Let's have fewer artists and more starving..

I think just like any medium, there will be people who claim to be "artists" using AI to generate mediocre "art", think of all the people who call themselves photographers who really don't have the skill/knowledge required to produce professional photos.

Same with AI, there will be those who master it and use it as another tool in their toolkit. Creatives will still be necessary and while AI in its current form is great for inspiration and mocking up quick renderings, good artists will always outshine the mediocre "artists" who are just using the tool without knowing all the fundamentals.

I don't think we artists can be so easily replaced, I hope.

I'm a design student and have been thinking about it a lot. The thing I keep coming back to is this. For the foreseeable future someone has to direct it. If it could literally do everything on its own far more than just designers would have to worry about thier jobs. So, you fire your design team. So who's gonna direct it? The secretary? I think with every new innovation that let's us make more stuff our endless apatite for content also increases. So, will it costs current designers and illustrators thier jobs? There's a very real chance. But its almost guaranteed whole new fields will be created. Sorta like how a shit load of the traditional effects industry lost their jobs after Jurassic Park. But now there's more effects jobs than ever (and practical effects is still a large industry.)

Both I think. First, I think AI-generated art will be mostly used in non purely artistic contexts such as poster and ad design. There will always remain a market for human-made art.

For instance, my SO works at a small NGO and often need art for their newsletter. They have been thinking of using AI generated art instead of their previous method (looking for free images on google). Other companies may use AI images instead of hiring artists.

​

But there is an upside for graphical designer and the likes. AI-generated images could make them WAY more productive! Maybe they can get a rough estimate of what they want and then do some manual corrections. Or maybe they get really good at giving the AI the right prompt. Since they are more productive, their rates will drop, so more people will be able to afford graphical design. Imagine having a designer do custom christmas cards for you, or a banner for some event! So in the end, it may be the case that nobody loses their job!

It will reduce the number of artists who can make a good living on their own skills, because it empowers the top talent (and firms) in the field to produce more work. A skilled artist who can tell the AI what they want, and then modify it as a painter / sculptor - could work with a handful of other artists to churn out tremendous volumes of work.

There are a ton of artists who make a living doing a good job drawing things most people don't want to draw - everything from boring stuff like commercial illustrations and technical drawings for training manuals - to furry porn. That's the kind of work AI can do far more cheaply - and that means illustrators for books and magazines, website drawings, personal art requests, billboard artists, et cetera - become more scarce.

As a 3D artist off and on for the last twenty-five years I've seen a hell of a lot of changes.

My main takeaway over that time is that new tools don't take away jobs. They just create more specialties.

>Which leads to an interesting question, will AI be utilized as a tool for artists or be used as a catalyst to displace the creative class?

AI is simply a tool just like a paintbrush, any child can use it but it takes a long time to master and develop a unique style.

When the First Photography cameras were invented, Painters and Portrate makers where Furrious.

"This will bring an end to painting! No one will sit by the river and paint anymore if they can just take a photograph!"

Now, Here we are 200 years later and painting hasn't gone anywhere...

A.I is just a new medium of art. It will coexist and be mixed and matched just like all other art forms.

Currently that's the only practical way to use it. It's very bad at doing specific things (as in narrowly defined stuff). It's MUCH better at giving.what you want if you can draw at least a clear but mediocre version of the final draft. All of them are incredibly awful at consistency so they aren't good for things like multiple angles of the same character or animation. Any attempt at that is a fever dream at best which is cool, but not really what you want in the vast majority of media.

Until these issues are solved it's mainly going to be a concept tool imo. I know a few professional and semi- professional artists who sketch a few things then generate like 20-30 different versions to help them concept out or send something back to the client so they can get clarification on what they want.

I used AI art recently as references for a commission I made. I think this will largely do what most tools have done. Raise the minimum bar of acceptable work this driving the quality up but the work amount will be the same overall, at least for the next few years.

The use of canva speeds up content creation for marketing, basically short garbage views on Instagram. But can't replace photoshop pros completely. Likewise, Photoshop can't replace painters, but we lost animated films like Ghibli

MBAs are probably already figuring out how to do this.

i see something in this (and also ai music) that nobody sees -i always get the thousand mile stare when i mention it.

imo the "artistry" in these works isn't just the end result (the painting or musical composition.) It's in the programming. ai isn't an objective source. i could program my "Bach" or "Van Gogh" machine and it would behave differently than my colleague's machine because we each have our own strategy for getting from a to b.

so we could critique the programmer based on how well the result matches the original master if they are producing new "Van Gogh" material. this would be no different than judging wine by how closely the taste matches the grape.

or, if somebody is producing original material (not based on a historical precedence), then we could judge the programmer on how original or compelling the end work is.

none of this usurps traditional art. instead of working in oils or watercolors these artists work in code; its just a different medium.

I’ve been planning to use AI generated stuff to get original ideas across to real artists. I think there’s a sweet spot in which AI art makes for great reference material but only to communicate to someone who can put it all together if you want anything specific. But it’s only a matter of time before that changes too.

Anecdotal but we're messing around with it at our VFX (mid sized) studio. The artists are excited. It's just another tool.

the devil is in the details