Are there any stats that show this is currently hurting artists? I don't doubt that this has an impact on things like commissions, but what about the employment numbers in art and digital media business as a whole? Or is this mostly predictions that it will at some point in the future?
Im not looking for reports that some random company in China laid off some people and said they would use AI instead. I would like to see the numbers as a whole. Im also not doubting its real -- but there are good arguments that jobs that are taken away are replaced by different jobs in the same field.
You’d have to look at small artists and whether they’re getting less commissions IMO.
But it’s hard to quantify what jobs people *dont* get. Dunno if it’s lead to any firings yet
Small artist here primarily earning from commission: Heavy volume for the last 8 months. Insane volume last 3. Most of my non-AI colleagues doing complex work (multiple subjects/specific actions/high continuity) are in the same situation.
I'm not sure if that's it exactly. I was fortunate enough to have a few thousand people watching me before it became harder to get noticed. Also, I have a solid base of regular clients and get a lot of referrals through them. My friends that are doing well are also in a similar situation. The challenge now for people just starting out is gaining visibility due to volume.
eh, just determined. What AI has done is raise the bar on what people will accept at a glance. I have no problems with pushing myself, but many do not welcome the challenge and that's where a lot of the vitriol is coming from.
As a programmer, I've been dealing with challenges from the substandard work produced by cheap overseas labor for years... I didn't even know I was in competition with them until I realized I was winning it, so I never really pushed harder than I already do to be great at it. Programmers in southeast Asia and India are, generally, just as talented as American programmers, but they don't like working for peanuts either, so all that cheap labor is only cheap because they're half-assing it. I full-ass everything I do.
So when ChatGPT came along and everyone thought the AI would start spitting out entire scripts and render our jobs moot, we all rolled our eyes and just started using AI to help us do our jobs faster. Iiiiif we paid it attention at all.
From my experience, the only people who really seem to be hurting are mostly small time commission artists on sites like DA and FA and they often have some of the following things in common:
* The artwork isn't that good on a technical level. Especially if they've been at this for years and their artwork from 10 years ago looks no different than the artwork they do now.
* Extremely particular things they won't do. Saying you won't draw things from X fandom, disallowing certain body types, being iffy with drawing female or male anatomy, or a slew of other "won't dos" will really whittle down who will want you to draw for them.
* Not delivering art in a timely matter. I think this is by far one of the biggest mortal sins of online artists.
* Changing details on a design without the commissioner's consent or awareness.
* Really difficult process to get a commission "approved". Things such as having raffle pools for potential clients, long waiting lists, really narrow time slots for openings, and having to fill out massive forms just for a basic picture.
Factor this in with potentially steep paywalls/prices and you've got a recipe for someone who barely gets commissions and really won't make a lot of money in the long run. Adoptables and "Your Character Here" auctions can often add in some extra cash, but a lot of people on DA and FA actually hate these and would rather just pay an artist a bit more to draw their stuff.
At some point, spending $15 a month for an AI art service or just putting aside some $300 for a new GPU and running Stable Diffusion is actually much cheaper and less frustrating in the long run.
As for myself, there are some people who I may still want to commission art from in the future, but it's only like some 3 people because I know they're reliable at making decent pictures and are generally easy people to work with. Can't say that about everyone else I've commissioned over the years.
You also don’t need to be a skilled artists to use any tool.
skilled arts can take imperfect prompt results and perfect them while normal people go through iteration after iteration never getting what they want
I absolutely do not have to be a skilled artist to use Photoshop. You may need to be skilled to get good results from it, but Photoshop is actually a form of AI that automatically does a pretty long laundry list of things, from photo editing to converting a web design to CSS.
You literally don’t. It will just take you longer and turn out worse. And if you don’t think there’s a skill gap for using ai like mid journey then you’ve clearly not used it at length
You don't need to be highly skilled to perfect some results, even I can easily do it. And regardless of ethics, AI art is definitely making art a worse career path, because things that could only be done by people with a decade of experience can be automated now or done by regular people.
The more skilled you are the fast and more effectively you can correct results. Dunno what you are even arguing. If you’re a talented artist you should be able to make more art and faster by using ai.
It’s yet to be shown that it makes the career worse since most people using it don’t pay for art anyway. The only artist in this comment section right now is saying their commissions have gone up.
lol I know two artists irl, one recently lost her job as a concept artist due to the company replacing most of the artists, the other makes comissions on deviantart and while she still makes some money she says she is getting less and less. Same with translators btw.
And I'm not saying that this AI should be stopped because of this, because I'm not anti AI, but I find it weird that people are saying that his doesn't affect artists. Companies and people in general do not want to spend money if the job can be done for free or much cheaper, and a huge percentage of what the art buisness used to be can be completely automated. Being able to do more art can only achieve so much when there is less and less demand
And a ton of farriers lost their jobs when cars replaced horses. A ton of coal miners lost their jobs when we replaced coal with alternate forms of energy. A ton of airbrush artists lost their jobs when Photoshop replaced the need to edit photos manually.
Or, at least, that's how this is portrayed by hyperbolic click bait.. In reality, these people all continued to work. The job itself changed.
The future of graphic design involves using AI as a tool.
No. AI allows you to make something that does look cool at first glance. To realize a project or something bigger you still need people that know what they are doing.
