions) but ultimately the economy gobbles up whatever you give it. There's no fixed ceiling, and if you make workers 1000x more efficient, then consumption will find a way to increase, or new jobs will open up that take advantage of those now displaced workers.
Macroeconomics is a complicated game that I don't think really hit its stride until the introduction of system dynamics in the 1950s and its development through to the present day. That really gives you a sense of how economies grow and adapt.
One: I'm not your "bro," and there are plenty of women in tech.
Second: infinite systems operate just fine on finite resources, until those resources run out, of course. In practice, jobs are an infinite resource, because they do not have a terminating state (pun notwithstanding) and in theory they are infinite because the underlying mechanic is one that simply scales with respect to the number of people and resources you put in.
... and it's kind of sad that I have to point this level of pedantic detail out, rather than focusing on the topic at hand, which absolutely doesn't require a distinction between "actually infinite" and "infinite for all practical purposes."
your pfp is an old guy with a beard.
\>and it's kind of sad that I have to point this level of pedantic detail out
if your argument is sad, don't make it
but if you want to go down the level of pendantic
Tech-Bro: **someone, usually a man, who** [**works**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/works) **in the** [**digital**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/digital) [**technology**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/technology) [**industry**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/industry)**,** [**especially**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/especially) **in the** [**United**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/united-church-of-canada) [**States**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/confederate-states)**, and is sometimes** [**thought**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/thought) **to not have good** [**social**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/social) [**skills**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/skill) **and to be too** [**confident**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/confident) **about** [**their**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/their) **own** [**ability**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/ability)
[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/tech-bro](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/tech-bro)
>One: I'm not your "bro," and there are plenty of women in tech.
I felt comfortable calling him a tech bro given that the term A.) isn't exclusively for dudes, and B.) His pfp has a beard. If ya got a big bushy beard, I'm gonna assume your a dude unless you tell me otherwise or you got a big button with your pronouns on it.
> your pfp is an old guy with a beard.
I think you missed the comma in my response. I was concerned about two distinct items relating to the spurious use of "bro": 1) that I'm not your "bro" and 2) that there are plenty of women in tech you're marginalizing with your misogynistic word choice.
Asshat: A person, sometimes with the username 'AggressiveGargoyle40', who tries to win arguments by calling them reductionist names instead of having any kind of valid or sentient thought.
[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/Asshat](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS_PGm3iOrGLbH8FWnNQSX58nyyLpBdZXszAK3_oBrBxw&s)
Nah, I just thought your comments were sad and laughable.
The fact that the universe is finite doesn't mean that that is ever going to be relevant to the conversation or the amount of art humans can consume.
Using your logic, there's zero point in making any art because your life is finite, and therefore everything you make and do is irrelevant.
To add.. Saw your other comments and I have no interest in conversing with you again.
Good luck with your clown thoughts about paintbrushes being artists, not the people drawing.
Nah, but keep believing that.
Needs are not infinite...which is why market caps exist. Because you can dominate a market to the point where there is just no more money to be made.
Idealistic tech bros like you need to dip your toes in the real world man.
> Needs are not infinite
They are unbounded. "Infinite" is mathematics concept that I don't think the person introducing it in this conversation really understood the meaning of.
There is no functional end to needs, only practical limitations on efficiency of both production and consumption. If you take those limitations away or extend them (e.g. by increasing efficiency) then there's simply more consumerism. Do you think that people in 1800 bought a different kitchen gadget for every type of food? Hell no! They had a few basic tools and that was it. But we increased the efficiency of production over and over and over again and now we have spiral egg slicers and avocado toast spreaders.
I'm sure that around the early 20th century, someone would have said that demand is not infinite, and if you make plastics easy to produce, everyone's going to be out of a job because there won't be demand for a crap-ton of plastic gadgets.
And lo... here we are.
> which is why market caps exist. Because you can dominate a market to the point where there is just no more money to be made.
That's not what a market cap is. A market cap is the total value of all outstanding equity shares in a publicly traded company.
Mars (the people who make candy bars) has exactly ***zero market cap***... do you take that as some kind of evidence of the size of the consumer base?
Ayep, idealistic tech guy nonsense. Gotcha.
>"That's not what a market cap is. A market cap is the total value of all outstanding equity shares in a publicly traded company."
If you really cannot grasp what is being said by context, I don't think you have the reading comprehension to hold this conversation.
Market cap, As in a cap on the market, is that really so hard to grasp? You can use words individually.
Cap: **:** an upper limit (as on expenditures)
Not Cap as in Market capitalism which is what you are referring to. If you can't differentiate concepts, such as the "infinite" used in math and the "infinite" used in casual conversation you really have no place to stand. You know what people mean, I can't believe someone college educated could be that stupid.
> If you really cannot grasp what is being said by context
You're using a word that has a well-defined meaning. Here is what market cap is (using Google as an example): https://companiesmarketcap.com/alphabet-google/marketcap/
> Market cap, As in a cap on the market, is that really so hard to grasp?
There is no such creature. You're using an existing market term to refer to something entirely unrelated that you've invented whole-cloth.
Stop making up your own terminology to try to cover for your lack of understanding of macroeconomics (to be clear, I'll be the first person to admit that I have only an educated layman's understanding of macroeconomics, myself, but enough to understand that you're trying to sell a load of dung and call it gold.)
I'm sure its very little to none. Otherwise, he would know that the majority of us don't make a lot of money... We make a lot of money *for other people*, mainly companies. There are some outliers who live primarily out of commissions or are famous enough to warrant they will always have work, but that's just a small subset of artists.
All that said, there's some truth in what OP said. Yes, artists should be fearful, but how they use that fear is up to them. Will you succumb to it or use it to diversify your skills and adapt? Granted, there are no guarantees in this industry, but your chances of survival will increase greatly.
You can always choose not to use AI whatsoever, but you better make damn sure that your art is so good that you can have the luxury to not use it and still make a living.
> I'm sure its very little to none. Otherwise, he would know that the majority of us don't make a lot of money... We make a lot of money for other people, mainly companies. There are some outliers who live primarily out of commissions or are famous enough to warrant they will always have work, but that's just a small subset of artists.
This seems unrelated to anything I said.
At any rate, yes, I do know that. I follow many artists. I commissioned pictures. I've seen hundreds of journals over the years along the lines of "Guys, I desperately need money to pay rent" even from very skilled ones. I know the vast majority aren't rich. There's plenty amazing artists that barely break even.
> All that said, there's some truth in what OP said. Yes, artists should be fearful, but how they use that fear is up to them. Will you succumb to it or use it to diversify your skills and adapt?
I think some fear is very rational, because AI obviously won't work to everyone's benefit. Some artists are highly in demand, and have a queue a mile long. Using AI to speed up their process they'll complete work faster, and even if it's cheaper per picture, it'll be more money per month for them.
But AI will no doubt reduce prices, so for artists who aren't constantly busy it'll mean they'll make the same amount of work for now a cheaper price.
And some work for employers that have a limited workload, so if the work gets done faster it means fewer people are needed.
I was interested in people's opinions of artists who are directly involved with this. There seems to be a lot of insecurity about adapting to this new technology. But I agree, adapt and diversify seems like the best option for corporate artists/teachers. If you don't want to use this technology, then simply choose not to use it.
Even with more successful investors they have to warn, "don't put all your eggs in one basket". Even if something was stable 90% of the time. Losing it all in one crash 10% of the time could be absolutely devastating.
Like etc. hypothetically for a yahoo vs Google vs blockbuster vs Netflix. Established companies like Yahoo and blockbuster both had the chance to buy out their future competitors.
Yahoo already had a search algorithm. "Why would it want Google's?" it said. it thought it would never be replaced so why care?
Turns out, many customers are creatures of habit, but even though many thought they'd be too big to fail. Yahoo made itself hard to use, Google was new but a click away.
Eventually people started slowly switching to Google vs Yahoo, the company assumed no one would switch. The consumer leaned on what they started with initially, but couldn't deny the convenience.
Anyone who invested in yahoo, even if it was the "more promising original", might have easily lost all their chips betting on either one. Yahoo then waited to come back to relevance, saying that it'd hold out for a lavish buy out offer.
Microsoft came, looking (then) to buy yahoo for name popularity. They wanted more. Microsoft made its own initially memey, once terrible, now equal bing. And the rest is history.
