AI will make artists obsolete? Discuss...

[wildmaven]

I've been playing with AI (artificial intelligence) generated images, where you simply add what you want a picture to look like. My prompt was "basset hound in field of sunflowers at night under a full moon." Here is what 7 of the most popular AI image generators thought a basset hound should look like. Poor, poor bassets!!!!



I started exploring AI after watching the video below, which made me really worry about the future of artists. Right now, there are actually artists calling themselves AI Artists and doing art only by putting prompts into an AI image generator. 

Watch this video and prepare to be blown away. 




Do you think AI will make artists who actually do the work themselves obsolete?

[HoudiniDerek]

I would hope not.

Art is too personal to ever be overtaken by AI in my opinion. To me, this might actually introduce more people to art and creators because it will expand the people that might consider art as a career or vocation.

It could shrink the art and creative pool, but I would doubt it. Karaoke and other musical advancements haven't killed bands.

[Syko Nachoman]

I like the sky in the Nightcafe one. Strangely, the first thing it made me think of was Van Gogh's Starry Night, probably because of all the lines.

[Bones]

Personally, I don't think so. As long as there are people with an ounce of creativity or artistic flair (Such as your sketching thread), then I think there will always be a place for tradition art to still live and thrive. Especially as it doesn't just exist on canvas or in a sketchbook, but on walls, murals, in advertising, modern art (Love it or hate it), I think it will always exist in some physical form, even if technology and access to it and making it becomes easier and easier, or simpler.

[wildmaven]

Well... I just put in "a great blue heron eating an apple while fighting a bald eagle" and the AI thought that would look something like...this:

[Bones]

Aug 5, 2022 13:39:57 GMT -8 wildmaven said:

Well... I just put in "a great blue heron eating an apple while fighting a bald eagle" and the AI thought that would look something like...this:

Most of those, if not all are most distressing/disturbing!

[wildmaven]

Aug 7, 2022 17:28:53 GMT -8 Bones said:

Aug 5, 2022 13:39:57 GMT -8 wildmaven said:

Well... I just put in "a great blue heron eating an apple while fighting a bald eagle" and the AI thought that would look something like...this:

Most of those, if not all are most distressing/disturbing!

Obviously Dall-E has never seen a bird before.  

[Derek‽]

I guess that depends on how you define "artists."

What constitutes "art" can be separated into two very different categories: free expression and commercial/trade. The former is done with sole intent, and only humans can do it; the latter is a technical skill done by prompt, which either a human or machine could do.

This sort of clickbait-y topic (not exclusive to GT, it's been coming up often online) conflates the two faces of art. People instinctively think of free expression, or "art for the sake of art," when they talk about art, but it isn't particularly threatened by new tools. It's personal and means whatever the audience wants it to mean--if anything at all. In this sense, anyone is free to dismiss AI-generated imagery as an irrelevant medium and it doesn't matter, because it's all about personal taste.

Commercial art, or "art as a service/commodity," is absolutely threatened. Anyone who thinks AI imagery will threaten their livelihood will more than likely go the way of the dodo if they don't start adapting or making moves to stand out as unique. Stock photographers or anyone trying to make money through commissions will have to seriously up their game, because their time-as-a-commodity will be made worthless by AI in a few years. They need to either get very good or very cheap, very quickly. That goes for storyboard and concept artists, too. Anyone who isn't in tune with the technical aspect of commercial art is probably at risk.

I'm not too upset by that. Sometimes art is art, and sometimes art is just pictures. AI makes pictures. Cool pictures, but just pictures.

The subject of AI-generated art is fascinating, but I think there are more pressing questions surrounding the topic. For example: who owns the image? Not the machine. Probably not the creators of the machine, as they simply created a tool for someone else to use. But also, probably not the user, as their input is relatively minor, and they would need a long, very detailed prompt to copyright or be granted de facto ownership of the output. An artist who creates their own AI should retain ownership of all output, but without prior agreement between the creator and a separate user, should all images generated by a computer just be considered fair use?

In summary: art will always stand as art as long as it has meaning. Artists are sometimes artists, but sometimes they get outbid by Skynet instead. Capitalism!

[User 180565 is taking donation]

I sometimes feel like creativity will one day be nonexistent as it is just the same old song and dance.