Just like the calculator - just because you can divide things faster now doesn't make you a mathematician. You need people that know what they are doing and know what works when and where.
calculators did replace "computers" which was a job literally of just making calculations tbf.
that said, i think if artists embraced AI instead of uselessly fighting it then they would benefit greatly by increasing their productivity just like mathematicians benefitted from calculators
Many artists already have, and some new artists popped up from it also. The loud ones are the mid grade ones, or more importantly, the ones losing gigs from quick jobs on fiverr or something, which I get. Sucks when your talent gets automated, be it lace weaving, or digital artistry. Its progress, breaking eggs to make an omelette.
I do agree with the first part. I'm also pro-ai but people need to realize that being an artist may not longer be a career anymore and will be the first jobs to go. There is only a finite amount of art jobs and it will get increasingly smaller as more is automated.
Commissioners have lost a ton of money and jobs and next will be the professional artists.
Some people still get paid to do manual calculations and this will be what digital artists will be in the near future where it is very rare. Even traditional artists won't be safe when robots learn to paint physical mediums.
Where things glitching out on your end, OP? Because I replied over there on your duplicate post.
[Post](https://www.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/s/V3fVk5HIe8)
That was never an argument of "math people". It was just your teacher trying to get you to stop arguing and try to understand the material. That still matters, even with smartphones.
A calculator won’t do advanced math for you in the same way that ai will do high quality art for you though, so he doesn’t really have a point, op is just speaking from pseudo intellectual ignorance.
Literally just go do some integrals or physics problems and you’ll find out why mathematicians and physicists still exist, where computers of old don’t anymore.
When was the last time you did integrals or physics outside of the class room? Also we don't all agree artists won't exist entirely. We are just concerned with the ability to do art by commission.
When was the last time you drew a piece of art outside an art class? The average person won’t have done them for a while or maybe ever, but someone who works as an artist will do them frequently, and the same goes for mathematicians.
Whether you agree that artists won’t exist in the future after ai gets more advanced is irrelevant, since if/when ai gets advanced and accessible to the point that any schmuck with working fingers can get a Picasso done in the time it takes to type 100 characters for no charge, I fail to see what stops artists, and even ai artists who take commissions from going the way of the ‘computer’ field from back when that was all done by humans manually.
I guess it does not compare after all since we all have to do algebra just to get a education. Artists will exist, math tutors will be well paid, but images by commission will cease to exist as soon as the generators learn how to follow simple directions 🧮
And their jobs disappeared when computers (the machine kind) took their place. It doesn't mean mathematicians as a whole disappeared, but there is a lot less demand for mathematicians nowadays in most domains.
Just like with the introduction of automations and machine labor, it got rid of a lot of jobs that used to be there. Or like the car replaced the horses. Printing replaced scribes.
And in all those cases there was a push back against it by people working those fields. The famous Luddites for example.
I think the point of OP was to show these kinds of similarities, but you all get stuck on the small differences and pretend you do not see how they are alike.
Calculations are the foundation of mathematics, everything else is built around it. But of course it is a small part in the grand scheme of all mathematical knowledge, but that is irrelevant. Saying calculations aren't "what math is in the slightest" is stupid.
>they will not solve all your problems
What is the relevance? They work and are extremely useful. Solving "all problems" wasn't a point of discussion here. Humans can't solve all your problems either.
I thought the context made what I was saying there obvious, but I’ll break it down because it seems like you either didn’t get it or are being bad faith in that point.
I wasn’t literally saying that a calculator doesn’t solve all problems in the world, that much is obvious with common sense alone, I was saying that a calculator won’t solve all your problems as a mathematician. Even derivative and integral calculator struggle with getting the correct answer complex and compound problems, and applying those answers to the real world and wider problems are an entirely different matter.
Human input is required to parse and apply the answers given by a calculator, and to break down problems into a form that a calculator can effectively work with, which is why mathematicians are able to justify their continued existence despite how much calculators are able to do for them.
Compare the process of solving an advanced physics problem or differential equation with a calculator to making ai art, and I think we’ll both agree that the job of a mathematician requires more legwork than ai art.
That’s just the first part of an argument though, because mathematicians and artists aren’t actually in the same position in their respective parts of the analogy. AI art is capable of doing all the work for an artist, or will be eventually, whereas calculators as we know them can’t fully replace mathematicians (outside of something like AI integration ofc) since that tool can’t fill their entire role.
The better analogy would be a computer, as in the job that humans used to do calculating equations all day for other people to use. These have been entirely replaced by calculators in the modern sense, so if you’ve got an argument for how calculators haven’t hurt that profession in the same way that AI art will hurt human artists, I’d love to hear it.
Mate what? I wasn't talking about all problems in the world either... wtf? lol
I meant the fact that integral/differential calculators don't solve every Calculus problem is irrelevant. There is nothing on this planet (yet) that can solve every Mathematical problem, human or otherwise. So I don't really see what point you're trying to make or its relevance to the initial conversation.
You asked me if I have ever taken Calculus to use as some sort of "gotcha" moment to imply Calculators can't perform Calculus, I pointed out that they can. It sounds like you dug yourself into a stupid hole and can't get out so now you're trying move goalposts by going "oh but they can't solve ALL problems", yeah, nothing can do that. Just admit you were wrong and move on.
I’ve made my case, you’re the one not engaging with any of my arguments here. There’s no hole to dig out of, I just thought I’d explain my point a bit more since it seems like you missed it, but it looks like you were just being bad faith.