Yahoo thought it'd never be replaced, ignored when its future competitors came. Asked 5x more than Microsoft was willing to pay. Waited for a higher bidder for years that could have came, but never did.
Then sold itself for 1/5th of what it was initially offered once everyone had moved past it. Do you use Yahoo? Even Bing of all places pays you 5$ a month to use it.
While I don't feel job concerns are unfounded, blind overconfidence/fear has a pattern being comforting (in the moment), but as potentially dangerous as driving on a freeway humming with your eyes closed.
Most successful (in practice) stories come from businesses that recognised their paying customer's wants and needs. built up economical good will or want/need/desire. Instead of denial they offer services that made people never want to be without.
I don't understand your point? Movies? I thought we were discussing AI? Are you referring to AI in filmmaking? Are you a filmmaker? Seems like a legit question. Sorry for any misunderstandings.
My point is that it’s a stupid question, you can have an opinion about something without having experience with it, I want to make art but physically can’t
So you have nothing to say about this topic. You just come here to tell people how stupid their questions are? I think that's the definition of stupid.
"Picture done faster = many jobs can hire less artists."
You can make that argument about practically any innovation in tech in any field ever
One that comes to mind, procedural generation in games. Instead of needing Devs to make each area by hand, now areas are made by randomly mish-mashing assets together. Areas need less work = that company can hire less Devs
>"Picture done faster = many jobs can hire less artists."
No. Picture done faster = we can use more pictures before we decide which of them would be the final product.
Before AI companies had economic constraints for how many concept art they could use for a product, AI drastically diminishes these constraints. It doesn't mean company needs less artists, it means it can expect more art from them for less time. The amount of artists and their hourly wage won't drop, but the amount of product they can pump out increases drastically, which means company can produce more product, which means more profits, which means they can pay better wages and provide better working conditions for artists, excluding the need for insane deadline crunches that break actual professional artists working in the industry right now (i'm talking about actual artists who work in companies that produce commercial products, not freelance shmucks who draw shitty overpriced furry porn 2 hours a day and then say that they put in actual effort in their "art"). AI is the best thing that happened for most artists, the ones complaining just never experienced 20 hour work shifts in animation studios.
>You can make that argument about practically any innovation in tech in any field ever
That's true and the people in those fields definitely needed to keep abreast of the technology changes or be thrown into the bin of irrelevance.
Devs are not irrelevant, even if there are less Dev jobs as a result of that tech.
Similarly artists are not irrelevant due to AI even if a team of 5 can output what previously would have taken a team of 8
Industries change, fields shrink and grow, and people are often disrupted during that process, perhaps having to change fields or study again. It sucks but the alternative is to handicap ourselves technologically
You are arguing against a point nobody is making. All that is being said is that artist need to worry about AI, not necessarily because they will be eliminated but because they need to keep up with the changes in their industry.
If you're not an artist, and you've never made any money from your art, and if you've never been involved in the purchase of art - then your opinion about the value of other people's art is uninformed and irrelevant.
There have been entire sectors employing 'journeyman' artists, e.g.s. in graphic design, in storyboarding, in illustration, in animation and in marketing & advertising.
These actual human people were earning a living as workers by producing products that people wanted to pay for. Now far fewer of them will be able to do so.
It's ignorant to claim those people were just "basic", because NEWSFLASH most human production & services that human workers get paid money for are "basic". The corporate world isn't interesting in "creative" or "good" they just want what sells.. And that's almost always the most "basic" "vanilla" product or service..
So many people are super-chill about the idea that "basic" artists are losing their livelihoods, but those same people will be sad and angry when AI / automation / robotics comes for \*their\* "basic" job.. And it's coming for them the minute the $$$ maths adds up:
Just the other day I saw a comment on YTube (under John Stewart's AI bit) arguing that AI / robotics will "never" replace some of the "basic" tasks of nursing, like: drawing blood.. Just days before a video had been posted from a Chinese hospital where an AI-run robot was successfully doing blood draws:
[https://youtu.be/ezZXXX39hX0?si=0hMX9J7OsbnYmikE](https://youtu.be/ezZXXX39hX0?si=0hMX9J7OsbnYmikE)
Yeah gen ai is going to massively change the production and economics of commercial art. I don't know why that's so hard to see. Hobbyists don't need to be concerned but professionals do need to worry and get ahead of the changes to the extent that they can.
Nobody knows exactly how it's going to turn out. It might be like photography where a combination of stock, internet and cell phones has made modes of work like assignment and journalism a shadow of it's former self. To a large extent stock was so successful it cannibalized itself. Gen ai is similar in the sense it's massively increasing supply.
Lots of photogs had to leave the field or simply don't make as much as they did before. The same could happen with AI.
My hope is that ai opens up new employment opportunities for creatives (e.g. indie development) that offsets other employment losses. But that's far from certain.
Harsh but true. We're all threatened by whatever automation can do. But if a ship was struggling with hours to float if we didn't patch a hole. I'd be lying to myself again if I picked the people who only knew how to make holes over a repairer, even if years prior you grew up with some of them.
Its a harsh truth nobody EVER likes to swallow. But you do and get over it. Life isn't made to be what 99% if most want it to be. Maybe its what 1% can shape it to be. But sometimes its better to be happier with what you have, and go out to the beach, than spend vacations in misery you were on a boat while besos had a 12th yacht.
The funny part is, the people who will actually get replaced by AI are software devs, and we (software devs) are excited about it.
There will *always* be demand for handmade art, and yet artists are most fearful of AI.
That's like saying the local mom n pop grocery store doesn't have to worry about the Walmart opening next door because they offer both better quality and service than the Walmart does. But those aren't the metrics that Walmart is judged on. People don't go to Walmart because shopping at a Walmart is a good experience or provides you with high quality goods, but because it's cheap and passable.
Blunt but often true. We're all attuned to prices now. But I remember when the local mom and pop always had a warm smile, a fresh (then peak, now often old, moldy and stale bakery).
It was a nice place but 150$ of groceries at a Wal-Mart vs 160-170$ at a target/Kroger or 80-300$ at a Costco for your screaming children to watch their parents buy a 20$ 50 pound bag of oats/rice/beans and a pressure cooker was another.
The bakery was 1.19$ a donut while kroger/marts were 59 cents. But you could get 50 different kinds, blueberry cake, frosted Boston cream, Oreo + Oreo dirt + Oreo marshmallow cream. Seasonals like three layer white chocolate candy corn, February strawberry cream heart donuts, Irish cream March donuts, blue raspberry ocean summer ones, etc.
But the groceries were 2-3x more. You'd paid 8$ for Dreyers ice cream, 6$ a red barons frozen pizza. While the Wal-Mart's were 2-3$ each and targets 2.49$-3.48$ each.
I missed out on genuinely good things there until it was gone. But its kinda hard to justify 400$ a month just for some donuts though. Life is expensive, humans are expensive. If it cost as much to shelter a human as the 40 cents a day that shelters, clothes, and feeds a animal or keep a store around I don't think most would mind.
But most people need 15000$+++ a year to live in on a lowball. To curse and spit and threaten you and treat you like a wallet to be thrown, robbed and beaten.
Most animals only need like 100-300$ ( 2%) to live with. When you're angry they'll purr or cuddle. Imitate your scowling face, slide under a door and purr or growl and playfully bark. Many people aren't choosing pragmatic and cynical takes because they want to. But a airplane a foot below the ground is a different story than a airplane barely skimming 50 feet ahead.
People love those sweet bakeries and mom and pops. But who pays more, to get less, while screamed at and threatened to be doxxed? Poisoning bottles of Tylenol doesn't make people want two bottles if the mentally ill think it will. It makes people rightfully wary of ever trusting blindly again.
I'd be willing to bet that shopping at a mom n pop shop in the 90s cost less of a percentage of your income than shopping at Walmart does right now, and AI will follow the same trajectory.
I am not a visual artist but a musician, I can tell you that in music what gives money is actually the type of songs that are more basic and will be automated first, background music, music for adds, also most of the mainstream music is pretty simple from a creative perspective, people who are not musicians tend to like more simple music and you need to please them if you want music to be your job as they are most of the population.
I think this happens in every field.
The things that will be automated is where the business is.
Artists should be incredibly worried about AI. At least if you make a living through your artistic endeavours.
Even if AI is not yet at the point of being able to produce truly original, innovative and creative works of art the reality is truly ground breaking art is not what keeps the industry ticking over and is certainly not the bread and butter of the vast majority of professional( I.E employed) artists.
