>I never said it was - I said that most people want to do something they like - which you claimed was entitled.

Then this is just a case of classic misunderstanding. Let's move on because I'm not saying it's bad or entitled for people to want to do something they like. It would only be entitled if they expected society to supply them with that even if it were a detriment to society.

>And you know what they do? They fight like hell to get out of it.

No they don't lol. Do you think the even a sizable portion of those in the developing world try to emigrate?

>Yes - if they truly had the passion for it.

This is comical. So in your ideal world society is just made of money and instead of trying to fill socially useful roles with qualified candidates ppl should just do whatever the fuck they want? Like if I want to make mudpies for a living the state should pay me to do it? Do you really think a society like that would be prosperous in the long run?

>Alas, the art itself suffers as a result.

If the art suffers then it was never about self expression or actualization etc. in the first place. Because it will still be possible to do human made art without a monetary incentive.

>Who said anything about being white?

No one. I was referring to the concept of white privilege in order to show that privilege is not synonymous with entitlement.

Edit: Most people do not have "meaningful employment" in that they feel fulfilled by their job. And if society made that a goal what are we supposed to reemploy switch board operators, elevator operators, etc?

>I didn't - because I think if someone wants to farm manually, they should have the availability to live a good life, economically to do so. Not just as a hobby.

But this is utopian. Society doesn't have the resources to just let people do whatever the fuck they want for a living regardless of it's efficiency, cost or societal utility. Like what, tax payers should prop up people who want to produce food at 10 times the cost for no societal benefit?

>I want to work, and in the future, I want work. That's the fucking point.

Me too bro. So did all the textile workers, the elevator and switchboard operators etc. But shit gets automated and we aren't sad really sad about their loss are we because overall society was better for it.

It's shit and it's unfair but society isn't going to lose out to benefit a very small proportion of the population. You're gonna have to reskill in something else or adapt to AI and use it as long as you can before getting replaced.

>You may not be trying to, but you're not being very understanding of the artist perspective.

I can't personally understand but I do sort of get it and have sympathy for the position y'all are in. It just doesn't change my opinion. Do you know how many jobs were automated during the industrial revolution? Do you even understand the scale of the human suffering that happened during that time period? And acknowledging all that pain and suffering it was still worth it.

>Like, for me personally, I went to college for something I hated, because I thought (and was told) art wouldn't be a good career option. Then the depression and thoughts of suicide kicked in, I went and got help, dropped out of the MA that I hated being in, and decided to work odd jobs and do art on the side so that maybe I could have a future where I did care about my work. And this is taking a shit on that too. So, I do take it rather personally when I get called entitled, naive, privileged, or whatever the fuck else that diminishes the hours of lost sleep, blood, sweat, and tears I gave to be here right now.

I didn't call you privileged because you're an artist. I said your assumption that most people do something they like is 100% untrue. Just think about all the developing countries in the world, the poverty, the lack of education etc. Do you really think those people are doing something they want to do? Hell no, they get their meaning from their family, their friends etc. Closer to home think about most middle class and lower class jobs. Do you think stocking shelves is fulfilling for most people? How about plugging numbers into a spreadsheet or how about weilding two pieces of metal together in a tin can at a 110 degrees Fahrenheit like my father's done since he was 16? The typical experience is to dislike your job.

>You are right in that this is the course of history. But I ask - who's side are you really on here?

I'm on societies side the vast majority of whom are not artists.

>Do you think artists deserve a good life or not?

Of course I do. Do you think elevator operators deserved a good life back in the day? Do you think we should have kept them around because you wanted them to have a good life?

>Art is the actualization of beauty, changes so many lives, and helps a lot of people.

And organic farming is not only a direct connection to the earth but to our ancestors. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be so automated.

>I'd hate myself to be on the side against those individuals.

Again, no one is saying artists won't be able to create or express themselves. They just won't largely do it for money. They will largely do it as a hobby without monetary incentive and have to reskill into another trade just like everyone else that's been automated. You keep putting artists on a pedestal. Why do you think an artist has more inherent value as a person than say a truck driver? Which is another job that will be automated in the coming years?