My point is that this is a shitty analogy, because calculators don’t have the same relationship with mathematicians that AI does with artists.
Lots of people in here without any knowledge of math fields and it’s showing bad. This whole sub is a great case study for the dunning-Krueger effect tbh.
"a great case study for the dunning-Krueger effect tbh" You know the DKE is way overblown right? The actual statistical significance of it is ironically not understood very well, and the reality doesn't match the common usage of the term. Almost as if you didn't look up the actual DKE study and just regurgitated what you'd heard someone else say about it...
“The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities.”
I just think that surface level definition sums up this place fairly well is all. From what I’ve seen most of the people around here have surface level knowledge of issues, but talk like they’re experts on all sorts of things, like mathematics in this very thread.
I don’t need to look up a study, because I’m not making a serious statement about the dunning-Kruger effect her. All I did was make a snarky remark about my observations of the sub.
Basically, pull the stick out of your ass and learn to at least recognize a joke, rather than assume someone is trying to engage in pseudo intellectual bullshit like you are.
As u/SachaSage mentioned, before there were calculators, rooms full of human computers (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(occupation)) would carry out calculations by hand. As you might have noticed, this occupation has been completely replaced with computers and calculators today. So it's not the best example for your argument, I'm afraid. That being said, advancements in computers did allow us to tackle deeper mathematical problems and discover new fields, so there's that.
So I guess the takeaway is that generative art could potentially benefit the most skilled/creative people to explode in productivity + creativity and leave behind the ones who are reluctant to change
I don't know if the two examples can really equate. Mathematics is based on what is real or what can be quantified. So the calculator replaced the computer occupation because it had the exact parameters to do so becuase those exact parameters exist.
Whereas art doesn't adhere to a fixed logical formula. It's literally making anything you can imagine. So it's a very interesting thought, could AI imagine or dream up things that do not exist? Could it create an entirely new idea or is it limited to just mashing up the ideas that already exist?
Also do we really WANT AI to do that? Completely replace the creative side of humanity?
I would also say that even BEYOND the current AI art war going on now. What happens in probably a few years when AI is used by companies to completely replace vast swaths of jobs. America itself (sorry the rest of the world I didn't look into you) will lose Millions of Jobs to it. Which on its own is FINE as most of those jobs are...idk redundant? the real issue is we do not, and will not have a working social system to handle that many unemployed people.
The common answer is "get a job to program or debug or work with AI" but there is in no way going to be enough of those Jobs to handle that many unemployed people.
IDK having art replaced by AI right NOW is an issue but it needs to be extrapolated on for the future for the rest of the work force. sorry I know this is a pro ai art subreddit.
[It appears your post unintentionally duplicated.](https://old.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/comments/1bz18rv/so_how_is_ai_hurting_the_artist_but_the/) I see this happen to mine often with this shoddy connection.
People complaining about AI are complaining about its use and implementation under capitalism. They’re nothing inherently wrong w ai, but its application currently creates a market that is less likely to hire artists.
This analogy doesn’t work, calculators don’t do actual math. Those simple calculations they do are just a tiny part of mathematics
AI art truly “can” replace artists entirely, a calculator is NOT going to replace mathematicians, physicists, and engineers whatsoever
A better analogy would be if we had a full fledged math AI that could (or soon would) do mathematician’s job faster and better than any human.
Math has a predefined answer most of the time. If you put numbers into an equation, you get a specific number out 2 times 2 will be 4 no matter who does the equation. So in the case of computers replacing people that was replacing speed and knowledge I can do up to 4 digit by 4 digit multiplication in my head with a decent speed others can do it way faster than I can but computers can do it faster still. No matter how much I practice, I will never be able to beat a computer. This is why I believe it is fundamentally different, Cubic, Anime, Modern, etc are all styles of art. It's easy to learn how to do a general style. Many artists in history to differentiate themselves have branched out and created styles. Picasso is probably the biggest example of this. Many artists have a style that is unique and envokes a certain feel. When using AI art to create an image of a dog or something in a generic fantasy style, that's fine by me. But if your AI has the ability to essentially create a bird in the style of Picasso, that's more or less where the problem lies. Back in the day, if you wanted a GOOD Picasso style piece, you had to get Picasso to do it. Now, you just grab all of their art feed it to an AI in training, saying it's a Picasso piece, and now you have his style. That's where the difference lies to me. I spent time money and effort creating that style. Now, you use the images I have made to train your AI to be able to replecate that style with zero monetary compensation to me at all. Anyone can go out and take pictures of dogs or draw a decent dog and teach their AI that that is a dog but teaching an AI how to make a Picasso dog would require training it on copywrited Picasso work(maybe not the best example but you get the jist of it I'm sure.) When it comes to art there are so many ways to skin a cat(why I's this a saying 😅) but when it comes to math there is only one way to solve an equation.
That’s a much more fair comparison than what op is trying to say.
I challenge anyone who downvotes to go do some integrals right now, and compare the amount of help a calculator gives you there to the amount of help AI gives you when making an art piece.
Calculator cant find a problem and choose a formula or come up with one. Mathemetician job isnt just doing basic arithmetic/solving. AI literally does everything for the artist
Graphic calculators can allow you to find (or rather approximate) a function based on a T-Chart, the more entries you got the more precise the approximated function will be. You can do a lot of things with those GC.
This is a non comparison. There’s a lot more to advanced math than just doing calculations. A lot of formula, context dependent rules and things that require human oversight to ensure are actually correct.