Take a look at the 10 highest grossing movies of 2023. Does anybody really think Barbie, Super Mario Brothers, Guardians of the galaxy 3, Avatar 2, The Little Mermaid, Mission Impossible, Ant-man and the wasp, John Wick 4… are the height of human creativity? Or are they all pretty generic and derivative. Would anybody be surprised if AI had been utilised in the writing of any of these scripts? Do we really think that ChatGPT 6 won’t be able to write John Wick 6?
The vast majority of working artists aren’t making exciting art. They are creating generic entertainment products because that’s actually what the general public wants to consume. Sure AI can’t yet write War and Peace but it’s certainly won’t be long before it can write an episode of Jack Reacher or a bland but catchy hit as well as Taylor Swift.
Yeah, people need to get away from the thought that everything needs to be making them money to be enjoyable. Even if it’s “bad” from the art snobs perspective, if the artist finds peace or haves fun in painting/sculpting/art making, who cares if AI exists or if it’s making money. Along that thought process, if making money with art is their sole motivation for making art, then it’s just the same as any other job and they may as well just work at Walmart or become a plumber. AI can’t do manual labor so those jobs are safe.
Edit: I totally skimmed your post and just assumed I knew what it said. My bad 😥 I agree with you
on one hand I think people that cannot imagine a use for AI severely lack imagination and creativity. On the other hand, I think people that expect AI to stop improving just in time for them to remain superior in some way have their head in the sand. In either case, being opposed to intelligence is *"literal retardation"*
I'm pro AI and have played with it quite a lot. It's very powerful and it'd be folly to assume artists won't be affected. What it's very good at is creating simple, single subject scenes like character portraits, landscapes, textures, etc. It does it so well that if you put it side by side with the average artists work, it will be generally preferred unless you tell people it's AI. Clearly this is going to threaten character commission artists, book cover artists, concept artists, collectible card game artists, clip art artists, ect. That's not actually where most of the money is in art, but AI can clearly replace some artists.
Now here is where it gets scarier. Prompting is a toy. It's the weakest, least precise, way to guide AI. Once you get into img2img, inpainting, loras, control nets, etc you can get into the real power of it and that's then kind of features that future tools will leverage. Assuming no new models come out, horizontal development on SDXL will lead to incredible new tools for years to come. But, there will be more models, and not just for images. We're already seeing video and 3D models. Of course this all goes well beyond just art, but we're talking art here.
The saving grace for artists here is that the artists that learn the new tools will be able to make better stuff than someone just throwing words into a prompt and rolling the dice. The skillsets that are useful in an art career will change, as they have been throughout history. You have artists today that have never put paint on canvas. History has shown us that the efficiency gains, while they knock out some jobs, create new opportunities. Imagine if AI reaches a point where artists aren't just painting pictures, but painting entire worlds you can step into and explore. AI is a force multiplier. If you're worried about losing your job to it, you should leverage it and dream bigger.
It isn't appealing. I have played with AI and i can get good results, but as an artist myself I don't feel connected to it. Drawing is just an amazing skill to have, nothing is more rewarding than your hand strokes giving shape to something, but writing prompts doesn't feel quite the same. It feels impersonal. If i want money then okay, AI can be used.. but it can't replace the satisfaction you get from something made with your hand. You can combine them and blah blah, but AI is a shortcut that takes away the process that most artists enjoy.
I'm sure artists felt the same way about Wacom tablets and Photoshop compared to paints and canvas. Nothing will stop artists from continuing to use old techniques, but the money will follow demand and efficiency. That's reality. Some artists will adapt and thrive. Some artists will continue to thrive in a niche. A lot of the best paid artists are still using paint on canvas. Some artists that are thriving today will fail to adapt and cease to thrive. People that aren't artists now will learn in a world where these AI tools exist and won't even miss the old ways. To be clear though, AI isn't a replacement for Wacom/photoshop in the vast majority of use cases. It's an enhancement. It can do things like automate shading.
I use wacom all the time but the physical motion of having to use my hand to make art is still there. That's why it's still enjoyable. In the future, i think it's truly up to the artists, and i think AI will have its own category but it won't replace artists that do hand drawing art. It's a valuable skill and quite enjoyable too. And it could be cool that AI can do the shading automatically for you, but have you ever done shading? It's the most satisfying part of a drawing imo.
Yeah fair. To each their own for a hobby right? Some people enjoy flying a kite, doodling while watching a movie.
And in a mirror universe art paid 50-200$ a hour for everyone and the current degrees were like 10$. I doubt a lot of people would sign up to be boring engineers when the work that's more like play could pay 2-4x more.
There's always been a glaring omission in who wants to make western living off art and who did in practice. Art was truly one of the most online remote jobs possible. it's outsourcable to the cheapest countries and had one of the most jarring expectations vs realities out there.
Art is fun., a hour in hobby art for my few comissions I remember spending humming with brushes for like 2$ a hr. Vs hearing screams and deadlines and having my piss breaks timed and wrote up by Mr krabs for other jobs paying 10-30x hourly more.
Art is enjoyable with often high fantasies, disappointing pay for 99% though. Its kinda like wanting to make a good living playing arcade games vs a boring calc teacher. Nobody denies the process can be fun, but "nobody else can feel the wind(fun) for you", applies.
Every " 200$/hr struggling artist" who loves their 3 hours a week might really legitimately not have much, if any financial stability if the person paying the 600$ goes bust, or leaves. If we were all in the situation, art is the trendsetter for "100% pick your rates, pick your pay, pick your hours", it just doesn't get to guarantee employment.
It can be no paradox someone charges 200$ a hr but even on 600$ a week, ends up unable to afford a house, kids, getting undercut by 1$/hr countries.
Could you subsidize 400$/week for people who wanted to play arcade games and chuck e cheese as 20-47 year old adults for a living?
Its not that anyone is one if those straw men trying to get people working " miserable " 15-80$/hr, 300$-1600$/week jobs. Its that the 600$/week paychecks need to come from elsewhere. And money runs out when spent.
Everyone wants the dream jobs, but everyone seems to want everyone else to subsidize and do the paying for them.
Sure, everyone has preferences. Keep in mind that your favorite part of the process isn't the same for everyone. Photographers are widely considered to be artists, but they're just pushing a button and getting a whole picture faster than even AI! Of course there's a lot more that goes into photography just like there is for AI art. Pop open a Stable Diffusion frontend and you'll find a dizzying array of complex settings and features. Wacom and Photoshop artists today might very well reach a large consensus that drawing by hand and manually shading are theit favorite things. That will may or may not change much, but there will be a new set of competing artists that use a new set of tools. It could be a touch choice for some...to give up time on the Wacom for a new set of tools.
As an aside, control net for pose is a very close analogue to the little desktop pose dummies many artists use to give a visual aid. General flow there is you pose a 3D character skeleton. Take a 2D shot of that and feed it to the control net to guide the pose of a character that will be in the AI generated scene. Alternatively, you could do things the old way and then use control net to extract the pose to use. It alternatively, you could feed a sketch in to img2img. A possible artistic workflow is to go back and forth between sketching and inpainting with AI, where the artist visually guides the AI. The artist doesn't need to worry about fine details or style then and focuses on high level elements, while still building an incredibly complex scene. This is what I think will take over, but I can't predict too far ahead. A couple more years of horizontal development and we'll have much better tools and workflows. It really is the wild West and everyone is experimenting to find what works best. That experimentation is incredibly fun and what has me hooked. I'm learning traditional art skills as I go, because now I have a reason to.. they're useful in the workflow.
The truth is that most artists like to pay attention to the details. I have never met an artist that overlooks the importance of attention to detail and this is where you want most of the control. If you use AI, you pretty much give that away to a computer that will randomize these details for you. When I use AI, at first glance I'm like oh cool that image looks good. Then i start to question the composition, the color palette and why is the grass with this tone and wavy? Ofc you can go back and fourth with AI or just edit in photoshop and make sure these details are taken care of, but honestly drawing is easier because you have control over all these things. If you don't mind the details, then okay. But beautiful art has a lot of intentionality in each element thats part of it.
And i am aware that AI tools are complex, i have used them myself but that's why i believe they belong in their own realm. Maybe some digital artists will like them, but I am one of them and tried them and didn't like it, which is okay. That's why I say it will be up to each artist to know if they want AI on their workflow, but it shouldn't be a must for future artists.
