550
ha… wait, yes! Haha! (sopuli.xyz)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/memes@lemmy.world
85 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

Everything that is generated by AI is something old.

It's regurgitated from existing data.

No matter how well its obfuscated that remains true.

If image generation replaces human artists then the new/creative element eventually fades from art in its totality. Eventually all humanity and creativity is gone and we're left with AI's platonic reality for art.

It's like the dead internet theory but for art, eventually the automated slop will blot out anything human, and humans will make less art as a result.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Photography didn't replace painted art.

    Digital art didn't replace traditional art.

    3d art didn't replace hand drawn art.

    Why is AI going to replace anything?

    I think that idea is based on a proposition "AI generated images will replace all other type of images" which is not true.

    It's just another tool that will be used among others, some people will use it, some people won't, some people will use as a mixed media utility.

    The existence of one thing doesn't invalidate or harm the existence of another. As in many aspects of life most things can coexist together.

    I visit some image boards which are media neutral, this meaning they don't discriminate by media. Most art there used to be digital painted or 3d, and now there is AI art but it hasn't replaced anything. Digital and 3d art are posted at the same rate, now there is just more art in the form of AI generated art. It didn't replace the other artists, it just added to them. Now there's more content for people to enjoy, everyone wins.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    AI is significantly different from the other things you mention. With the others a human is still involved, and in fact indispensible, in the process of creating art.

    Not so with AI (except of course for all the human art illegally used to train it). It is also capable of pumping out its creations at a speed no human can match. You search for examples in history of similar things happening, but the fact of the matter is that nothing in human history is equivalent to this. So using history as some sort of guiding light is quite the fool's errand. We can only judge by what is happening, and the reasons for those things happening, and extrapolate from there.

    And judging from those facts then it does become obvious that automated content will very soon drown out all human made creativity, just from the sheer volume of automated content being created at exponentially larger rates.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Human input is still needed. As far as I know there's not a skynet level AI doing things by itself.

    Human interaction is indispensable in AI creation. And it can be far more involved that other forms of art. A person can take more time and effort producing an AI image than in making something quickly in Photoshop/Gimp.

    Speed argument is invalidated by photography which can produce images faster than AI so... A photography can be taken in fractions of a second, AI usually takes more time. The difference on time between a oil portrait and a photography is far greater than whatever we have now with AI, and people still have hand made portraits. I have one of myself.

    Anyway, I suppose you are subduing your opinion to that prediction. Then I just hope that if the prediction proves false, and if in the future AI have not destroyed other forms of art then your opinion will change and you will recognize you were wrong. I obviously accept the same proposal if in the future AI art have destroyed other forms of art then I'll had to admit I was wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    AI is replacing every form of art you just described

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Not it's not. All the artists I follow keep doing art as usual.

    Same as I said other user. If that's your concern, live by it. If in X number or years other forms of art keep existing and AI have not taken over everything promise yourself that you will change your mind and admit that your were wrong. Think about the people that told you that was going to happen and stop trusting them.

    I have promised myself that if in 5-10 hears AI have taken over art and all traditional art is dead and all art is bad I would do the same.

    Because learning from our mistakes is the only way to move forward.

    Here you are making a big assumption "AI will take over". Just promise yourself that that assumption being correct or incorrect will have moral consequences for your future self.

    I say this because I'm very certain that that prediction will not occur. But sadly people who made that prediction and bullied all over the place anyone liking AI will keep being the same once proven wrong.

    Tell me. In which year I will be unable to read a book written by a person, read a comic made with digital painting, look at a oil handmade painting or look at a composite photography?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • load more comments (-1 replies)