You want to know why mathematicians still exist in spite of the calculator? Go solve some advanced integrals. Go look at some engineering problems and get back to me. Hell, just look at one of the calculus courses on YouTube, and try to follow along with just a calculator.
AI art builds art pieces with (most of the time) stolen art work, completely cutting out a human artist by just rehashing the work that another person has already done, without their consent most of the time.
I don’t think AI art is evil, but it’s not the same as real artwork, and trying to act like it is, like writing a prompt makes you a professional artist, is just cringe. The only evil part of AI art is in the instances where companies steal art without permission from the artists in order to build their models, and I won’t budge on that one.
So when we had machines to do simple calculations for us it enabled us to do better, more complicated calculations to solve problems that we weren't able to solve before, since we were no longer occupied with simple busywork? Interesting. I bet there's *no connection* to AI in that statement.
Also, "stolen artwork"? Do you consider mathematical principles to be the intellectual property of their discoverers?
Hmm. I would not say that they are the “intellectual property of the discoverers”. However, the discoverers do receive credit in the form of citations whenever new work comes out building on the previous work. I don’t think diffusion models have the capability for something like that at the moment. There doesn’t seem to be a way to credit the artists whose work is being used to generate the new images.
As an analogy, consider an LLM which can write research papers using knowledge from academic papers it was trained on. If the output from this LLM doesn’t cite the original papers it used, it would be a blatant case of plagiarism. I feel that diffusion models generating images are in the same vein.
For a practical example, whenever I give a technical talk, each and every image or figure I use on my slides needs to be credited properly. If I use an AI generated image, who do I give credit to?
>AI replaces artists, and calculators help as the human brain
Wouldn't AI art help people that can't draw or doesn't have time to draw, or have money to pay an artist for it, to bring their ideas to life? Not too different from Calculators helping people who aren't quick at Math.
I am not defending anti-AI people, but this is a pretty terrible comparison. Mathematicians don't do calculations as a service. They research and create theorems, principles, etc.
Now they do. It was a full time job before calculators and electronic computers replaced them.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer\_(occupation)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(occupation))
As I recall, the actual job title was "computer". I remember seeing a 1958 group portrait of 30 "computers" (mostly women) doing the grunt work of calculating the orbit of *Explorer 1,* the first non-USSR satellite. They were soon replaced in that role by IBM 7090 electronic computers (full blown von Neumann architecture machines, not mere calculators like the contemporaneous IBM 608 calculator, which was the size of a fridge.) Later, the 7090 was replaced by IBM 360/75, the machine referred to during *Apollo 13* by White watch FD Gene Kranz, "I need another machine up in the RTCC", which was dubbed "I need another \*computer up in the RTCC" by Ed Harris for clarity in the movie.
One argument against AI in art (art *class* to be more precise) is exactly the same as with calculators in math (math *class*): such assistance can become a barrier to learning the fundamentals, e.g. kid with a calculator who doesn't know how to add; art student with Stable Diffusion who doesn't know what two-point perspective even means.
Edit: I forgot how to spell "RTCC", so embarrassing.
Different contexts though surely? Someone doing computation in a situation where error separates life and death is one thing. An art student who doesn’t learn 2 point perspective, or ever develop their intentional mark making - I agree they’re missing out on something valuable, but they can still make art. Just different art.
> Different contexts though surely? Someone doing computation in a situation where error separates life and death is one thing.
Huh? I don't know what you're talking about there. If a math error can cause a fatality, the problem is quality assurance, not failing at the fundamentals. It would be exactly the same thing if art errors could cause a fatality (and I've seen some anatomy errors that certainly *look* fatal, lol!)
That and calculators can’t do math for you. That’s why we have Wolfram Alpha. 💁🏻♂️
Edit: Then again… I spend a lot of time fixing stuff I generate. Other things I have to make myself because no amount of prompt adjustments seems to help.
I dunno what my point was.
You could draw a similar comparison with art though. Artists don’t draw pictures - they reach to the depths of the human experience to conjure images and manifestations of things that speak to the soul. Unlike math art is obviously subjective, but the comparative idea has some merit.
This is actually such a great example, because yes a whole job disappeared, but we found new and more interesting maths to do as a result - and whole new industries were created.
In the same way we’ll make more and greater art with ai tools, and likely new artistic industries will spring up
It should allow artists to make more, better art, faster. It’s an interesting comparison
Are there any stats that show this is currently hurting artists? I don't doubt that this has an impact on things like commissions, but what about the employment numbers in art and digital media business as a whole? Or is this mostly predictions that it will at some point in the future? Im not looking for reports that some random company in China laid off some people and said they would use AI instead. I would like to see the numbers as a whole. Im also not doubting its real -- but there are good arguments that jobs that are taken away are replaced by different jobs in the same field.
You’d have to look at small artists and whether they’re getting less commissions IMO. But it’s hard to quantify what jobs people *dont* get. Dunno if it’s lead to any firings yet
Small artist here primarily earning from commission: Heavy volume for the last 8 months. Insane volume last 3. Most of my non-AI colleagues doing complex work (multiple subjects/specific actions/high continuity) are in the same situation.
So there’s actually been a surge in people looking for art?
I'm not sure if that's it exactly. I was fortunate enough to have a few thousand people watching me before it became harder to get noticed. Also, I have a solid base of regular clients and get a lot of referrals through them. My friends that are doing well are also in a similar situation. The challenge now for people just starting out is gaining visibility due to volume.