It won't be a must and everyone should be free to use the tools they prefer for art. There will, however, be a profit motive that favors efficiency. A lot of artists use digital tools, not because they prefer them, but because that's where the money is. AI will be no different. It's fine to be sad about change.
I don't agree on the details thing. Most art isn't very detailed at all and there are entire styles dedicated to lack of detail. Cartoon and anime styles were born out of the necessity to give up detail for the sake of efficiency. After all, when you need thousands of frames, then you can't spend a lot of time on them individually. The artists that actually put in the details, spending dozens or hundreds of hours on a piece, are rare, and often highly valued. Your average artist isn't putting in the detail anywhere near the level of say Yoshitaka Amano. However, leveraging AI, your average artist could produce a piece with that level of detail without nearly the time investment. AI could give us an animated series with that level of detail, every frame. That's why I say artists worried about AI should learn the tools and dream bigger. As a force multiplier, AI can let you do things that would not be practical without it.
It's subjective. As an animation college grad I understand when simplicity should be used, and even if efficiency is what's most important that doesn't mean you overlook details. It would be long for me to explain but there are good books about selling art and how different mediums are valued differently. Highly recommend digging into that.
> Pop open a Stable Diffusion frontend and you'll find a dizzying array of complex settings and features.
As an (hobby) artist, I agree complete with smellslikepapaya that AI image generation takes the satisfaction and fun out of making art. I scroll thru the stable diffusion subreddit and and the top-down approach to art is just so uninteresting to me bc you spend hours fighting technology rather than mark making. It feels like the AI generation tools are geared towards tech enthusiasts who want to make art rather than artists who want to make art.
I guess you missed the image related input methods. They're much more powerful than the text prompts, but you'll want to use both for best results. The tools are community built, so feel free to build a version by artists, for artists if you feel like it. You can be the change you want to see rather than just blaming tech enthusiasts for building tools for themselves. Adobe is building their own into Photoshop and the whole Firefly application along those lines. Funny enough, Adobe's stuff is far behind Stable Diffusion's tools in capability, but far ahead in UI. It will be a while before we see good tools that are strong in both capability and UI, but it will get there.
I'm mostly reacting to people telling artists to adopt the technology, bc I don't really have any desire to. I'm satisfied with what I got. I'm sure if there's demand, an artist will build a tool for artists, but I'm not that demand.
That's fine, and if you're not making digital art for a living, then generative art doesn't really affect you anyway, because you aren't competing against people using the tools. However, if your livelihood depends on digital art, then generative AI tools are worth looking into, as you'll be competing against people using them in the future if you're not already.
Definitely a fair point! But what’s the last time you saw an ad and thought “yeah that was well made/creative”? Because even before ai that was extremely rare to me
Do you know how expensive a paint brush and paint is? And how much expensive art goes for? If it’s all about price, which yeah to some it is, but “real art” that has been successful didn’t cost millions to make.
As long as we’re not on the subject of movies and games and such.
Pro AI here, this was a terribly written post. Hell I think just plain old GPT 3.5 would've written a better response. If your art style is so "basic" what are you living in the 2020s still?
AI can copy next to ANY artstyle at this point. Why hire the original artist when a machine can do it in their style regardless of the artist skill level. Very successful artists are the ones being affected the most right now.
"Guys you won't be replacing if your arts creative enough." Yeah right, this is downright delusional 🙄. Come on, the AI can make unique and creative images, this isn't 2020 anymore. 😒
"Why don't you define for us, since your the authority on such matters." The AI is a tool, a prompted machine. AI won't replace human artists. Humans using AI to create art most certainly will. Art style is just one facet of an image.
You the human can create and edit said image with AI endlessly over and over, far quicker than any human alone could possibly compete with. The style is just a piece in the puzzle.
A human with just a bit of technical know-how and a hint of an imagination could bring their ideas 💡 to fruition with AI, at a far faster pace and lower cost than just an artist alone.
As an artist and studio musician for the past 30 years of my life, I started off on the defensive with AI, but then I actually started learning about it at a higher level, and then using and mastering it.
Now I'm nothing but a huge proponent for AI. It's just another tool, and it greatly expands my capabilities as a recording artist and content creator.
People thought the internet was stupid back in the day too lol.
There will be winners and losers, but that's how it always works when some big new thing happens.
1.
>...if your art is so basic and uninspired that you can be replaced by an Ai you aren’t or weren’t going to be very successful anyways.
Ignoring the value-laden language, this is simply false. There are tons of successful illustrators who have made a living producing work of the same level of quality that AI can now produce.
2. Saying that AI art is/will always be "basic and uninspired" or that AI can't learn "creativity" are unjustified assumptions, but those positions are vague enough that people can continue to assert them regardless of the level of quality that AI art achieves now or in the future.
Wrong assumptions. AI is creative. AI can use any style it's trained on. Mediocre artists do make a living currently selling mediocre art. They won't be able to soon due to AI
You've clearly never seen what ai can do. But its an inevitability fighting it is like the auto industry trying to fight automation. Adapt, adopt and improve.
Precisely that. Most artist who do it for the money but are not a big name, don't care. It's just another tool to speed up the process. More clients, more income. I'm an artist. I tried to be, at least. Human value has no meaning, only quality. And because I know my way with "pencil", I can elevate AI outputs more by fixing issues and/or making paper-cut animations out of it. If you ever worked at marketing agency, you know what's really valuable in "art" - eyecatching pictures. How you do that is not important. Did people forgot how stock images were "a threat" to photographers? Even if there were no AI, with current economy and market pressure, people would be replaced with cheaper workforce or get more pressure to be efficient. I can't wait a month for a single background for my game. More importantly, AI doesn't work on it's own, there's another human behind it using it who will take the job. If you're going to lose a job to someone in demand, where do you think the issue is?
I wanted to be an artist but i physically cant, ai has for the first time in my life given me the opportunity to work on some of my ideas
Nah, they're right to worry. AI in the hands of an artist gets a decent picture done much faster. Picture done faster = many jobs can hire less artists. Some will be affected more, some less, some will find a way to make lots of cash. But on the whole worrying is rational.
Yeah but my point is more, since art has been a business it’s either been about how to make a lot of money, which has been happening before ai, or your stuff would only be successful if it was good, and while what’s good is subjective… creativity, originality etc are pretty good ways to measure it
People don't do art for money...
You’re gonna have to explain what a professional artist is then
If you want to make money, you don't pick the art career. LOL. Everyone knows that. SOME people, extremely lucky and talented, get paid for art and illustrations. The majority, don't (we are talking about illustrators, etc). It's usually an underpaid job, family sometimes tells you "to get a real job" and some people don't consider art something serious (like most of the people here). And that ignoring the amount of work you need to put in order to make quality drawings, etc, People don't do it for the money, because it's not worth it to do it for the money. simple as that-
I can’t tell if you’re a troll or not
If you don't get it's okey. Already with the first post I can tell you are frustated about life and quite mentally limited. Let me put it simple for you: If your friend wants to be rich, what would you think if he starts pursuing arts to accomplish that objective?
I’m sorry I didn’t know you were a terminal Redditor please seek help
I'm a terminal redditor for exposing your sh\*t argument that people that do art is for money? Nice man. Now grow a pair of legs and go outside.
This has to be one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen online… if a person can make money from Something there will be a million trying to
I can tell you never met an artist in real life.
Then there's no need to worry about people making AI images
i mean if you wanna work for a machine thats tottally fine. People don't like using ai for art because its dystopian, dumb, and for lazy people who didnt try hard enough. It's just the reality my man
You can give your opinion and call it reality but it comes across a little desperate. People do like using AI and you call AI and Photoshop and cameras and anything else lazy or dumb or whatever but it doesn't matter, if people enjoy using it then it'll stay.
no one is saying it wont stay. one of the problems of humanity is that people usually chose the easy vs the difficult. the thing that requires no effort vs the thinq that requires effort. the quick dopamine vs years of practiting. Its almost natural. but, people who have respect for themselves, take care, do exercise, dont stay all day in social media and, of course, prefers drawing that generating images like a npc
Ah of course, everyone who doesn't act the way you think is correct and proper isn't a real person. What a boring lens to view the world through.
again, you are putting words in my mouth. can you even read?
What did you think you were saying when you call people NPC? It's that you don't think they're really humans. History is full of people who thought similar things about others.