>I mean - I just plainly disagree. By your logic, we should be happy with terrible work just because that's how it is?.

No, I'm saying the primary purpose of work is to make a living. If you can find enjoyment while doing it that's great but that isn't the primary aim either personally or societally. Society has no obligation to provide you with a fulfilling job especially if that job could be automated and produce something of the same or greater quality at lower cost and more of it to boot.

>> I didn't call you entitled > >You kind of did. You claimed my take was entitled for simply wanting a good life for myself by working in something I love. Silly.

Only if you think using the term white privilege also conotes entitlement? Privilege and entitlement are different concepts. I would much rather you respond to my other post because the discussion is more substantive then accusations of name calling. My point wasn't to offend you. I was trying to point out that lots of ppl don't have a job they are passionate about and yet their lives go on. Should society suffer in order to provide emotionally meaningful employment to people? Or should they find meaning outside of their jobs instead?

I didn't call you entitled I said it was privileged because many people (I'd argue most) perform jobs they don't want to in order to survive. So saying something like " do you really think you'd stick around if you didn't enjoy your job" comes off as detached from the normal reality of working class folk.

>I've got some news; I've worked on a farm too - grew up on two. And I addressed this - I did state that there are people who find joy in and that is valid.

If you think it's valid then why are you trying to put art in a priveledged position over farm work? Both can be spiritual, both can lead to self actualization.

>I think that was a quick emotional response, honestly. But we'd be having a different conversation if you forced the farmer to use a tractor.

But farmers are forced into using tractors... The majority of the market isn't organic. They are forced to use all sorts of automation or they get priced out. So it's ok to put manual farmers out of work even though they find just as much spiritual value in what they do but not artists for some reason? Why are artists priveledged? in some ways art is easier thing to continue doing for your own enjoyment than farming or gardening as those require land and or capital to do as a hobby whereas art usually requires much less.

>There isn't anything wrong with doing something you need to do for survival. But, for your art practice nothing will kill it quicker. Again, this is predicated on the notion (that I prescribe to) that Art is a unique thing that isn't like a lot of "work".

You can't have it both ways here. Just earlier today I was listening to an artist complain (rightfully so by the way) that friends/family always ask them to make them stuff for free and they get mad because their friends and family don't understand that it's work not just something done for enjoyment. Making art is work, it may sometimes be nice work to do, something you would prefer to do over other forms of work but it's still 100% work or those friends and family would have a legitimate case in asking for free shit.

>Hey, I do too. I do work a job I don't care about, I'm about to start another one to save more money. I'm from a place where this reality is the same. But I don't care what everyone else does. I will fight to do what I love - I won't give in. Period. Plus, this is an envious take. Just because some people have to work jobs, they don't like doesn't mean that should be the case for everyone by force; it sounds like "If I can't do the thing I love and make money, then no one can." Besides, I'm on the side for letting people do the things they love and make a living off of it - if you force art as a hobby for everyone I don't really see how that is fair. It feels like "knocking-down" instead of "bringing-up" people.

If you do too then why the hell are you asking if people would stay at a job they hate lol? You know what happened to manual farmers and the other luddites of the past that tried to break the looms? You can fight all you want but when these tools get to a point where you can generate more human level high quality content in 10 minutes than professional artist could in a lifetime for less than a hundred dollars there's absolute no way you can stop it. I'm not trying to be rude, I'm not trying to be a dick. This has happened to tons of groups throughout history, in a sense it's one of the main stories of civilization. I see no reason why it's ok for manual textile workers and farmers to get replaced by machines but artists can't. Artists have the same inherent value as the other people who were displaced. They should get no special priveledge or exemption. And again, human made art will still exist and the primary purpose of it will be for expression instead of making it into a commodity to be bought and sold.

>Exactly, this is why I said farming is different from Art, in that it's a necessity. I admit that art only exits by spiritual, and luxury means.

Yes a luxury good whose price will crater and availability skyrocket if automated. Why do you want art to have artificial scarcity? How is society better off in a world where it's significantly slower and more expensive to make video games, movies, tv shows, character art for d&d etc?

>I understand this perspective. However, it's not comparable to something like self-driving tractors. This is the problem I see all the time with this argument. It is reducing the art making process into something menial and tedious, or something that is a nuisance to do.