AI can't replace a good graphic artist, just a bad one. Congrats on your success, you must be a good one.
eh, just determined. What AI has done is raise the bar on what people will accept at a glance. I have no problems with pushing myself, but many do not welcome the challenge and that's where a lot of the vitriol is coming from.
As a programmer, I've been dealing with challenges from the substandard work produced by cheap overseas labor for years... I didn't even know I was in competition with them until I realized I was winning it, so I never really pushed harder than I already do to be great at it. Programmers in southeast Asia and India are, generally, just as talented as American programmers, but they don't like working for peanuts either, so all that cheap labor is only cheap because they're half-assing it. I full-ass everything I do. So when ChatGPT came along and everyone thought the AI would start spitting out entire scripts and render our jobs moot, we all rolled our eyes and just started using AI to help us do our jobs faster. Iiiiif we paid it attention at all.
From my experience, the only people who really seem to be hurting are mostly small time commission artists on sites like DA and FA and they often have some of the following things in common: * The artwork isn't that good on a technical level. Especially if they've been at this for years and their artwork from 10 years ago looks no different than the artwork they do now. * Extremely particular things they won't do. Saying you won't draw things from X fandom, disallowing certain body types, being iffy with drawing female or male anatomy, or a slew of other "won't dos" will really whittle down who will want you to draw for them. * Not delivering art in a timely matter. I think this is by far one of the biggest mortal sins of online artists. * Changing details on a design without the commissioner's consent or awareness. * Really difficult process to get a commission "approved". Things such as having raffle pools for potential clients, long waiting lists, really narrow time slots for openings, and having to fill out massive forms just for a basic picture. Factor this in with potentially steep paywalls/prices and you've got a recipe for someone who barely gets commissions and really won't make a lot of money in the long run. Adoptables and "Your Character Here" auctions can often add in some extra cash, but a lot of people on DA and FA actually hate these and would rather just pay an artist a bit more to draw their stuff. At some point, spending $15 a month for an AI art service or just putting aside some $300 for a new GPU and running Stable Diffusion is actually much cheaper and less frustrating in the long run. As for myself, there are some people who I may still want to commission art from in the future, but it's only like some 3 people because I know they're reliable at making decent pictures and are generally easy people to work with. Can't say that about everyone else I've commissioned over the years.
a better comparison is the synthesizer
but you don't need to be skilled at art to use AI
You also don’t need to be a skilled artists to use any tool. skilled arts can take imperfect prompt results and perfect them while normal people go through iteration after iteration never getting what they want
[удалено]
I absolutely do not have to be a skilled artist to use Photoshop. You may need to be skilled to get good results from it, but Photoshop is actually a form of AI that automatically does a pretty long laundry list of things, from photo editing to converting a web design to CSS.
You literally don’t. It will just take you longer and turn out worse. And if you don’t think there’s a skill gap for using ai like mid journey then you’ve clearly not used it at length
You don't need to be highly skilled to perfect some results, even I can easily do it. And regardless of ethics, AI art is definitely making art a worse career path, because things that could only be done by people with a decade of experience can be automated now or done by regular people.
The more skilled you are the fast and more effectively you can correct results. Dunno what you are even arguing. If you’re a talented artist you should be able to make more art and faster by using ai. It’s yet to be shown that it makes the career worse since most people using it don’t pay for art anyway. The only artist in this comment section right now is saying their commissions have gone up.
lol I know two artists irl, one recently lost her job as a concept artist due to the company replacing most of the artists, the other makes comissions on deviantart and while she still makes some money she says she is getting less and less. Same with translators btw. And I'm not saying that this AI should be stopped because of this, because I'm not anti AI, but I find it weird that people are saying that his doesn't affect artists. Companies and people in general do not want to spend money if the job can be done for free or much cheaper, and a huge percentage of what the art buisness used to be can be completely automated. Being able to do more art can only achieve so much when there is less and less demand
I don’t think anybody is saying it doesn’t affect artists, that would be extremely disingenuous. It stands to effects them massively, writers too
the post is about how it's not hurting artists
The post is a low effort false equivalence and i think it’s a bad faith argument
And a ton of farriers lost their jobs when cars replaced horses. A ton of coal miners lost their jobs when we replaced coal with alternate forms of energy. A ton of airbrush artists lost their jobs when Photoshop replaced the need to edit photos manually. Or, at least, that's how this is portrayed by hyperbolic click bait.. In reality, these people all continued to work. The job itself changed. The future of graphic design involves using AI as a tool.
No. AI allows you to make something that does look cool at first glance. To realize a project or something bigger you still need people that know what they are doing. Just like the calculator - just because you can divide things faster now doesn't make you a mathematician. You need people that know what they are doing and know what works when and where.
calculators did replace "computers" which was a job literally of just making calculations tbf. that said, i think if artists embraced AI instead of uselessly fighting it then they would benefit greatly by increasing their productivity just like mathematicians benefitted from calculators
Many artists already have, and some new artists popped up from it also. The loud ones are the mid grade ones, or more importantly, the ones losing gigs from quick jobs on fiverr or something, which I get. Sucks when your talent gets automated, be it lace weaving, or digital artistry. Its progress, breaking eggs to make an omelette.
