If you care about the $$ you may wanna take this down with the barcode being visible. Lol…

The difference is what someone is willing to pay for it. Yes it’s flooded, but yes AI can flood the market more; for less money. You must see the problem with this. The term “starving artist” has been around for over 250 years and it’s just getting worse with the industrialized commodity model.

First of all- Organic expression isn’t meant to be interchangeable with quality. There’s a ton of bad art out there lol. But to be fair- not everyone’s literacy and understanding of specific arts are on the same field of understanding. Subjectivity of the end consumer plays a major role in constituting someone’s concept of quality. The fact that ai is blurring the lines between ai curated art and human creative expression is problematic- but organic expression can’t exist in AI by definition.

edit for a point

The takeaway from my point was supposed to be- even in AI’s infancy, it’s negatively effecting artists now.

Boy you sure like quotations marks huh? The problem here is that you’re still suggesting that throwing an idea into an ai algorithm is equivalent to art. This is a false equivalency. Sure- the end product may seem similar to most (consumers), but the creative process is the defining line that divides them.

As it stands, many artists have been plagiarized (or at least their ip has been infringed upon) in DALL-E, simply by inputting their names… this isn’t at all ethical, nor should it be allowed. Why pay for the real thing if you can get a representation of it for free(ish)?

AI should be focused on larger scale objectives, like automating industries and mundane tasks within an industry that no one would choose to or at all want to work in/on, or more pressing issues like maybe trying to help humanity thwart our environmental crises. Churning out AI representations of art is doing nothing but flooding an already flooded market with it’s version of fast fashion. It’s trying to fix an industry that isn’t broken (yet), while simultaneously cheapening a craft.

The other problem with the potential replacement of artists with AI is perspective. What biases have been plugged into AI algos? How many people have been involved in the initial base build of this AI? This leaves a LOT of social and cultural blind spots, or at least grey areas, on how certain cultures are represented- mostly by a handful of people. Cultures that have historically been oppressed will have the most to lose and be hurt by AI art.

Examining potential risks of something is not equivalent to fearing it. I’d argue that the main concerns about AI art aren’t exclusively based off of fear of the future at all- it’s about what’s already happening with these crude versions of AI and the potential issues surrounding them. As the technology advances it will have even more impact on art through it’s effect on the philosophy of art, societal impact of art, financial viability of being a career artist, projected falsities within AI art etc etc…

The real question is- If there was currently an AI companion/sex doll, do you suggest we embrace that as the societal equivalency of having a human partner? Or are we not “waking our inner child’s curiosity” enough for you?

You’re clearly not a career artist or musician. There’s nothing AI can currently produce like the organic expression of actual human artists, yet it’s already cutting into these artists financial abilities to exist. If we were all to just be cool with it, it’d only be a matter of time before no one was there to create anymore. AI is turning art into a commodity more so then corporations already have. It’s a tool that seems intentionally designed to undercut artists where they’re already hurting- their bank accounts.