As someone who has worked on a farm this is kind of offensive. Many farmers do not view their work as menial, tedious or a nuisance. I see no reason why art should be seen as intrinsically better than farm work.

>Which is incredibly insulting to artists.

You are the one with insulting assumptions here lol!

>Because we actually enjoy doing these things. I'll tell you this, most actually successful artists have honed their craft enough to not have to worry about working on something they don't care about.

There are tons of middling artists that just do what they are told and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Not everyone can be a super successful artist.

>If you're working an office job you don't like, and you don't care about it at all - do you really think you'd stick around? Or be happy in the long haul?

Dude I'm not trying to be rude but this sounds privileged as fuck. Where I'm from the majority of ppl hate their jobs and only do it because they have to make ends meet.

>Edit: Plus, farming physically is demanding and uncomfortable (some might find it enjoyable still, for sure). But - food is a necessity. Art is usually seen as spiritual or a luxury. I would even argue that the spiritual aspect of art is a necessity.

Bro the most spiritually satisfying work I've ever done by far was working on the farm. To be in direct connection to the earth, to see the seasons pass and with it the fruits of my labors. Working in an office in comparison is soul sucking but do I want the whole world to go back to non-mechanised farm labor for some spiritual reason? No that would be insanely selfish, the world benefits from increased food production at a lower cost just like the world will benefit from increased art production at much lower costs.

I agree I just think it's going to take time to set up the infrastructure and just the awareness that the capability even exists.

Sure but at the moment I don't think it's really impacting illustraters that much. It's primarily allowing people who wouldn't have been able to afford an illustrator in the first place to actually make stuff. It'll happen but not yet. I think it's a couple years off until they start getting majorly impacted.

Right but usually people are somewhat restrained in their design choices because of the limitations inherent in the software. Like I've seen comics that were illustrated using MJ and they were impressive but it was really difficult to generate consistent characters across pages so they'd usually focus more on backgrounds and scenery.

I think what's going to happen first is that you will have programmers but they will just use natural language. Then some time after that they will get replaced.

>"Within the next few years" is way too generous.

I don't think so. Even if the perfect tool set came out today it would still take time to switch over. The technology is close but the last 2-3% matter a lot.

>I bet the crunch already started for some and in a year it's going to be a bloodbath for the ones who are not firmly established yet. I'm talking about stuff like concept artists, illustrators, stock photography, gamedev artists, basically all kinds of "visual artist tradesmen".

I think gamedev artists are the safest of the list because AI generated 3d modeling isn't as good as 2d stuff right now and 3d artists are also doing shit like rigging and animations. It'll happen eventually, soon actually but not as fast as the others.

>But lot of other visual artists are gonna be just fine, high art, conceptual art is not going anywhere (but many of these artists will adopt these tools as well of course).

Human made art will still exist agreed. Computers are way better than us at chess and yet we still compete. It's just that most art produced for mass consumption will probably be made by media synthesis models in a decade or two.

Concept artists and illustrators aren't fucked yet. They will be though very shortly within the next few years. Remember image generation systems struggle with a few things that are pretty important such as consistency, hands, eyes etc. There are workarounds by using multiple tools for all of these except really consistency. It would be difficult to get a model to output the same specific teddybear protagonist in a children's book.

Imho some of our most impressive models are language models. You don't have to solve programming completely. If you can simplify it so much that someone could take a few classes on programming logic and then use natural language instead of a formal language that would be enough to massively disrupt things.

Basically it's the equivalent of spending years honing an art in order to create a beautiful piece or taking a semester or two in art history and using an image generation model to get what you want.

Pretty sure programming is also in the process of getting solved.

But a lot of art is pragmatic though? I never understand arguments like this. Most professional artists don't get to make whatever the fuck they want to make. They are told to make a product and they do it in order to get paid. AI media synthesis will eventually replace artists who make most of these products. Sure, there will always be a market for handmade and there will still be galleries and competitions for human made art but we won't need them to make logos, banners, 3d assets for games etc anymore and there's nothing more antihuman about that then replacing farmers with self driving tractors.