Discussion about this post

User's avatar
vbpaixao's avatar

Great piece! Thanks.

Expand full comment
Cbean's avatar

I think this article glosses over a few really key points.

You say that ai art is better when humans are using it too, but that's just because it needs more data and learning, right? That's the whole point of it, so surely it will continue to grow and the impact the human artist would have would be negligible. What you mean to say is that human + ai is better *for now*.

You also suggest artists will have this as a tool in a tool belt, but again the real life implications are missing. An ai thay can work instantly at any time anywhere, constantly improves and encorporates ideas with a click, without need of a break, without needing compensation....and more points I am probably overlooking, and this will without a doubt cause many people to lose work. It will become a case of point and click and done. Why would work streams increase to the source artist when I can impersonate them with a fully crafted image before lunch?

Your analogy of technology evolving and people not knowing the opportunity yet again really misses the point. In a world where ai systems mass produce, how do you give space in the industry for human art? If you can't safeguard an area, how does a person's skills and talents have any room to flourish and develop? If you can't do that, how many aspiring creatives will you lose, because the employment opportunities dry up? Sure hobbyists and people who solely create for the pleasure of it will exist, but that doesn't put food on the table. Lack of opportunity for work = people look elsewhere for work = not spending as much time practicing and developing = full potential never reached.

If the suggested solution would be to train them in how to use the software, that would be like telling a bricklayer to go learn plumbing. It's still related to construction afterall.

Expand full comment
7 more comments...

No posts