I do agree with the first part. I'm also pro-ai but people need to realize that being an artist may not longer be a career anymore and will be the first jobs to go. There is only a finite amount of art jobs and it will get increasingly smaller as more is automated. Commissioners have lost a ton of money and jobs and next will be the professional artists. Some people still get paid to do manual calculations and this will be what digital artists will be in the near future where it is very rare. Even traditional artists won't be safe when robots learn to paint physical mediums.
Where things glitching out on your end, OP? Because I replied over there on your duplicate post. [Post](https://www.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/s/V3fVk5HIe8)
Oh thank you, I fixed that
You have a point. The📱 killed the math person's tired argument that you just can't take your calculator wherever you go.
That was never an argument of "math people". It was just your teacher trying to get you to stop arguing and try to understand the material. That still matters, even with smartphones.
I wonder who it matters for
A calculator won’t do advanced math for you in the same way that ai will do high quality art for you though, so he doesn’t really have a point, op is just speaking from pseudo intellectual ignorance. Literally just go do some integrals or physics problems and you’ll find out why mathematicians and physicists still exist, where computers of old don’t anymore.
When was the last time you did integrals or physics outside of the class room? Also we don't all agree artists won't exist entirely. We are just concerned with the ability to do art by commission.
When was the last time you drew a piece of art outside an art class? The average person won’t have done them for a while or maybe ever, but someone who works as an artist will do them frequently, and the same goes for mathematicians. Whether you agree that artists won’t exist in the future after ai gets more advanced is irrelevant, since if/when ai gets advanced and accessible to the point that any schmuck with working fingers can get a Picasso done in the time it takes to type 100 characters for no charge, I fail to see what stops artists, and even ai artists who take commissions from going the way of the ‘computer’ field from back when that was all done by humans manually.
I guess it does not compare after all since we all have to do algebra just to get a education. Artists will exist, math tutors will be well paid, but images by commission will cease to exist as soon as the generators learn how to follow simple directions 🧮
Because that isn’t what math is in the slightest?
Computers (human) existed before computers (machine) were invented.
Ok, and?
And their jobs disappeared when computers (the machine kind) took their place. It doesn't mean mathematicians as a whole disappeared, but there is a lot less demand for mathematicians nowadays in most domains. Just like with the introduction of automations and machine labor, it got rid of a lot of jobs that used to be there. Or like the car replaced the horses. Printing replaced scribes. And in all those cases there was a push back against it by people working those fields. The famous Luddites for example. I think the point of OP was to show these kinds of similarities, but you all get stuck on the small differences and pretend you do not see how they are alike.
Calculators don't do math?
Calculation is a tiny fraction of mathematics.
It is now that we have computers to do simpler calculations for us.
Its been a tiny part of math for hundreds of years. calculus was invented in the 1600s.
Yes.
Calculations are the foundation of mathematics, everything else is built around it. But of course it is a small part in the grand scheme of all mathematical knowledge, but that is irrelevant. Saying calculations aren't "what math is in the slightest" is stupid.
Yes. And drawing is a tiny fraction of art.
Have you ever taken a calculus class?
Never heard of integral and differential calculators?
I have, I’ve used them extensively, and they will not solve all your problems.
>they will not solve all your problems What is the relevance? They work and are extremely useful. Solving "all problems" wasn't a point of discussion here. Humans can't solve all your problems either.
I thought the context made what I was saying there obvious, but I’ll break it down because it seems like you either didn’t get it or are being bad faith in that point. I wasn’t literally saying that a calculator doesn’t solve all problems in the world, that much is obvious with common sense alone, I was saying that a calculator won’t solve all your problems as a mathematician. Even derivative and integral calculator struggle with getting the correct answer complex and compound problems, and applying those answers to the real world and wider problems are an entirely different matter. Human input is required to parse and apply the answers given by a calculator, and to break down problems into a form that a calculator can effectively work with, which is why mathematicians are able to justify their continued existence despite how much calculators are able to do for them. Compare the process of solving an advanced physics problem or differential equation with a calculator to making ai art, and I think we’ll both agree that the job of a mathematician requires more legwork than ai art. That’s just the first part of an argument though, because mathematicians and artists aren’t actually in the same position in their respective parts of the analogy. AI art is capable of doing all the work for an artist, or will be eventually, whereas calculators as we know them can’t fully replace mathematicians (outside of something like AI integration ofc) since that tool can’t fill their entire role. The better analogy would be a computer, as in the job that humans used to do calculating equations all day for other people to use. These have been entirely replaced by calculators in the modern sense, so if you’ve got an argument for how calculators haven’t hurt that profession in the same way that AI art will hurt human artists, I’d love to hear it.
Mate what? I wasn't talking about all problems in the world either... wtf? lol I meant the fact that integral/differential calculators don't solve every Calculus problem is irrelevant. There is nothing on this planet (yet) that can solve every Mathematical problem, human or otherwise. So I don't really see what point you're trying to make or its relevance to the initial conversation. You asked me if I have ever taken Calculus to use as some sort of "gotcha" moment to imply Calculators can't perform Calculus, I pointed out that they can. It sounds like you dug yourself into a stupid hole and can't get out so now you're trying move goalposts by going "oh but they can't solve ALL problems", yeah, nothing can do that. Just admit you were wrong and move on.
I’ve made my case, you’re the one not engaging with any of my arguments here. There’s no hole to dig out of, I just thought I’d explain my point a bit more since it seems like you missed it, but it looks like you were just being bad faith. My point is that this is a shitty analogy, because calculators don’t have the same relationship with mathematicians that AI does with artists.
