667
me_irl (ani.social)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/me_irl@lemmy.world
68 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 10 months ago (4 children)

If it gets worse we won't use it, will we? Self solving problem, if true.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Except for all the artists that are out of work for years and lost all their audience in the meantime, sure. And as we've seen with just about everything (Twitter, reddit, youtube), once people are used to something, it being terrible isn't enough of a reason to move.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Aren't artists famously intermittently out of work and need a "day job"? Besides, if you lose your audience to AI... means that its work is "better" than yours, doesn't it? Whoever was prompting had better ideas.

    The cat is out of the bag, you adapt or become irrelevant, applies the same to artists as for travel agents, switchboard operators, milkmen, coal miners...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Yes they are. And no the AI art doesn't need to be better, it just needs to be cheaper and good enough. This isn't adapting to an improvement, it's adapting to easier access to worse or similar quality. The bigger problem is it's like if an auto manufacturer had machines that were trained on the other machines, and got consistently worse the fewer human workers there were. It might be better in the short term for everyone but the artists, but in the long term it's worse for everyone.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •