> There will need to be human artists guiding the AI to produce something valuable, and there will continue to be human artists working by hand to create the novel works that the AI could never have rendered.
Yes but who’d want their art to be fee back in trainig the AI to achieve what they have done with a click of the button?
> This is what I expect to happen with AI art today. Yes, the AI models can produce art that looks awesome and wonderful now, but it's frankly already starting to wear thin. Art exists to fulfill humanity's need to experience something new, and AI alone simply cannot keep up with the meta game.
But the essence of artwork can actually be copied away too and in the process squander the artists livelyhood. Yes, the argument that the artist can themselves take advantage of that and that is true for some computer literate artists but what about the others? Does the future of art necessarily have to tie art to computers and AI?
> But the essence of artwork can actually be copied away too and in the process squander the artists livelyhood.
No, because the essence of art is meaning, and AI cannot deliver that without a human agency behind it.
AI will do to art what technology does to every field: it will eliminate the need for shovelware-style jobs, leaving only the truly creative jobs behind.
It will most likely resemble what happened to web developers when SquareSpace and WordPress became good enough for untrained people to pick up and build with. If all you knew how to do was write enough HTML and CSS to make a website that looked "good enough", your job was in danger. But if you were a good designer or a good engineer, you transitioned to a more specialized role, working for the many orgs who needed something beyond the capabilities of the tech.
I expect the same will happen in art. To use book covers as an example: the job of illustrating covers for cheap romance novels will certainly be replaced, because they all look the same already. But publishers will still need humans (either driving the AI or painting by hand) for the books they hope will be best sellers, because it takes a real artist to know how to capture the spirit of a book in a cover image.
>No, because the essence of art is meaning, and AI cannot deliver that without a human agency behind it.
I see no reason why another AI eventually couldn't come up with prompts from human interests found from algorithms. There's exactly no reason a human needs to be involved at all.
Yes but who’d want their art to be fee back in trainig the AI to achieve what they have done with a click of the button?
> This is what I expect to happen with AI art today. Yes, the AI models can produce art that looks awesome and wonderful now, but it's frankly already starting to wear thin. Art exists to fulfill humanity's need to experience something new, and AI alone simply cannot keep up with the meta game.
But the essence of artwork can actually be copied away too and in the process squander the artists livelyhood. Yes, the argument that the artist can themselves take advantage of that and that is true for some computer literate artists but what about the others? Does the future of art necessarily have to tie art to computers and AI?