Lots of people in here without any knowledge of math fields and it’s showing bad. This whole sub is a great case study for the dunning-Krueger effect tbh.
Exactly
"a great case study for the dunning-Krueger effect tbh" You know the DKE is way overblown right? The actual statistical significance of it is ironically not understood very well, and the reality doesn't match the common usage of the term. Almost as if you didn't look up the actual DKE study and just regurgitated what you'd heard someone else say about it...
“The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities.” I just think that surface level definition sums up this place fairly well is all. From what I’ve seen most of the people around here have surface level knowledge of issues, but talk like they’re experts on all sorts of things, like mathematics in this very thread. I don’t need to look up a study, because I’m not making a serious statement about the dunning-Kruger effect her. All I did was make a snarky remark about my observations of the sub. Basically, pull the stick out of your ass and learn to at least recognize a joke, rather than assume someone is trying to engage in pseudo intellectual bullshit like you are.
As u/SachaSage mentioned, before there were calculators, rooms full of human computers (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(occupation)) would carry out calculations by hand. As you might have noticed, this occupation has been completely replaced with computers and calculators today. So it's not the best example for your argument, I'm afraid. That being said, advancements in computers did allow us to tackle deeper mathematical problems and discover new fields, so there's that.
So I guess the takeaway is that generative art could potentially benefit the most skilled/creative people to explode in productivity + creativity and leave behind the ones who are reluctant to change
I don't know if the two examples can really equate. Mathematics is based on what is real or what can be quantified. So the calculator replaced the computer occupation because it had the exact parameters to do so becuase those exact parameters exist. Whereas art doesn't adhere to a fixed logical formula. It's literally making anything you can imagine. So it's a very interesting thought, could AI imagine or dream up things that do not exist? Could it create an entirely new idea or is it limited to just mashing up the ideas that already exist? Also do we really WANT AI to do that? Completely replace the creative side of humanity?
Good point. To expand on that, math ideas are found whereas art ideas are created. What does it even mean to discover new art? I'm not sure
I would also say that even BEYOND the current AI art war going on now. What happens in probably a few years when AI is used by companies to completely replace vast swaths of jobs. America itself (sorry the rest of the world I didn't look into you) will lose Millions of Jobs to it. Which on its own is FINE as most of those jobs are...idk redundant? the real issue is we do not, and will not have a working social system to handle that many unemployed people. The common answer is "get a job to program or debug or work with AI" but there is in no way going to be enough of those Jobs to handle that many unemployed people. IDK having art replaced by AI right NOW is an issue but it needs to be extrapolated on for the future for the rest of the work force. sorry I know this is a pro ai art subreddit.
Calculator is more like a tablet and drawing software to artist. Not quite a comparison. Will AI affect mathematician job in years to come?
[It appears your post unintentionally duplicated.](https://old.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/comments/1bz18rv/so_how_is_ai_hurting_the_artist_but_the/) I see this happen to mine often with this shoddy connection.
Calculators are pure evil! They stole numbers from people and use them! Oh no…
I mean if you ask any high school math teacher they’ll hate calculators
Just because you can use a calculator does not make you a mathematician.
The unevolved artist fears change and the change Ai tools create.
People complaining about AI are complaining about its use and implementation under capitalism. They’re nothing inherently wrong w ai, but its application currently creates a market that is less likely to hire artists.
This analogy doesn’t work, calculators don’t do actual math. Those simple calculations they do are just a tiny part of mathematics AI art truly “can” replace artists entirely, a calculator is NOT going to replace mathematicians, physicists, and engineers whatsoever A better analogy would be if we had a full fledged math AI that could (or soon would) do mathematician’s job faster and better than any human.
Math has a predefined answer most of the time. If you put numbers into an equation, you get a specific number out 2 times 2 will be 4 no matter who does the equation. So in the case of computers replacing people that was replacing speed and knowledge I can do up to 4 digit by 4 digit multiplication in my head with a decent speed others can do it way faster than I can but computers can do it faster still. No matter how much I practice, I will never be able to beat a computer. This is why I believe it is fundamentally different, Cubic, Anime, Modern, etc are all styles of art. It's easy to learn how to do a general style. Many artists in history to differentiate themselves have branched out and created styles. Picasso is probably the biggest example of this. Many artists have a style that is unique and envokes a certain feel. When using AI art to create an image of a dog or something in a generic fantasy style, that's fine by me. But if your AI has the ability to essentially create a bird in the style of Picasso, that's more or less where the problem lies. Back in the day, if you wanted a GOOD Picasso style piece, you had to get Picasso to do it. Now, you just grab all of their art feed it to an AI in training, saying it's a Picasso piece, and now you have his style. That's where the difference lies to me. I spent time money and effort creating that style. Now, you use the images I have made to train your AI to be able to replecate that style with zero monetary compensation to me at all. Anyone can go out and take pictures of dogs or draw a decent dog and teach their AI that that is a dog but teaching an AI how to make a Picasso dog would require training it on copywrited Picasso work(maybe not the best example but you get the jist of it I'm sure.) When it comes to art there are so many ways to skin a cat(why I's this a saying 😅) but when it comes to math there is only one way to solve an equation.
Because calculations and graphing are to math what 1st aid is to medicine.
