- 6 days
They maintain relevance because people still prefer their work, for the most part. Art that was made by someone for a purpose is messy, weird, touching, and original in ways that machine generated ‘content’ never can be. Until they figure out how to make a machine neurotic, horny, and spiteful I will maintain this position.
- 6 days
No worries, they gonna steal some brain tissues and make a whole bunch of unethical neural networks.
- BooBees@fedinsfw.appEnglish6 days
Those already exist and have already been hooked up to systems and are interacting with them. It’s crazy scary and like you said crazy unethical. The first ones I heard about were playing doom, the video game, so I’m assuming there’s already drone and missile experimental programs using human brain tissues as part of guidance and decision making.
- 6 days
The fruit fly connectome? I heard about that. It’s orders of magnitude simpler than anything approaching mammalian, at least for now. Hopefully this is as far as they get with it for now. To me the immediately insidious thing is that they released it freely. Likely to normalise the mistreatment of virtual intelligences ahead of more advanced models getting uploaded.
- 6 days
That’s new to me. Given how they got the tissue and what the research is actually for, I’m slightly less worried. It’s still iffy though.
- 6 days
AI looks like bland shit. Anyone drawing something by hand gets infinity more points than the slop machine.
- 6 days
The insidious part is that we notice the obvious AI art that has that certain “AI” look to it, but we completely breeze past the stuff that doesn’t and is all around us.
- 6 days
There’s also all those people who are rightfully pissed about AI who then call out human creators because they draw / write like AI. All the while, actual AI gen is getting more passable with each day
The situation is super lame
- 4 days
I don’t think that their success will ever be really affected by AI, because people like their art style. Artists develop their own signature style with time, and it will be refined with time as well. And so people will follow them and pay them for their works and their career, because they want to see them grow. And they will stay loyal because they have been with them for so long. And it might encourage others to pick up the hobby as well, maybe at first imitate them as well at first, but will find their own signature style naturally due to the reality that the works of a copycat is creatively stifling.
With AI you don’t really have that. It will be hard to keep a fanbase because people can rather easily generate the content they see, so there is no real way of anyone to really stand out. And even if you factor in editing skills, those edits will be barely noticeable or stand out like a sore thumb. And if you manage to actually get good at editing, then editing AI images will most likely be just as stifling as well and working with non AI generated content might be more fulfilling.
- 6 days
If you say “creatives” but think “making money”, then no really meaningful answer is possible.
We should rather talk about creativity itself. While current AI is just generators, it becomes obvious that they must lack creativity. So creativity is one of the things that fundamentally separates humans from AI. Creativity will endure. Creatives will always be there.
- 6 days
I mean from the standpoint that anyone can generate an image, but not everyone can “make it look right.”
- 6 days
Sure, some have more artistic abilities than others. That is not strictly the same as creativity, because most of it is craftsmanship. Learning and practising.
- HubertManne@piefed.socialEnglish6 days
creatives remain relevant because being creative is a good quality.
They maintain relevance because art is a human experience and robots have no home within it.
- 6 days
My question comes from anyone can make a thing with ai, but is that “good enough” to that “creator” or will traditional artists still have a role becaude it isn’t
You find me an objective standard of “good enough” that we can all agree on and I’ll find you bigfoot.
- HobbitFoot @thelemmy.clubEnglish6 days
I think they maintain relevance because they can still be creative. The best uses of AI for artistic measures that I’ve seen still shows a creative idea and a decent filter to only accept results of a certain minimum standard.