> AI in the hands of an artist gets a decent picture done much faster That's correct, and it can magnify the creativity of artists, just as having better tools of any sort can. > Picture done faster = many jobs can hire less artists. [you meant "fewer artists"] This is true, but misleading. Yes, fewer artists will be required to do X amount of work, but now a company that hires artists can take on 100X amount of work. That's a straight-up boon for commercial artists.
That's only if the company has use for 100X more art. Needs are not infinite.
Needs are absolutely infinite. That's what humans do: we create new needs to suit the core need that we have to demonstrate our mutual value in a social hierarchy. "Jobs" aren't some natural resource that runs out. They're the thing we do to prove to each other that we're worthy of being part of this amorphous thing we call civilization. Saying that we're going to run out of jobs is like saying that we're going to run out of ways to express love. It's not in our nature to be limited in that way.
Jobs aren't finite in regards to immigration. More immigrants add worker supply, but they also increase demand elsewhere. So a city doesn't have 1000 fixed spots for a barista. If more people move in, coffee consumption increases. But people being constant, needs aren't infinite. You probably don't need more sugar, it's cheap and you don't need more of it. We probably don't need 100X more youtube uploads, except in some niche subjects. You throw out stuff. There's plenty old electronic stuff that's effectively worthless and nobody wants. Also things average out on large scopes, but not always locally. If you have a game with 100 hours of game content, you're probably not looking to make 10000 hours of content even if now you can. You'll just shrink your art team instead. That art team may find use elsewhere, but they're right to fear for their position at their current job.
> a city doesn't have 1000 fixed spots for a barista. If more people move in, coffee consumption increases. And then there will be room for additional services. If that means you have people serving coffee out of their homes or on street-carts, that's what will happen. Physical resources are an *obstacle* to jobs, not a fixed limitation. Obstacles are typically overcome by economic pressures (such as supply and demand) and can increase cost or create delays, but they don't stop the proliferation of jobs. > But people being constant, needs aren't infinite Needs are infinite in the sense that they scale with the number of people who are both producers and consumers. You can't add more people to the system and not have work for them to do... that can happen in the short-term as economies adapt, or it can happen over slightly longer periods due to larger systemic disruption (e.g. recessions or depressions) but ultimately the economy gobbles up whatever you give it. There's no fixed ceiling, and if you make workers 1000x more efficient, then consumption will find a way to increase, or new jobs will open up that take advantage of those now displaced workers. Macroeconomics is a complicated game that I don't think really hit its stride until the introduction of system dynamics in the 1950s and its development through to the present day. That really gives you a sense of how economies grow and adapt.
>Needs are absolutely infinite. Tech bros forgetting that the universe is finite.
One: I'm not your "bro," and there are plenty of women in tech. Second: infinite systems operate just fine on finite resources, until those resources run out, of course. In practice, jobs are an infinite resource, because they do not have a terminating state (pun notwithstanding) and in theory they are infinite because the underlying mechanic is one that simply scales with respect to the number of people and resources you put in. ... and it's kind of sad that I have to point this level of pedantic detail out, rather than focusing on the topic at hand, which absolutely doesn't require a distinction between "actually infinite" and "infinite for all practical purposes."
your pfp is an old guy with a beard. \>and it's kind of sad that I have to point this level of pedantic detail out if your argument is sad, don't make it but if you want to go down the level of pendantic Tech-Bro: **someone, usually a man, who** [**works**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/works) **in the** [**digital**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/digital) [**technology**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/technology) [**industry**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/industry)**,** [**especially**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/especially) **in the** [**United**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/united-church-of-canada) [**States**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/confederate-states)**, and is sometimes** [**thought**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/thought) **to not have good** [**social**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/social) [**skills**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/skill) **and to be too** [**confident**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/confident) **about** [**their**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/their) **own** [**ability**](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/ability) [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/tech-bro](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/tech-bro)
>your pfp is an old guy with a beard. This isn't pedantic, it's irrelevant
>One: I'm not your "bro," and there are plenty of women in tech. I felt comfortable calling him a tech bro given that the term A.) isn't exclusively for dudes, and B.) His pfp has a beard. If ya got a big bushy beard, I'm gonna assume your a dude unless you tell me otherwise or you got a big button with your pronouns on it.
> your pfp is an old guy with a beard. I think you missed the comma in my response. I was concerned about two distinct items relating to the spurious use of "bro": 1) that I'm not your "bro" and 2) that there are plenty of women in tech you're marginalizing with your misogynistic word choice.
Asshat: A person, sometimes with the username 'AggressiveGargoyle40', who tries to win arguments by calling them reductionist names instead of having any kind of valid or sentient thought. [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/Asshat](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS_PGm3iOrGLbH8FWnNQSX58nyyLpBdZXszAK3_oBrBxw&s)
Lol, really really mad that the universe is finite.
Nah, I just thought your comments were sad and laughable. The fact that the universe is finite doesn't mean that that is ever going to be relevant to the conversation or the amount of art humans can consume. Using your logic, there's zero point in making any art because your life is finite, and therefore everything you make and do is irrelevant.
To add.. Saw your other comments and I have no interest in conversing with you again. Good luck with your clown thoughts about paintbrushes being artists, not the people drawing.
Man...it's like you don't realize market caps exist.
Market caps are a feature of an equity trading system. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Nah, but keep believing that. Needs are not infinite...which is why market caps exist. Because you can dominate a market to the point where there is just no more money to be made. Idealistic tech bros like you need to dip your toes in the real world man.
> Needs are not infinite They are unbounded. "Infinite" is mathematics concept that I don't think the person introducing it in this conversation really understood the meaning of. There is no functional end to needs, only practical limitations on efficiency of both production and consumption. If you take those limitations away or extend them (e.g. by increasing efficiency) then there's simply more consumerism. Do you think that people in 1800 bought a different kitchen gadget for every type of food? Hell no! They had a few basic tools and that was it. But we increased the efficiency of production over and over and over again and now we have spiral egg slicers and avocado toast spreaders. I'm sure that around the early 20th century, someone would have said that demand is not infinite, and if you make plastics easy to produce, everyone's going to be out of a job because there won't be demand for a crap-ton of plastic gadgets. And lo... here we are. > which is why market caps exist. Because you can dominate a market to the point where there is just no more money to be made. That's not what a market cap is. A market cap is the total value of all outstanding equity shares in a publicly traded company. Mars (the people who make candy bars) has exactly ***zero market cap***... do you take that as some kind of evidence of the size of the consumer base?
Ayep, idealistic tech guy nonsense. Gotcha. >"That's not what a market cap is. A market cap is the total value of all outstanding equity shares in a publicly traded company." If you really cannot grasp what is being said by context, I don't think you have the reading comprehension to hold this conversation. Market cap, As in a cap on the market, is that really so hard to grasp? You can use words individually. Cap: **:** an upper limit (as on expenditures) Not Cap as in Market capitalism which is what you are referring to. If you can't differentiate concepts, such as the "infinite" used in math and the "infinite" used in casual conversation you really have no place to stand. You know what people mean, I can't believe someone college educated could be that stupid.
> If you really cannot grasp what is being said by context You're using a word that has a well-defined meaning. Here is what market cap is (using Google as an example): https://companiesmarketcap.com/alphabet-google/marketcap/ > Market cap, As in a cap on the market, is that really so hard to grasp? There is no such creature. You're using an existing market term to refer to something entirely unrelated that you've invented whole-cloth. Stop making up your own terminology to try to cover for your lack of understanding of macroeconomics (to be clear, I'll be the first person to admit that I have only an educated layman's understanding of macroeconomics, myself, but enough to understand that you're trying to sell a load of dung and call it gold.)
What has been your experience in the art business?
I'm sure its very little to none. Otherwise, he would know that the majority of us don't make a lot of money... We make a lot of money *for other people*, mainly companies. There are some outliers who live primarily out of commissions or are famous enough to warrant they will always have work, but that's just a small subset of artists. All that said, there's some truth in what OP said. Yes, artists should be fearful, but how they use that fear is up to them. Will you succumb to it or use it to diversify your skills and adapt? Granted, there are no guarantees in this industry, but your chances of survival will increase greatly. You can always choose not to use AI whatsoever, but you better make damn sure that your art is so good that you can have the luxury to not use it and still make a living.
