Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

just-a-dreamer- t1_jcodfij wrote

Artists are gone.

There is now way one can compete with that.

1

Ok_Sea_6214 OP t1_jcorb8z wrote

One might argue the opposite, artists just got a huge tool to take their skills to the next level, while turning every non artist into one as well. We just got 8 billion artists, and some of those are bound to be undiscovered Picassos.

29

jer99 t1_jcp1dcr wrote

It could be argued with a tool like this people would never put in the 20k+ hours to become a master like Picasso ever again. But maybe if the world no longer has a currency and agi has taken sentience and there’s no reason to work anymore would make my point be moot? Perhaps people would spend their time making art for arts sake?

10

Frumpagumpus t1_jcp27g1 wrote

there will definitely still be people who spend 20k+ hours on art, they might mostly spend it tweaking AI art though

6

Whispering-Depths t1_jcpjsmq wrote

or just people who want to be able to say "yeah, I can do this without a robot's help".

4

Ok_Sea_6214 OP t1_jcpic0l wrote

You don't need to be a master, you just need pure talent and an AI that can channel that talent into world class art.

In effect skill is a paywall that you need time and practice to get past, and AI just removed that paywall for things like art.

3

Whispering-Depths t1_jcpjqow wrote

If a tool like this makes you not bother feeling like putting in your 20k, then you probably weren't going to be an artist anyways.

It's about personal fulfilment. There will always be someone better than you.

The cool part is that it's not a job anymore - it will purely be about coming up with stuff for your own, and others enjoyment.

And trust me, idiots will continue to suck at everything. "exucse me how do i prompt the ai to make big bvvoob girl im relly confused its only outputting stuff that lok bad"

followed by them posting 500 pictures that they think looks good but is in actuality low-quality garbage.

3

XtremeTurnip t1_jcrnnhg wrote

moreover because you can't purposefully generate "big bvvoob girl" as for MJ due to ToS.

1

rixtil41 t1_jcqnzdb wrote

Unless those Picasso forever keep to it to them selfs.

1

Whispering-Depths t1_jcpjf19 wrote

alternatively, what you should be saying, is that now art is a personal hobby for people who want to flex their achievements and find enjoyment in what they can do, rather than in how much money they can make as fast as possible.

3

BigZaddyZ3 t1_jcq2i9j wrote

The problem with this logic is that, if everyone is equally capable of something (in this case, art), there’s actually no value or achievement within it. There’s nothing to “flex” because you’re merely doing something that everyone else is equally capable of doing thanks to AI. This will also impact the enjoyment of said thing because that’s often directly linked to a sense of accomplishment or achievement as well. Which like I said, will be basically non-existent in a world where AI makes everyone an artist.

Think about artistic talent like a college degree basically. The more people with that same degree, the less valuable that degree is as a whole. A lot of people don’t seem to understand that, the scarcity of a skill is what gives the skill it’s value.

2

Whispering-Depths t1_jcta6kr wrote

sure. film yourself or go on traditional.

but no one cares, we're gonna be post labor in like 2 years if AI keeps getting better at the rate it has been.

1

BigZaddyZ3 t1_jctaemp wrote

2 years seems a bit unrealistic to me, but we’ll just have to wait and see I guess.

1

citizentim t1_jcp4gxc wrote

They said the same thing about Photoshop. Don’t stress. There will always be art and artists.

Commercial and corporate art? Well, that’s gonna get barreled by AI. But, ultimately I think AI art will simply lead to another art style or movement.

Think about what someone like Warhol would be doing with AI. That dude would be having a blast right now.

1

viagrabrain t1_jcpc5t9 wrote

No way. This is just another tool but ai won t prevent artists to invent new styles and expressions

1

KingJTheG t1_jcqgu26 wrote

Tbh artists in the 21st century are going to have to adapt. But realistically, it was never a viable career path since maybe 2008 or so

1

XtremeTurnip t1_jcrncm5 wrote

That's just one image out of the blue.

In terms of render, sure.

But if you have a specific design in mind, good luck generating it with AI, same if you want to make a character coherent through multiple iterations.

The artist that makes either one of those is fine, the artist that makes the same shit as everyone else might be in trouble.

1

Redditing-Dutchman t1_jct29zd wrote

Grahic design, font design and branding etc is still not possible with these models. It will come for sure, but not yet.

1

talonn82 t1_jcx8zt9 wrote

keep dreaming not going anywhere, art is a pastime.

1

[deleted] t1_jcojhd5 wrote

[deleted]

−1

just-a-dreamer- t1_jcojxnl wrote

Art is a business within capitalist society. If you can't make money, you die in the streets.

If capitalism can be destroyed, people might be able to spend leisure time on art projects.

14

blueit1234567 t1_jcony04 wrote

The motivation to get good at a skill related to art/music will be gone, since it takes years to attain skill. How can you train yourself to get good at something a computer can always do better? You would immediately feel defeated, and the death of the artist/musician will result. This is my very humble opinion.

−3

just-a-dreamer- t1_jcoodk7 wrote

That concept makes no sense to me. I am below average as a montain climber, yet I do it anyway. I push myself forward. Not for "society", for me.

I ignore other people's accomplishments, for they are not mine and of no use to me.

14

blueit1234567 t1_jcordqs wrote

I may be thinking of it as a profession. As a hobby, yes I agree.

4

just-a-dreamer- t1_jcot02j wrote

The goal of AI automation is unemployment for all.

Eventually, there will be no such thing as a profession.

9

Hotchillipeppa t1_jcoqx8t wrote

People still play go,chess and dota 2, despite their being bots better than the top humans in all 3, people still ride horses despite their being vehicles, people don’t need to be the best to enjoy themselves.