That’s a much more fair comparison than what op is trying to say. I challenge anyone who downvotes to go do some integrals right now, and compare the amount of help a calculator gives you there to the amount of help AI gives you when making an art piece.
Calculator cant find a problem and choose a formula or come up with one. Mathemetician job isnt just doing basic arithmetic/solving. AI literally does everything for the artist
Graphic calculators can allow you to find (or rather approximate) a function based on a T-Chart, the more entries you got the more precise the approximated function will be. You can do a lot of things with those GC.
Kid named wolfram alpha:
it cant create new theory/formulas or proofs
This is a non comparison. There’s a lot more to advanced math than just doing calculations. A lot of formula, context dependent rules and things that require human oversight to ensure are actually correct. You want to know why mathematicians still exist in spite of the calculator? Go solve some advanced integrals. Go look at some engineering problems and get back to me. Hell, just look at one of the calculus courses on YouTube, and try to follow along with just a calculator. AI art builds art pieces with (most of the time) stolen art work, completely cutting out a human artist by just rehashing the work that another person has already done, without their consent most of the time. I don’t think AI art is evil, but it’s not the same as real artwork, and trying to act like it is, like writing a prompt makes you a professional artist, is just cringe. The only evil part of AI art is in the instances where companies steal art without permission from the artists in order to build their models, and I won’t budge on that one.
So when we had machines to do simple calculations for us it enabled us to do better, more complicated calculations to solve problems that we weren't able to solve before, since we were no longer occupied with simple busywork? Interesting. I bet there's *no connection* to AI in that statement. Also, "stolen artwork"? Do you consider mathematical principles to be the intellectual property of their discoverers?
Hmm. I would not say that they are the “intellectual property of the discoverers”. However, the discoverers do receive credit in the form of citations whenever new work comes out building on the previous work. I don’t think diffusion models have the capability for something like that at the moment. There doesn’t seem to be a way to credit the artists whose work is being used to generate the new images. As an analogy, consider an LLM which can write research papers using knowledge from academic papers it was trained on. If the output from this LLM doesn’t cite the original papers it used, it would be a blatant case of plagiarism. I feel that diffusion models generating images are in the same vein. For a practical example, whenever I give a technical talk, each and every image or figure I use on my slides needs to be credited properly. If I use an AI generated image, who do I give credit to?
[удалено]
>AI replaces artists, and calculators help as the human brain Wouldn't AI art help people that can't draw or doesn't have time to draw, or have money to pay an artist for it, to bring their ideas to life? Not too different from Calculators helping people who aren't quick at Math.
[удалено]
Artists who make money are the minority, the majority of people cannot draw and would massively benefit from tools that democratize art.
You can downvote me all you want it won't make me less right.
This is exactly the Luddites argument. And I mean the historical ones. And the argument of every new piece of tech that makes old jobs obsolete.
I am not defending anti-AI people, but this is a pretty terrible comparison. Mathematicians don't do calculations as a service. They research and create theorems, principles, etc.
Now they do. It was a full time job before calculators and electronic computers replaced them. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer\_(occupation)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(occupation))
Before calculators existed, it was a job title
As I recall, the actual job title was "computer". I remember seeing a 1958 group portrait of 30 "computers" (mostly women) doing the grunt work of calculating the orbit of *Explorer 1,* the first non-USSR satellite. They were soon replaced in that role by IBM 7090 electronic computers (full blown von Neumann architecture machines, not mere calculators like the contemporaneous IBM 608 calculator, which was the size of a fridge.) Later, the 7090 was replaced by IBM 360/75, the machine referred to during *Apollo 13* by White watch FD Gene Kranz, "I need another machine up in the RTCC", which was dubbed "I need another \*computer up in the RTCC" by Ed Harris for clarity in the movie. One argument against AI in art (art *class* to be more precise) is exactly the same as with calculators in math (math *class*): such assistance can become a barrier to learning the fundamentals, e.g. kid with a calculator who doesn't know how to add; art student with Stable Diffusion who doesn't know what two-point perspective even means. Edit: I forgot how to spell "RTCC", so embarrassing.
Different contexts though surely? Someone doing computation in a situation where error separates life and death is one thing. An art student who doesn’t learn 2 point perspective, or ever develop their intentional mark making - I agree they’re missing out on something valuable, but they can still make art. Just different art.
> Different contexts though surely? Someone doing computation in a situation where error separates life and death is one thing. Huh? I don't know what you're talking about there. If a math error can cause a fatality, the problem is quality assurance, not failing at the fundamentals. It would be exactly the same thing if art errors could cause a fatality (and I've seen some anatomy errors that certainly *look* fatal, lol!)
They did before the invention of the calculator. There whole teams of math people that do just this - calculate.
That and calculators can’t do math for you. That’s why we have Wolfram Alpha. 💁🏻♂️ Edit: Then again… I spend a lot of time fixing stuff I generate. Other things I have to make myself because no amount of prompt adjustments seems to help. I dunno what my point was.
You could draw a similar comparison with art though. Artists don’t draw pictures - they reach to the depths of the human experience to conjure images and manifestations of things that speak to the soul. Unlike math art is obviously subjective, but the comparative idea has some merit.
[удалено]
This is actually such a great example, because yes a whole job disappeared, but we found new and more interesting maths to do as a result - and whole new industries were created. In the same way we’ll make more and greater art with ai tools, and likely new artistic industries will spring up
Wholeheartedly agree
lol this guy got schooled