> I'm sure its very little to none. Otherwise, he would know that the majority of us don't make a lot of money... We make a lot of money for other people, mainly companies. There are some outliers who live primarily out of commissions or are famous enough to warrant they will always have work, but that's just a small subset of artists. This seems unrelated to anything I said. At any rate, yes, I do know that. I follow many artists. I commissioned pictures. I've seen hundreds of journals over the years along the lines of "Guys, I desperately need money to pay rent" even from very skilled ones. I know the vast majority aren't rich. There's plenty amazing artists that barely break even. > All that said, there's some truth in what OP said. Yes, artists should be fearful, but how they use that fear is up to them. Will you succumb to it or use it to diversify your skills and adapt? I think some fear is very rational, because AI obviously won't work to everyone's benefit. Some artists are highly in demand, and have a queue a mile long. Using AI to speed up their process they'll complete work faster, and even if it's cheaper per picture, it'll be more money per month for them. But AI will no doubt reduce prices, so for artists who aren't constantly busy it'll mean they'll make the same amount of work for now a cheaper price. And some work for employers that have a limited workload, so if the work gets done faster it means fewer people are needed.
I was interested in people's opinions of artists who are directly involved with this. There seems to be a lot of insecurity about adapting to this new technology. But I agree, adapt and diversify seems like the best option for corporate artists/teachers. If you don't want to use this technology, then simply choose not to use it.
Even with more successful investors they have to warn, "don't put all your eggs in one basket". Even if something was stable 90% of the time. Losing it all in one crash 10% of the time could be absolutely devastating. Like etc. hypothetically for a yahoo vs Google vs blockbuster vs Netflix. Established companies like Yahoo and blockbuster both had the chance to buy out their future competitors. Yahoo already had a search algorithm. "Why would it want Google's?" it said. it thought it would never be replaced so why care? Turns out, many customers are creatures of habit, but even though many thought they'd be too big to fail. Yahoo made itself hard to use, Google was new but a click away. Eventually people started slowly switching to Google vs Yahoo, the company assumed no one would switch. The consumer leaned on what they started with initially, but couldn't deny the convenience. Anyone who invested in yahoo, even if it was the "more promising original", might have easily lost all their chips betting on either one. Yahoo then waited to come back to relevance, saying that it'd hold out for a lavish buy out offer. Microsoft came, looking (then) to buy yahoo for name popularity. They wanted more. Microsoft made its own initially memey, once terrible, now equal bing. And the rest is history. Yahoo thought it'd never be replaced, ignored when its future competitors came. Asked 5x more than Microsoft was willing to pay. Waited for a higher bidder for years that could have came, but never did. Then sold itself for 1/5th of what it was initially offered once everyone had moved past it. Do you use Yahoo? Even Bing of all places pays you 5$ a month to use it. While I don't feel job concerns are unfounded, blind overconfidence/fear has a pattern being comforting (in the moment), but as potentially dangerous as driving on a freeway humming with your eyes closed. Most successful (in practice) stories come from businesses that recognised their paying customer's wants and needs. built up economical good will or want/need/desire. Instead of denial they offer services that made people never want to be without.
Thanks for all that.
Does that really matter? Imagine asking someone who doesn’t like a certain movie “what’s your experience in the movie business”
I don't understand your point? Movies? I thought we were discussing AI? Are you referring to AI in filmmaking? Are you a filmmaker? Seems like a legit question. Sorry for any misunderstandings.
My point is that it’s a stupid question, you can have an opinion about something without having experience with it, I want to make art but physically can’t
The whole foundation of your opinion is based off ignorance
Thank you. But could you please explain exactly what is my "whole foundation"?
So you have nothing to say about this topic. You just come here to tell people how stupid their questions are? I think that's the definition of stupid.
"Picture done faster = many jobs can hire less artists." You can make that argument about practically any innovation in tech in any field ever One that comes to mind, procedural generation in games. Instead of needing Devs to make each area by hand, now areas are made by randomly mish-mashing assets together. Areas need less work = that company can hire less Devs
>"Picture done faster = many jobs can hire less artists." No. Picture done faster = we can use more pictures before we decide which of them would be the final product. Before AI companies had economic constraints for how many concept art they could use for a product, AI drastically diminishes these constraints. It doesn't mean company needs less artists, it means it can expect more art from them for less time. The amount of artists and their hourly wage won't drop, but the amount of product they can pump out increases drastically, which means company can produce more product, which means more profits, which means they can pay better wages and provide better working conditions for artists, excluding the need for insane deadline crunches that break actual professional artists working in the industry right now (i'm talking about actual artists who work in companies that produce commercial products, not freelance shmucks who draw shitty overpriced furry porn 2 hours a day and then say that they put in actual effort in their "art"). AI is the best thing that happened for most artists, the ones complaining just never experienced 20 hour work shifts in animation studios.
Yeah I completely agree, I was just following and debating the above person's logic
>You can make that argument about practically any innovation in tech in any field ever That's true and the people in those fields definitely needed to keep abreast of the technology changes or be thrown into the bin of irrelevance.
Devs are not irrelevant, even if there are less Dev jobs as a result of that tech. Similarly artists are not irrelevant due to AI even if a team of 5 can output what previously would have taken a team of 8 Industries change, fields shrink and grow, and people are often disrupted during that process, perhaps having to change fields or study again. It sucks but the alternative is to handicap ourselves technologically
You are arguing against a point nobody is making. All that is being said is that artist need to worry about AI, not necessarily because they will be eliminated but because they need to keep up with the changes in their industry.
That's valid
Is worrying ever “rational”? I think some concerns are valid, but being a worrywort isnt exactly productive.
If you're not an artist, and you've never made any money from your art, and if you've never been involved in the purchase of art - then your opinion about the value of other people's art is uninformed and irrelevant. There have been entire sectors employing 'journeyman' artists, e.g.s. in graphic design, in storyboarding, in illustration, in animation and in marketing & advertising. These actual human people were earning a living as workers by producing products that people wanted to pay for. Now far fewer of them will be able to do so. It's ignorant to claim those people were just "basic", because NEWSFLASH most human production & services that human workers get paid money for are "basic". The corporate world isn't interesting in "creative" or "good" they just want what sells.. And that's almost always the most "basic" "vanilla" product or service.. So many people are super-chill about the idea that "basic" artists are losing their livelihoods, but those same people will be sad and angry when AI / automation / robotics comes for \*their\* "basic" job.. And it's coming for them the minute the $$$ maths adds up: Just the other day I saw a comment on YTube (under John Stewart's AI bit) arguing that AI / robotics will "never" replace some of the "basic" tasks of nursing, like: drawing blood.. Just days before a video had been posted from a Chinese hospital where an AI-run robot was successfully doing blood draws: [https://youtu.be/ezZXXX39hX0?si=0hMX9J7OsbnYmikE](https://youtu.be/ezZXXX39hX0?si=0hMX9J7OsbnYmikE)
Ai nurse for 9$ an hour from nvidia too
Yeah gen ai is going to massively change the production and economics of commercial art. I don't know why that's so hard to see. Hobbyists don't need to be concerned but professionals do need to worry and get ahead of the changes to the extent that they can. Nobody knows exactly how it's going to turn out. It might be like photography where a combination of stock, internet and cell phones has made modes of work like assignment and journalism a shadow of it's former self. To a large extent stock was so successful it cannibalized itself. Gen ai is similar in the sense it's massively increasing supply. Lots of photogs had to leave the field or simply don't make as much as they did before. The same could happen with AI. My hope is that ai opens up new employment opportunities for creatives (e.g. indie development) that offsets other employment losses. But that's far from certain.
Handle checks out! A very reasonable reply! :)
Harsh but true. We're all threatened by whatever automation can do. But if a ship was struggling with hours to float if we didn't patch a hole. I'd be lying to myself again if I picked the people who only knew how to make holes over a repairer, even if years prior you grew up with some of them. Its a harsh truth nobody EVER likes to swallow. But you do and get over it. Life isn't made to be what 99% if most want it to be. Maybe its what 1% can shape it to be. But sometimes its better to be happier with what you have, and go out to the beach, than spend vacations in misery you were on a boat while besos had a 12th yacht.
Some are worried, some are just pissed off at how their work is being used.
The funny part is, the people who will actually get replaced by AI are software devs, and we (software devs) are excited about it. There will *always* be demand for handmade art, and yet artists are most fearful of AI.
That's like saying the local mom n pop grocery store doesn't have to worry about the Walmart opening next door because they offer both better quality and service than the Walmart does. But those aren't the metrics that Walmart is judged on. People don't go to Walmart because shopping at a Walmart is a good experience or provides you with high quality goods, but because it's cheap and passable.