14

Weak-Lengthiness-420 t1_jcpadu5 wrote

Yep. I’m a 43 year-old man with no NBA aspirations and yet I still love playing basketball.

7

Almond_Steak t1_jcovko7 wrote

I will never be as good as Messi but I still practice football everyday because I enjoy it.

7

SimilarSalary9345 t1_jcows8s wrote

I think folk’s most significant motivations for becoming ‘good at art’ are largely the act in itself and a providing a clearer voice for themselves to express their lived experience. You can’t take either of those away, but you can strongly influence the medium. In the way that digital manipulation and illustration tools (Photoshop, Illustrator) might be considered as somehow destroying art, I wonder if people able to elaborately, thoughtfully, and majestically direct AI to create their vision may become a thing of value.

4

Dwanyelle t1_jcqksss wrote

Some people just enjoy doing certain things.

I've got several hobbies that arguably computers are way better at than I could ever possibly hope to be, but that doesn't discourage me, because I do them for the sake of doing them. I enjoy it. "Because it's there."

1

Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jcp2gld wrote

If you can’t make money as an artist, that’s society’s way of telling you that your artwork is not good enough to justify your labor being tied up doing that, so your labor should go towards producing things that consumers actually value. If capitalism was destroyed, those market signals would be lost.

Capitalism is about helping other people. It’s selfish to think that you’re entitled to earn a living — meaning other people are obligated to expend resources to support you — without actually doing stuff that other people value.

−4

just-a-dreamer- t1_jcp5pxg wrote

Capitalism does not help anybody, that is a dumb statement. I guess you mean trade does help people in a mutual beneficial way, that is true to some extent.

Capitalism is the art of exploitation of men by men in the most efficient way. It has nothing to do with helping anybody.

You are quick to assume every labor must be allocated to "help" someone, but that does not apply to necessities/assets like housing, education, consumer goods, energy,....

Thus for some to live off assets and do next to nothing all day, many must "help" through their labor. An age old problem, hopefully will get solved by AI automation.

For most of human history since the invention of agriculture, slavery of 10%-30% of the human population was the norm throughout all societies.

Capitalism just builds on the human condition, yet it has to be eradicated along the way humans relate to each other in general.

9

Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jcp67o9 wrote

Capitalism is simply a web of voluntary trades. It’s the opposite of exploitative. The exploitative institution in our society is the government, which systematically violates private property rights.

−6

just-a-dreamer- t1_jcp7cpw wrote

There is no such thing as private property without the government. The government usually is a mere represention of property owners.

It's a dumb statement to think of property as "private" outside the control of government. Defended by what? Your family? How many men and weapons could you bring to the party?

5

Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jcp7jfq wrote

Defended by private security.

−3

just-a-dreamer- t1_jcp9h28 wrote

And they will defend you because? Little history lesson by Niccolò Machiavelli who wrote about the dangers of mercenaries.

"The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe;

The mercenary captains are either capable men or they are not; if they are, you cannot trust them, because they always aspire to their own greatness, either by oppressing you, who are their master, or others contrary to your intentions; but if the captain is not skilful, you are ruined in the usual way."

Point is, mercaneries are loyal untill they are not. They band with any gang that is out for plunder and cut your throat.

I recently read an article that 15% of rural families were displaced from their land in cartel controlled areas of Columbia. Where the government is weak, the strong rule eventually and take what they want.

6

Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jcpasv5 wrote

If private property rights are generally respected in a society, violent plunderers would be outcompeted by peaceful organizations. Public opinion would be against the criminal gang.

1

just-a-dreamer- t1_jcpfa3q wrote

That is called government then. Property owners coming together and provide mutual defence of shared interest.

If I lack property and have nothing to lose, why would I respect your property? That is against human nature.

2

Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jcpfo0b wrote

The phrase “property owners coming together and providing mutual defense of shared interest” does not describe the state, it describes a private company, because it’s consensual. The state is the institution with a monopoly on violence, and by definition it’s not based on consent.

1

Dwanyelle t1_jcql6o7 wrote

Who says the state isn't based on consent? There are plenty that aren't, and none that completely do, but it is at least something tried for among certain governments.

1

Dwanyelle t1_jcqlbht wrote

In a representative government, it's whole idea is that it is based on consent. The problem becomes folks with already a ton being greedy fucks who can bride the people running the government, since humans are fallible.

1

lawrebx t1_jcowalu wrote

Why does capitalism have to be destroyed?

Hours worked has dropped by 50% over the last century and leisure time has increased over the last century.

Post-Revolution, workers in the USSR worked 48 hours weeks. 8 hours/day, 6 days/week. so not that different.

At least under capitalism, you get to make the call on balancing lifestyle and working hours instead of mandate fixed labor contribution. That seems like it would be better for artists?

−6

Dwanyelle t1_jcqlisk wrote

Because we have a system where people who work an hour a week on average make way more than someone working eighty hours a week.

That's the sign of a broken system.

1

lawrebx t1_jcqrlyr wrote

I agree the system is broken, but I also see the U.S. as an outlier in the capitalist world. Inequality tends to improve with increased wealth generation across the world.

Look at inequality vs. per capita GDP.

The U.S. is generating the same wealth as other capitalist countries, but with far greater inequality. Looking at the data, the root cause of our structural inequality seems to be in spite of our economic system rather than because of it.

So my question is this - what do you see as the fundamental issue and what system would you propose?

1

Whispering-Depths t1_jcpk2fv wrote

you mean for you it needs to mean those things.

You don't need to project your personal views on other people, especially if it conflicts with their own personal views and enjoyments, right? Unless they are actively hurting someone emotionally or physically?

2