Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

InconsistentEffort20 t1_iu6bzwj wrote

Reply to comment by Atticus_Vague in AI-generated art sparks furious backlash from Japan’s anime community by JumpinKing

>At a basic level your argument hinges on me accepting that the Sistine Chapel can be replaced by pressing enter on a keyboard.

It really doesn't.

All sorts of high end artisan goods are built by hand, all sorts of fancy crops still need to be tenderly raised by hand, and multiple parts of the construction process are done by hand too.

The availability of AI artist tools won't replace all art, but it might very replace the need to steal, overpay or go without much of the basic stuff.

It also isn't just "pressing enter". The ability comes not from the user of the tool but from the designer and builder of the tool here. The skill in farming isn't the person "just pushing buttons" to plough fields or plant seeds. The skill lies with the people that designed those machines or developed the sophisticate seeds.

>Your entire argument is predicated on a flimsy premise.

No its not. You just can't distinguish between the ultra elite version of the product from the mass market consumer goods. A heck of a lot of people are "happy enough" listening to music streams instead of going to a live performance, we still have concerts, but the streams allow more access at a far lower cost. We still have photographers and portrait painters, but most people are "happy enough" with smart phone phones shot by amateurs based on automatic settings programmed into their phones.

> incidentally, people still pay very handsomely for the work of photographic professionals. I have yet to attend a wedding where the photographer is equipped with an iPhone 12.

That's precisely my point. 99% of phones are taken quickly and easily but the high end special stuff is still done as it used to be. As for the price, I do agree they charge an utterly extortionate rate for a few hours work, especially when the cheeky sods also keep the rights to the images so they can rip people off with printing costs. The same issue is why no one hires artists.

>when the internet is down and power is out, I can still draw.

Good for you, everyone needs a hobby.

4

Atticus_Vague t1_iu6h2f4 wrote

‘everyone needs a hobby.’

Brilliant and thankyou. If my hand crafted pen and ink drawing that takes 15 hours is a mere ‘hobby’, then your McDonald’s drive through AI art can never hope to be considered something of any substantive value. I’m pleased you recognize that now.

1

InconsistentEffort20 t1_iu6j08t wrote

If I spent 200 hours hand painting a living room wall magnolia with a tiny paintbrush then it would have no more value than if someone had done it with a roller in 5 hours.

>your McDonald’s drive through AI art can never hope to be considered something of any substantive value.

I've been telling you since the start that I'm not talking about "substantive value", I'm talking about the 1001 lower level things like icons, graphics, backgrounds or logos for youtube channels and the like.

There are so many things that people would like to be able to generate something unique and nice looking without spending a weeks wage for some pretentious and self important "savant" to scribble for them.

But you don't want to understand that point as you know it reduces your market.

4

Atticus_Vague t1_iu6ojb4 wrote

Hey man, you wanna redesign your own company’s logo? Go for it! Utilitarian art is a different animal. You wanna create and print a ‘landscape painting’ and hang it on your wall, I think that’s awesome. Calling AI fast food was, as I reflect on it, an overly harsh assessment, I think it’s a more apt analogy to liken it to paint by numbers. Which is to say, creative possibilities within a programmed framework.

It is what it is. I’m not a fan, nor am I impressed, but I’m not opposed to folks using it to make logos and wall art and whatever else. And if it brings them joy, well shit, who am I to shit on that?

In my mind it’s not what I consider art, but that’s just me.

1

InconsistentEffort20 t1_iu8csad wrote

>In my mind it’s not what I consider art, but that’s just me.
>
> I’m not a fan, nor am I impressed, but I’m not opposed to folks using it to make logos and wall art and whatever else. And if it brings them joy, well shit, who am I to shit on that?

It would seem we have plenty of common ground after all.

2