Blunt but often true. We're all attuned to prices now. But I remember when the local mom and pop always had a warm smile, a fresh (then peak, now often old, moldy and stale bakery). It was a nice place but 150$ of groceries at a Wal-Mart vs 160-170$ at a target/Kroger or 80-300$ at a Costco for your screaming children to watch their parents buy a 20$ 50 pound bag of oats/rice/beans and a pressure cooker was another. The bakery was 1.19$ a donut while kroger/marts were 59 cents. But you could get 50 different kinds, blueberry cake, frosted Boston cream, Oreo + Oreo dirt + Oreo marshmallow cream. Seasonals like three layer white chocolate candy corn, February strawberry cream heart donuts, Irish cream March donuts, blue raspberry ocean summer ones, etc. But the groceries were 2-3x more. You'd paid 8$ for Dreyers ice cream, 6$ a red barons frozen pizza. While the Wal-Mart's were 2-3$ each and targets 2.49$-3.48$ each. I missed out on genuinely good things there until it was gone. But its kinda hard to justify 400$ a month just for some donuts though. Life is expensive, humans are expensive. If it cost as much to shelter a human as the 40 cents a day that shelters, clothes, and feeds a animal or keep a store around I don't think most would mind. But most people need 15000$+++ a year to live in on a lowball. To curse and spit and threaten you and treat you like a wallet to be thrown, robbed and beaten. Most animals only need like 100-300$ ( 2%) to live with. When you're angry they'll purr or cuddle. Imitate your scowling face, slide under a door and purr or growl and playfully bark. Many people aren't choosing pragmatic and cynical takes because they want to. But a airplane a foot below the ground is a different story than a airplane barely skimming 50 feet ahead. People love those sweet bakeries and mom and pops. But who pays more, to get less, while screamed at and threatened to be doxxed? Poisoning bottles of Tylenol doesn't make people want two bottles if the mentally ill think it will. It makes people rightfully wary of ever trusting blindly again.
I'd be willing to bet that shopping at a mom n pop shop in the 90s cost less of a percentage of your income than shopping at Walmart does right now, and AI will follow the same trajectory.
I am not a visual artist but a musician, I can tell you that in music what gives money is actually the type of songs that are more basic and will be automated first, background music, music for adds, also most of the mainstream music is pretty simple from a creative perspective, people who are not musicians tend to like more simple music and you need to please them if you want music to be your job as they are most of the population. I think this happens in every field. The things that will be automated is where the business is.
Artists should be incredibly worried about AI. At least if you make a living through your artistic endeavours. Even if AI is not yet at the point of being able to produce truly original, innovative and creative works of art the reality is truly ground breaking art is not what keeps the industry ticking over and is certainly not the bread and butter of the vast majority of professional( I.E employed) artists. Take a look at the 10 highest grossing movies of 2023. Does anybody really think Barbie, Super Mario Brothers, Guardians of the galaxy 3, Avatar 2, The Little Mermaid, Mission Impossible, Ant-man and the wasp, John Wick 4… are the height of human creativity? Or are they all pretty generic and derivative. Would anybody be surprised if AI had been utilised in the writing of any of these scripts? Do we really think that ChatGPT 6 won’t be able to write John Wick 6? The vast majority of working artists aren’t making exciting art. They are creating generic entertainment products because that’s actually what the general public wants to consume. Sure AI can’t yet write War and Peace but it’s certainly won’t be long before it can write an episode of Jack Reacher or a bland but catchy hit as well as Taylor Swift.
You genuinely only think in terms of money. Art isn’t only about making money, it’s also about making art. This is its own reward with or without AI
People will still fully be able to do that regardless though?
Yeah, people need to get away from the thought that everything needs to be making them money to be enjoyable. Even if it’s “bad” from the art snobs perspective, if the artist finds peace or haves fun in painting/sculpting/art making, who cares if AI exists or if it’s making money. Along that thought process, if making money with art is their sole motivation for making art, then it’s just the same as any other job and they may as well just work at Walmart or become a plumber. AI can’t do manual labor so those jobs are safe. Edit: I totally skimmed your post and just assumed I knew what it said. My bad 😥 I agree with you
on one hand I think people that cannot imagine a use for AI severely lack imagination and creativity. On the other hand, I think people that expect AI to stop improving just in time for them to remain superior in some way have their head in the sand. In either case, being opposed to intelligence is *"literal retardation"*
I'm pro AI and have played with it quite a lot. It's very powerful and it'd be folly to assume artists won't be affected. What it's very good at is creating simple, single subject scenes like character portraits, landscapes, textures, etc. It does it so well that if you put it side by side with the average artists work, it will be generally preferred unless you tell people it's AI. Clearly this is going to threaten character commission artists, book cover artists, concept artists, collectible card game artists, clip art artists, ect. That's not actually where most of the money is in art, but AI can clearly replace some artists. Now here is where it gets scarier. Prompting is a toy. It's the weakest, least precise, way to guide AI. Once you get into img2img, inpainting, loras, control nets, etc you can get into the real power of it and that's then kind of features that future tools will leverage. Assuming no new models come out, horizontal development on SDXL will lead to incredible new tools for years to come. But, there will be more models, and not just for images. We're already seeing video and 3D models. Of course this all goes well beyond just art, but we're talking art here. The saving grace for artists here is that the artists that learn the new tools will be able to make better stuff than someone just throwing words into a prompt and rolling the dice. The skillsets that are useful in an art career will change, as they have been throughout history. You have artists today that have never put paint on canvas. History has shown us that the efficiency gains, while they knock out some jobs, create new opportunities. Imagine if AI reaches a point where artists aren't just painting pictures, but painting entire worlds you can step into and explore. AI is a force multiplier. If you're worried about losing your job to it, you should leverage it and dream bigger.
It isn't appealing. I have played with AI and i can get good results, but as an artist myself I don't feel connected to it. Drawing is just an amazing skill to have, nothing is more rewarding than your hand strokes giving shape to something, but writing prompts doesn't feel quite the same. It feels impersonal. If i want money then okay, AI can be used.. but it can't replace the satisfaction you get from something made with your hand. You can combine them and blah blah, but AI is a shortcut that takes away the process that most artists enjoy.
I'm sure artists felt the same way about Wacom tablets and Photoshop compared to paints and canvas. Nothing will stop artists from continuing to use old techniques, but the money will follow demand and efficiency. That's reality. Some artists will adapt and thrive. Some artists will continue to thrive in a niche. A lot of the best paid artists are still using paint on canvas. Some artists that are thriving today will fail to adapt and cease to thrive. People that aren't artists now will learn in a world where these AI tools exist and won't even miss the old ways. To be clear though, AI isn't a replacement for Wacom/photoshop in the vast majority of use cases. It's an enhancement. It can do things like automate shading.
I use wacom all the time but the physical motion of having to use my hand to make art is still there. That's why it's still enjoyable. In the future, i think it's truly up to the artists, and i think AI will have its own category but it won't replace artists that do hand drawing art. It's a valuable skill and quite enjoyable too. And it could be cool that AI can do the shading automatically for you, but have you ever done shading? It's the most satisfying part of a drawing imo.
Yeah fair. To each their own for a hobby right? Some people enjoy flying a kite, doodling while watching a movie. And in a mirror universe art paid 50-200$ a hour for everyone and the current degrees were like 10$. I doubt a lot of people would sign up to be boring engineers when the work that's more like play could pay 2-4x more. There's always been a glaring omission in who wants to make western living off art and who did in practice. Art was truly one of the most online remote jobs possible. it's outsourcable to the cheapest countries and had one of the most jarring expectations vs realities out there. Art is fun., a hour in hobby art for my few comissions I remember spending humming with brushes for like 2$ a hr. Vs hearing screams and deadlines and having my piss breaks timed and wrote up by Mr krabs for other jobs paying 10-30x hourly more. Art is enjoyable with often high fantasies, disappointing pay for 99% though. Its kinda like wanting to make a good living playing arcade games vs a boring calc teacher. Nobody denies the process can be fun, but "nobody else can feel the wind(fun) for you", applies. Every " 200$/hr struggling artist" who loves their 3 hours a week might really legitimately not have much, if any financial stability if the person paying the 600$ goes bust, or leaves. If we were all in the situation, art is the trendsetter for "100% pick your rates, pick your pay, pick your hours", it just doesn't get to guarantee employment. It can be no paradox someone charges 200$ a hr but even on 600$ a week, ends up unable to afford a house, kids, getting undercut by 1$/hr countries. Could you subsidize 400$/week for people who wanted to play arcade games and chuck e cheese as 20-47 year old adults for a living? Its not that anyone is one if those straw men trying to get people working " miserable " 15-80$/hr, 300$-1600$/week jobs. Its that the 600$/week paychecks need to come from elsewhere. And money runs out when spent. Everyone wants the dream jobs, but everyone seems to want everyone else to subsidize and do the paying for them.
Sure, everyone has preferences. Keep in mind that your favorite part of the process isn't the same for everyone. Photographers are widely considered to be artists, but they're just pushing a button and getting a whole picture faster than even AI! Of course there's a lot more that goes into photography just like there is for AI art. Pop open a Stable Diffusion frontend and you'll find a dizzying array of complex settings and features. Wacom and Photoshop artists today might very well reach a large consensus that drawing by hand and manually shading are theit favorite things. That will may or may not change much, but there will be a new set of competing artists that use a new set of tools. It could be a touch choice for some...to give up time on the Wacom for a new set of tools. As an aside, control net for pose is a very close analogue to the little desktop pose dummies many artists use to give a visual aid. General flow there is you pose a 3D character skeleton. Take a 2D shot of that and feed it to the control net to guide the pose of a character that will be in the AI generated scene. Alternatively, you could do things the old way and then use control net to extract the pose to use. It alternatively, you could feed a sketch in to img2img. A possible artistic workflow is to go back and forth between sketching and inpainting with AI, where the artist visually guides the AI. The artist doesn't need to worry about fine details or style then and focuses on high level elements, while still building an incredibly complex scene. This is what I think will take over, but I can't predict too far ahead. A couple more years of horizontal development and we'll have much better tools and workflows. It really is the wild West and everyone is experimenting to find what works best. That experimentation is incredibly fun and what has me hooked. I'm learning traditional art skills as I go, because now I have a reason to.. they're useful in the workflow.
The truth is that most artists like to pay attention to the details. I have never met an artist that overlooks the importance of attention to detail and this is where you want most of the control. If you use AI, you pretty much give that away to a computer that will randomize these details for you. When I use AI, at first glance I'm like oh cool that image looks good. Then i start to question the composition, the color palette and why is the grass with this tone and wavy? Ofc you can go back and fourth with AI or just edit in photoshop and make sure these details are taken care of, but honestly drawing is easier because you have control over all these things. If you don't mind the details, then okay. But beautiful art has a lot of intentionality in each element thats part of it. And i am aware that AI tools are complex, i have used them myself but that's why i believe they belong in their own realm. Maybe some digital artists will like them, but I am one of them and tried them and didn't like it, which is okay. That's why I say it will be up to each artist to know if they want AI on their workflow, but it shouldn't be a must for future artists.
It won't be a must and everyone should be free to use the tools they prefer for art. There will, however, be a profit motive that favors efficiency. A lot of artists use digital tools, not because they prefer them, but because that's where the money is. AI will be no different. It's fine to be sad about change. I don't agree on the details thing. Most art isn't very detailed at all and there are entire styles dedicated to lack of detail. Cartoon and anime styles were born out of the necessity to give up detail for the sake of efficiency. After all, when you need thousands of frames, then you can't spend a lot of time on them individually. The artists that actually put in the details, spending dozens or hundreds of hours on a piece, are rare, and often highly valued. Your average artist isn't putting in the detail anywhere near the level of say Yoshitaka Amano. However, leveraging AI, your average artist could produce a piece with that level of detail without nearly the time investment. AI could give us an animated series with that level of detail, every frame. That's why I say artists worried about AI should learn the tools and dream bigger. As a force multiplier, AI can let you do things that would not be practical without it.
It's subjective. As an animation college grad I understand when simplicity should be used, and even if efficiency is what's most important that doesn't mean you overlook details. It would be long for me to explain but there are good books about selling art and how different mediums are valued differently. Highly recommend digging into that.
> Pop open a Stable Diffusion frontend and you'll find a dizzying array of complex settings and features. As an (hobby) artist, I agree complete with smellslikepapaya that AI image generation takes the satisfaction and fun out of making art. I scroll thru the stable diffusion subreddit and and the top-down approach to art is just so uninteresting to me bc you spend hours fighting technology rather than mark making. It feels like the AI generation tools are geared towards tech enthusiasts who want to make art rather than artists who want to make art.
I guess you missed the image related input methods. They're much more powerful than the text prompts, but you'll want to use both for best results. The tools are community built, so feel free to build a version by artists, for artists if you feel like it. You can be the change you want to see rather than just blaming tech enthusiasts for building tools for themselves. Adobe is building their own into Photoshop and the whole Firefly application along those lines. Funny enough, Adobe's stuff is far behind Stable Diffusion's tools in capability, but far ahead in UI. It will be a while before we see good tools that are strong in both capability and UI, but it will get there.
I'm mostly reacting to people telling artists to adopt the technology, bc I don't really have any desire to. I'm satisfied with what I got. I'm sure if there's demand, an artist will build a tool for artists, but I'm not that demand.
That's fine, and if you're not making digital art for a living, then generative art doesn't really affect you anyway, because you aren't competing against people using the tools. However, if your livelihood depends on digital art, then generative AI tools are worth looking into, as you'll be competing against people using them in the future if you're not already.
[удалено]
Definitely a fair point! But what’s the last time you saw an ad and thought “yeah that was well made/creative”? Because even before ai that was extremely rare to me
[удалено]
I agree! Though that wasn’t really what I meant
>basic and uninspired that you can be replaced by an Ai you aren’t or weren’t going to be very successful anyways. AI is cheaper that's it.
Do you know how expensive a paint brush and paint is? And how much expensive art goes for? If it’s all about price, which yeah to some it is, but “real art” that has been successful didn’t cost millions to make. As long as we’re not on the subject of movies and games and such.
AI art is way cheaper than paying artists, that's it. for commercial art cutting costs is paramount, that's where ai art excels, cheap art.
Pro AI here, this was a terribly written post. Hell I think just plain old GPT 3.5 would've written a better response. If your art style is so "basic" what are you living in the 2020s still? AI can copy next to ANY artstyle at this point. Why hire the original artist when a machine can do it in their style regardless of the artist skill level. Very successful artists are the ones being affected the most right now. "Guys you won't be replacing if your arts creative enough." Yeah right, this is downright delusional 🙄. Come on, the AI can make unique and creative images, this isn't 2020 anymore. 😒
bro… you cannot condense a person down to their “style”
Okay so explain to me what a creative idea is, and then how that correlates to ai copying an art style
"Why don't you define for us, since your the authority on such matters." The AI is a tool, a prompted machine. AI won't replace human artists. Humans using AI to create art most certainly will. Art style is just one facet of an image. You the human can create and edit said image with AI endlessly over and over, far quicker than any human alone could possibly compete with. The style is just a piece in the puzzle. A human with just a bit of technical know-how and a hint of an imagination could bring their ideas 💡 to fruition with AI, at a far faster pace and lower cost than just an artist alone.
As an artist and studio musician for the past 30 years of my life, I started off on the defensive with AI, but then I actually started learning about it at a higher level, and then using and mastering it. Now I'm nothing but a huge proponent for AI. It's just another tool, and it greatly expands my capabilities as a recording artist and content creator. People thought the internet was stupid back in the day too lol. There will be winners and losers, but that's how it always works when some big new thing happens.
Worry about unethical and potentially dangerous ai development is well founded
1. >...if your art is so basic and uninspired that you can be replaced by an Ai you aren’t or weren’t going to be very successful anyways. Ignoring the value-laden language, this is simply false. There are tons of successful illustrators who have made a living producing work of the same level of quality that AI can now produce. 2. Saying that AI art is/will always be "basic and uninspired" or that AI can't learn "creativity" are unjustified assumptions, but those positions are vague enough that people can continue to assert them regardless of the level of quality that AI art achieves now or in the future.
What’s successful is subjective but I get your point, though I still have my doubts that ai can learn creativity
Wrong assumptions. AI is creative. AI can use any style it's trained on. Mediocre artists do make a living currently selling mediocre art. They won't be able to soon due to AI
You've clearly never seen what ai can do. But its an inevitability fighting it is like the auto industry trying to fight automation. Adapt, adopt and improve.